Mobility Management
Sustainability Assessment
Tool (MM-SAT)
Implementation Guide
April 2022

The National Center for Mobility Management (NCMM; nc4mm.org) is a national technical assistance centercreated to facilitate communities in adopting mobility management strategies. NCMM is funded through a
cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and is operated through aconsortium of three national organizations – the American Public Transportation Association, theCommunity Transportation Association of America, and Easterseals, Inc.
This information brief was prepared by NCMM staff and is disseminated in the interest of informationexchange. Neither the NCMM nor the FTA assumes liability for its content or use. The opinions andconclusions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and should not be construed as representing
the opinions or policy of any agency of the federal government.
Comments or questions about this document can be addressed to info@nc4mm.org or 866-846-6400.

About Transport New Hampshire (TNH)

MM-SAT Field Sites

Transport New Hampshire is a statewide
advocacy and support organization that broadly
supports transportation in all its modes, butwith a specific focus on community
transportation services public transit and active
transportation. Most recently TNH led thedevelopment of the New Hampshire Statewide
Mobility Management Network and is now
tasked with providing support to the regions as
it is implemented. TNH is also active on thenational scene with the intention of increasingcollaboration between N.H. and other states andorganizations focused on improving the capacityof our public and community transportation
systems.

The MM-SAT would not have made it topublication without Ohio and New Hampshire
first agreeing to test it. The leadership of the site
liaisons and commitment of the staff, mobility
managers and other stakeholders that went
through the process ensured that the MM-SAT isa quality product.

Acknowledgements

For More Information

Contributors
Special thanks to mobility management
professionals from Arizona, Wisconsin andMinnesota who invited NCMM to theirtransportation conferences. The feedback
received was essential to the early developmentof the MM-SAT.

Jessie Schmitzer, compliance officer with Ohio
Department of Transportation, Office of Transit
led ODOT and a group of its mobility managers
through a statewide network evaluation using the
MM-SAT in Ohio.
Jeff Donald, Region 10 Mobility Manager led theAlliance for Community Transportation and its
members through a regional network evaluationof the MM-SAT in New Hampshire.

Judy Shanley, Ph.D.,
Easterseals Partner Director, NCMM
JShanley@easterseals.com

Steve Workman, Director, Transport NH
steve@transportnh.org

Introduction
Mobility management networks and activities vary based on regional needs and circumstances, but eachshare a common philosophy, desired outcomes and require partnerships across the spectrum to be effective.
Moving from mobility management as a philosophy to effective delivery of service is a challenging, butnecessary process. We call this “operationalizing mobility management” and here again, we
find commonality. It takes “boots on the ground,” sweat equity, funding, policy alignment and awillingness to work together to eliminate barriers. Just as mobility management prioritizes the customer,
so too does our shared passion to help those we serve.
Taking time away from delivery of service to focus on the future and to evaluate our operations can feellike the last thing we need to add to an already significant workload, but this is a pitfall common to thoseof us in the helping professions. Instead, we need to reframe this work as necessary to ensure that we can
improve and sustain the services that our customers need.

Across the country we see examples of this work in action. NCMM
NCMM defines sustainability as theis both leading the charge and learning from the fantastic work
attributes and processes of a mobility
being done at the state, regional and the individual provider
management network that help thelevels. This national perspective has also helped NCMM identify
organization to endure and facilitate
technical assistance and tools needed to assist the field in its
efforts to fulfill the promise of mobility management. The
the ability of the network to meet its
Mobility Management Sustainability Assessment Tool (MM-SAT)
purposes and objectives.
and this guide were developed as a framework to help you assess,grow, and sustain your organization wherever you are at in your development and capacity. The adjacenttext box defines sustainability in the context of mobility management networks. For the purposes of this tool,
the term “organization” should be used interchangeably with network or the term you use to describe theoperations you are describing.
Purpose of the Mobility Management Sustainability Assessment Tool (MM-SAT)The emerging field of Mobility Management seeks to make sustainability planning a central focus from theoutset by outlining steps to be taken to maintain and expand capacity through management and sufficient
resources. It is never too early, or too late to prioritize sustainability planning, but it will be easier if it is built
into the organizational culture. We suggest that you view MM-SAT as part of your strategic planning process,development of your coordination plans and performance evaluations like how you might use a SWOC
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges) analysis. The advantage of the MM-SAT is that theframework was designed specifically for mobility management organizations and informed by best practices.
It can also be adapted or scaled to meet your organization where it is currently positioned. We understandthat no two mobility management organizations look exactly alike, but there are shared best practices bothfor organizational operations and service delivery which are valid even if your program doesn’t include
some component of the MM-SAT. Overall, it may be helpful to think of this as a map-making process thatshows you where your capacity is at today and where you would like it to be in the future.
Benefits of Using the MM-SAT

 Sustainability Planning: Increasingly government and charitable funding sources are looking forevidence that your organization is thinking about and planning for long-term sustainability.

 Relationship Building & Buy-in: Theoretically, a single person could complete the MM-SAT and findvalue; however, the process of bringing people together to discuss it will prove to be more effective.
Think of this process as an opportunity to hear different perspectives, build relationships and create
buy-in.

1 Data Driven Strategies: The adage that doing the same thing produces the same results is quickly
thwarted when analysis and data identify strengths to build on and areas that require change. It is alsoeasier to engage people in policy changes and funding needs when data justifies the request.

 Expanding Capacity in the Field of Mobility Management: The MM-SAT is one way that mobility
management organizations across the country can contribute to the standardization, effectiveness, andshared knowledge in the field of mobility management. Think, better together.
Using the Lens of Sustainability to Evaluate Mobility Management Networks & Activities
Sustainability is not just an environmental measure. In fact, the primary definition of sustainability is“the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level.” Of course, that includes the environmental
dimension, but one cannot focus solely on that if the goal is to not only sustain your operation but also
thrive. We must expand our lens to include other dimensions such as economics, workforce,
organizational operations, service delivery, and social dimensions. Failure to do this may result in one
or more areas (dimensions) of your operation becoming vulnerable to changing circumstances.
Conversely, if we invest in regular, broad evaluation we are better positioned to take a holistic
approach to sustaining our mobility management networks and activities.
Developing the MM-SAT

Helping the field build sustainability planning into the development and operation of mobility management
activities has been a shared priority for FTA, NCMM, and a host of other stakeholders focused on helping thefield adapt to ever changing needs and conditions. In response, NCMM prioritized this work in its yearthree work plan funded by FTA. Their first task was to figure out how to interject sustainability planning
into the work being done in the field. Research guided the activities to develop the MM-SAT, and models
from other sectors were used as the foundation for this tool. Descriptions of these models and thehistory of the MM-SAT development are included in the appendices of this brief. The appendices also
include learning from two field implementation sites, in Ohio and New Hampshire. The experiencesof mobility management professionals who have implemented the MM-SAT can be valuable toother mobility management professionals who are considering using the tool.

