U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–469 PS 2003

COORDINATING HUMAN SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE

WORKFORCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 1, 2003

Committee on Transportation

Serial No. 108–22

Committee on Education and the Workforce

Serial No. 108–13

Printed for the use of the Committees on Transportation and Education and the

Workforce

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MAX BURNS, Georgia

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

(II)
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

HOWARD P. ’BUCK’ MCKEON, CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Deleware

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

FRED UPTON, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

RIC KELLER, Florida

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

JOE WILSON, South Carolina

TOM COLE, Oklahoma

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

MAX BURNS, Georgia

GEORGE MILLER, California

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, NEW YORK

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

RON KIND, Wisconsin

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DAVID WU, Oregon

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

BETTY MCCOLLUM, MINNESOTA

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ED CASE, Hawaii

RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona

DENISE L. MAJETTE, Georgia

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

TIMOTHY J. RYAN, Ohio

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

PAULA NOWAKOWSKI, Chief of Staff

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Burkhardt, Jon E., Senior Study Director, WESTAT ........................................... 26

Chittum, Hon. Loretta Petty, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education ......... 4

Dorn, Hon. Jennifer L., Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation ............................................................................ 4

Dye, Hon. David, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment and

Training, U.S. Department of Labor .................................................................. 4

Hutchinson, Jo Ann, Executive Director, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Florida Department of Transportation ................... 26

Raub, Hon. William F., Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and Evaluation,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ............................................. 4

Reinhart, Patrick, Executive Director, Alaska State Independent Living Council ........................................................................................................................... 26

Siggerud, Katherine, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.

General Accounting Office ................................................................................... 20

Wenzel, David, Council Member, National Council on Disability ....................... 26

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, of Nevada ........................................................................... 37

Cummings, Hon. Elijah, of Maryland .................................................................... 61

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 92

Lipinski, Hon. William O., of Illinois ..................................................................... 94

Michaud, Hon. Michael H., of Maine ..................................................................... 98

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen O., of California ................................................................... 160

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Burkhardt, Jon E ..................................................................................................... 39

Chittum, Hon. Loretta Petty ................................................................................... 52

Dorn, Hon. Jennifer L ............................................................................................. 64

Dye, Hon. David ....................................................................................................... 72

Hutchinson, Jo Ann ................................................................................................. 80

Raub, Hon. William F .............................................................................................. 99

Reinhart, Patrick ..................................................................................................... 108

Siggerud, Katherine ................................................................................................ 121

Wenzel, David .......................................................................................................... 163

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Chittum, Hon. Loretta Petty, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Special

Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education, responses to questions ............................................................................................. 58

Raub, Hon. William F., Acting Assistant Secretary, Planning and Evaluation,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, responses to questions ..... 105

Reinhart, Patrick, Executive Director, Alaska State Independent Living Council:

Rural Transportation for People with Disabilites, statement .......................... 111

Alaska Mobility Coalition, white paper .............................................................. 115

National Council on Independent Living, executive summary ........................ 117

Flexibility Ideas for Rep. Don Young ................................................................. 120

Siggerud, Katherine, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.

General Accounting Office, responses to questions ........................................... 155
Page

VI

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

American Public Transportation Association, statement ..................................... 169

Case, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from Hawaii, letter from George

Yokoyama, April 30, 2003 ................................................................................... 176

National School Transportation Association, statement ...................................... 174

Taxicab, Limousine, and Paratransit Association, Gene Hauck, President,

statement .............................................................................................................. 178
(1)

COORDINATING HUMAN SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION

Thursday, May 1, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEES ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AND EDUCATION AND

THE WORKFORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas Petri [acting

Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure]

presiding.

Mr. PETRI. According to the prepared statement, a quorum is

present. The joint hearing of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure and the Committee on Education and the Workforce

will come to order.

I would like to thank my colleague from Ohio, Chairman of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Boehner, for

agreeing to hold this joint hearing on ‘‘Coordinating Human Services Transportation.’’

So that we get to our witnesses, we have agreed to limit the

opening statements to the Chairmen and the Ranking Minority

Members of each committee. With that, I would ask unanimous

consent that the record remain open 14 days to allow members to

insert exchange material into the official hearing record. Without

objection, so ordered.

The subject of today’s hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Education and the

Workforce is coordinating human services transportation. I would

like to extend my sincere gratitude to the governmental witnesses

from the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human

Services and Transportation who have made time in their busy

schedules to appear before the committees this morning. Also, I am

very grateful to our witnesses who have traveled from Florida,

Pennsylvania and Alaska to participate in today’s hearing.

The General Accounting Office has identified 62 different Federal

programs that provide funds for specialized transportation services

for special needs populations. In most cases, transportation services

are not an end in itself but provide access to other services, health

and medical services, education, job training, elderly nutrition and

employment opportunities.

These multiple Federal programs each have unique requirements

and criteria but share a common goal of transportation for their eligible clients. Coordinating these transportation services would encourage efficiency, reduced costs through the shared use of personnel, equipment and facilities, and thereby improving the level of
2

services for current clients and making an expansion of services

possible.

We spend a lot of money on providing transportation services at

the Federal, State and local levels. It is not possible to put an exact

dollar amount on the Federal investment in human services transportation expenditures because 34 of the 62 programs that provide

transportation services do not require that data be kept on transportation expenses.

Just the 28 Federal programs that do track transportation expenses spend a total of $2.4 billion each year. Most of these programs require a State or local match for the Federal funds, many

of them at 50 percent. So the best we can estimate is that the combined Federal, State and local annual investment in human services transportation is at least $4 billion a year and probably much

more.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been concerned for some time about the need for coordination of transportation services for special needs populations. In fact, the House

Public Works and Transportation Committee, our predecessor committee, held hearings in March 1977 on improving transportation

services for the elderly and the disabled. At that hearing, then Secretary of Transportation, Brock Adams, testified that ‘‘Any program

addressing transportation needs of the elderly and disabled should

include some mechanism for coordinating the wide variety of federally assisted transportation services currently provided under a

number of social service programs.’’

Part of the reason we are still talking about the need for greater

coordination 26 years later is that coordination can’t be done alone.

In the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA21, Congress directed the Department of Transportation to coordinate with other human service transportation providers. However,

if that same message is not sent to other Federal agencies that provide transportation services, who will DOT coordinate with? A single department trying to coordinate alone is like playing a game of

catch with yourself.

Many States have agreed that coordination is a desirable goal.

Approximately one-half of all U.S. States have a coordinating body

of some kind, though the level of support for such coordination and

the degree to which coordination is required varies widely. So the

potential benefits of coordination are eliminating inefficiencies,

achieving economies of scale, stretching limited funds and personnel resources, reducing the operating costs for transportation providers, expanding services to people not currently being served, improving customer service and simplifying the process of getting

transportation services.

I hope that when we complete this hearing we will all have a

clear picture of what is meant by coordination of human services

transportation, why it is a desirable goal, what some of the obstacles are that impede a more coordinated transportation system and

what some potential options might be to improved coordination.

As the second Ranking Republican Member on both these committees I look forward to working with the Department of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Labor and Education, and
3

with my colleagues to make this a higher level issue for everyone

involved.

I would now recognize Mr. Ruben Hinojosa for an opening statement.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you very much, Chairman Petri.

I want to address something very important and speak on a critical issue that is of great concern to my constituents. My Congressional District in south Texas is very diverse. It is both urban and

rural. While Hidalgo County is the poorest urban county in the Nation, it leads the great State of Texas in job creation. Despite this

job growth, we still have double digit unemployment rates. Many

of the poorest residents live in Colones which are unincorporated

areas with limited or no services like water, electricity and paved

roads. These residents have great difficulty in finding work because

of the limited transportation options available to them. They also

have little access to health care and other social services.

Hidalgo County with a more than 600,000 population has an

urban and rural bus transit system operated by the State’s legislatively created Council of Governments, known as the COG. The

COG works hard to meet the needs of the residents with the limited funding it has. It is the fiscal agent for Department of Transportation transit funding.

However, at the same time, transportation services are being

provided by a number of other entities. For example, Region I Education Service Center provides transportation for Head Start students; the VA provides limited transportation for our veterans, and

we have approximately 75,000 veterans in my congressional district. The State provides transportation through Medicaid and

State welfare services and the Federal Government is providing

transportation through TEMF and other programs.

This patchwork of services is duplicative and wasteful. It is also

confusing for people who need the transportation service. I will be

interested to hear what the panelists recommend to better coordinate Federal transportation services. However, I hope we will also

consider ways to allow more coordination at the local and regional

level.

In Texas, there are 24 councils of government who could serve

this function and be the conduit for information about every available transportation service through Federal or State programs. A

one cost source for referrals would allow people for these programs

are designed to actually get the help they need. I am sure other

States have similar entities that could serve this coordinating function.

Again, thank you for holding this important hearing and I look

forward to hearing from the witnesses.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

As I indicated, statements by the Ranking Democrat, Mr. Oberstar and the Chairmen of our respective committees, will be made

a part of the record when submitted.

The first panel consists of The Honorable Jennifer L. Dorn, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation; The Honorable William F. Raub, Acting Assistant

Secretary, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services; The Honorable David Dye, Deputy Assistant
4

Secretary, Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor;

and The Honorable Loretta Petty Chittum, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,

U.S. Department of Education.

We welcome you all. As I indicated in my opening statement, we

are grateful for your attendance and appreciate the effort you and

your staffs have put into your full written statements. We would

invite you to summarize in approximately five minutes beginning

with Ms. Dorn.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JENNIFER L. DORN, ADMINISTRATOR,

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; HON. WILLIAM F. RAUB, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; HON. DAVID

DYE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; AND

HON. LORETTA PETTY CHITTUM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Ms. DORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a sincere note of gratitude for your leadership in this very important and complex issue.

As reflected in the opening statements, it is important because

transportation is indeed the lifeline for all of us, particularly for

those most vulnerable. The elderly, persons with disabilities, the

low income populations desperately need the means to get to critical services, to education, to work, to health care.

