The Los Angeles County Consolidated Transportation Services Agency

FINAL

Action Plan: A Locally Developed, Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan For Los Angeles County

Prepared for:

Access Services, Inc. 707 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA. 90017 (213) 270-6000

On Behalf of:

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO)

OCTOBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The Los Angeles County Consolidated Transportation Services Agency

ACTION PLAN: A LOCALLY DEVELOPED, COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

CHAPTER 1 – THE COORDINATION ACTION PLAN 1 1.1 Federal Transit Administration Program Guidance 1 1.2 Los Angeles County Action Plan 2

CHAPTER 2 – APPROACH TO A PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY 4 2.1 The Setting 4 2.2 Work Plan, Approach and Project Timing 4

CHAPTER 3 – RESOURCE AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT: QUANTITATIVE 8 ANALYSES 3.1 Demand Estimation Findings 8 3.2 2006 Stakeholder Inventory Approach 10 3.3 2006 Stakeholder Inventory Responses and Findings 12

CHAPTER 4 – NEEDS ASSESSMENT: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT 34 4.1 Introduction 34 4.2 Stakeholder Involvement Objectives and Methodology 34 4.3 Stakeholder Involvement Process 37 4.4 Key Findings of the Stakeholder Interview Process 39 4.5 Other Stakeholder Involvement Activities 41

CHAPTER 5 – FINDINGS OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT 44 5.1 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Program Guidance 44 5.2 Available Services 45

FINAL ii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Table of Contents, continued

CHAPTER 5 -- FINDINGS OF THE NEEDS ASSESSSEMENT, continued 5.3 Assessment of Needs of Target Population 47 5.4 Gaps in Services Provided 52

CHAPTER 6 – EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT 56 6.1 Organizational Structure of Public Transportation 56 6.2 CTSA Role in Los Angeles County 59

CHAPTER 7 – TRANSPORTATION FUNDING 64 7.1 Federal Funding Context for Coordination Planning 64 7.2 State Level Coordination Initiatives 67 7.3 Local Funding Picture 68 7.4 Meeting Funding Requirements 73

CHAPTER 8 – RECOMMENDATIONS 74 8.1 Translating Needs Into Projects 74 8.2 Priorities for Project Selection 79 8.3 Framework for Coordination 80 8.4 Plan Visions and Goals 84 8.5 Plan Recommendations 84 8.6 Sequencing and Prioritization of Recommendations 95

APPENDICES Appendix A Demand Estimation for Specialized Transportation for Los Angeles County A1 Target Populations for JARC, New Freedoms, and Section 5310 Programs A2 Population Projections for Los Angeles County A3 Target Population Trip Rates A4 Public Transit and Specialized Transit Trips Provided Appendix B Cover Letter and Stakeholder Survey Appendix C1 Survey Respondents List by Agency Type C2 Survey Results by Agency Type

FINAL iii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Table of Contents, continued

C3 Provider by General Public and Human Service, No Commercial Agencies C4 Results by General Public and Human Service, No Commercial Agencies C5 Survey Results General Public and Human Service – Providers Only C6 Survey Results by Sector C7 Commercial Agencies C8 Active Client Roster C9 Primary Client Population C10 Transportation Provider Details C11 Difficulties with Transportation Coordination C12 Transportation Services Rider Details C13 Vehicle Availability and Usage C14 Transportation Service Area C15 Service Hours Table C16 Passenger Fares C17 Cooperative Agreements C18 Transportation Needs That Need To Be Addressed C19 Transportation Budget Details Appendix D1 Outreach Meeting/Interview Summaries D2 Summary of Public Outreach Matrix Appendix E CTSA 2007 Training and Technical Assistance Schedule Appendix F CalAct Conference – Coordination Town Meeting Proceedings Appendix G Volunteer Driver Turn Key Kit (Beverly Foundation) Appendix H Coordination Project Possibilities – SAFETEA-LU §5310, §5316, and §5317

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Los Angeles County and Vicinity 5 Figure 3-1 2006 Inventory , Responding Agencies by Legal Type 14 Figure 3-2 2006 Inventory, Responding Agencies by Metro Sectors 15 Figure 3-3 2006 Inventory , Percent of Total Caseload Reported by Consumer 18 Group Served Figure 3-4 2006 Inventory, Transportation Services Provided 19 Figure 3-5 2006 Inventory, Transportation Services Agency Authorization 21 Table of Contents, continued

FINAL iv SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 3-6 2006 Inventory, All Reporting - Client Trip Needs Poorly Served 24 Figure 3-7 2006 Inventory, By Agency Type Client Trip Needs Poorly Served 25 Figure 3-8 2006 Inventory, All Reporting – Coordination Areas of Interest 27 Figure 3-9 2006 Inventory, Agencies by Type – Coordination Areas of Interest 28 Figure 4-1 Summary of Public Involvement Efforts 36 Figure 4-2 Stakeholder Interview Guide 43 Figure 6-1 RIDEINFO – Access Services Web Information About Transportation 62 Figure 8-1 Regional Mobility Manager Roles and Functions 82 Figure 8-2 Coordinated Transportation Environment 83

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Coordination Action Plan – Strategic Planning Committee Invites 7 Table 3-1 Target Populations for JARC, New Freedoms, and Section 5310 9 Programs Table 3-2 2006 Inventory, Data Sources and Counts 11 Table 3-3 2006 Inventory, Reported Caseload and Daily Ridership 14 Table 3-4 2006 Inventory, Client Groups Served by Agency Legal Type 17 Table 3-5 2006 Inventory, Transportation Services Offered by Agency Legal 20 Type Table 3-6 2006 Inventory, Categories of Clients Receiving Transportation by 21 Agency Type. Table 3-7 2006 Inventory, Number of Vehicles Reported for Transportation 22 Services Table 3-8 2006 Inventory, Vehicle Trips and Annual Miles Reported 23 Table 3-9 Service Days of Operation 23 Table 3-10 2006 Inventory, Transportation Budgets Reported for Paratransit 31 and Specialized Transit Table 3-11 2006 Inventory, Reported Funding Sources 32 Table 7-1 Summary of Goals of SAFETEA-LU 66 Table 7-2 Olmstead Advisory Committee 67 Table 8-1 Consumer Transportation Needs, Resources and Possible Responses 75 Table 8-2 Project Goals Objectives and Strategies 89 Table 8-3 Sample Funding-Specific Guidance to Prospective Applicants 99

ACTION PLAN: A Locally Developed, Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan

FINAL v SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

for Los Angeles County Executive Summary

This Action Plan establishes the construct for a unified comprehensive strategy for transportation service delivery in Los Angeles County that is focused on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities and individuals of low income.

THE COORDINATED ACTION PLAN: FEDERAL GUIDANCE REQUIRING THIS PLAN

This plan is prepared in response to the coordinated planning requirements of SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users, P.L. 190-059), set forth in three sections of the Act: Section 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute, Section 5317-New Freedom Program and Section 5310-Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the designated recipient for Sections 5316 and 5317 funds and will be responsible for programming such funds in accordance to federal guidelines.

The coordinated plan establishes a construct for a unified comprehensive strategy for transportation service delivery in Los Angeles County focused on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities and individuals of low income. The coordinated plan must contain the following four (4) required elements: An assessment of available services identifying current providers (public and private); An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes –- this assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on data collection efforts and gaps in service; Strategies and/or activities and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services and needs, as well as opportunities to improve efficiencies in service delivery; Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified.

Access Services Inc. initiated development of this coordinated transportation plan as Los Angeles County’s designated consolidated transportation services agency (CTSA). The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the designated recipient for the funds discussed in this plan and will be responsible for its implementation. It was logical that Access Services be responsible for the plan preparation given its ongoing responsibility for related plans of the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act of 1979, consistent with California Code Sections 15975 and 15951-15952 which require that transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions to prepare and adopt a coordination action plan.

APPROACH TO THE PLAN

In anticipating the plan’s development three goals were articulated. The plan must: 1) Serve as a comprehensive, unified plan that promotes community mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. 2) Establish priorities to incrementally improve mobility for the target populations; and 3) Develop a process to identify partners interested, willing and

FINAL vi SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY able to promote community mobility for the target populations. From the plan development process, another goal emerged: 4) Important to promote and encourage planning partners who may be interested, willing and able to develop projects that will address needs the plan identifies.

The planning process involved quantitative analyses, including a demand estimation to gauge need and an inventory survey of countywide stakeholders to identify resources, needs and potential partners. Qualitative activities included public meetings and interviews with major agencies and organizations funding human services, with a representative group of direct service providers, and with representatives of the target group constituencies.

A critical element of the plan development approach was the Strategic Planning Committee. This group was formed from an invitee list of almost fifty organizations, including transit operators, elected officials, Federal Transit Administration officials, neighboring county representatives, and human services organizations serving Los Angeles County constituencies.

DEMAND ESTIMATION FINDINGS

A census-based estimate of demand was undertaken to identify the Los Angeles County target population and their potential trip demand. A range of 1.06 million to 1.77 million persons was estimated for the target population. These individuals are adults between the ages 16 to 64 who are low income or disabled and seniors age 65 and older. They represent between 11 percent and 19 percent of Los Angeles County’s 2000 population of 9.5 million residents.

This proportion of the population was projected using general population estimates developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) with other assumptions about changes in the senior population and the base adult population. These projections suggest that increasing proportions of Los Angeles County residents will be within the target populations, as follows: by 2010, up to 2.1 million persons or 20 percent of the population; by 2020, up to 2.4 million or 21 percent of the population; and by 2030, up to 2.7 million persons or 22 percent of the population.

Trip demand was estimated for the target population. Average trips per day were estimated, as well as, the proportion of public transit trips. Potentially a range of 58 to 97 million trips were projected to be needed by adults who are low income or disabled and seniors. In addition, those trips requiring special assistance were estimated at 10 percent of the total trips, reflecting of range of 5.8 to 9.7 million trips which are not now provided or not adequately provided.

This contrasts favorably with the 6.5 million documented trips provided by the public paratransit providers in Los Angeles County, suggesting that the levels of unmet need are not impossible to meet and are within the range of what is now provided. This plan examines the characteristics and nature of those specialized transit trips that are needed and not currently available.

STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY FINDINGS

A total of 208 inventory surveys were returned from an extensive, countywide stakeholder listing, reflecting a 5.4 percent response rate. Although below a typical response rate of 7 to 15 percent for such surveys, respondents were nonetheless representative of the type and breadth of agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County involved with transportation to the target populations.

Inventory respondents were reasonably distributed among the five Metro sectors with the greatest number (31 percent) from the Westside/Central areas and the fewest from the South Bay (13 percent) and Gateway Cities (13 percent) respectively. Respondents’ legal characteristics included:

FINAL vii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

48 percent private, non-profit agencies; 33 percent public agencies, 15 percent private for-profit agencies and four percent faith-based organizations. Key findings from the stakeholder survey included:

Medical trips ranked as the number one trip need by the human services organizations and long-trips, beyond the local community, ranked as the number one trip need by the public transit agencies. These are often the same type of trip, as medical trips generally require medium to longer distance travel, with medical destinations frequently outside jurisdictional boundaries and not served by locally oriented transportation providers.

The most frequently noted barrier to coordination was the “mixing” of clients and consumers on transportation services. This issue is reported by agencies and organizations in other settings and presents challenges, especially in operating environments where vehicle resources are limited and where the profile of the client/customer base is varied, such as dialysis patients, adult day health care consumers and low income children attending daycare. Another common barrier was uncertainty about with whom to coordinate where agencies indicated potential willingness to coordinate but no clarity as to with whom to do so.

Significant numbers of agencies indicated interest in coordination, while slightly over one-third of respondents indicated they were “not interested in coordination.” Among the coordination topics with the largest supporting groups were: Coordinated trip scheduling and dispatch – 22 percent Contracting with other agencies to provide trips – 15 percent Coordinated vehicle/ capital purchases – 15 percent Pooling or sharing of vehicles – 13 percent Joint purchase of equipment, supplies, insurance – 13 percent Shared fueling, maintenance, storage facilities – 12 percent

Public transit operators, for the most part, have predictable and stable funding sources which include Federal, State and local sources. Human services organizations report high levels of dependency upon donations and fees, with limited on-going funding. Surveyed human services agencies reported that more than half of their transportation funding (53 percent) goes to bus pass and token purchases.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS RESULTS

The stakeholder involvement effort included meetings and interviews with stakeholders, termed “appropriate planning partners” by the FTA. This included management and staff representatives of human services agencies and organizations, clients and consumers, public transit staff, and other governmental personnel. Key findings were characterized in terms of: 1) transportation needs; 2) barriers to coordination; and 3) suggestions for potential coordination projects. This process enabled considerable participation by stakeholders in the coordination “dialogue” and incorporation of significant stakeholder input into the plan.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT, RESOURCES AND GAPS

The unique and individualized needs reported and expressed through the inventory and stakeholder involvement processes were significant. These were discussed in two dimensions. First, in relation to consumer-oriented characteristics of need, including those of frail and able-bodied seniors,

FINAL viii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY persons with a variety of disability-types, and low income individuals, including families and homeless persons. Secondly, organizationally-oriented characteristics of need include the trip types needed, the importance of on-time performance, transit pass and bus token issues, expanded hours and days of service, information needs, and bus facility requirements of safe transfer locations and bus shelter amenities, including bathrooms. Gaps in service were characterized as follows: Institutional Communication Gaps exist, contributing to the difficulties of working between two very distinct service systems. For public transit, operating transportation services are its core business, around which significant infrastructure has been built. For human services agencies, transportation is a support service and often viewed as a distraction from agencies’ primary purposes. Service Capacity is an issue where certain trip needs of the target populations are not being met, despite a significant Los Angeles County network of public transportation. Meeting Individualized Needs remains a critical characteristic of the unmet specialized transportation need of this region. Providing service to those difficult-to-serve groups or difficult-to-meet trips are the challenges of this planning effort. Improving Performance of Demand Response Services is critical to consumers and their agency and organization representatives, issues related to service quality. These include addressing on-time performance, late pick-ups, late arrivals, too-long travel times and no- show vehicles. Reliability of paratransit services is an important issue where problems can translate into critical situations for frail, vulnerable and dependent populations. Improving Communication between Drivers, Dispatchers and Passengers is critical to improving the capability of services to address consumers’ mobility needs. This includes expanding transit’s ability to meet the diverse language needs of Los Angeles’ populations, evident particularly among frail elderly persons who are mono-lingual, non-English speaking. Non-emergency Medical Trips and Inter-Community Medical Trips surfaced as the consistently difficult-to-meet trip type needed across all groups. This is exacerbated in California by state-level policy related to MediCal reimbursement and in Los Angeles particularly where medically-oriented trips are typically long trips to distant regional facilities.

MEETING COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS AND TRANSLATING NEEDS INTO PROJECTS

Coordination “friendly” policies must be developed by regional public transit agencies and organizations to ensure that projects seeking funding can be incorporated into the regional Program of Projects (POP). Implementation of the recommendations outlined in this report will assist SCAG, Metro and Access Services in establishing a “culture of coordination” throughout the county.

The myriad of individualized needs emerging through discussions with agency representatives and with consumers begin to suggest project responses. Projects are discussed in relation to the type of consumer whose needs present, as with senior transportation, or the types of trips needed, as with non-emergency medical transportation, or the types of improvements to transportation necessary to serve members of the target populations. Exhibit E-1 following suggests the potential projects heard from stakeholders and illustrates the connection between consumer needs and potential project responses.

Exhibit E-1, Consumer Transportation Needs, Resources and Possible Projects Target Special Transportation Needs and Type of Potential Transit or Transportation Projects Population Concerns Transportation Modes

FINAL ix SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

- Fixed- route - Lack of knowledge about transit - Educational initiatives, including experience resources. - Point deviation with bus riding BEFORE it is needed. Seniors, Able- - Concern about safety and security and deviated FR - Buddy programs and assistance in “trying” Bodied - Awareness of time when driving - Senior DAR transit might be limited. - Special purpose - Transit fairs, transit seniors-ride-free days shuttles: recreation, nutrition, shopping

- Assistance to and through the - ADA Paratransit - Escorted transportation options door. - Emergency and - Door-through-door assistance; outside-the- Seniors, Frail - On-time performance and non-emergency vehicle assistance. and Persons reliability critical to frail users. medical - Increased role for volunteers. Chronically Ill - Assistance in trip planning transportation - Technology that provides feedback both to needed. - Escort/ consumer and to dispatch; procedures to - Need for shelters Companion identify frailest users when traveling. - Need for “hand-off” for terribly frail Volunteer driven - Individualized trip planning and trip services scheduling assistance. - Special purpose - Mileage reimbursement programs. shuttles - Appropriately placed bus shelters. - ADA Paratransit - Service quality and reliability - Emergency and - Continuing attention to service performance; Persons with - Driver sensitivity and appropriate non-emergency importance of time sensitive service Disabilities passenger handling procedure medical applications - Concerns about wheelchair pass- transportation - Driver education and attention to procedures bys - Special purpose about stranded or pass-by passengers with - Need for shelters shuttles disabilities. - Sometimes door to and through - Escort/ - Aggressive program of bus shelters door or issues of “hand-off” Companion - Information as universal design solution Volunteer driven - Easy access to trip planning information - Fixed-route - Train the trainers, staff who can train - Fare subsides (bus tokens or transit consumers to access public transit. passes) that can be provided in a - Point deviation - Creative fare options available to human Persons of medium that is not cash and deviated FR services agencies. Low Income - Availability of tokens or passes - Special purpose - Increased quantity of bus tokens available. and Homeless - Breaking down the culture of shuttles (work, - Bus passes available to those searching for Persons poverty that uses transportation as training, Sp Ed.) jobs or in job training programs; cost- the difficulty for not moving about effective. the community. - Special shuttles oriented to this population’s - Difficulties of mothers with multiple predictable travel patterns. children - Education extensive about transit; continued - Need to bring along shopping carts work to improve transit service levels (coverage, frequency, span of hours) Persons with - Difficulty in accessing visual or Same as for frail - Information in accessible formats Sensory auditory information. seniors - Guides (personal assistance) through Impairments - Possible door-to-door for visually information impaired - Driver training critical to respond to needs. - Medications make individuals sun- - ADA Paratransit - Possibly special shuttles oriented to these sensitive and waiting in the sun is - Emergency and known predictable travel needs. Persons with not an option. non-emergency Behavioral - Medications make for thirstiness; medical - Aggressive program of bus shelters Disabilities long hour waits in the heat can transportation lead to dehydration. - Special purpose - “Hand-off” can be critical to pass rider to a - Mental illnesses can make it shuttles responsible party. frightening to be in the public - Escort/ - Important that driver understand riders’ spaces such as public bus stops. Companion conditions. - Impaired judgment and memory Volunteer driven makes for poor decision-making. PRIORITIES FOR PROJECT SELECTION

FINAL x SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Meeting the specialized transportation needs of the three diverse and often overlapping segments of the population, seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals is challenging. Actions and strategies developed will be incrementally effective in improving services, by providing a wider array of travel options to the target populations based upon their individual needs, and informing them about those options. This can be accomplished by gradually building the capacity of public transit and human service agencies/organizations to develop and implement coordinated projects, plans and programs. Both public transit and human service agencies/organizations must be active partners in this capacity building process.

The actions necessary to increase the capacity of public transit to offer improved access and availability of transportation options for the target populations will differ from those actions and strategies needed to build capacity for human services transportation. Moreover, the need to build the capacity and reliability of human service transportation providers to complement public transportation services is critical, since the overall mission of these agencies/organizations is to serve individualized need, including operating services that public transportation cannot (e.g., non- emergency medical, door-through-door and escorted trips). For these reasons, project opportunities designed to strengthen the ability of human service agencies to continue to provide the hard-to- serve trip needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals should be encouraged.

Priorities relative to the development and funding of coordinated transportation projects identified through the locally developed comprehensive unified plan should: 1. Adequately address the unmet/underserved and individualizes transportation needs of the targeted populations; 2. Maintain consistency with current Federal and State funding regulations and requirements; 3. Be financially sustainable; 4. Include measurable goals and objectives, largely developed by the applicants; 5. Build and/or increase overall system capacity and service quality; and 6. Leverage and maximize existing transportation funding and capital resources, including human services funding.

FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATION

Current FTA guidance suggests that specific project recommendations relative to a Program of Projects (POP) do not need to be included in coordinated plans at this juncture. Rather plans should provide the framework for decision-making around the subsequent POP process, establishing a roadmap. In addition, we believe that viable coordination projects can only be developed by those with significant understanding of the details of the transportation environment. Therefore, recommendations are focused upon building the coordinated framework and strengthening ties between public transit and human service agencies and organizations. The stakeholder involvement process, through interviews and surveying, points to an array of actions, strategies and project recommendations that represent the next logical steps toward coordination.

One direct service recommendation is presented, the construct of a Regional Mobility Manager capability, as well as a framework for a series of developmental recommendations that will grow and mature with time. Functions and responsibilities of the Regional Mobility Manager are described, depicted graphically in Exhibit E-2.

FINAL xi SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure E-2, Regional Mobility Manger for Los Angeles County

The Mobility Manager concept as described in FTA implementing circulars [C9070.1F, C9050.1, C9045.1] is not new to California as FTA’s guidance includes many of the elements of the original AB 120 and SB 826 Social Service Transportation Improvement Act. The current guidance relative to the mobility manager roles and responsibilities now encourage coordination between public transit and human services transportation agencies. The Mobility Manager construct for Los Angeles County will to a large degree assume the persona of the responsible lead agency. Organizationally mobility management can be accomplished in any number of ways which include, but are not limited to: 1) Integration of a new functional unit or section within an existing agency/organization; or 2) Creation of a new and separate organization established for mobility management purposes.

FINAL xii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

PLAN VISION, GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A vision is proposed for Los Angeles County’s locally developed coordination action plan:

IMPROVED COMMUNITY MOBILITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY SENIORS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS OF LOW INCOME

To this end, the project team has developed four (4) goals, supported by sixteen (16) implementing objectives to accomplish coordination in the county. In addition, a total of forty-two (42) implementing actions, strategies or projects are recommended. The goals, objectives, implementing actions or strategies and recommended projects are presented below and outlined in Chapter 8 of the full plan document, specifically in Table 8-2. The goals are responsive to the Federal guidance for the locally developed plan and establish the roadmap by which mobility needs of the Los Angeles County target populations can be addressed. The implementing strategies are the methods by which gaps in services and opportunities for improved efficiencies may be effectuated, through various coordinated initiatives. The four goals and the potential projects suggested follow.

GOAL 1 - COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Given the level and diversity of needs in the county, a regional approach to facilitating coordination is needed, as no one agency or organization has the resources to effectuate the necessary cultural, institutional and operational changes needed to accomplish coordination goals. Coordination in Los Angeles County cannot be accomplished without dedicated staff and financial resources. Projects funded under this goal should establish and/or further the development of the mobility manager concept, to be implemented at a regional level, sub-regionally and at agency levels. This includes:

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Establish a Regional Mobility Manager capability to provide leadership on coordination of specialized transportation within Los Angeles County. 2. Promote sub-regional Mobility Manager capabilities through the Call for Projects and through outreach by the Regional Mobility Manager. 3. Conceptualize tools to support voluntary, agency-level mobility manager capabilities and recruit human services and public transit agency participation. 4. Develop visibility around specialized transportation issues and needs, encouraging high level political and agency leadership. Eligible Projects may include: Identification of a lead agency for the regional mobility manager. Defined roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager Establish a high level advisory body, strategic oversight committee. Create regional mechanisms to promote coordination including the annual inventory updating and regularly scheduled workshops for expanded training. Mechanisms to identify stakeholder partners as “member” agencies and creating strategies to improve communication among these organizations around coordinated transportation issues. Projects to promote visibility of Regional Mobility Manager role and functions.

FINAL xiii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE, cont’d.

Eligible Projects, cont’d: Conduct of an annual Mobility Summit structured to involve highest level leadership. Develop sub-regional mobility manager capabilities through pilot efforts to test inter-systems coordination. Create mechanisms by which the Regional Mobility Manager and sub-regional mobility managers can work together to promote the Coordination Plan vision and goals. Develop joint training opportunities to bring together human services and public transit personnel, including driver, maintenance and information specialist training.

GOAL 2 – BUILDING CAPACITY

Acknowledging that more transportation capacity is needed to meet the needs of a growing population within Los Angeles County, this goal proposes more trip options for the target populations. This goal inherently requires a strengthening of the ability of human service agencies to provide trips that public transit cannot, thereby increasing not only capacity but access to services. The notions of reliability, quality of service and service monitoring are reflected under this goal, important for both public transit and human service agency transportation providers. Projects and activities under this category could involve the following:

FUNDING CATEGORY: BUILDING CAPACITY

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Promote policies to increase the quantity of public transit and specialized transportation provided. 2. Improve the quality of public and specialized transportation, with attention to meeting individualized needs. 3. Improve transportation solutions between cities and between counties. 4. Make capital improvements to support safe, comfortable, efficient rides for the target populations. 5. Establish mechanisms to support transportation services provided by human services agencies. 6. Establishing procedures to measure the quantities of trips provided, existing and new.

Eligible Projects may include: Expand availability of specialized transportation into evenings, on Saturdays and on Sundays. Promote vehicle maintenance, vehicle loaner and vehicle back-up programs for human services agencies. Establish basic reporting tools, including driver logs, dispatch logs and standardized definitions of terms that can be easily adopted by human services agencies and utilized in reporting on transportation services provided. Research liability insurance options for human service organizations, including general liability for vehicle operations and for volunteer-based programs; distribute widely information about these findings and resources.

FINAL xiv SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GOAL 3 – INFORMATION PORTALS

The need to broaden the reach of information related to transit and specialized transportation services for clients/consumers, as well as stakeholder agencies and organizations is critical. Los Angeles County has a wealth of transportation service resources. Points of access to transportation information must be expanded to make it easier for everyone to understand and use the transportation network. Activities proposed under this goal include:

FUNDING CATEGORY: INFORMATION PORTALS

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Integration and promotion of existing information strategies, including 211, web-based tools and Access Services RideInfo to help get public transit and specialized transportation information to consumers. 2. Development of information portal tools for wide distribution of existing information. 3. Promoting opportunities to disseminate transportation information for human services agency line staff and workers. Eligible Projects may include: Establish a working group, with proper authority, to integrate the multiplicity of information resources available related to public and specialized transportation. Develop regional, systems-level and agency-level pilot projects to test information applications that effectively promote existing transit to the target groups. Create simple flyers and/or other media that direct agency staff of human services organizations to the wide array of resources that can help them access transportation on behalf of their consumers. Work with METRO subcommittees and ASI subcommittees to identify additional methods of information dissemination. Maintain and update developed portal access tools. Ensure that Regional Mobility Manager tools, such as RideInfo, are maintained, kept current and information about them widely distributed. Develop transit information modules geared towards agency staff and provide these at various locations around Los Angeles County to help maintain current information among human services personnel. Create information tools that address connections with neighboring counties. Develop bi-lingual and multi-lingual information strategies, including at transit customer services centers.

GOAL 4 – COORDINATION POLICIES

There is a need to effectuate changes to governmental policies and practice that may discourage coordination – at local, regional, state and federal levels for the purpose of realizing coordination goals between the two systems. For example, there is a continuing effort to challenge and potentially change Medi-Cal reimbursement policies at the state level. Other policies will need to be identified and addressed over time, in part through measurement of the success, failure and impacts of implemented projects.

FINAL xv SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Activities developed under this goal may include:

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION POLICIES

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Work to establish non-emergency medical transportation policies to more cost-effectively meet medically-related trip needs. 2. Establish a Call for Projects process sufficiently flexible for applicants to construct projects responsive to identified needs in a broad range of ways. 3. Establish processes by which implemented projects are evaluated against goals set by applicant agencies. 4. Report on project successes and impacts at direct service levels, sub-regional levels and countywide levels and promote project success at state and federal levels. 5. Review policies related to transportation of target population members between counties where the policies are a deterrent to transporting individuals to medical facilities within a reasonable distance of county boarders.

Eligible Projects may include: Participate in activities that promote policy changes to California’s NEMT reimbursement procedures to support need-based and not simply functionally-based tests, including inviting public transit providers into the Medi-Cal provider role. Establish technical assistance roles, related to the Call for Projects, building upon the Section 5310 approach to prospective applicants. Measurable goals set forth by applicant organizations that identify the means by which they wish their projects’ success/ failure to be assessed. Collect and tabulate data on implemented coordination projects, assessing implementation against goals agencies themselves have established. Identify successes, as well as poor performance, and report on specialized transportation projects and solutions that are effective. Document successes on a range of measures that may include cost-effectiveness, responsiveness to consumer needs, consumer satisfaction levels, responsiveness to agency personnel requirements and measure of coordination that may be identified. Create mechanisms, including state and multi-county conferences, where lessons learned can be shared and experiences of other regions sought.

SEQUENCING AND PRIORITIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Public transit and human service agency/organization transportation in Los Angeles County are documented in this plan as extensive and substantially funded. This plan proposes the enhancement and improvement of the existing network of services through coordination -- specifically for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. A coordination vision is proposed of improved mobility for the target populations.

FINAL xvi SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

To accomplish this vision, several dozen implementing actions and strategies have been detailed in the body of the report with the expectation that there will be incremental implementation and refinement of actions and strategies over the next few years. The strategies outlined should be viewed as guidance for public transit and human service agencies, as actual projects developed by stakeholders will be based upon their specific needs, resources and ability and willingness to work to establish coordination relationships with others.

Activities for an initial phase are recommended as follows.

PHASE I – ESTABLISHING COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE (GOAL 1)

Los Angeles County Regional Mobility Manager

The establishment and implementation of the regional mobility manager (RMM) function and gradual development of sub-regional mobility managers in at least 5 subregions in the county are the fundamental recommendations of the action plan. It is recommended that a regional mobility manager, including the governance body or technical advisory body discussed in the detail in Chapter 8, be put into place within one to two years.

As discussed previously, RMM roles and responsibilities can either be designated to an existing agency/organization, or a newly created entity can be formed. The RMM should further the goals outlined in the plan, and continue efforts to establish relationships between public transit and human service agencies, including technical assistance and cooperation with subregional mobility managers to develop coordinated transportation plans, programs and projects.

Subregional Mobility Managers

It has been demonstrated that although regional responses to planning can be effective in establishing the infrastructure needed to effectuate coordinated actions, knowledge of the transportation needs at the subregional level is important to support the regional goals and more adequately address individual needs.

Conceivably, a subregional mobility manager could be a public transit agency or organization, a human service agency/organization or a representative partnership of both agency/organization types within the same subregion. A total of five subregional mobility managers are envisioned consistent with the Metro service sector boundaries. There will likely be a developmental process to gradually increase the scope of these subregional entities to build and maintain viable partnerships. These entities would work cooperatively with and support the RMM in the development of plans and projects within their subregion, as well as, participate as members of the RMM advisory body.

Priority Phase 1 Strategies and Concepts

There are a few “basic” strategies and project concepts that if developed early, will work to support and promote the framework of a coordinated transportation environment as it matures. These can be funded in the near-term (i.e. 1-2 years). The project team recommends that the RMM and/or other public transit and human services agencies/organizations explore the feasibility of implementing these strategies/project concepts at the regional and subregional levels. Strategies and project concepts to be immediately implemented can include:

¾ IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRAVEL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR AGENCIES/ORGANIZATION STAFF AND THEIR CLIENTS. A county-wide Travel Training program can become a focus of information exchange between agencies. A county-wide program will encourage greater utilization of transit for those in the targeted populations who can and would use public transportation.

FINAL xvii SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Agency staff desiring to arrange transportation or refer their clients to transit, as well as, new and prospective clients and customers needing to travel to their various destinations would be candidates for training, participating in group training for both fixed-route and paratransit.

¾ PUBLIC TRANSIT SHOULD DEVELOP A DATA COLLECTION PROCESS DESIGNED TO ASSIST HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS. Human service agencies operating transportation and their contractors must establish reliable trip counting procedures to ensure accuracy and consistency in accounting for senior, persons with disabilities and low-income persons’ trips provided in the county. At a minimum human service agencies should be collecting data in the following categories: • One-way passenger boardings • Passenger pick-up and drop-off points by zip code • Passenger pick-up and drop-off points by street address • Passenger trip purpose • Time of day

The design of data collection methodologies should reflect an understanding of the issues of collecting and reporting certain categories of client information relative to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act as these relate to client confidentiality.

Improved trip counting and reporting will provide information on the level of services operated in the county, and help to identify patterns of travel. This will also encourage participation of human service agencies as partners with public transit in the planning and development of coordinated services. Moreover, data collection efforts should also be used to gain the necessary financial support and resources from Federal and State agencies and as a means to more clearly identify client and consumer needs in the county.

¾ PROMOTE COORDINATED SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS THAT EMPLOY THE USE OF VOLUNTEER LABOR. Focused in structured, defined geographic settings, the use of volunteers has been demonstrated to be highly successful in helping to meet the individualized mobility needs this plan identifies.

¾ CONDUCT AN ANNUAL INVENTORY PROCESS TO CONTINUE TO BUILD AND NURTURE THE COORDINATION ENVIRONMENT. This activity will serve to ensure that the data and information on transportation services, resources and needs is updated, which will provide a relatively sound basis for ongoing, coordinated planning activities.

¾ DEVELOP ADDITIONAL PROCESSES TO FACILITATE BUS PASS PURCHASE PROGRAMS ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS. Many human services dollars go to purchase of bus passes and tokens but numerous problems exist around procuring these for agencies and their consumers.

Plan Approval and Adoption Process The processes for approval and adoption of this plan include the final plan presentation to Access Services Board of Directors. Following adoption by Access Services, it is anticipated that Metro, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, will adopt an action plan consistent with federal and state requirements

FINAL xviii SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

ACTION PLAN: A LOCALLY DEVELOPED, COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This plan is prepared in response to the coordinated planning requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users, P.L. 190-059) in three sections of the Act: Section 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute, Section 5317-New Freedom Program and Section 5310-Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program.

The coordinated plan establishes the construct for a unified comprehensive strategy for transportation service delivery in Los Angeles County that is focused on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities and individuals of low income. Its principal outcome will be to identify potential strategies and projects which are responsive to serving the identified needs and which can be eligible for funding under the various FTA programs.

CHAPTER 1: THE COORDINATION ACTION PLAN

1.1 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines require that the coordinated plan must contain the following four (4) required elements consistent with the available resources of each individual agency/organization:

An assessment of available services that identifies current providers (public, private and non-profit); An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes –this assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on data collection efforts and gaps in service; Strategies and/or activities and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services and needs as well as opportunities to improve efficiencies in service delivery; Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified.

As the first plan of this type for Los Angeles County, though building upon related efforts in the past, this document provides initial guidance for selecting and implementing coordination projects and represents a starting point for future planning efforts.

1.2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FINAL 1 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Access Services Inc. initiated development of this coordinated transportation plan given its designation as the consolidated transportation services agency (CTSA) for Los Angeles County. CTSAs were created in 1979, with the passage by the State legislature of the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act for purposes of promoting the benefits of coordinated transportation among specialized transportation providers.

Access Services was designated as the CTSA for Los Angeles County by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency in 1994, in compliance with California Code Sections 15975 and 15951-15952, authorized by the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act. The Act required conduct of an inventory and preparation of an Action Plan at least every four years to guide coordination activities. As amended in 2002, AB 2654 eliminated the requirement to submit Action Plans to the State Legislature, adding the new requirement that county transportation commissions and regional planning agencies prepare and adopt Action Plans. These Action Plans are to “designate …single agency or multiple agencies as consolidated transportation services agencies.” [Section 15975 (a)] The Action Plan is to specify the most feasible approaches to the consolidation or coordination of services for purposes of improving service efficiency or effectiveness. Access Services as Los Angeles County’s designated CSTA , has continued to be responsible for undertaking an inventory and preparing an Action Plan around social services transportation coordination needs and opportunities.

The most recent Los Angeles County Action Plan and Inventory was undertaken in 2002 by Multi-Systems and Nelson Nygaard & Associates on behalf of Access Services. The 2002 Action Plan articulated five goals and six key strategies as “most promising for the county”: • Increase the availability of information to the public about all transit and paratransit options in the County. • Provide travel training to those paratransit passengers who would be able to use fixed route service independently and safely with this type of assistance. • Facilitate transfers between services (both fixed route and paratransit) by means of a universal fare system. • Expand the sub-regional paratransit systems to include contiguous communities and/or nearby human service agencies or non-profit organizations. • Add technical assistance programs.

Six strategies to realize these goals were set forth in the 2002 Action Plan: 1. Create a Structure for Regional Coordination Planning and Implementation 2. Enhance Public Information Efforts 3. Implement a Travel Training Program. 4. Implement a Universal Fare System (UFS). 5. Expand Sub-regional Paratransit Systems 6. Pilot Local Coordination Projects.

As described in Chapter 6 of this document, Access Services continues implementation efforts on aspects of the 2002 Action Plan, largely those related to public information, travel training and technical assistance to human service transportation providers. A formalized structure for regional coordination planning and implementation was not implemented, lacking the funding and authority by which to establish a Regional Coordination Council. Access Services works informally to support other coordination-friendly strategies through METRO advisory committees and its own technical and citizen advisory committees.

FINAL 2 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Access Services sought to anticipate the need for a regional coordinated plan responsive to Federal SAFETEA-LU guidance and chose to link this planning effort with the Action Plan process of the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act. Early in 2006, Access Services announced a competitive procurement for an updated inventory of Los Angeles County specialized transportation resources, anticipating the not-yet-known Federal coordination planning requirements of SAFETEA-LU. Access Services selected the transit planning team of, A-M-M-A with Judith Norman-Transportation Consultant to conduct its 2007 Inventory and prepare a new Action Plan in anticipation of new Federal coordination requirements.

FINAL 3 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 2: APPROACH TO A PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This chapter establishes the general direction for development of a locally developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan for Los Angeles County.

2.1 THE SETTING

Los Angeles County is part of a complex, metropolitan region that is home to over 10 million persons. The county’s 2200 square miles area sits in a basin that borders Orange County on the south, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties to the east and Ventura County on the northwest (Figure 2.1). Los Angeles County has ocean coastline, desert regions and 88 incorporated cities, plus pockets and areas of unincorporated County. There are also several far-flung areas, including City of Avalon (Santa Catalina Island) about 40 miles out into the Pacific Ocean, and the Antelope Valley area whose residents face long-distance commutes into downtown Los Angeles (Figure 2-1).

Los Angeles County, incorporated cities and unincorporated areas include many diverse neighborhoods, communities and sub-regions. It has some of the country’s largest immigrant populations, a broad-based economy and a wide-range of employment, education and training opportunities. It is also the site of many internationally known medical facilities, with individuals traveling here from other areas of the country and elsewhere to avail themselves of Los Angeles County’s health care services.

2.2 WORK PLAN, APPROACH AND PROJECT TIMING

Work activities were undertaken in three phases. Phase one was the development of the inventory, constructing the database and establishing a strong foundation from which to conduct the inventory survey. Phase two was the development of the Action Plan consistent with the historical processes of AB 120 Action Plans, developed every four years. The third and final phase was the public review process around the draft plan, to ensure that there was sufficient comment opportunity around the direction proposed. The project was planned as a twelve month effort.

Drawing upon Federal and State directives, but also in light of related coordination experience over the past two decades, three working plan goals were proposed: The coordination action plan must serve as a comprehensive, unified plan that promotes community mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. The coordination action plan shall establish priorities to incrementally improve mobility for the target populations. The coordination action plan shall develop a process to identify partners interested, willing and able to promote community mobility for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. It was also understood that the plan would address the requirements of the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) program which shares the goals outlined above.

FINAL 4 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

FINAL 5 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Phasing of Action Plan Activities

Phase I, the construction of the database as the backbone of the coordination effort, took longer than anticipated given a breadth and quantity of contact sources. The inventory methodology in Chapter 3 describes the 26 different sources that were integrated and cross-checked, as well as web-based searches and collection of updated agency address and contact information. These processes took through the summer and early fall originating from a listing of over 7,000 agencies, and the mailing of just over 4,100, and subsequent reduction of the list to about 3,700 unduplicated agencies. The inventory survey was distributed to stakeholders countywide in November 2006.

In December 2006, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro – MTA), as the designated recipient of Section 5316 and 5317 funds, began its processes for announcement of funding availability. Metro and Access Services staff met with the consultants and staff from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Los Angeles Metropolitan office to discuss the inter-relationship of the locally developed plan, under Access Services direction, and Metro’s funding allocation processes related to the distribution of funds.

Strategic Planning Committee

In an effort to ensure stakeholder participation in development of the plan and oversight of the plan and to enrich and strengthen both the planning effort and the end product, a Strategic Planning Committee was established.

Representatives from the major public transportation agencies, as well as, cities and human service agencies/organizations, the County Board of Supervisors, adjacent county representatives, and others in the county were invited to participate as members of the committee. The list of invitees is shown below in Table 2-1.

Although participation on the committee was encouraged, it was strictly voluntary. Ultimately, the composition of the committee of about 12 to 15 persons over the course of three project meetings included representatives from the following agencies and organizations, as well as Access Services staff:

¾ Department of Public Social Services ¾ East Los Angeles Regional Center ¾ Developmental Disabilities Area Board X ¾ Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority ¾ Los Angeles City Commission on Disability ¾ Pomona Valley Transportation Authority ¾ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) ¾ Southern California Association of Governments ¾ ITNSantaMonica

Table 2-1, Coordination Action Plan – Strategic Planning Committee Invitees

FINAL 6 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Stakeholder Agencies and Organizations City of Avalon Ms. Audra McDonald Administrative Analyst Avalon County Community and Senior Services Dept. Ms. Cynthia Banks Director Los Angeles Developmental Disabilities Area Board X Ms. Melody Goodman Systems Advocate Glendale DPSS GAIN Program Division Mr. George Paccerelli Program Manager City of Industry DPSS GAIN Program Division - PPS I Mr. Ruben Almendral HAS I City of Industry DPSS Bureau of Program and Policy Mr. Philip Ansell Assistant Director City of Industry Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Ms. Frances Jacob Community Services Dept. Mgr. Alhambra Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Ms. Gloria Wong Director Alhambra GAIN Program Ms. Leticia Colchado Human Services Administrator City of Industry Healthy Life Adult Day Healthcare Mr. Steve Gratwick Coordinator Los Angeles Immediate Needs Transportation Program Ms. Eva Woodward Project Manager Los Angeles Institute of Urban Research and Development Mr. Joe Colletti Executive Director Los Angeles ITSNSanta Monica Ms. Ellen Blackman Program Manager Culver City L.A. City Commission on Disabilities Mr. Luis Mata Chairperson Los Angeles LA Care Health Plan Ms. Lily Quiette Manager Los Angeles L.A. Coalition to End Homeless and Hunger Mr. Bob Erlenbusch Executive Director Los Angeles Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Ms. Natalie Profant-Kamoru Dir. of Policy/ Legislative Affairs Los Angeles National Mental Health Association Ms. Judy Cooperberg Director Lancaster North Los Angeles County Regional Center Ms. Cristina Vahid Transportation Coordinator Van Nuys R&D Transportation Services Ms. Veronica Martinez Transportation West Covina Salvation Army Mr. Philip Swyers Commissioner Long Beach Sheltered Partnership of Los Angeles Ms. Ruth Schwartz Executive Director Los Angeles TELACU - East Los Angeles Community Union Mr. David Lizarraga Chairman Los Angeles United Cerebral Palsy Ms. Terri Lantz Client Rights Advocate Woodland Hills Westside Regional Center Mr. Mike Danneker Director Culver City

Other Public Agencies CalACT Ms. Jacklyn Montgomery Executive Director Sacramento California Department of Transportation Mr. Horacio Paras 5310 Coordinator Sacramento California Department of Transportation Mr. Peter Steinert Caltrans BRT Task Team Chair Sacramento Infoline Ms. Maribel Marin Executive Director San Gabriel Los Angeles County Transportation Authority Mr. Larry Torres Metro Project Manager Los Angeles Los Angeles County Transportation Authority Ms. Elizabeth Carter ADA Paratransit Prgrm. Admin. Los Angeles Office of Federal Transit Grants Ms. Kimberly Gayle Chief Sacramento Southern California Association of Governments Mr. Andre Darmanin Asst. Regional Transit Planner Los Angeles

Adjacent County Transportation Agencies Antelope Valley Transportation Authority Mr. Randy Floyd Executive Director Lancaster North County Transit District (San Diego) Ms. Alane Haynes ADA Coordinator Oceanside North County Transit District (San Diego) Ms. Karen King Executive Director Oceanside Pomona Valley Transportation Authority Mr. George Sparks Secretary Administrator La Verne Riverside County Transportation Committee Ms. Tanya Love Transit Program Manager Riverside SANBAG-San Bernardino Ass. Governments Mr. Mike Bair Dir. Transit and Rail Programs San Bernardino Ventura County Transportation Commission Ms. Ginger Gherardi Director Ventura

Federal Transit Administration Program Manager Human Federal Transit Administration Ms. Bryna Helfer Services Washington DC Federal Transit Administration Mr. Paul Page Community Planner San Francisco Federal Transit Administration Mr. Leslie Rogers Regional Administrator San Francisco Federal Transit Administration Mr. Doug Birnie Acting Director Washington DC Federal Transit Administration Mr. Ray Tellis Project Manager Los Angeles

Elected Officials Hall of Administration - 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall Ms. Janet Neal Chairperson Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 821 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Zev Yaroslavsky Supervisor District 3 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 822 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Don Knabe Supervisor District 4 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 856 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Gloria Molina Supervisor District 1 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 869 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Michael Antonovich Supervisor District 5 Los Angeles Hall of Administration - 866 Kenneth Hahn Hall Hon. Yvonne B. Burke Supervisor District 2 Los Angeles

FINAL 7 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 3 – RESOURCE AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES

To understand specialized transportation needs and resources within Los Angeles County, two quantitative analyses are presented. A demand estimation is described to suggest the scale of need for specialized transportation. Access Services’ stakeholder inventory process, last undertaken in 2002, was conducted in the winter 2006/2007 and is reported here.

3.1 DEMAND ESTIMATION FINDINGS

A census-based estimate of demand was undertaken to identify the Los Angeles target populations and project their potentially needed trips. Details of this demand estimation process are included as Appendix A.