2

MM-SAT Implementation Checklist
Before Using the MM-SAT

Determine if you will be evaluating a statewide, regional, or local network/organization.
Identify key staff and stakeholders who should participate in the evaluation.
Determine meeting logistics including in-person, virtual or hybrid participation, meeting length,
frequency, dates, and times, who will facilitate, scribe, keep time, and food, beverage or other comforts.
Determine how you will setup the room, any audio/visual needs, ways you will capture participant
feedback, agenda for that day’s activities (e.g. we will cover Dimensions 1 & 2 during today’s meeting)and identify any tools you will use to help move the discussion (e.g. using the concepts of a SWOC
Analysis).
Compile any background materials you may want participants to review in advance.
Invite participants being sure to include a short description of and purpose for the MM-SAT, the timecommitment required, any prep work and meeting details (location, zoom link, etc.)

During the MM-SAT Assessment Process

Welcome participants, review the agenda and purpose for undertaking the MM-SAT See Pro Tip 1
Establish ground rules that will govern how group conducts its work. See Pro Tip 2
Review the MM-SAT in its entirety so participants understand the use/application of sustainability, what
the dimensions and sub targets are and the capacity scale.
Acknowledge that participants will discover overlap between some sub targets, but to do their best to
approach each sub target based on the dimension it is listed under.
Create a safe space. The MM-SAT was designed to empower participants to reflect on the strengths,
weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement of the organization. It should not be used punitively or
to suggest any one person is responsible for areas that need improvement. Leadership should agree
and then convey to participants that all perspectives are valid and welcomed during this process
regardless of roles.
Be mindful of different thinking/processing styles within the group that may impact understanding,communication, and other group dynamics. It may be helpful to talk about this before you begin theevaluation but should be addressed if a problem develops. See Pro Tip 3
As discussion of each sub target nears the end, the group should come to agreement on the capacity levelit will assign to it: emerging, moderate, or high. Some groups may wish to acknowledge different levels(e.g. emerging to moderate or moderate to high)Identify next steps or expected follow-up.
Thank participants for their time and effort.

Completion of the MM-SAT

Reporting: Compile data and comments generated during the evaluation process and complete the MMSAT matrix so that you have identified the capacity for each sub target. Some organizations may want to
use the capacity of sub targets to assign an overall capacity to the dimension.
If the MM-SAT data is being used to inform other planning activities such as strategic planning andcoordination plans, make sure the final report is provided to the individuals responsible for suchactivities.
The MM-SAT is not intended to be a one-off activity. Organizations are encouraged to set a time in the
future for conducting the next evaluation (e.g. one year). This will also help develop a baseline to track
your progress.
Consider sharing your report with NCMM. Identifying information will remain confidential, but the data
generated would help NCMM identify technical assistance needs in the field.

3

Tips for Conducting Successful Group Discussions

PRO TIP 1: THE VALUE OF COORDINATION & WORKING TOGETHER

Without mobility management strategies
providers & modes lack coordination &shared purpose

With mobility management strategies.
Providers & modes retain independence
but work collaboratively.

PRO TIP 2: GROUND RULES

PRO TIP 3: THINKING/PROCESSING STYLES

Participants want a fair and open process that
ensures their voices are heard and ideas valued.
They want to talk without fear of retribution or being
put down. The following ground rules will help
ensure that happens: Processing styles are simply different ways people
take in information and think about it. Basically, itis the way that best allows you to gather and use
information.
 There is a difference between not understanding
something verse not understanding how it waspresented to you.
 Often when people seem to be in conflict it isreally because they are talking about the samething in different ways giving the appearance of adisagreement rather than a different perspective.
Like two ships that pass in the night nevermeeting.
 A facilitator that understands these basic principles
can spot these pitfalls and help the group orindividual move through them by reframing, asking
clarifying questions and highlighting common
ground.

 Be respectful
 One person speaks at a time Listen to one another Share “airtime” or step-up and then step back
 Speak for yourself, not for others and not for an
entire group (use “I” statements)
 It’s OK to disagree, but don’t personalize it. Stick to
the issue, not the person who is disagreeing withyou
 Seek common ground. If you disagree, consider
asking a question rather than arguing to proveyour point4

Mobility Management Self-Assessment Tool (MM-SAT)The MM-SAT tool has five overarching dimensions that are important to organizing and sustaining a mobility
management network. These elements or dimensions are based on a literature review, interviews withmobility management leaders, and findings from a study that NCMM conducted to identify the key
components of mobility management networks (Mobility Management State of the States Report, 2018).
Additionally, these dimensions are reflected in or modified from dimensions identified in sustainability
assessment tools produced by other sectors (see appendices). The five dimensions are: 1) organizational
infrastructure, 2) collaboration and coordination, 3) service delivery, 4) evaluation and continuous
improvement systems, and 5) environmental impacts. The MM-SAT tool below provides a definition of eachof these dimensions. Additionally, the tool includes targets under each dimension that can provide mobility
management professionals with indicators or guidelines regarding what the dimension would look like inpractice.
The scoring rubric included on the MM-SAT is based on feedback received from the field. The intent of the
MM-SAT is to generate discussion between stakeholders that will lead to strategic decisions and actions thatwill both improve and sustain operations. It is not intended to be critical or punitive and neither NCMM nor
FTA want to see it used or interpreted in that way. More importantly, this is a self-evaluation, not amechanism for comparing other organizations, states, etc. against each other. Rather than using a numericalscore it was determined that capacity was a more useful measure so three levels of capacity were identified
to measure each sub target as defined below:

1. Emerging Capacity: This level acknowledges that all organizations and services have a life cycle thatmust include a starting point. Your organization may be new or established with a plan to expand
operations through a merger, new initiative, or service. In all cases, it will take time to grow capacity
under each sub target and would not be reasonable to expect otherwise. Indicators common to this levelmay include an unfamiliarity with an issue or best practice identified in the MM-SAT, lack of clarity about
how an issue is relevant to your organization, or an understanding that staff needs additional
education/training to effectively address an issue.
Other indicators may include a complete
understanding of an issue, but a lack of resources to effectively address it. This may include time, funding,staff, stakeholder buy-in, policy issues and more.

2. Moderate Capacity: This level reflects adequate understanding of and resources to support a sub target.
Think of this as a level where the organization has hit its stride and is demonstrating results in meetingits mission. It will feel like a comfortable place for the organization in contrast to an emerging capacity
which can at times feel overwhelming or fraught with insurmountable challenges. Indicators common tothis level may include staff, partners and stakeholders mostly moving in the same direction with anunderstanding of how each fit into the whole, alignment of resources and policies, and consistent progress
on related performance measures. Other indicators may include recognition of accomplishments
tempered by an understanding that continual evaluation, innovation, and improvement are required toadvance to the next level, a system for measuring progress (performance measures) is in place and theorganization actively engages in strategic planning based on data so it has a roadmap to advance its
capacity.