As you indicated, more than 60 Federal programs in 8 Federal

departments provide funding to meet these transportation needs of

individuals. Each program has unique eligibility requirements,

unique administrative requirements and unique funding streams,

which is not a bad thing. However, these programs growing as they

have over the past years have given rise to a myriad of human

service transportation models in our communities. I liken it to a

jigsaw puzzle of services and providers, not just a jigsaw puzzle at

the national level but it is duplicated and replicated in very different ways at the local level. Even within each local community,

fitting those jigsaw puzzles together making sure there aren’t gaps,

there aren’t overlaps is a very, very complicated system that needs

to be developed.

It involves in each local area local transit agencies funded by the

public, funded by private sector that provide both fixed route and

paratransit services, non-profit agencies operate transportation exclusively for their own clients, human service agencies provide

funds to individual clients to purchase transportation services.

FTA alone funds more than 600 transit agencies and through

State agencies over 1,200 non-profit organizations. That is a good

thing because that means locally they are planned and developed

to meet the local needs. If you multiply that number by 60 other

Federal programs that fund some aspect of human service transportation and you end up with a 10,000 piece, 3-D puzzle that our

elderly, people with disabilities and low income customers are expected to put together themselves. Those barriers as well as solutions exist and we are making progress, I am pleased to say.
5

At the Federal level, the two agencies that represent the largest

source of funding are the Department of Health and Human Services for transportation and the Department of Transportation. I am

pleased to say with my sister agency, HHS, we have worked together through the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility

and we have made some substantial progress.

I have two notes on this that my colleagues will describe further.

The use of Medicaid passes for public transportation to serve the

Medicaid population is a growing utilization amongst 23 of our

States, and the aspect the Ranking Member mentioned about brokerage services where scheduling can occur on a combined effort.

We have also made some real breakthroughs on that.

With respect to our Local Jobs Access Program which was mentioned earlier, we have forged partnerships with the Department of

Labor and an important system of sharing funding and so forth so

we can get those critical welfare to work populations to work and

to other important services.

In the future, we think it is terribly important to not only continue our efforts at the Coordinating Council but also to step up

our activities. I am very pleased that under this Administration

that has focused on customer orientation and results, that level of

effort that is shared by my colleagues has already shown some important advancements.

Two other quick comments. We do have some opportunities that

I think are very important with the Surface Transportation Reauthorization effort that is coming before your Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and there are a number of proposals

that the President has given to Congress we believe would substantially improve our ability to coordinate.

First and foremost is to encourage partnerships and coordination

with other State level human and health service programs by making the new Freedom Program for Disabilities and the Job Access

Program State administered and funded by formula. We believe to

put those programs along with the elderly and disabled in a single

arena run by the State administered programs gives many opportunities for funding partnerships with Health and Human Services.

So that is a very important piece of the President’s proposal.

We also have under the proposal required coordination, mandates, if you will. We have said if you want to get the Federal

money from Transportation, you need to have local coordinated

plans in place. We feel that is where the Federal Government and

the customer will get the most bang for the buck.

With the understanding that coordination is not cheap, it is not

free, it is difficult, we have made eligibility by increasing the funds

for planning purposes, for coordination and also allowed technical

assistance to be an eligible expense.

Finally, I would just like to make a comment about coordination

and how it happens. Effective coordination, in our view and I believe our stakeholders who have been very active in this would

agree, will only happen if local communities make it happen. That

doesn’t absolve the feds from responsibility for clearing the way so

that kind of thing can happen. Ultimately, coordination is a political process, not a partisan process but a small political process. It

requires building trust, building relationships, building partner-
6

ships. Otherwise people and organizations will be unwilling to

share vehicles, to broker schedules with their partners, to develop

common billing policies, all of which serve to be an impediment.

An important prerequisite of that is that all provider groups sit

down at the table locally, transit, human service, not for profits,

private businesses, local government leaders, and they need to put

the jigsaw puzzle pieces together. In many communities across the

country, and you will hear from them today, they have already

done that. I am very proud that locally generated spirit has really

been working. I would commend the stakeholders for their strong

interest in this.

The Council at the Federal level has helped make some real

progress as well. I hope with encouragement from this Congress

and with my colleagues, I hope we can make better and faster

progress because I think it will make a difference for hundreds of

thousands, if not millions of these vulnerable populations.

Thank you very much. I look forward to answering questions at

a later point.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Raub?

Mr. RAUB. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to

present testimony on behalf of the Department of Health and

Human Services.

In accord with your request, Mr. Chairman, I will now present

a summary statement and with your permission, submit my full

statement for the record.

Mr. PETRI. It will be a part of the record.

Mr. RAUB. HHS administers over 300 programs which collectively touch the lives of almost every American almost every day.

Medicaid, Head Start and senior centers are three examples. For

the vast majority of HHS programs, participants must travel to a

designated location to receive the health or human services for

which they are eligible. Thus, transportation is often an indispensable means to achieving the ends we seek. Expenditures for transportation typically are eligible costs under our awards.

Ensuring appropriate transportation is a continuing challenge for

awardees and program managers alike. First, the transport offered

must be tailored to the specific mobility needs of individual clients.

Diverse requirements require diverse approaches.

Second, to be fully effective, transportation must enable clients

to arrive at and depart from the service site in a timely manner.

For some clients, access to services is a daily necessity.

Third, the requisite transportation must be acquired at reasonable cost, otherwise imprudent transportation expenditures will diminish the resources available for the health or human services

that the transport is meant to serve.

HHS recognizes the critical need to coordinate transportation

services. To that end, HHS staff collaborates actively with their

counterparts in the Department of Transportation and in the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. Since its formation in

1987, the Council has met many times to share information, provide direction and oversight to the technical assistance resource

network and address real or apparent impediments to coordination.

HHS also contributes to the work of the National Consortium on
7

the Coordination of Human Services Transportation which consists

of representatives from State and local government associations,

human services organizations and public transportation providers.

HHS funds the Community Transportation Association of America to provide training and technical assistance to States and localities on transportation and coordination issues. Now in its 13th

year of funding, CTAA receives $1 million annually to assist HHS

in enhancing transportation coordination across the Nation.

Our experience working with States and localities on transportation coordination strategies has demonstrated that the relationships developed through coordination efforts can extend far beyond

work on transportation.

In the President’s plan to strengthen welfare reform, the Administration has proposed new authority for States to seek waivers for

integrating funding and program rules across the broad range of

public assistance and work force development programs. Increasing

the efficiency and administration of multiple programs under this

new authority will greatly enhance the States’ ability to coordinate

transportation services for low income clients.

We have provided the committees copies of the action plans for

the Coordinating Council and Access and Mobility for fiscal years

2002 and 2003. Working with the Federal Transit Administration

as well as with the National Consortium on the Coordination of

Human Services Transportation, HHS looks forward to increasingly

productive outcomes from the coordination efforts. In particular, we

feel confident the Council will continue to enhance communication

to the field through our individual programs, through the Council

website, and through the relationships developed within the Consortium.

We applaud your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in highlight the importance of transportation coordination and in encouraging us to

make our investments as productive as possible.

I would be pleased to respond as best I can to your questions or

comments.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Dye?

Mr. DYE. Good morning. I too would like to thank you for inviting our department to this joint oversight hearing.

We agree with the committees that access to transportation is extremely important for Federal program participants. This is particularly true for recipients of employment training services since

training and job opportunities often are not located where participants reside.

The Department of Labor employment and training programs

provide transportation assistance to its clientele and includes 12

programs administered by the Employment and Training Administration under various laws such as the Work Investment Act, the

Older Americans Act, and the Trade Act. It also includes the

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and the Veterans Workforce Investment Program administered by DOL’s Veterans Employment and Training Service.

Of the 12 ETA programs, only the Job Corps is administered directly by ETA. All the other programs are formula funded grants

to States and localities or discretionary grants to not for profit enti-
8

ties. Many of these programs make funds available to cover the

cost of transportation services most often in the form of mileage reimbursement and/or public transportation fares but also through a

variety of other mechanisms.

Although many of the employment and training related laws permit transportation services, funds are generally disbursed to State

and local areas that exercise a high degree of discretion in designing transportation policies to meet the needs of their communities.

Consequently, the amount and type of coordination varies from

community to community.

Although we do not collect data nationally, there is undoubtedly

more informal, unreported coordination going on at the local level

than has been recently documented. We need to build on those efforts.

I would like to briefly describe a couple of coordination efforts in

which we have been involved most recently. We have been finding

ways to partner with other Federal agencies, including the departments sitting at the table, as well as service providers to enhance

local coordination for transportation services.

In addition to the previously mentioned programs, for many

years, ETA and the Federal Transit Administration have jointly

provided grant funds to the Community Transportation Association

of America for Job Links, a program designed to help communities

overcome transportation barriers that prevent low income people

from getting and keeping jobs.

With these funds, CTAA addresses vital employment transportation issues through demonstration projects, technical assistance

and conferences. The demonstration projects are aimed at integrating transportation services into the DOL funded, one-stop career

centers operated by States and local boards.

Speaking of technical assistance, I brought with me today and

hopefully the Clerk distributed to you this CD ROM which we

funded with CTAA. It is essentially a tool kit to help local work

force agencies understand and respond to their transportation challenges. The tool kit includes sections describing the relationship between jobs and the transportation they need. I hope you and your

staff get a chance to take a look at that.

In addition, the President’s new Freedom Initiative demonstrates

the Administration’s commitment to the full inclusion of people

with disabilities into the American work force. Once again, the Department of Labor and the Department of Transportation have

partnered to help implement this initiative. Last summer, the Department’s new Office of Disability Employment Policy and FTA cosponsored a national summit on employment transportation for

people with disabilities. The purpose of the summit was to explore

strategies for integrating transportation into local employment networks and to identify opportunities for Federal transportation programs to be more responsive to the employment needs of people

with disabilities.

The overarching conclusion of the summit was that there was a

critical need for increased coordination of efforts at all levels and

not surprisingly beginning with our own agencies.

One of the most important activities of this Administration and

one of the areas in which we have had the most success is to pro-
9

mote interagency collaboration at the Federal level that can be

transferred to the State and local levels. To this end, the Departments of Labor, Transportation and HHS issued a Joint Interagency Guidance on Transportation Services funded by TANF, Welfare to Work and DOT’s Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.

Through the Joint Interagency Guidance, we encouraged our respective agencies to jointly plan and develop systemic transportation solutions and provide guidance to State and local areas to

establish collaborative regional approaches to job access challenges.