A range of 1.06 million to 1.77 million persons was estimated for the target population. These individuals are adults between ages 16 to 64 who are low income or disabled and seniors age 65 and older. They represent between 11 percent and up to 19 percent of Los Angeles County’s 2000 population of 9.5 million residents.

This proportion of the population was projected using general population estimates developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other assumptions about changes in the senior population and the base adult population were made. These projections suggest that increasing proportions of Los Angeles County residents will be within the target populations, as follows:

by 2010, up to 2.1 million persons or 20 percent of the population; by 2020, up to 2.4 million or 21 percent of the population; and by 2030, up to 2.7 million persons or 22 percent of the population.

Trip demand was estimated for the target population. Average trips per day were estimated, as well as the proportion of public transit trips. Potentially a range of 58 to 97 million trips were projected to be needed adults who are low income or disabled and seniors. In addition, those trips requiring special assistance were estimated at 10 percent of the total trips, reflecting a range of 5.8 to 9.7 million trips.

This contrasts favorably with the 6.5 million documented trips provided by the public paratransit providers in Los Angeles County, suggesting that the levels of unmet need are not impossible to meet and are within the range of what is now provided. This plan examines the characteristics and nature of those specialized transit trips that are not available to, not provided for or not made by the target populations.

Table 3-1 following presents the number and basic characteristics of Los Angeles County target populations of interest to this plan, based upon the 2000 Census. Various subgroups of the total population are presented for seniors and for adults ages 16 to 64. Children are not considered in this demand estimation as they usually travel with an accompanying adult, potentially with that adult’s income level or disability including them among the target populations.

FINAL 8 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Three ranges of target populations are included – low end, mid-range and high end – because of the possibility among these groups for overlapping characteristics. Table 3-1 identifies for the base 2000 census population the low end of the range as just over 1 million persons and the high end of the range as 1.76 million persons.

Table 3-1

TARGET POPULATIONS for JARC, New Freedoms, and Section 5310 Programs

People by % of % of Total L.A. 2000 Census Attribute, Summary File 3 Category Population County [2000] Subgroup Population Los Angeles County Total Population [1] 9,519,338 100%

ADULTS 16-64 [2] 6,195,555 65%

Adults "go-outside-home" disability, ages 16-64 (non- 628,422 7% insitutionalized) [4] Disabled adults as percentage of age 16-64 population 10% Low-income (ages 18-64) (Below poverty level as defined by the 940,899 10% Census Bureau) [3] Low-income adults as percentage of age 16-64 population 15%

SENIORS [2] 825,198 9% Seniors, ages 65-74 395,778 48% 4% Seniors, ages 75-84 323,839 39% 3% Seniors, ages 85+ 105,581 13% 1%

Low Income Seniors (Below poverty level as defined by the Census 93,555 1% Bureau) [3] 11%

Seniors "go-outside-home" disability (non-institutionalized) [4] 212,452 2% Disabled seniors as percentage of all seniors. 26%

TOTAL TARGET POPULATION RANGES Low End: Adults with disabilities (16-64) and only seniors 75+ 1,057,842 11% Mid Range: Adults with disabilites (16-64) and all seniors 65+ 1,453,620 15% Hi End: Low income adults (16-64) and all seniors 65+ 1,766,097 19% [1] Census 2000 Summary File 3, Total Population. [2] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Sex by Age. [3] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Poverty Status in 1999 by age.

[4] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Age by types of disability for the civilian non-institutionalized population 5 years & over with disabilities. The "go-outside-the-home" disability includes those who because of a physical, mental or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, have difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or to medical appointments.

FINAL 9 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

3.2 2006 STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY APPROACH

3.2.1 Previous 2002 AB 120 Inventory

A central development activity of this Action Plan was the update of Access Services’ AB 120 Los Angeles County Inventory. The inventories have traditionally been conducted approximately every four years, in compliance with California’s Social Services Transportation Improvement Act of 1979, (commonly known as the AB 120 inventory) after the authorizing assembly bill. The last Inventory conducted was in 2002, distributing surveys to a total of 2,428 agencies and organizations and generating a total response of 357, a total which included 23 agencies submitting more than one survey (for different programs within the agency).

The 2002 Inventory activity was targeted to agencies/organizations providing transportation, with 73% of the surveys received reflecting agencies/organizations providing and/or participating in transportation in some fashion – directly providing, contracting or arranging. A little more than a quarter (27%) of the agencies/organizations did not report a transportation function, although this group includes respondents for whom limited information was obtained (either they provided no information on the agency type or on the transportation services supported by the agency). In addition, there was a large group of stakeholder agencies/organizations not responding or providing very limited “Other” information (97 total). As a result, there were only 260 agencies/organizations for which detailed information was provided.

Of the responding agencies/organizations, 96 or 27% can be categorized as publicly operated services. Considering the fact that more than one response was received from some 23 agencies/organizations, it should be noted that only 63 total agencies/organizations fall into this category. Another one-third of the responses were from human service agencies/organizations, and 7% from faith-based organizations. Commercial providers and state agencies within offices in Los Angeles were also represented, albeit in small numbers.

3.2.2 Methodology and Approach to 2006 Inventory

Constructing a Mailing List

Considerable effort was expended to construct a master database that would reflect the fullest possible breadth of human services and public organizations in county. A variety of sources were compiled to create a comprehensive listing. Table 3-2 shows the data sets that were imported from Metro, Access Services and other sources1, creating an initial listing of 7,054 records.

1 The largest single new listing included the California Motor Vehicle Department listing for vehicle terminal inspections. This listing is required by California code for the operation of vehicles seating ten passengers or more. The current statewide listing of vehicle terminal inspections was obtained from the California Highway Patrol and Los Angeles County listings extracted from this master listing of 258,875 total records, statewide. Los Angeles County records numbered 66,061 of which 54,371 were marked as “active.” Selected from these were records matching two categories that the CHP data staff indicated were most likely of interest to this project: BusType 1>0 and BusType 2>1. This generated a subset of 1,378 records which were then subsequently reduced to the 929 records through the elimination of duplicative information.

FINAL 10 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Table 3-2, 2006 Inventory Data Sources and Counts

Data Source N ASI Member Agency Roster 40 Transit Providers Advisory Committee Roster 24 METRO Bus Operations Subcommittee Roster 19 METRO Local Transportation Systems Subcommittee Roster 29 Job Access and Reverse Commute Recipients 9 Job Access and Reverse Commute Mailing List 1470 5310 Applicants 2000 24 5310 Applicants 2001 24 5310 Applicants 2002 18 5310 Applicants 2003 15 5310 Applicants 2004 16 5310 Applicants 2005 128 5310 Applicants 2006 103 5310 Applicants 2007 20 RideInfo - Multisystems (2002 listing) 2468 RideInfo - NewDir table-Rideinfo.mdb 190 RideInfo - TranData table-Rideinfo.mdb 338 RideInfo - Category-Contacts.mdb 154 Senior Centers 117 Faith Based Agencies 29 Independent Living Centers 14 Adult Day Health Care Centers 28 Social Service Agencies 848 CHP-California Motor Vehicle terminal inspection list 929

Additionally, searches on the Internet generated further listings and current address information for senior centers, dialysis centers, adult day health care centers (ADHCs) and other major human service agencies/organizations.

Delete duplicate activities were performed to remove and consolidate records where several contacts existed. Approximately 2,000 records were deleted or combined in the initial “delete duplicates” activity, prior to the survey mailing. A second, more detailed “delete duplicate” activity further consolidated records, where an agency was listed several times but with different contact persons. Also, bad addresses returned as a result of the initial mailing were deleted as well. This reduced the master database to a total “n” of just under 4,000 agencies.

Survey Design

The survey tool, included as Appendix B, was designed to make it as convenient as possible for stakeholders to respond, by including questions that were short and easy to understand. The survey included a number of check-box and closed-ended responses. In addition, the survey was intended to be applicable to agencies and organizations that do NOT operate transportation, as well as those who do operate transportation.

The first eight questions of the survey were designed to be answered by all respondents and sought information about the responding agency/organization, as well as to solicit opinions about unmet transportation needs and interest in coordination. Stakeholder agencies and

FINAL 11 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY organizations operating transportation were asked to complete all survey questions, which included providing specific information on service-related issues and financial information. The survey was tested informally in various settings and significant attention was paid to the language and sequencing of questions. The final version of the survey included 25 questions, as follows: • 5 agency characteristic questions; • 4 questions on client/customer need and coordination issues; and • 15 questions to obtain resource information about the transportation services operated

Survey Distribution

Access Services distributed the survey in early November 2006. The survey was disseminated to 4,118 stakeholder agencies and organizations. A cover letter from the Executive Director of Access Services was included which explained the survey’s intent relative to the preparation of the locally-developed coordinated action plan for Los Angeles County. A return envelope was included, to facilitate return of the survey. Stakeholders were instructed to return the survey by fax or email.

One of the challenges of survey administration is to ensure that the survey instrument is ultimately completed by the appropriate person within the agency/organization. Therefore, in an effort to ensure that the survey reached the appropriate agency/organization representative, in cases where two names were identified and existed in the database, these were both listed on the address label. In other cases if only one agency/organization name was identified, or no names were included, the mailing label identified “Current Director” as the addressee. Care was taken around this to encourage passing the survey to the proper individual within the organization who was aware of transportation needs and concerns.

To improve the response rate, the surveys were also distributed using other face-to-face outreach techniques that included: • Distribution in person at scheduled presentations to committees of both Metro and Access Services (citizen’s advisory committees and transit advisory committees); and • Distribution during outreach interviews and at several other public meetings, including ones targeted to Regional Centers and 5310 applicants;

The Strategic Planning Committee was also asked to distribute and promote completion of the survey. In addition, Access Services and Metro staff made follow-up calls and contacted key agencies, to encourage their response.

3.3 2006 STAKEHOLDER INVENTORY RESPONSES AND FINDINGS

This subsection summarizes the responses and findings of the 2006 stakeholder inventory with database reports detailing various responses included as Appendix C-1 thru Appendix C-19,

3.3.1 Response Rate

There were 208 completed surveys returned from Los Angeles County stakeholders, representing approximately a 5.4% return rate on the mailing of 4,100 addresses.

FINAL 12 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

At first glance, the 5.4 percent return rate appears low in comparison with the previous 2001 Access Services inventory which reported 357 surveys returned out of 2,428 distributed (14.7 percent return rate). In these settings a survey response rate of 7-14 percent is typical.

The project team identified numerous factors which impacted the survey return rate. As a result of project team efforts to determine which agencies/organizations had not responded, we discovered that although the return previous survey rate appeared considerably higher, there were instances of a single agency/organization responding more than once. Specifically, those agencies/organizations operating transportation completed a separate survey for each of the services that they operated. Some double counting of surveys completed in the previous inventory artificially inflated the previous survey response rate. Moreover, since the current survey design was all encompassing and allowed agencies and organizations to provide information on all of their services using a single survey, this contributed to a lower number of total surveys received than in the previous inventory. With these facts in mind, the return rates between the two inventories were comparable.

In addition, although significant project team resources were expended using mail, email and in person to increase survey circulation and response, the low number of surveys received can also be attributed to distribution of the survey during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season. Timing of survey distribution is always a key factor in the successful administration of any survey. Holiday and vacation periods are not considered optimal times for survey distribution.

The inventory results nonetheless have considerable value. First, the agencies who did respond are those who are understood to be interested, willing and potentially able to participate in the effort to identify and respond to unmet transportation needs for the target populations.

Secondly, these agencies and organizations, by virtue of their expressed interest, have provided valuable information and insight into the individual unmet needs of the target populations, which facilitates development of recommendations tailored to the needs of the targeted populations. These respondents may be small in number but they represent a strong central core of key agencies and organizations, operating a significant amount of transportation services in Los Angeles County.

3.3.2 Characteristics of Responding Agencies

Figure 3-1 shows the largest group of responding agencies were private, non-profit (99 agencies - 48 percent), followed by public agencies at one-third of respondents (68 agencies - 33 percent). Private, for-profit agencies/organizations submitted 32 completed surveys (15 percent) and faith-based organizations submitted 9 surveys (4 percent).

Figure 3-1 shows the percentage of responding agencies/organizations sorted by legal type. In addition, a complete alphabetical listing of responding agencies and organizations by legal type is appended to this report.

FINAL 13 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 3-1 2006 Inventory, Responding Agencies by Legal Type, n=208

Private, non-profit 48%

Public agency 33%

Private, for profit 15%

Faith based org 4%

The project team found it useful to analyze some survey responses by geographic area, consistent with the five Metro’s service sectors. Although the response rate in each of the sectors was not the same, viewing the survey results geographically allowed us to gain some understanding of the needs and resources in each of the five areas of the county. Figure 3-2 depicts the boundaries for each service sector.

FINAL 14 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 3-2

**Note – current Metro Sector n=207; which excludes one (1) agency located outside of Los Angeles County.

FINAL 15 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Over 50 percent of the responses to the survey were received from the Westside/Central and San Gabriel Valley areas of the county (Westside/Central 64 agencies-31 percent; San Gabriel Valley 54 agencies-26 percent). Lower numbers of surveys were received from the San Fernando Valley, South Bay and Gateway cities. Specifically, the San Fernando Valley returned 34 agencies’ surveys (16 percent); the South Bay returned 28 agencies (13 percent); the Gateway Cities returned 27 agencies’ surveys (13 percent).

Agency Reported Caseloads and Ridership

Stakeholder agencies and organizations were asked to estimate the number of persons on their caseloads, the average daily attendance or daily ridership and selected characteristics of these persons, as applicable. Responses are detailed in Table 3-3 following.

Table 3-3 2006 Inventory, Reported Caseload and Daily Ridership

Private, Faith Caseload Related Questions Private, Non- Public Based n=208 For Profit Profit Agency Org. 32 99 68 9 Enrolled clients/ consumers 852,659 16,800 234,942 597,317 3,600 Daily attendance/ ridership 38,776 3,289 19,679 15,474 334 Percent of caseload attending/ riding daily 5% 20%8%3%9%

Clients requesting transportation assistance door to curb 46,290 4,572 31,930 9,687 101 % of enrolled caseload 5% 27% 14% 2% 3%

Clients in wheelchair/ mobility devices 32,167 315 15,995 15,834 23 % of enrolled caseload 4% 2% 7% 3% 1%

ADA eligible riders 41,027 493 16,581 23,938 15 % of enrolled caseload 5% 3% 7% 4% 0%

Caseload information, for this data set, suggests that more than 850,000 persons are served to varying degrees by the agencies responding. Of these individuals, 39,000 (5%) are traveling daily to activities, programs, training or services provided by responding agencies.

On a daily basis, responding public agencies and non-profit agencies report that they see over 15,000 persons and 19,000 persons, respectively. These numbers show that non-profit agencies and organizations interface with a larger proportion of the total caseload attending or riding daily (19,679 persons – 8 percent of caseload) than do public agencies (15,474 persons – 3 percent of caseload). This is consistent with the understanding that non-profit human service agencies and organizations work daily with their clients/consumers to provide all types of services, not just limited to transportation.

Consumers needing assistance between the door and the curb, where the vehicle is waiting, were estimated at 5 percent overall by all agencies. But a much higher proportion, (27 percent) is reported for the for-profit organizations, many of whom are adult day care facilities or medical services. Similarly, private, non-profit organizations indicated a high proportion needing door-to- curb assistance, at 14 percent of reported caseloads. The low level of just 2 percent was reported by public agencies

FINAL 16 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Mobility devices were observed in use by 4 percent of the overall population, with the highest incidence reported by the private non-profit agencies (7 percent) and lowest proportion for faith- based organizations.

When asked about the number of clients who are ADA eligible, responding agencies noted that overall 5 percent of their consumer base was thought to be ADA eligible for complementary paratransit services.

Primary Clients Served

There is some overlap among populations served by the responding agencies. Table 3-4 shows that overall; seniors are reported as the largest single target group served by responding agencies (87 agencies). Of the 208, four agencies/organizations in 10 serve able-bodied seniors, and about one-third report serving frail seniors.

Almost 4 out of 10 of the agencies/organizations responding report that they serve people with physical disabilities. In addition, about one-quarter report that they serve behavioral disabilities which include both physical and developmental disabilities. Agencies/organizations serving those with sensory impairments, such as blindness or deafness, were fewest in number (8 agencies).

Another third of the organizations serve persons of low income. Youth were reported as served by a small proportion of all respondents, just 8 percent (16 agencies). In the “other” category, agencies provided additional detail such as “Cambodian seniors in Long Beach” (Asian & Pacific Islander Task Force), “HIV homeless population” (Project New Hope-Echo Park) and “seniors with dementia” (Rancho USC/Alzheimer Research Center).

Table 3-4 2006 Inventory, Client Groups Served by Agency Legal Type

Private, Non- Primary Client Groups Served Private For Profit Profit Public Agency Faith Based Org n=208 32 % 99 % 68 % 9 % Seniors, able-bodied 87 42% 10 31% 32 32% 40 59% 5 56% Seniors, frail 74 36% 12 38% 35 35% 24 35% 3 33%

Persons w/ physical disabilities 78 38% 12 38% 38 38% 27 40% 1 11% Persons w/ behavioral disabilities 56 27% 7 22% 25 25% 23 34% 1 11% Persons w/ sensory impairments 8 4% 1 3% 6 6% 1 1% 0 0%

Persons with low income 61 29% 9 28% 31 31% 16 24% 5 56% Youth 16 8% 2 6% 10 10% 3 4% 1 11%

General Public 19 9% 4 13% 4 4% 11 16% 0 0% Other 10 5% 2 6% 5 5% 2 3% 1 11%

As highlighted in Table 3-4, within the organizational legal category, the emergence of the for- profit adult day care and adult day health care community is evident, as well as health care in the for-profit sector, with 38 percent of the private for-profit organizations serving frail seniors.

FINAL 17 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The private-non profit respondents are fairly well-distributed among the various population groups, with about a third within every category except youth which represented at just ten non- profit agencies (10 percent) and sensory impairments served by 6 agencies (6 percent).

Public agencies are predominantly serving the able-bodied senior (40 agencies, 59 percent). Of the 9 responding faith-based organizations, 5 (56 percent) are serving able-bodied seniors and 5 (56 percent) are serving low-income populations.

Another way to understand the populations served by the survey respondents is by service categories. These categories were assigned to agencies/organizations upon receipt of the completed survey to suggest the breadth of consumer groups and service types represented.

Figure 3-3 shows that of the 852,659 consumers reported, the broadest caseload representation was in the medical/ health area, not surprising given the number and size of the major hospitals responding, including LA USC, Harbor UCLA Medical Center and Kaiser Foundation Hospital, among a handful of others, reporting over 426,000 active consumers.

Public transit agencies, including cities and several responding municipal transit operators in the region, reported about one in five of the consumers, almost 156,000 persons. Social service agencies focused specifically on seniors reported 135,000 persons, while general social services reported less than half that, 60,000 persons caseloads. Smaller groups were reported by those serving low-income populations, almost 52,000, and agencies serving youth reported under 3,000 consumers. Figure 3-3

2006 Inventory - Percent of Total Caseload Reported by Consumer Group Served (Caseload = 852,659)

Medical/Health 50%

Public Transit Agencies 18%

Senior/ Disabled, Social Services 16%

General Public, Social Services 7%

Low Income 6%

Education 1%

Commercial Operators 1%

Faith Based 0%

Youth/ Child 0%

Percent of Enrolled Clients Reported by Client Group

FINAL 18 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The eight commercial transit operators reported a total of 4,655 consumers while four educational institutions responding reported 11,250 students. Responding faith based organizations reported the smallest caseload of 3,325 people.

3.3.3 Transportation Services Provided

Agencies were asked to describe the transportation they may provide and were offered a number of ways in which to characterize that service, including:

• no transportation operated, contracted or subsidized • operating transportation with full responsibility for the transportation by this agency • acting as the contractor for one or more agencies to provide transportation services • subsidizing transportation through agency purchase of coupons, scrip, passes, fares or mileage reimbursement • arranging for transportation by assisting with information but clients responsible for follow-up

Figure 3-4 presents the responses from stakeholder agencies and organizations.

Figure 3-4

2006 Inventory Transportation Services Provided, n=208

Agency operates 36%

Contract with another 26% entity

Subsidizes 25%

Arranges 25%

No transportation 23%

Acts as contractor 8%

Other 1%

Less than one-quarter of all respondents indicated that they do not operate transportation (47 agencies-23 percent). In addition, these agencies/organizations indicate that they are neither directly providing transportation nor assisting consumers in obtaining transportation services. By contrast, another quarter (52 agencies, 25 percent) are at a minimum arranging transportation for consumers in a variety of ways. This can mean simply providing phone numbers and letting consumers request their own trips. Or, their efforts could include making

FINAL 19 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY trip arrangements for clients/consumers. Usually this function does not involve any expenditure of funds by agencies/organizations.

Figure 3-4 shows that agencies/organizations that operate transportation are the largest group (74 agencies-36 percent), while the smallest group of agencies and organizations responding act as contractors to provide transportation to others (16 agencies-8 percent). About one- quarter of those agencies and organizations responding to the survey are contracting for service with others (54 agencies -26 percent), arranging for transportation (52 agencies-25 percent) or subsidizing bus passes or taxi script (53 agencies-25 percent). Two advocacy organizations are classified in the “other” category.

Table 3-5 presents this data by organization type, showing the agency operating with full responsibility was most common among the private for-profits (50 percent), while public agencies were most likely to contract (49 percent). Non-profit agencies were about evenly split between operating with full responsibility (32 percent), arranging (31 percent), and subsidizing (28 percent). These non-profits were least likely to contract for services (10 percent). Faith- based transportation providers were just nine in number, a small sample, but of these four were directly operating transportation.

Table 3-5, 2006 Inventory Transportation Services Offered by Agency Legal Type

Transportation Services Total Private, For Profit Private, Non-Profit Public Agency Faith Based Org. Provided n= 208 32 99 68 9

No transportation provided, contracted, arranged 47 23% 6 19% 28 28% 10 15% 3 33% Other \1 2 1% 0% 2 2% 0% 0%

Agency operates / full responsibility 74 36% 16 50% 32 32% 22 32% 4 44% Contract for service with other entity 54 26% 10 31% 10 10% 33 49% 1 11% Subsidizes 53 25% 4 13% 28 28% 18 26% 3 33% Arranges 52 25% 6 19% 31 31% 13 19% 2 22% Acts as contractor 16 8% 4 13% 10 10% 2 3% 0 0%

Note: \1 Although more agencies are reported as "other" in the detailed reports in the appendices, in fact all but two were offering comments as to the nature of their transportation service.

Agencies Operating Transportation

In summary, two-thirds of responding agencies or organizations (134 agencies-64 percent) indicated that they are providing transportation services in some form – either directly operating, contracting for service, subsidizing bus passes or taxis, or arranging for transportation.

Clients Served With Transportation

Respondents were asked to whom they provide transportation and only 10 percent of those responding reported general public (21 agencies). The most common form of transportation authorization was for any person the agency serves (44 agencies, 22 percent). Second most common were only formally enrolled clients (42 agencies, 21 percent), presumably reflecting the requirement for seniors and persons with disabilities to register in advance with their transportation providers. Clients approved for purchased transportation were third-most

FINAL 20 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY common, numbering 27 agencies (13 percent) of which regional centers are a prime example. Regional Center clients must be formally authorized to use agency transportation services. (Figure 3-5). Figure 3-5 2006 Inventory Transportation Services Provided By Client Category

Only Formally Enrolled 32% Agency Clients Any Person the Agency 27% Serves

Clients Approved for 17% Transport

General Public 10%

% of Transportation Providing Agencies (n=126) excludes commercial operators

Of the responding public transit agencies, a majority have indicated that only formally enrolled clients can be transported (17 agencies, 45 percent), (Table 3-6). Human service agencies are weighted only slightly more towards any person the agency serves (31 agencies, 35 percent) but also have a significant number of agencies where the client is approved for transport (16 agencies, 18 percent).

Table 3- 6, 2006 Inventory, Categories of Clients Receiving Transportation by Agency Type

General Public Transportation Services Are Provided To: Total Human Services Transport

Respondents = 126 38 88

Only Formally Enrolled Agency Clients 40 32% 17 45% 23 26% Any Person the Agency Serves 34 27% 3 8% 31 35% Clients Approved for Transport 21 17% 5 13% 16 18% General Public 13 10% 11 29% 2 2% Note: Excludes commercial operators

FINAL 21 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Vehicle Availability

Over 1,600 vehicles were reported by for-profit, non-profit and public agencies/organizations through this inventory process. In addition, Metro did not provide vehicle inventory information. As a result, a total of 927 agency vehicles were identified as shown in Table 3-7 following.

Table 3-7, 2006 Inventory Number of Vehicles Reported for Transportation Services

All Total GP Trans + General Public Human Services Vehicle Characteristics Agencies Human Services Transport Agencies n=208 n=100 n=34 n=66 Total Vehicles 1,629 927 355 22% 572 35%

Vehicles Used Daily 1,545 859 291 19% 568 37% 93% of total veh 82% of total veh 99% of total veh Passenger Capacity Up to 9 pax 756 408 47% 75 26% 333 59% 10-14 pax 283 266 31% 112 38% 154 27% 15-24 pax 210 202 24% 118 41% 84 15% 25+ pax 361 32 4% 27 9% 5 1%

Wheelchair/ lift equipped 715 411 48% 238 33% 173 24% % of Total Vehicles 44% 44% 67% 30%

Note: Vehicles reported by commercial operators are included in the total count (All Agencies) but not detailed in the breakdown by General Public providers and Human Services providers to avoid double counting by agencies with whom they are contracting.

A review of the vehicle resources of public transit as compared with those reported by human service agencies/organizations shows that public transit maintains a surplus of vehicles over and above the number needed for day-to- day service operation. These vehicles are known as spares and are used when necessary to avoid service interruptions. This surplus of vehicle resources does not exist for human service providers. Public transit reports that 82 percent the available vehicles are used daily, while human services agencies/organizations report that 99 percent are used in service on a daily basis. This suggests that the vehicle resources of human service agencies/organizations are limited and vehicle reliability is likely an issue that may impact their ability to operate efficiently in their day-to-day environment.

Understanding the level of capital resources needed to operate existing transportation services is a necessary step in the formulation of future coordination strategies.

The fleet characteristics of public transit in comparison with human service agencies/organizations are also significantly different. Human service agency/organizations’ vehicles are smaller, and only one in ten are lift-equipped. Public transit agency vehicles are distributed across all vehicle size categories, and eight in ten are lift-equipped.

FINAL 22 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Vehicle Trips and Miles Operated

The survey contained questions designed to ascertain the amount of service provided by agencies and organizations operating transportation in the county. Collection of trips provided and mileage operated will provide us with a baseline profile of the quantities of service operated by stakeholder agencies and organizations. This data can be used to quantify increases in service levels (trips and miles traveled) over time, and can be used to measure the success of coordination projects that are implemented in the county. Reported data is presented for public transit and for human service agencies in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8, 2006 Inventory Vehicle Trips and Annual Miles Reported

Total GP Trans + General Public Human Services Vehicle Utilization Human Services Transport Agencies N=78 N=30 N=48 Total Daily One-Way Trips Reported 10,789 6,078 4,711 Annualized One-Way Trips 2,751,195 100% 1,549,890 56% 1,201,305 44% * 255 days (no weekends)

Total Daily Service Miles Reported 26,231 12,309 13,922 Annualized Service Miles 6,688,905 100% 3,138,795 47% 3,550,110 53% * 255 days (no weekends)

Table 3-9 shows the service hours reported for general public services and human services agencies transportation. Provision of service is categorized by time of day to provide a picture of how many agencies and organizations are operating transportation at certain times on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday.

Table 3-9, 2006 Inventory Service Hours and Days of Operation Service Hours Table Service by General Public Agencies and Human Services Agencies

Weekdays General Public Human Services Early (before 8am) 17 15 General (8am-6pm) 29 48 Late (6pm-10pm) 10 8 24/7 2 6

Saturday Early (before 8am) 4 4 General (8am-6pm) 22 9 Late (6pm-10pm) 5 3 24/7 2 6

Sunday Early (before 8am) 4 4 General (8am-6pm) 19 7 Late (6pm-10pm) 4 2 24/7 2 6

FINAL 23 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Human service agencies are operating the highest level of service on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p. m., but having significantly less coverage in the early morning and late evening hours. Agencies/organizations providing services to the general public report that they are operating in the early morning and late hours to accommodate same day transportation needs to and from work and school.

Numbers of organizations operating on Saturday and Sunday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. by agencies/organizations providing services for the general public were comparable to the same operating periods on weekdays. The number of human service agencies who reported that they operate service on Saturdays and Sundays is very limited even during the 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. operating period.

Based upon agency/organization responses, transit dependent individuals within the target populations who need to use specialized services on weekends or in the early morning hours have few travel options.

3.3.4 Transportation Needs

Responding agencies were asked to characterize the needs of consumers they believe to be poorly served. Figure 3-6 ranks these needs for all responding agencies and organizations.

Figure 3-6

2006 Inventory - All Reporting Client Trip Needs Poorly Served

Medical trips 59% Same day transportation service 53% Shopping and multiple errand trips 35% Recreation - weekends 33% Recreation - evenings 30% Recreation - daytime 30% Long trips - beyond local community 29% Adult day care/ or health care 29% Visiting family or friends 25% Senior programs/ senior nutrition 24% Children to day care, school 23% Employment trips - 8 am - 5 pm 21% Employment trips - late night or early a.m. 19% Adult school - evenings/ weekends 18% Environmental barriers to fixed rt./ bus 14%

Percent Responding Agencies (n=208)

FINAL 24 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Stakeholder responses show that medical trips, same day transportation, multiple errand trips and weekend and evening service ranked as the top five areas of need, accordingly:

• Medical trip needs outrank other needs reported (123 agencies – 59 percent); • Same-day trips (110 agencies – 53 percent) are needs reported by more than half of the respondents

Figure 3-7 (which excludes the nine (9) commercial transit providers that are neither public transit nor human services) shows that some interesting variances surface from this data when analyzed by agency type. It is immediately apparent that somewhat more information on need was provided by the human service agencies and organizations, with 70 percent of human service agencies and organizations reporting medical trip needs (107 agencies) and 60 percent reporting same-day trips needs (91 agencies). The next-most frequently reported need was for shopping and multiple errand trips (39 percent-60 agencies). The next categories of transportation need included weekend recreation, evening recreation and visiting family or friends.

Figure 3-7

2006 Inventory - Reported by Agency Type Client Trip Needs Poorly Served

Medical trips 70% 28% 60% Same day transportation service 40% Shopping and multiple errand trips 39% 23% Recreation - weekends 35% 28% 31% Recreation - evenings 35% 33% Recreation - daytime 20% 25% Long trips - beyond local community 50% Adult day care/ or health care 32% 13% Visiting family or friends 29% 13% Human Service Senior programs/ senior nutrition 28% 13% G.P. Transit Children to day care, school 23% 23% Employment trips - 8 am - 5 pm 24% 10% Employment trips - late night or early a.m. 20% 15% 18% Adult school - evenings/ weekends 18% 16% Environmental barriers to fixed rt./ bus 8% Percent Responding Agencies by Type Human Services =152; General Public Transit =40; n=192

FINAL 25 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Public operators are reporting some level of transportation need, but with somewhat less frequency than do the human service and social service agencies/organizations who work with their client/consumer bases in different ways. There is also some overlap in recognition of specific types of need.

More than half of the public operators identified long trips beyond the community (50 percent-20 agencies) as a need. Second and third ranked responses were same day transportation (40 percent-16 agencies) and evening recreation trips (35 percent -14 agencies). Medical trip needs ranked first by the human services was ranked fourth by public operators.

Notably, same day transportation was the one area of need ranked highly by both groups, ranked in second place by both human services agencies and by public transit operators.

The top trip need rankings reported by both public transportation and human service agencies and organizations were as follows:

Human service agencies/organizations top ranked trip needs: Medical trips Same-day transportation Shopping and multiple errands Recreation on weekends

Public transit agencies/organizations top ranked trip needs: Long trips – beyond the local community Same-day transportation Recreation evenings Medical trips

It should be mentioned that medical trips, ranked as the number one trip need by the human services organizations and long-trips, beyond the local community, ranked as the number one trip need by the public transit agencies are often the same type of trip. Medical trips generally require medium to longer distance travel where medical destinations are frequently outside jurisdictional boundaries.

3.3.5 Assessing Interest in Coordination

Survey respondents were asked about their interest in coordination. Specifically, the question asked was: “Are you interested in transportation service coordination?” Stakeholders were invited to check as many options among the ten choices that might apply.

Figure 3-8 shows that slightly over one-third of responding agencies reported they are not interested in coordination in the areas listed on the survey. Of those willing to coordinate, respondents showed the greatest interest in coordinated trip scheduling and dispatch (45 agencies–22 percent). Not only do respondents want to work with other agencies/organizations operating services to coordinate trip scheduling, these responses may also indicate a desire by some agencies/organizations to purchase trips or to obtain vehicle capacity through a coordinated system, without having to directly operate transportation themselves.

FINAL 26 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

There are similar levels of interest in the next four potential coordination areas, as 12 to 15 percent of agencies/organizations reporting some interest in: contracting to provide transportation to other agencies; coordinated vehicle and other capital purchases; pooling or sharing of vehicles; joint purchase of supplies or insurance and shared fueling or maintenance facilities. Between 24 and 32 agencies indicated interest in pursuing each of these coordination opportunities.

Figure 3-8

2006 Inventory, All Reporting -- Coordination Areas of Interest

Not Interested 33%

Coordinated trip scheduling/ dispatch 22%

Contract to provide trans to other agencies 15%

Coordinated vehicle/ capital purchases 15%

Pooling or sharing of vehicles 13%

Joint purchase supplies/equip./ insurance 13%

Shared fueling/ maint/ storage facilities 12%

Pooling $s to better coodinate service 9%

Other 8% Percent of Responding Agencies (n=208)

The project team also examined coordination opportunities relative to the two communities of interest -- public transit and human service agencies/organizations. Figure 3-9 reveals a smaller proportion reporting no interest in coordination – 20 percent by human services and 28 percent by public transit agencies.

The data suggests human service agencies appear to be more open to coordinated transportation solutions than do public transit, in that a greater proportion of human service agencies/organizations indicated some level of interest in coordinating their transportation efforts with others.

FINAL 27 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 3-9

2006 Inventory, Agencies by Type -- Coordination Areas of Interest

20% Not Interested 28%

Coordinated trip 14% scheduling/ dispatch 8%

Contract to provide trans 8% to other agencies 3%

Coordinated vehicle/ 6% capital purchases 3%

Pooling or sharing of 13% vehicles 3%

Joint purchase 7% supplies/equip./ insurance 8%

Shared fueling/ maint/ 5% storage facilities 8%

Pooling $s to better 5% coodinate service 3% Human Service 7% Other Gen.Pub. Trans 3%

Percent of Responding Agencies (Hum.Serv.=152; Gen. Pub.=40)

Human service agencies/organizations indicated that coordinating of trip scheduling and dispatch (22 agencies–14 percent) followed by the other options where between 5 percent and 7 percent of agencies (7 to 10 agencies) expressed interest in the remaining choices.

Responses in the “Other” category included interest in bus tokens and taxi vouchers, information sharing, referring and surveying of needs, vehicle sharing and brokering of trips. One agency was interested in identifying coordinated vehicle funding opportunities.

The public operators expressed only limited interest in coordinated transportation functions, with just 3 percent to 5 percent of the responding agencies indicating some possible interest. Conversely, 31 of 67 human services agencies, just under half, indicated that they would consider coordination, under the right circumstances.

FINAL 28 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

3.3.6 Barriers to Coordination

Agencies were asked to discuss challenges or deterrent to coordination. More than 80 respondents, almost 40 percent, answered this question. The detailed responses are included in Appendix C (Question #8-Difficulties with Transportation Coordination).

The issue that surfaced most frequently was the “mixing” of clients/consumers on transportation services that have numerous and often conflicting specialized trip need. This issue is routinely reported by agencies and organizations in other settings, and can present challenges to agencies and organizations especially in operating environments where vehicle resources are limited and where the profile of the client/customer base is varied (e.g. dialysis patients, blind, mental health patients, seniors who were not socially comfortable with others, and youth who have problems riding with other groups).

Additional deterrents to coordination cited by respondents are summarized below.

Can't coordinate due to consumer needs 15 Limited staff 9 Limited number of vehicles 8 Geography/ trip lengths 8 Funding inadequate 6 Not aware of other agencies 6 Language issues 5 Liability insurance 5 Need to cross county or city jurisdictions 4 Service quality/ on-time concerns 3 Same day trip requirements 3 Availability/ quantity of tokens 2 Need mobility training 2

Willing to coordinate with others 5 [As noted here in the response to barriers]

A second large group of respondents indicated that they do not have sufficient staff or vehicles to effectively coordinate with others. This reason has been identified as a continuing barrier to coordination, as agencies and organizations will require both additional staff and financial resources to develop coordinated plans and programs. This includes funding for staffing, vehicles, drivers, insurance, fuel or maintenance expense, all of the critical elements needed to operate service, either as a single agency/organization or in a coordinated operating environment.

Geography and trips lengths were identified as barriers relative to isolated areas such as the City of Avalon (Catalina) and the Antelope Valley, Palmdale and Lancaster communities. This issue also emerged in relationship to the political feasibility of agencies and organizations providing transportation which extends beyond city/county boundaries as well as, the associated cost of lengthy inter-city/county trips.

Language issues of various sorts were noted: typically Spanish, but also Chinese and Cambodian. A school for the deaf noted the difficulties of their consumers in communicating with drivers in coordinated services.

FINAL 29 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Respondents spoke of time-related concerns that inhibit coordinated transportation, including timely pick-ups and drop-offs for medical trips, work, education and training classes, as well as the need for same day transportation of their client/consumer base which limits vehicle availability for others.

In this question on barriers, several agencies (5) did indicate a willingness to coordinate with others while another group, of six agencies, indicated that they knew no one with whom to coordinate.

Cooperative Agreements or Arrangements

Forty-four (46 agencies/organizations or 22 percent) reported that they have in place some type of cooperative service agreement or arrangement. Almost one-third are reported as arrangements/agreements between cities and public transit operators, typically passenger transfer agreements between multiple operators, and in one case transfers across county lines. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works was identified five times as an entity with whom such agreements were made. Agreements between human service agencies were identified in at least nine instances.

Agreements with taxi operators were reported by five agencies. Agreements with commercial ambulance or gurney transporters were referenced by two hospitals, and one human services organization indicated they had a transportation agreement with the L.A. Unified School District.

This suggests that there is a willingness on the part of human service agencies/organizations and other community-based entities to pool their resources when necessary to leverage resources and improve the mobility of the target populations.

Describing Transportation Needs

Thirty-seven (37) agencies/organizations responded when asked to describe other transportation needs in Los Angeles County. The responses received commonly focused on more that one issue.

Most commonly, agencies/organizations indicated a need for a greater number of trips being available and characterized these trips as “better” if they are targeted to the individual needs of consumers. This effectively translates to increased levels of higher quality service. Appendix C17 includes the full text of these comments.

Identifying the funding to increase transportation service levels is an issue reported by many. In addition, the responsibility for funding and operating services is a topic of some debate. For example, the City of West Hollywood spoke to the need for “human services/ social services agencies must be more proactive in funding [providing] their own transportation services. Door- to-door assistance is difficult to provide but needed.” Villa Esperanza spoke to funding of a particular type “We would like to see more funding available for maintenance of vehicles. Maintenance is very costly especially for modified vans.”

Respondents also indicated the need for increased numbers of and/or better vehicles. Some, including Watts Labor Community Action Committee spoke to the need for increased numbers of lift-equipped vehicles available.

FINAL 30 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The need for information came up with some frequency, with the City of Los Angeles, DOT noting that “transportation services are plentiful but the public must be informed on where and how to access… information should be apart of a specific program to meet [consumer] needs.”

The provision of information and the need for increased communication in and between agencies and organizations, as well as, continuing the dialogue established as a part of this project will be critical in establishing opportunities to coordinate in Los Angeles County. This is evidenced by the fact that some respondents, such as the United Community Action Network (UCAN) expressed interest in coordination, but indicated that they would need more detailed information.

3.3.7 Transportation Funding

Annual Transportation Budgets Reported

A combined total of over $170 million in total funding annually was reported by both public transit and human service providers (Table 3-10). This figure represents specialized transportation only, as budgets for fixed-route transit were excluded from information reported. Seventy-nine agencies/organizations or (62%) responded of those reporting involvement in some type of transportation function. The commercial systems reported only limited funding.

Table 3-10, 2006 Inventory Transportation Budgets Reported For Paratransit and Specialized Transit

Total GP Trans + General Public Human Services Transportation Budget Human Services Transport Agencies n=79 n=30 n=49 Vehicle operations (drivers, maintenance, fuel) $106,974,903 63% $96,768,253 70% $10,206,650 32% New vehicles and equipment $27,276,755 16% $27,131,467 20% $145,288 0% Bus passes and bus tokens $23,380,331 14% $6,607,600 5% $16,772,731 53% Taxi vouchers/ mileage reimbursement $12,399,594 7% $7,916,740 6% $4,482,854 14% Other (administrative, marketing) $909,343 1% $689,433 0% $219,910 1%

Total Reported Budgeted Dollars $170,940,926 100% $139,113,493 100% $31,827,433 100% Percent of total reported budgeted dollars 81% 19%

Vehicle operations accounted for six in ten of the total dollars reported while expenditures on capital replacement and on bus passes or bus tokens were 16% and 14% respectively. Taxi voucher and mileage reimbursement programs totaled over 7% of the funding and included both volunteer mileage and staff mileage reimbursements for the transport of clients.

Public transit reports the highest expenditure of operating dollars reported, almost 70% of the funding, with another 20 percent of funds reserved for capital replacement.2 This contrasts sharply with the funding reported by human services agencies which represent 32% of the funding for vehicle operations, both directly operated and contracted. Very little funding is reported for capital replacement by human service agencies ($145,000).

2 Some agencies reported only total dollars, inclusive of capital and other expense. In these instances, these amounts were placed into the vehicle operations category.

FINAL 31 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Significantly, a large funding allocation for bus passes and tokens was reported, over $23 million, over 50 percent of all funding reported by human service providers. Funding reported in the “other” category included administrative and marketing, or other promotional expense.

Responses concerning the likelihood of future budget increases or decreases were evenly split between increasing (57 agencies-27 percent) and staying the same (59 agencies-28 percent), with only a handful anticipating a decrease (3 percent). This doesn’t total to 100 percent, as almost half of the agencies did not respond to this question.

Funding Sources

The funding picture that emerges for the responding agencies and organizations is one that provides insight into the challenges and difficulties of promoting coordination (Table 3-11). Public transit operators for the most part have predictable and stable funding sources, which include Federal, State and local sources. Human services organizations report high levels of dependency on donations and fees, with limited on-going funding. The funding resources utilized by the responding agencies/organizations to operate services are detailed below.

Table 3-11, 2006 Inventory Reported Funding Sources

Total GP Trans + General Public Human Services Reported Funding Sources Human Services Transport Agencies n= 126 38 88

COUNTY/ LOCAL FUNDING Proposition A or C sales tax revenue 38 30% 29 76% 9 10% Other 20 16% 9 24% 11 13%

STATE FUNDING Transportation Development Act 8 6% 7 18% 1 1% Education Department 1 1% 1 3% 0 0% Department of Developmental Services 9 7% 0 0% 9 10% Department of Aging 3 2% 1 3% 2 2% Department of Rehabilitation 3 2% 0 0% 3 3% Department of Health Services 4 3% 0 0% 4 5% Medicaid/ MediCal 10 8% 0 0% 10 11% Other 11 9% 4 11% 7 8%

FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING FTA Section 5307/5309 6 5% 6 16% 0 0% FTA Section 5310 vehicles/ capital 16 13% 8 21% 8 9% FTA Section 5311 000 Community Development Block Grants 5 4% 0 0% 5 6% Health and Human Services 3 2% 0 0% 3 3% Other 9 7% 4 11% 5 6%

OTHER FUNDING Client/ parent/ rider fees and fares 18 14% 10 26% 8 9% Private donations/ fees 21 17% 0 0% 21 24% United Way 2 2% 0 0% 2 2% Other 12 10% 5 13% 7 8%

FINAL 32 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The public transit agencies report that they receive funding from a number of sources including:

• Local Return sales tax revenue generated through Propositions A and C (76 percent of general public operators); • State Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding (18 percent) • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds; • Section 5307/ 5309 and capital Section 5310 (16 to 21 percent).

Thirty-six of the 38 responding public transit operators provided funding information. Among those selecting “Other”, six noted they received funding from the cities’ General Funds.

By contrast, the funding picture for responding human service organizations is more diverse and with funding resources reported by many fewer entities. Sixty-one of the 88 human services agencies/organizations responded.

Medi-Cal funding is reported by 11 percent of these agencies/organizations. The largest single funding source reported is private donations (24 percent). Regional Centers and the California Department of Developmental Services are identified as a source by about ten agencies, excluding three commercial providers. Community Development Block Grant funding was among the human services funding sources identified, although by just two agencies.

FINAL 33 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 4 – NEEDS ASSESSMENT: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

FTA noted in the implementing circulars that initial plans may be less complex in one or more of its various elements, anticipating different levels of complexity as the locally developed process matures. The process documented here links this locally developed process with significant stakeholder agencies, termed by FTA as “appropriate planning partners.”

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This Coordination Action Plan articulates a unified comprehensive strategy for public transportation delivery speaking specifically to the mobility needs of the three target populations: 1) seniors; 2) persons with disabilities and 3) low income persons. Outreach was undertaken to a representative group of agencies and organizations knowledgeable about transportation needs of the target populations. This included both agencies providing transportation, as well as those who don’t provide transportation but do serve consumers and understand their mobility challenges. Outreach also included speaking directly with consumers themselves in various settings.

4.2 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

In addition to achieving consistency with FTA-funding related guidance and requirements, the project team designed an outreach process to accomplish a number of other project-specific objectives, such as:

1. Validating inventory survey information. The dialogue with stakeholders in interpreting and validating survey responses relative to consumer/client needs, existing resources and barriers and/or deterrents to coordination.

2. Obtaining views and perspectives of stakeholder agencies/organizations, and clients/consumers on specific issues relative to coordination of transportation services;

3. Informing and educating stakeholders about importance of coordination between public transit and human service sectors;

4. Building community goodwill and cooperative relationships with key stakeholders and the community-at-large;

These objectives served as the basis for the activities conducted between September and March 2007.