3. High Capacity: This level demonstrates proficiency under a specific dimension or sub target but isslightly different in that it permeates other dimensions and sub targets. Day-to-day operations are notwithout challenges, but there is an overall feeling that the right system(s) are in place to address thesechallenges. The organizational culture embraces innovation, continual improvement and a teamapproach to problem solving. Indicators common to this level include a robust system for measuring
progress (performance measures), a comprehensive strategic plan that is regularly reviewed andupdated, and well-defined systems that support a dimension or sub target. Other indicators include
5regular needs assessments, an organizational culture that understands how each part impacts the whole,and a steadfast commitment to prioritize the customer.

As mobility management networks use the MM-SAT to assess their own program, consider how theseoverarching dimensions align with the characteristics of your network. Perhaps, these characteristics need
to be amended to align with features of your network. Following the MM-SAT are lessons learned about
implementation that can be useful as a network undertakes the assessment process. What is important toremember is that this self-assessment is not intended to grade or rank a particular mobility management
network. Using the MM-SAT is an opportunity for network participants to understand the varying
dimensions of the network, identify characteristics of the network that are established and thosecharacteristics that can be developed.

6

#

1

Dimension

Organizational
Infrastructure

1.a Governance

1.b

1.c

Operating Systems &Procedures

Human Resources/Workforce

Focus
Organizational infrastructure consists of the systems, protocols, and processes
that give structure to the organization, support its key functions, and routine
practices. It also includes an organization’s systems for operations—fromhuman resources, training, supervision, and communication systems to data,
evaluation, and continuous quality improvement (CQI) systems. Note that
service delivery infrastructure is not included under this dimension and will be
address under Dimension 3.

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
CapacityThis target examines the systems and processes by which the organization is
directed, controlled, and held to account. Consideration should be given toleadership, how decisions are made, risk analysis, goal setting andaccountability. Embedded in these considerations are the policies andprocedures that should be in place to define roles, responsibilities, chains ofcommand, etc. Many mobility management networks are umbrellaed by alead agency that provides the governance structure. In this case consideration
should be given to how the lead’s policies govern and impact yourorganization’s operations as well as structures your organization has put inplace for itself.
This target examines the systems and procedures used in daily operations.
Consideration should be given to financial accounting, office technology(computers, etc.) internal communication platforms, personnel management
tools, procurement, information/data systems, etc. Indirectly related to this is
the space in which the work is conducted and how it is organized to promotecollaboration, safety, efficiency/productivity, etc.
This target examines the structures and policies in place to recruit, hire,
manage and retain employees. Consideration should be given to how staffing
needs are identified, clarity of job descriptions and required qualifications andorientation/onboarding practices. Compensation and benefit packages shouldbe evaluated for alignment with industry rates, local cost of living
considerations, opportunities for advancement and the effectiveness of thesystems in place to manage these benefits. Consideration should also be given
to professional development opportunities, trainings, certifications, and a7#Dimension

Focus
coaching system for employees who are struggling with job requirements or
performance. Workplace culture and policies should also be evaluated for
effectiveness in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion for all personnel.

1.d Funding

1.e

2Communications(Internal)

Collaboration &Coordination

2.a Use of CCAM

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
CapacityThis target examines how the organization funds both its operations andservices. Consideration should be given to the organization’s capacity to apply
for and effectively manage government and charitable grants. It also should
examine how the organization uses braided funding opportunities andinnovative sources of match to maximize federal funding.
This target examines how the organization communicates its mission, guiding
principles, services, goals needs and more to board directors, staff, andvolunteers so they have a clear and committed understanding of their roles
and how they relate to operations and service delivery. It also should consider
the way in which communication happens during day-to-day operations. In
other words, how do supervisors communicate expectations, priorities, goals,
etc. to their teams and how does the team itself communicate?
Coordinated transportation services are achieved when multiple entities work
together in delivering one or more components of a transportation service sothey can increase their capacity to provide trips, but coordination doesn’t
happen without collaboration. This dimension focuses on how theorganization cultivates partnerships and creates or joins collaborative efforts
that include transportation providers, state agencies, planners, and otherstakeholders. Effective collaboration requires clear and transparent
communication, group facilitation, a shared approach, public engagement,
information sharing and above all, relationship building. It also requires a clear
plan that defines how the coordination will work, delineates responsibilities,
and identifies policy & procedures.
The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) brings together
Federal agencies to coordinate efforts and improve the quality, efficiency, andavailability of transportation services for targeted populations while reducing
costs and service fragmentation due to inconsistent program rules and a lack of8#Dimension

Focus
interagency collaboration. CCAM’s primary goals seek to improve access tocommunity through transportation, enhance cost-effectiveness of coordinatedtransportation, strengthen interagency partnerships and collaboration withstate, local, and industry groups, and demonstrate innovative coordinatedtransportation. This target examines if and how Federal CCAM principles andresources are incorporated into your work as well as how you may haveadapted these principles for your state and regional operations.

2.b

2.c

CoordinatedTransportation Plan(s)Local Coordination

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
Capacity

FTA requires that Enhanced Mobility for Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities (Section 5310) funded services be included in a locally developed,
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan, and that theplan be developed and approved through a process that included participation
by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, andnonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of
the public utilizing transportation services. These coordinated plans identify
the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, andpeople with lower incomes, provide strategies for meeting these needs, andprioritize transportation services for funding and implementation. This target
examines if your plan(s) are current, complete and an effective tool for making
coordination happen.
This target builds upon 2.a & 2.b above but directs you to do a deep dive into
the capacity and effectiveness of your own network(s) to do coordinatedtransportation. Consideration should be given to the structure and makeup of
any councils/committees/etc. you use as well as how these structures support
CCAM objectives, development of your coordinated transportation plans,
needs assessments and innovative opportunities. It should also consider
innovative partnerships with less traditional partners/sectors such as housing,
economic development, public health, associations with similargoals/customers, etc. Active coordination between state agencies (DOT, DHHS,etc.) and local government units should also be considered for effectiveness,
capacity, and opportunities for growth.

9

#

3

3.a

Dimension

Service Delivery

Determining
Need/Capacity

3.b Use of Technology

3.cInnovation

Focus
This Dimensions examines the delivery of services your organization offers andthe experiences of customers/clients and stakeholders. It also examines theinfrastructure, technology, collaboration, and communication required toeffectively deliver the services.