Ongoing collaboration and coordination among multiple agencies at

all levels of service, Federal, State and local, is essential. We simply cannot expect local agencies and providers to coordinate their

services if we do not do the same at the Federal level. A number

of Federal agencies obviously have already begun to work cooperatively including DOL.

By way of conclusion, let me say through coordination, it is possible to leverage resources by realizing cost savings and eliminating

duplication for the efficient delivery of services for all of our customers. The Department of Labor is committed to working with all

of our Federal, State, local and not for profit partners to improve

the coordination of transportation services.

We recognize that accessible and affordable transportation is a

critical component of the successful employment of people with disabilities and age related conditions or an income constraint.

That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any of

your questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Ms. Petty?

Ms. PETTY. Thank you also for the opportunity to appear before

you today to discuss the issue of transportation coordination for

human services programs.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for administering several vital Federal programs dedicated to improving the lives

of individuals with disabilities from birth through adulthood. Our

programs range from early intervention services for infants and

toddlers and special education services for pre-school and school

age children to employment and independent living programs for

adults with disabilities.

Transportation for individuals with disabilities is important

across the life spectrum. Without transportation services, including

specialized services tailored to their needs, children with certain

disabilities would not have access to crucial medical care and would

not be able to participate in school and in the community. Without

adequate means of transportation, many adults with disabilities

would never be able to achieve competitive, integrated, meaningful

employment or to fully participate in the community.

For many individuals with disabilities, reliable, appropriate, accessible and timely transportation is not just a luxury, it is a vital

link to education, employment, independent living, health care and

community integration.

Some of the programs we administer within OSERS allow for the

provision of limited transportation services consistent with the
10

goals and purposes of the program. For example, the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act requires that transportation and

other related services be provided if necessary to assist children

with disabilities to benefit from special education. Students with

disabilities are regularly provided transportation services by school

districts and other transportation entities.

Also, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, transportation expenses or services are an allowable expense in order to allow vocational rehabilitation consumers to access the rehabilitation and

training services listed in their individualized plan for employment.

The provision of transportation services under programs administered by OSERS varies from contract for services arrangements to

referral assistance and training for individuals with disabilities on

the use of public transportation. Through efforts such as referral

and training, our programs help individuals with disabilities learn

how to access existing transportation resources or how to obtain

necessary special transportation services. In some instances, these

services mean the difference between leading a life with few options for personal and professional growth and leading a life of

meaningful and significant integration within the community.

For children with disabilities, transportation is often a key factor

in ensuring that a free, appropriate public education is provided to

them. The IDEA is based on the premise that children with disabilities should be able to participate fully in the educational experience along with their non-disabled peers.

School districts may use any one or a combination of methods to

provide services to children with disabilities. These methods include using the district’s existing school transportation program,

contracting for special transportation services, or using the public

transportation systems. A child with a disability receives transportation as a part of their individualized education program.

Regardless of the means of providing transportation services, we

know that without these services, many children with disabilities

would not be able to participate in either the educational or social

experiences of school.

Because of the nature and variety of the programs we administer

within OSERS, it is difficult to determine with specificity the cost

of transportation services. In many instances, school districts include the cost of transportation for students with disabilities within

the general cost for transportation for all students and do not report these costs separately to the Federal Government.

However, we do have transportation cost data for special education from a national study of transportation costs for school year

1999 through 2000 conducted by an OSERS contractor as part of

the Special Education Expenditure Project. This project found that

during that time, school districts spent nearly $3.7 billion on special transportation services.

For other programs such as the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, States provide some data on transportation costs. For example, in 2001, State vocational rehabilitation agencies reported

spending $69.4 million on transportation to assist customers.

Many children with disabilities in their families and many adults

with disabilities need and receive services through multiple programs funded by the Federal Government. It is not uncommon, for
11

example, for a child with a disability to not only receive special

education services but also Medicaid services, SSI payments, community mental health services, or other services sponsored in part

by the Federal Government.

In some instances, there may be strong collaboration at the local

or State level to ensure that transportation services are coordinated or even provided through a central source. In many cases, coordination may be difficult. For example, coordination of transportation services for both children and adults with disabilities in

rural settings is likely more difficult than in urban settings.

Also, a person with a disability who uses multiple transportation

service providers for different purposes may be compelled to deal

with different policies and procedures. Nonetheless, given the importance transportation plays in the lives of millions of individuals

with disabilities, both children and adults, it is important that

those of us who are responsible for developing policy and providing

those services cooperate and collaborate in ways that will ensure

that needed transportation services are provided in the safest, most

reliable, appropriate and timely manner and that those services are

accessible to the individuals who need them.

Although coordination and collaboration for the provision of

transportation services for individuals with disabilities is most effectively done at the local level where the need exists, it is clearly

important that we at the Federal level ensure that our programs

recognize this important need.

We at the Department of Education look forward to achieving

these goals by working with our Federal partners in any way we

can.

Thank you for having me here today and I look forward to answering any questions.

Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions? Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on launching this hearing

in your dual role as Vice Chair of our committee and the Committee on Education.

I would like to say that this is a new subject and new ground

we are exploring, but it is an old subject and old ground that we

are plowing once again. It was first explored in this committee in

1977 as the Chairman may have pointed out, I regret having

missed the opening, with then Secretary of Transportation, Brock

Adams who said, we need to have a coordinating mechanism to

bring together all these several Federal Government programs that

provide transportation to people in various categories.

That lumbered along for quite some time and a few years later,

I chaired the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee and with

our former colleague, Bill Clinger, as the Ranking Republican on

the subcommittee, we looked into that matter in May 1985 and

brought together the same assemblage of agencies to give us pretty

much the same testimony, a plethora of Federal Government programs. At the time, there were 137 different Federal programs that

provided transportation services and they weren’t talking to each

other in performance of their duties and the cost collectively was

some $980 million. Eighteen years later and it is $2.5 billion, 62

million people affected, 62 separate programs, 8 departments, 23
12

programs in Health and Human Services, 15 in the Labor Department, 8 in Education, 6 in DOT.

Then I said at the opening of our hearing, ‘‘Federal Government

operates 32,000 vans and small buses to serve a population group

dependent upon transit. Yet no safety or driver training is provided

for those who do the driving. There is no coordination among those

who are providing the services.’’

The witness from Urban Mass Transit Administration said,

‘‘Clearly, we need to coordinate activities of the several agencies.

We need to coordinate rural programs with those of Health and

Human Services, with those of the Department of Education and

our own Department of Transportation.‘‘

The Coordinating Council was set up as a consequence of those

hearings.

It doesn’t seem to me that much has improved in the years since

we launched those first hearings. I would like to know, do you folks

meet regularly? Do you ever get together and talk to each other

about performance and delivery of transportation services and coordinate and have common values and common standards for delivery of services, and training of personnel to deliver those services?

Ms. DORN. I would like to respond on behalf of the Transit Administration with respect to your very good points. Certainly this

has been a continuing problem but there is good news and bad

news in that respect. Because the Congress and the Executive

Branch has increased its commitment towards these vulnerable

populations, the growth in the number of programs has grown exponentially. So each time we make progress in coordination, another branch of the government creates another program for very

good reasons. So this is going to be a continuing problem as we

grow the number of programs.

We share part of that responsibility in the Federal Transit Administration. We have three or four different pots of money

through various pressures from our own Administration or through

stakeholders we continue to create specific requirements for eligibility, for reimbursement, for tracking, for billing. So we all share

in the creation of the problem, yes. I can say by the data that we

do have, we have also substantially improved the transportation

services to the eligible population over the years.

Yes, a short answer in terms of our meeting together across the

agencies. I think there is a renewed commitment towards that and

with the Coordinating Council, we have specific action plans with

specific outcomes that will help clear the way so that at the State

and local levels, they will be freer to coordinate.

I mentioned earlier this is a very, very tough and complicated

nut to crack, not only on the Federal level, we can provide as much

technical assistance and best practices for the States and the communities that are doing it, but ultimately there also has to be a political will at the local level amongst all these agencies whether the

Alzheimer’s Association, the Medicaid transportation provider, the

public transportation provider, that they want to share resources.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I appreciate your enthusiasm. You always bring a great deal of energy and enthusiasm to your service

in the public sector. I welcome that.
13

In TEA-21, we directed the establishment of an assistant secretary position for intermodalism. That would be the appropriate

place it seems to me to start with coordination. Maybe we ought

to put you in that position because you have that energy and enthusiasm and excitement about your work.

I would suggest you go back and all of you coordinate with Jeff

Shane who understands this issue and who was the first

intermodalist in a previous Administration, in the first Bush Administration and find some ways through perhaps his intercession

all of you can come together, bring together these three departments of Government.

It has grown from the cost of the service and the investment we are making in rural America has grown from $980 million 18 years

ago to $2.5 billion today. There ought to be common standards, we

ought to be able to eliminate overlapping authorities and see who

can deliver services the best.

A great deal of good has been accomplished and some of it by accident. It ought to be done on purpose. I think you will achieve that

goal if you do as was promised this committee 18 years ago, the

Coordinating Council would be set up, we will meet regularly, we

will establish standards, see that everybody has common training,

safety and delivery of services, not only at the Federal level but to

the State and local levels as you just said, Ms. Dorn.

That would be my message and my urging to this panel and to

the DOT and several departments of Government.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Pearce?

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you for having this hearing. My question is

for Mr. Raub.

In your transcript, you talked about checking the cost of services.

Don’t you have a couple of large either regional or national contracts for providing services?

Mr. RAUB. I am not sure which you are referring to.

Mr. PEARCE. I am asking don’t you have a couple, it is not scattered taxi services around the country but you have providers that

you contract with?

Mr. RAUB. Not to my knowledge, sir.

Mr. PEARCE. My question would be how do you provide those

services?

Mr. RAUB. Typically they are provided through either the States

or the local agency that is the recipient of our funding and arrangements are worked out in the community. One of the challenges for

coordination as Ms. Dorn indicated is to take advantage of the local

transit planning in a way of ensuring that our funded activities are

not entering into transport services that duplicate what might be

provided by fixed route transportation, for example. The Medicaid

Program is a special example of that.