FINAL 34 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Methodology

Recognizing the need to reach as many stakeholders as possible in a short amount of time, the project team:

¾ Informed and involved agency/organization stakeholders in the project; ¾ Participated in the on-going coordination “dialogue” with local, regional, state and federal agencies and organizations; and ¾ Solicited input from Los Angeles County stakeholders relative to coordination of public transit and human service agencies.

The target audiences of the outreach effort included the following:

Management and staff representatives of agencies and organizations operating transportation and/or serving the day-to day need of clients and consumers; Clients and consumers of specialized transportation services; Staff representatives of regional, municipal and community-based public transit systems in Los Angeles County; Citizens Advisory group representatives; and Local, regional, state and federal transit/transportation and human service agency/organization representatives.

All elements of the stakeholder involvement effort, which ran concurrent with the survey inventory, including on-site face-to-face interviews, meetings, briefings and presentations to both public transit and human service agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County are presented below. The summary of the stakeholder involvement effort is included as Figure 4-1.

FINAL 35 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 4-1 Action Plan Summary of Public Involvement Efforts

Public Workshops CalAct Town Hall Meeting, Glendale - September 28, 2006 CalAct SAFETEA-LU Coordination Workshop, Los Angeles - November 28, 2006 Caltrans Section 5310, 5316, 5317 Planning Workshop, Diamond Bar - January 18, 2007 CalAct, Spring Conference, Workshop on Urban Mobility Management, Yosemite - April 27, 2007 CalAct/ Access Services Coordination Summit, Los Angeles - July 28, 2007

Strategic Planning Committee Meetings Access Services – Metro – FTA LA Subregional Office, Coordination Meeting - December 8, 2006 Access Services, Inc., Los Angeles - December 14, 2006 East Los Angeles Regional Center - January 30, 2007 Access Services, Inc., Los Angeles - April 3, 2007

Committee Presentations Metro Bus Operations Subcommittee (BOS) - January 16, 2007 and September 2007 Metro Local Transportation Services Subcommittee - February 1, 2007 Metro Accessibility Advisory Committee - February 8, 2007 Access Services Transportation Professional Advisory Committee - February 8, April 12, 2007, June 2007 Access Services Citizens Advisory Committee - February 13 and May 8, 2007

On-Site Outreach Interviews Arcadia Mental Health Clinic, Arcadia - January 11, 2007 Maxine Waters Employment Center, Los Angeles - January 16, 2007 Rancho Los Amigos/ USC Research Ctr., Downey - January 16, 2007 Catholic Charities/ Good Shepherd Women’s Village, Los Angeles - January 17, 2006 Chinatown Service Center, Monterey Park - January 23, 2007 Community Rehabilitation Training Center (CRTC), West Covina - January 24, 2007 Didi Hirsch Psychiatric Services Center, Culver City - January 29, 2007 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center, Pomona, - February 2, 2007 All Peoples Christian Center, Los Angeles - February 2, 2007 MAP Health Providers, Pasadena - February 13, 2007 Pomona First Methodist Church, Pomona - February 20, 2007 Family Adult Health Care Center, Lomita - February 21, 2007 Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment (PACE), Head Start – February 21, 2007 Community Transit Unit, L.A. County Sheriff’s Dept – June 30, 2007 [telephone]

Funding/ Peer-Regional Agency Interviews LA Care Health Plan, Los Angeles - February 1, 2007 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services - February 6, 2007 Los Angeles County Headstart Program, (see outreach interviews above) Los Angeles Regional Centers Community Service Coordinators - March 10, 2007

Consumer Focus Groups Washington Park Community Center, Pomona - March 28, 2007 Good Shepherd Center for Homeless Women & Children Los Angeles - March 30, 2007 Sunny Day Adult Health Care, El Monte - April 6, 2007

FINAL 36 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

4.3 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

Strategic Planning Committee

At the outset of the project, the project team established a Strategic Planning Committee to ensure local agency/organization participation and community involvement in development of the comprehensive unified coordination plan for Los Angeles County. Discussed in Chapter 2, this activity was considered to be a part of the overall outreach effort. The Strategic Planning Committee met three times during the study process and offered comment and advice on a wide range of matters. Meeting summaries and lists of attendees are included as Appendix D.

Participation and Presentations at Regional Forums and Public Transit Workshops

The Coordination Town Meeting held during the CalACT Autumn Conference September 28, 2006 was the kick-off of the Action Plan coordination effort for Los Angeles County. This provided an opportunity for the presentation of the Los Angeles County approach to the coordination planning process. Access Services led the Town Hall meeting, held in conjunction with CalACT's fall conference, which gave participants exposure to the outline of the Los Angeles County approach to provide a forum for discussion of the issues.

Over 100 persons participated in the Town Hall meeting and an active discussion included an Access Services-sponsored panel of representatives from the Federal Transit Administration, from Caltrans headquarters and from two other Southern California counties involved in coordination planning. The proceedings of the Town Hall discussion are included as Appendix F.

Topics addressed in dialogue with participants included discussion of local, state and federal roles and responsibilities in the plan development process, recommendations on the Section 5310 program and its scoring criteria, and aspects of the state administration of the Sections 5316 and 5317 programs.

The Town Hall meeting proceedings, included in the appendices, were provided to the Federal docket to offer further input to the process of finalizing the circulars for coordination planning under Sections 5316, 5317 and 5310.

Stakeholder Interview Process

An integral element of our approach is our recognition of the need to conduct outreach to both the larger “peer/funder” agencies/organizations, as well as, individual agencies and organizations. This approach was designed to help us to gather and interpret both the regional perspectives of the “peer/funder” agencies and organizations, and the localized viewpoints of individual agencies and organizations, for the purpose of creating a thorough depiction of client/consumer needs and agency/organization resources county-wide.

To facilitate and expedite the interview process, the project team elected to interview agencies/organizations that had previously submitted completed surveys, in order to obtain more in-depth information. In addition, we developed a short interview guide (Figure 4-2) to assist us in collection of information from agencies/organizations about the current needs of clients/consumers, and to provide us with insight into culture of these entities relative to the provision and/or need for transportation, and the issues related to coordination.

FINAL 37 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The project team collected information on the following issues:

1. The role of transportation relative to the overall responsibilities of the agency/organization;

2. Whether their organization or agency operated transportation, and/or level of awareness of other public or private transportation programs and options;

3. Direct or indirect experiences with individuals and/or families having difficulty making trips (work, school, medical) for lack of transportation, and perceived impacts to their organization;(Specifying individual or situational experiences with clients/consumers);

4. Their perspectives on the barriers to coordinating relative to services they operate for the benefit of their clients/consumers;

5. Their understanding of needs that remain unmet and/or areas underserved;

6. Recommendations on methods to improve access to and availability of transportation services in the local community; and

7. Their suggestions on potential project ideas and their priorities.

Using the interview guide (Figure 4-2) team members completed eighteen (18) face-to-face interviews with human service agencies, including:3

Adult Education Center focused on preparing adults for employment, core academics and vocational training; Service Center providing in-home care services for seniors, disabled and low income; Mental Health Center providing mental health, substance abuse treatment and prevention services throughout Los Angeles County Senior Center providing outreach to isolated seniors Catholic Charities serving homeless mothers and children A Pacific Asian Consortium of Head Start A Chinese-language based Adult Day Care program A faith-based organization serving low income persons

These face-to-face interviews proved useful in further assessing transportation needs, barriers to coordination and soliciting ideas for potential coordination projects. Interestingly interviews with two of the larger peer/funding agencies (Regional Centers and Dept. of Public Social Services) yielded some good transportation budget-related information which will be detailed later in this report. The key findings of this effort follow agency/organization interview summaries are also appended to this report.

3 Late in the study process, the consultant team was made aware of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. transportation unit. Discussions about the transportation problems of homeless persons upon release from jail ensued. These contacts are included in Figure 4-1 although the interviews were by telephone.

FINAL 38 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

4.4 KEY FINDINGS OF THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

The project team developed a matrix which summarizes the results of the stakeholder interviews, specific to three important elements and detailed subsequently (Appendix D2):

¾ Transportation needs ¾ Barriers to coordination; and ¾ Suggestions for potential coordination projects.

4.4.1. Transportation Needs

Logically, the transportation needs expressed by stakeholders during the interview process are varied and will be challenging to address and/or resolve since most issues are focused upon very specialized need. The details of the discussion issues covered during the interviews are included as Appendix D-1. A snapshot of the key issues is presented below.

1. The predominant issue raised by a number of stakeholders related to the reliability and on-time performance of current transportation services. Since the clients of these agencies and organizations are traveling to destinations which include work, medical and school or training, clients’ ability to arrive on time is both important to the individual and critical to the day-to-day objectives of the agencies/organizations themselves.

2. It is challenging for clients to "navigate" using public transportation, difficult to figure out routes/schedules and many consumers have a low "frustration level", and some clients are on medications and can become disoriented. The cost of service is of paramount importance as many have extremely limited financial resources and are making the most basic choices about where to put their limited dollars.

3. There is no easy access to bus passes which would be much more cost-effective and give single moms and others more opportunity. Agencies can afford to provide only 4 bus tokens a week to each client. This is inadequate for job seeking and training. Tokens are used in lieu of transfers as one can't get a transfer with a token, this uses up tokens even faster. There is a need for better distribution of tokens to agencies for use by families or crucial to find ways to simplify acquisition of bus passes.

4. The frailest segment of the population needs assistance in booking the trip. These individuals are not able to organize the trip independently. It is difficult, if not impossible, for these individuals to find their own escort. These individuals need door-through-door assistance at both ends of the trip -- leaving home and at the destination.

5. Importance of addressing the special needs of those with cognitive impairments, including those with Alzheimer’s or brain injuries and attendant memory impairments.

6. Public transportation is not an option for those with infectious diseases and or some severe behavioral problems.

FINAL 39 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

7. Vans are the best mode for transporting disabled clients and other homeless individuals. Medical appointments cannot be provided by fixed-route.

8. Special training is needed to develop skilled drivers who understand needs of those individuals with developmental disabilities; Need better screening of drivers to prevent client abuse.

The issues raised and discussed illustrate the complexity of the day-to-day specialized needs of clients and consumers of transportation, and also emphasizes the necessity to develop alternative coordination initiatives that will work to address this individualized need.

4.4.2. Barriers or Deterrents to Coordination with Other Agencies

When asked their opinions about possible barriers to coordination of transportation services, almost all of the agencies and organizations interviewed, with the exception of two agencies, indicated that there are currently no barriers or deterrents to coordination. For the most part, their responses show that either they already coordinate with other agencies and organizations and/or that they would be willing to coordinate efforts with others. Some agencies/organizations indicated that they currently have formal arrangements in place with other agencies/organizations, including Department of Public Social Services, Employment Development Department, Child Care Centers and Early Education, etc.

However, barriers mentioned by the two agencies were: • Lack of funding • Liability issues • Non-Profit status • Policy and regulatory limitations to allow aides to travel with clients • Limitations on funds relative to transportation contractors • Language challenges • Would consider coordinating services however there are logistical and geographical concerns. Have sites all over Los Angeles County. A client may live in one city but seek services at a site in another city. May need to visit multiple agencies.

The barriers cited during the interviews with representatives from these agencies/organizations are typically reported as deterrents to coordination. However, it is encouraging that these agencies expressed both interest and willingness to coordinate their transportation services.

4.4.3. Suggestions for Potential Coordination Projects

The project team encouraged stakeholders to consider potential coordinated approaches that would improve transportation options for their clients/consumers. A number of ideas regarding potential coordination projects were expressed and summarized as follows:

• Bulk purchase of bus passes and resell to consumers • Driver training programs conducted by mental health clinic personnel • Update rider guides and transit information • Shared vehicle use project • Creation of a transportation coordinator position • Expanded bus programs, smart card technology for taxi trips; • Travel training program

FINAL 40 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

• Inclusion of transportation funds for clients on Electronic Benefit Transfer card • Install GPS • On-call vehicle program to assist patients who miss their scheduled departure time • Vehicles needed to provide peripheral parking shuttles. Need to expand service, there are three housing projects (have considered remote parking) • Need for bus shelters. • Shuttles to/from local trip generators for groups of consumers • Free bus fares for low income • Bus pass program which clearly identifies persons with disabilities • Programs and/project to address language issues • Non-emergency medical project potentially involving public transit and healthcare providers

4.5 OTHER STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

4.5.1. Public Transit and Specialized Transportation Committee Meetings

In an effort to ensure that local and regional public transit and specialized transportation representatives were included in the stakeholder involvement process, the project team attended and made numerous presentations to stakeholder groups and committees. Detailed previously on Figure 4-1, these presentations were designed to provide information to agencies and organizations about the action plan, emerging funding requirements and to encourage active participation in the project planning process.

4.5.2. Consumer Involvement

The funding regulations speak to the need to involve consumers and clients of agencies and organizations in the outreach dialogue. Logically, involving the beneficiaries or users of transportation services operated in the county offers a more realistic understanding of client and consumer needs.

In addition to meeting with the consumer advisory committees of both Metro and Access Services, three consumer focus groups with various constituencies were conducted. Members of the project team were able to schedule and conduct meetings with the following consumer groups:

• Homeless women between the ages of 30 and 60 in a transitional housing facility; • Hispanic seniors in a nutrition site program; and • Chinese-speaking seniors receiving services in an adult day health care facility

Highlights of the meetings are presented, as follows. In addition, the detailed summaries of these sessions are documented and appended to this report (Appendix D-2).

Hawkes Transitional Residence, Women’s Village of the Good Shepherd Center

The project team met with eleven women varying in ages who are current residents of the facility. They represent a range of educational backgrounds with several women educated beyond high school, and two with master’s degree level work. Race and ethnicity included Caucasian, Latino and Asian.

FINAL 41 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

These women are all regularly using public transit, traveling extensively around Los Angeles County on fixed-route transit as they pursue possible job opportunities and housing possibilities. Several women were also addressing medical issues and traveling distances to the physicians and clinics that would accept their Medi-Cal health insurance. Most spend several hours on the buses each day.

A summary of issues related to transportation identified by this group include the following:

- Use of bus tokens limits access to transportation services. The amount of tokens issued by agencies/organizations to these individuals is limited and tokens are not accepted as payment on all public transit systems. - Real time information (vehicle arrival and schedule information) about buses will do much to improve the ride and lower anxiety of regular bus riders. - Buses are passing by riders without any clear indication as to why, as these buses are not apparently full. Several women reported “pass up” experiences. - Driver attitude improves the quality of the ride experience. The women appreciated helpful, polite drivers. Increased driver training is needed. - More shelters and amenities are needed at bus stops. Wait times for the bus and between transfers can be lengthy and is problematic in inclement weather.

City of Pomona, Palomares Park Community Center, Senior Nutrition Site Pomona, California

This nutrition site provides noon-day meals weekdays to seniors between the ages of 40 and 65 most seniors were Spanish-speaking. Some individuals answered in English, others in Spanish. The focus group session was translated by community center staff. The majority of seniors traveled to the site by the local paratransit service, some walked and some traveled by fixed- route bus.

Consumers take Foothill Transit, Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (PVTA) and Access Paratransit. Some individuals expressed the desire to use Omnitrans but are not familiar with system schedules or routes. When asked which services are used seniors responded, as follows: Get About (Pomona Valley Transportation Authority) 17 Foothill Transit 10 Omnitrans 2 Access Services 1

The primary issues discussed by this group of seniors were:

- Need for improved customer service and a desire to communicate with less difficulty with dispatchers and drivers. - Better information about vehicle arrival times. - Many compliments about paratransit service but some concerns about too- early arrivals – this was from a group of persons using subscription paratransit services traveling to the meal site. - Communication difficulties – noted by several individuals, both consumers and staff. It is difficult for the Spanish speaking senior who has limited English to make his or her needs known.

FINAL 42 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Sunny Day Adult Day Health Care Center (ADHC) El Monte, California

This is a large facility that provides services to both able-bodied Chinese seniors and to those who are frail and have multiple health problems. Staff met with exclusively Chinese speaking consumers previously to obtain comments about transportation, and presented these in writing at the outset of the meeting with members of the project team. In addition, three clients of the facility were brought in, with their caregivers, to discuss particular concerns. Feedback obtained from eight participants included:

• Late and too early pick-up and drop off times • Lengthy travel times • Difficulty communicating with dispatch and drivers by non-English speaking seniors • Need for a back-up plan when dispatching systems is down.

This agency does provide some of its own transportation with a fleet of seven vehicles, including two back-ups. But none of these vehicles are lift-equipped. Consumers are reportedly much happier on the agency-provided transportation than on public paratransit services. Agency staff also reported a good working relationship with Access paratransit focused on problem-solving.

The issues raised by these groups are not new, and echo sentiments heard during the agency/organization interviews. Some of the public transit/paratransit issues and improvements that were mentioned by this group can be effectuated through greater communication and coordination between public transit and human service agencies/entities (e.g., improved fare media reciprocity, standardization of bus stop amenities, improved customer service policies and accompanying training for personnel, etc...). The guide used for agency interviews and consumer focus group discussions is presented as Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2 Stakeholder Interview Guide

1. What is the role of transportation relative to the overall responsibilities of the agency/organization? 2. Whether the organization (or agency) operates transportation, and/or is aware of other public or private transportation programs and options; 3. What are the direct or indirect experiences with individuals and/or families in making trips (work, school, medical, other)? Is there a lack of transportation for them? What might be perceived impacts to the organization (specifying individual or situational experiences with clients/consumers)? 4. What are the organization’s opinions about possible barriers to the coordination of transportation services for clients and/or consumers? 5. What types of transportation needs are unmet and/or which areas are underserved for your target population(s)? 6. Any recommendations on how to improve access to transportation services (and/or increase the availability of transportation services) in the community? 7. Any interest in participating in potential coordination projects? What are some of the potential project ideas and agency priorities or viewpoints? (exploratory discussion). 8. Other ideas or issues from the participants?

FINAL 43 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 5 – FINDINGS OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT

This chapter considers the findings of the work activities completed in previous chapters. There is a detailed discussion of the assessment of resources and needs, and identification of gaps and unmet need.

5.1 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAM GUIDANCE

FTA circulars guiding this planning process require that the coordinated plan must contain the following four (4) required elements consistent with the available resources of each individual agency/organization:

1. An assessment of available services that identifies current providers (public, private and non-profit);

2. An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes – this assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on data collection efforts and gaps in service;

3. Strategies and/or activities and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services and needs as well as opportunities to improve efficiencies in service delivery;

4. Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified.

The Coordinated Action Plan has been developed through an inclusive stakeholder involvement process that included representatives of public transit and human services agencies throughout Los Angeles County. The methods used to ensure participation included administration of a countywide survey inventory, stakeholder agency/organization meetings and interviews and consumer meetings. In addition, a Strategic Planning Committee comprised of a number of public transit and human service agency staff and representatives was convened to review and comment upon project issues.

The Action Plan inventory and accompanying technical analysis (trip demand estimation and GIS exercise) presented in Chapter 3, and the stakeholder involvement process undertaken and documented in Chapter 4, have provided considerable data and information from which to develop a profile of the needs of the target populations and the available transportation resources of public transit and human service agencies/organizations within the county. This valuable data and information will be used to inform the development of recommendations later in this report. The following section discusses the project findings relative to the required elements.

FINAL 44 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

5.2 AVAILABLE SERVICES

5.2.1. Public Transit

Public transit resources in Los Angeles County are significant. This plan shows that in FY 05 public transit operated a multitude of transit services which included rail, fixed-route bus and public paratransit, representing 584 million trips. For the 2000 Census population of 9.5 million persons in residing Los Angeles County, this represents 61 trips per capita. Funding associated with this level of service was not reported in this report, but clearly represents a major investment in the economy of this county.

The county’s voters have twice supported local sales taxes for transit, voting in Proposition A in 1980 and a decade later Proposition C in 1990. Each is a one-half cent sales and use tax that is returned through the County Auditor to Los Angeles County’s 88 cities. Each year cities in the county receive a portion of the funds generated by these taxes based upon population, while the balance goes to fund other transportation uses (e.g. rail development, streets and road repair, transit security, etc.).

Documented increases of the general population as well as the target populations, indicates that there will be continued need for growth in the capacity of the overall public transit system of Los Angeles County over the next twenty years. The County’s total population is expected to increase 28 percent with the target populations (seniors, persons with disabilities and income disadvantaged) increasing by as much as 55 percent between 2000 and 2030.

5.2.2. Specialized Transportation In Los Angeles County

Trips Provided

Los Angeles County cities operate paratransit services in a majority of the county’s eighty-eight (88) cities. Between the sixteen (16) municipal operators and the thirty-two (32) city-operated systems reporting paratransit data for the FTA National Transit Database (NTD), we can account for 4.1 million paratransit trips. Additional to this are the Access paratransit trips, ADA complementary paratransit trips of almost 2.4 million in FY 05. This represents the grand total of 6.5 million specialized public transit trips discussed in Chapter 3.

Additionally, there is some level of human service transportation that is provided in Los Angeles County. The responding sample of 88 human service agencies, indicating some type of transportation function, reported a total of 866,000 passenger trips in FY 05. As these agencies represent some unknown portion of all social service organizations providing transportation, we do not know the quantity of these trips provided in Los Angeles County. This is further confounded by the differences in how human services programs report trips provided, compared to the more standardized methods in which public transit report passenger trips. However, within the responding survey sample, 36% of all trips reported were provided by human service organizations.

Vehicles Reported

This process also documented vehicles operated by through the inventory process. A total of 832 reported in operation with the public operators accounting for 355 of these and the human services providers with 477 vehicles. Not included are an additional 300 vehicles reported by

FINAL 45 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY the commercial providers that may to some extent be double counted among vehicles reported by their contracting agencies, which could include either public transit or human services. The age of vehicles was not collected in this survey, but other surveys have shown human service vehicles to be generally older, with substantially higher mileage as compared with vehicles operated by public transit agencies.

As this vehicle count represents just 61 human services agencies and 34 general public transit operators within Los Angeles County, it is expected that the actual number of vehicles providing specialized transportation is greater.

Expenditures Reported

Information on expenditures and their sources was notably different between the two sectors, public transit and human services. While $167 million was reported in total expenditures, these funds were expended differently between the two groups. Public transit accounted for $139 million or 83 percent or this total, and report that they are allocating 70 percent of the funds they reported into direct vehicle operations, with another 20 percent expended for capital and vehicle replacement. Five and six percent respectively are going to special bus pass/ bus token programs and to mileage reimbursement/ taxi voucher programs.

Human service providers reported a much smaller proportion of the total dollars expended, almost $29 million (17 percent). Of this six, out of every ten dollars reported is expended upon subsidies for purchase of bus passes or tokens (59 percent). Another one and a half dollars or 16 percent of every ten reported, pays for mileage reimbursement and taxi voucher programs. Only two and half dollars of every ten reported are going to direct vehicle operations and less than one percent is reported for vehicle replacement expenses

Funding sources are substantially different in that city-operated systems and public transit operators report continuing, stable funding from federal, state and local dedicated transit sources. Human service agencies reported private donations, general fund allocations and special grants. For many human service agencies, particularly the smaller ones, funding availability from year to year is an on-going issue.

Infrastructure Differences

Public transit operators have access to funding for vehicle replacement, which helps to ensure that high percentages of their vehicle fleets are lift-equipped. In addition, there is funding for facilities to maintain vehicles and staffing to regularly perform preventative vehicle maintenance. There is the increasing introduction of technological solutions to perform both administrative and operational support functions, such as data management and accounting, billing, trip scheduling, dispatching, AVL, automated fare payment and call taking and information applications.

Such infrastructure does not exist within the human services systems, or uncommonly so. Of the individuals interviewed through this process, only one, a regional center employee, had the title of Transportation Coordinator. Other interviewees bore numerous other titles that ranged from office manager to grants manager to caseworker and agency director. Clearly the transportation function is decentralized within the human services environment across a number of agency roles. Such decentralization makes communication difficult internally and would in turn present challenges to coordination with outside agencies and organizations.

FINAL 46 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

5.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE NEEDS OF THE TARGET POPULATIONS

Understanding the unique and individualized needs reported and expressed during the survey inventory and the stakeholder involvement process, enabled the project team to begin to understand the nuances of consumer needs in Los Angeles County to ensure that projects, actions and strategies developed could conceivably address the needs over time. Table 5-1 illustrates the connection between consumer needs and potential project responses.

Recognizing that there is overlap in the characteristics of target populations (e.g. seniors who are disabled and/or low income, disabled) and the fact that the sub-segments of the target populations demonstrate even greater individualized need, the following section describes the rationale and profiles the needs by consumer segment and recognized sub-segments, as well as, organizational issues relative to meeting the need.

5.3.1. Consumer-Oriented Characteristics of Need

Seniors

Able-Bodied Seniors

Much has been written about the transportation needs of seniors and the importance of encouraging them to consider the use of public transit before they actually need it. Seniors, like the non-senior adult population, are more likely to drive or travel as passengers in private automobiles. Encouraging seniors to consider alternative transportation is challenging, as it represents a loss of personal independence and self-reliance that is difficult to contemplate.

But seniors who do explore alternative mobility options demonstrate the importance of continuing to promote public transit. This is critical inasmuch as health conditions can sometimes change quickly, and the need for assistance in accessing transportation can become a higher priority. Knowledgeable seniors comment that even if there is only a gradual decrease in physical capabilities, continually reinforcing and providing information about the availability of transportation resources is important, as it ensures that the information provided to the senior may be understood in that moment when the individual is ready to listen and learn and consider.

Providing information in a range of languages is also important in the multi-cultural landscape that is Los Angeles County. Interviewees expressed the need for transit information in Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian, among other languages, as often the older immigrant is less able to learn English and will continue to utilize their language of origin.

Frail Elderly and Chronically Ill

Consumers who are medically frail may be supported at home but are in a debilitated health status. They may be attending day care programs or adult day health care programs outside of the home but are otherwise quite limited in their mobility around the community due to multiple health issues. Trips taken revolve largely around life-sustaining purposes of medical needs, pharmacy needs or nutrition. Assistance with transportation begins with making the actual arrangements for the trip, which includes scheduling the appointment and the transportation pick-up, and getting from their house to the vehicle. These consumers generally need door- through door transportation support, which must include help with trip scheduling. When these

FINAL 47 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY consumers do travel about the community, it is often a fearful experience due to their general health condition and limited capacity to tolerate difficulties, such as long waits or no-show vehicles.

Individuals on dialysis have a range of needs that impact transportation. Reasonably able- bodied when arriving at dialysis appointments, they are weak upon leaving and may need varying degrees of assistance.

On-time arrival is very important where the individual has a time slot in a given “chair” that will soon be used by the next patient on the roster, and can’t be reserved if the rider is delayed by transportation difficulties. Also return trips may have to be rescheduled if an individual has a medically difficult session (e.g. bleeding out, etc.) and has to stay longer at the medical center.

Persons with Disabilities

Mobility Devices Users

Since the implementation of the ADA in 1990 considerable attention has been paid to the physical environment relative to persons in wheelchairs and using mobility devices. The outstanding issue that is consistently raised by consumers and their human service agency representatives is the problem of the impediments in path of travel.

Implementation of the ADA has contributed to the creation of “islands of accessibility” which have resulted in a greater numbers of accessible bus stops and transfer points but no “path of travel” by which to access them. Sometimes there is an accessible bus stop with dirt paths on either side. Sometimes there is no safe way to travel to the stop because of natural or man- made obstacles in the “path of travel.” Consumers in wheelchairs and other mobility devices have difficulty accessing such places where moving about in the physical environment is impeded in one way or another. One of the resulting impacts is that greater numbers of disabled persons being classified in the conditional eligibility category, as they cannot access fixed-route services because of path of travel difficulties.

Local jurisdictions, commercial entities, public transit providers and human service agencies must work in a coordinated fashion to remove impediments to travel for disabled persons.

Consumers with Behavioral Health Needs

Consumers in this category fall into several subsets, including those with mental health problems, those who are developmentally disabled and those who may have Alzheimer’s’ or brain injury that translates into behavioral difficulties.

Those clients associated with various mental health services may be physically more able- bodied and mobile than some other groups, and they can frequently have same-day trip needs for medical appointments.

Fixed-route services are potentially feasible for these otherwise able-bodied individuals. But it can also be difficult and frightening for some persons on those days when their mental illness interacts negatively with their basic functional abilities. Medications commonly taken make it difficult for these individuals to be exposed to the sunlight for extended periods. Unhealthy situations exist as a consequence for these consumers when there are long wait times for

FINAL 48 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY vehicle pick-ups and drop-offs, outside in the sun without cover. Trip purposes for these individuals can reflect the full gamut of life-sustaining, as well as life-enhancing purposes.

Consumers with developmental disabilities, Alzheimer’s or those with severe brain injuries likely require some level of supervision or assistance, both in transit, and at the end destination. In these instances, the “hand-off” is very important as it ensures that an individual with impaired judgment or poor memory is not wandering or getting lost in the space between the vehicle and the front door of their destination. Some consumers may become agitated, or even combative, in transit where they become fearful, or anxious, particularly when there is a departure from their daily routine. In addition, there is increased incidence of seizures among members of these groups. In short, drivers assigned to these services should be adequately trained and prepared to handle these types of real situations.

Low Income Individuals

Families

Consumers of public social service programs obtain assistance from agencies and organizations through various channels. They may be court referrals where there has been an allegation of child abuse or child neglect. These cases can be a probation referral, where the family is in danger of losing their children to out-of-home placement. Some families are in immigrant populations and are non-English speaking, or do so with limited proficiency. Single parents, enrolled in Medi-Cal and Healthy Start programs, as family units typically with having more than one child, are among the low-income clientele of responding human service agencies and organizations.

This population is generally physically healthy, able to walk and move about the community, but may not own a car or the single working car in the family is used by the household wage earner. Use of fixed-route service is possible, but information must be readily accessible and services must not be so inconvenient as to discourage use. Consumers often have one or more children making the use of fixed route transit services more difficult.

Pricing of transportation services is also an issue. This segment of the population is by definition low on financial resources, and therefore has difficulty rationalizing the expenditure of these scarce resources for transportation versus food and other basic needs.

Homeless Individuals

Individuals who are homeless or on the verge of homelessness have few to no resources and the cost of a single bus fare or token is usually beyond them. These consumers have very limited access to information and learning a bus route or the particular routing to get to a desired destination is a complicated task, simply because so many life issues impinge upon them. Similarly, even where the individual might qualify for ADA paratransit, they have limited to no access to a telephone in order to schedule a trip pick-up. Often there can be children accompanying a homeless individual, usually a female, all of whom need bus fares. Problems around transfers exist where an individual receives a token but a transfer cannot be provided; two tokens at full fare per leg of the trip are then used for a trip that would otherwise be served with a transfer slip.

For these persons, so many activities of daily living are difficult and complicated. Caseworkers hope to make the transportation element of it easier so that access to jobs and a better quality

FINAL 49 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY of life become more readily possible. However, agency personnel also note that reported transportation problems are sometimes used as a reason for not trying. Where these legitimate difficulties can be eased or smoothed, it encourages the individual to grapple with the “culture of poverty” and work to better their circumstances.

Persons Released from Jail Who are Homeless and/or Disabled

The Los Angeles County Jail System processes thousands of persons with low or no income, of which many have severe disabilities and are frequently homeless. It is very likely that the Los Angeles County Jail system interacts with more persons who are homeless with severe disabilities than any other agency in L.A. County. Staff estimate that 10 percent of the 300 or so individuals released daily need assistance traveling to the homeless shelters from the two prison facilities serving men and women, respectively. Individuals are released at all times of the day or night, often in the middle of the night when public and specialized transit services are meager or nonexistent.

The L.A. County Jail system is run by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The LASD provides referrals to voucher-housing, residential treatment programs, and transitional housing programs at point of discharge for persons who request or are in need of support. However, the efforts of LASD have been hampered by the lack of a system that can safely transport persons discharged from jail to a given referral location.

5.3.2. Organizationally Oriented Characteristics of Need

Trip Types Needed

Organizations surveyed were well aware of selective consumer needs and both public transit and human services agencies/organizations spoke to the need for medical transportation and the cross-jurisdictional, long-distance trips that typify non-emergency medical trips. Only a handful of agencies and organizations reported reimbursement for Medi-Cal transportation, or Veterans Administration, both presumably the longer, inter-city trips that are difficult to serve.

Stakeholder agency/organization personnel expressed frustration about the consumers’ need for trip chaining. For example, upon leaving the doctor’s office the need to stop at the pharmacy; once out for a medical appointment, the need to stop at the grocery store because this is the first and possibly only outing of the week. Case managers talked of providing these trips themselves because the kind of escorted assistance that is needed cannot readily be provided. However, agency/organization staff can provide this type of trip support only on a very limited basis.

Escort trips are a significant need for many of the programs operating adult day health care, which includes Alzheimer’s’ clinics. Challenges typically arise in cases where agency staff wants to allow a respite day for the family member who is the consumers’ care-provider.

On-Time Performance

The issue of reliability of transportation surfaces regularly in discussions about specialized transportation. It is a problematic issue and not easily addressed, but of paramount concern to all involved. Consumers become very anxious about their appointment times and concerned when shared-ride services transport them long distances from their destination. Agencies and

FINAL 50 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY organizations expressed numerous concerns about on-time performance relating to the problems of scheduling, deployment and actual arrival times of transportation services. In the case of dialysis and mental health appointments, the implications of late transportation services can be severe. As noted, the dialysis unit cannot easily juggle consumers from one transfusion chair to another, as these appointments are typically tightly scheduled in “waves” of service over the course of the day. Similarly, mental health medication appointments are usually very short in duration, ten minutes or less. If an individual misses his or her appointment, it may require either rescheduling or waiting many hours until there is another open ten-minute slot. Other healthcare appointments are equally unforgiving about late arrivals and generally must be rescheduled.

There are also financial impacts to late or no-show service. Attendance-based programs, such as training and education programs for re-entry workers, workshops and day programs for persons with developmental disabilities, or adult day health care activities often lose income when vehicles are late. Income is lost when consumers can attend only partial days, below the threshold of what is an approved or authorized day of service.

Transit Passes and Bus Tokens

As discussed in previous sections, a significant number of tickets and/or tokens are purchased by human service agencies/organizations on behalf of their consumers, with the majority of their annual budget dollars expended for this purpose. Some staffers interviewed indicated that they experience difficulties acquiring passes and tokens from public transit operators, and expressed need for improving the procurement process.

Human service agencies and organizations who purchase transit fare media instead of issuing cash to clients want to ensure that their limited resources are used appropriately and limit fraud. Therefore, it would be valuable to streamline the process and enhance their ability to purchase bus tokens and passes. It is also important to promote a higher level of accountability by incorporating simple automated processes designed to track bus pass and token purchases and usage for human service agency/organization staff. Several agencies expressed interest in the ability to purchase day passes or three-hour passes on behalf of consumers to offer immediate access which allows them to travel for a specified amount of time depending upon the need.

Expanded Span of Hours and Days of Service

Both public transit and human services agency/organization representatives raised issues related to the need for increased evening and weekend services. In some cases this involved the difficulty of connecting with other, regional services (Metrolink) for very early work shifts. In other cases, they cited the problems of connecting between services during mid-day periods when only limited service was operating. For example, human service transportation was only available on weekdays, with no service available on weekends. Representatives from both public transit and human service agencies were aware of and concerned about the limited weekend and evening service and the travel challenges this posed for members of the target populations.

Information Resources and Needs

Some human service agency/organization representatives demonstrated considerable knowledge about fixed-route services, including schedules, frequency and the nearest bus stop. These individuals are clearly a valuable resource to clients and other persons within their

FINAL 51 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY respective agencies and organizations. There is considerable reliance upon their knowledge of the specificity and detail of the transit system, including in one instance, the agency transit “guru” assisting another staffer in reading the bus book and developing the travel itinerary.

Case managers speak of the need to learn the transportation system in order to be able to help their consumers. They identified problems including personnel turnover and the difficulty of keeping abreast of changes in the public transit environment. Also, staff indicated that they need massive quantities of bus books and ride guides to distribute to consumers. Agency/organization staff representatives report that many consumers do not have access to the computer or capability of using it. This reinforces the fact that the old-fashioned paper product still has considerable value within the community.

Bus Facilities and Amenities and Rider Security

Issues were raised about the physical amenities that dependent populations require to travel independently about the community. For single women and women with children, as well as, for frail elderly or the chronically ill, a sense of safety and security is very important. Safety elements, and information about those, are important to these populations and persons working on their behalf.

Arranging Transportation

Riders with multiple health conditions require trip planning assistance. For the most part, human service agency/organization staff persons have limited time (as transportation is generally a support function within these agencies/organizations), the necessary resource information (schedules, maps, etc.), or understanding to assist riders in identifying the transportation options that may best meet their needs.

5.4 GAPS IN SERVICE IDENTIFIED

This subsection discusses gaps in transportation services within Los Angeles County and identifies the geographic areas where trips may be needed.

5.4.1. Institutional Communication Gaps

Coordination of the transportation services operated by public transit and human services agencies/organizations is impacted by the challenges of working between two very distinct service systems. For public transit, operating service is its core business, around which significant infrastructure has been built. For the human services agencies, transportation is a support service, and is sometimes viewed as a distraction from the agencies’ primary purpose.

Although both serve the public, differences are clearly evident at the institutional level. Human service organizations are closer to the client, have a better understanding of individual needs and requirements, and focus their day-to-day efforts on addressing and resolving issues on behalf of the individual. Public transit is more attentive to “mass” needs only in relation to providing service, with considerably less awareness of the individual. This was evidenced in the inventory process where human service agencies/organizations identified a breadth of needs while a much smaller proportion of responding public transit agencies/organizations could pinpoint customer needs.

FINAL 52 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

It follows that since the day-to-day business objectives of these two public service industries are not the same, it is logical to find that they speak different “languages”, or rather interpret, process and respond to things differently. For example, public transit operators talk in terms of one-way passenger trips, and apply productivity measures of cost per hour and passengers per hour. Human services personnel speak of client days, per diem rates and often understand trips as vehicle trips. These differences can and do make communication challenging.

One such difference in understanding, related to service provision is the drive to greater service efficiencies that a shared-ride system represents and the need to pick up several passengers in a given hour. This can contrast sharply with the individualized orientation of human services personnel to meet the needs of a single consumer who may have had a difficult dialysis session, and is more frail than usual, or the individual whose medication regime makes waiting in the sunlight particularly challenging. Shared ride demand response programs have difficulty meeting such individualized needs.

These disparities reflect different value systems, reflecting the different core missions of each industry. These issues must gradually be addressed in the development of coordination projects that will work effectively between systems. At a minimum, it is important to establish an individual “translator” who can work with these two systems, understanding each sufficiently to navigate in both and to design responsive, cost-effective coordinated transportation programs.

5.4.2. Capacity

The activities associated with the development of the assessment of services confirm that there are already significant public transportation services currently operating in Los Angeles, offering a range of modes and services for riders. There are also considerable human services transportation programs in place, with varied methods of service provision that include staff members driving consumers in their own car with mileage reimbursement, volunteer-based programs, directly operated services and various scenarios for contracted or taxi-based service provision.

However, the assessment also shows that some of the needs of the target population are not being met. In fact, the needs described exceed the services now in place. This mandates that the existing network of transportation services must be re-configured to handle the ever- increasing need, as Los Angeles County realizes continuing population growth in the future. The potential to coordinate and leverage transportation resources is a logical next step.

5.4.3. Meeting Individualized Needs

One of the main objectives of the Action Plan is to recommend ways that public transit and human service agencies can work together to develop plans and projects to meet the needs of seniors, disabled persons and low income individuals. Providing service to some difficult-to- serve sub-segments of the target population (e.g. frail, chronically ill and disabled individuals) is the highest level of individualized service that can be offered to consumers, will require a significant commitment by public transit and human services and resources.

The Action Plan has identified specific areas of individualized need for segments of the target population that must be addressed on some level to improve mobility overall. Public transit and human service agencies and organizations must find ways in which to meet needs consumers describe, and agency/organization personnel enumerate on their behalf. Actions and strategies

FINAL 53 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY developed as elements of this plan have been designed to improve the ability of operators of specialized transportation to serve a higher level of individualized trip needs with greater efficiency.

5.4.4. Improving Performance of Demand Responsive Services

During the stakeholder involvement process, consumers and agency/organization representatives raised a number of issues related to service quality: on-time performance, late pick-ups, and late arrivals at appointments due to long rides and shared rides, and no-show vehicles. Reliability of paratransit services is an important issue and represents a need that persists and that can translate into critical situations for frail, vulnerable and dependent populations.

Comments on this issue have related to Access Services because it is the entity charged with responsibility for development of the Action Plan. This is primarily due to the high level of expectation on the part of stakeholder agencies and organizations in securing transportation for their clients, and lack of understanding about the nature of the paratransit services operated by Access Services.

Therefore actions and strategies that improve the quality of services that are already in place will help to better meet identified needs. In addition, public transit efforts to communicate effectively with human service agencies/organizations should be improved.

Communication Between Drivers, Dispatchers and Passengers

Improving communications between everyone involved in the provision of specialized transportation services can improve the capability of agencies and organizations to address individualized needs.

This initially involves improved driver training to sensitize both public fixed-route and paratransit drivers to recognize and facilitate transportation for persons with special needs. In addition, technological tools may improve the capability of the system to strengthen the connection between the rider, the vehicle and dispatch in a real-time situation. This will serve to minimize long waits, absent information about the vehicle’s arrival time. Dispatchers and call takers may require additional training to assist high-needs consumers more effectively and to be sensitized to their requirements.

Capacity building then, for specialized transportation, has two purposes: 1) to increase the quantity of what is available and 2) to improve the characteristics of what is available, whether in terms of measures of cost-effectiveness, getting more for the dollars expended, or in terms of the types of service, greater responsiveness to the target populations. Capacity building translates into an array of activities: training and professional development, use of technologies to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness, and all possible methods of expanding the quantities of service available.

FINAL 54 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Inter-Community Medical Trips

Much has been written about the need for medical trips which are usually lengthy and typically require individuals to travel to regionally-based medical facilities. This is a state-level policy issue that relates to Medi-Cal reimbursement to public transit for medical trips provided to the eligible Medi-Cal population. At present, California is unique among the states in not reimbursing public transit for non-emergency medical transportation. In many other areas of the country, this is a significant funding source for this type of transportation. If California Medi-Cal policies are modified to allow reimbursement to public transit operators, this would provide some assistance to the senior population frequently making long-distance, medically related trips.

Currently, Medicare, the national senior health care program, does not support transportation expense. Managed care programs, including Kaiser Permanente and SCAN, among others, speak to issues of need to get consumers to their regional, specialty facilities, but there is disproportionate financial participation accomplishing this. In short, there needs to be continued policy focus and attention, at both federal and state levels, to this type of transportation, even as local initiatives are implemented to assist in meeting long-distance, medically related transportation need.

Some of these trips are between counties, a particularly difficult issue to address with a plan focused on an individual county. Los Angeles County receives many persons from neighboring and distant counties who have special transportation needs and are traveling distances, often to go to this county’s premier medical facilities. Some need to travel short distances, just over the county lines, while other are arriving by inter-state carriers, including Greyhound bus and air lines and are in need of specialized transportation options available at the terminals at which they arrive. Over the long-term, planning to meet these inter-county trip needs is important.

FINAL 55 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 6 – EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT

6.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

The existing multi-level structure and configuration of public transportation in Los Angeles County is complex. Federal, state and local regulations governing transit in the region, as well as, the availability of local funding (Proposition A and C) for transportation has significantly increased the involvement of all levels of government in the business of planning, programming and allocating funding and/or operating transportation. This hierarchy of agencies and local jurisdictions providing transportation include: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or Metro) the regional transportation planning agency/operator; Access Services, Inc. the regional ADA paratransit provider and the designated Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA); Municipal public transit operators eligible to receive (federal, state and local subsidies); and City operated transit systems funded from local sales tax revenues

To gain a better understanding of the transportation environment an overview of the key public transportation agencies in Los Angeles County is presented below.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the state level.

SCAG has evolved as the largest of nearly 700 councils of government in the United States, functioning as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles. Some of the major transportation-related responsibilities of SCAG include, but are not limited to: Maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Development of demographic projections plus the integrated land use, housing, employment, transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan;

To function as the authorized regional agency for intergovernmental review of programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities.

FINAL 56 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Review of environmental impact reports for projects having regional significance for consistency with regional plans.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (also known as Metro, MTA or LACMTA) is the state chartered regional transportation planning and public transportation operating agency for the county of Los Angeles. The agency develops and oversees transportation plans, policies, funding programs, and both short-term and long-range solutions that address the County's increasing mobility, accessibility and environmental needs.

Metro is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors comprised of: • The five Los Angeles County Supervisors • The mayor of the City of Los Angeles • Three Los Angeles mayor-appointees (two members of the public and one L.A. City Council member) • Four city council members from cities in the county other than L.A. representing those 88 cities (selected by the L.A. County City Selection Committee) • The Governor of California appoints one non-voting member (traditionally the Director of Caltrans District 7).

Metro operates the third largest public transportation system in the United States. Metro provides transportation services within a 1,433 mile operating area, using 2,000 peak hour buses. Metro also designed, built and now operates 73.1 miles of urban rail service. In addition, the agency has 9,200 employees, making it one of the region's largest employers.

Metro also programs and allocates funding for its operating agency and for sixteen (16) municipal bus operators: • Antelope Valley Transit Authority • Arcadia Transit • Beach Cities Transit • Claremont Dial-A-Ride • Commerce Municipal Bus Lines • Culver City Bus Lines • Foothill Transit • Gardena Municipal Bus Lines • La Mirada Transit • Los Angeles Department of Transportation • Long Beach Transit • Montebello Bus Lines • Norwalk Transit • Santa Clarita Transit • Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines • Torrance Transit

In addition, Metro funds a wide array of transportation projects including bikeways and pedestrian facilities, local roads and highway improvements, goods movement, commuter rail, Freeway Service Patrol and freeway call boxes within greater Los Angeles.

FINAL 57 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Responsibility for local bus service is delegated to five Sector Governance Councils, each governing bus service in a service sector comprised of the bus lines operating from operating divisions in a given geographical area. The five sectors are: Gateway Cities, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, South Bay, and Westside/Central. Members for each governance council are selected by a combination of city councils, councils of governments, and county supervisors representing the area. Governance councils approve service changes (although the Metro Board reserves ultimate authority over service), review the budget, address complaints about bus service, and provide recommendations to MTA management regarding the employment status of each sector general manager.