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
CapacityThis target examines the steps taken by the organization to identify barriers toservice, changing demographics and needs to expand capacity. It should
include use of census data, regional and state needs assessments/studies,
partner/stakeholder input about transportation needs within their sectors andcustomer voice.
This target examines the systems and technology used to efficiently deliver
mobility services. Consideration should be given to access and ease of use forcustomers, ability to integrate with other regional/state systems and modes oftransportation allowing a customer to effectively plan trips from start to finish.
Also consider how the organization plans for, procures, and implements newtechnologies – is there a technology plan or is it an ad hoc approach? Note,that your use of technology should be evaluated in proportion to the size andneeds of your operation; not how other organizations with different
circumstances approach it
This target looks at how an organization identifies areas of improvement andits capability to embrace and make innovative changes to service delivery.
Innovation should be considered in the broadest sense and in the context ofyour organization; meaning changes may be innovative or new to you.
Examples of innovation may include use of technology, creation of a mobility
management network, use of call centers, the integration of different modesof transportation that you had not previously used in your service delivery, theintegration of public and private sectors, and more.

This target examines how multiple modes of transportation are integrated tohelp customers get where they need to go safely. Your organization may not
3.d Multi-modal Integration
have direct control over other modes or road improvements, but consideration
should be given to steps taken to integrate modes, advocacy for road10#Dimension

Focus
improvements that improve access and safety for your customers andparticipation in policy initiatives such as Complete Streets. Mobility
Management activities should be out front on these issues because system
improvements create livable communities and increase the number ofdestinations that are accessible safely by public transportation, walking, andbiking.

Communications
3.e (External)

3.f

3.g

Diversity, Equity &Inclusion(DEI)

COVID-19, Disasters, &other prolonged service
interruptions

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
CapacityThis target examines how an organization communicates with customers,
communities, policy makers and other stakeholders. This should include all themodes and platforms used to communicate (websites, social media, email,print, etc.) as well as content. Ideally, communication with policy makers,
service providers and other stakeholders should be seen as critical tocollaboration and should be tailored to the intended audience. Customer
communication should be clear and without industry jargon and be accessible
to non-English speaking customers and those with disabilities (see DEI below).
This target examines steps taken to ensure that transportation services are
physically, geographically, and linguistically accessible and that a safe andinclusive experience is provided for all passengers regardless of race, gender,
ability, background, or personal circumstances. This should include compliancewith Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,
Title III.B of the Older Americans Act and other applicable federal, state, local
and organization rules/policies. Consideration of impact and transparency ofbudget and service-related decisions that may disproportionately impact
traditionally underserved populations especially, low-income, and people ofcolor should be included.
This target examines planning and steps taken to respond to prolonged service
interruptions whether caused by a pandemic such as COVID-19, natural
disasters, severe weather, workforce, economics, or other unforeseenchallenges. Consideration should be given to disaster response plans, overall
readiness, specialized equipment needs, system redundancy, plans for mutual
aid and continuity of service.
11

#Dimension

3.h Travel Training

4

4.a

Evaluation &Continuous
Improvement Systems

Performance Measures

4.b Data collection

5

Environmental Impact

Focus
This target examines how new, or perspective customers learn to safely accessand independently use your services. Consideration should be given to training
materials and approaches that support the varied needs and abilities ofcustomers. Some may only need information provided on a website or phone
call while others may need a personalized approach or specialized training
materials.

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
CapacityThis dimension examines the performance measures that you are using toevaluate your operation. This should include internal and external measures,
how you organize and think about measures and how you collect and analyze
data on each measure.
This target examines the performance measures you have identified to see ifthey effectively tell the complete story of your organization and services. It
also examines the tool you are using to organize or think about yourperformance measures (logic model, etc.).
This target examines the systems that are in place to assist you in collecting
and organizing your data so that it is meaningful and able to be communicatedto policy makers, funders, and other stakeholders.
This dimension examines the positive and negative impacts operation of yourorganization has on the environment and the strategies being used to promote
positive and reduce negative impacts. It is understood that a mobility
management network may have little direct control over environmental
impacts because you operate out of a facility under another’s control, areumbrellaed under a lead agency or perhaps do not operate your own fleet. If
this is true you should evaluate the ways in which you can promote/influenceenvironmental stewardship. This may include an environmental impact andvalue statements for your organization, steps being taken to reduce carbon
emissions from your fleet, collaboration with local environmental efforts topromote public transportation, safe walking and biking as ways to reducegreenhouse gases, etc. The emphasis of this dimension is to underscore that12

#

Dimension

Focus
there are steps that can be taken appropriate to your level to reduce
environmental impacts and align with new federal IIJA environmental policies.

5.a

5.b

5.c

Policy & Analysis

Reduction of Fleet
Carbon Emissions

Facility Modification

Emerging
Capacity

Moderate
CapacityHigh
CapacityThis target examines organizational policies, impact statements, environmental
targets or values statements that prioritize the reduction of your operation’senvironmental impacts. It should examine steps taken to understand theenvironmental impacts of your operation and strategic initiatives to address
those impacts. Consideration should also be given to the ways in which yourorganization supports or participates in environmental initiatives, policy
development and advocacy.
This target examines steps the organization is taking to reduce carbon
emissions of its fleet, or the fleet operated on its behalf. Consideration should
be given to procurement policies or service agreements that use vehicles thathave reduced carbon emissions or are electric, and the median age of vehicles
in operation. This should also include efforts made to secure specialized
funding that supports the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicles
This target examines the environmental impacts of the facilities in which yourorganization and fleet operate, and steps taken to mitigate. Regardless offacility ownership consideration should be given to how your organization
prioritizes and/or advocates for facility design modification to improveheating/cooling, air quality, runoff, etc. as well as hazardous waste, runoff, etc.
from fleet facilities/operations.

13Lessons Learned & Recommendations Regarding Implementation of the MM-SAT
 It is important that participants understand how sustainability is being used for the MM-SAT. While fieldtesting indicated that groups understood the use of sustainability as a lens, some did not see a connection
between sustainability and a particular sub target. For example, participants may understand the needfor human resources, but not see how that connects to sustainability.

 While the MM-SAT is a self-evaluation tool, there is clear benefit to hiring an outside facilitator to lead anorganization through the process. The facilitator is less likely to get bogged down in the “story” of yourorganization and can help participants stretch into the topics in the MM-SAT. Federal Highway has had
similar experiences with the use of its Capability Maturity Framework and found outside facilitation was
more effective. It is suggested that NCMM consider offering onsite technical assistance/facilitation anddevelop “train the facilitator” sessions to create a group of facilitators that understand the MM-SAT and
can assist organizations throughout the country. ODOT also identified the potential for training theirmobility managers so that they could facilitate the process in regions outside of their own.

 People take in and process information in different ways. In the case of the MM-SAT this has an impact
on shared understanding of the dimension and sub target definitions. It can also be challenging to see
one’s organization reflected in a larger context like the MM-SAT. A facilitator can help by reviewing
definitions before engaging in discussion, reining in discussion that wanders into a related dimension or
sub target, and reminding participants that the MM-SAT represents an ideal and best practices that is
intended to be adapted to where an organization is at.