Generally, these decisions are at the State or local level in association with carrying out whatever particular block grant or activity there might be.

Mr. PEARCE. My question would be if you have providers, how do

you cross check that cost because I hear some extreme costs?

Mr. RAUB. Each of the programs differ in terms of its reporting

requirements. As a general rule, one of the concepts around the
14

block grants has been to keep to the minimum necessary the reporting burden for the particular recipient States. Often the transportation cost is included in a larger aggregate such as supporting

services. We in the States then have to work to tease out what subset of that is actually a transportation specific cost.

One of the needs in improved coordination is finding better ways

not only to simplify reporting burden but to standardize it such

that we can capture this kind of information consistently not only

across HHS programs but with our colleagues in the other departments.

Mr. PEARCE. My final question would be if you could provide me

some of the cost detail structure, if you put that as one of your objectives to be able to identify the costs are definitely not too high

for a give service and if you have that, I would appreciate it.

Mr. RAUB. Yes, sir. We would be happy to provide it.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Hinojosa?

Mr. HINOJOSA. I would like to ask Ms. Dorn how often does the

Coordination Council meet?

Ms. DORN. Up to this point in this Administration, we have had

one meeting. I would like to emphasize, however, that the number

of meetings is really not reflective of the continued and aggressive

activities that we have undertaken as a group and individually,

particularly with our colleagues at HHS.

Under the Administration on Aging, we have a very refined outcome oriented action plan for 2002 which we have already accomplished a number of things which we would be happy to provide to

you. We have done a number of other coordinating efforts on a bilateral basis.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Let me interrupt you because my time is going to

get away from me.

If you have only met once in two years, I understand that only

HHS and the Department of Transportation have been meeting.

When are the other organizations going to be invited to the table?

Ms. DORN. From my perspective, I am very pleased to include

other agencies. I would hope you and your colleagues would judge

our efforts by the outcome rather than whether or not we have had

a meeting. I can sincerely ascribe to the fact there have been very

aggressive efforts on this coordination effort and we made a conscious decision a year and a half ago with some of the senior leadership at HHS that we would not have a meeting amongst all these

partners until we had some solid accomplishments and models to

demonstrate so that we could motivate all partners at the table. I

feel we had a very successful meeting, it was very motivating to all

partners.

We are not going to make progress on a group grope kind of

basis, it has to be targeted to each of these programs. I feel that

with the firm commitment of my colleagues, we will continue to

make progress and we are eager to show you what we have done

to date and our action plans for 2003.

Mr. HINOJOSA. If all due respect, I come from the world of business and when something is not working, I think we need to try

something different.

Let me tell you about the region of South Texas from Brownsville

to McAllen to Laredo. That area has almost 1.5 million people. We
15

have been neglected so long, we have never been to the table, we

have never had transportation addressed for so many of the

Colonias and so many of the people who are unemployed and they

can’t even get to the training much less get a job.

If some of my constituents need service, who are they supposed

to call?

Ms. DORN. That is part of the problem. I would like to say it depends on the agency. That is why the working groups that are subgroups of this Federal Council have been meeting regularly over

two years. We would be very pleased to provide for your area technical assistance and plans and models about how they can coordinate. This has to be the level of effort at every different agency.

Mr. HINOJOSA. These areas that I am talking about are growing

faster than most other regions of the country because of NAFTA,

so we need for areas like ours that have been neglected for three

decades where we have had double digit unemployment rates compared to the State of Texas or nationally, we need them in higher

priority and have some meetings with the five Congressmen who

represent that area and see if we can bring some solutions to this

problem like you have given other regions of the country.

Neglect is something that needs to go into the record because let

me tell you, there is a lot of potential if they would just be given

an opportunity to get to the training and to their jobs.

Ms. DORN. I totally agree with you, Congressman, and that need

is recognized by this President and that is precisely why he supported a 20 percent increase in rural transportation funds because

of those very important unmet needs in rural areas. I completely

agree with you.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess I share similar concerns. We have 62 Federal programs that perform these types of functions. Only 32 of

them, we actually know how much they spend, so it appears we

really don’t know how much money we are spending on this. Does

the Council have any authority?

Ms. DORN. It has no statutory authority.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess I am saying is there anybody with any

real authority that is trying to coordinate this thing?

Ms. DORN. Not from a 30,000 foot perspective. Each congressional committee and each departmental agency has its own statutory mandates and regulations.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Do we need to change that?

Ms. DORN. Speaking from the Department of Transportation perspective, there are several things the President and the Secretary

have proposed in our reauthorization.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Like what?

Ms. DORN. One of which would be the mandate to a local community that if in fact you want Federal money that players at the

local area need to sit down and coordinate a plan. We believe fundamentally the more flexibility we can give to the local agencies too

coordinate, and there are some regulatory barriers we are working

through, but from the Department of Transportation perspective,

we don’t see any statutory impediment.
16

Mr. BOOZMAN. That is the local level. What about coordination

between the 62 Federal entities providing transportation?

Ms. DORN. I think we need to take on those problems as we have

program buy program. That is the kind of progress we are making.

Mr. BOOZMAN. But if there is nobody with any authority to do

that, how do you do it with the turf battles?

Ms. DORN. You do it by focusing on the customer and the outcome. That is what each of my colleagues and their agencies have

been doing. When we sit down in the working group with the Administration on Aging, we ask what is preventing more service for

more riders? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see when you have

billing requirements that seem to be different, we can sort them

through.

Mr. BOOZMAN. The council only meets with a small group. You

only represent a small group of the 62 entities providing this, correct?

Ms. DORN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOOZMAN. My question is how do you get those 62? I am sure

the areas you are visiting, you are doing some good. I don’t disagree at all. My question is how do we get those 62 we have created, I am not saying it is your problem, but since we have this

problem being in the situation you are in, how do we fix that? I

think you would agree there is duplication of services. We don’t

even know how much money we are spending on this. How do you

coordinate that?

Ms. DORN. In this case, creation of a Department of Homeland

Coordination would not do the trick. We have so many different

missions that are appropriate. Transportation is an important component and if we can get all to recognize on a one by one basis as

we continue to do.

Mr. BOOZMAN. I didn’t say we needed to create a department,

you said that. I guess I am saying give me some help, what do you

think is the answer? You have the Council that represents just a

little bit. The vast majority of these people aren’t even represented.

How do we change that? What do we do?

Ms. DORN. First of all, the major programs that would yield the

biggest bang for the buck for our customer are at the table. We are

happy to make that a broader group. There is no substitute for an

individual Secretary making this a priority. I can speak for Secretary Mineta who has made it a priority. Each Secretary in turn,

if and when they do, and I feel confident in my working relationship with many of these program leaders, it is a priority. I don’t

see any short circuit way to make this problem go away. It requires

goodwill from the stakeholders which we have and the National

Governors Association, AARP. That is the only way you can crack

the nut.

Mr. BOOZMAN. The other side of that is Mr. Oberstar said basically this has been going on since he can remember. Do the rest

of you have any comments?

Mr. RAUB. Picking up on the earlier comments, the Council has

spawned activities in four areas for special emphasis recognizing

that one size doesn’t fit all and one has to hone in on the specifics.

The collaboration with the Administration on Aging and the Department of Transportation is proving to be very valuable in terms
17

of understanding the opportunities for coordination and making

sure that not only the agencies but in the community levels there

is the right information and the right kind of technical assistance

being provided.

A similar story plays out in the Medicaid Program of making

sure of fixed route transportation. In one community alone, getting

only one percent of the Medicaid eligible individuals covered by a

transit pass produced a $6-$7 million per year savings. We think

that can be replicated and extended in other areas but one needs

to have the specific knowledge and specific involvement of those

program leaders. These are all high priorities for Secretary Thompson.

An emerging area in the disability community, the new Freedom

Initiative, involves a number of activities including the opportunity

for waivers that would allow greater discretion and flexibility

among the recipients of the awards and how they spend them for

transportation.

Last but not least, the Department has identified a number of

the special needs in the rural area, health and human services and

the special subset of those problems that are transportation dependent.

I am optimistic that there are a number of ongoing efforts that

have the strong support of the two Cabinet officers and you will see

some action and there doesn’t need to be new legislative authority

for that to occur.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Ms. Norton, any questions?

Ms. NORTON. No, thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Van Hollen, any questions?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Porter?

Mr. PORTER. Thank you and I reiterate the comments from earlier that this is a great meeting to have to coordinate the efforts.

Being one of the members that serves on both committees, Transportation and Education, it is an opportunity for me to talk a bit

about some of our challenges in Nevada.

As you may know, Nevada is one of the fastest growing States

in the country. In some areas in Nevada we can grow 5,000 or

6,000 people a month. To add to that fact we are one of the fastest

growing school districts in the country being the sixth largest in

Clark County. We need to hire about 2,000 plus new teachers a

year, which is a challenge, believe me. We need to build one and

a half to two new schools a month to stay in front of the massive

growth.

We are proud of what we have done in Nevada. However, from

a key perspective of funding education, including transportation,

for a fast growing State, and I know one of my colleagues from

Texas mentioned it earlier, a lot of the Federal funding takes three

to five years to follow the child. In fairness to my colleagues in the

northeast, in Iowa or the midwest, as children are moving to Nevada and California and Texas, their funding remains in those

States. So it creates a major challenge for us. If you were to take

27,000 new students a year, which is what we have, times three
18

or four years, that is 100,000 plus kids that Federal funding is remaining in other States.

Having said all that, we also have some very, very small school

districts. We have a total of 17 school districts in Nevada, one per

county, somewhat over 1,000 kids and some with almost 300,000

kids. So imagine the frustration of some of our school board members whether in White Pine County or in Humbolt County, Iowa

trying to chart their course.

I know we have talked about coordination this morning, but I

know how difficult it is with 62 programs in 8 Federal departments. However, I would ask if maybe we could have one of those

departments or one of those agencies help facilitate for these districts as they try to chart a course to get help with their transportation needs. I know it was in your testimony and I appreciate it.

I see moms and dads here today and we could talk about individual

children that need transportation, but can’t we just find one of

these agencies to help be a one-stop shop for one call by a school

board member from Humbolt, Iowa or White Pine, Nevada who is

struggling? Some of these school board members are the chief cook

and bottle washer, they do everything. If you mention the Federal

Government, they panic because they have no clue who to call.