Specific to the FTA requirements related to preparation of a locally developed coordinated plan and consistent with Metro’s countywide programming and funding responsibilities, the agency is also the designated recipient of FTA Sections 5316 JARC and 5317 New Freedom funding. As designated recipient Metro has responsibility to conduct a competitive county-wide funding application process designed to fund the development of coordinated transportation projects submitted by stakeholder agencies and organizations. Projects approved for JARC and/or New Freedom funding would be included in a Program of Projects (POP) and would be appended to updates to the coordinated plan.

Access Services, Inc.

Access Services, Inc. is the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for Los Angeles County. In this capacity, Access Services is responsible for the administration and operation of Access Paratransit, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated paratransit transportation program for Los Angeles County, and is committed to improving the mobility on public transit of persons with disabilities. Additionally, as the CTSA, Access Services is responsible for coordinating transportation programs of the various social service providers in the county.

Access Services is a state mandated local governmental agency created by Los Angeles County's public transit agencies to administer and manage the delivery of regional ADA paratransit service. Access Services was established by forty-four public fixed route transit operators in Los Angeles County. It is governed by a nine member board appointed by the Los Angeles County municipal fixed route operators, the Los Angeles County local fixed route operators, the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the Transportation Corridor Representatives of the Los Angeles branch of the League of Cities, the Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities, and the Coalition of Independent Living Centers.

Access Services Specialized Transportation Services

Access Paratransit is the service name of the ADA Complementary Paratransit service for functionally disabled individuals in Los Angeles County. Access Paratransit transportation service is available for any ADA paratransit eligible individual to any location within ¾ of a mile of any fixed bus operated by Los Angeles County public fixed route bus operators and within ¾ of a mile around Metro rail stations during the hours that the systems are operational. Complementary paratransit service is not required to complement commuter rail and commuter bus services, since the ADA does not require that these services provide complementary paratransit service. The larger countywide service area is divided into smaller service areas and extends into portions of the surrounding counties of San Bernardino, Orange and Ventura that are likewise served by Los Angeles County Fixed-route bus lines.

FINAL 58 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Access Paratransit operates seven days a week, 24 hours of the day in most areas of Los Angeles County. It is a shared ride service that operates curb-to-curb and utilizes a fleet of small buses, mini-vans and taxis. Fares are distance-based and range from $1.80 to $2.70 for each one-way trip. However fares may differ during late-night service or while traveling in the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley regions.

City-Operated Systems in Los Angeles County

Due predominantly to the funding realized from two-one half cent sales taxes in place in Los Angeles County (Propositions A and C), cities have since 1980 and 1990, respectively, operated transit and paratransit services targeted to their residents. Over three-fourths of the 88 cities and County of Los Angeles operate some type of service, with the most operating paratransit.

The availability of these community-based services has helped to augment the service that is provided in by Metro. Since local services in general do not operate outside the city boundaries, with exception of some medical trips and specially funded coordinated paratransit programs, the ability to travel between cities is limited to use of Metro bus services and Access paratransit for certified ADA clients. In addition, city-operated systems have varying fares and service policies that pose challenges to travel for members of the targeted populations.

Therefore even though there are significant transit and paratransit services operating throughout the county, limited amount of intercity coordination has resulted in a fragmented operating environment in many cities.

Consistent with the historical mission and the agency’s current role as the CTSA, Access Services was chosen to prepare the public transit and human services action plan for Los Angeles County. The following subsection describes the CTSA history and establishes the link between the CTSA functions and continuing coordination activities in Los Angeles County.

6.2 CTSA ROLE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Los Angeles County’s Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) has been the focus of coordination since 1990 when the Los Angeles County Transportation (LACTC) established the CTSA designation to begin coordination of social services transportation.

6.2.1. CTSA History

The CTSA requirement originated in 1979 with the passage of AB 120 the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act. Commonly known as AB 120, and codified under California Government Code 15975, this act required that transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions were to: • Develop an Action Plan for the coordination and improvement of social service transportation. • Designate a Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) to implement the Action plan. • Identify the social service recipients to be served and the funds available for use by the coordinated or consolidated services inventory. • Establish measures to coordinate with fixed route services provided by public transit.

FINAL 59 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

County or regional transportation planning agencies could appoint one or more CTSAs within their service areas.

AB 120 also established that a CTSA could claim up to 5 percent of the local jurisdiction’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax funding under Section 99233.7 of the Public Utilities Code, Article 4.5 of the TDA, which established claims for “community transit services, including such services for those, such as the disabled, who cannot use conventional transit services” (Section 99275).

In 1988, AB 120 was amended by the State legislature, SB 826, adding an additional section to establish measures for the effective coordination of specialized transportation service from one provider service area to another, in other words to promote inter-jurisdictional transportation coordination. In addition, the reporting timeframes were modified with the inventory (Section 15973) to be updated every four years and the action plan (Section 15975) to be updated every two years, both documents to be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

In 2002, the action plan and inventory requirements were repealed, with Caltrans no longer required to play a role in the development of the Social Services Transportation Action Plan nor required to submit reports to the California Legislature. That legislation (AB 2647) instead seated full responsibility with the local transportation planning agencies or county transportation commissions, requiring them to prepare and adopt action plans which provided for the consolidation of social service transportation programs within their respective jurisdictions.

Various other functions are suggested by the coordination and consolidation of social service transportation. The benefits that are possible through – and the additional functions suggested by -- coordination and, potentially, consolidation of social service transportation are enumerated in Sections 15951 and 15952 of the California Code [emphasis added]:

• Cost savings through combined purchasing of equipment; • Increased safety and lower insurance costs through more effective driver training; • More efficient use of vehicles through centralized dispatching; • Increased vehicle reliability and maintenance cost savings through centralized maintenance; • Cost savings, elimination of duplicative administrative processes and increased services from centralized administration; and • More effective and cost efficient use of scarce resource dollars through identification and consolidation of existing sources of funding.4

Improvement of local social service transportation through coordination and consolidation has the potential of bringing about real changes in the quality of transportation provided, increased efficiency and safety in operations, and increased cost-effectiveness.

6.2.2. The CTSA in Los Angeles County

In Los Angeles County, it was initially decided not to designate a CTSA. At that time, the passage of Proposition A established increased levels of local transportation services, and therefore coordination was not needed. This changed in 1990 when LACTC made the decision

4 State of California, Government Code Sections 15951-15952.

FINAL 60 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY to adopt an Action Plan that established a CTSA that would serve as a function of the Commission. At that time the focus of the CTSA was on information and referral to promote services within the county that served the target groups identified in the AB 120 legislation, seniors and persons with disabilities.

The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prompted further change and in 1991, the CTSA’s responsibilities were broadened to include the implementation of a regional ADA paratransit program. In 1994, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) determined that the CTSA mission, including ADA implementation, would best be filled by a free-standing, stand-alone agency and Access Services, Inc. was established.

Access Services has taken the lead since 1994 in conducting inventories and preparing the CTSA Action Plan with the last Action Plan prepared in 2002. The 2002 Action Plan directed the CTSA to continue its information and referral activities, and to expand its technical assistance role to support human service transportation providers.

6.2.3. Discussion of Access Services CTSA Functions and Activities

Training and Technical Assistance

As the CTSA for Los Angeles County Access Services defines its role as information broker and an agency that promotes training and technical assistance relative to the FTA Section 5310 grant program. A detailed discussion of ASI and Metro’s roles relative to the FTA 5310 grant program is detailed in Section 6.3 below.

In addition to FTA Section 5310, Access Services also offers a nine-session Transit and Paratransit Certificate Program in coordination with the University of the Pacific. The course is provided over a three-month period, on alternate Fridays. Other courses have been developed by the CTSA staff, including “Vehicle Maintenance Management and Inspection” and “Violence in the Transit Workplace.” The 2007 calendar also includes courses prepared by the National Transportation Institute of Rutgers University, such as this year’s “Managing the Costs of ADA” and “Multimodal Traveler Information Systems.” In addition, CTSA staff also provides significant support and follow-up to prospective applicant agencies and organizations. The 2007 training schedule is appended to this report.

Information and Referral

RIDEINFO is a telephone referral system, designed to provide consumers with information about available transportation services. RIDEINFO is maintained by Access Services and consists of a listing of approximately 200 transportation providers operating within Los Angeles County. RIDEINFO was an outgrowth of the last Action Plan and transit operator service information was compiled from the Inventory conducted in 2002, modestly updated in the intervening years.

FINAL 61 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 6-1

RIDEINFO -- Access Services Web Information about Transportation

RIDEINFO is an operator facilitated referral service which matches an individual's transportation needs with available accessible transportation. RIDEINFO gives quick, accurate referrals to over 200 public and private accessible transportation providers in Los Angeles County.

The agencies referenced include those which provide transportation to persons in certain communities, medical patients, or agency clients only; some fares are minimal, others may be costly. Access Services does not endorse, recommend, or guarantee the quality or availability of any transportation provider referred to. Each participating agency should be contacted by the requesting party.

It's FREE, simply call an information specialist at 1-800-431-7882, text telephone 1- 800-431-9731 or e-mail [email protected] to obtain information to all of your accessible transportation options. Referral hours are Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Information on regular public buses and trains may be obtained by calling 1-800- COMMUTE. Similar information is available to text phone users by calling 1-800- 252-9040

When individuals call the listed telephone number, the CTSA specialist uses the RIDEINFO data supported by other information readily available on the Internet, once the consumer’s transportation need and the geographic area of inquiry are clear. Staff estimates that approximately 1200 calls are taken every month.

The RIDEINFO dataset consists of approximately 20 fields of information that include most of the 2002 inventory information. These include transportation type, service area description, fares, hours of service, days of operation and the eligibility requirements and application process for new riders.

Additionally, CTSA staff maintains a “contacts” data set. This is a listing of individuals and organizations for whom the agency wishes to maintain contact information. Individuals or organizations may be members of the various Access Services advisory committees. Those listed may be receiving the newsletter or notice of various training or other special events. The “Contacts” database has approximately 1450 organizations and 1900 contacts. This database is informally maintained by CTSA staff.

6.3 Existing 5310 Technical Assistance Roles Assumed by the CTSA and METRO

Access Services as the CTSA plays important technical assistance role specific to the Section 5310 grant program. CTSA staff annually hosts a workshop along with representatives from Caltrans and MTA to provide training to potential applicants on how to complete the program application. CTSA staff additionally provides guidance and assistance to agencies in meeting their responsibilities for agency coordination which is necessary for the agency to meet application requirements. The Section 5310 grant application process involves a multi-part

FINAL 62 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY application form and process that has evolved over several decades. The CTSA role of supporting agencies through the coordination process of the Section 5310 grant has assuredly helped to increase the number of successful applicants from this county.

While the numbers vary annually, between 15 and 25 agencies typically submit a grant application in each cycle. As of the writing of this document, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is meeting with other transportation agencies in California for the purpose of redesigning the funding application to be consistent with the locally developed coordination planning process of SAFETEA-LU.

Metro as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) is responsible for evaluating all Section 5310 grant applications from agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County and forwarding the local priorities and application scores to Caltrans. As a part of this process, Metro establishes a Local Review Committee comprised of representatives of the CTSA, Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS), and Accessibility Advisory Committee. The Local Review Committee members represent providers of services to seniors and persons with disabilities, users of transportation services, non-profit and for profit transit service providers, and Metro In addition, Metro staff has developed a web site which contains all information on the Section 5310 program and allows individuals to develop an on-line application which can be submitted directly to Metro staff. Metro staff supports individual agencies in the overall preparation of their application, participating in the annual grant workshop and providing agencies with individual technical advice that is effective in increasing the number of successful applicants from the county. As a final step in the process, all projects that have been awarded funds are then included in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

FINAL 63 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

This chapter characterizes the funding available for transportation services potentially available for the target populations, with discussion of Federal, state and local sources.

7.1 FEDERAL FUNDING CONTEXT FOR COORDINATED PLANNING

There has long been recognition of the value of coordinating specialized transportation as an important mechanism for meeting the needs of persons for whom it is difficult to use the private automobile, rail or fixed-route public transport. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a 2003 report on coordination5, detailing the 62 federal programs that currently fund transportation services for individuals with a variety of specialized transportation needs and suggesting that improved coordination of these resources was needed to better address these transportation needs. The programs identified by the GAO report are primarily administered by the Federal Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Transportation. Collectively these spent an estimated $24 billion on transportation services in fiscal year 2001.

The GAO report identified various benefits to coordination, including improved customer service and selected financial benefits. A concurrent study sought to enumerate the economic benefits of coordination6, defining coordination as a “technique for better resource management” to realize benefits in such areas as: • Additional funding – more total funding and a greater number of funding sources • Increased efficiency – reduced cost per vehicle hour or per mile; • Increased productivity – more trips per month or passengers per vehicle hour • Enhanced mobility – increased access to jobs or health care, or trips provided to passengers at a lower cost per trip; and • Additional economic benefits – increased levels of economic development in the community or employment benefits for those persons associated with the transportation service.

In recognition of coordination needs at the Federal Level, on February 24, 2004 President Bush issued an Executive Order to create the interdepartmental Federal Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) and launched the United We Ride (UWR) initiative. With website access to best practices, information sharing and training resources and providing mechanisms for 11 federal departments to work together to simplify access, reduce duplication, and enhance cost efficiencies in community human service transportation.

As one tool of the CCAM, the FTA sponsored development of The Framework for Action: Building the Fully Coordinated Transportation System – a Self Assessment Tool for Communities and States (FTA, 2003). This tool was developed to enable and encourage

5 United States General Accounting Office, Transportation Disadvantaged Populations – Many Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination Persist (GAO-03-698T), May 1, 2003. 6 Transit Cooperative Research Report: Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Public Transit Services, Burkhardt, J.E., Koffman, D., and Murray, G. (2003). Published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, as TCRP Report 91.

FINAL 64 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY states, regions and localities in developing a clearer understanding of their current ability to promote coordinated transportation solutions. Fully coordinated systems were understood to solve access, service quality and cost issues that limit mobility. The Framework details a four-step model that involves: 1. Process Planning, to ensure that the right people are talking to one another; 2. Assessing, to evaluate what needs are met and where the system needs improvement; 3. Prioritizing to establish strategic options and focus resources towards clear goals; and 4. Action Planning, to move to a clear sense of who is expected to do what and by when, with clear outcomes and an accountability framework.

The preparation of this coordinated plan has generally followed the steps set forth by the CCAM’S Framework for Action.

With the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Transit Program (FTA) conducted a series of “listening sessions” around the country to obtain guidance as to how to implement facets of this complex transportation funding authorization. Guidance was sought from public transit operators, regional transportation planning agencies and metropolitan transportation organizations as to how to address, in regulation and circular guidance, numerous facets of the transportation re-authorization. Comments on the New Freedom program (and consistent with the President’s Executive Order, and increased funding for JARC and the existing 5310 capital program) recommended consolidating the coordination planning requirements of each program.

To that end, the final circulars issued by the Federal Transit Administration on May 1, 2007 all included a common Chapter V. (Section 5310 - FTA C. 9070.1F; Section 5316: Job Access and Reverse Commute [JARC] – FTA C 9050.1; and Section 5317: New Freedom – FTA C. 9045.1). This section, “Chapter V – Coordinated Planning”, requires that any projects funded through these sections be “derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit – human services transportation plan” with the plan “developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and participation by members of the public.”7 Table 7-1 identifies the general purposes that the plan should address in relation to the three Federal programs.

7 Page V-1 of each of the respective above-referenced circulars, Section 5310, Section 5316 and Section 5317 issued by the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, May 1, 2007.

FINAL 65 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Table 7-1 Summary of Goals of SAFETEA-LU’s Coordinated Locally-Developed Planning Process

The Coordinated Locally-Developed Plan shall identify transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and people with low incomes; provide strategies for meeting those local needs and prioritized transportation services for funding and implementation. [From the Overview in Chapter 5, Coordinated Planning of each of the Circulars related to Sections 5310, 5316 and 5317]

Program goals that the Plan shall address:

Section 5310, -- Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program: Provision of discretionary capital assistance in cases where public transit was inadequate or inappropriate to serve the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. [FTA Circular 9070.1F, p. I-3]

Section 5316 – Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program: Goal is to “improve access to transportation services to employment and employment-related activities for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals.” [FTA C.9050.1, p. II-1]

From the House of Representatives conference report, stated goal is that the FTA “continue its practices [with this program] of providing maximum flexibility to job access projects designed to meet the needs of individuals not effectively served by public transportation”. [HRC Report 109-203, Section 3018].

Section 5317 – New Freedom Program: Goal is to “provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society.” [FTA C.9045.1 p. II-2]

While no actual apportionments for the next three cycles (06/07 to 08/09) are available until the start of each Federal fiscal year, the SAFETEA-LU estimates from November 2005 suggest upward trends in the level of funding available for competitive awards. For instance, JARC levels are expected to grow by 6 to 8 percent a year; New Freedom levels by 4 to 8 percent a year; and 5310 levels by 5 to 9 percent a year. Based on the FY 05/06 carry over funds and the anticipated year to year increases (at national level), one anticipates those programs to grow to the end of FY 08/09. Estimated aggregate funding levels for the Los Angeles County metropolitan areas are:

JARC (Section 5316) New Freedom (Section 5317) FY 07 $5.76 M $2.36 M FY 08 $6.24 M $2.53 M FY 09 $6.58 M $2.70 M.

Additionally, the Section 5310 program, the longstanding capital program for services to seniors and persons with disabilities continues as a statewide, competitive program although this program too, is to be guided by direction from this plan. The statewide funding level for FY 06/07 is $12 million. A summary of possible “fundable” projects identified in the Circulars for each Federal program is presented as Appendix H.

FINAL 66 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

7.2 STATE LEVEL COORDINATION INITIATIVES

Various state-level coordination initiatives provide a context for and have relevance to the preparation of a “locally developed plan.” Some precede SAFETEA-LU’s coordination planning requirements and some anticipate them.

California has since the late 1970’s recognized the value to consumer of coordination of transportation services. AB 120, the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act, was passed by the California legislature in 1979. Amended by SB 826 in 1981, the Act established the authorizations for the Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs) and recognized the importance of an inventory activity to identify and catalog the human services transportation resources, specifically vehicles and funding. Unfortunately, no additional funding was provided to county-level agencies for the conduct of activities set forth In AB 120/SB 826 and county transportation commissions or regional transportation planning agencies have been complying with their own resources with the biennial and then every four-year inventory and Action Plan activities. The Act did allow for the utilization of California Transportation Development Act, Article 4.5 funds to support vehicle operations provided by the CTSAs.

The Olmstead Act has prompted more recent dialogue about coordination of human service transportation. The Olmstead Act is a consequence of court settlements intended to improve community-based services such that alternatives to institutionalization exist for seniors or others threatened with the potential need for long-term, institutional care. The Act provides guidance on the distribution of State funds and seeks to influence policy around its core purposes. In a recent issue paper authored by the Olmstead Advisory Committee – Diversion Work Group, transportation is recognized as a critical aspect of protecting health and well-being in the community: Table 7-2 Olmstead Advisory Committee – Diversion Work Group8 ISSUE 5: INCREASING ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

Policy Goal – To increase access to transportation alternatives that help individuals remain at home and in the community by, among other things, connecting consumers to medical, supportive and employment services.

Problem – A lack of coordination and silos of funding between programs spanning across the Health and Human Services Agency departments and the Department of Transportation has contributed to a fragmented human services transportation system. The system fragmentation can lead to difficulty accessing services for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Barriers – - Multiple funding streams operating across departments - Lack of resources necessary to meet demand for services.

8 Steenhausen, Sarah, Assistant Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency; Olmstead Advisory Committee – Diversion Work Group. Olmstead Issues Briefs – Draft 2: February 21, 2006, Sacramento, California.

FINAL 67 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Transportation actions supported through the Olmstead process include:

1. Addressing the Medi-Cal reimbursement structure for non-emergency medical transportation; 2. Supporting mobility management initiatives; 3. Increasing access to transit and paratransit by focusing on the location decisions for all service facilities; 4. Enhancing funding for paratransit; and 5. Amending the CTSA law to require that public transit programs evaluate the impact of route and service cuts on seniors and persons with disabilities.

Caltrans is also providing some state-level coordination leadership as a consequence of a United We Ride grant and an outgrowth of 2001 President Bush Executive Order directing coordination among Federal level transportation, health and human services, education and labor departments. Caltrans hosted the March 2005 United We Ride Mobility Summit which brought together over 200 persons, local, state and federal-level leaders, to examine issues of mobility for California’s more frail residents and the policies that inhibit or promote these.

The United We Ride Mobility Summit was a recommendation of a Long Range Strategic Plan for an Aging California (October 2003) which had identified transportation as an area for priority recommendations. The Summit vision was “improving mobility and access to services through interagency cooperation and greatly improved coordination.” There was recognition among the speakers of the need for infrastructure, for mechanisms by which to promote that coordination. The primary Summit recommendation was to address the need for a formal structure in California to address mobility and coordination barriers, implement mobility management at the state, regional and local levels.

Caltrans has supported the Transportation Task Team (TTT), meeting since 2004 as another recommendation of the Long Range Strategic Plan for an Aging California. Its focus has been on identification and promotion of strategies to build a state-level structure by which to support transportation coordination. The Caltrans TTT anticipates managing a consultant study during 2007, termed the California Mobility Action Plan, to move forward specific state-level policy issues related to transportation. These include developing guidance on the Medi-Cal transportation reimbursement policies, the interaction of various state-level agencies around transportation issues and devising the structure and guidance for a long range, comprehensive strategy to promote human services transportation coordination across the State.

7.3 LOCAL FUNDING PICTURE

Stakeholder agencies and organizations operating transportation in Los Angeles County receive funding from a wide-variety of sources. Responses to the survey supplemented by other information obtained from some stakeholders indicates that significant financial resources are allocated and expended on specialized transportation within the county.

Limited access to and availability of budgetary information relative to funding of transportation for the target populations, particularly for the human service agency/organization side, limits our ability to paint a complete funding picture. However, available numbers are reported to provide an order of magnitude in relation to the revenues expended on specialized transportation, discussed in the subsections following.

FINAL 68 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

7.3.1. Local, State and Federal Operating Subsidies for Public Transit Operators

Metro and the sixteen (16) municipal transit operators in Los Angeles County receive local, state and federal subsidies to support operation of their transit systems. These additional funding sources include:

♦ LACMTA Proposition A 40% Discretionary Program -Transit Operator Formula funds ♦ Proposition A and C Interest (in accordance with formula distribution policy set by MTA) ♦ Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds (Article 4) ♦ State Transit Assistance (STA) ♦ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ♦ FTA Sections 5307.

These funding sources are programmed and allocated by Metro on an annual basis to all “Included” transit operators in Los Angeles County (including the MTA). For FY 2007, Metro allocated more than $800 million from these funding sources, for both operating and capital expenditures. These “Included” operators are required to report to State and Federal agencies on the productivity and financial status of their transit systems on a routine basis, and prepare Short Range Transit Plans. The data collection and reporting requirements for these operators are extensive; however, these operators are eligible to receive funding under this particular Federal funding (Section 5307) which is not available to other Los Angeles County cities operating transit service.

Propositions A and C Local Return

In 1980 and 1990, Propositions A and C, respectively, were passed by the voters of Los Angeles County. Both ordinances enacted a one-half cent sales and use tax to be used for the development and improvement of public transit, paratransit, and the related transportation infrastructure. Each Proposition includes provisions for the allocation of a percentage of the total sales tax receipts to be returned to local jurisdictions within the County on a population- share basis (i.e. Proposition A 25% and Proposition C 20%). Each of the 88 local jurisdictions within the county receives an annual allocation of local return funds, which are currently expended for local transit projects. The funds are disbursed to cities by the County Auditor, while funds’ administration and management is the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA).

Since Proposition A and C funds are allocated to local jurisdictions on the basis of population, each city receives varying amounts of funding each year based upon amount of sales taxes collected. Cities must comply with the Local Return Program Guidelines developed by the LACMTA in order to expend Prop. A and C funds. The Guidelines specify types of projects that are eligible for both Proposition A and C funding, and projects that are exclusively eligible either for Proposition A or Proposition C funding. Eligible transit project expenditures under Proposition A and C include, but are not limited to:

♦ Public transit services – operating ♦ Fixed-route services ♦ Paratransit services ♦ Recreational transit services ♦ Bus stop improvements and maintenance

FINAL 69 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

♦ Public transit – capital ♦ Transit systems management (TSM) ♦ Transit security ♦ Fare subsidies ♦ Ridesharing ♦ Transit Marketing ♦ Park-and-Ride Lots ♦ Transit facilities ♦ Transportation Planning ♦ Synchronized Signalization

In FY 2007, Metro estimated that Proposition A and C Local Return receipts would exceed $158 million and $131 million, respectively.

During FY 2007 (through May 21) projects totaling more than $678 million in Local Return funds had been approved. This total is higher than the annual allocation because of numerous multi- year projects. This amount included projects totaling more than $227 million for transit and paratransit purposes. These were for fixed route and demand response operations, recreation trips, transit and paratransit vehicles, taxi vouchers, and bus pass subsidies.

In addition to Local Return funds, an estimated $13 million in Proposition A Incentive funds were allocated to subregional transportation programs, usually coordinated multi-jurisdictional paratransit programs.

Proposition A Incentive Program

The Proposition A Incentive Program annually provides funds to local agency paratransit operators who demonstrate that they are coordinating their services with adjoining cities. This program is important since it is a significant source of revenue to participating cities that elect to be a part of this program and meet the eligibility requirements.

Where cities can also be required to coordinate with non-profit agencies that operate in their service area, this could assist in improving mobility in the county. The funding for this program has increased and now includes a mini call for projects process to allow cities to replace aging paratransit vehicles.

Application-Based Funding - LACMTA Call for Projects

Every two years, Metro solicits funding applications from local jurisdictions and public agencies in Los Angeles County under a number of modal categories. Applications received are evaluated and ranked by MTA staff. Staff recommendations are then reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and other committees as appropriate, and forwarded to the MTA Board for approval.

Although funding for public transit in the county is considerable, there remain insufficient transportation revenues to meet the need. Recognizing that there is a scarcity of available local funds and public subsidies even for public transit, public transit can do more to leverage and maximize their local funding allocations and other transit subsidies through engaging in coordinated activities with other human service agencies in the county.

FINAL 70 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

7.3.2. Human Services Funding for Transportation

While the transportation funds expended for publicly-operated fixed route and demand responsive services are somewhat straightforward, it is more difficult to identify the level of funding expended by human service agencies/organizations for transportation in Los Angeles County. For the most part this is a result of different methods of budgeting for transportation services, as provision for transportation for clients is in many cases, included as an element of a broader organizational budget category. The survey requested that stakeholders provide budget information specific to their transportation operation, and a majority of respondents provided the project team with some information. However, since financial information may be considered proprietary by some agencies and organizations or may be included within other budgetary line items and difficult to breakout and given the low survey response rate, the funding picture of these agencies and organizations is not complete.

Public Transportation Funding of Human Service Transportation

Metro funds three programs which distribute taxi vouchers and bus tokens to other public and non-profit agencies. The largest program, the Immediate Needs Transportation Program, provides between $4 and $4.5 million annually in bus tokens and taxi vouchers (excluding administrative expenditures), distributed by approximately 800 public and private non-profit agencies. Metro has also provided $350,000 annually for bus tokens through the SHORE (Support for Homeless Re-Entry) program, and $700,000 annually for bus tokens distributed through the County’s Department of Public Social Services General Relief program. These budget levels were recently increased by Metro, at the time that system wide fares were increased.

In addition to Metro funds allocated for bus tokens and taxi vouchers, many local jurisdictions spend part of their Proposition A and C Local Return funds to subsidize bus passes for their residents.

Local Sources of Funding for Human Service Agency Transportation

Senior centers in many jurisdictions are responsible for managing the paratransit services in those jurisdictions, using Proposition A and C Local Return funds, Immediate Needs Transportation Program taxi vouchers and bus passes, and other funding sources. In addition, a few of these cities have received Section 5310 funding for vehicles and related equipment. And senior centers may receive other funds for transportation. For example, three senior centers responding to the survey (two operated by a non-profit agency and one with the City of Los Angeles senior centers) indicated receiving Department of Aging transportation funds, presumably Title III(b) of the Older Americans Act, in addition to Local Return funds.

The State Department of Aging budgeted $8.5 million to Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County for FY 2006 for supportive services and senior centers. Jurisdictions can spend part of these funds on transportation, which would supplement the Local Return funds which senior centers spend on transportation. An estimate could be 1% of these funds ($85,000) spent on transportation.

California Department of Developmental Services

Seven regional centers serve persons with developmental disabilities in Los Angeles County and provide selective transportation services for clients, funded by the state Department of

FINAL 71 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Developmental Services. These funds, totaling just under $49 million for the seven regional centers, support a range of transportation providers, including family member reimbursements, transportation contractors, medical transportation, public transportation, taxis, and other transportation options. Transportation services are generally provided to workshops, residential facilities, day activity centers, and other vendors serving regional center clients. Regional centers and their vendors spend a portion of their transportation funds on taxis and bus passes.

Regional centers and the agencies serving their clients have also funded transportation through Section 5310 grants for vehicles and related equipment.

Other Human Service Agency Funding Sources

Only a small percentage of the human service agencies/organizations responding to the survey included information on both transportation fund amounts and sources of transportation funding. Several agencies identified health-related fund sources for their transportation programs. These covered both the State Department of Health Services including Medi-Cal funding and the federal Health and Human Services Department.

The County Department of Public Social Services reports receiving $19 million from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), used predominately to purchase bus passes and taxi vouchers.

A total of 13 agencies responding to the survey indicated receiving some Medi-Cal funds for transportation. These included health-related agencies, non-profit agencies including one regional center serving persons with developmental disabilities, adult day health care centers, and private for-profit entities.

Based on the transportation expenditures reported by those agencies receiving Medi-Cal funding, an estimate can be made that they use $500,000 for transportation. The total amount expended within the county for Medi-Cal transportation is likely higher, based on the number of agencies/organizations who did not provide this information on the survey.

Some agencies identified state Department of Education funding and Federal Community Development Block Grants, as these sources also account for some of the transportation revenues expended in the county.

Ten agencies reported receiving donations, grants, and client fees, but no other sources of transportation funding. The total transportation expenditures for these agencies are $1.7 million; most of this amount is attributable to one for-profit entity.

Non-profit agencies generally rely on grants, private donations, and client fees; thus the total amount spent from these sources on human service transportation is certainly higher than the survey results indicate.

The responding faith-based agencies did not provide funding information through the survey. It can reasonably be assumed that these agencies rely on donations and other private funding sources. In addition, residential facilities and other programs serving older adults would rely on donations and fees, and possibly funds through agencies serving older adults.

FINAL 72 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

7.4 MEETING COORDINATION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

With respect to the Federal funding of concern to this Action Plan and funding available through Section 5316, JARC and Section 5317, New Freedom9, Metro is the designated recipient in Los Angeles County of these FTA funds. As such, it is required to: ¾ Conduct an area-wide competitive selection process ¾ Certify a fair and equitable distribution of the funds; and ¾ Certify that each project selected was derived from a locally developed coordinated public transit and human service transportation plan

The impetus for public transit to engage in coordination activities to human service agencies is fueled by Federal and State funding initiatives. As coordination plans and projects are developed, it is important that Metro serving as the designated recipient of Federal funding to remain visionary in its approach to selecting and funding coordination projects.

The local involvement process undertaken by Access Services in development of the coordinated action plan, and the subsequent recommendations developed for Los Angeles County are consistent with the current FTA guidance relative to developing a comprehensive unified coordination plan, to promote community mobility for seniors, disabled and low-income individuals in accordance with FTA Sections 5310, 5316 and 5317.

The survey inventory also enabled Access Services to re-establish and initiate new relationships with the larger human service agencies and organizations, including work programs. Federal guidance suggests that coordination efforts should promote active involvement of funding agencies/organizations in the on-going coordination dialogue. Some of the larger stakeholders in Los Angeles County that participated include: ¾ Department of Public Social Services ¾ East Los Angeles Regional Center, one of 7 Los Angeles County regional centers ¾ Developmental Disabilities Area Board X ¾ Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority ¾ Los Angeles City Commission on Disability ¾ Pomona Valley Transportation Authority ¾ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) ¾ Southern California Association of Governments ¾ ITNSantaMonica

Coordination “friendly” policies must be developed by regional public transit agencies and organizations to ensure that projects developed for funding can be incorporated into the regional Program of Projects (POP). Implementation of the recommendations outlined in this report will assist SCAG, Metro and Access Services in establishing a “culture of coordination” throughout the county which is expected to promote and grow coordinated responses to the mobility needs of the target populations.

9 Section 5310 the capital grant program for seniors and persons with disabilities remains as a statewide competitive process for which Caltrans is the administrator. Grants submitted through that process are to address needs “derived from the locally developed coordination plan.

FINAL 73 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter brings together the assessment of needs, assessment of available resources and potential strategies and actions to present these in a construct of recommended goals, objectives and strategies that begin to suggest projects. Discussion of the competitive selection process is included, with the understanding that agencies and organizations who are interested, willing and able to develop projects can now be encouraged to participate in future Calls for Projects to address the needs identified through this planning effort.

8.1 TRANSLATING NEEDS INTO PROJECTS

The myriad of individualized needs that emerged through discussions with agency/organization staff representatives and with consumers, begin to suggest project responses. Projects can be discussed in relation to the type of consumer whose needs present, as with senior transportation, or the types of trips needed, as with non-emergency medical transportation, or possibly in relation to the types of improvements to transportation necessary to serve members of the target populations.

Table 8-1 illustrates the connection between consumer needs and potential project responses. The table below shows the breadth of special needs and concerns typically expressed by the seniors, persons with disabilities and low income persons and their agency/organization representatives. It also shows the transit and/or specialized transportation modes and options currently used, (operated by either public transit or human service agencies) and outlines a number of potential project-oriented solutions identified as a result of the inventory and stakeholder outreach process, designed to meet specific needs. Consideration of these factors guided development of the action plan goals, objectives and strategies, including the projects these suggest, are detailed later in this chapter.

Immediately following Table 8-1 there is discussion of four sample project areas, included to suggest the types of projects that could be constructed in response to identified needs. These are: Consumer Needs – Senior Transportation Projects Trip Purpose Needs – Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Projects Transportation Improvement Needs – Information Portal Projects Transportation Improvement Needs – Driver Training Projects

FINAL 74 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Exhibit 8-1, Consumer Transportation Needs, Resources and Possible Projects Target Special Transportation Needs and Type of Potential Transit or Transportation Projects Population Concerns Transportation Modes - Fixed- route - Lack of knowledge about transit - Educational initiatives, including experience resources. - Point deviation with bus riding BEFORE it is needed. Seniors, Able- - Concern about safety and security and deviated FR - Buddy programs and assistance in “trying” Bodied - Awareness of time when driving - Senior DAR transit might be limited. - Special purpose - Transit fairs, transit seniors-ride-free days shuttles: recreation, nutrition, shopping

- Assistance to and through the - ADA Paratransit - Escorted transportation options door. - Emergency and - Door-through-door assistance; outside-the- Seniors, Frail - On-time performance and non-emergency vehicle assistance. and Persons reliability critical to frail users. medical - Increased role for volunteers. Chronically Ill - Assistance in trip planning transportation - Technology that provides feedback both to needed. - Escort/ consumer and to dispatch; procedures to - Need for shelters Companion identify frailest users when traveling. - Need for “hand-off” for terribly frail Volunteer driven - Individualized trip planning and trip services scheduling assistance. - Special purpose - Mileage reimbursement programs. shuttles - Appropriately placed bus shelters. - ADA Paratransit - Service quality and reliability - Emergency and - Continuing attention to service performance; Persons with - Driver sensitivity and appropriate non-emergency importance of time sensitive service Disabilities passenger handling procedure medical applications - Concerns about wheelchair pass- transportation - Driver education and attention to procedures bys - Special purpose about stranded or pass-by passengers with - Need for shelters shuttles disabilities. - Sometimes door to and through - Escort/ - Aggressive program of bus shelters door or issues of “hand-off” Companion - Information as universal design solution Volunteer driven - Easy access to trip planning information - Fixed-route - Train the trainers, staff who can train - Fare subsides (bus tokens or transit consumers to access public transit. passes) that can be provided in a - Point deviation - Creative fare options available to human Persons of medium that is not cash and deviated FR services agencies. Low Income - Availability of tokens or passes - Special purpose - Increased quantity of bus tokens available. and Homeless - Breaking down the culture of shuttles (work, - Bus passes available to those searching for Persons poverty that uses transportation as training, Sp Ed.) jobs or in job training programs; cost- the difficulty for not moving about effective. the community. - Special shuttles oriented to this population’s - Difficulties of mothers with multiple predictable travel patterns. children - Education extensive about transit; continued - Need to bring along shopping carts work to improve transit service levels (coverage, frequency, span of hours) Persons with - Difficulty in accessing visual or Same as for frail - Information in accessible formats Sensory auditory information. seniors - Guides (personal assistance) through Impairments - Possible door-to-door for visually information impaired - Driver training critical to respond to needs. - Medications make individuals sun- - ADA Paratransit - Possibly special shuttles oriented to these sensitive and waiting in the sun is - Emergency and known predictable travel needs. Persons with not an option. non-emergency Behavioral - Medications make for thirstiness; medical - Aggressive program of bus shelters Disabilities long hour waits in the heat can transportation lead to dehydration. - Special purpose - “Hand-off” can be critical to pass rider to a - Mental illnesses can make it shuttles responsible party. frightening to be in the public - Escort/ - Important that driver understand riders’ spaces such as public bus stops. Companion conditions. - Impaired judgment and memory Volunteer driven makes for poor decision-making.

FINAL 75 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Consumer Needs -- Senior Transportation Projects

The Beverly Foundation of Pasadena has been an important contributor to the national dialogue about how best to meet the transportation needs of seniors, annually naming an innovative program for its Star Award to identify best practices in supplemental transportation programs. Many of these programs involve coordinated transportation solutions. Particularly relevant to the Action Plan are two examples of tools designed to assist in meeting the needs of seniors are as follows:

1. Development of Senior Friendly grade cards to rate transportation services

The Beverly Foundation identifies the “5 As of Senior Friendly Transportation” as a way of establishing standards for transportation that truly meets the needs of seniors and their caregivers. Recently developing a “senior friendliness” grade card, the measures scored include:

• Availability (transportation services that are available to seniors) • Acceptability (transportation services that are acceptable to seniors) • Accessibility (transportation services that seniors can access) • Adaptability (transportation services that can be adapted to seniors needs) • Affordability (transportation services that are affordable for seniors and the community)

2. Encouraging the development of volunteer services for meeting specialized transportation needs

The Volunteer Driver TurnKey Kit is another tool for meeting specialized transportation needs. This is an online resource and includes planning, implementation, and evaluation materials for organizations interested in starting volunteer driver programs. The Volunteer Driver TurnKey Kit also includes resources on the Volunteer Friends model - a specialized pilot program for providing volunteer rides for seniors: www.beverlyfoundation.org/turnkeykit/index.html; Appendix G includes the Senior Friendly Grade Card, a component of the Volunteer Driver TurnKey Kit.

Trip Purpose Needs -- Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Projects

The persistent unmet need identified throughout the survey inventory and the stakeholder involvement process relates to the inability to make inter-jurisdictional non-emergency medical trips. These trips tend to be longer, traveling to specialty facilities or clinicians. Such trips tend to be at times that do not serve the convenience of the rider but rather the convenience of the agency or organization providing the service.

It is notable that when the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted, it made all trips equal, removing trip purpose as a gauge for measuring the “value” of a trip, recognizing that an isolated senior’s trip to the hairdresser, possibly the only trip out she might take that week, could be just as important as a work trip for a young adult with disabilities. However, because trip purpose was removed from consideration, some life-sustaining trips that are critically necessary can only be provided with greatest of difficulty.

FINAL 76 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This is due in part to the fact that public transportation funds allocated in Los Angeles County only minimally supports non-emergency medical trips. Such trips are typically across jurisdictional boundaries, more costly to operate, and serving destinations outside the city where the consumer lives. This makes it difficult to fund such trips with local tax revenue that is based upon a return-to-point-of-sale.

Another viable source of funding has been largely denied to Californians, because California’s interpretation of the Title XIX, Medicaid [Medi-Cal] transportation benefit is different from most other state’s interpretation of Medicaid reimbursement. Federal regulation 42 CFR 431.53 requires all states receiving federal Medicaid funds assure transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries “to and from [medical] providers”. Most states today comply with federal mandates assuring access to covered services. It is generally accepted that the lack of access to transportation must not restrict Medicaid recipients’ access to medical services. However, states are given considerable latitude in how they meet their Medicaid transportation obligations, and as a result there is wide variation in the way they assure access to care.

Notwithstanding federal requirements, California’s Medi-Cal program does little to ensure transportation to medical appointments for either managed care or fee-for-service beneficiaries. Unlike virtually every other state, eligibility for transportation assistance under the Medi-Cal program is based on physical ability and not economic need or the availability of transportation alternatives. Under California Medi-Cal rules, reimbursement of travel to medical appointments is restricted to persons who are physically unable to use conventional modes of transportation, regardless of their access to a car or ability to afford a taxi, and without regard to their access to public transit services. In short, California’s non-emergency medical transportation policies are not on par with those of other states.

This fact reinforces the importance of continued attention to the topic of enforcement of the intent of Medicaid funding policies for non-emergency medical transportation in California, which is particularly important for Los Angeles County residents whose trip distances can be considerable and are far less likely to be served using other kinds of transportation options.

Transportation Improvement Needs – Information Portal Projects

A coordinated plan must recognize the importance of information. In the Los Angeles County transportation environment there is a definitive need to establish numerous pathways or “portals” to ensure access to transportation information for everyone. While transportation services are insufficient to meet every need, there are often more mobility options available than are known.

For specialized transportation, there need to be many ways to access transportation information. In addition, information about transportation must be made available in as many formats as possible including:

Paper and printed materials (maps, schedules, informational how-to pieces, etc.); Electronic media (e.g. Internet and mass email communications strategies); Face-to-face communication (meetings, transportation marketing events); Telephone-based methods of communication; regional single number options and the integration of 211 and 511 resources.

FINAL 77 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Proactive methods to ensure that information is distributed to a widespread audience should include: • Empowering agency/organization personnel, caseworkers and front line staff who work directly with consumers in the provision of transportation information and fare media;

• Conducting periodic training sessions or workshops about available transportation options for staff working with consumers, potentially traveling with these to groups of agency staff given their difficulty in giving transportation any priority;

• Distributing information on the web and by email, in community centers and gathering places (such as libraries, churches and senior centers); and

• Continuing to provide person-assisted solutions such as Access Services RideInfo operator assisted transportation information to help individuals find their way through the broad array of transportation resources of Los Angeles County to a solution that will meet their needs.

Another important aspect of the information portal concept is the ability to provide information to transportation users, about the ride itself. Low income focus group participants expressed the need for real-time information on the schedule of buses. When will the bus arrive? How late will it actually be? Staff speaking on behalf of frail, disabled seniors indicated their need for better communication with paratransit dispatch about the rider and a specific trip. This issue was also related to increasing language options in the development of informational materials in this culturally and ethnically diverse region.

Communication and the provision of information must be constantly reinforced so that agencies and organizations remain current with major changes to the transportation environment, even in the event of staff turnover.

Transportation Improvement Needs – Driver Training Projects

Many consumers discussed issues of customer service, specifically how they perceive themselves to be treated by drivers and even dispatchers. What is characterized as “poor treatment” is a recurring theme among consumers and a complicated issue to address. Rude drivers and dispatchers may sometimes be a reflection of the difficulties of providing transportation to the public in this expansive, increasingly congested, urban area. This fact is compounded when serving persons needing special assistance, and occasionally results in negative interactions between customers and transportation personnel. Consumers believe that the trip experience would be much better if customer service was improved through driver training, dispatcher sensitivity sessions and protocols that address how transit personnel relate to consumers.

There are training opportunities that can assist in improving driver understanding and sensitivity to the consumer. Other strategies need to be employed for dispatcher training. The development of effective training projects designed to improve agencies/organizations customer service practices for certain population subgroups are needed. For example, working with the chronically mentally ill population is challenging, and there may well be some training modules that mental health workers could develop that will assist drivers and dispatchers.

FINAL 78 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

8.2 PRIORITIES FOR PROJECT SELECTION

Meeting the specialized transportation needs of the three diverse and often overlapping segments of the population, seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals will continue to be challenging into the future. Actions and strategies developed should be effective in incrementally improving services, by providing as many travel options as possible to the target populations based upon their individual needs, and informing them about those options. This can be accomplished by gradually building the capacity of public transit and human service agencies/organizations to develop and implement coordinated projects, plans and programs. Both public transit and human service agencies/organizations must be active partners in this capacity building process.

The actions necessary to increase the capacity of public transit to offer improved access and availability to transportation options for the target populations will differ from those actions and strategies needed to build capacity for human services.

For example, in Los Angeles County, public transit operators have built significant infrastructure, and are taking the initiative to build capacity by implementing technological solutions to improve service delivery and efficiency for all population segments. Infrastructure includes bus maintenance and parking/ storage facilities, bus transfer locations and customer information kiosks, among other examples. Other types of infrastructure are softer and include staffing with dedicated responsibility for vehicle maintenance, customer information or meeting transit reporting requirements. These are among the infrastructure resources available to public transit but rarely to human service transportation providers.

Building the capacity and reliability of human service transportation providers to complement public transportation services is critical, since the overall mission of these agencies/organizations is to serve individualized need, including operating services that public transportation cannot (e.g., non-emergency medical, door-through-door, etc.). For this reason, project opportunities designed to strengthen the ability of human service agencies and organizations to continue to provide the hard-to-serve trip needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals should be encouraged.

Priorities relative to the development and funding of coordinated transportation projects identified through the locally developed comprehensive unified plan should:

• Adequately address the unmet/underserved and individualized transportation needs of the targeted populations;

• Maintain consistency with current Federal and State funding regulations and requirements;

• Be financially sustainable;

• Include measurable goals and objectives, largely developed by the applicant agencies;

• Build and/or increase overall system capacity and service quality; and

• Leverage and maximize existing transportation funding and capital resources, including human services funding.