 Dimension 5 – Environmental Impact is a challenge for mobility management organizations/programs
that do not maintain their own facilities, vehicles, etc. to see their role. This is a fair critique, but limits
discussion about what the organization does have control over. Considering the MM-SAT is intended to
be customized to fit the organization, participants should be encouraged to consider activities that theorganization can engage in. For example, an organization may encourage a transit agency to electrify its
fleet. It may also create its own employee policies and incentives that encourages biking to work, riding
public transit or carpooling. In other words, focus on what you do have control over, and you will
demonstrate capacity. Further, such efforts better position your organization to achieve environmental
policy goals outlined in various Federal legislation.

 Developing an electronic version of the MM-SAT using a sophisticated survey tool like the one used by
the State Office of Rural Health Proficiency Guide & Self-Assessment could standardize data collection fororganizations conducting the MM-SAT. It also creates an opportunity for NCMM to access an anonymousversion of this data which would help it identify technical assistance needs in the field.

Conclusion

Sustainability of mobility management networks is important since those professionals involved in thedesign and implementation of networks would want the network to endure and to last. A network that
includes the dimensions identified in the MM-SAT may contribute to network longevity. However, alongitudinal analysis of the mobility management network would be important to affirm that the fivedimensions, and targets, identified in this tool, are related to long-term sustainability. NCMM stands ready,through its technical assistance, to support states and regions to implement the MM-SAT and to support theability of mobility management professionals to capture data about the dimensions of networks that
contribute to longevity and impact.
14

Appendix A: Developing the MM-SAT: Using Models from other Sectors
Not surprisingly, there is a host of government and public minds thinking about the issue of sustainability
across the spectrum of public services. It was only natural to turn to our Federal DOT to see what was alreadybeing done and how it could be adapted to the world of mobility management. An advisory team wasestablished with members from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), and the Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC). After identifying how each wasapproaching sustainability work the team narrowed its focus to a review of two tools, one developed by
FHWA called Capability Maturity Framework (CMF) and the other developed by SUMC called the Mobility
Innovation Readiness Assessment Tool (MIRAT). It was clear that these two tools complimented each otherand provided an effective framework for in-depth discussion and self-assessment at the organizational level.
As work began adapting these models to serve the needs of mobility management, Steve shared progresswith the New Hampshire State Coordinating Council for Community Transportation (SCC) which had
recently partnered with N.H. Department of Health & Human Services – Division of Public Health to develop,
fund, and implement the N.H. Mobility Management Network. Alisa Druzba, administrator for (NH) Bureau
Public Health Systems, Policy, Performance, and liaison to the SCC immediately saw similarities between the
structure and goals of CMF and MIRAT tools and a tool developed by the National Organization of State
Offices of Rural Health & Federal Office of Rural Health Policy to evaluate the capacity of rural healthnetworks in each state. Alisa connected Judy and Steve to the National Organization of State Offices of Rural
Health (NOSORH) who provided them with access to the State Office of Rural Health Proficiency Guide & SelfAssessment. Immediately, it was clear that despite slightly different language and focus areas between thethree tools there was synergy. Further, FHWA, FTA, NOSORH, and NCMM realized that using each other toinform an approach to capacity building and sustainability in their respective sectors was building a criticalconnection between health and transportation.
To provide you with a better understanding of each tool see the following summaries:

Capability Maturity Framework (CMF) Federal Highway Administration
 The concept of a capability maturity framework emerged from the Strategic Highway Research Program.
 CMF was adapted from the software development world, the notion of capability maturity frameworks rest on thefollowing three tenets:
 Process matters. Projects fail or do not achieve desired functionality for variety of reasons unrelated to thetechnology.
 Prioritizing the right actions is important: Examine if an agency is ready, how do they know, and what should
they do next.
 Focus on the weakest link: what is holding the agency back in becoming a leader in a particular area.

15

Mobility Innovation Readiness Assessment Tool (MIRAT) An initiative of AIM-Net, a partnership between the FTA and the Shared-Use Mobility Center.
 MIRAT’s assessment function is intended to provide a framework for agencies to understand their own
organization capabilities and be able to identify areas of improvements, as well as to help transit agencies design
a roadmap to improve their organizational readiness for innovation based on their assessment of current
conditions, the identification of areas of improvement, and the resources to take actions leading to accelerating
innovation provided by the tool.

State Office of Rural Health Proficiency Guide & Self-Assessment
 National Organization of State Offices of Rural Health (SORH) & Federal Office of Rural Health Policy.
 The guide and self-assessment tool provide a framework for building capacity of state offices of rural health.
 SORH uses slightly different language than the transportation examples but shares the same core objectives.
 SORH uses target areas instead of dimensions and key elements which get scored under each target area. Scoringis organized under 3 levels: Needs improvement, competent, proficient.
 The self-assessment tool is administered through a Qualtrics survey platform that provides a numerical score of
the SORH capacity and has sophisticated back-end analytic functions. NOSORH can congregate and report out
data on regional, state, and national levels while masking the identity of respondents. This information helps
them identify trends and determine technical assistance needs of the state offices.

16Appendix B. Preliminary Feedback from the Field
Relying on models from other sectors, and research about the dimensions of mobility management networks,
the team created a preliminary matrix to organize key dimensions and the method for assessing each. We
elected to use ten dimensions from organizational operations, systems & technology all the way toenvironmental impacts. A statement describing the focus of each dimension was included to assist the user
in understanding the operational components the dimension sought to measure. It seemed clear, but was it?
Would a tribal mobility management program in the southwest understand the MM-SAT the way an urban
system in Ohio might? Did we capture dimensions that were common to all mobility management programs,
while still allowing for variations between programs? It was clear we needed to consult the field before going
any further.