Can’t we find one of these 62 agencies to at least be the contact

point to make it easier for our moms and dads and school boards

to take care of transporting these children that desperately need

our help?

Ms. DORN. If I may, I think it is an excellent point. The concept

of one-stop shopping has become a very important one in I think

at least 18 States where instead of having the parent or the customer have to sort through the many varied approaches of locally

driven transportation, which I think is a good thing because it can

be community-based, they have set up transportation brokerages

where you as a parent, consumer or Medicaid recipient can call a

specific number and indicate your need. All of the behind the

scenes sort of what are the needs, what are the billing requirements are done behind the scenes, so it is more customer friendly.

Those brokerages, as Mr. Raub indicated, the Medicaid Transit

Pass Program, the Brokerage Program are two very prominent success stories we would be eager to model throughout the country. It

is nothing that we believe is appropriate to mandate, nor is it possible but if there are ways we can give to local communities and

to States permission and eagerness to do this, that would be a good

thing.

Mr. PORTER. How many employees are there at the Department

of Transportation? Thousands?

Ms. DORN. Yes, thousands. There are 700 in the Federal Transit

Administration.

Mr. PORTER. Can we find one department in the Administration

without legislative mandate to coordinate and at least be a onestop for transportation?

Ms. DORN. Speaking for Transportation, the fundamental principle of locally driven transportation needs is imperative. If we

start layering the Federal solution, I just don’t think that would

work.
19

Mr. PORTER. I think the local governments should take care of

it. I don’t know the last time you were all sitting in a small school

district in rural United States of America and trying to chart a

course through the Federal bureaucracy - it is a nightmare. I agree

they should do it on the local level but they don’t know who to talk

to, who to ask or they may not get a phone call. Can’t we find

someone in the Department administratively just to help coordinate this so that Mary Bescow, a school board trustee from Nevada

can call one number and that person can help point her to the

agency to call? Can’t you find ten people?

Ms. DORN. Certainly we make every effort to do that in the Department of Transportation. I am sure we can be a resource but

where the rubber hits the road literally is the local transportation

where it is provided. If we can make it easy for the customer to

find out where that is and be responsive, we are all about that. Our

stakeholders have helped us do that.

Mr. PORTER. Who do I need to talk to?

Ms. DORN. We are talking now and I would be very happy to follow up personally with anyone you suggest.

Mr. PORTER. I appreciate that. Please understand, I am not trying to be adversarial, I am trying to make it simple. I appreciate

your comments this morning and I know you are responsible for a

huge agency, but Mary Bescow, the school board trustee in Nevada,

is worried about those kids, as you are, but they don’t know who

to call. If maybe you could put together a plan or a few of your

folks could spend a little bit of time just being a clearinghouse telling people where to call, I would appreciate that.

Ms. DORN. I would be happy to work with my colleagues from the

Education Department.

Mr. PORTER. I appreciate that.

Mr. PETRI. I think you are trying to help in that area somewhat

with the idea of having coordination at the State level with the

locals in this bill. I have a specific question of all of you which you

don’t need to respond to at this point but I have repeatedly been

urged to ask it by our staff because as we work on this legislation,

we need some specific assistance in a number of areas.

We would ask you to review the General Accounting Office’s testimony from today and determine of the recommendations and obstacles to coordination, which can be implemented or overcome

under your current regulatory authority and which require a

change in law? That is our department here.

Please send this analysis to both committees. Upon issuance of

the final report by GAO in June, if any new or additional obstacles

or recommendations are made, please update your analysis accordingly. We are trying to do our job and we need your help. We would

appreciate your making this a priority within the congressional

schedule.

Thank you all for appearing before us today and we look forward

to working with you.

Mr. PETRI. The second panel consists of Ms. Kate Siggerud, the

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office to which I just referred.
20

We appreciate the effort that went into your prepared statement

and we look forward to your summarizing it in approximately 10

minutes.

TESTIMONY OF KATHERINE SIGGERUD, ACTING DIRECTOR,

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. SIGGERUD. I would like to start today by thanking the Chairmen and members of both committees for holding this hearing. I

was very pleased to see so much quoting of our research and our

statement. I feel like I may be repeating a bit of what you heard

but I will try to reinforce it.

As the other witnesses have emphasized, certain segments of the

American population have limited mobility because of difficulties

they face in providing their own transportation or in accessing

transportation provided by others. The Federal Government has a

long history of improving mobility for these populations but has

faced a challenge in coordinating transportation services the Federal agencies provide even when these services are similar in nature.

Accordingly, my statement today will address three questions.

First, which Federal programs provide transportation services;

what type of services do they provide; and how much is spent on

them? Secondly, what are the effects of coordination or lack of coordination on programs and their clients. Third, are there any obstacles to effective coordination and if so, what are some options for

overcoming them?

I would like to start with some context before answering these

questions. We focused our work on the transportation disadvantaged, those who have difficulty providing their own transportation

usually due to a disability or an income or age related constraint.

These populations are sizable and growing, especially the elderly

population.

For example, in 2001, there were 35 million people over the age

of 65, 45 million adults with a disability and 34 million below the

poverty line. Coordination of transportation services is a growing

focus among human service agencies because the aging population

coupled with Federal and State budget constraints are challenges

for these agencies. As a result, it is important to ensure that transportation services are provided in a high quality and efficient manner so that these program resources can be focused on their primary mission.

Coordination of transportation services across Federal programs

through approving resources, consolidating transportation services

under a single agency or provider or sharing information among

these programs can increase the quality and cost effectiveness of

transportation services.

Starting with my first question, we found that 62 Federal programs located in 8 Federal agencies can fund transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged. These have their origin

in more than 20 Federal statutes. The Department of Health and

Human Services has the greatest number of programs with 23,

Labor has 15, Education has 8 and Transportation has 6 such programs. The other programs that have transportation services as a
21

component include Agriculture, HUD, Interior and Veterans Affairs.

The Federal programs we reviewed funded transportation services provided in several different ways. Typically, these services

were provided through State or local governments using a combination of Federal, State and local funds. Some Federal programs simply enable clients to use existing systems through providing transit

passes or taxi vouchers. Others contract for service with transit

systems or private companies who own appropriately equipped vehicles such as vans or small buses.

Finally, some programs provided funds to directly purchase, modify and/or operate vehicles for their clients. Several programs, such

as TANF, provide a considerable leeway for States to use any of

these options.

The cost of providing these services can be substantial but the

data on costs are poor. Twenty-eight of the 62 programs we identified spent a total of at least $2.4 billion on transportation in 2001.

Even for these 28 programs, we believe this is a low estimate because several of the programs provided only partial estimates.

However, the primary reason these estimates are low is that 34

other programs do not distinguish spending on transportation from

other spending. This is mainly because the recipients or grantees

are not required to report such information to the Federal Government.

Several of these programs, such as the Department of Labor’s

Work Force Investment Act Program, are known to have transportation as an important component but could provide no information

to us.

The amount of State and local spending is also unknown but

likely significant. For example, most of the programs we reviewed

require States and local governments to match from 5 to 50 percent

of program expenditures, including for transportation.

Turning to my second question, we identified several States and

localities that had taken steps to coordinate the transportation

services provided by at least a portion of the Federal programs we

reviewed. These include activities such as sharing vehicles, consolidating some services under one provider, using a brokering service

or simply sharing information about overlapping services.

Several localities we visited had experienced significant benefits.

Starting with quality improvements, in a New York county collaboration and cost sharing led to service improvements for clients of

Medicaid and elderly programs, including being able to transport

additional clients for the same number of resources.

With regard to financial benefits, a South Dakota transit agency

reduced average cost per trip by approximately 20 percent by coordinating and as a result was able to extend its hours of service.

We also found that States or localities that have not implemented a coordinated system sometimes experienced problems. Let

me start with overlapping services. We found that multiple vehicles

operated on similar routes at nearly the same time as shown in

this map of South Falls, South Dakota. Among the seven agencies

portrayed on this map are two vocational rehab programs, as well

as agencies serving low income clients and clients with disabilities.
22

Based on these findings, the local agencies hired a consultant to

recommend opportunities for collaboration and how to improve

service.

With regard to fragmentation, providers must often establish

separate accounting and dispatch systems to comply with different

Federal reporting and eligibility requirements, even though clients

are receiving similar services.

Finally, with regard to confusion, users can be overwhelmed by

the sheer number of programs. For example, a senior citizen faces

the prospect of making different arrangements for medical, senior

center and personal trips. In addition, providers sometimes have

difficulty knowing who is eligible for which kind of service.

Turning now to my final topic, we identified a number of obstacles to improved coordination. Starting with eligibility, Federal program rules specify the eligible populations that each program can

serve. Therefore, there may be liability issues when a vehicle transports individuals from other programs. In addition, there are differing safety standards. These differences hinder schools, human service agencies, and public transit providers that have an interest in

sharing vehicles.

With regard to funding streams, some Federal program funds

flow through the State, others to local government and others directly to grantees, causing difficulties in coordination. In addition,

funding cycles differ among these programs.

Finally, I will cover accounting and reporting requirements. Federal agencies require grantees to report different types of information. The paperwork can be considerable. For example, a provider

may be required to provide many different types of documentation.

Program administrators also expressed concern about losing control over the quality and convenience of transportation services

they provide. In addition, some clients fear having to change providers or type of service. There are also concerns over mixing populations such as sick and healthy clients. Officials and experts also

noted that coordinating transportation requires time, effort and resources but also noted it can result in savings.

Limited guidance and information on coordination at the Federal

and State level is available. The Coordinating Council on Access

and Mobility, which the previous witness referred to, is expected to

coordinate among Federal programs including guidance and information to States and localities. However, it has limited visibility

and includes only two of the eight agencies we identified that provide transportation services. For example, State officials said they

sometimes had difficulty finding the Council’s guidance.

At the State level, only about half the States have any kind of

counselor organization for sharing information and working

through problems. Officials in many of the local areas we visited

said a lack of State leadership was the major obstacle.

Finally, I will wrap up on a more positive note with some options

for improving coordination. We identified several options that

might be appropriate at the Federal, State or local levels, some

combination of these options may be appropriate depending on the

program in question.