FINAL 79 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The single most important consideration in the process to prioritize and select coordinated projects and programs for funding, will lie in the project’s potential to satisfactorily address and/or resolve identified transportation need(s) of the target populations.

8.3 FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATION

The project team approach to development of recommendations is designed to provide Access Services and stakeholder agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County with additional guidance to continue their efforts to expand and strengthen this framework for coordination. Over the years, public transit operators have made significant strides in working to coordinate areas of their services (e.g. UFS, transfer arrangements). However, we believe that there remain a myriad of opportunities to work with human service agencies/organizations to plan for and to ultimately deploy newly developed coordinated plans and programs to address the changing transportation needs in the County.

In previous sections of this report we have developed a rationale for prioritizing projects selected for funding, and have identified potential solutions to address the needs of the target populations. Current FTA guidance suggests that specific project recommendations relative to a Program of Projects (POP) do not need to be included in coordinated plans at this juncture. Rather plans should provide the framework for decision-making around the subsequent POP process. In addition, we believe that viable coordination projects can only be developed by those with significant understanding of the details of the transportation environment. Therefore, our recommendations are focused on building the coordinated framework and strengthening ties between public transit and human service agencies and organizations. The wholly inclusive stakeholder involvement process that was undertaken as an element of the action plan resulted in an array of actions, strategies and project recommendations that represent the next logical steps toward coordination.

8.3.1. Regional Mobility Manager

Mobility Management, as articulated in the federal circulars delineating the requirements of JARC, New Freedom and Section 5310 programs, is viewed as central to the concept of coordination. As such, implementation of mobility management initiatives are eligible capital expenditures, funded at the larger Federal share of 80 percent.

Specifically, the circular language states: “Mobility management techniques may enhance transportation access for populations beyond those served by one agency or organization within a community….Mobility management is intended to build coordination among existing public transportation providers and other transportation service providers with the result of expanding the availability of service. Mobility management activities may include:

(a) The promotion, enhancement, and facilitation of access to transportation services, including the integration and coordination of services for individuals with disabilities, older adults and low-income individuals; (b) Support for short-term management activities to plan and implement coordinated services: (c) The support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils;

FINAL 80 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

(d) The operation of transportation brokerages to coordinated providers, funding agencies and customers; (e) The provision of coordination services, including employer-oriented Transportation Management Organizations’ and Human Service Organizations’ customer-oriented travel navigator systems and neighborhood travel coordination activities such as coordinating individualized travel training and trip planning activities for customers; (f) The development and operation of one-stop transportation traveler call centers to coordinate transportation information on all travel modes and to manage eligibility requirements and arrangements for customers among supporting programs; and (g) Operational planning for the acquisition of intelligent transportation technologies to help plan and operate coordinated systems… “10 The Mobility Manager concept as described in the circular, are not new to California as this guidance includes many of the elements of the original AB 120 and SB 826 Social Service Transportation Improvement Act. The difference is that the mobility manager roles and responsibilities now encourage coordination between public transit and human services transportation.

The mobility manager construct for Los Angeles County will to a large degree assume the persona of the responsible lead agency. In fact, organizationally mobility management can be accomplished in any number of ways which include, but are not limited to:

Integration of a new functional unit or section within an existing agency/organization; or Creation of a new and separate organization established for mobility management purposes

Given the size of Los Angeles County and the rate of projected growth in the targeted populations over the next few years, the regional mobility manager is envisioned to play a major role in furthering coordination efforts.

Figure 8-1 is a graphic that shows the conceptual roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager, potentially supported by sub-regional mobility management efforts within the sub-regions in the longer term. The regional mobility manager would be guided by an advisory body comprised of a representative group of public transit and human service agency/organization representatives.

The regional mobility manager will initially develop an agreed upon “agenda” of actions needed to further coordination efforts in the county. This mobility manager will serve as the catalyst or guiding force in implementation of coordinated transportation plans, projects and programs.

10 FTA Circular 9045.1 New Freedom Program Guidance and Application Instructions, May 1, 2007, p. III-10 to III-11.

FINAL 81 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Figure 8-1

As coordination efforts between public transit and human service agencies and organizations are implemented throughout Los Angeles County, it is envisioned that the regional mobility manager will become the central mechanism for implementation of coordinated activities. It will be important that this entity remains flexible and innovative in its approaches to coordination, as its role will vary depending nature of the strategy, plan or activity to be accomplished. This role will include but is not limited to, serving in a number of capacities as partner, broker and/or coordinator of projects, plans and programs.

FINAL 82 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

8.3.2. The Coordinated Transportation Environment

Figure 8-2 graphically depicts the concept of a coordinated transportation environment.

Concentric circles illustrate the relationship envisioned for the regional mobility manager within the current public transit and human service agency/organization transportation environments. The regional mobility manager with its multiplicity of roles can serve as the translator and liaison between the two systems toward the goal of mobility improvement for the target populations.

Figure 8-2

FINAL 83 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

8.3.3. Other Coordination Issues -- Coordination Between Public Transit Providers

Coordination must also mean coordination within systems, particularly within public transit programs. This perspective on coordination is equally important, especially for public transit whose sole business is to operate transportation that should be seamless and transparent to the rider. Although, there are and have been coordination initiatives undertaken by Los Angeles County public transit operators (e.g., development of a universal fare system, acceptance of transfers between agencies, joint vehicle purchases, etc.) there remain opportunities to strengthen the public transit network to better serve consumers.

For example, establishing core service operating hours across a region would benefit the transit dependent low-income rider who may need to travel distances from home to work and back again, and must be certain that a return trip can be made. Other examples of potential areas of coordination could include standardization of age eligibility requirements between systems and coordinated scheduling and dispatching.

8.4 PLAN VISION AND GOALS

The following overall vision is proposed for Los Angeles County’s locally developed coordination action plan:

IMPROVED COMMUNITY MOBILITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY SENIORS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS OF LOW INCOME

1. Establish a coordination infrastructure to promote coordination within and between public transit agencies and the human services organizations. 2. Build capacity to meet demand for specialized transportation needs of a growing population. 3. Promote information portals to enable numerous points of Access to transportation information and responsive to varying consumer information and transportation arranging needs. 4. Promote policies at federal, state, regional and local levels to promote specialized transportation services and programs.

8.5 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS

The project team approach to development of recommendations is designed to guide public transit and human service agencies/organizations in the creation of a coordinated framework to plan, program and allocate funding and ultimately deploy new transportation initiatives that will address the transportation needs in Los Angeles County. To this end, the project team has developed four (4) goals, supported by sixteen (16) implementing objectives to accomplish coordination in the county. In addition, a total of forty-two (42) implementing actions, strategies and projects are recommended. The goals, objectives and potential projects or strategies are presented below and outlined in Table 8-2.

These goals are responsive to the Federal guidance for the locally developed plan will provide the direction through which needs of the Los Angeles County target populations can be met.

FINAL 84 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

The implementing strategies are the methods by which gaps in services and opportunities for improved efficiencies may be addressed through coordinated strategies and initiatives. The four goals are described as follows:

Goal 1 - Coordination Infrastructure

Given the level and diversity of needs in the county, a regional approach to facilitating coordination is needed, as no one agency or organization has the resources to effectuate the necessary cultural, institutional and operational changes needed to accomplish coordination goals. Coordination in Los Angeles County cannot be accomplished without dedicated staff and financial resources. Projects funded under this goal should establish and/or further the development of the mobility manager concept, to be implemented at a regional level, sub- regionally and at agency levels. This includes:

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Establish a Regional Mobility Manager capability to provide leadership on coordination of specialized transportation within Los Angeles County. 2. Promote sub-regional Mobility Manager capabilities through the Call for Projects and through outreach by the Regional Mobility Manager. 3. Conceptualize tools to support voluntary, agency-level mobility manager capabilities and recruit human services and public transit agency participation. 4. Develop visibility around specialized transportation issues and needs, encouraging high level political and agency leadership. Eligible Projects may include: Identification of a lead agency for the regional mobility manager. Defined roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager Establish a high level advisory body, strategic oversight committee. Create regional mechanisms to promote coordination including the annual inventory updating and regularly scheduled workshops for expanded training. Mechanisms to identify stakeholder partners as “member” agencies and creating strategies to improve communication among these organizations around coordinated transportation issues. Projects to promote visibility of Regional Mobility Manager role and functions. Conduct of an annual Mobility Summit structured to involve highest level leadership. Develop sub-regional mobility manager capabilities through pilot efforts to test inter-systems coordination. Create mechanisms by which the Regional Mobility Manager and sub-regional mobility managers can work together to promote the Coordination Plan vision and goals. Develop joint training opportunities to bring together human services and public transit personnel, including driver, maintenance and information specialist training.

FINAL 85 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Goal 2 – Building Capacity

Acknowledging that more transportation capacity is needed to meet the needs of a growing population within Los Angeles County, this goal proposes more trip options for the target populations. This goal inherently requires a strengthening of the ability of human service agencies to provide trips that public transit cannot, thereby increasing not only capacity but access to services. The notions of reliability, quality of service and service monitoring are reflected under this goal, important for both public transit and human service agency transportation providers. Projects and activities under this category could involve the following:

FUNDING CATEGORY: BUILDING CAPACITY

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Promote policies to increase the quantity of public transit and specialized transportation provided. 2. Improve the quality of public and specialized transportation, with attention to meeting individualized needs. 3. Improve transportation solutions between cities and between counties. 4. Make capital improvements to support safe, comfortable, efficient rides for the target populations. 5. Establish mechanisms to support transportation services provided by human services agencies. 6. Establishing procedures to measure the quantities of trips provided, existing and new.

Eligible Projects may include: Expand availability of specialized transportation into evenings, on Saturdays and on Sundays. Promote vehicle maintenance, vehicle loaner and vehicle back-up programs for human services agencies. Establish basic reporting tools, including driver logs, dispatch logs and standardized definitions of terms that can be easily adopted by human services agencies and utilized in reporting on transportation services provided. Research liability insurance options for human service organizations, including general liability for vehicle operations and for volunteer-based programs; distribute widely information about these findings and resources.

FINAL 86 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Goal 3 – Information Portals

The need to broaden the reach of information related to transit and specialized transportation services for clients/consumers, as well as stakeholder agencies and organizations is critical. Los Angeles County has a wealth of transportation service resources. Points of access to transportation information must be expanded to make it easier for everyone to understand and use the transportation network. Activities proposed under this goal include:

FUNDING CATEGORY: INFORMATION PORTALS

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

4. Integration and promotion of existing information strategies, including 211, web-based tools and Access Services RideInfo to help get public transit and specialized transportation information to consumers. 5. Development of information portal tools for wide distribution of existing information. 6. Promoting opportunities to disseminate transportation information for human services agency line staff and workers. Eligible Projects may include: Establish a working group, with proper authority, to integrate the multiplicity of information resources available related to public and specialized transportation. Develop regional, systems-level and agency-level pilot projects to test information applications the effectively promote existing transit to the target groups. Create simple flyers and/or other media that direct agency staff of human services organizations to the wide array of resources that can help them access transportation on behalf of their consumers. Work with METRO subcommittees and ASI subcommittees to identify additional methods of information dissemination. Maintain and update developed portal access tools. Ensure that Regional Mobility Manager tools, such as RideInfo, are maintained, kept current and information about them widely distributed. Develop transit information modules geared towards agency staff and provide these at various locations around Los Angeles County to help maintain current information among human services personnel. Create information tools that address connections with neighboring counties. Develop bi-lingual and multi-lingual information strategies, including at transit customer services centers.

FINAL 87 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Goal 4 – Coordination Policies

There is a need to effectuate changes to governmental policies and practice that may discourage coordination – at local, regional, state and federal levels for the purpose of realizing coordination goals between the two systems of public transportation and human services delivery. For example, there is a continuing effort to challenge and potentially change Medi-Cal reimbursement policies at the state level. Other policies will need to be identified and addressed over time, in part through measurement of the success, failure and impacts of implemented projects. Activities developed under this goal may include:

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION POLICIES

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Work to establish non-emergency medical transportation policies to more cost-effectively meet medically-related trip needs. 2. Establish a Call for Projects process sufficiently flexible for applicants to construct projects responsive to identified needs in a broad range of ways. 3. Establish processes by which implemented projects are evaluated against goals set by applicant agencies. 4. Report on project successes and impacts at direct service levels, sub-regional levels and countywide levels and promote project success at state and federal levels. 5. Review policies related to transportation of target population members between counties where the policies are a deterrent to transporting individuals to medical facilities within a reasonable distance of county borders.

Eligible Projects may include: Participate in activities that promote policy changes to California’s NEMT reimbursement procedures to support need-based and not simply functionally-based tests, including inviting public transit providers into the Medi-Cal provider role. Establish technical assistance roles, related to the Call for Projects, building upon the Section 5310 approach to prospective. Measurable goals set forth by applicant organizations that identify the means by which they wish their projects’ success/ failure to be assessed. Collect and tabulate data on implemented coordination projects, assessing implementation against goals agencies themselves have established. Identify successes, as well as poor performance, and report on specialized transportation projects and solutions that are effective. Document successes on a range of measures that may include cost-effectiveness, responsiveness to consumer needs, consumer satisfaction levels, responsiveness to agency personnel requirements and measure of coordination that may be identified. Create mechanisms, including state and multi-county conferences, where lessons learned can be shared and experiences of other regions sought.

FINAL 88 SEPTEMBER 2007

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Table 8-2 VISION: IMPROVED COMMUNITY MOBILITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY SENIORS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS OF LOW INCOME

GOAL 1.0: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1.1.1 Identify lead agency for the regional mobility manager. 1.1 Establish a Regional Mobility Manager capability to provide leadership on coordination of specialized 1.1.2 Define roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager. transportation within Los Angeles County. 1.1.3 Establish a high level advisory body, strategic oversight committee, or other entity to invite highest level membership by elected officials, regional human service agency leadership and public transit leadership representative of the breadth of organizations of potential stakeholder partners.

1.1.4 Establish regional mechanisms to promote coordination, including annual resource inventory updating, regularly scheduled workshops with expanded training opportunities, and promotion of adopted initiatives to stakeholders.

1.1.5 Identify “member” agencies and establish ongoing mechanisms for communication via email, surface mail and other strategies, utilizing these as a method of updating the inventory.

1.1.6 Develop visibility for the Regional Mobility Manager through e-newsletters to “member” agencies, promoting understanding of this as a portal of access into coordinated specialized transportation solutions within Los Angeles County.

1.2.1 Identify and develop pilot geographic areas, agencies or groups of 1.2 Promote sub-regional Mobility Manager agencies for sub-regional mobility managers to test inter-systems coordination. capabilities through the Call for Projects and through 1.2.2 Identify specific action areas and activities by which the Regional Mobility outreach by Regional Mobility Manager Manager and the sub-regional mobility manager(s) work together to promote Coordination Plan vision and goals.

1.2.3 Develop joint training opportunities that bring together human services personnel and public transit personnel, including driver, maintenance and information specialist training.

FINAL 89 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GOAL 1.0: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE (CONT’D)

1.3.1 Identify, develop and promote the mechanisms to increase the number of 1.3 Conceptualize tools to support voluntary, agency- direct service level mobility managers, establishing procedures for getting level mobility manager capabilities and recruit human information from the regional and sub-regional mobility managers to them. services and public transit agency participation. 1.3.2 Develop the inventory database into an agency-level “membership” tool to encourage participation at all levels in mobility manager activities.

1.4 Develop visibility around specialized 1.4.1 Conduct an annual summit of highest leadership levels among stakeholder partners to promote successes and address outstanding policy transportation issues and needs, encouraging high issues in specialized transportation. level political and agency leadership.

GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY 2.1.1 With affected stakeholder partners, review policies related to token, bus 2.1 Promote policy that increases the quantity of pass and day pass programs to enhance the capabilities of programs serving public transit, paratransit and specialized low-income populations to get more trips to these consumers. transportation provided. 2.1.2 Promote policies to expand availability of specialized transportation into evenings, on Saturdays and on Sundays.

2.1.3 Promote the Call for Projects to specifically strengthen the service provision capabilities of successful applicants, in areas that may include centralized maintenance, joint vehicle procurement, parts or supplies procurement or purchase of insurance.

2.1.4 Pilot brokered specialized transportation services that invite agencies to pool resources and utilize centralized, or sub-regional, provider(s) of service.

2.1.5 Identify and encourage private sector responses to specialized transportation need, including taxi, jitney and commercial operator options.

2.2.1 Promote successful technology applications that improve paratransit on- 2.2 Identify and invest in strategies to improve the time performance, customer communication and bus pass/ bus token purchase quality of specialized transportation, with attention to capabilities for target populations. meeting individualized needs. 2.2.2 Establish driver training programs, tools, modules or resources that emphasize effectively meeting individualized needs of the target populations.

FINAL 90 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY (CONT’D)

2.2 Identify and invest in strategies to improve the 2.2.3 Promote coordination among public transit entities around coordinated policies of core service hours, days, fares, eligibility and transfer policies. quality of specialized transportation, with attention to meeting individualized needs (cont’d.). 2.2.4 Promote specialized transportation applications that address door-to-door, door-through-door and escorted transportation needs.

2.2.5 Establish outreach to rail and aviation modes of transport, with attention to specialized transportation needs and issues.

2.2.6 Support same-day transportation innovations through all means available.

2.2.7 Collect data to document needs and identify potential strategies to address mobility needs of hidden populations, including incarcerated homeless persons who are released from jail.

2.3.1 Promote pilot solutions that serve major cross-county corridors and 2.3 Develop strategies for improving transportation destinations, meeting target populations’ needs. solutions between cities and between counties. 2.3.2 Promote projects to provide connections between airports with major, regional medical facilities.

2.3.3. Promote Call for Projects opportunities that invite innovative responses to specialized transportation connectivity needs, including use of volunteers. 2.4.1 Promote the broadest range of capital projects that can improve the riding 2.4 Promote capital improvements to support safe, experience of users, including support for bus shelters, benches, lighting at comfortable, efficient rides for the target populations. stops, information technology at stops and on vehicles. 2.4.2 Promote vehicle and vehicle-related capital projects that ensure safe and accessible services to the target populations.

2.5.1 Promote vehicle maintenance, vehicle loaner and vehicle back-up 2.5 Establish mechanisms to support transportation programs for human services agencies. services provided by human services agencies. 2.5.2 Research liability insurance options for human service organizations, including general liability for vehicle operations and for volunteer-based programs; distribute widely information about these findings and resources.

FINAL 91 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY (CONT’D)

2.5 Establish mechanisms to support transportation 2.5.3 Encourage cooperative relationships between public transit providers and human services organizations around transit support functions (e.g. services provided by human services agencies, maintenance, training) through workshop settings, special projects and any cont’d. other means devised. 2.5.4 Establish basic reporting tools, including driver logs, dispatch logs and standardized definitions of terms that can be easily adopted by human services agencies and utilized in reporting on transportation services provided.

2.5.5 Encourage the use of basic reporting tools by human services agencies through all possible means, including the Call for Projects and liaison with other human services funding sources (regional centers, Dept. of Public Social Services, Headstart, Dept. of Mental Health and others).

2.6.1. Promote full participation in the Mobility Manager inventory process and 2.6 Establish procedures to measure the quantities of develop other means of achieving accurate counts of all publicly-supported trips provided, existing and new. specialized transportation programs in Los Angeles County. 2.6.2 Require all applicants to the Call for Projects to complete inventory forms and to be in the specialized transportation database.

2.6.3 Require successful Call for Projects applicants to establish goals for trips or other units or services anticipated, reporting on actual trips/services provided

2.6.4 Establish other mechanisms to improve the accuracy of counting trips provided by human services organizations to the target populations.

GOAL 3.0 INFORMATION PORTALS

3.1.1 Convene a working group, with proper authority and appropriate 3.1 Integrate and promote existing information membership, to work to integrate the multiplicity of information resources strategies, including 211, web-based tools and Access available, focusing particularly on the information needs of the target populations and their caseworkers. Services RideInfo to get specialized transportation information to consumers. 3.1.2 Develop regional, systems-level and agency level pilot projects to test information applications that promote existing transit for the target populations.

FINAL 92 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GOAL 3.0 INFORMATION PORTALS, CONT’D

3.2.1. Create simple flyers and/or other media that direct human service 3.2 Develop information portal tools for wide agency staff to an array of resources that help them access specialized distribution, cont’d. transportation services on behalf of their consumers. 3.2.2 Work with METRO subcommittees, including BOS, LTSS and consumer advisory groups to identify additional methods of information distribution.

3.2.3 Work with Access Services advisory committees on information distribution and explore alternative methods and enhancement to existing methods.

3.2.4 Maintain and update developed portal access tools.

3.2.5 Ensure that regional Mobility Manager information tools, such as RideInfo, are maintained, kept current with information broadly distributed.

3.2.6 Invite through the Calls for Projects strategies that establish, promote, enhance and extend transit and specialized transit information portals.

3.3.1 Develop and promote transit introduction modules to provide periodic 3.3 Promote information opportunities for human training to agency level staff on transportation options across the Los Angeles services agency line staff and direct service workers region, potentially including connections with neighboring counties. 3.3.2 Hold periodic workshops, distributed geographically across the county and targeted to different subgroups of agency personnel to bring them current with available transportation resources and information tools.

FINAL 93 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GOAL 4.0 COORDINATION POLICIES

4.1.1 Participate in activities that promote policy changes to California’s NEMT 4.1 Work to establish non-emergency medical MediCal reimbursement to support need-based and not simply functionality- transportation policies and more cost-effectively based tests, including inviting public transit providers into the MediCal provider role. meet medically-related trip needs.

4.2.1 Ensure that the Call for Project design has sufficiently flexibility to 4.2 Establish a Call for Projects process sufficiently encourage projects that innovatively respond to needs and can address needs flexible for applicants to construct and implement in the widest possible way. projects responsive to identified needs in a broad 4.2.2 Building upon the Section 5310 technical assistance approach, provide range of ways. adequate technical assistance to prospective applicants -- during the period building up to the Call for Projects and after the announcement process, to improve the quality of the project proposals and to ensure compliance with Federal requirements.

4.3.1 Ensure that measurable goals are established for all projects, potentially 4.3 Establish processes by which implemented inviting applicants to set forth the measurable goals against which they wish projects are evaluated against goals set by applicant their projects to be assessed. agencies. 4.3.2 Collect ongoing data on coordination projects implemented, assessing projects against goals which agencies themselves may establish.

4.4.1 Identify success, as well as poor performance, and report on specialized 4.4 Report on project successes and impacts at transportation projects and solutions that are effective. direct service levels, subregional level and 4.4.2 Document successes on a range of measures that include cost- countywide levels; pursue opportunities to promote effectiveness, responsiveness to consumer needs, consumer satisfaction levels project successes at state and federal levels and responsiveness to agency personnel requirements. 4.4.3 Create mechanisms, such as regional or state-level conferences, where system-wide lessons learned can be shared and experiences of other regions sought.

FINAL 94 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

8.6 SEQUENCING AND PRIORITIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Public transit and human service agency/organization transportation in Los Angeles County are documented in this plan as extensive and substantially funded. This plan proposes the enhancement and improvement of the existing network of services through coordination -- specifically for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. A coordination vision is proposed of improved mobility for the target populations.

To accomplish this vision, several dozen implementing actions and strategies have been detailed in Table 8-2, with the expectation that there will be incremental implementation and refinement of actions and strategies over the next few years. The strategies outlined in this report should be viewed as guidance for public transit and human service agencies, as actual projects developed by these stakeholders will be based upon their specific needs, resources and ability and willingness to work to establish coordination relationships with others.

The understanding that coordinated transportation projects must be tied directly to the needs demonstrated by the target populations is vital to development of coordinated projects and programs that will have measurable outcomes. Public transit and human service agencies and organizations must work together to identify and acknowledge the most pressing specialized needs demonstrated by the target populations within communities in Los Angeles County, and subsequently develop projects and programs to meet those needs.

We recognize that the activities associated with building the framework for the coordinated transportation environment in Los Angeles County must be implemented gradually in order to realize sustainable benefit. Therefore, we are recommending a phased approach to implementation of the goals and accompanying activities outlined below.

Phase I – Establishing Coordination Infrastructure (Goal 1)

Los Angeles County Regional Mobility Manager

The establishment and implementation of the regional mobility manager (RMM) function and gradual development of sub-regional mobility managers in at least 5 subregions in the county are the fundamental recommendations of the action plan. It is recommended that a regional mobility manager, including the governance body or technical advisory body discussed in the detail following be put into place within a reasonable time frame.

As discussed previously, RMM roles and responsibilities can either be designated to an existing agency/organization, or a new entity can be formed. The RMM should serve to further the goals outlined in the plan, and continue efforts to establish relationships between public transit and human service agencies, including technical assistance and cooperation with subregional mobility managers for the purposes of developing coordinated transportation plans, programs and projects.

This essentially means that the RMM guided by an advisory body comprised of a representative group of public transit and human service agency/organization representatives should initially serve as the clearinghouse for development of information and technical resources that can enhance accessibility for both public transit and human service agencies and organizations specific to transportation services within the county as a whole. As coordination efforts begin to

FINAL 95 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY evolve, the role of the RMM can conceivably be expanded to broker services and/or direct service provision.

In order to ensure that the RMM will remain committed to the development and implementation of a proactive coordination agenda, it is recommended that the advisory body of public transit and human service agencies and organizations be only those that are willing and interested in working together to accomplish pre-determined objectives aimed at addressing specialized transportation needs in Los Angeles County. Therefore, those electing to participate in the RMM advisory group would conceivably: ‰ Be representatives of organizations, agencies and entities with an interest in addressing the issues relative to the target populations’ needs; ‰ Have the consent and support of executive management within their own organization/agency to regularly and actively participate within the group; ‰ Be positioned to represent their agency/organizations’ viewpoints, and have access to responsible decision-makers within their organization/agency; and ‰ Have some knowledge of specialized transportation issues as it is manifested by the target populations represented by their organization/agency.

An initial outreach effort should be conducted to solicit stakeholder organization/agency interest and participation on an advisory body. A dialogue should be conducted with larger public transit and human service agencies and organizations to ascertain their stake and interest in transportation issues, and their willingness to work toward a coordinated “mix” of solutions. In addition, smaller agency/organization participation should also be encouraged.

It is recommended that the RMM working with the advisory body develop an “action-oriented” agenda that will guide their work activities for the first year. The agenda could focus initially on the plan goals, objectives and strategies outlined above. Meetings of the advisory body should be regularly scheduled to continue to make progress toward achievement of established goals and objectives, and to ensure that the group remains focused, organized and functional.

The RMM advisory body is initially envisioned as a cooperative strategic working group that operates on a volunteer basis, and is collectively convened to provide guidance to the RMM on transportation coordination issues. However, depending upon how the RMM is structured, governance and legal responsibility of the RMM may or may not be delegated to this group. Moreover, the advisory body as appropriate, may progress to development of a more formal operating structure in the future. The size of this group will depend upon the interest and level of commitment demonstrated by stakeholder organizations and agencies.

Subregional Mobility Managers

It has been demonstrated that although regional responses to planning can be effective in establishing the infrastructure needed to effectuate coordinated actions, knowledge of the transportation needs at the subregional level can serve to support the regional goals and more adequately address individual needs.

During the development of this plan, some larger stakeholder agencies and organizations expressed general interest in taking actions to increase mobility by assuming a lead role within the subregion. This potentially opens the door to establish a network of subregional mobility managers (SMM) at the local level, working in concert with the RMM to effectuate the goal of

FINAL 96 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY coordinated transportation throughout the county. The continued growth of the target populations and their diverse needs warrants a comprehensive approach that empowers a “bottoms-up” approach to coordination.

Conceivably, a subregional mobility manager could be a public transit agency/organization, a human service agency/organization or a representative partnership of both agency/organization types within the same subregion. A total of five subregional mobility managers are envisioned consistent with the Metro service sector boundaries. There will likely be a developmental process to gradually increase the scope of these subregional entities to build and maintain viable partnerships. These entities would work cooperatively with and support the RMM in the development of plans and projects within their subregion, as well as, participate as members of the RMM advisory body.

Phase II – Coordinated Actions, Plans, Projects and Policies (Goals 2, 3, 4)

Concurrent with the full “build out” of transportation coordination activities in Los Angeles County, opportunities to develop coordinated projects that can begin to address the needs of the targeted populations should be pursued. The project team believes that there are a few “basic” strategies and project concepts that can be developed early, that will work to support and promote the framework of a coordinated transportation environment, and that can be funded in the near-term (i.e. 1-2 years).

Therefore, the project team recommends that the RMM and/or other public transit and human services agencies/organizations operating at a regional level explore the feasibility of implementing these strategies/project concepts. These strategies and project concepts include:

Implementation of a Travel Training Program for Agencies/Organizations staff, their clients. Create a county-wide Travel Training program. A county-wide program will encourage greater utilization of transit for those in the targeted populations who can and would use public transportation. Human service agencies/organizations’ staff desiring to arrange transportation or refer their clients to transit, as well as, new and prospective clients and customers needing to travel to their various destinations would be candidates for training, participating in group training sessions on regularly scheduled fixed-route or paratransit services.

Public transit should develop a data collection process designed to assist human service agencies and organizations operating transportation and their contractors establish trip counting procedures to ensure accuracy and consistency in accounting for senior, persons with disabilities and low-income trips provided in the county. At a minimum human service agencies should be collecting data in the following categories:

• One-way passenger boardings • Passenger pick-up and drop-off points by zip code • Passenger pick-up and drop-off points by street address • Passenger trip purpose • Time of day

The design of data collection methodologies should reflect an understanding of the issues relative to collecting and reporting certain categories of client information

FINAL 97 SEPTEMBER 2007 PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

relative to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act (i.e. street address, etc.).

Implementation of this type of project will provide information on the level of services operated in the county, and will help to identify patterns of travel. This will also encourage participation of human service agencies as partners with public transit in the planning and development of coordinated services. Moreover, data collection efforts should also be used as justification for Metro in their efforts to gain the necessary financial support and resources from Federal and State agencies and as a means to more clearly identify client and consumer needs in the county.

Assess the potential to implement coordinated service delivery models in the future that employ the use of volunteer labor in a structured, close geographic setting.

Conduct an annual inventory process to continue to build and nurture the coordination environment. This activity will serve to ensure that the data and information on transportation services, resources and needs is updated, which will provide a relatively sound basis for coordinated planning activities.

Develop additional processes to facilitate bus pass and/or token purchase programs for human service agencies.

Plan Approval and Adoption Process

The process for Access Services approval and adoption of this plan include the following activities:

¾ Presentation of the draft plan to Access Services’ Transit Providers Advisory Committee (TPAC) on April 12, 2007 and its Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) on May 8, 2007;

¾ Coordination Plan Summit at Access Services on June 26, 2007 with CalACT and FTA’s Coordination Ambassador, as well as METRO staff, neighboring counties’ staff persons responsible for plan development, and Caltrans headquarters staff.

¾ Final plan presentation to Access Services Board of Directors at their October 2007 meeting.

FINAL 98 SEPTEMBER 2007

APPENDICES Appendix A Demand Estimation - Specialized Transportation for Los Angeles County A1 Target Populations for JARC, New Freedoms, and Section 5310 Programs A2 Population Projections for Los Angeles County A3 Target Population Trip Rates A4 Public Transit and Specialized Transit Trips Provided Appendix B Cover Letter and Survey Appendix C Database Reports C1 Survey Respondents List by Agency Type C2 Survey Results by Agency Type C3 Provider by General Public and Human Service C4 Results by General Public and Human Service Excluding Commercial Agencies C4 Commercial Agencies C5 Survey Results General Public and Human Service – Providers Only C6 Survey Results by Sector C7 Active Client Roster C8 Primary Client Population C9 Transportation Provider Details C10 Difficulties with Transportation Coordination C11 Transportation Services Rider Details C12 Vehicle Availability and Usage C13 Transportation Service Area C14 Service Hours Table C15 Passenger Fares C16 Cooperative Agreements C17 Transportation Needs That Need To Be Addressed C18 Transportation Budget Details Appendix D Outreach Materials D1 Outreach Meeting/Interview Summaries D2 Summary of Public Outreach Matrix Appendix E CTSA 2007 Training and Technical Assistance Schedule Appendix F CalAct Conference – Coordination Town Meeting Proceedings Appendix G Volunteer Driver Senior Friendly Grade Card (Beverly Foundation) Appendix H Coordination Project Possibilities – SAFETEA-LU §5310, §5316, §5317

APPENDIX A

DEMAND ESTIMATION FOR SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

This section reports on an estimating process to quantify the people this plan concerns, projected forward for future planning horizons. A further rationale for quantifying the specialized trips these individuals may need is proposed. SAFETEA-LU programs, Section 5316, 5317 and 5310 target persons of low income, including persons on welfare, persons with disabilities and seniors. Table A-1 identifies the numbers of these individuals in Los Angeles County from selected 2000 Census variables. Table A-1

TARGET POPULATIONS for JARC, New Freedoms, and Section 5310 Programs

People by % of % of Total L.A. 2000 Census Attribute, Summary File 3 Category Population County [2000] Subgroup Population Los Angeles County Total Population [1] 9,519,338 100%

ADULTS 16-64 [2] 6,195,555 65%

Adults "go-outside-home" disability, ages 16-64 (non- 628,422 7% insitutionalized) [4] Disabled adults as percentage of age 16-64 population 10% Low-income (ages 18-64) (Below poverty level as defined by the 940,899 10% Census Bureau) [3] Low-income adults as percentage of age 16-64 population 15%

SENIORS [2] 825,198 9% Seniors, ages 65-74 395,778 48% 4% Seniors, ages 75-84 323,839 39% 3% Seniors, ages 85+ 105,581 13% 1%

Low Income Seniors (Below poverty level as defined by the Census 93,555 1% Bureau) [3] 11%

Seniors "go-outside-home" disability (non-institutionalized) [4] 212,452 2% Disabled seniors as percentage of all seniors. 26%

TOTAL TARGET POPULATION RANGES Low End: Adults with disabilities (16-64) and only seniors 75+ 1,057,842 11% Mid Range: Adults with disabilites (16-64) and all seniors 65+ 1,453,620 15% Hi End: Low income adults (16-64) and all seniors 65+ 1,766,097 19% [1] Census 2000 Summary File 3, Total Population. [2] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Sex by Age. [3] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Poverty Status in 1999 by age.

[4] Extrapolated from Census 2000 Summary File 3, Age by types of disability for the civilian non-institutionalized population 5 years & over with disabilities. The "go-outside-the-home" disability includes those who because of a physical, mental or emotional condition lasting 6 months or more, have difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or to medical appointments.

Table A-1 considers the adult population only, persons age 16 and older. Certainly there are children in poverty and children with disabilities which could be involved in some of the initiatives this plan may eventually support. But for purposes of developing an estimate of demand for transportation, it is necessary to consider the individual likely to be traveling on his or her own and not the dependent child. For that reason, only the adult population is presented here.

Poverty Levels

For the 2000 Census, the Los Angeles County population was established as 9,519,338 persons. Of this total, 10 percent were identified as at or below the poverty levels as defined by the U.S. Census, or about 941,000 adults and representing 15 percent of the adult population group, age 16 to 64. Definitions of poverty by the U.S. Census are made on the basis of a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. When a family’s income is less than the threshold for a family of that size and type, then that family and every individual in it is considered to be in poverty. These thresholds do not vary geographically.11

The Los Angeles proportion of 15 percent of persons at poverty levels is above the statewide mean of 13.3 percent and the same national mean of 13 percent for the United States as a whole. 12

Disability Characteristics

The second population group of interest is persons with disabilities. As characterized by 2000 Census and identified among the adult population, these individuals number 628,422 persons or 10 percent of the total county population. This group represents almost one in ten adults between the ages of 16 to 64.

Persons with disabilities and persons of low income represent some overlap but also some difference. The Census Bureau documents that presence of a disability is associated with lower levels of income. Those with a low relative income nationally (less than half the median) were reported as 13.3 percent among those with no disability, 30.4 percent among those with any disability and 42.2 percent among those with a severe disability.13

The Aging Population

The senior population has a variety of characteristics of interest to this discussion. The individuals over age 65 in the 2000 census numbered 926,970 or 10 percent of the total Los Angeles County population. This is below the statewide average of 12 percent. Low-income seniors, defined by income in relation to household size, are 1 percent of the total county population and represent 10 percent of the senior population, age 65 and older. Seniors with disabilities were also identified in the 2000 census, a self-reported category and reflecting the individual’s perception. Four percent of seniors characterized themselves as disabled, just fewer than 400,000 persons.

11 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income, Earnings and Poverty Data from the 2005 American Community Survey. B.H Webster, A. Bishaw. Washington, DC, August 2006, p. 20. 12 Income, Earnings and Poverty Data from the 2005 American Community Survey, p. 22. 13 Current Population Reports, Series P23-194, Population Profile of the United States, 1997. p. 32.

A third group of potentially vulnerable seniors are those who are older than 75 years of age and those who are older than 85 years of age. Advanced age is associated with increased rates of disability.14 About 324,000 seniors are between the ages of 75 and 84 and another 106,000 aged 85 and older.

The physiology of aging identifies age 75 as the age point at which the natural effects of the aging processes are increasingly likely to impinge upon lifestyle, health status and general well- being. Statistically, there is increased incidence of disease processes, of falling, that result in mobility impairments and of the consequences of stroke and heart disease, as well as various chronic conditions or degenerative processes that can limit mobility.15.

For persons age 85 and older, these rates of increased incidence of chronic disease and impairment increase more dramatically. This population is likely to have increased special needs and requirements. This group is also the subset of the senior population that is expected to grow at the fastest rate with the aging of the baby boomers.

The data suggest that between 1.8 million and 2.1 million Los Angeles County residents in 2000 were among the target populations of seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income.

Future Population Projections

Anticipating future population impacts, SCAG [Southern California Association of Governments] population projections for the region are presented in Table A-2. SCAG estimates that the 2020 population of Los Angeles County will be 11.5 million and by 2030, will be 12.2 million persons. These projections are constructed from mathematical models that anticipate changes in the senior population and other demographic subgroups, but are also informed by input from stakeholders of SCAG’s 187 cities.

Table A-2

TARGET POPULATIONS for JARC, New Freedoms, 5310 Programs -- POPULATION PROJECTIONS SCAG Population Projections for Total Population 2000 Census 2010 2020 2030 Total Los Angeles Population 9,519,338 10,718,007 11,501,884 12,221,779

Low Income adults and/or adults with disabilities, 628,422 7% to 10% of total 750,260 7% 805,132 7% 855,525 7% ages 16 to 64 to 940,899 population to 1,071,801 10% to 1,150,188 10% to 1,222,178 10%

Seniors age 65 and older, including oldest seniors, 825,198 9% of total 1,071,801 10% 1,265,207 11% 1,466,613 12% 85+ (1% of total population), seniors with population disabilities (4% of total population) and low-income seniors (1% total population).

1.5 million 16% to 19% of 1.8 million 17% 2.1 million 18% 2.3 million 19% total population 1,766,097 to 2,143,601 20% to 2,415,396 21% to 2,688,791 22%

Straight projections of the adult low-income population and the disability adult populations, in combination with an increasing senior population, suggest the high end of these target population ranges grow from 2.1 million in 2010, to 2.3 million in 2020, to 2.7 million in 2030.

14 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P23-194, Population Profile of the United States, 1997. Washington DC, 1998, p. 50-51. 15 Spirduso, W. Physical Dimensions of Aging, Human Kinetics, 1995, p. 28.

The low income population has remained fairly constant over the past 40 to 50 years, as proportion of the Los Angeles region’s total population. It therefore seems unlikely that this group that is 10 percent of the total population and 15 percent of the adult population will change. 16 It was projected forward then as a constant proportion, within a range that includes the population with disabilities. The disability population may be an increasing proportion, as increases in the number of adults with disabilities are suggested by evidence in the public health literature that predicts increases among younger cohorts due to potentially rising obesity rates.17 However, for purposes of this analysis, such possible growth is represented within the range of adults age 16 to 64 inclusive of those of limited means.

Given senior population characteristics, these ranges increase in the proportion of the total population, from 16 percent to 19 percent in 2000, to potentially up to 19 percent to 22 percent of the 2030 population. California’s Department of Aging identifies Los Angeles County as among those counties that will realize an increase in its elderly population, age 60 and older, between 1990 and 2020 somewhere between 50 percent and 100 percent. In other words, the senior population, over that thirty year period will increase in size by half again as many, and up to almost twice as many. Similarly, the California Dept. of Aging anticipates that Los Angeles County’s oldest old, those age 85 and older, will increase by 50 percent to 150 percent during that same 30 year span.18 At 105,000 persons in 2000, this population is likely to at least double by 2030.

There is some demographic evidence, at the national level, that the proportion of seniors in poverty is decreasing as the baby-boomers age. This suggests that while tomorrow’s seniors will be increasing significantly in quantity, they may also be more able to offset the costs of the services they require.19

Demand Estimation for Specialized Trips

Table A-3 presents an estimate of the potential trip demand for specialized transit trips that could be hypothesized for these target populations, drawing upon trip making rates and utilization rates in various national research efforts.

Drawing upon the population estimates presented in the preceding tables, Table A-3 utilizes average daily trip rates developed through national research to establish a total level of trips these groups may be making on typical weekdays. The trip rates are annualized to establish annual trips made. Assumptions are then applied as to the proportion of trips made on transit. Of those, the potential level of trip need for specialized transportation assistance is estimated using information provided in the stakeholder survey.

16 Choi, Simon, Ph.D., AICP, SCAG Chief Demographer, Personal Communication, March 22, 2007 17 www.pubmed.gov, website of the national Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, as cited in SACOG Region Senior and Mobility Study, 2007, p. 10. 18 California Department of Aging, Statistics and Demographics www.aging.ca.gov./html/stats/mapnarrative_2.html and narrative_3.html 19 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P23-194, Population Profile of the United States, 1997. Washington DC, 1998, p. 4.

Table A-3

Annual Trips Annual Trips Estimated Annual Potentially on Requiring Trips, All Trips Mean Trip Rates % Trip Made On Public Transit Special Target Population, Census 2000 (Trip Rate * Target Per Day \1 Public Transit (Annual Trips * Assistance @ Population * 255 Public Transit 4% of Public days) Rate) Transit Trips Adults (age 16 – 64) Disabled population at 10% of 50,397,873 adult population (628,422) to 592,916,157 2,015,915

Low Income Population at 15% of adult population ages 18-64 10% to 15% adult population 887,728,772 75,456,946 3,018,278 (940,889) 3.7 \1 8.5% \3 Seniors (ages 65+) Seniors low-income at 10% of age 65+ (93,555) 10% to 26% of senior 3.4 \1 81,112,185 3% \5 2,433,366 97,335 Seniors with disabilities at 26% of population age 65+ (212,452) 184,195,884 3% \5 5,525,877 221,035

Seniors age 75+ when mobility 52% of senior population issues become increasingly critical 2.1 \2 372,307,140 2% \1 7,446,143 297,846 (429,420)

All seniors age 65+ (825,198) 100% of senior population 3.4 \1 715,446,666 3% \5 21,463,400 858,536 Between 1.06 million and 1.77 Target Population Range for million adults and seniors, Trip Los Angeles County 11% to 19% of the total Making 965,223,297 57,844,016 2,313,761 population Estimates to 1,603,175,438 to 96,920,346 3,876,814

[1] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey - Trip rates for 65+, Not Employed; Medical Conditions Limiting Travel [2] National Cooperative Highway Research Program "Estimating Impacts of the Aging Population on Transit Ridership", p. 17 (2006) [3] Sacramento Area Council of Governments Household Travel Survey 1999, Senior & Disabled Mobility Study, 2006, p. 9. [4 Freedom to Travel, U.S. Dot Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2002) [5] Transportation Research Report, TCRP Report 82: Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons (2002) and 2001 National Household Travel Survey (6%)

The target population groups above include a range for the adult population, 15 percent to 21 percent of persons, who are low-income or disabled or may fall into both categories. This is somewhere between 940,000 persons and 1.3 million. The senior population group is a subset of those presented previously, considering the low-income seniors (10 percent), those seniors self-reporting with disabilities (43 percent) or those aged 75 and older (46 percent). These subgroups of seniors range from 93,555 to 1.4 million persons. These subgroups do not include the able-bodied senior, on the presumption that they are still driving themselves and not likely to need specialized transportation at that point in their lives.

Mean trip rates, the average number of one-way trips per day made by an individual, are drawn from several published sources. The longstanding source is the 2001 National Household Travel Survey which is routinely used as a basic data set by which to understand travel patterns of various subsets of the population. This disaggregated study is built up from a relatively small “n” but distributed around the country so that it is not geographically limited to a single region. Because extensive work has been done with this data set, and a similar 1999 study, it is the most common source for daily trip rate activity. Through the U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, mean trip rates for persons age 65, for those not employed, and for those with medical conditions limiting travel were developed and used in Table A-3.

Also utilized is work published by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program in a study entitled Estimating Impacts of the Aging Population on Transit Ridership (2006). Considerable research has been done by the highway industry to understand the effects of the aging process and its implications for road and highway design. This particular study

disaggregated the travel patterns of seniors of different ages and mobility levels and their published mean trip rate for the oldest old is used here.

Several sources were used in attributing mode share to these subgroups. The U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics published a study Freedom to Travel (2002) that examined the trip making behavior of various groups. It included an analysis of persons with disabilities and did identify them as high users of public transit, at rates of 25 percent and more of trips made, unlike the mode share for the general population of 4 percent or less. By contrast, the Sacramento Council of Governments conducted a disaggregated travel survey of seniors and the disabled populations and established a mode share of 8.5 percent use of transit by persons with disabilities, this in a region that is transit-friendly to persons with disabilities. This lower rate of use is used here.

Finally a Transit Cooperative Research Report, Report 82: Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons” (2002) identified a 3 percent utilization rate by seniors in urbanized areas of public transit. This was half the mode share suggested by the 2001 National Household Travel Survey but this lower rate of use is used in Table A-3 to help ensure a conservative, low-end estimate.

Table A-3 uses these sources to establish the total “mean” trips per person in the subgroup per day, multiplied by 255 days to establish a mean weekday travel figure for the year. That represented 968 million to 2.4 billion trips a year for weekdays only.