NCMM was scheduled to lead sessions at the 2021 Minnesota – Wisconsin Public Transportation Conference
and the 2021 Arizona Statewide Transit Conference. Judy Shanley and Steve Workman developed a sessionthat would focus on performance measures and sustainability for mobility management programs. The
topics complimented each other and provided an opportunity to have participants work with the MM-SAT.
Rather than a full test of the draft MM-SAT, the team decided to first test the field’s understanding ofsustainability in its broadest sense and its effectiveness as a lens to evaluate their individual programs. Next,
participants were divided into small groups and assigned two dimensions each. For this activity we wanted
to test the dimensions themselves for clarity, applicability, and ability to generate robust discussion amongst
participants. We selected a tool often used in preliminary strategic planning called a Forcefield Analysis. We
asked participants to apply two questions to their assigned dimensions: What forces support or positively
impact this dimension of a thriving, sustainable mobility management program; and What forces areunsupportive or negatively impact this dimension of a thriving, sustainable mobility management program?
Finally, we asked them to share what would make them more likely to use the MM-SAT to evaluate their own
programs
The first thing we learned was that sustainability was an effective lens, but because it is a word most often
associated with the environment it would be important to define it up front. When asked to initially definesustainability in relation to mobility management programs the following words or phrases were mostgenerated by participants:






Keeping it goingContinuous
Adaptability
Long term successLong Lasting

Consistency
Responsive
Ability to remain viable
Reliable
Self-sustaining

Organizational structure cansustain change
Meeting today’s needs withoutcompromising tomorrow

17

The Forcefield Analysis illustrated how various forces can support or negatively impact a dimension.
As participants brainstormed forces at play within their dimensions, they were able to see that the
number and/or size of unsupportive forces raised serious questions about long-term sustainability
if left unaddressed. The table below is a sample of how two different groups identified forces
impacting their dimensions.
Dimension

Organizational
Capacity

Dimension

Workforce

Supportive

Structure
Leadership Buy-In
Resources and Size (Staffing)
IT
Grant and Funding
Clear Goals/Objectives

Supportive
Continuous Training
Civic Minded Employees
Positive Culture
Leadership
Advancement
Incentives
Meet people where they are at

Non-Supportive

Leadership Denial
Resources and Size (Staffing)
IT (Lack of or Conflicting)Bureaucracy
Loss of Grant Funding
Procurement Guidelines
Regulations
Unclear Goals/Objectives
Non-Supportive
Low Wages
Driver Shortage
Poor Management
Unrealistic Schedule Demands
Lack of Technology/Tools
Lack of Communication: Frontline Management

This preliminary work in the field was clearly beneficial. We were able to confirm some assumptions
made during development leading us to believe we had the right framework, but we also found there
was a need to simplify the tool. Initially we provided very short descriptions of each dimension tosee if the dimension was universally understood. The Forcefield Analysis is a brainstorming activity
that allowed us to see what concepts (forces) participants thought belonged under each dimension
without giving them too much detail. While this provided for robust discussion, it was evident that
there were too many dimensions and they had to be much more narrowly defined. The following are
the key takeaways from our work with mobility management professionals representing Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Arizona: Sustainability is the right lens/framework but define upfront.
 Reduce the number of Dimensions and find a way to more clearly define/breakdown the focus
areas under each.
 Simplify the “scoring” mechanism and avoid language that is punitive.
 An electronic version of the tool would be helpful in capturing capacity measures and participant
feedback.
 For this to be a useful tool, it is important that it can be adapted to the local context.

18

Appendix C: Field Testing the Revised MM-SAT
The preliminary research that was done with professionals representing Minnesota, Wisconsin, andArizona resulted in an improved design for the MM-SAT; however, it had not yet been tested as afinished tool. An effective tool would need to be able to scale and adapt to different organizational
sizes, structures, and circumstances. The team believed the revised MM-SAT could do that but
realized field testing was the only way to be certain. Field testing would also allow the team todevelop an implementation guide to assist organizations with using the MM-SAT. It was decided toundertake two field studies using established mobility management networks because they werelikely to have a stronger grasp on most of the dimensions and sub targets that newer organizations
might not yet have.
The team already believed the MM-SAT could easily be adjusted for scale when evaluating a single
organization. However, testing at a state and regional level was of primary importance because it
would determine if the MM-SAT could be used to effectively evaluate larger networks with multiple
organizations and providers. Ultimately the team selected two established mobility management
networks, Ohio, and New Hampshire to test the MM-SAT. The Ohio Department of Transportation,
Office of Transit, would use MM-SAT to evaluate its statewide Mobility Management Program. New
Hampshire Alliance for Community Transportation, Region 10 of the Statewide NH Mobility
Management Network, would use the MM-SAT to evaluate its regional operations. Each state
represents different demographics and blends rural and urban characteristics. Neither state hadtribal mobility management organizations. The Team recognized this limitation and attempted toaddress it, but timing did not allow. It is recommended that additional testing be done with a tribal
mobility management organization to better understand what adaptations to the MM-SAT may beneeded.

The field sites were given the MM-SAT matrix which included definitions for each dimension and subtarget as well as the capacity scale (emerging, moderate, high). Limited directions were provided for
conducting the evaluation and determining capacity. The team provided limited technical support toeach site in advance of the evaluation to make sure there was a basic understanding of the matrix andintent of the tool. Both directions and technical support were limited because the team wanted tosee how each site approached the MM-SAT, interpreted the defined dimensions and sub targets, andthe experience of the participants. This approach allowed the team to better determine where MMSAT needed clarification/revision and what type of technical support may be needed to support its
use in the field.
Ohio Field Test: February 2022

Profile: The Ohio Program currently covers 67 of Ohio’s 85 counties through 42 active mobility
managers. Ohio DOT Office of Transit oversees the program and employs a statewide mobility
coordinator to provide guidance to, and ensure compliance of, all mobility management programs
funded through the agency.
Approach to MM-SAT: ODOT Office of Transit staff utilized the MM-SAT to determine strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges as the agency responsible for the Ohio Mobility
Management Program. In addition, ODOT Office of Transit hosted a small roundtable of Ohio Mobility
Managers to utilize the tool and assess ODOT Office of Transit’s Mobility Management program froma subrecipients perspective. A total of seven (7) Mobility Managers serving across the state attended
and participated in the roundtable.
19

Example Findings: ODOT has allowed NCMM to provide an example of how they collected data
under Dimension 4 and related sub targets. You will note how they used the MM-SAT tocollaboratively think about opportunities for improvement.
Dimension 4 – Evaluation & Continuous Improvement Systems
Description

Strengths

Opportunities for
Improvement

ODOT Perspective

Mobility Manager
Perspective

Moderate Capacity

This dimension examines the performance measures that you are using to evaluate your operation.
This should include internal and external measures, how you organize and think about measuresand how you collect and analyze data on each measure.
ODOT Office of Transit requires Mobility Managers to submit updates quarterly that include theperformance measures of their programs and the goals of the Coordinated Transportation Plans.
ODOT is currently updating the quarterly reports to better collect performance measure and data.
Overall ODOT Office of Transit, in combination with MMs self-assessed the dimension as Moderate
Capacity for Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Systems. Opportunities for improvement
identified through the MM-SAT process included:
 ODOT Office of Transit to develop and provide unified data collection requirements for all MM
programs, locally and regionally.

Sub Target 4a - Performance Measures
Description

Score

Score

Moderate Capacity

This target examines the performance measures you have identified to see if they effectively tell
the complete story of your organization and services. It also examines the tool you are using toorganize or think about your performance measures (logic model, etc.).
ODOT Office of Transit requires Mobility Management programs to submit quarterly reports that
include outcomes and goal achievement based on the application goals submitted for eachprogram. Currently the quarterly report is in the process of an update to better capture relevant
data and performance outcomes of Mobility Management programs.
Recommend uniformed data collection requests. MMs are in support of the updated quarterly
report format.