Harmonizing standards for eligibility, reporting and safety and

establishing compatible funding cycles would make a difference.
23

Any changes in standards has to be balanced against the needs of

the specific populations these programs serve.

With regard to communication and guidance, options include expanding the membership of the Coordinating Council to include

other agencies, linking the Council’s website to additional agency

web pages and providing guidance to States and other grantees regarding allowable use of funds.

Finally, incentives and mandates are an option that conclude

providing funding incentives that give priority to agencies that take

steps to coordinate their transportation services, requirements to

coordinate transportation service could also be built into program

guidance and rules.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. As you know, we

plan to issue a report with additional information and recommendations at the end of next month through this committee.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Let me also introduce Rita Grieco sitting next to me who so kindly operated my slides today and may in fact help me answer some

questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Are there questions? Ms. Millender-McDonald.

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am

sorry that I am late but I am leaving another committee coming

here.

Let me first complement you on the importance of this issue, Mr.

Chairman, because I just left a group of educators talking about

transportation. It is so critical when we talk about transportation

and the reauthorization of TEA-21 or TEA-3 that we look at the

educational aspects of transportation. That was one that was really

not a part of my physic until I read the material here today.

I appreciate the testimony of Ms. Siggerud and physical infrastructure issues because it is so critical to this whole thrust of

transportation infrastructure. When we see the veterans, getting

veterans from their homes to rehabilitation, community centers

and as we look at councils of governments who are left with the

whole notion of trying to transport the disabled, and parents leaving work to come to schools for a visit with the teachers and that

type of thing, and even more critical, the welfare to work. I have

said often that we need to look at transportation with reference to

that.

I suppose it is not so much a question but just agreeing with

what the lady has said in terms of the physical infrastructure and

all of the human service aspects of it as we move into this whole

notion of reauthorization of TEA-21. Coordinating those human

services along with all other aspects of this issue is very critical to

the well being of communities that make up regions that make up

States that make up this country.

I am very pleased to be here to hear at least the testimony of

our witnesses and look forward to the other testimony. I do have

a written statement for the record.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. You gave examples of how things are done a bit

better and there was a direct correlation between providing better
24

service and also some monetary rewards. My question is, is there

room for a lot of savings out there, a lot of efficiency or does this

need to be tweaked a little bit?

Ms. SIGGERUD. I think there are really two issues. There is the

issue of efficiency and the issue of quality of service. In most of the

localities that we visited, we did visit five States and a number of

localities in those areas. We found agencies were able to eventually

provide more efficient transportation through coordination of the

variety of services they provide at a local level. In most cases, they

had used that savings to provide additional or better service for example to additional clients or to offer longer hours or additional

types of service.

We were not able to quantify a specific savings, a particular

amount. In one county we visited, we did see a 20 percent drop in

the per trip cost after a coordinated system was in fact implemented.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Are the monies given to the States block granted?

Like Leave No Child Behind, we have done that and said here is

the money but we want some accountability and some results. Do

we do that with these programs for the most part or is the accountability not there as much as you would like to see?

Ms. SIGGERUD. There are a variety of ways these monies are provided. There are block grants as you noted, there are also grants

specifically to transit agencies for the purpose of improving transportation and providing paratransit improvements. So it is hard to

generalize about the way the Federal funds are provided. In fact,

that is one of the issues we raised. We see them provided to State

levels, local levels, to area administration on aging, to workforce investment boards, that type of thing. So it is difficult to generalize.

With regard to accountability, I did note that we were only able

to obtain any useful cost information from 28 of these agencies.

Therefore, it is fairly difficult for the Federal Government to have

a good understanding of how the money is being spent or if it is

being spent inefficiently in terms of provision of these services.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Other questions? Mr. Isakson?

Mr. ISAKSON. No thank you.

Mr. PETRI. I am going to ask not that you do a lot of paperwork

and use a lot of peoples’ time but if you could supply us with sort

of a best estimate. We can’t find hard numbers for a lot of the programs for transportation. If you could give us the best estimate of

the total spent at the Federal, State and local levels on human

services transportation, I think it would help us to draw attention

to the opportunities for better quality, better communication, better

coordination and more actual provision of services on the ground to

real people and less overhead.

I suspect if we were to divide one number into another, we would

say, these people are not getting this much in terms of bus trips,

taxi help and you name it, so what are we doing? We are feeding

some large entity that is not very well coordinated and as a result

it is somewhat dysfunctional. Maybe that is wrong but if that is

true, this figure would help us to make that case and might help

drive some better coordination and improvement in quality of services for real people in the real world.
25

The actual specific number is less important than the order of

magnitude and the range and some confidence that it is roughly in

the ballpark. Do you think you could do that for us?

Ms. SIGGERUD. Let me make two responses to your question. You

raised the issue of whether in fact this is an important amount of

money. I think regardless of the amount of money we are talking

about here, in fact it can be fairly large. In Medicaid it is $1 billion

alone in a year. However, as you pointed out when you sort of add

all that together across the Nation, you end up with a pretty big

number that I can’t put a number on right now but we are willing

to work with you on one.

The second issue is that the provision of transportation services

for the purpose of accessing human services is one of the most important points and one of the most important areas that everyone

talked to us about when we went out and did our case study. The

provision of the service itself is extremely important regardless of

the amount of money.

With regard to your request for sort of a ballpark figure, my staff

has already done a fair amount of inquiry at the Federal level. We

have some information on general ranges that human service agencies have typically spent, even though these human service agencies couldn’t tell us the actual amount they have spent, so I can

share that with your staff at a later time.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

One last question. As you have reviewed the Federal programs

with some care, which Federal programs among the 62 you have

identified do you think could most easily be coordinated? Are there

obvious programs that serve similar populations where the transportation services could be combined? If you don’t want to do it off

the top of your head.

Ms. SIGGERUD. I think I can do it off the top of my head. There

are really two answers to that question.

All of the witnesses who came before me talked about the importance of local situations in terms of dictating the type of coordination that is provided. Each regional government or local agency

may be facing a different type of situation with regard to its geography, with regard to the type of clients it serves. To some extent

the actual coordination needs to be driven by local needs.

However, if you look at the Federal Government programs we

have provided, there are several programs we know have substantial expenditures that also serve similar client populations. Starting with the unemployed or low income, the TANF Program, the

Job Access Program and the Work Force Investment Act Program

have similar clients and are attempting to provide some similar

types of transportation services. I think that is an obvious place to

start.

There is also the Medicaid Program along with the elderly programs who are serving some similar types of clients and also providing similar types of human services, for example, medical trips

and nutrition trips. That is another obvious place for coordination.

Finally, there is the service to persons with disabilities, provided

for example through the vocational rehabilitation programs and the

Department of Education as well as the Department of Transportation. For example, its 5310 Program provides funds specifically
26

for the purpose of transporting persons with disabilities. I think

that is another group of programs that could obviously be looked

at for coordination.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. I think we will proceed to do

that.

With that, we thank you for the testimony and look forward to

your final report.

Mr. PETRI. I would now like to call the final panel which consists

of Mr. David Winzel, Council Member, National Council on Disability; Joann Hutchinson, Director, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, Florida Department of Transportation;

Patrick Reinhart, Executive Director, Alaska State Independent

Living Council; and Jon Burkhardt, Senior Study Director, Westat.

We will begin with Mr. Winzel.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID WENZEL, COUNCIL MEMBER, NATIONAL

COUNCIL ON DISABILITY; JOANN HUTCHINSON, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; PATRICK REINHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA STATE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL; AND

JON E. BURKHARDT, SENIOR STUDY DIRECTOR, WESTAT

Mr. WINZEL. Good morning.

My name is David Winzel. I live in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

From 1986 to 1990, I served as Mayor of the City of Scranton. Before then, I served in the United States Army as a platoon leader

in Vietnam. In 1971, I stepped on a land mine and lost both my

legs and left hand. I have been disabled for the last 32 years.

Last year, I was appointed by President Bush to the National

Council on Disability. I am here as a spokesman for that organization.

The National Council on Disability is an independent agency

charged with making recommendations to the President, Congress

and Federal agencies on issues involving equal opportunity for disabled Americans. We welcome the opportunity to share our recommendations with you on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act.

Access to transportation is critical for Americans with disabilities

in order to participate in the job market and community activities

that most of us take for granted. According to a Harris poll funded

by the National Organization of Disability, approximately 30 percent of Americans with disabilities have a problem with adequate

transportation compared with only 10 percent for the general population.

Also, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that 5.5

million Americans never drive and automobile because of impairment or health problems, one or the other.

For America to achieve the goals of the Americans with Disability Act, the United States must expand its investment in comprehensive, accessible and affordable transportation systems. To

this end, the National Council on Disability offers the following recommendations.

The Bush Administration under the new Freedom Initiative included $145 million for innovative transportation solutions for peo-
27

ple with disabilities in its fiscal year 2002 and 2003 budgets. The

funding did not survive the appropriations process. NCD asks that

Congress authorize the funding for fiscal year 2004 to remove

transportation barriers.

Two, set aside 5 percent of service transportation program funds

and congestion mitigation air quality known as CMAQ funds for

implementation for the recommendations of the Public Rights of

Way Access Advisory Committee. Despite the availability of STP

and CMAG funds, many States expend little funding for improving

sidewalks, crosswalks, signals and curb cuts for people with disabilities just to be able to get to the bus stop.

Third, authorize significant funding increases for rural and small

rural transportation services to address the serious lack of transportation options for disabled Americans in rural communities. One

of our previous members of Congress mentioned the problems he

was having with rural communities receiving transportation.

Approximately 12.5 million Americans in rural areas have disabilities and 6 million have severe disabilities. People with disabilities make up 25 percent of non-metropolitan population centers

compared to 18 percent in metropolitan areas. There are more people with disabilities in the non-metropolitan population centers.

In conclusion, let me leave you with one last statistic. On January 1, 2011, 10,000 baby boomers will cross the threshold of retirement. That is, they will turn 65 years of age and every day for the

next 10 years, 10,000 people a day will continue to turn 65. Over

those 10 years, 80 million Americans will reach retirement age and

with old age comes increased disability. When you add to that the

children who are burn with disabilities and accident victims, we

will need a comprehensive State and accessible transportation system and have to build on what we have right now.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, sir.