Then the various rates of public transit, drawn from the literature and discussed above, are applied to get the proportion of these trips that might present for public transit. This suggests that of that range of total trips, between 78 million and 128 million could be made on public transit. It is these figures that are utilized to develop an estimate of specialized transportation. Drawing from the inventory survey findings which will be presented later in this report, it appears that approximately 4 percent of the target populations have specialized transportation needs that go over and above what is currently provided. That figure of 4 percent is applied to the range of 78 to 128 million trips, to establish a demand level between 3.1 to 5.1 million of specialized transportation trips, based upon a 2000 census population basis.

This range of 3.1 to 5.1 million trips represents those types of trips where some kind of special intervention, special assistance or particular requirement. These trips are estimated as 4 percent of the trips that could present for public transit by these target populations. They may or may not be trips that are actually taken, given the highly individualized needs of these consumers. But the data suggests that the need for these trips exist. As the proportion of persons requiring these specialized trips grows in Los Angeles County, the relative need for increased numbers of these trips will grow also.

General and Specialized Trips Currently Provided

Table A-4 shows the level of public transportation trips provided in Los Angeles County, as reported to the Federal Transit Administration through the National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year available, FY 2005. A total of 584 million trips were reported from all modes counted.

Rail trips are included as this mode of public transit is increasingly available in Los Angeles County with 74 million rail trips in Los Angeles County during that reporting period. Public transit fixed-route bus service represents the largest proportion of trips provided at over 500

million. This includes all Metro buses, Foothill Transit, the municipalities known as the “included” operators, and a handful of other fixed-route programs in Los Angeles County who report their annual information to the National Transit Database, a standardized dataset.20 The “included” operators also provide public paratransit with their total of 2.8 million trips provided during FY 2005 enumerated below. Table A-4 Public Transit and Other Specialized Transit Trips Provided (FY 05 National Transit Database Reporting)

Rail, Heavy Rail and Light Rail 74,242,912

Public Bus, Fixed Route (Included Operators) 503,547,655

Public Demand Responsive (Included Operators) 2,886,088 11 Cities Reporting

Access Services ADA Trips, NTD Reported 2005 2,396,282

NTD Paratransit (Incentive Program Operators) 1,213,927 32 Cities Reporting

Inventory Survey Public Transit & Paratransit [1.6 million] Total n=203; 30 city programs, 3/22/07

Inventory Surveyed Social Service Agencies [866,000] Public, Non-Profit and For-Profit (Total n=203, 43 agency programs, 3/22/07)

All Rail, Public Transit & Specialized Trips Reported 584,286,864 Specialized Transit Trips Reported 6,496,297 Specialized Transit as % of All Trips 1%

Access Services, Inc., providing the region’s ADA complementary paratransit service reported providing almost 2.4 million trips during this period. Demand responsive public paratransit is reported for those programs participating in the “incentive” program, a Metro program established to encourage cities to coordinate across city boundaries as well as other programs that report on NTD. These 32 cities provided a total of 1.2 million paratransit trips during the reporting period.

The stakeholders’ inventory survey, reported in the next section, collected trip information on some of these providers, as well as on social service transportation providers. As this dataset is a representative sample only and possibly duplicative of some other entries on Table A-4, these numbers are presented in bracketed form, and not included in the totals. They do however suggest the comparative scale of trips provided by the two communities of interest, human service transportation and public transportation, of 2.4 million total specialized transit trips reported as provided, on the survey, 64 percent were reported by public transit providers and 36 percent by human services agencies.

20 This group of 16 municipal public transit operators in Los Angeles County, an “included/eligible municipal operator" is a transit operator that has been designated eligible to receive formula-equivalent funds allocable for transit operating purposes other than funds specifically included in the formula allocation program in accordance with Senate Bill 1755 1996 amendments to Section 99285 and 99207 of the PUC relating to transportation.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C1 Survey Respondents List by Agency Type C2 Survey Results by Agency Type C3 Provider by General Public and Human Service without Commercial Agencies C4 Results by General Public and Human Service Excluding Commercial Agencies C5 Survey Results General Public and Human Service – Providers Only C6 Survey Results by Sector C7 Commercial Provider Summary C8 Active Client Roster C9 Primary Client Population C10 Transportation Provider Details C11 Difficulties with Transportation Coordination C12 Transportation Services Rider Details C13 Vehicle Availability and Usage C14 Transportation Service Area C15 Service Hours Table C16 Passenger Fares C17 Cooperative Agreements C18 Transportation Needs That Need To Be Addressed C19 Transportation Budget Details

Organization Contact ADDRESS City ZIPCODE PHONE

1 (GLAD) Greater L A Council / Deafness Richard Dickinson 2222 Laverna Ave Los Angeles 90041 (323) 428-8000

2 211 LA County Maribel` Marin 526 W. Las Tunas San Gabriel 91776- (626) 350-1841

3 A List Limousine and Transportation Service 8705 Aviation Blvd. Los Angeles 90301-

4 ABC Therapy Center Janet Yuen 720 S. Atlantic Blvd Monterey Park 91754 (626) 570-0778

5 Ability First Claremont Center M. Graciola Castro 480 S. Indian Hill Blvd Claremont 91711 (909) 621-4727

6 Active Blind John Catalano 677 S. Bronson Ave Los Angeles 90005 (323) 936-9110

7 Affiliated Committee on Aging Anell Woods 4513 East Compton Blvd Los Angeles 90221- (323) 751-4386

8 African Community Resource Center Nagisti Tesfai 3540 Wilshire Blvd Suite Los Angeles 90010- (213) 637-1450 806

9 AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives Terry Grand 830 S. Olive Los Angeles 90013- (818) 508-2405

10 Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. Lorette Herman 1147 S. Alvarado St Los Angeles 90006 (213) 351-8500

11 All People's Christian Church, (Disciples Of Christ) Patsy Barrios 822 E. 20Th St Los Angeles 90011 (213) 747-6357 Pacific S.W. Region

12 AltaMed Health Services Corp. Hugo Romo 5455 E. Pomona Bl. Ste Los Angeles 90022- (213) 889-7337 11a/b

13 Amanecer Community Counseling Timothy Ryder 1200 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles 90017 (213) 481-7464

14 American Transportation Systems Thomas, K Nagano 700 E. 59th St Los Angeles 90001 (323) 846-8832

15 Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities Arlene Fernandelli 357 S. Westlake Ave Los Angeles 90057 (213) 413-2311

16 Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc Thomas Miller 332 W. Ave S Palmdale 93551- (661) 945-0939

17 Antelope Valley Mental Health Center James Coomes 349-A East Ave K-6, #A Lancaster 93535 (661) 723-4260

18 Antelope Valley Senior Center Ofelia Parris 777 W. Jackman St Lancaster 93534 (661) 726-4400

19 Arcadia Mental Health Len Tower 330 E. Live Oak Ave Arcadia 91006 (626) 821-5844

20 Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force Canossa Chan 231 E. 3rd St, #G101 Los Angeles 90013 (213) 473-1640

21 Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team Nick Truong 605 W. Olympic Blvd, #610 Los Angeles 90015 (213) 553-1841

22 Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc Si Ho 1701 E. Washington Blvd Los Angeles 90021 (213) 743-9242

23 Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center Barbara Linski 1360 N. St Andrews Place Hollywood 90028 (323) 957-3900

24 Associated Students of Pomona College Sarah Visser 170 E. 6th St, #244 Claremont 91711 (909) 621-8611

25 Aviva Center Arlene Joye 1701 Camino Palmero Los Angeles 90046 (323) 876-0550

26 Bassett Adult School Dolores Rivera 904 N. Willow Ave La Puente 91746 (626) 315-0912

27 Beach Cities Transit Terisa Price 415 Diamond St Redondo Beach 90277 (310) 372-1171

28 Beacon House Association of San Pedro Luis Lozano 1003 S. Beacon St San Pedro 90731 (310) 514-4940

29 Behavior Resources, Inc. Christy McIntyre 1216 D Hermona Ave Hermosa Beach 90254 (310) 798-1111

30 Braille Institute Adama Dyoniziak 741 N. Vermont Los Angeles 90029 (213) 663-0867

31 Brentwood Presbyterian Church Christopher Lee 12000 San Vicente Blvd Los Angeles 90049-4923 (310) 826-5656

32 C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Center Emma Casteneda 451 E. Carson Plaza Dr, Carson 90746 (310) 354-0031 #105

33 CALACT Jacklyn Montgomery 1722 J St. #20 Sacramento 95814- (916) 446-8018

Agency Listing Alpha Page 1 of 6 9/17/2007 9:30:57 AM

Organization Contact ADDRESS City ZIPCODE PHONE

34 California Department of Rehabilitation - Lancaster Les Spitza 43301 Division St, #204 Lancaster 93535-4649 (661) 726-4479

35 California Home for Aged Deaf Marlene Windham 529 W. Las Tunas Dr Arcadia 91006 (626) 445-2259

36 California PEO Home / Marguerite Gardens Senior Maria Perez 700 N. Stoneman Ave Alhambra 91801 (626) 300-0400 Home

37 CAPC Inc. 7200 Greenleaf Ave, #170 Whittier 90602 (213) 693-3826

38 Catalina Island Medical Center Dawn Simpson 100 Falls Canyon Rd Avalon 90704 (310) 510-0700

39 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center Sharon Mass 8700 Beverly Blvd, Rm. West Hollywood 90048 (310) 423-4449 2802

40 Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. Stephan Rybacki 841 N. Dodsworth Ave Covina 91724-2488 (626) 966-8775

41 Chinatown Service Center 112 N. Chandler Ave #105 Monterey Park 91754-

42 CHOICES R US Residential Inc. PO Box 4550 Downey 90241-

43 Citizen's Medical Group Laura 11560 W. Pico Blvd Los Angeles 90064 (310) 477-8285

44 City of Agoura Hills Xochitl Castillo 30610 Thousand Oaks Blvd Agoura Hills 91301 (818) 597-7361

45 City Of Alhambra - Community Services Cynthia Jarvis 210 N. Chapel Alhambra 91801 (626) 570-5089

46 City of Azusa Donna Abbott 850 W. 10th St Azusa 91702 (626) 812-5144

47 City of Carson Jerome Groomes 801 E. Carson St Carson 90745-2224 (213) 830-7600

48 City of Cerritos Robert A Lopez 18125 Bloomfield Ave Cerritos 90703 (562) 916-1201

49 City of Claremont Senior Citizen Program Melissa Vollaro 660 N. Mountain Ave Claremont 91711 (909) 399-5488

50 City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Vanessa Little 1108 N. Oleander Ave Compton 90222 (310) 605-5688 Department

51 City of Covina Alex Gonzalez 125 E. College St Covina 91723 (626) 858-7219

52 City Of Downey Amelia Jennings 8150 Nance Downey 90241-3898 (562) 904-7331

53 City Of El Monte Deborah Moraza 3629 Cypress Ave El Monte 91731 (626) 580-2217

54 City of El Monte/Senior Services Division Marian Last 3120 N. Tyler Ave El Monte 91731 (626) 258-8613

55 City of El Segundo Neil Wallace 339 Sheldon St El Segundo 90245 (310) 524-2701

56 City of Glendale Marian Anderson 633 E. Broadway, Rm 300 Glendale 91206-4399

57 City of Inglewood Skip Halloran One Manchester Rd Inglewood 90301 (310) 412-4381

58 City Of Irwindale Camille Diaz 16116 Arrow Highway Irwindale 91706-2133 (626) 430-2215

59 City of Irwindale Dan Grijauis 16053 Calle de Paseo Irwindale 91706 (626) 430-2225

60 City Of La Canada Flintridge Carl Alameda 1327 Foothill Blvd La Cañada Flintr 91011 (818) 790-8880

61 City of La Habra Heights Lara Klahejian 1245 N. Hacienda Blvd La Habra Hts 90631 (562) 694-6302

62 City Of La Mirada Vanessa Ivie 15515 Phoebe Ave La Mirada 90638 (562) 943-0131

63 City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit Dana Lee 1963 E. Anaheim Long Beach 90813- (562) 599-8571

64 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability 333 S. Spring St. Ste D-2 Los Angeles 90013-

65 City of Monrovia - Planning Division Alfredo Enriquer 415 S. Ivy Ave Monrovia 91016 (626) 303-6613

66 City of Monterey Park Amy Ho 320 W. Newmark Ave Monterey Park 91754 (626) 307-1260

67 City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit James Parker 12650 E. Imperial Highway Norwalk 90650 (562) 929-5533

68 City of Pasadena Catherine Cole 221 E. Walnut St, #199 Pasadena 91101 (626) 744-3725

69 City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie 1020 N. Fair Oaks Pasadena 91103- Robinson Center

Agency Listing Alpha Page 2 of 6 9/17/2007 9:31:10 AM

Organization Contact ADDRESS City ZIPCODE PHONE

70 City of Pasadena - Housing Authority Eunice Gray P O Box 7115 Pasadena 91109-7115 (626) 744-8300

71 City of Pico Rivera Raymond Chavez 6615 S. Passons Blvd Pico Rivera 90660 (562) 801-4217

72 City of Pomona - Department of Recreation Betty Burrill 499 E. Arrow Pomona 91769 (909) 802-7731

73 City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus Paul Casey 1660 7th St Santa Monica 90401 (310) 458-1975

74 City of Torrance - Recreation Cindy Snodgrass 20500 Madrona Ave Torrance 90503-3690 (310) 320-5918

75 City of West Hollywood - Transportation Joyce Rooney 8300 Santa Monica Blvd West Hollywood 90069 (323) 848-6370

76 City of Westlake Village Kerry Kullman 31200 Oak Crest Dr Westlake Village 91361 (818) 706-1613

77 City of Whittier Martin Browne 7333 Greenleaf Ave Whittier 90602 (562) 698-2131

78 CLIMB Work Activity Center Elaine Hanne 2300 W. Main St Alhambra 91801 (626) 289-5321

79 Community Assistance Program for Seniors Mimi Brown 3740 E. Sierra Madre Blvd Pasadena 91107-1997 (626) 351-5427

80 Community Health Alliance Of Pasadena Brian Hayes 1855 N. Fair Oaks Ave Pasadena 91103 (626) 398-6300

81 Community Place Of United Ministry At USC Diane Kenney 3651 S. Vermont Ave Los Angeles 90007 (213) 740-2667

82 Community Rehabilitation Training Center Jude Ruda 536 N. Vincent Covina 91722 (626) 966-4438

83 Country Villa East Skilled Nursing Facility 2415 S. Western Ave Los Angeles 90018 (323) 734-1101

84 CRI-Help, Inc. Eva Hafner 11027 Burbank Blvd North Hollywood 91601 (818) 985-8323

85 DaVita Carne Mullaney 1260 - 15th St, #102 Santa Monica 90404-1136 (310) 393-4744

86 Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 Melody Goodman 411 N. Central Ave, #620 Glendale 91203-2020 (818) 543-4631

87 Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center Diane Kubrin 4760 S. Sepulveda Blvd Culver City 90230 (310) 751-5354

88 Diversified Paratransit, Inc. Brian Hunt 1400 E. Mission Blvd Pomona 91766 (909) 622-1316

89 Door To Door Transport. Makiesha Franklin 4704 Crenshaw Blvd. Los Angeles 90047 (323) 298-1345

90 Dynasty Limousine Inc Bob Shamlo 5757 W. Century Blvd Los Angeles 90045 (310) 410-1150

91 East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center Ron Berenson 5000 Colfax Ave North Hollywood 91601 (818) 766-3314

92 Easter Seals Mel Hersey 23133 Hawthorne Blv. #110 Torrance 90505 (310) 542-2148

93 Easter Seals of Southern California Michell McKnight 1146 Commerce Center Dr Lancaster 93534 (661) 723-3414

94 Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Jesse Valdez 1000 S. Fremont Ave Alhambra 91802 (626) 299-4719

95 Echo Park Adult Day Health Care Charlene Ingram 302 La Veta Terrace Los Angeles 90026 (213) 482-5900

96 El Centro De Amistad Inc. Ed Viramontes 6800 Owensmouth Ave Canoga Park 91303 (818) 347-8565

97 Emerson Village Rosemary Henderson 755 N. Palomares St Pomona 91767-4736 (909) 623-1421

98 Employment Development Department Vivien Nguyen 1220 Engracia Ave Torrance 90501 (310) 782-2101

99 Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. Katie McArthur 2280 Lomia Blvd Lomita 90717 (310) 602-0123

100 Felicia Mahood Senior Center Mary Sipes 11338 Santa Monica Blvd Los Angeles 90025 (310) 231-0369

101 Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles 1740 W. Temple St Los Angeles 90026-

102 Foothill Family Service - Pasadena Gabrielle Burkhard 2500 E. Foothill Blvd Pasadena 91107- (626) 564-1613

103 Foothill Transit Kevin McDonald 100 N. Barranca Ave, #100 West Covina 91791 (626) 967-2274

104 Foothills Healthy Aging Network Rev. Douglas Edwards 1420 Santo Domingo Ave Duarte 91010 (626) 358-2569

105 Friends In Deed House Liz Henderson 444 E. Washington Blvd Pasadena 91104 (626) 797-5335

106 Gardena Municipal Bus Lines Joseph Loh 15350 S. Van Ness Ave Gardena 90249 (310) 217-9547

Agency Listing Alpha Page 3 of 6 9/17/2007 9:31:10 AM

Organization Contact ADDRESS City ZIPCODE PHONE

107 Genu Harrison Residential Care 8356 Maxini Street Pico Rivera 90660-

108 Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Center Kurzuten Sylvia 3201 N. Glenoaks Blvd Burbank 91504 (818) 848-0432

109 Good Shepherd Center Women's Village Debra deLuis 1650 S. Rockwood St Los Angeles 90026 (213) 482-1834

110 Goodwill Industries of Southern California Tania Holasin 342 N. San Fernando Rd Los Angeles 90031 (323) 223-1211

111 Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach Ralph Hampton Jr 3590 Elm Ave, #E Long Beach 90807-3951 (562) 595-6881

112 Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS) Margaet Pontius 21600 Hart St Canoga Park 91303- (818) 340-5100

113 Harbor Regional Center Kent Yamashiro 21231 Hawthorne Blvd Torrance 90503 (310) 543-0687

114 Harbor UCLA Medical Center Miguel Ortiz- 1000 W. Carson St Torrance 90509 (310) 222-2104 Marroquim

115 Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care Jennifer Haddad 1124 W. Carson St, Bldg. Torrance 90502 (310) 222-3703 N28

116 Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care Menella Spivak 137 N. Virgil Los Angeles 90004 (213) 637-9700

117 Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Nuys Nina Rosefeld 14433 Emelita St Van Nuys 91401

118 Home-Safe Child Care, Inc Robin Sheiner 6926 Melrose Ave Los Angeles 90038 (323) 934-7979

119 Institute for the Redesign of Learning Marge Velasquez 1955 Fremont Avenue South Pasadena 91030 (323) 341-5580

120 Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies 3960 Studebaker Rd. Suite Long Beach 90808- 106

121 Israel Levin Senior Center Rosalie Fromberg 201 Ocean Front Walk Venice 90291 (310) 396-0205

122 ITNSantaMonica Ellen Blackman 1527 Fourth St. Suite 200 Santa Monica 90401- (310) 576-2550

123 Jewish Family Service - Partners Susan Mendolowitz 7362 Santa Monica Blvd West Hollywood 90046 (323) 833-0330

124 Jim Gilliam Senior Center Dana Greek 4000 S. La Brea Los Angeles 90008 (323) 291-5969

125 Kaiser Foundation Hospital Barbara Bucher 13652 Cantara St Panorama City 91402 (818) 375-3645

126 Kindred Hospital San Gabriel Valley Alisa Andersons 845 N. Lark Ellen Ave. West Covina 91791- (626) 339-5451

127 LAC & USC Medical Center James E. Piazzola 1200 N. State St Los Angeles 90033 (323) 226-5253 LCSW

128 LADOT-Citiride John Fong 221 N. Figueroa St, #400 Los Angeles 90012 (213) 580-5417

129 Lanterman Developmental Center Jose Sanchez 3530 W. Pomona Blvd Pomona 91768 (909) 444-7523

130 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Dennis Rockway 1102 Crenshaw Blvd. Los Angeles 90019- (323) 801-7928

131 Lennox School District Lori Rayor 10319 Firmona Ave Lennox 90304 (310) 695-4033

132 Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel Francesca Gonzales 120 S. Myrtle Monrovia 91016 (626) 358-2264

133 Linkages Program Heather Angel-Collin 12821 Victory Blvd North Hollywood 91606 (818) 769-0560

134 Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. Kelley Bates 3333 Pacific Place #101 Long Beach 90806 (562) 427-3374

135 Long Beach Rescue Mission Jesse Krohmer 1335 Pacific Ave Long Beach 90813 (562) 591-1291

136 Long Beach Senior Center Jo Wales 1150 E. 4th St Long Beach 90802 (562) 570-3506

137 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center Donna Benton 3715 McClintock Ave Los Angeles 90089- (213) 740-8711

138 Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health - Lucille Lyon 320 W. Temple St, 15Th Fl. Los Angeles 90012 (213) 974-0527 Public Guardian

139 Los Angeles County Department of Public Social George Paccerelli 12820 S. Crossroads Industry 91746 (562) 908-8317 Services - GAIN program Parkway

140 Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works Ann Meiners 900 S. Fremont, 11th Flr. Alhambra 91803 (626) 458-3959 PO Box 1460

Agency Listing Alpha Page 4 of 6 9/17/2007 9:31:11 AM

Organization Contact ADDRESS City ZIPCODE PHONE

141 Los Angeles County M T A Elizabeth Carter One Gateway Plaza MS 99- Los Angeles 90012 (213) 972-6111 11-3

142 Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Program And Gunther Freehill 600 S. Commonwealth, 6Th Los Angeles 90005 (213) 351-8340 Policy Floor

143 Los Angeles DIALYSIS CENTER Susie Fong 2250 S. WESTERN AVE Los Angeles 90018 (323) 733-2260

144 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior 1125 N. McCadden Place Los Angeles 90038- (323) 993-7463 Program

145 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Stacey Anne Smith 1625 N. Schrader Blvd Los Angeles 90028- (323) 993-7586 Center

146 Magic Carpet Shuttle Shannon Newby 223 W. Mariposa St Altadena 91001 (626) 524-3772

147 Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center Peggy Pope 10925 S. Central Ave Los Angeles 90059 (323) 420-2068

148 MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Diloreto Aldo 525 N. Chandler Ave Monterey Park 91754 (626) 289-8817 Citizens Inc.)

149 Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Jill Harkema 300 W. Huntington Dr Arcadia 91007 (626) 574-2486 Services

150 Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. Jamie Holes 453 S. Indiana Los Angeles 91732 (323) 266-7728

151 Montebello Bus Lines Manchi Yi 400 S. Taylor Ave Montebello 90640 (323) 887-4678

152 Mother Gertrude Home Angelica Tiscareno 11320 Laurel Cyn Blvd San Fernando 91340 (818) 898-1546

153 Murchison Family Center Stephanie Crane 1501 Murchison St Los Angeles 90033 (323) 222-0148

154 Neighborhood Legal Services 1104 E Chevy Chase Dr Glendale 91205-

155 New Directions, Inc. Achee Stevenson 11303 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles 90073 (310) 914-4045

156 New Horizons Larry Miller 15725 Parthenia St Sepulveda 91343

157 New Life Charters 9711 S. Western Avenue Los Angeles 90047-

158 Office of Child Care Service Integration Kathleen Malaske 222 S. Hill St Los Angeles 90012 (213) 974-2440

159 Oldtimers Foundation Robert Rodriguez 3355 E. Gage Ave Huntington Park 90255 (323) 582-6090

160 Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa Susan Su 1517 W. Garvey Ave, North Covina 91790 (626) 962-6061

161 Pacifica Hospital of the Valley Arlene O'neil 9449 San Fernando Rd Sun Valley 91352 (818) 252-2495

162 Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority Martin Gombert P.O. Box 2656 Palos Verdes 90274 (310) 544-7108

163 Pasadena Senior Center Tonjia Dunlop 85 E. Holly St Pasadena 91103 (626) 795-4331

164 People Coordinated Services Melvin Shockley 5133 S. Crenshaw Blvd Los Angeles 90043 (323) 294-5226

165 Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. Mary Kaye Gerski 11600 Eldridge Ave Lake View Terra 91342 (818) 686-3000

166 Pomona Valley Transportation Authority Mark Wasdahl 2120 Foothill Blvd, #116 La Verne 91750 (909) 596-7664

167 Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center Lillian Noisy 105 S. Prairie Ave Inglewood 90310 (310) 674-8345

168 Project New Hope:Echo Park Leigh Zweig 1004 Echo Park Los Angeles 90026- (213) 250-9481

169 R & D Transportation Services, Llc David Daley 5148 Commerce Ave #C Moorpark 90032 (323) 224-6500

170 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center John R. McGuire 7601 E. Imperial Hwy HB Downey 90242 (562) 401-7036 213

171 Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of Segal Gidan 7601 E. Imperial Hwy., 800 Downey 90242 (562) 401-8130 California W. Annex

172 Regis House Jennifer Gaeta 11346 Iowa Ave Los Angeles 90025 (310) 477-8160

173 San Fernando Valley CMHC Center For Family 14545 Sherman Circle Van Nuys 91405 (818) 901-4854 Living

Agency Listing Alpha Page 5 of 6 9/17/2007 9:31:11 AM

Organization Contact ADDRESS City ZIPCODE PHONE

174 San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Saundra Berglund 14411 Vanowen St. Van Nuys 91405 (818) 373-4993 Center Inc.

175 San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council Rhetta Alexander 10347 Mason Ave. Chatsworth 91311 (818) 718-6460

176 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center Mutia Hull 761 Corporate Center Dr Pomona 91768 (909) 868-7520

177 Sanar Health Service Sally Frumkin 900 Pine Ave. Long Beach 90813 (562) 495-2249

178 Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior Brad Berens 22900 Market St Newhall 91321 (661) 259-9444 Center

179 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Center Cristina Festejo 14318 Ohio St Baldwin Park 91706

180 SRO - Single Room Occupancy Housing Ervin Munro 354 S. Spring St, #400 Los Angeles 90013 (213) 229-9647

181 St. John of God Retirement Care Center Maurita Dillon 2468 S. St. Andrews Place Los Angeles 90018- (323) 731-0641

182 St. John's Well Child and Family Center Nomsa Khalfani 5701 S. Hoover St. Los Angeles 90037- (323) 541-1600

183 St. Joseph Center Judy Alexander 400 Pico Blvd. Venice 90291- (310) 396-6468

184 St. Monica Church Lawrence J. Donnelly 725 California Avenue Santa Monica 90403- (310) 319-9764

185 Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Beach, Inc. Ronald Banner 3125 E. 7th St Long Beach 90804 (562) 987-5722

186 Tarzana Treatment Center Scott Taylor 18646 Oxnard St Tarzana 91356-1411 (818) 996-1051

187 The Guidance Center Tiffany Rodriguez 4335 Atlantic Ave Long Beach 90807 (562) 485-2270

188 The Wellness Community-South Bay Cities Tom May 109 W. Torrance Blvd, Redondo Beach 90277 (310) 376-3550 #100

189 Tierra del sol Foundation Vicki Nadsady 9919 Sunland Blvd Sunland 91040 (818) 352-1419

190 Torrance YMCA Senior Center David Villasenor 2900 W. Sepulveda Blvd Torrance 90505 (310) 325-5885

191 United Community Action Network, Inc. Billy Pricer 44231 N. Division St Lancaster 93535 (661) 948-3000

192 Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Center Azar Kattan 14445 Olive View Dr Sylmar 91342 (818) 364-3001

193 Valley Child Guidance Clinic Rocio Cabrales 310 E. Palmdale Blvd, # G Palmdale 93550 (661) 265-8627

194 Valley Village Walter Bunkley 20835 Sherman Way Canoga Park 91307 (818) 587-9450

195 Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center Selma Roth 5040 Van Nuys Blvd Sherman Oaks 91423 (818) 784-2113

196 Venice Japanese Center John Ikegami 12448 Los Angeles 90066 (310) 822-8885 BRADDOCK

197 Villa Esperanza Andrea Williams 2116 E. Villa St Pasadena 91107 (626) 449-2919

198 W.I.N.T.E.R. Alexandra Torres 690 Studebaker Rd. Long Beach 90803- (562) 431-0302

199 Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) James DeVance 8005 S. Figueroa St Los Angeles 90003 (323) 568-5423

200 Watts Labor Community Action Committee Vercia McCowan 429 E. 42nd Pl. Los Angeles 90011 (323) 846-1920

201 Western Women's Medical Center Sandy Credell 4361 S. Western Ave Los Angeles 90062 (323) 295-5446

202 Westside Children's Center Richard Cohen 12120 Wagner St. Culver City 90230 (310) 390-0551

203 William L. Jones Center for Women Doris Presley 10833 Firman Ave Lennox 90304 (310) 672-9961

204 Wilshire Presbyterian Church Charles M. 300 S. Western Ave Los Angeles 90020 (213) 387-5387 Robertson, Jr., Pastor

205 Wise Senior Services - Transportation Barbara Harrison 1527 4th St Suite 250 Santa Monica 90401 (310) 394-9871

206 Women At Risk Cathy Johnson 5183 Overland Ave, #B Culver City 90230 (310) 204-1046

207 YWCA Harbor Area Helene Pizzini 437 W. 9Th St San Pedro 90731 (310) 547-0831

208 YWCA of San Gabriel Valley Blanca Gonzalez 915 N. Grand Ave Covina 91724 (626) 858-8382

Agency Listing Alpha Page 6 of 6 9/17/2007 9:31:12 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Agency Type N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Private, Private, Public Faith based Tribal All for profit non-profit Agency org org 208 100% 32 15%99 48%68 33% 9 4% 00% 3. Number of active clients Enrolled clients/consumers Average 4,099 525 2,373 8,784 400 Total 852,659 16,800 234,942 59 7,317 3,600 0 Daily attendance/ridership Average 186 103 199 228 37 Total 38,776 3,289 19,679 15 ,474 334 0 Clients requiring trans assistance Average 223 143 323 142 11 Total 46,290 4,572 31,930 9,687 101 0 Clients in wheelchair or mob dev Average 155 10 162 233 3 Total 32,167 315 15,995 15 ,834 23 0 ADA eligible riders Average 197 15 167 352 2 Total 41,027 493 16,581 23 ,938 15 0

4. Primary client population served General public 19 9% 4 4 11 0 0 Seniors, able-bodied 87 42% 10 32 40 5 0 Persons with physical disabilities 78 38% 12 38 27 1 0 Persons with behavioral disabilities 56 27% 7252 3 1 0 Persons with sensory impairments 8 4% 161 0 0 Seniors, frail 74 36% 12 35 24 3 0 Persons of low income 61 29% 9311 6 5 0 Youth 16 8% 2103 10 Other 10 5% 252 1 0

5. Transportation service provided No transportation 47 23% 6 28 10 3 0 Operate transportation / full responsibility 74 36% 16 32 22 4 0 Act as contractor to provide trans 16 8% 4102 0 0 Contract for trans provided by another entity 54 26% 10 10 33 1 0 Subsidize trans w/ coupons, passes, etc. 53 25% 4281 8 3 0 Arrange for trans by assisting with info 52 25% 6311 3 2 0 Other 35 17% 3161 2 4 0

6. Client trip needs poorly served Medical trips 123 59% 16 69 32 6 0 Adult day care or health care 62 30% 10 38 13 1 0 Same day transportation service 110 53% 8623 7 3 0 Environmental barriers to fixed rt/bus 30 14% 3171 0 0 0 Senior programs/senior nutrition trips 50 24% 3321 3 2 0 Employment trips between 8am-5pm 43 21% 3251 4 1 0 Employment trips - night or early am 39 19% 3221 3 1 0 Shopping and multiple errand trips 73 35% 5432 0 5 0 Visiting family or friends 51 25% 8281 4 1 0 Recreation - daytime 62 30% 3 39 16 4 0 Recreation - evenings 63 30% 5 34 22 2 0 Recreation - weekends 68 33% 7382 1 2 0 Children to day care, school, etc. 48 23% 4251 6 3 0 Adult school - evenings/weekends 37 18% 2 21 13 1 0 Long trips beyond local community 60 29% 4 28 27 1 0 Summary by Agency Type P1 9/17/2007 9:31:15 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Agency Type, page 2 N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Private, Private, Public Faith based Tribal All for profit non-profit Agency org org 208 100% 32 15%99 48%68 33% 9 4% 0 0% 7. Potential coordination areas Pooling or sharing vehicles 29 14% 3 20 5 1 0 Coordinated vehicle / capital purchases 31 15% 3101 7 1 0 Shared fueling/maint/storage facilities 24 12% 68 9 1 0 Joint purchase of supplies/equip/insurance 28 13% 6111 1 0 0 Coordinated trip scheduling/dispatch 45 22% 7231 4 1 0 Contract to provide trans to other agencies 32 15% 7131 1 1 0 Pooling $ to better coordinate service 19 9% 28 8 1 0 Other 17 8% 2122 1 0 Not interested 69 33% 12 30 24 3 0

9. Transportation services are provided to Any person served by this agency 47 23% 11 24 8 4 0 Only formally enrolled agency clients 44 21% 6172 0 1 0 Clients approved for purchased trans 27 13% 4121 1 0 0 General public 21 10% 451 1 1 0 Other 0 0% 00 0 0 0 10. Vehicles for client transportation Average 8 23 561 Total 1,629 742 488 389 10 0

11. Vehicles used for client transportation daily Average 7 23 5 5 1 Total 1,545 731 481 324 9 0

12. Vehicle passenger capacity up to 9 passengers Average 4 11 3 1 1 Total 756 348 307 95 6 0

10- 14 passengers Average 1 2 1 2 0 Total 283 49 114 118 2 0

15- 24 passengers Average 1 01 2 0 Total 210 9 78 122 1 0

25+ passengers Average 1 10 0 0 0 Total 361 329 2 29 1 0 wheelchair lift-equipped Average 3 10 1 4 0 Total 715 329 135 251 0 0

13. Vehicle age less than 3 years Average 1 11 2 0 Total 235 35 95 103 2 0

3- 5 years Average 2 5 1 1 0 Total 349 163 113 73 0 0

5- 7 years Average 2 81 2 0 Total 441 266 68 106 1 0

over 7 years Average 2 91 1 1 Total 405 282 62 54 7 0 Summary by Agency Type P2 9/17/2007 9:31:18 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Agency Type, page 3 N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Private, Private, Public Faith based Tribal All for profit non-profit Agency org org 208 100% 32 15%99 48%68 3 3% 9 4% 0 0% 14. Vehicle use Daily one-way trips Average 93 279 39 97 4 #Num! Total 19,366 8,927 3,828 6,571 40 0

Daily vehicle miles Average 202 498 76 269 13 #Num! Total 41,942 15,944 7,567 18,316 115 0

15. Transportation service area Throughout Los Angeles County 35 17% 12 15710

17. Passenger fare charged? Yes 41 20% 682700

18. Cooperative agreements/arrangements Yes 46 22% 2 19 23 2 0

19. Transportation budget Vehicle operations Average $522,207 $103,600 $76,618 $1,436,805 $1,767 Total $108,619,003 $3,315,200 $7,585,140 97,702,763 $15,900 $0

New vehicles and equipment Average $131,855 $4,438 $1,538 $398,992 $8 Total $27,425,830 $142,000 $152,288 27,131,467 $75 $0

Bus passes Average $112,406 $1 $4,472 $337,318 $6 Total $23,380,421 $40 $442,731 22,937,600 $50 $0

Taxi vouchers/other specialized trans Average $59,615 $100 $3,098 $177,793 $6 Total $12,399,844 $3,200 $306,654 12,089,940 $50 $0

Other Average $4,470 $1,669 $1,858 $10,183 $0 Total $929,743 $53,400 $183,910 $692,433 $0 $0

22. Compared to last year, agency trans buget Increased 57 27% 14 21 22 0 0 Decreased 8 4% 05 2 10 Stayed the same 59 28% 8222 4 5 0

23. YesContinue to prov trans over next 5 yrs Yes 107 51% 19 40 44 4 0 No 4 2% 21 0 10 Unsure 17 8% 29 5 10

Summary by Agency Type P\3 9/17/2007 9:31:21 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Agency Type, page 4 N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Private, Private, Public Faith based Tribal All for profit non-profit Agency org org 208 100% 32 15%99 48%68 33% 9 4% 0 0%

21. Funding sources for transportation budget COUNTY/LOCAL FUNDING Proposition A or C (Sales tax) 40 19% 1 534 0 0 Other 22 11% 1614 1 0

STATE FUNDING Transportation Development Act 8 4% 008 0 0 Education Department 2 1% 101 0 0 Department of Dev. Services 12 6% 381 0 0 Department of Aging 3 1% 012 0 0 Department of Rehabilitation 3 1% 021 0 0 Department of Health Services 4 2% 031 0 0 Medicaid/Medi-Cal 13 6% 7 5 1 0 0 Other 13 6% 2 4 7 0 0

FEDERAL FUNDING FTA section 5307/5309 6 3% 006 0 0 FTA section 5310 (vehicles) 16 8% 169 0 0 FTA section 5311 0 0% 000 0 0 Community Dev. Block Grants 5 2% 131 0 0 Health and Human Services 3 1% 021 0 0 Other 10 5% 2 4 4 0 0

OTHER FUNDING Client/parent fees 21 10% 2811 0 0 Private donations/grants 24 12% 1202 1 0 United Way 3 1% 030 0 0 Other 13 6% 2 6 5 0 0

Summary by Agency Type P4 9/17/2007 9:31:24 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Transportation Providers, Service by General Public Agencies and Human Services Agencies N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 General Human All Public Services 208 100% 40 19%152 73%

5. Transportation service provided No transportation 47 23% 1 3% 43 28% Operate transportation / full responsibility 74 36% 19 48% 45 30% Act as contractor to provide trans 16 8% 215% 17% Contract for trans provided by another entity 54 26% 25 63% 23 15% Subsidize trans w/ coupons, passes, etc. 53 25% 7418% 328% Arrange for trans by assisting with info 52 25% 5413% 630% Other 35 17% 328% 8 18%

Summary by GP HS Providers P1 9/17/2007 9:31:26 AM

ACCESS SERVICES General Public Transportation Agencies and Human Services Agencies N= 192 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 General Human All Public Services 192 100% 40 21%152 79%

4. Primary client population served Seniors, able-bodied 80 42% 27 68% 53 35% Persons with physical disabilities 73 38% 19 48% 54 36% Persons with behavioral disabilities 53 28% 16 40% 37 24% Persons with sensory impairments 8 4% 080% 5% Seniors, frail 70 36% 17 43% 53 35% Persons of low income 56 29% 5513% 134% Other 7 4% 070% 5%

5. Transportation service provided No transportation 44 23% 1 3% 43 28% Operate transportation / full responsibility 64 33% 19 48% 45 30% Act as contractor to provide trans 13 7% 215% 17% Contract for trans provided by another entity 48 25% 25 63% 23 15% Subsidize trans w/ coupons, passes, etc. 50 26% 7418% 328% Arrange for trans by assisting with info 51 27% 5413% 630% Other 31 16% 328% 818%

6. Client trip needs poorly served Medical trips 118 61% 11 28% 107 70% Adult day care or health care 59 31% 5513% 436% Same day transportation service 107 56% 16 40% 91 60% Environmental barriers to fixed rt/bus 27 14% 328% 416% Senior programs/senior nutrition trips 47 24% 5413% 228% Employment trips between 8am-5pm 41 21% 4310% 724% Employment trips - night or early am 36 19% 6315% 0 20% Shopping and multiple errand trips 69 36% 9623% 039% Visiting family or friends 49 26% 5413% 429% Recreation - daytime 58 30% 8520% 033% Recreation - evenings 61 32% 14 35% 47 31% Recreation - weekends 64 33% 11 28% 53 35% Children to day care, school, etc. 44 23% 9323% 523% Adult school - evenings/weekends 35 18% 7218% 818% Long trips beyond local community 58 30% 20 50% 38 25%

7. Potential coordination areas Pooling or sharing vehicles 26 14% 1 3% 19 13% Coordinated vehicle / capital purchases 28 15% 193% 6% Shared fueling/maint/storage facilities 20 10% 378% 5% Joint purchase of supplies/equip/insurance 24 13% 318% 07% Coordinated trip scheduling/dispatch 40 21% 328% 214% Contract to provide trans to other agencies 24 13% 113% 28% Pooling $ to better coordinate service 18 9% 183% 5% Other 15 8% 113% 17% Not interested 66 34% 11 28% 30 20%

Summary by GP HS P1 9/17/2007 9:31:28 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Transportation Providers, Service by General Public Agenicies and Human Services Agencies N= 126 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 General Human All Public Services 126 100% 38 30%88 70% 4. Primary client population served General Public 14 11% 9 24% 5 6% Seniors, able-bodied 49 39% 25 66% 24 27% Persons with physical disabilities 54 43% 19 50% 35 40% Persons with behavioral disabilities 39 31% 16 42% 23 26% Persons with sensory impairments 3 2% 030% 3% Seniors, frail 48 38% 17 45% 31 35% Persons of low income 36 29% 4311% 236% Youth 10 8% 1 3% 9 10% Other 4 3% 040% 5%

5. Transportation service provided No transportation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Operate transportation / full responsibility 64 51% 19 50% 45 51% Act as contractor to provide trans 13 10% 215% 113% Contract for trans provided by another entity 48 38% 25 66% 23 26% Subsidize trans w/ coupons, passes, etc. 50 40% 7418% 349% Arrange for trans by assisting with info 29 23% 4211% 528% Other 21 17% 318% 820%

6. Client trip needs poorly served Medical trips 74 59% 9 24% 65 74% Adult day care or health care 37 29% 5313% 236% Same day transportation service 67 53% 14 37% 53 60% Environmental barriers to fixed rt/bus 18 14% 318% 517% Senior programs/senior nutrition trips 24 19% 328% 124% Employment trips between 8am-5pm 29 23% 4211% 528% Employment trips - night or early am 26 21% 5213% 1 24% Shopping and multiple errand trips 48 38% 9324% 944% Visiting family or friends 35 28% 5313% 034% Recreation - daytime 40 32% 7318% 338% Recreation - evenings 48 38% 13 34% 35 40% Recreation - weekends 51 40% 11 29% 40 45% Children to day care, school, etc. 30 24% 8221% 225% Adult school - evenings/weekends 24 19% 7118% 719% Long trips beyond local community 43 34% 20 53% 23 26%

7. Potential coordination areas of interest Pooling or sharing vehicles 16 13% 3 8% 13 15% Coordinated vehicle / capital purchases 20 16% 13 34% 7 8% Shared fueling/maint/storage facilities 14 11% 7718% 8% Joint purchase of supplies/equip/insurance 18 14% 9924% 10% Coordinated trip scheduling/dispatch 25 20% 6116% 922% Contract to provide trans to other agencies 19 15% 7118% 214% Pooling $ to better coordinate service 12 10% 4811% 9% Other 12 10% 113% 113% Not interested 41 33% 13 34% 28 32%

Summary by GP HS Providers P1 9/17/2007 9:31:31 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Transportation Providers, Service by General Public Agenicies and Human Services Agencies N= 126 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 General Human All Public Services 126 100% 38 30%88 70% 9. Transportation services are provided to Any person served by this agency 34 27% 3 8% 31 35% Only formally enrolled agency clients 40 32% 17 45% 23 26% Clients approved for purchased trans 21 17% 5113% 618% General public 13 10% 11 29% 2 2% Other 0 0% 000% 0%

10. Vehicles for client transportation n= +02 n=34 n=66 Average 9 10 9 Total 927 355 572

11. Vehicles used for client transportation daily n= 99 n= 34 n= 65 Average 9 99 Total 859 291 568

12. Vehicle passenger capacity n= 83 n= 32 n= 51

up to 9 passengers Average 5 27 Total 408 45% 75 23% 333 58% 10- 14 passengers Average 3 43 Total 266 29% 112 34% 154 27% 15- 24 passengers Average 2 42 Total 202 22% 118 36% 84 15% 25+ passengers Average 0 10 Total 32 4% 27 8% 5 1% wheelchair lift-equipped Average 5 73 Total 411 238 173 TOTAL VEHICLES REPORTED 908 332 576

13. Vehicle age n= 74 n= 29 n= 45 less than 3 years Average 3 32 Total 207 29% 100 33% 107 25% 3- 5 years Average 3 23 Total 198 27% 64 21% 134 32% 5- 7 years Average 2 32 Total 183 25% 98 32% 85 20% over 7 years Average 2 12 Total 136 19% 42 14% 94 22% TOTAL VEHICLES REPORTED 724 304 420

Summary by GP HS Providers P2 9/17/2007 9:31:34 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Transportation Providers, Service by General Public Agenicies and Human Services Agencies N= 126 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 General Human All Public Services 126 100% 38 30%88 70%

14. Vehicle use n= 78 n= 30 n= 48 Daily one-way trips Average 138 203 98 Total 10,789 6,078 4,711

Daily vehicle miles Average 336 410 290 Total 26,231 12,309 13,922

15. Transportation service area Throughout Los Angeles County 24 19% 3 8% 21 24%

17. Passenger fare charged? Yes 33 26% 25 66% 8 9% No 66 52% 1026% 56 64%

18. Cooperative agreements/arrangements Yes 36 29% 18 47% 18 20% No 62 49% 16 42% 46 52%

19. Transportation budget n= 79 n= 30 n= 49 Vehicle operations Average $1,354,113 $3,225,608 $208,299 Total $106,974,903 $96,768,253 $10,206,650

New vehicles and equipment Average $345,275 $904,382 $2,965 Total $27,276,755 $27,131,467 $145,288

Bus passes Average $295,954 $220,253 $342,301 Total $23,380,331 $6,607,600 $16,772,731 Taxi vouchers/other specialized trans Average $156,957 $263,891 $91,487 Total $12,399,594 $7,916,740 $4,482,854

Other Average $11,511 $22,981 $4,488 Total $909,343 $689,433 $219,910

22. Compared to last year, agency trans buget Increased 47 37% 20 53% 27 31% Decreased 8 6% 265% 7% Stayed the same 46 37% 12 32% 34 39%

23. YesContinue to prov trans over next 5 yrs Yes 90 71% 33 87% 57 65% No 1 1% 010% 1% Unsure 13 10% 215% 1 13%

Summary by GP HS Providers P3 9/17/2007 9:31:36 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Transportation Providers, Service by General Public Agenicies and Human Services Agencies N= 126 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 General Human All Public Services 126 100% 38 30%88 70%

21. Funding sources for transportation budget COUNTY/LOCAL FUNDING Proposition A or C (Sales tax) 38 30% 29 76% 9 10% Other 20 16% 9124% 113%