Sub Target 4b - Data Collection
Score
Moderate Capacity
This target examines the systems that are in place to assist you in collecting and organizing yourdata so that it is meaningful and able to be communicated to policy makers, funders, and other
Description
stakeholders.

ODOT Perspective

Mobility Manager
Perspective

ODOT is working in partnership with Ohio’s 32 Mobility Managers to develop standardized andmeaningful performance measures. ODOT is using input from the MMs to create a single datacollection guide to be used statewide. The guide will be used to develop quantitative andqualitative performance measures for MMs. This guide will also be used to train new MMs as theycome onboard.
Mobility Managers recommend an ODOT provided uniform data reporting system to be used locallyand statewide, including guidance on data collection and best practices. MMs indicate this would
be particularly beneficial for new MMs and new MM programs to start collecting data as soon as
possible to determine program outcomes.

20Ohio’s Experience Using the MM-SAT: ODOT was asked to report back on its overall experience
using the MM-SAT and to highlight strengths of the tool and ways that it could be improved. The
following is an edited summary of key findings reported to NCMM:

 The flexibility of the MM-SAT to be used at the local, regional, or state level will assist in
determining the capacity and sustainability of mobility management organizations on multiple
levels of program and organization management. Although this tool is specific to mobility
management organizations it could be utilized by transportation providers as well. Overall, theability to use this tool from multiple, different perspectives is a strength From a state DOT perspective, the MM-SAT provides a useful outline to help determine the capacityof an organization to administer a mobility management program, especially a new subrecipientprior to applying for program funding. It could also be used to guide new mobility management
program goals and to educate host/lead organizations on the needs and strategies of the program.
 The dimensions provided forward thinking opportunities regarding mobility management
programs and their role in implementing innovative practices and contributing to theenvironmental impact of transportation programs in the areas they serve. The five dimensions
were relevant to the sustainability of the Ohio Mobility Management Program specifically andprovided a guide that led to identified opportunities for improvement through discussion.

 Regular use of the MM-SAT would promote continuous improvement, innovative practices, andincreased sustainability. The sub-targets alone could easily be used as a current ‘snap-shot’
discussion and/or as a best practice discussion for future goals.
 Utilizing the NCMM MM-SAT tool with mobility management subrecipients provided a valuable
outside perspective for ODOT Office of Transit. However, from a mobility manager perspective,
utilizing this tool on a state agency yielded sections that were not relevant but were internal to
ODOT as an agency. However, mobility managers stated that those sections would be relevant if
they were using the tool on their host agencies or smaller agencies.
 ODOT found this tool to be most useful when used collaboratively as a group. While ODOT Office ofTransit would self-assess at one capacity, the mobility managements would self-assess at adifferent capacity providing valuable discussion and insight, most notably the recommendation ofa unified data collection system for the program.

 The use of this tool is valuable. However, it could prove to be difficult to get buy-in from smallerorganizations who have a small number of staff members or may view this tool as audit related. It
may be useful to provide ‘train the trainer’ opportunities for those interested in hosting thediscussion portions of this tool at local organizations. Additionally, virtual training for mobility
managers would be valuable.
 While ‘Facility Modification’ was relevant to ODOT as a state agency, and is relevant totransportation providers, mobility managers found this topic to be irrelevant to their programs as
most are not placed at transit agencies in Ohio. However, it did spark a discussion regarding whatrole MMs can or should take in facility modification advocacy and projects in the future.

NCMM Reflections on Ohio’s Experience: ODOT demonstrated a highly effective use of the MMSAT at a statewide level. It’s choice to conduct the evaluation internally with ODOT staff followed byround table discussions with mobility managers demonstrated its willingness to receive feedback
and empowered the field to share perspectives that might differ. Application of SWOC Analysis
21

(strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges) provided an effective framework for analysis
of each sub target and generated data points that could be used in the future to develop new
strategies. NCMM believes that these data or discussion points are ultimately more valuable thanassigning a level of capacity. The process highlighted the challenge to adapt the MM-SAT between
large organizations like ODOT and stand-alone mobility management programs that may not bedirectly responsible for things included in the dimensions and sub targets. Rather than eliminate
such things from the discussion, they focused on how something outside of their control can impact
their operation and how they could communicate that to a lead organization such as ODOT.
New Hampshire Alliance for Community Transportation Field Test: February 2022
Profile: NH Alliance for Community Transportation (ACT) is the state-designated Regional
Coordination Council for Southeast New Hampshire. ACT’s mission is to facilitate the implementationof coordinated community transportation and encourage the development of improved andexpanded regional community transportation services. ACT’s service area covers 38 communities,
including all of Strafford County, eastern Rockingham County, and Wakefield and Brookfield in
Carroll County. ACT is comprised of transportation providers, human service agencies, health careproviders, municipalities, planning commissions, and one citizen member.
Approach to MM-SAT: ACT first reviewed the MM-SAT with its leadership team to see if there were
any initial questions or clarifications needed and the approach it would take. Leadership decided on
two 3-hour sessions to complete the self-assessment. The sessions were exclusively online due toinclement weather that occurred both days. Seven members attended the sessions, in addition to the
Region 10 Mobility Manager who limited his participation to allow more time for members to speak.
Example Findings: NCMM received approval from ACT to publish the table below.
Dimension 2 – Collaboration & Coordination

Description

Moderate to High Capacity

Coordinated transportation services are achieved when multiple entities work together indelivering one or more components of a transportation service so they can increase their capacity
to provide trips, but coordination doesn’t happen without collaboration. This dimension focuseson how the organization cultivates partnerships and creates or joins collaborative efforts that
include transportation providers, state agencies, planners, and other stakeholders. Effective
collaboration requires clear and transparent communication, group facilitation, a shared approach,public engagement, information sharing and above all, relationship building. It also requires a clear
plan that defines how the coordination will work, delineates responsibilities, and identifies policy& procedures.

Sub Target 2a – Use of CCAM

Description

Score

Score

High Capacity

The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) brings together Federal agencies tocoordinate efforts and improve the quality, efficiency, and availability of transportation services fortargeted populations while reducing costs and service fragmentation due to inconsistent program
rules and a lack of interagency collaboration. CCAM’s primary goals seek to improve access tocommunity through transportation, enhance cost-effectiveness of coordinated transportation,
strengthen interagency partnerships and collaboration with state, local, and industry groups, anddemonstrate innovative coordinated transportation. This target examines if and how Federal
CCAM principles and resources are incorporated into your work as well as how you may haveadapted these principles for your state and regional operations.