Ms. Hutchinson, would it be all right if we asked Mr. Reinhart

to seat because his Representative is here and I know he wants to

hear the testimony and ask a question.

Mr. REINHART. My name is Patrick Reinhart. I am the Executive

Director of the State Independent Living Council in Alaska.

Briefly, all of our States and U.S. Territories have State Independent Living Councils that are responsible under the Rehabilitation Act to develop a network of centers for independent living and

to promote independent living services for people with disabilities

in our respective States.

We are counting on you guys to help us deliver our mobility

needs. When organizations and programs such as ours work with

individuals with disabilities in ways to gain independence, we run

against a lot of obstacles such as access to personal attendant care,

lack of accessible housing, public attitudes and few employment opportunities.

The lack of transportation is consistently among the top barriers

reported by people with disabilities and those that serve them. Reliable, accessible, public transportation is necessary if people with

disabilities are going to go to work and participate in the community.
28

We believe our Nation’s investment in transportation services for

people with disabilities is still inadequate and as the previous

speaker mentioned, it is going to grow with the issue of more and

more services needed.

You have made some great strides with TEA-21 in the last six

years and we need to continue in the efforts to improve services.

We need to not forget the millions of seniors who do not, cannot

and in some cases, probably should not be driving and the additional 50 million people with disabilities that identified themselves

in the last census.

We know you plan on spending hundreds of billions of dollars on

roads, bridges and other infrastructure in this next reauthorization

and we ask you not to forget this. I think it is important you have

recognized the human service transportation side of the ledger. We

need to improve our public and coordinated transportation systems

in this country if we are going to meet the growing need.

For someone with a disability to get around in this country, it

is difficult in our most well endowed transportation systems. You

have fully accessible buses or subway systems, you have paratransit services that go door to door for people who can’t make it

to the bus system, you also have 24-hour accessible cab service but

that is not most of America right now.

Most of rural America, States like Alaska which as Congressman

Young knows, there is a whole new definition of rural when you

come to Alaska. We don’t have the advantages of huge public transit systems, so we do rely on the fact we have to build coordinated

systems wherever we can. We have done that in a number of our

communities in our States. We have cobbled together different

funding sources, getting through the myriad of Federal requirements and reporting requirements and literally adding them to one

pot to get a system going in a number of different communities.

It has worked and it is a headache in terms of the paperwork

that we have to fill out but it can be done and we have done it in

a number of communities.

In our State we feel we have dozens more to go to develop in

some of our smaller rural areas. We need the funding streams in

place to do that. The bottom line is we are not spending enough

on public transit. I have attached to my testimony a policy brief by

the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living which

are councils across the country voted to support.

We also need more flexibility in the use of Federal funds. For example, buying a lift equipped van for a village on the Yukon River

is absolutely useless to us but giving a grant to that village so they

can buy a landing craft style boat to get somebody with a wheelchair on or off that boat and down the river to where they might

have a fish camp is important. So we need to have some local control to define what transportation means for us using these Federal

programs.

We believe these new coordinated systems take time to develop,

take subsidies, take years. We have had some programs that would

start and fail but after several attempts, we have been able to get

them going.

We think there are some real problems with the current rules

with the 5311 Program. This comes from my friends in Wisconsin
29

that rural transportation services. They say it caps the population

that the rural transit program can serve to 25,000 and discourages

multijurisdictional collaboration, this despite the fact the program

envisions an integrated cost effective transit system for small to

medium size rural areas. We need to take off the caps and encourage close group communities to pool applications and allow funding

for rural planning organizations kind of analogous with the municipal planning organizations funded currently.

We believe Congress should demand that State and city governments who are getting the bulk of these billions in highway and

transit dollars begin including people with disabilities, seniors and

other stakeholders in the planning process. For the most part, our

experience has been they are not involved, they are not at the table

at those MPOs and we need to get them involved.

Finally, I want to say that transportation is one of those major

dilemma issues. Without it, independence fails. With it, the freedom to participate in America’s dream becomes a real possibility.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Young?

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you for having these hearings. I think they

are very, very important. As mentioned, we addressed this in the

last TEA-21 and we will probably be addressing it this time also.

I think you bring out some very good points.

I do want to thank you for coming all the way from Anchorage

to participate in the hearing.

What is the status of Alaska Mobility Coalition efforts to establish coordinated community transportation systems in Alaska? You

mentioned it in your testimony but what is happening there?

Mr. REINHART. The Alaska Mobility Coalition is really a starting

organization. We just developed it after having a summit of getting

all the disability and senior transportation service providers together in our attempt for coordination and we decided we needed

a statewide organization to help promote coordination. We are really getting started and recently received some JARC funding to do

that and that is going to be partially to do some of the planning

efforts to get some of these new coordinated systems going in communities that don’t have them. That will be the emphasis of the

Alaska Mobility Coalition in the next couple of years.

Mr. YOUNG. What is the response from those communities? Are

they with you, for you, akin you or what are they doing?

Mr. REINHART. As far as the human service transportation providers in those communities, they are all for it. I think the thing

we run up against is the fact that local officials, municipal officials

don’t really look at transit issues as importance as the new road

they need developed or the bridge they need across a river, so that

is part of the Alaska Mobility Coalition’s plan, to raise the status

of human surface transportation needs in each one of these communities to the point of getting their local support as well as State

support to fund some of these things.

Mr. YOUNG. The flexibility you are asking for, would that flexibility go through your organization or how would that work? I like

your concept because you are absolutely right. I have watched the

chairlifts being delivered to some of the villages and they are not
30

really of any value. Would that money go directly to the village or

how would that work and who would supervise it?

Mr. REINHART. We talked about the 5310 and 5311 programs

where it comes to the State DOT. That money gets put out in

grants that local governments as well as local nonprofit organizations can apply for and they do but there are a lot of rules and restrictions as to some of those funding sources.

I bring up this example because I was on a review team for 5310

grants and we couldn’t fund a village request for a boat I was describing. We couldn’t do it with the existing funding source.

Mr. YOUNG. Can you do us a favor and give us some suggestions?

Not right now but in writing about what flexibility would curtail

and what we could do with it because I know what you are talking

about. A lot of times we try to do what is right and because of regulations and positions, we don’t achieve the goals we are seeking.

We probably need some suggestions in writing from yourself so we

can make this program work in the rural areas of Alaska because

you are right.

For the rest of those on the panel, I know there are other rural

areas in America but we are about as rural as you can get other

than the fact we all fly somewhere but there are very few roads

and those we do have are quite dusty. We are going to try to take

care of that.

I think you can give us some good advice.

Mr. REINHART. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. YOUNG. I want to thank you for your testimony and I appreciate the panel.

Again, thanks for having this hearing.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Ms. Hutchinson?

Ms. HUTCHINSON. Thank you so much for the invitation to come

here and talk to you about my favorite subject, coordination in the

State of Florida.

I am Joann Hutchinson, Executive Director of the Commission

for the Transportation Disadvantaged. We are housed in the Florida Department of Transportation for the sole purpose mandated

by our legislature to coordinate all the human services transportation. We are one of the few States charged to do that at the State

level.

Serving on our commission to help us do our job at the local level

are consumers that use the transportation, all the different agencies that fund the transportation services, providers who provide

and coordinate the transportation and others who represent statewide organizations. So we have a diverse group of people helping

us set the policies and procedures to move coordinated transportation forward.

The history of our program started in the late 1970s even before

there was a State law that required it with concern over duplication and fragmentation of services, so they created a coordinating

council and you can see on the chart that it has grown. We have

dedicated funding at the State level for more transportation to be

provided to those transportation disadvantaged in our State who

are the elderly, persons with disabilities, low income and children

at risk. We have quite a bit of history.
31

Coordination is defined in our State law as the arrangement for

the provision of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged in a manner that is cost effective, efficient and reduces

fragmentation of services.

You asked in your letter for the benefits of coordination. It can

increase service levels. We have done that in every year except for

last year and I will explain that in a bit. You can reduce expenditures in many areas, increase efficiency, reduce duplication and

fragmentation of services. By doing all that, you stretch limited tax

dollars. You build community support by bringing all the different

groups together and provide good public awareness.

There is tax dollar accountability which is very important for all

of us who want to make sure our tax dollars are spent wisely. You

also eliminate the fraud and abuse by having a gatekeeper concept.

It is very important you ensure safety and welfare of our most vulnerable citizens. You save dollars in other programs. Nursing home

care in Florida is approaching $40,000 on average a year. Certainly

if you can keep someone healthy by giving them that transportation to go to the doctor on a regular basis, you save a lot of

money and it goes on and on in the employment, health care and

other areas. It is very important.

You asked for the barriers of transportation. I like to call them

the challenges to coordination. There is inadequate budgeting for

transportation across many funding programs. Medicaid does have

a line item in our budget. Some of the other programs do not, so

there is a need to show your support as the previous speaker mentioned of why transportation is so important. How good is a program if you can’t get there and help these people get what they

need to maintain an acceptable quality of life.

Funding is not consolidated in one entity. In areas like our State

where there is a commission that is responsible, we could save

more money by consolidating some of the funding sources. I think

that could be done in a lot of other areas.

There is often conflict in purchasing agency policies that create

a lack of uniformity in safety and operating standards. There is duplicative monitoring and reporting by several agencies and we are

working on some of those solutions.

Also, the Federal Medicaid law requires that transportation shall

be provided. However, there is not necessarily the available budget

to go along with that requirement. At our State level, we have a

Medicaid co-pay that is required but yet the recipient is not required to pay that co-pay, putting the burden on our transportation

businesses which results in higher cost.

This slide shows the accountability and the money spent in the

State of Florida, State, Federal and local dollars. We know how

much we are spending in Florida. We didn’t know 23 years ago

when I got involved in the program but now we are spending close

to $300 million a year of actual expenditures.

You will see a five year trend from 1998 to 2002 of the average

trip cost and you see it has pretty much stayed the same. It did

go up last year and there is a good reason. It wasn’t because of coordination. Insurance costs in Florida and gasoline, insurance alone

went up in many Florida counties as much as 400 percent, something outside anyone’s control. This is a growing problem and a
32

process for transportation. We are working with our insurance department on that.