22

Key Discussion
Points Judy Shanley’s (NCMM) visits to the SCC have spurred good discussions.
 The CCAM Braided Funding Guide doesn’t provide enough detail on program appropriations bystate, and federal agencies aren’t always practicing these coordination principles
 Responsibility for CCAM-type initiatives have been pushed down to local agencies
 Coordination principles are being used in our region (they predate CCAM) but aren’t tied back to
CCAM

Sub Target 2b – Coordinated Transportation Plan(s)Score
Moderate to High Capacity
FTA requires that Enhanced Mobility for Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310)
funded services 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 seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, andnonprofit transportation and human services providers and other members of the public utilizing
Description
transportation services. These coordinated plans identify the transportation needs of individuals
with disabilities, older adults, and people with lower incomes, provide strategies for meeting theseneeds, and prioritize transportation services for funding and implementation. This target examines
if your plan(s) are current, complete and an effective tool for making coordination happen.

Key Discussion
Points Plan is always in place, current, updated in a timely fashion
 Strafford & Rockingham Planning Commissions work together to draft the Coordinated Plan
 Historically, public participation has been limited to the several surveys conducted for each
update: consumers, transportation providers, local welfare officers, non-transportation agencies
working with populations likely to have unmet needs.
 Focus groups can help improve response rates. Funding for focus groups was awarded in an FTA
5305e grant to both the planning commissions for this update
 Users and potential users could use better outreach The Coordinated Plan isn’t necessarily the key to making coordination happen and having fundingtied to Plan can be hampering by preventing point-in-time opportunities

Sub Target 2c – Local Coordination
Score
Moderate to High Capacity
This target builds upon 2.1 & 2.2 above but directs you to do a deep dive into the capacity andeffectiveness of your own network(s) to do coordinated transportation. Consideration should begiven to the structure and makeup of any councils/committees/etc. you use as well as how thesestructures support CCAM objectives, development of your coordinated transportation plans, needs
assessments and innovative opportunities. It should also consider innovative partnerships with less
Description
traditional partners/sectors such as housing, economic development, public health, associations
with similar goals/customers, etc. Active coordination between state agencies (DOT, DHHS, etc.)
and local government units should also be considered for effectiveness, capacity, and opportunities
for growth.

Key Discussion
Points Are there less traditional partners that could be pulled in?
 State/Fed could do more to encourage (or require) broader participation
 NHDHHS is at table but not yet fully engaged
 ACT has started a push to get existing clients to use a common application to determine if there
are additional services they might qualify for Has ACT’s/system’s development reduced ADA demand?
- COAST’s contract with the City of Portsmouth has reduced ADA demand there- Common Application may increase demand as more users apply that otherwise might not have
 Housing Agencies house lots of people at a high density. How do we best partner with them?
- Providing Travel Training to their residents- Do they have ARPA funds that could support transportation?
- Portsmouth served by Fixed Route and ADA, PST. Dover served by CAP, Fixed Route, ADA- Are there incentives from HUD to participate?

23

- COAST has put route-specific maps at sites- CAP gives residents flyers, but doesn’t have much direct contact with Housing Authorities
 How to get clients plugged into more services?
 CAP agencies can’t share client data with each other

Experience Using the MM-SAT: ACT was asked to report back on its overall experience using the
MM-SAT and to highlight strengths of the tool and ways that it could be improved. The following is
an edited summary of key findings reported to NCMM:
 ACT Members found that the MM-SAT prompted good, thought-provoking discussion. Ultimately,
they felt it was useful to take time to review ACT’s strengths and weaknesses, but it was a challenge
to convince members to set aside time for multiple sessions to complete the MM-SAT. For some,using this time to focus only on a self-assessment felt like a lost opportunity.

 While the focus of the MM-SAT is on sustainability, members felt that their discussions did not staywithin a sustainability framework. Instead, they discussed each dimension/sub target as it was
written rather than using a sustainability framework.
 Facilitation was challenging at times because members would often focus on assessing theenvironment in which ACT functions rather than on ACT itself. For example, funding is impacted
by conditions outside of ACT’s control (federal, state, local funding, the pandemic, inflation, etc.).
Similarly, discussion often turned to addressing identified shortcomings which is a useful next step,
but a challenge to remained focused on the evaluation itself.
 ACT intends to follow-up on the issues identified during the assessment and will incorporate theseissues into its Coordinated Plan update. Members felt that the MM-SAT process would better
facilitate this if it included a process for identifying salient points and ranking or prioritizing workon each.

 ACT did not formally identify which dimensions or sub targets members were most interested inaddressing, but the following areas did elicit the most action-oriented discussion:• Setting benchmarks to provide context for existing data collection• Using data and benchmarks to develop storytelling materials• Creating performance measures that address hard to measure outcomes (better health,seniors living in their homes longer) rather than just outputs (trips, unduplicated riders)• Using focus groups and/or services to determine if the Community Transportation
Directory and Common Application are clear and without industry jargon• Transitioning from passive outreach (website, brochures in the usual places) to proactive
outreach to address DEI shortcomings• Developing a more formalized plan for finding and assessing opportunities for innovation• Including focus groups in the region’s Coordinated Plan update• Revisiting ACT’s outdated Service Gap Analysis

 Members offered the following feedback about some of the dimensions and sub targets:• Sub Target 2.c was viewed as the most relevant topic and could have been elevated above
the others.

24• Sub Targets 3.a through 3.c also seemed more important than others and organized toreflect this.
• Funding is an important issue when considering sustainability; however, it felt like it was
minimized by putting it under Dimension 1 – Organizational Infrastructure with othertopics like HR procedures.
• ACT members value coordination principles but didn’t believe that tying it back to CCAM
did much for ACT’s sustainability.
• There was overlap in discussion for many of the sub targets. Members felt that that the subtargets could be tighter.
• Dimension 5 – Environmental Impact was considered by members to be beyond the scopeof what a region in a small urban area could reasonably focus on given state funding,population density, and existing infrastructure.
NCMM Reflections on ACT’s Experience: ACT also demonstrated an effective use of the MM-SAT,
but at a regional level with different dynamics. Whereas ODOT worked with its staff and its mobility
managers, ACT is a council composed of diverse stakeholders and perspectives including a mobility
manager and lead organization (COAST). Rather than a deficit, this multitude of perspectives is astrength, but it requires more work to ensure a shared understanding of a dimension or sub target
upfront. The time ACT’s executive committee spent preparing to undertake the MM-SAT was
beneficial in helping the larger group get to a place of shared understanding. Still, some differing
opinions about meaning or role required compromise within the group so that it could move throughthe evaluation. While little guidance was given to the field sites about how to use the results of the
MM-SAT, ACT determined from the outset that it would use it to inform the next version of its
coordinated plan. Connecting MM-SAT to a required activity such as the coordinated plan helped
participants come to terms with investing several meetings in evaluation.

25

26