For cost savings, from 1995 to 1998 our coordinators reported a savings of over $154 million by maximizing coordination through

these different methods, the bus pass programs, multiloading,

changing schedules. Florida was given two awards for this

progress, so we are very pleased with that.

In Miami Dade County, the bus pass program diverting people

from door to door expense of transportation to a bus ticket on a

monthly basis is saving Dade County alone over $600,000 a month.

I caution though there is only 23 of the 67 counties in Florida that

have a bus system, so those savings are limited to those areas. The

other counties are small urban and rural counties.

In Florida, we also show you who is being served. This was a big

issue in our State. You can see the types of trips and types of individuals being served. This is part of our accountability of having

a coordinated transportation system.

Is the program perfect? By no means. We are always looking for

ways to improve and here are some examples of what we would

like to do. We plan to modify our coordination statutes to require

all the agencies to request budget authority for this type of transportation, we are also going to allow, not mandate the transfer or

contracting with our commission to do their transportation services

for them reducing administrative costs, also some consolidation of

monitoring of all the purchasing agencies for transportation instead

of eight or nine agencies monitoring and asking the same questions, we can do it with no additional personnel.

We also want to go outside the box and implement some alternative delivery methods like use of faith-based organizations, volunteer programs and provide more customer choice within our coordinated transportation system. We want to eliminate the co-pay

for Medicaid I mentioned that has to be done at the State level,

and we want to continue to look for funding opportunities to increase the million trips that are documented as not being provided.

Even with all these wonderful savings and the dedicated revenues,

we still have significant unmet trips.

We also want to look at developing a methodology for improved

rate structure.

This is what Florida is doing and we are very proud of it. I will

be available for questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Burkhardt?

Mr. BURKHARDT. My name is Jon Burkhardt. I work for Westat,

an employee-owned research company in Rockville, Maryland. I

have been looking at transportation issues for many years.

I have two points I would like to make today for the committee.

One is that coordinated transportation has very significant economic benefits. The second point is that we need congressional help

just to maintain but also to increase this level of benefits.

In many communities, transportation services are not perfect.

They sometimes overlap and duplicate each other. They don’t run

cost effectively. Better vehicles are needed, better customer services

are needed, services customers want to use are needed, and transportation providers could cooperate more. Coordination can help.
33

We need to understand coordination if it is really going to work

for us. We have been working to achieve greater coordination for

more than 25 years and are not finished yet. We should understand

that coordination is a resource management strategy that involves

shared power. This means no one person is in control, but people

together work on quality issues, funding issues and management.

Indeed, coordination is about power and control of resources, so

some of the issues that Congress deals with daily are really important.

It is also important to understand coordination’s significant economic benefits because when these benefits are understood, coordination will be recognized as more attractive. Access to more funds

from more sources, more efficiency, such as lower cost per mile or

lower cost per hour, increased productivity, which means more passengers per hour or more passengers per mile, greater economic development in communities, and improved service quality, are

among the very significant economic benefits of coordination.

How do you achieve these benefits? You need strategic approaches. We have looked at five major strategies. The benefits of

these five major strategies could add up to $700 million per year.

That is a conservative estimate. If transit agencies could provide

trips for Medicaid as being done in the Miami area, that would be

a significant strategy. Non-transit agencies providing ADA services

could help considerably. Shifting paratransit riders to fixed route

services, human service agencies coordinating and expanding

transportation services through coordination, all could add up to

$700 million or more.

If we are going to improve our transportation services, there are

many ways to do that. As you see, coordination is one of them, but

not the only one. Others are customer orientation, consumer choice

and technologies. Coordination is a very important transportation

service improvement strategy.

On the next several slides, the green lines indicate specific strategies. For example, the generation of new revenues in the Miami

area, Dade County, Florida, led to an additional $2.3 million per

year for the transit authority. Saving costs by contracting with

school districts provided $100,000 a year in Mason County, Washington which is a small area. Saving costs when non-transit agencies provide ADA paratransit services in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

created savings of about $26 million a year. In Minnesota in Dakota County, benefits of almost $400,000 a year were created

through their coordination efforts.

Saving costs by shifting ADA riders to fixed route services, both

Charlottesville and Sacramento, saved $1 million a year in each

community, evan though they had different strategies. When

human service agencies coordinated in Kearney, Nebraska, their

brokerage system saved $400,000 a year.

Coordinated dispatching and vehicle sharing in Seattle, a demonstration program which is no longer operating, they coordinated

ADA services with Medicaid and saved $100,000 a year. Also, looking at increasing mobility, in California, Riverside County, they

used volunteer drivers for the frail elderly. Outside of Detroit, they

saved $2 million a year in a regional property tax program.
34

How can Congress help? There are a variety of ways. I have listed four in my written testimony: Medicaid and Medicare are really

the big issues because they are the large dollar programs. I didn’t

list number five: number five is to give the USDHHS/USDOT Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility some real status. This

could be done through a line item with specific dollars for the Coordinating Council to give them real staff and real capabilities.

I would like to talk a bit more about Medicaid and Medicare.

Medicaid is the largest non-emergency transportation program in

the United States. In fiscal 2001, Federal expenditures were nearly

$1 billion. This is a State run program, so there is great variability

in program administration. On average, States spend almost 1 percent of their Medicaid budgets on transportation services.

There has been good coordination to date with the Medicaid program, but some of this coordination is now in jeopardy and Congress needs to understand this problem. There are activities in

terms of capitated rates and managed care organizations which will

get in the way of coordinated transportation services. This is already happening in several States. I just came from California and

the Governor there is talking about eliminating transportation as

an allowable medical expense entirely.

We haven’t been talking about Medicare today because it is not

a non-emergency transportation program: Medicare transportation

is supposed to be an emergency program provided by ambulances.

Medicare spends about $2.2 billion a year transporting clients. We

know that Medicare transports many people who are not in an immediate medical emergency situation. These trips can be provided

more cost effectively.

Community transportation providers could offer the trips and the

Medicare Program would save millions of dollars and community

transportation would benefit. The initial estimate of cost savings is

$300 million a year by not using ambulances and not using emergency departments.

The real benefits would be in better health care. Just two illnesses, heart disease and kidney failure, cost the United States of

America $375 billion a year. If we had a medical transportation

partnership, coordinated, transportation could improve access to

primary medical care. If this created one tenth of one percent in

annual savings, $375 million would be saved. Savings of $3.8 billion could be realized on a 1 percent savings.

If Congress would look at Medicare and open up the ambulance

transportation to non-emergency services, we could get much better

health care and substantial long run savings for the United States.

There are many tasks before us and we hope Congress will help

us with some of these challenges. We are counting on it.

I would be happy to answer questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you all.

Mr. McCarthy, any questions?

Mr. MCCARTHY. No.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. Want to thank all of you for coming.

I have a question for the whole panel. The GAO tells us that we

have 62 programs that provide transportation services. Some are

small, some are much larger. If we had to concentrate and focus
35

on a few of the programs, I would like to know where you recommend we begin?

Ms. HUTCHINSON. I would think with the largest funding programs like Medicaid and I do think Medicare needs to be looked

at as well, dealing with the ambulance transportation. This is

something that is being discussed more and more, the misuse of

ambulance transportation when it could be performed by our community transportation and transportation providers. Medicaid and

Medicare transportation would be probably the top one within

human services and the Federal Transit Administration funding

which puts in substantial dollars as well.

I personally think you have to look at all of it because you need

more than just a piece for it to work effectively. That is why we

have everyone at the table from all the different agencies at the

State and local level. They learn from each other even though they

may have a small pot of money. They may have some resources the

big agency might be able to take advantage of.

I would urge you not to piecemeal it if you can, to try to do it

for all.

Mr. BURKHARDT. I would also like to mention TANF as a specific

program that would be very good to coordinate and all the programs of the Federal Transit Administration.

Mr. WINZEL. I was going to mention in my testimony I mentioned the $145 million that the Bush Administration put forward for the

new Freedom Initiative. The whole idea of that is to come up with

new pilot projects and new ways of looking at how we can transport disabled. Through that you would save money and also maybe

combine some of the programs you talked about.

Mr. BOOZMAN. You mentioned Medicare transportation. I am an

optometrist, an eye doctor, so I have a lot of friends in various professions in health care. It did happen occasionally that Medicare

people were transported by ambulance when that just didn’t need

to be the case at all and were billed subsequently. Are you saying

that happened somewhat or hearing reports of those kinds of

things?

Ms. HUTCHINSON. We hear reports of it and we read the GAO report on that particular issue and felt it was going on probably in

most every State. I think with some better coordination, especially

having people like in our area where we have local coordinating

boards. We just added to the board a member of the medical community. By having those people at the table, we will probably learn

more about that. That way we can get into it.

A lot of our counties who used to contract with the ambulances

are now using the community transportation coordinator to do

some of that ambulance transportation. So it could work both ways

but it needs to be brought to the table.

Mr. BURKHARDT. One of the issues we are dealing with is something like 40 percent of rural America has either very poor or no

transportation services at all. An ambulance may be the only opportunity to travel. Particularly for conditions requiring dialysis, if

someone misses three or four appointments, then it really becomes

a medical emergency. So the doctors have been certifying ambulance transportation for dialysis and sometimes the ambulance providers don’t get paid for these trips because they are not really sup-
36

posed to be reimbursed unless the trip is for a medical emergency.

This is a key issue that needs to be looked at.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Winzel, I think your presence here today indicates the answer to this question but I thought I would ask anyway. The National Council on Disability obviously has the authority and responsibility to make recommendations to the Congress

and the White House on issues affecting the disabled community.

Does the Council consider the transportation challenges of the disabled Americans an issue worthy of recommendations for improvement?

Mr. WINZEL. Definitely. As a matter of fact, we had our new

council just get together about two months ago and we set our initiatives we are going to concentrate on in the future and transportation was right among the top five. Naturally the chief programming of the National Council on Disability is we are kind of the

overseers of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We monitor and

see what is going on both in the Supreme Court and also in the

Government and throughout the entire United States. Transportation is really a big portion of that.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you all very much. We appreciate your testimony and look forward to continuing to work with you on making

our transportation more accessible and useful to our country.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committees were adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184

Æ