STATE FUNDING Transportation Development Act 8 6% 7118% 1% Education Department 1 1% 103% 0% Department of Dev. Services 9 7% 090% 10% Department of Aging 3 2% 123% 2% Department of Rehabilitation 3 2% 030% 3% Department of Health Services 4 3% 040% 5% Medicaid/Medi-Cal 10 8% 0 0% 10 11% Other 11 9% 4 11% 7 8%

FEDERAL FUNDING FTA section 5307/5309 6 5% 6016% 0% FTA section 5310 (vehicles) 16 13% 8821% 9% FTA section 5311 0 0% 000% 0% Community Dev. Block Grants 5 4% 050% 6% Health and Human Services 3 2% 030% 3% Other 9 7% 4 11% 5 6%

OTHER FUNDING Client/parent fees 18 14% 10 26% 8 9% Private donations/grants 21 17% 020% 124% United Way 2 2% 020% 2% Other 12 10% 5 13% 7 8%

Summary by GP HS Providers P4 9/17/2007 9:31:39 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Sector N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Westside SG SF South Gateway All Central Valley Valley Bay Cities 2. Agency type 208 100% 64 31%54 26%34 16% 28 13% 27 13% Private, for profit 32 15% 8 8493 Private, non-profit 99 48% 36 24 20 9 9 Public Agency 68 33% 13 22 10 10 13 Faith based organization 9 4% 700 0 2 Tribal organization 0 0% 000 0 0

3. Number of active clients Average 4,099 7,505 3,874 2,653 1,902 731 Enrolled clients/consumers Total 852,659 480,292 209,175 90,218 53,245 19,729 Average 186 200 314 100 68 136 Daily attendance/ridership Total 38,776 12,826 16,980 3,385 1,908 3,677 Average 223 169 368 278 169 54 Clients requiring trans assistance Total 46,290 10,785 19,876 9,442 4,738 1,449 Average 155 123 364 91 31 26 Clients in wheelchair or mob dev Total 32,167 7,889 19,634 3,084 862 698 Average 197 134 454 54 45 178 ADA eligible riders Total 41,027 8,592 24,535 1,842 1,252 4,806 4. Primary client population served Seniors, able-bodied 87 42% 27 42%26 48%14 41% 11 39% 8 30% Persons with physical disabilities 78 38% 21 33%22 41%11 32% 16 57% 7 26% Persons with behavioral disabilities 56 27% 13 20%21 39%11 32% 7 25% 4 15% Persons with sensory impairments 8 4% 4226% 4% 6% 0 0% 0 0% Seniors, frail 74 36% 23 36%21 39%15 44% 9 32% 6 22% Persons of low income 61 29% 27 42%14 26%8 24% 4 14% 8 30% Other 10 5% 1242% 4% 12% 2 7% 1 4% 5. Transportation service provided No transportation 47 23% 19 30%10 19%5 15% 4 14% 8 30% Operate transportation / full responsibility 74 36% 21 33%22 41%10 29% 14 50% 7 26% Act as contractor to provide trans 16 8% 6319% 6% 3% 3 11%3 11% Contract for trans provided by another entity 54 26% 12 19%15 28%8 24% 9 32%10 37% Subsidize trans w/ coupons, passes, etc. 53 25% 17 27%15 28%8 24% 9 32% 4 15% Arrange for trans by assisting with info 52 25% 16 25%13 24%13 38% 7 25% 3 11% Other 35 17% 137720% 13% 21% 5 18%3 11% 6. Client trip needs poorly served Medical trips 123 59% 41 64%30 56%24 71% 17 61% 11 41% Adult day care or health care 62 30% 16 25%14 26%14 41% 11 39% 7 26% Same day transportation service 110 53% 30 47%28 52%26 76% 12 43% 14 52% Environmental barriers to fixed rt/bus 30 14% 10 16% 5 9%10 29% 3 11% 2 7% Senior programs/senior nutrition trips 50 24% 13 20%13 24%9 26% 10 36%5 19% Employment trips between 8am-5pm 43 21% 159823% 17% 24% 6 21%5 19% Employment trips - night or early am 39 19% 13 20%12 22%6 18% 4 14% 4 15% Shopping and multiple errand trips 73 35% 23 36%21 39%15 44% 6 21% 8 30% Visiting family or friends 51 25% 17 27%12 22%11 32% 5 18% 6 22% Recreation - daytime 62 30% 21 33% 15 28% 14 41% 5 18% 7 26% Recreation - evenings 63 30% 17 27% 19 35% 13 38% 5 18% 9 33% Recreation - weekends 68 33% 20 31%17 31%16 47% 6 21% 9 33% Children to day care, school, etc. 48 23% 19 30%14 26%6 18% 5 18% 4 15% Adult school - evenings/weekends 37 18% 14 22% 12 22% 6 18% 2 7% 3 11% Long trips beyond local community 60 29% 12 19% 18 33% 12 35% 7 25% 11 41% Summary by Sector P1 9/17/2007 9:31:41 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Sector, page 2 N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Westside SG SF South Gateway All Central Valley Valley Bay Cities 208 100% 6431% 54 26% 34 16% 28 13% 27 13% 7. Potential coordination areas Pooling or sharing vehicles 29 14% 11 17%34 6% 12% 6 21%4 15% Coordinated vehicle / capital purchases 31 15% 7 11% 5 9%4 12% 5 18%9 33% Shared fueling/maint/storage facilities 24 12% 7 11% 5 9%3 9% 2 7%6 22% Joint purchase of supplies/equip/insurance 28 13% 9 14%6 11%3 9% 3 11%6 22% Coordinated trip scheduling/dispatch 45 22% 15 23%10 19%7 21% 5 18%7 26% Contract to provide trans to other agencies 32 15% 619%0 19% 5 15% 5 18%5 19% Pooling $ to better coordinate service 19 9% 7 11%5 9%3 9% 2 7% 2 7% Other 17 8% 8 13%2 4%2 6% 2 7% 2 7% Not interested 69 33% 18 28%21 39%11 32% 11 39% 8 30%

9. Transportation services are provided to Any person served by this agency 47 23% 11 16 8 6 6 Only formally enrolled agency clients 44 21% 13 13 7 8 3 Clients approved for purchased trans 27 13% 97 5 5 1 General public 21 10% 34 3 2 8 Other 0 0% 00 0 0 0 10. Vehicles for client transportation Average 8 2 18 4 3 10 Total 1,629 156 980 127 97 269

11. Vehicles used for client transportation daily Average 7 2173 310 Total 1,545 146 941 118 82 258

12. Vehicle passenger capacity up to 9 passengers Average 4 18 3 1 6 Total 756 60 424 86 27 159

10- 14 passengers Average 1 12 1 1 1 Total 283 71 134 24 33 21

15- 24 passengers Average 1 02 0 1 2 Total 210 22 102 13 16 57

25+ passengers Average 2 06 0 0 1 Total 361 0 314 5 5 37 wheelchair lift-equipped Average 3 19 1 1 3 Total 715 85 502 22 21 85

13. Vehicle age less than 3 years Average 1 11 1 1 1 Total 235 76 70 31 27 31

3- 5 years Average 2 04 1 1 0 Total 349 30 241 48 21 9

5- 7 years Average 2 06 1 1 2 Total 441 26 322 28 24 41

over 7 years Average 2 06 1 0 1 Total 405 21 330 19 11 24 Summary by Sector P2 9/17/2007 9:31:44 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Sector, page 3 N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 Westside SG SF South Gateway All Central Valley Valley Bay Cities 208 100% 6431% 54 26% 34 1 6% 28 13% 27 13%

14. Vehicle use Daily one-way trips Average 93 57 182 33 27 148 Total 19,366 3,631 9,846 1,131 753 4,005

Daily vehicle miles Average 202 38 473 160 90 224 Total 41,942 2,442 25,521 5,423 2,506 6,050

15. Transportation service area Throughout Los Angeles County 35 17% 12 10562

17. Passenger fare charged? Yes 41 20% 4117 811

18. Cooperative agreements/arrangements Yes 46 22% 14 11669

19. Transportation budget Vehicle operations Average $522,207 $143,483 $298,540 $62,358 $84,336 2,919,754 Total $108,619,003 $9,182,898 16,121,172 $2,120,180 $2,361,400 8,833,353

New vehicles and equipment Average $131,855 $16,287 $17,006 $8,811 $15,714 $915,761 Total $27,425,830 $1,042,370 $918,350 $299,568 $440,000 4,725,542

Bus passes Average $112,406 $108,563 $297,052 $884 $6,121 $7,042 Total $23,380,421 $6,948,050 16,040,789 $30,042 $171,400 $190,140

Taxi vouchers/other specialized trans Average $59,615 $115,579 $68,333 $3,584 $38,812 $3,859 Total $12,399,844 $7,397,039 $3,690,000 $121,865 $1,086,740 $104,200

Other Average $4,470 $2,538 $10,090 $0 $4,286 $3,796 Total $929,743 $162,400 $544,843 $0 $120,000 $102,500

22. Compared to last year, agency trans buget Increased 57 27% 8 19 9 10 11 Decreased 8 4% 24 1 10 Stayed the same 59 28% 19 14 9106

23. YesContinue to prov trans over next 5 yrs Yes 107 51% 25 32 17 20 13 No 4 2% 20 0 01 Unsure 17 8% 36 3 14

Summary by Sector P\3 9/17/2007 9:31:47 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Results by Sector, page 4 N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007

Westside SG SF South Gateway All Central Valley Valley Bay Cities 208 100% 6431% 54 26% 34 16% 28 13% 27 13%

21. Funding sources for transportation budget COUNTY/LOCAL FUNDING Proposition A or C (Sales tax) 40 19% 7 12 5 7 9 Other 22 11% 682 4 2

STATE FUNDING Transportation Development Act 8 4% 031 1 3 Education Department 2 1% 010 1 0 Department of Dev. Services 12 6% 161 2 2 Department of Aging 3 1% 210 0 0 Department of Rehabilitation 3 1% 011 1 0 Department of Health Services 4 2% 210 1 0 Medicaid/Medi-Cal 13 6% 4 2 4 3 0 Other 13 6% 4 6 0 2 1

FEDERAL FUNDING FTA section 5307/5309 6 3% 001 2 3 FTA section 5310 (vehicles) 16 8% 082 2 4 FTA section 5311 0 0% 000 0 0 Community Dev. Block Grants 5 2% 020 3 0 Health and Human Services 3 1% 111 0 0 Other 10 5% 4 4 1 0 1

OTHER FUNDING Client/parent fees 21 10% 265 4 4 Private donations/grants 24 12% 746 4 3 United Way 3 1% 011 1 0 Other 13 6% 2 3 1 2 5

Summary by Sector P4 9/17/2007 9:31:49 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Commercial Transportation Providers N= 9 surveys received as of 9/17/2007

All 9 100%

12. Vehicle passenger capacity up to 9 passengers Average 66 n= 5 Total 332

10- 14 passengers Average 4 n= 4 Total 14

15- 24 passengers Average 2 n= 3 Total 6

25+ passengers Average 66 n= 5 Total 328

wheelchair lift-equipped Average 76 n= 4 Total 303

13. Vehicle age less than 3 years Average 4 n= 5 Total 20

3- 5 years Average 29 n= 5 Total 145

5- 7 years Average 86 n= 3 Total 257

over 7 years Average 66 n= 4 Total 262

19. Transportation budget Vehicle operations Average $401,250 n= 7 Total $1,605,000

New vehicles and equipment Average $65,000 n= 7 Total $130,000

Bus passes Average n= 7 Total

Taxi vouchers/other specialized trans Average n= 7 Total

Other Average $20,000 n= 7 Total $20,000

Summary for Commercial Providers 9/17/2007 9:31:52 AM

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Question 3 N = 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007

N=852659 N=38776 N=46290 N=32167 N=41027

ID Agency #Enrolled Daily #Requiring # In ADA attendance Trans wheelchrs eligible

815 (GLAD) Greater L A Council / Deafness 6281 7139 211 LA County 7148 A List Limousine and Transportation Service 3000 25 3 00 0 2137 ABC Therapy Center 158 70 144 30 670 Ability First Claremont Center 300 75 60 15 134 Active Blind 25 4 0 5765 Affiliated Committee on Aging 30 3 0 7131 African Community Resource Center 5652 AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives 230 180 160 60 160 150 Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. 100 45 2286 All People's Christian Church, (Disciples Of Christ) Pacific S.W. Regio 1650 75 161 AltaMed Health Services Corp. 413 360 383 67 5903 Amanecer Community Counseling 1600 100 7015 American Transportation Systems 200 450 0 0 5275 Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities 6191 Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc 50 3716 Antelope Valley Mental Health Center 1000 30 50 30 30 5206 Antelope Valley Senior Center 350 3717 Arcadia Mental Health 2100 1080 Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force 2884 Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team 88 60 10 5 0 212 Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc 225 78 7 5 100 214 Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center 134 31 134 32 32 6479 Associated Students of Pomona College 1450 30 3724 Aviva Center 347 125 4 4 5822 Bassett Adult School 2500 11 11 5 7 3 Beach Cities Transit 711 51 92 100 96 5850 Beacon House Association of San Pedro 120 120 0 0 120 4787 Behavior Resources, Inc. 12 12 0 0 0 256 Braille Institute 1000 75 375 100 1000 6207 Brentwood Presbyterian Church 750 4 10 3 2150 C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Center 120 60 60 2 60 7135 CALACT 283 California Department of Rehabilitation - Lancaster 1300 100 150 100 2 9 4 California Home for Aged Deaf 24 2 1 0 5564 California PEO Home / Marguerite Gardens Senior Home 35 35 31 5597 CAPC Inc. 180 2894 Catalina Island Medical Center 6 6 6 6 2056 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center 7064 Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. 500 10 120 0 0 7149 Chinatown Service Center 700 300 150 7145 CHOICES R US Residential Inc. 30 30 0

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 1 of 5

ID Agency #Enrolled Daily #Requiring # In ADA attendance Trans wheelchrs eligible

5025 Citizen's Medical Group 5153 City of Agoura Hills 400 100 20 2 5 4037 City Of Alhambra - Community Services 4500 3878 City of Azusa 655 130 0 112 208 6230 City of Carson 126 2272 City of Cerritos 200 64 6 2 1 City of Claremont Senior Citizen Program 399 City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Department 150 50 10 10 5034 City of Covina 350 80 350 20 70 6874 City Of Downey 1900 120 1 10 0 400 1100 6547 City Of El Monte 2554 114 247 174 410 City of El Monte/Senior Services Division 800 3 16 1 16 412 City of El Segundo 100 30 42 5 10 418 City of Glendale 6784 260 992 1897 City of Inglewood 1500 6551 City Of Irwindale 270 165 20 4 432 City of Irwindale 1250 100 4051 City Of La Canada Flintridge 442 City of La Habra Heights 8 5038 City Of La Mirada 5 1 City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit 1500 208 7147 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability 561 City of Monrovia - Planning Division 9 5 City of Monterey Park 3 1 City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit 1017 64 61 8 8 City of Pasadena 2480 165 293 2976 7144 City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie Robinson Center 70 1 5 0 3 1167 City of Pasadena - Housing Authority 5043 City of Pico Rivera 93 3275 577 City of Pomona - Department of Recreation 1000 300 6 0 35 60 597 City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus 4500 90 1000 500 6558 City of Torrance - Recreation 175 614 City of West Hollywood - Transportation 4 City of Westlake Village 5 City of Whittier 1798 168 85 45 130 624 CLIMB Work Activity Center 118 637 Community Assistance Program for Seniors 29 15 2 1 1 2504 Community Health Alliance Of Pasadena 7000 150 100 50 50 3318 Community Place Of United Ministry At USC 600 70 6 644 Community Rehabilitation Training Center 78 86 62 12 78 5930 Country Villa East Skilled Nursing Facility 10 90 10 10 668 CRI-Help, Inc. 120 20 1302 DaVita 10 4 2 1 693 Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 65000 695 Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center 5572 36 120 25 50 6582 Diversified Paratransit, Inc. 6583 Door To Door Transport. 200 175 150 10 6258 Dynasty Limousine Inc 100 50 10

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 5

ID Agency #Enrolled Daily #Requiring # In ADA attendance Trans wheelchrs eligible

5219 East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center 300 25 75 25 60 6587 Easter Seals 350 350 350 105 350 3834 Easter Seals of Southern California 100 60 25 11 4 8 Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center 7654 2149 Echo Park Adult Day Health Care 142 65 30 5 0 291 El Centro De Amistad Inc. 250 10 1 1 5 6658 Emerson Village 200 5656 Employment Development Department 6600 Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. 94 50 94 10 10 4996 Felicia Mahood Senior Center 1300 769 Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles 10 3802 Foothill Family Service - Pasadena 17200 100 2 5 0 0 10 10 5 0 Foothill Transit 1528 Foothills Healthy Aging Network 2336 Friends In Deed House 2468 30 7 0 Gardena Municipal Bus Lines 2697 87 361 557 557 7150 Genu Harrison Residential Care 4 2 4 1 2177 Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Center 180 110 180 30 100 2352 Good Shepherd Center Women's Village 120 120 1 2 2 5 808 Goodwill Industries of Southern California 124 43 9 6299 Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach 10 10 818 Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS) 64 2279 Harbor Regional Center 9500 825 Harbor UCLA Medical Center 3844 Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care 16000 300 6090 Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care 200 140 120 20 851 Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Nuys 60 50 4 2992 Home-Safe Child Care, Inc 300 888 Institute for the Redesign of Learning 1900 1650 167 0 1900 7141 Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies 26 22 2 6 7 26 906 Israel Levin Senior Center 175 40 25 6 10 7140 ITNSantaMonica 90 20 50 10 40 915 Jewish Family Service - Partners 80 50 60 17 80 3388 Jim Gilliam Senior Center 200 60 938 Kaiser Foundation Hospital 7136 Kindred Hospital San Gabriel Valley 1047 LAC & USC Medical Center 305000 3000 275 37 37 5509 LADOT-Citiride 109000 4000 0 3000 5000 1929 Lanterman Developmental Center 499 302 499 238 499 4374 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 4303 212 3052 Lennox School District 7000 50 3 1064 Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel 36 30 3 2 11 30 4925 Linkages Program 200 150 100 100 1089 Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. 200 15 100 50 150 3410 Long Beach Rescue Mission 155 5204 Long Beach Senior Center 57 350 6049 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center 2000 3927 Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health - Public Guardian 2250 20 5 2 0 0 550 550

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 3 of 5

ID Agency #Enrolled Daily #Requiring # In ADA attendance Trans wheelchrs eligible

2602 Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services - GAIN 39361 1789 program 9 9 Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works 5492 229 7048 8009 6336 Los Angeles County M T A 3067 Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Program And Policy 3900 1032 Los Angeles DIALYSIS CENTER 8 1 3924 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior Program 300 30 100 25 25 792 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center 2000 100 240 5 6803 Magic Carpet Shuttle 55 45 1 8 6 3425 Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center 9000 6348 MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Inc.) 86 86 30 463 Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Services 80688 2 500 50 3092 Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. 20 15 10 0 0 5 4 Montebello Bus Lines 1691 42 0 6630 Mother Gertrude Home 40 2 2 1 5638 Murchison Family Center 700 600 2 5 25 7146 Neighborhood Legal Services 2000 5319 New Directions, Inc. 199 27 0 0 0 498 New Horizons 342 257 9 23 10 7133 New Life Charters 50 2681 Office of Child Care Service Integration 528 Oldtimers Foundation 1500 3962 Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa 288 10 25 3 1 1146 Pacifica Hospital of the Valley 4085 Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority 373 21 21 5260 Pasadena Senior Center 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 5642 People Coordinated Services 500 12 0 60 0 3969 Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. 120 5113 Pomona Valley Transportation Authority 2000 450 1 00 0 800 600 2205 Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center 43 37 43 22 43 7130 Project New Hope:Echo Park 202 10 10 6881 R & D Transportation Services, Llc 1200 1200 1233 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center 160 100 80 2093 Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of California 1400 16 4 8 1239 Regis House 250 50 5 3 3988 San Fernando Valley CMHC Center For Family Living 1000 20 600 750 1840 San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center Inc. 110 20 2 1276 San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council 30 13 13 3 2282 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center 10000 3 0 0 0 400 2215 Sanar Health Service 40 30 1 5 8 30 5160 Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior Center 8143 750 7 2 0 0 850 400 5554 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Center 12 3 3 10 12 5531 SRO - Single Room Occupancy Housing 131 22 120 9 131 7134 St. John of God Retirement Care Center 131 3 3 7132 St. John's Well Child and Family Center 6000 400 3 0 0 0 1500 1360 St. Joseph Center 7000 300 2 0 20 20 7129 St. Monica Church 185 65 65 10 10 6818 Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Beach, Inc. 224 100 5 5 5

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 4 of 5

ID Agency #Enrolled Daily #Requiring # In ADA attendance Trans wheelchrs eligible

6821 Tarzana Treatment Center 1036 686 150 30 500 6834 The Guidance Center 1300 90 40 3 0 1342 The Wellness Community-South Bay Cities 75 3 2 1 1407 Tierra del sol Foundation 480 325 300 55 480 5254 Torrance YMCA Senior Center 1600 120 3 8 8 6849 United Community Action Network, Inc. 250 80 20 2 2 1015 Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Center 6067 Valley Child Guidance Clinic 900 200 500 20 50 2233 Valley Village 9 7 7 3 1466 Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center 1471 Venice Japanese Center 1700 300 4933 Villa Esperanza 191 416 7 5 25 15 5616 W.I.N.T.E.R. 300 175 1511 Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) 200 160 1 0 0 2 0 5609 Watts Labor Community Action Committee 500 60 500 80 100 2576 Western Women's Medical Center 3000 25 200 7107 Westside Children's Center 350 8 15 1505 William L. Jones Center for Women 2788 Wilshire Presbyterian Church 130 4 2 1556 Wise Senior Services - Transportation 4500 70 1200 4836 Women At Risk 300 30 5 20 2589 YWCA Harbor Area 9500 200 2130 YWCA of San Gabriel Valley

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 5 of 5

4. Primary client population Faith based All People's Christian Church, (Disciples Of Christ) Seniors, low income families, youth Pacific S.W. Region (2286) Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities (5275) Youth ages 10-17 Brentwood Presbyterian Church (6207) Seniors

Community Place Of United Ministry At USC (3318) Working poor families (extended) Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach (6299) Seniors and youth groups in summer to beach Long Beach Rescue Mission (3410) Homeless, no income, low income St. Monica Church (7129) Seniors Wilshire Presbyterian Church (2788) All categories Private, for profit A List Limousine and Transportation Service (7148) 21- 61 ABC Therapy Center (2137) Seniors AltaMed Health Services Corp. (161) Elderly and adults with functional disabilities Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc (6191) Traveled - club school - Behavior Resources, Inc. (4787) Adults (developmentally disabled with behavior management issues) C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Center (2150) Seniors Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. (7064) Youth ages 3-12 yrs. CHOICES R US Residential Inc. (7145) Adults 18-59 Community Health Alliance Of Pasadena (2504) Low income adults and children Country Villa East Skilled Nursing Facility (5930) Seniors Dynasty Limousine Inc (6258) All groups Echo Park Adult Day Health Care (2149) Low income -medical Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. (6600) Seniors, developmentally disabled, mentally ill Genu Harrison Residential Care (7150) Adult Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Center (2177) Seniors Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care (6090) Seniors on SSI Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Nuys (851) Chronically mentally ill adults Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel (1064) Seniors Magic Carpet Shuttle (6803) Seniors, low income, foster care youth New Life Charters (7133) Youth, private schools, high schools, college students and churches Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center (2205) Developmentally disabled adults Western Women's Medical Center (2576) Adult females ages 12-99. Large number of seniors low-income Private, non-profit 211 LA County (7139) 211 LA serves LA County residents of all ages, ethnicity and economic backgrounds. African Community Resource Center (7131) Low income AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives (5652) Impaired mental illness HIV disease Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. (150) Women Amanecer Community Counseling (5903) Low income children, families and adults Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force Cambodian seniors in Long Beach Area (1080) Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center (214) Seniors and low income seniors Associated Students of Pomona College (6479) College students Aviva Center (3724) Youth, low-income families Beacon House Association of San Pedro (5850) Men 18 years + Braille Institute (256) Blind individuals ages 18-100 average age 75 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center (2056) Indigent seniors or low income new mothers CLIMB Work Activity Center (624) Develop mentally challenged blind adults Community Assistance Program for Seniors (637) Seniors with dementia Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center (695) Mentally ill children, adults and older adults that are low income Easter Seals of Southern California (3834) Adults with disabilities El Centro De Amistad Inc. (291) Low-income - mentally, developmentally disabled families, youth and adult. Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles (769) Seniors, Low income and handicapped Friends In Deed House (2336) Low income Harbor Regional Center (2279) Developmentally Disabled Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care (3844) Men, women, teens in reproductive status, 12-60 yrs. Low income, uninsured, substance users in recovery, clients from homeless/violence shelters. Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies (7141) Developmental Disabilities

Israel Levin Senior Center (906) Seniors ITNSantaMonica (7140) Seniors and person of any age with vision disabilities. Jewish Family Service - Partners (915) Disabled and senior Kaiser Foundation Hospital (938) Senior, disabled and commercial Kaiser members. Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (4374) Low income Linkages Program (4925) Disabled adults who live in poverty Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. (1089) Seniors over 62 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center (6049) Family caregiver first Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior Seniors Program (3924) Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services HIV (+) Clients Center (792) MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Middle aged adults, and seniors with disabilities Inc.) (6348) Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Seniors Services (463) Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. (3092) Indigent women with children recovering from substance abuse Neighborhood Legal Services (7146) Low Income New Directions, Inc. (5319) Homeless veterans with substance abuse and/or mental health problems New Horizons (498) Developmentally Disabled Oldtimers Foundation (528) Our primary cliental consists of seniors, individuals with disabilities, low income, and at times the general public getting around town or to work. Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa (3962) Mentally ill 18 years and older Pasadena Senior Center (5260) Seniors People Coordinated Services (5642) Seniors Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. (3969) Adolescents 13-18 yrs. Old Project New Hope:Echo Park (7130) HIV homeless population- adults Regis House (1239) Youth, low-income San Fernando Valley CMHC Center For Family Living Adults 21-60 (3988) San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council (1276) Seniors San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center (2282) 18- 65 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Center (5554) Senior and Disabled St. John of God Retirement Care Center (7134) Seniors Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Beach, Inc. Low income and indigent men, women, and children. (6818) Tarzana Treatment Center (6821) All Tierra del sol Foundation (1407) Adults with development disabilities Torrance YMCA Senior Center (5254) Seniors United Community Action Network, Inc. (6849) Youth 12-18 and Parents (High at-risk population) 95% Low Income Valley Child Guidance Clinic (6067) Youth Valley Village (2233) Youth, senior, low-income Villa Esperanza (4933) Developmentally disabled children, adults and children Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) (1511) Adults and low income Watts Labor Community Action Committee (5609) Seniors and Disabled with low-income William L. Jones Center for Women (1505) 18 and older Wise Senior Services - Transportation (1556) All except youth YWCA Harbor Area (2589) All YWCA of San Gabriel Valley (2130) Seniors Public Antelope Valley Senior Center (5206) Seniors Arcadia Mental Health (3717) Adults and older adult/low income Bassett Adult School (5822) Adults, Adults with disabilities, seniors, Low Income Beach Cities Transit (73) Seniors (62+) and disabled persons of all ages

City of Agoura Hills (5153) Tots, youth, adults, seniors City Of Alhambra - Community Services (4037) Seniors and disabled

City of Azusa (3878) Seniors, disabled

City of Carson (6230) Seniors and disabled City of Claremont Senior Citizen Program (621) Seniors and low income City of Covina (5034) Seniors and disabled who are not capable of using public transportation. City Of El Monte (6547) Seniors and disabled City of El Monte/Senior Services Division (410) Dependant adults 18 to 64 years of age and seniors City of El Segundo (412) Seniors City of Glendale (418) Seniors and Disabled City of Inglewood (1897) Seniors City of Irwindale (432) Youth City Of Irwindale (6551) Seniors City Of La Canada Flintridge (4051) Seniors City of La Habra Heights (442) Seniors City Of La Mirada (5038) La Mirada Transit serves all La Mirada residents City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit (51) All eligible for fixed route - 54% low income < $20,000 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability (7147) Low Income Adults City of Monrovia - Planning Division (561) Youth, seniors, and low income City of Monterey Park (95) Dial-A-Ride and seniors (55+) City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit (31) Seniors and disabled City of Pasadena (88) 60 yrs and older with a physician certified disability City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie Persons with developmental, learning, and physical disabilities. Robinson Center (7144) City of Pasadena - Housing Authority (1167) Seniors, disabled, low to moderate income, youth and children and families City of Pico Rivera (5043) Seniors, disabled, and students City of Pomona - Department of Recreation (577) Seniors, non-seniors handicapped, low income and low income youth City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus (597) Seniors and adults with disabilities. City of West Hollywood - Transportation (614) Seniors and transit dependant City of Westlake Village (4) Seniors, handicapped, teens City of Whittier (5) Seniors and disabled residents of the City of Whittier and La Habra Heights. Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 (693) Developmentally disabled individuals Employment Development Department (5656) Low income, seniors, youth Felicia Mahood Senior Center (4996) Frail elderly who need door-to-door service and cannot access other modes of transportation. Gardena Municipal Bus Lines (70) Seniors and Disabled LADOT-Citiride (5509) General public Lanterman Developmental Center (1929) Developmentally Disabled Lennox School District (3052) Youth 4-18 yrs old. Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health - Mentally ill adults and older adults Public Guardian (3927) Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Welfare-to-work public assistance recipients. Services - GAIN program (2602) Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works Seniors and Disabled (99) Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Program And HIV+/AIDS Indigent Policy (3067) Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center Youth (3425) Murchison Family Center (5638) Youth

Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (4085) General public Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (5113) Senior/disabled Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center (1233) General public Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of Seniors and people with dementia California (2093) Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Center (1015) Residents and Los Angeles county Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center (1466) Seniors and low income Women At Risk (4836) HIV and women

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Question 5 N = 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

815 (GLAD) Greater L A Council / Deafness 7139 211 LA County 7148 A List Limousine and Transportation Service 2137 ABC Therapy Center 670 Ability First Claremont Center 134 Active Blind 5765 Affiliated Committee on Aging 7131 African Community Resource Center 5652 AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives 150 Alcoholism Center for Women, A van used at times to take the Inc. residential women to events. Need help with getting outpatient women to and from the program daily. 2286 All People's Christian Church, We have the use of 3 vans for the (Disciples Of Christ) Pacific purpose of picking up and dropping off S.W . Region youth from school to the center then home. Vans used also for field trips 161 AltaMed Health Services Corp. 5903 Amanecer Community Some transportation of clients with Counseling company vans to appointments 7015 American Transportation Systems 5275 Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities 6191 Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc 3716 Antelope Valley Mental Health Center 5206 Antelope Valley Senior Center 3717 Arcadia Mental Health 1080 Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force 2884 Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team 212 Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc 214 Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 1 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

6479 Associated Students of Pomona College 3724 Aviva Center 5822 Bassett Adult School 73 Beach Cities Transit 5850 Beacon House Association of San Pedro 4787 Behavior Resources, Inc. 256 Braille Institute Own, city ride, access w/ a starter on site. M 6207 Brentwood Presbyterian Church 2150 C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Center 7135 CALACT 283 California Department of Rehabilitation - Lancaster 294 California Home for Aged Deaf Deaf clients don't have capacity utilizing English well enough to use TDD 5564 California PEO Home / Marguerite Gardens Senior Home 5597 CAPC Inc. 2894 Catalina Island Medical Center 2056 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center 7064 Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. 7149 Chinatown Service Center 7145 CHOICES R US Residential Inc. 5025 Citizen's Medical Group 5153 City of Agoura Hills 4037 City Of Alhambra - Community Services 3878 City of Azusa 6230 City of Carson 2272 City of Cerritos 621 City of Claremont Senior Pomona Valley transit authority, Get Citizen Program About, Claremont dial-a-ride 399 City of Compton Dial-A- Ride/Recreation Department 5034 City of Covina 6874 City Of Downey 6547 City Of El Monte

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

410 City of El Monte/Senior Services Division 412 City of El Segundo 418 City of Glendale 1897 City of Inglewood 6551 City Of Irwindale 432 City of Irwindale 4051 City Of La Canada Flintridge Contract under City of Glendale 442 City of La Habra Heights 5038 City Of La Mirada 51 City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit 7147 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability 561 City of Monrovia - Planning Division 95 City of Monterey Park 31 City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit 88 City of Pasadena 7144 City of Pasadena - Adaptive Field trips 4-6 per year contracted with Recreation at Jackie Robinson bus company. Center 1167 City of Pasadena - Housing Authority 5043 City of Pico Rivera 577 City of Pomona - Department of Recreation 597 City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus 6558 City of Torrance - Recreation Coordinated by our transit department - City of Torrance (Senior taxi tickets) 614 City of West Hollywood - Transportation 4 City of Westlake Village 5 City of Whittier 624 CLIMB Work Activity Center 637 Community Assistance Program for Seniors 2504 Community Health Alliance Of Pasadena 3318 Community Place Of United Bus token, Taxi vouchers provided. Ministry At USC

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 3 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

644 Community Rehabilitation Assist regional center by providing Training Center info: client transportation needs 5930 Country Villa East Skilled Nursing Facility 668 CRI-Help, Inc. 1302 DaVita 693 Developmental Disabilities Assist riders with complaints; advocacy Area Board 10 695 Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center 6582 Diversified Paratransit, Inc. 6583 Door To Door Transport. 6258 Dynasty Limousine Inc Door to door 5219 East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center 6587 Easter Seals 3834 Easter Seals of Southern California 48 Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center 2149 Echo Park Adult Day Health Care 291 El Centro De Amistad Inc. 6658 Emerson Village 5656 Employment Development Department 6600 Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. 4996 Felicia Mahood Senior Center 769 Filipino-American Community Transportation is usually arranged with of Los Angeles volunteer drivers 3802 Foothill Family Service - Clients receive agency-operated Pasadena transportation on an as needed basis 50 Foothill Transit No specialized transportation. 1528 Foothills Healthy Aging Network 2336 Friends In Deed House 70 Gardena Municipal Bus Lines 7150 Genu Harrison Residential Care 2177 Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Center 2352 Good Shepherd Center Receive and distribute some bus tokens Women's Village and taxi vouchers through another program (SHORE)

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 4 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

808 Goodwill Industries of Southern California 6299 Grace Brethren Church of Long Contract for buses to youth camps Beach 818 Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS) 2279 Harbor Regional Center 825 Harbor UCLA Medical Center 3844 Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care 6090 Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care 851 Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Nuys 2992 Home-Safe Child Care, Inc Inland taxi, bus coupons 888 Institute for the Redesign of Learning 7141 Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies 906 Israel Levin Senior Center 7140 ITNSantaMonica 915 Jewish Family Service - Partners 3388 Jim Gilliam Senior Center 938 Kaiser Foundation Hospital Kaiser hub arranges ambulance and medical van trans 7136 Kindred Hospital San Gabriel Valley 1047 LAC & USC Medical Center 5509 LADOT-Citiride 1929 Lanterman Developmental Center 4374 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 3052 Lennox School District 1064 Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel 4925 Linkages Program INT vouchers 1089 Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. 3410 Long Beach Rescue Mission 5204 Long Beach Senior Center Receive taxi vouchers for 57 patrons. Taxi vouchers received from Fame Renaissance taxi voucher program 6049 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 5 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

3927 Los Angeles County Transport clients to court hearing Department of Mental Health - Public Guardian 2602 Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services - GAIN program 99 Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works 6336 Los Angeles County M T A 3067 Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Program And Policy 1032 Los Angeles DIALYSIS Non emergency medical transportation CENTER 3924 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior Program 792 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center 6803 Magic Carpet Shuttle 3425 Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center 6348 MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Inc.) 463 Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Services 3092 Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. 54 Montebello Bus Lines Montebello dial-a-ride is directly operated. 6630 Mother Gertrude Home 5638 Murchison Family Center Bus Tokens 7146 Neighborhood Legal Services 5319 New Directions, Inc. 498 New Horizons 7133 New Life Charters Charters services private parties 2681 Office of Child Care Service Integration 528 Oldtimers Foundation 3962 Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa 1146 Pacifica Hospital of the Valley 4085 Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority 5260 Pasadena Senior Center 5642 People Coordinated Services

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 6 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

3969 Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. 5113 Pomona Valley Transportation Authority 2205 Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center 7130 Project New Hope:Echo Park 6881 R & D Transportation Services, Llc 1233 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center 2093 Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of California 1239 Regis House 3988 San Fernando Valley CMHC Bus tokens, taxi vouchers provided by Center For Family Living city. 1840 San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center Inc. 1276 San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council 2282 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center 2215 Sanar Health Service 5160 Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior Center 5554 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Center 5531 SRO - Single Room Occupancy Housing 7134 St. John of God Retirement Care Center 7132 St. John's Well Child and Family Center 1360 St. Joseph Center 7129 St. Monica Church 6818 Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Beach, Inc. 6821 Tarzana Treatment Center 6834 The Guidance Center Transport clients primarily to agency for services 1342 The Wellness Community- South Bay Cities 1407 Tierra del sol Foundation 5254 Torrance YMCA Senior Center

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 7 of 8

ID Agency No Operate Act as Contr Subs Arr Other trans services Trans trans contract act idize ang or out e

6849 United Community Action Will occasionally provide bus for Network, Inc. special events 1015 Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Center 6067 Valley Child Guidance Clinic 2233 Valley Village 1466 Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks We refer seniors to phone numbers for Senior Center using access 1471 Venice Japanese Center 4933 Villa Esperanza 5616 W. I.N.T.E.R. 1511 Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) 5609 Watts Labor Community Action Committee 2576 Western Women's Medical Center 7107 Westside Children's Center 1505 William L. Jones Center for Metro line Women 2788 Wilshire Presbyterian Church 1556 Wise Senior Services - Operations contracted Transportation 4836 Women At Risk OAPP 2589 YWCA Harbor Area Transport breast cancer patients to appt's as needed for screenings. 2130 YWCA of San Gabriel Valley

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 8 of 8

8. Difficulties with transportation coordination Faith based Brentwood Presbyterian Church (6207) We have very few staff Community Place Of United Ministry At USC (3318) We use bus tokens/ Taxi vouchers and haven't nearly enough Good Shepherd Center Women's Village (2352) 1. Lack of resources, particularly staff 2. Final decisions are made/approved by Catholic charities Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach (6299) Too few riders to merit extra work of coordination

Private, for profit ABC Therapy Center (2137) Coordination is OK. Follow up is challenging as seniors only speak Chinese. Behavior Resources, Inc. (4787) Too difficult because of varied geographical sites CHOICES R US Residential Inc. (7145) Same Day - Transportation to and from Access Services for new enrollment. DaVita (1302) Dialysis scheduling only Door To Door Transport. (6583) Correct P/U info, correct D/O info Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care (6090) To provide timely pickup and drop off New Life Charters (7133) N/A we coordinate with all transportation needs R & D Transportation Services, Llc (6881) We would like to be able to provide mobility training to the disabled community The Wellness Community-South Bay Cities (1342) N/A Private, non-profit Ability First Claremont Center (670) Have limited resources to transport Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. (150) Some of the women have mental health issues and we would be concerned with them mixing with the other who may not be sensitive. Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force Most of the Cambodian seniors are monolingual speaking and they feel intimidated by the (1080) transportation system in L.A. Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center (214) We have a contract with the city of L.A. for prop A. funds for door to door for seniors. Associated Students of Pomona College (6479) Lack of knowledge around transportation options Beacon House Association of San Pedro (5850) Some agencies require special insurance; driver's licenses' fees. Braille Institute (256) We only provide services for blind people. Our coordination w/ access is fine. CALACT (7135) Keep interest of progress California Home for Aged Deaf (294) The language barriers of deaf makes it difficult CAPC Inc. (5597) We are inclusion based, we teach how to ride like other people. We could use discounts for our learners until they are independent and passes for fixed route. Catalina Island Medical Center (2894) Living on island is difficult to coordinate times and location Community Rehabilitation Training Center (644) Clients unable to schedule same day, clients cannot schedule for the time they choose/need, miss appointments for doctor-social security East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center (5219) We do not coordinate with other agencies Easter Seals (6587) Liability concerns and insurance cost, our vehicles are assigned to specific drivers and we are not comfortable with drivers from other agencies operating our vehicles Easter Seals of Southern California (3834) The transportation services in the Antelope Valley are sub-standard due to the broad geographical area that require service. The current services are unreliable, have old broken or inoperable equipment. Fixed route service is consistently behind schedul El Centro De Amistad Inc. (291) Individual needs, use city for youth buses. Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles (769) Difficulties stem from the lack of funds of the organization to maintain and support a program. Foothills Healthy Aging Network (1528) Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte and Bradbury do not provide coordinated transportation among municipalities. Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS) (818) Our clients cannot rely on access because they were often late to medical appointments and also they were often left stranded. Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care (3844) Limited passengers / car unreliable taxi service. ITNSantaMonica (7140) We will be providing a very specialized transportation service for members, supplementing existing transportation services. It is designed to meet the needs of persons who cannot or will not use other transportation services. We will use autos, not vans. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (938) Patients living in Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley have no connections into Panorama City where our hospital / clinics are. Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (4374) We have no preset information about transportation needs of our clients whose visits to our offices and court are only occasional. Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. (1089) We need monies for insurance and a driver Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior We serve seniors with very specific needs in a wide variety of geographic locations. I think it Program (3924) would be very difficult to coordinate with another agency due to their sporadic schedules.

Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Unaware of other agencies Center (792) Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Many public options don’t cross city boundaries which is needed for medical appts. Services (463) Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. (3092) We are a small program and can not take any additional duties on. Neighborhood Legal Services (7146) Have never provided this service. Oldtimers Foundation (528) The difficulties we are experiencing are the share-riding of passengers and their dislike of excess share-riding.

Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa (3962) Coordination decisions are made by PC transportation dept. Cedric Smith (626)254-5000

Pasadena Senior Center (5260) This is a senior center. People Coordinated Services (5642) Do not have the time due to number of employee and number of vehicles Regis House (1239) We are a small agency with a small staff. Also no one has a license to drive a passenger van. San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Because of HIPPA Center Inc. (1840) San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center (2282) Safe and reliable resources - cost. Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior Generally speaking : inadequate resources to meet demand Center (5160) St. John's Well Child and Family Center (7132) No difficulties Tarzana Treatment Center (6821) Cannot allow patients served by this agency to ride with clients or staff of other agencies due to concerns over patient confidentiality and agency liability United Community Action Network, Inc. (6849) Lack of personal funds Valley Village (2233) N/A Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) (1511) Not enough vehicles or drivers Watts Labor Community Action Committee (5609) Computer system tracking. Not enough staff to service the zip codes required for service per our city contract with DOA William L. Jones Center for Women (1505) We have metro-line or some more cars Wise Senior Services - Transportation (1556) Service boundaries not always clearly defined Public Antelope Valley Mental Health Center (3716) We do not have staff to coordinate transportation Antelope Valley Senior Center (5206) Liability - We don’t have transportation vehicles or drivers. California Department of Rehabilitation - Lancaster No central coordination by anyone (283) City of Carson (6230) Unable to attract enough participants to have a feasible coordination program. City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Department Compton Dial A Ride transports seniors 55+ and qualified disabled adults. (399) City of Covina (5034) No coordination at this point - but willing to discuss it. City of Inglewood (1897) Not finding enough para-transit vehicles to transport seniors when needed to coordinate City Of Irwindale (6551) Scheduling conflicts of transportation request City Of La Canada Flintridge (4051) On bus purchases we are a small agency and only look to purchase single buses periodically and have difficulty finding a contract to piggy-back onto City of La Habra Heights (442) The coordination is operating very smoothly. We have not had any difficulties City Of La Mirada (5038) N/A City of Los Angeles Department on Disability (7147) Information and referral of paratransit service providers. City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit (31) Diverse interest in how services should be operated, and pooling of financial resource. City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie Problems with late pick-ups. Non-existent cabs (they say they will be here and do not show). Robinson Center (7144) Rude taxi drivers and no follow thru on complaints. City of Pico Rivera (5043) Funding and staffing City of Pomona - Department of Recreation (577) Dial a ride is taking to long for short trips 1-2 miles takes 3-4 hours of wait time City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus (597) We have a non-ADA self contained service. City of Torrance - Recreation (6558) We do not coordinate transportation for the seniors City of Whittier (5) Finance and lack of knowledge Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 (693) Interested in piloting a model project in one small area of L.A., similar to the FACT concept in San Diego, where with one phone call, you'll be sent an available vehicle from any of the local school, hospital, senior center, nonprofit, (cont. on survey) Employment Development Department (5656) We are a state employment agency that sees a need for our low-income clients to have free access to transportation services LADOT-Citiride (5509) LADOT is willing to coordinate with all agencies Long Beach Senior Center (5204) Budgetary restrictions

Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health - Special population, supervision of clients and meeting appointment times Public Guardian (3927) Los Angeles County Department of Public Social N/A Services - GAIN program (2602) Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Program And Access services would need to work with each of our contracted agencies to coordinate each Policy (3067) agencies clients need. Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (5113) Across the San Bernardino County line Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center (1233) The current system of ACCESS services is not flexible in the provision of same day appointment scheduling for patient pickup. Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of Geographic barriers of different providers, language other than English or Spanish California (2093) Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center (1466) Our participants arrange their own transportation

ACCESS SERVICES Survey Question 9 N = 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007

ID Agency Trans prov to Elig other 815 (GLAD) Greater L A Council / Deafness 7139 211 LA County 7148 A List Limousine and Transportation Any person served by this agency Service 2137 ABC Therapy Center Any person served by this agency 670 Ability First Claremont Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 134 Active Blind 5765 Affiliated Committee on Aging 7131 African Community Resource Center Any person served by this agency General public 5652 AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives 150 Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. Only formally enrolled agency clients 2286 All People's Christian Church, Any person served by this agency youth, camps, field trips, food donation pickup (Disciples Of Christ) Pacific S.W. Region 161 AltaMed Health Services Corp. Only formally enrolled agency clients 5903 Amanecer Community Counseling Any person served by this agency 7015 American Transportation Systems General Public 5275 Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities Any person served by this agency Clients authorized 6191 Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc General Public 3716 Antelope Valley Mental Health Center Only formally enrolled agency clients 5206 Antelope Valley Senior Center 3717 Arcadia Mental Health Any person served by this agency 1080 Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force 2884 Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team 212 Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc 214 Assistance League Hollywood Senior Any person served by this agency Or seniors who live in our service area. Center 6479 Associated Students of Pomona Any person served by this agency College 3724 Aviva Center Any person served by this agency 5822 Bassett Adult School 73 Beach Cities Transit Only formally enrolled agency clients 5850 Beacon House Association of San Any person served by this agency Pedro 4787 Behavior Resources, Inc. 256 Braille Institute 6207 Brentwood Presbyterian Church Any person served by this agency Persons in need (homeless) may be given bus tokens. 2150 C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Any person served by this agency Center 7135 CALACT General Public 283 California Department of Any person served by this agency Rehabilitation - Lancaster 294 California Home for Aged Deaf 5564 California PEO Home / Marguerite Only formally enrolled agency clients Gardens Senior Home 5597 CAPC Inc. Any person served by this agency 2894 Catalina Island Medical Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation low income 2056 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center 7064 Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. Only formally enrolled agency clients 7149 Chinatown Service Center 7145 CHOICES R US Residential Inc. Any person served by this agency 5025 Citizen's Medical Group Any person served by this agency Senior Citizen 5153 City of Agoura Hills Clients authorized/approved for transportation Field trip participants 4037 City Of Alhambra - Community Only formally enrolled agency clients Services

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 1 of 5 ID Agency Trans prov to Elig other

3878 City of Azusa Only formally enrolled agency clients 6230 City of Carson Only formally enrolled agency clients Enrolled-DAR; general public-Fixed Route. 2272 City of Cerritos General Public senior & disabled residents of Cerritos 621 City of Claremont Senior Citizen Program 399 City of Compton Dial-A- General Public Seniors / Disabled Adults Ride/Recreation Department 5034 City of Covina Only formally enrolled agency clients 6874 City Of Downey General Public Dial-a-Ride 6547 City Of El Monte Only formally enrolled agency clients Elderly and disabled 410 City of El Monte/Senior Services Only formally enrolled agency clients Division 412 City of El Segundo General Public 418 City of Glendale Any person served by this agency Enrolled seniors and disabled. 1897 City of Inglewood Only formally enrolled agency clients General Public for fixed route 6551 City Of Irwindale Any person served by this agency Irwindale resident seniors 50+ 432 City of Irwindale Any person served by this agency also formally enrolled and general public 4051 City Of La Canada Flintridge Clients authorized/approved for transportation General public (fixed route) 442 City of La Habra Heights General Public 5038 City Of La Mirada General Public 51 City of Long Beach - Long Beach Only formally enrolled agency clients General Public for fixed route Transit 7147 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability 561 City of Monrovia - Planning Division Clients authorized/approved for transportation 95 City of Monterey Park General Public 31 City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit Only formally enrolled agency clients 88 City of Pasadena Only formally enrolled agency clients 7144 City of Pasadena - Adaptive Only formally enrolled agency clients Recreation at Jackie Robinson Center 1167 City of Pasadena - Housing Authority 5043 City of Pico Rivera Clients authorized/approved for transportation 577 City of Pomona - Department of Recreation 597 City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus Only formally enrolled agency clients 6558 City of Torrance - Recreation 614 City of West Hollywood - Transportatio General Public 4 City of Westlake Village Any person served by this agency 5 City of Whittier General Public Senior and Disabled residents of the City of Whittier and La Habra Heights. 624 CLIMB Work Activity Center Any person served by this agency 637 Community Assistance Program for Only formally enrolled agency clients Seniors 2504 Community Health Alliance Of Any person served by this agency Pasadena 3318 Community Place Of United Ministry A General Public Tokens, vouchers to those first in line. USC 644 Community Rehabilitation Training Any person served by this agency Center 5930 Country Villa East Skilled Nursing Any person served by this agency Facility 668 CRI-Help, Inc. Any person served by this agency 1302 DaVita 693 Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 695 Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center 6582 Diversified Paratransit, Inc. General Public 6583 Door To Door Transport. General Public 6258 Dynasty Limousine Inc Any person served by this agency Also general public 5219 East Valley Multipurpose Senior Cente Only formally enrolled agency clients 6587 Easter Seals Only formally enrolled agency clients And clients authorized 3834 Easter Seals of Southern California

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 5 ID Agency Trans prov to Elig other

48 Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 2149 Echo Park Adult Day Health Care Only formally enrolled agency clients 291 El Centro De Amistad Inc. 6658 Emerson Village Any person served by this agency 5656 Employment Development Department 6600 Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. Any person served by this agency 4996 Felicia Mahood Senior Center 769 Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles 3802 Foothill Family Service - Pasadena 50 Foothill Transit 1528 Foothills Healthy Aging Network 2336 Friends In Deed House Any person served by this agency 70 Gardena Municipal Bus Lines Only formally enrolled agency clients 7150 Genu Harrison Residential Care Only formally enrolled agency clients 2177 Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Cente Only formally enrolled agency clients 2352 Good Shepherd Center Women's Only formally enrolled agency clients Village 808 Goodwill Industries of Southern Clients authorized/approved for transportation California 6299 Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach Any person served by this agency 818 Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS 2279 Harbor Regional Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 825 Harbor UCLA Medical Center Any person served by this agency 3844 Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care Clients authorized/approved for transportation From drug homes, homeless shelters, and for patients. 6090 Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care Only formally enrolled agency clients 851 Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Any person served by this agency Nuys 2992 Home-Safe Child Care, Inc Any person served by this agency 888 Institute for the Redesign of Learning Any person served by this agency 7141 Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies 906 Israel Levin Senior Center 7140 ITNSantaMonica Only formally enrolled agency clients 915 Jewish Family Service - Partners 3388 Jim Gilliam Senior Center 938 Kaiser Foundation Hospital Only formally enrolled agency clients Kaiser member and non-member under Medicare and Me 7136 Kindred Hospital San Gabriel Valley 1047 LAC & USC Medical Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation patients and families in need 5509 LADOT-Citiride Only formally enrolled agency clients 1929 Lanterman Developmental Center Any person served by this agency 4374 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 3052 Lennox School District Clients authorized/approved for transportation Students with special needs 1064 Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel Any person served by this agency 4925 Linkages Program 1089 Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. Any person served by this agency 3410 Long Beach Rescue Mission 5204 Long Beach Senior Center 6049 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Only formally enrolled agency clients Center 3927 Los Angeles County Department of Clients authorized/approved for transportation clients who are served by this agency and need to Mental Health - Public Guardian make court appearances 2602 Los Angeles County Department of Clients authorized/approved for transportation Public Social Services - GAIN program 99 Los Angeles County Deptartment of Clients authorized/approved for transportation Public Works 6336 Los Angeles County M T A General Public 3067 Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Only formally enrolled agency clients Program And Policy 1032 Los Angeles DIALYSIS CENTER

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 3 of 5 ID Agency Trans prov to Elig other

3924 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior Program 792 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian

Community Services Center 6803 Magic Carpet Shuttle Clients authorized/approved for transportation And general public 3425 Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center 6348 MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Inc.) 463 Methodist Hospital of Southern Clients authorized/approved for transportation California - Social Services 3092 Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. Any person served by this agency 54 Montebello Bus Lines General Public Montebello residents 62 or older or disabled 6630 Mother Gertrude Home 5638 Murchison Family Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 7146 Neighborhood Legal Services 5319 New Directions, Inc. Only formally enrolled agency clients 498 New Horizons Only formally enrolled agency clients 7133 New Life Charters Clients authorized/approved for transportation General public 2681 Office of Child Care Service Integration 528 Oldtimers Foundation General Public 3962 Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa Only formally enrolled agency clients 1146 Pacifica Hospital of the Valley 4085 Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Only formally enrolled agency clients Pre-registered S&D Authority 5260 Pasadena Senior Center General Public Senior Center 5642 People Coordinated Services 3969 Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. Only formally enrolled agency clients 5113 Pomona Valley Transportation Authorit Only formally enrolled agency clients Also for general public Claremont & San Dimas DAR 2205 Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center 7130 Project New Hope:Echo Park Any person served by this agency 6881 R & D Transportation Services, Llc Clients authorized/approved for transportation 1233 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center 2093 Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of California 1239 Regis House 3988 San Fernando Valley CMHC Center Any person served by this agency For Family Living 1840 San Fernando Valley Community Only formally enrolled agency clients Mental Health Center Inc. 1276 San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council Clients authorized/approved for transportation other seniors/disabled through shared arrangements 2282 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center Any person served by this agency Authorized clients. 2215 Sanar Health Service 5160 Santa Clarita Valley Committee on General Public Coordinate immediate needs (taxi) Aging / Senior Center 5554 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Center 5531 SRO - Single Room Occupancy Only formally enrolled agency clients Housing 7134 St. John of God Retirement Care Clients authorized/approved for transportation Those approved for Access Services Inc. Center 7132 St. John's Well Child and Family Center 1360 St. Joseph Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 7129 St. Monica Church 6818 Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Any person served by this agency Beach, Inc. 6821 Tarzana Treatment Center Any person served by this agency 6834 The Guidance Center Any person served by this agency

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 4 of 5 ID Agency Trans prov to Elig other

1342 The Wellness Community-South Bay Cities 1407 Tierra del sol Foundation Clients authorized/approved for transportation

5254 Torrance YMCA Senior Center 6849 United Community Action Network, Inc 1015 Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Clients authorized/approved for transportation patients that meet clinic and income criteria Center 6067 Valley Child Guidance Clinic Any person served by this agency 2233 Valley Village General Public 1466 Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center 1471 Venice Japanese Center 4933 Villa Esperanza Any person served by this agency General public 5616 W.I.N.T.E.R. 1511 Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) Only formally enrolled agency clients 5609 Watts Labor Community Action Only formally enrolled agency clients Seniors and disabled. Committee 2576 Western Women's Medical Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 7107 Westside Children's Center Clients authorized/approved for transportation 1505 William L. Jones Center for Women 2788 Wilshire Presbyterian Church 1556 Wise Senior Services - Transportation 4836 Women At Risk Only formally enrolled agency clients 2589 YWCA Harbor Area Only formally enrolled agency clients 2130 YWCA of San Gabriel Valley

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 5 of 5

ACCESS SERVICES Vehicles/Trips/Miles by Agency N= 208 surveys received as of 9/17/2007 N= N= N= N= 1629 1545 1936 6 41942 #Vehicles for #Veh for Trips per Miles per client trans clnt trans day day Agency 'daily' 815 (GLAD) Greater L A Council / Deafness 7139 211 LA County 7148 A List Limousine and Transportation Service 20 10 2137 ABC Therapy Center 2 2 6 60 670 Ability First Claremont Center 22 134 Active Blind 5765 Affiliated Committee on Aging 7131 African Community Resource Center 5652 AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives 150 Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. 2 0 0 0 2286 All People's Christian Church, (Disciples Of Christ) Pacific S.W. Region 4 3 6 161 AltaMed Health Services Corp. 27 22 360 82 5903 Amanecer Community Counseling 5 5 6 30 7015 American Transportation Systems 19 19 20 1000 5275 Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities 3 3 8 50 6191 Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc 11 8 9 1500 3716 Antelope Valley Mental Health Center 1 1 2 10 5206 Antelope Valley Senior Center 3717 Arcadia Mental Health 1 1 2 30 1080 Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force 2884 Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team 212 Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc 214 Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center 43 6479 Associated Students of Pomona College 2 2 5 150 3724 Aviva Center 17 17 7 75 5822 Bassett Adult School 73 Beach Cities Transit 5 4 46 225 5850 Beacon House Association of San Pedro 2 2 10 200 4787 Behavior Resources, Inc. 256 Braille Institute 6207 Brentwood Presbyterian Church 2 2 6 25 2150 C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Center 3 3 2 7 7135 CALACT 283 California Department of Rehabilitation - Lancaster 0 0 294 California Home for Aged Deaf 1 5564 California PEO Home / Marguerite Gardens Senior Home 2 1 6 102 5597 CAPC Inc. 140 140 280 30 2894 Catalina Island Medical Center 14 10 2056 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center 7064 Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. 1 1 2 6 7149 Chinatown Service Center 7145 CHOICES R US Residential Inc. 0 0 5025 Citizen's Medical Group 0 0

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 1 of 5

#Vehicles for #Veh for Trips per Miles per

client trans clnt trans day day Agency 'daily' 5153 City of Agoura Hills 1 0 4037 City Of Alhambra - Community Services 8 7 159 478 3878 City of Azusa 10 4 130 98 6230 City of Carson 17 17 2272 City of Cerritos 3 3 64 316 621 City of Claremont Senior Citizen Program 399 City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Department 5 5 47 12 5034 City of Covina 2 3 80 6874 City Of Downey 15 12 1318 1240 6547 City Of El Monte 12 6 101 498 410 City of El Monte/Senior Services Division 2 1 9 55 412 City of El Segundo 7 5 418 City of Glendale 7 6 245 960 1897 City of Inglewood 8 6 400 500 6551 City Of Irwindale 6 2 210 235 432 City of Irwindale 4 1 200 35 4051 City Of La Canada Flintridge 0 0 442 City of La Habra Heights 1 1 5038 City Of La Mirada 12 6 158 386 51 City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit 18 18 208 800 7147 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability 561 City of Monrovia - Planning Division 9 9 95 City of Monterey Park 12 9 77 192 31 City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit 9 7 64 179 88 City of Pasadena 9 9 165 729 7144 City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie Robinson Center 0 0 1167 City of Pasadena - Housing Authority 5043 City of Pico Rivera 5 5 117 498 577 City of Pomona - Department of Recreation 597 City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus 6 4 90 230 6558 City of Torrance - Recreation 614 City of West Hollywood - Transportation 10 7 350 4 City of Westlake Village 10 10 20 100 5 City of Whittier 10 7 168 700 624 CLIMB Work Activity Center 14 12 25 100 637 Community Assistance Program for Seniors 1 1 10 25 2504 Community Health Alliance Of Pasadena 0 0 3318 Community Place Of United Ministry At USC 0 0 644 Community Rehabilitation Training Center 5930 Country Villa East Skilled Nursing Facility 4 4 3 100 668 CRI-Help, Inc. 9 9 7 450 1302 DaVita 693 Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 695 Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center 6582 Diversified Paratransit, Inc. 620 620 6000 12000 6583 Door To Door Transport. 15 70 6258 Dynasty Limousine Inc 3 3 4 250 5219 East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center 5 4 10 60

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 5

#Vehicles for #Veh for Trips per Miles per

client trans clnt trans day day Agency 'daily' 6587 Easter Seals 4 4 91 249 3834 Easter Seals of Southern California 48 Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center 0 0 2149 Echo Park Adult Day Health Care 4 4 10 100 291 El Centro De Amistad Inc. 6658 Emerson Village 1 1 10 5656 Employment Development Department 6600 Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. 4 6 4 4996 Felicia Mahood Senior Center 769 Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles 3802 Foothill Family Service - Pasadena 50 Foothill Transit 1528 Foothills Healthy Aging Network 2336 Friends In Deed House 70 Gardena Municipal Bus Lines 9 5 73 293 7150 Genu Harrison Residential Care 1 1 1 4 2177 Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Center 6 6 2352 Good Shepherd Center Women's Village 0 0 0 15 808 Goodwill Industries of Southern California 2 1 10 92 6299 Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach 1 1 20 25 818 Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS) 2279 Harbor Regional Center 825 Harbor UCLA Medical Center 1 1 15 3844 Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care 0 3 5 6090 Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care 4 9 4 65 851 Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Nuys 6 6 7 100 2992 Home-Safe Child Care, Inc 3 2 15 25 888 Institute for the Redesign of Learning 26 26 334 1690 7141 Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies 906 Israel Levin Senior Center 7140 ITNSantaMonica 1 3 20 90 915 Jewish Family Service - Partners 3388 Jim Gilliam Senior Center 938 Kaiser Foundation Hospital 7136 Kindred Hospital San Gabriel Valley 1047 LAC & USC Medical Center 0 0 5509 LADOT-Citiride 73 68 5509 1929 Lanterman Developmental Center 20 20 412 4803 4374 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 3052 Lennox School District 5 5 4 75 1064 Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel 0 0 0 4925 Linkages Program 1089 Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. 1 0 0 0 3410 Long Beach Rescue Mission 5204 Long Beach Senior Center 6049 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center 0 0 3927 Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health - Public Guardian 3 3 5 300 2602 Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services - GAIN progra 0 0

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 3 of 5

#Vehicles for #Veh for Trips per Miles per

client trans clnt trans day day Agency 'daily' 99 Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works 20 16 229 1460 6336 Los Angeles County M T A 3067 Los Angeles County Offcie Of Aids Program And Policy 40 800 1032 Los Angeles DIALYSIS CENTER 3924 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior Program 792 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center 6803 Magic Carpet Shuttle 2 2 76 200 3425 Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center 6348 MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Inc.) 463 Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Services 0 0 3092 Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. 1 1 5 15 54 Montebello Bus Lines 5 5 42 9 6630 Mother Gertrude Home 5638 Murchison Family Center 0 0 7146 Neighborhood Legal Services 5319 New Directions, Inc. 3 3 3 36 498 New Horizons 9 7 160 19 7133 New Life Charters 5 5 4 400 2681 Office of Child Care Service Integration 528 Oldtimers Foundation 22 20 1500 850 3962 Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa 7 7 25 500 1146 Pacifica Hospital of the Valley 4085 Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority 21 122 5260 Pasadena Senior Center 5642 People Coordinated Services 3969 Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. 5 4 6 5113 Pomona Valley Transportation Authority 28 25 750 1939 2205 Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center 7130 Project New Hope:Echo Park 6881 R & D Transportation Services, Llc 2400 1233 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center 2093 Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of California 1239 Regis House 3988 San Fernando Valley CMHC Center For Family Living 1840 San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center Inc. 4 4 4 100 1276 San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council 1 1 18 37 2282 San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center 100 100 2215 Sanar Health Service 5160 Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior Center 7 7 144 278 5554 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Center 5531 SRO - Single Room Occupancy Housing 2 1 22 100 7134 St. John of God Retirement Care Center 7132 St. John's Well Child and Family Center 1360 St. Joseph Center 0 0 7129 St. Monica Church 6818 Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Beach, Inc. 4 3 6821 Tarzana Treatment Center 16 16 48 128 6834 The Guidance Center 3 1 0 40 10

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 4 of 5

#Vehicles for #Veh for Trips per Miles per

client trans clnt trans day day Agency 'daily' 1342 The Wellness Community-South Bay Cities 1407 Tierra del sol Foundation 28 28 450 1680 5254 Torrance YMCA Senior Center 6849 United Community Action Network, Inc. 1015 Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Center 0 0 6067 Valley Child Guidance Clinic 0 0 2233 Valley Village 11 11 1466 Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center 1471 Venice Japanese Center 00 4933 Villa Esperanza 23 23 416 30 5616 W.I.N.T.E.R. 1511 Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) 2 2 50 100 5609 Watts Labor Community Action Committee 3 3 60 100 2576 Western Women's Medical Center 0 0 7107 Westside Children's Center 1 1 16 200 1505 William L. Jones Center for Women 2788 Wilshire Presbyterian Church 1556 Wise Senior Services - Transportation 4836 Women At Risk 0 0 2589 YWCA Harbor Area 2 1 2130 YWCA of San Gabriel Valley

Monday, September 17, 2007 Page 5 of 5

15 . Transportation service area, listing cities or geographic region within a _____ mi radius of Co-wide Faith based All People's Christian Church, (Disciples Of Christ) South Central Los Angeles: 90001, 90002, 90003, Pacific S.W. Region (2286) 90004, 90005, 90006, 90007, 90008, 90010, 90011, 90016, 90018, 90037, 90034, 90044, 90046, 90047, 90058, 90059, 90061, 90062 Brentwood Presbyterian Church (6207) West Los Angeles (Brentwood) - Santa Monica - 5West L.A. Pacific Palisades Good Shepherd Center Women's Village (2352) Primarily Los Angeles, echo park, Macarthur Park, Skid Row (downtown) Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach (6299) Long Beach 100 Long Beach Private, for profit A List Limousine and Transportation Service (7148) Greater Los Angeles ABC Therapy Center (2137) Monterey Park, Alhambra, LA Chinatown, El Monte, Arcadia. AltaMed Health Services Corp. (161) 15 East L.A. American Transportation Systems (7015) Los Angeles Southern California Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc (6191) High desert - LA County 200 Los Angeles C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care Center (2150) Carson, North Long Beach, Wilmington, Torrance, Compton, Gardena Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. (7064) Covina only CHOICES R US Residential Inc. (7145) Downey, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Lancaster Community Health Alliance Of Pasadena (2504) Pasadena, Altadena, Sierra Madre and surrounding area Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (6582) Southern California Door To Door Transport. (6583) All areas between 10fwy and 105 fwy; as far east as Downey and west as Marina Del Rey. Dynasty Limousine Inc (6258) Los Angeles County whole area, Orange County, Ventura County and most of Southern California Echo Park Adult Day Health Care (2149) Los Angeles (east) Pasadena Norwalk Santa Monica Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. (6600) South Bay Area, Long Beach 10 Lomita Genu Harrison Residential Care (7150) Pico Rivera, Whittier Glenoaks Adult Day Health Care Center (2177) Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, N. Hollywood, Sherman Oaks, Reseda, Panorama City. Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care (6090) Hollywood, West Hollywood, Simi Valley, Sherman 15 Oaks Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel (1064) Arcadia, Monrovia, Duarte Magic Carpet Shuttle (6803) Pasadena, Altadena, La Canada Flintridge, West Covina, Los Angeles New Life Charters (7133) Los Angeles, Anaheim, Orange County, Riverside, San Diego, West Hills, Mission Hills, Covina, Baldwin Park Western Women's Medical Center (2576) Los Angeles, Inglewood, and Culver City Private, non-profit Amanecer Community Counseling (5903) SPA4, Metro Downtown L.A., Pico-Union to Hollywood, out to Highland Park Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center (214) City of L.A. Dept of Aging, North side service area. Associated Students of Pomona College (6479) So cal (LA, Orange County, San Bernardino Beacon House Association of San Pedro (5850) Los Angeles County / Harbor/ Long Beach Area CALACT (7135) State of CA California Home for Aged Deaf (294) Arcadia, Baldwin Hills, Pasadena, Tarzana, Los Angeles California PEO Home / Marguerite Gardens Senior Pasadena, San Marino, San Gabriel, Alhambra 5Alhambra Home (5564) CAPC Inc. (5597) 10- 15 miles from site. 15 7200 Greenleaf, Whittier Catalina Island Medical Center (2894) San Pedro, Long Beach, Danna Point 50

CLIMB Work Activity Center (624) San Gabriel Valley Community Assistance Program for Seniors (637) Pasadena, Alhambra 8CAPS CRI-Help, Inc. (668) Greater Los Angeles East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center (5219) East San Fernando Valley Easter Seals (6587) Southern California, west-pacific ocean, east-605 25 Torrance freeway, north-10 freeway, south -22 freeway Emerson Village (6658) Claremont, La Verne, Montclair, Pomona, Chino, 15 Pomona Ontario, San Dimas, Upland

Friends In Deed House (2336) Pasadena, Altadena, San Gabriel Valley

Goodwill Industries of Southern California (808) LA, Alhambra, Rosemead Harbor Regional Center (2279) Long Beach, Cities South of Manhattan Beach, Torrance, Bellflower, Norwalk, Cerritos, Artesia, Hawaiian Gardens, Carson south of 405. Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care (3844) Long Beach, San Pedro, Torrance 15 South Bay Clinic Site Home-Safe Child Care, Inc (2992) Hollywood, W. Hollywood, mid Wilshire, S. LA 10 Office ITNSantaMonica (7140) Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, Brentwood. Planned expansion to include West L.A. Culver City. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (938) Kaiser Panorama City Medical Center patients come from all over L.A. County, Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita Valley. Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. (1089) Long Beach / LA County area 25 Long Beach Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social San Gabriel Valley Services (463) Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. (3092) East L.A. area and sometimes the San Gabriel Valley area. New Horizons (498) San Fernando Valley Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa (3962) San Gabriel Valley (Target) Other areas depending on client needs Project New Hope:Echo Park (7130) Entire LA County San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health San Fernando Valley, Center Inc. (1840) Sunland/Tujunga area, some parts of LA San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council (1276) San Fernando Valley (central and west side) 10 NWV ADSC San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center (2282) Alta Dena to Claremont Sierra Madre to Rowland Heights Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior Santa Clarita Valley to the Ventura County line Center (5160) include Castaic, Actoin, Aqua Dulce, san Fernando (all Santa Clarita Valley) St. Joseph Center (1360) 10 Office Tarzana Treatment Center (6821) Antelope Valley, San Fernando Valley, Long Beach/South Los Anegeles. The Guidance Center (6834) Long Beach, Paramount, Compton Tierra del sol Foundation (1407) San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley Valley Child Guidance Clinic (6067) 50 Antelope Valley Valley Village (2233) Winnetka and surrounding areas 1 20835 Sherman Way Villa Esperanza (4933) San Gabriel Valley, main cities: Pasadena, 50 Pasadena Altadena, San Marino, Rosemead, Monrovia, Arcadia, El Monte Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) (1511) LA County Watts Labor Community Action Committee (5609) Los Angeles Central Area 30 Clients home. Westside Children's Center (7107) Inglewood, Culver City, Los Angeles, Santa 30 Culver City Monica, Gardena YWCA Harbor Area (2589) South Bay, Harbor area, Long Beach, Torrance, San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City, Lomita. Public Antelope Valley Mental Health Center (3716) Lancaster area Arcadia Mental Health (3717) Central San Gabriel Valley, Arcadia, Covina, 10 Arcadia MIT Center Monrovia, West Covina, Alhambra Beach Cities Transit (73) Cities of Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach and satellite locations in Manhattan Beach and Torrance. California Department of Rehabilitation - Lancaster Northern LA County (283) Antelope Valley, Palmdale, Lancaster, Southern Kern Couth, Rosamund, Mojave City of Agoura Hills (5153) Ventura County, 15 Agoura Hills City Of Alhambra - Community Services (4037) Any location in Alhambra and 2 miles outside the city limits for medical appointments. City of Azusa (3878) Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Duarte, Glendora, Azusa Monrovia, San Dimas, West Covina City of Carson (6230) Carson, quadrant boundaries of Hawthorne Bl.., Atlantic Bl, PCH, and Del Amo Bl. Medical facilities to Lomita, Harbor City, Long Beach, San

Pedro, Lakewood, Torrance and Gardena.

City of Cerritos (2272) Bounded by Paramount Blvd, Florence Ave, Stanton Ave, & Wallow/Ball Rd. (approx. 3 miles from Cerritos boundaries City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Department Compton city limits 7 Compton (399) Medical Appointments to Lynwood, Bellflower, Harbor City and Martin Luther King Hospital in Los Angeles City of Covina (5034) City of Covina limits - up to 5 miles outside of city limits for pre approved medical appointments. City Of Downey (6874) Downey city limits City Of El Monte (6547) Within El Monte 5 El Monte for medical City of El Monte/Senior Services Division (410) City of El Monte City of El Segundo (412) Within the boundaries of the City of El Segundo except for the monthly shopping trips to the surrounding area. City of Glendale (418) City of Glendale, La Canada, and La Crescenta City of Inglewood (1897) Inglewood, Lennox, Hawthorne 30 Inglewood City Of Irwindale (6551) San Gabriel Valley, Azusa, Irwindale City Of La Canada Flintridge (4051) City of La Canada Flintridge, Glendale, and Western portion of Pasadena City of La Habra Heights (442) Whittier, with 1/4 mile from Whittier Blvd City Of La Mirada (5038) City of La Mirada service is provided within the city limits and within one mile of the city for medical trips. Service is also available to the Westridge mall in La Habra. City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit (51) DAL- Long Beach Signal Hill and Lakewood. Also serves any city that touches the borders of Long Beach including Artesia and Norwalk. City of Monrovia - Planning Division (561) City of Monrovia, South Monrovia and unincorporated areas City of Monterey Park (95) Monterey Park City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit (31) 1) DAR - Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs 2)Medical only by taxis - Bellflower, Downey, Lakewood and Whittier City of Pasadena (88) Unincorporated LA county residents who qualify 46 Service area, 3 miles for Dial-a-Ride, Pasadena, San Marino, Altadena outside for medical appts City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie Pasadena, Altadena, some Eagle Rock, Alhambra, Robinson Center (7144) San Gabriel. City of Pico Rivera (5043) Inside city limits 6 City hall City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus (597) Santa Monica 4 Santa Monica for hospital trips. City of West Hollywood - Transportation (614) West Hollywood and immediate area of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles City of Westlake Village (4) City of Westlake Village, Agoura Hills, and Thousand Oaks City of Whittier (5) City of Whittier and City of La Habra Heights city limits. Gardena Municipal Bus Lines (70) Gardena, Hawthorne, unincorporated county areas (Alondra Park and Del Aire) and 13 Satellite points. Harbor UCLA Medical Center (825) Our vehicle transports patients and staff within our 3Torrance campus (72 acres) to clinics and work locations. It also transports patients to a clinic located 3 miles away. LAC & USC Medical Center (1047) LA County and adjacent counties occasionally 60 LA + USC Co. Hosp. LADOT-Citiride (5509) City of Los Angeles and adjacent areas Lennox School District (3052) South Bay of Los Angeles County 15 Lennox/LAX Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works East Los Angeles, City Terrace, Avocado Heights, (99) Bassett Heights, South San Gabriel, Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, West Covina Islands, Willowbrook, Walnut Park, Florence, Graham Athens, Rancho Dominguez Montebello Bus Lines (54) Inside Montebello with the exception of East Los Angeles up to Atlantic Blvd.

Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (4085) Rancho Palos Verdes, Palos Verdes Estates,

Rolling Hills Estates, surrounding cities for medical trips only Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (5113) All of :Claremont, La Verne, Pomona, San Dimas Part of: Glendora, Montclair, Walnut Valley Care- Olive View UCLA Medical Center (1015) San Fernando, Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley Women At Risk (4836) Provide through taxi source

ACCESS SERVICES Service Hours Table

Weekdays General Public Human Services Early (before 8am) 17 15 General (8am-6pm) 29 48 Late (6pm-10pm) 10 8 24/7 2 6

Saturday

Early (before 8am) 4 4 General (8am-6pm) 22 9 Late (6pm-10pm) 5 3 24/7 2 6

Saturday

Early (before 8am) 4 4 General (8am-6pm) 19 7 Late (6pm-10pm) 4 2 24/7 2 6

17. Passenger fares, if any Private, for profit American Transportation Systems (7015) charter bus rate Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (6582) as in contract Door To Door Transport. (6583) $19.26 per person R/T Dynasty Limousine Inc (6258) hourly minimum 1.5 @ $45 per hour Private, non-profit Assistance League Hollywood Senior Center (214) Donation Only Associated Students of Pomona College (6479) van .40 mile; bus .50 mile + 10 hr CAPC Inc. (5597) Through regional centers. Community Assistance Program for Seniors (637) Donation East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center (5219) .50 to 1.00 donation Emerson Village (6658) $3. 00 - $4.00 ITNSantaMonica (7140) $8. 00 one way. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (938) insurance or out of pocket Oldtimers Foundation (528) $0. 50 Pasadena Senior Center (5260) Senior Center San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council (1276) $3/one way, $6/two way Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior 50 cents Center (5160) Watts Labor Community Action Committee (5609) donation of .50 each way. Public Beach Cities Transit (73) $1. 00 City of Carson (6230) Fixed $0.50; DAR $10 per book of 10 coupons City of Cerritos (2272) 1. 00 per trip City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Department 12. 5 cents / 8 tickets for $1.00 (399) City of Covina (5034) .50 cents to senior center; $1.50 to all other City Of Downey (6874) .25 cents City Of El Monte (6547) .5 0 in town, $1 out of town City of Glendale (418) $1. 00 each way. Free for La Canada residents City of Inglewood (1897) .50 cents City Of La Mirada (5038) $. 50 - $1.00 City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit (51) $0. 90 fixed route (.45 sen/dis) $1.50-DAL City of Monrovia - Planning Division (561) 1. 00 regular/ .75 seniors City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit (31) .30 seniors, .60 disabled City of Pasadena (88) .50 per boarding City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus (597) .50 cents City of West Hollywood - Transportation (614) no for DAR and fixed route .25 cents City of Westlake Village (4) .50 cents City of Whittier (5) 50 cents Gardena Municipal Bus Lines (70) .75 cents LADOT-Citiride (5509) 15 cents to $1.35 Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works .2 5 to .50 (99) Montebello Bus Lines (54) $1. 10 each way Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (4085) $4. 00 per DAR voucher. 1 voucher = 1 way trip Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (5113) .75 to 4.00

18 . Cooperative agreements Faith based Brentwood Presbyterian Church (6207) May join ITNSanta Monica ride service. Community Place Of United Ministry At USC (3318) F.A.M.E. Renaissance Private, for profit Dynasty Limousine Inc (6258) Providing transportation to executives and clients of corp. R & D Transportation Services, Llc (6881) Transportation broker for NLACRC Private, non-profit Amanecer Community Counseling (5903) Service agreement with ford dealership 2 vehicles Aviva Center (3724) Taxi service for transportation of 40+ students to our non-public Special ed. High School California Home for Aged Deaf (294) GIAD Greater Los Angeles for the Deaf CAPC Inc. (5597) Through regional centers. Catalina Island Medical Center (2894) Senior citizen discount (local taxi) Community Assistance Program for Seniors (637) Unknown Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center (48) Specialized transportation provider Institute for the Redesign of Learning (888) Maintenance and personnel ITNSantaMonica (7140) Rides may subsidized by medical offices, merchants, and organizations and assisted living facilities for older adults. Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. (1089) Other HUD building managed by LOMCO Methodist Hospital of Southern California - Social Contract Medic One to provide transportation to people in wheelchairs Services (463) New Horizons (498) Valley Village - loan for emergencies Oldtimers Foundation (528) Coordinated Dial-A-Ride service between Bell, Huntington Park and South Gate. Pasadena Senior Center (5260) Senior Center Project New Hope:Echo Park (7130) Taxi OAPP San Fernando Valley Interfaith Council (1276) Transportation and emergency site relocation with Wilkerson Senior Center; we cooperate with other VIC Multipurpose Senior Centers Santa Clarita Valley Committee on Aging / Senior LA County Dept. of Public Works, City of Santa Clarita, Priv. Sp. Housing Center (5160) Valley Village (2233) RTD/Laidlaw Watts Labor Community Action Committee (5609) DOA Contract Public Beach Cities Transit (73) Access Services City of Agoura Hills (5153) Monthly outings City of Carson (6230) Dial-A-Taxi City of Compton Dial-A-Ride/Recreation Department City of Compton (399) City Of Downey (6874) ACCESS for Dial-A-Ride City Of El Monte (6547) Contract for Dial-A-Ride only City of Glendale (418) We provide service to La Canada and parts of L.A. County City of Inglewood (1897) Taxi companies City of La Habra Heights (442) Contract with the City of Whittier City Of La Mirada (5038) Transfers to MTA, OCTA, Norwalk, Montebello, and Whittier Transit are available. City of Long Beach - Long Beach Transit (51) Coordinated fixed route via MTA City of Pasadena (88) Joint agreements City of San Marino and LA County Public Works City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie Contract field trips with Pacific Coachways. Robinson Center (7144) City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus (597) Access pass on Big Blue Bus City of West Hollywood - Transportation (614) Honor MTA and ASI cards; no reimbursements City of Whittier (5) We operate for the City of La Habra Heights Gardena Municipal Bus Lines (70) City of Hawthorne and L.A. County Public Works Department LAC & USC Medical Center (1047) LA Co. Emergency Medical Services LADOT-Citiride (5509) Serve senior and disabled in specific unincorporated areas of LA county Los Angeles County Deptartment of Public Works Various cities to include unincorporated county areas in their service. (99) Murchison Family Center (5638) LAUSD Transportation Pomona Valley Transportation Authority (5113) Transfer agreement with Omnitrans OAPP

ID Agency Vehicle New veh Bus Taxi Budget operations or eq passes vouchers/ other oth 815 (GLAD) Greater L A Council / Deafness 7139 211 LA County 7148 A List Limousine and Transportation Service 2137 ABC Therapy Center 670 Ability First Claremont Center 134 Active Blind 5765 Affiliated Committee on Aging 7131 African Community Resource Center 5652 AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives 150 Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. $400.00 2286 All People's Christian Church, $0.00 Food p (Disciples Of Christ) Pacific S.W. would a Region 161AltaMed Health Services Corp. $1,400,000.00 $33,000.00 5903Amanecer Community Counseling $6,600.00 7015American Transportation Systems $1,300,000.00 $30,000.00 5275 Angel's Flight of Catholic Charities 6191 Antelope Valley Airport Express, Inc 3716 Antelope Valley Mental Health Center $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5206 Antelope Valley Senior Center 3717 Arcadia Mental Health 1080 Asian and Pacific Islander Older Adults Task Force 2884 Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team 212 Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc 214 Assistance League Hollywood Senior $214,243.00 Center 6479 Associated Students of Pomona College 3724 Aviva Center $87,487.00 $216,389.00 5822 Bassett Adult School 73 Beach Cities Transit $0.00 5850 Beacon House Association of San $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pedro 4787 Behavior Resources, Inc. 256 Braille Institute 6207 Brentwood Presbyterian Church $6,000.00 $50.00 $50.00 2150 C & C Carson Adult Day Health Care $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Center

Monday, September 17, 2007 294 California Home for Aged Deaf $5,000.00 5564 California PEO Home / Marguerite $8,400.00 Gardens Senior Home 5597 CAPC Inc. 2894 Catalina Island Medical Center $42,000.00 2056 Cedars - Sinai Medical Center 7064Charter Oak Gymnastics, Inc. $2,000.00 7149 Chinatown Service Center 7145 CHOICES R US Residential Inc. 5025Citizen's Medical Group $0.00 5153 City of Agoura Hills 4037City Of Alhambra - Community $854,430.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Services 3878City of Azusa $1,101,000.00 $40,000.00 $65,000.00 6230 City of Carson $670,000.00 2272City of Cerritos $400,000.00 621 City of Claremont Senior Citizen Program 399 City of Compton Dial-A- $711,233.00 $48,000.00 $80,000.00 Ride/Recreation Department 5034 City of Covina $180,000.00 6874 City Of Downey $0.00 6547 City Of El Monte $437,882.00 $55,000.00 410 City of El Monte/Senior Services $40,000.00 Division 412 City of El Segundo 418 City of Glendale $714,580.00 Contra 1897 City of Inglewood $625,000.00 $140,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 Admini 6551City Of Irwindale $124,850.00 Senior (drivers 432 City of Irwindale $60,300.00 $7,500.00 Field tr 4051City Of La Canada Flintridge $355,000.00 $230,000.00 $12,000.00 Contra 442 City of La Habra Heights N/A Wh 5038City Of La Mirada $1,079,258.00 Total B 51City of Long Beach - Long Beach $63,000,000.00 $13,000,000.00 DAL Transit 7147 City of Los Angeles Department on Disability 561 City of Monrovia - Planning Division 95City of Monterey Park $376.00 $46,500.00 31City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit $11,147,562.00 $11,651,467.00 $0.00 $0.00 88City of Pasadena $1,239,974.00 $200,933.00 Admini 7144 City of Pasadena - Adaptive $3,000.00 Field tr Recreation at Jackie Robinson Center 1167 City of Pasadena - Housing Authority Monday, September 17, 2007 Recreation 597City of Santa Monica - Big Blue Bus $554,208.00 All inclu 6558 City of Torrance - Recreation 614 City of West Hollywood - $1,300,000.00 $100,000.00 $600,000.00 Transportation 4 City of Westlake Village $80,000.00 5 City of Whittier $750,000.00 $25,000.00 $3,000.00 $24,000.00 $100,000.00 Admin 624 CLIMB Work Activity Center $120,000.00 $12,000.00 637 Community Assistance Program for Seniors 2504 Community Health Alliance Of $3,000.00 Pasadena 3318 Community Place Of United Ministry Covere At USC 644 Community Rehabilitation Training Center 5930 Country Villa East Skilled Nursing $400.00 Trips fo Facility 668 CRI-Help, Inc. 1302 DaVita 693 Developmental Disabilities Area Board 10 695 Didi Hirsch - Gerontological Center 6582 Diversified Paratransit, Inc. 6583 Door To Door Transport. 6258Dynasty Limousine Inc $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $20,000.00 Promot 5219East Valley Multipurpose Senior $180,000.00 Center 6587Easter Seals $142,000.00 $24,400.00 3834 Easter Seals of Southern California 48 Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center $4,587,409.00 $360,089.00 Transp Co. ; tra Transp 2149Echo Park Adult Day Health Care $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 291 El Centro De Amistad Inc. 6658Emerson Village $20,000.00 5656 Employment Development Departmen 6600 Family Adult Day Health Care, Inc. 4996 Felicia Mahood Senior Center 769 Filipino-American Community of Los Angeles 3802 Foothill Family Service - Pasadena 50 Foothill Transit 1528 Foothills Healthy Aging Network 2336 Friends In Deed House $500.00

Monday, September 17, 2007 Center 2352Good Shepherd Center Women's $6,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Village 808 Goodwill Industries of Southern $35,740.00 California 6299 Grace Brethren Church of Long Beach $3,900.00 $75.00 818 Guadalupe Community Center (OASIS) 2279 Harbor Regional Center 825 Harbor UCLA Medical Center $68,000.00 $2,000.00 $18,000.00 3844 Harbor/Ucla Women's Health Care $2,000.00 6090 Healthy Life Adult Day Health Care $250,000.00 851 Hollywood Community Hospital of Van Nuys 2992 Home-Safe Child Care, Inc 888 Institute for the Redesign of Learning $811,690.00 $28,350.00 $19,410.00 Insuran 7141 Integrated Rehabilitation Therapies 906 Israel Levin Senior Center 7140 ITNSantaMonica $80,000.00 $162,000.00 Admini expens 915 Jewish Family Service - Partners 3388 Jim Gilliam Senior Center 938 Kaiser Foundation Hospital 7136 Kindred Hospital San Gabriel Valley 1047 LAC & USC Medical Center $30,000.00 Bus tok 5509LADOT-Citiride $6,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 1929Lanterman Developmental Center $587,510.00 4374 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 3052Lennox School District $413,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1064 Leven Oaks Retirement Hotel 4925 Linkages Program 1089Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 3410 Long Beach Rescue Mission 5204 Long Beach Senior Center 6049 Los Angeles Caregiver Resource $100.00 Center 3927Los Angeles County Department of $300,000.00 Mental Health - Public Guardian 2602 Los Angeles County Department of $15,500,000.00 $3,500,000.00 Mileage Public Social Services - GAIN program 99Los Angeles County Deptartment of $1,500,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 Admini Public Works 6336 Los Angeles County M T A

Monday, September 17, 2007 3924 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center - Senior Program 792 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center 6803 Magic Carpet Shuttle $35,000.00 3425 Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center 6348 MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Inc.) 463 Methodist Hospital of Southern $500.00 $7,000.00 California - Social Services 3092 Mid Valley Recovery Services, Inc. $1,200.00 Annual 54Montebello Bus Lines $403,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6630 Mother Gertrude Home 5638 Murchison Family Center 7146 Neighborhood Legal Services 5319New Directions, Inc. $21,000.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 $1,000.00 498 New Horizons $74,000.00 7133 New Life Charters $120,000.00 2681 Office of Child Care Service Integration 528 Oldtimers Foundation 3962 Pacific Clinics/Partners-Isa 1146 Pacifica Hospital of the Valley 4085 Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit $199,740.00 Authority 5260 Pasadena Senior Center 5642 People Coordinated Services 3969 Phoenix House of Los Angeles, Inc. $65,000.00 $5,000.00 5113 Pomona Valley Transportation $2,735,500.00 $650,000.00 $181,000.00 Market Authority 2205 Prairie Place Adult Day Health Care Center 7130 Project New Hope:Echo Park $1,300.00 6881 R & D Transportation Services, Llc 1233 Rancho Los Amigos Rehabilitation Center 2093 Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of California 1239 Regis House 3988 San Fernando Valley CMHC Center For Family Living 1840 San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center Inc. 1276San Fernando Valley Interfaith Counc $32,000.00

Monday, September 17, 2007 Aging / Senior Center 5554 Sierra View Rehabilitation Care Cente 5531 SRO - Single Room Occupancy $105,200.00 $42,370.00 Housing 7134 St. John of God Retirement Care Center 7132 St. John's Well Child and Family Center 1360 St. Joseph Center $7,000.00 7129 St. Monica Church 6818 Substance Abuse Foundation Of Long Beach, Inc. 6821 Tarzana Treatment Center $278,000.00 $59,568.00 $13,342.00 $9,865.00 6834 The Guidance Center $7,500.00 $2,500.00 Staff m 1342 The Wellness Community-South Bay Cities 1407Tierra del sol Foundation $93,600.00 $14,700.00 5254 Torrance YMCA Senior Center 6849 United Community Action Network, Inc. 1015 Valley Care- Olive View UCLA $2,000.00 $5,000.00 Medical Center 6067 Valley Child Guidance Clinic 2233 Valley Village Not in b 1466 Van Nuys - Sherman Oaks Senior Center 1471 Venice Japanese Center $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 4933 Villa Esperanza $46,851.00 5616 W.I.N.T.E.R. 1511 Watts Health Foundation (UHURU) $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 5609 Watts Labor Community Action $208,020.00 Committee 2576 Western Women's Medical Center 7107 Westside Children's Center 1505 William L. Jones Center for Women 2788 Wilshire Presbyterian Church 1556 Wise Senior Services - Transportation 4836 Women At Risk $200.00 2589 YWCA Harbor Area 2130 YWCA of San Gabriel Valley

Monday, September 17, 2007 24 . Other transportation needs in Los Angeles County that need to be addressed Faith based All People's Christian Church, (Disciples Of Christ) We only have one client enrolled in the food program that does use Access Transportation Pacific S.W. Region (2286) twice a week from Torrance to the center. We do not have taxi vouchers and some elderly miss their pick up because of lack of transportation.

Community Place Of United Ministry At USC (3318) Much more senior shopping/health services transportation is required.

Private, for profit ABC Therapy Center (2137) It would be most beneficial if Access Services had additional language abilities, especially in Chinese. Then many seniors who do not speak English would be able to follow up and further utilize Access and other such services.

AltaMed Health Services Corp. (161) Need all size vehicles that can handle tight turns in hill neighborhoods. Also need some non- agency drivers to be trained in providing door-to-door service.

American Transportation Systems (7015) Bus parking/storage - we have been looking for a lot to park buses.

Dynasty Limousine Inc (6258) This city needs public transportation (mass transit) more than everything (subways) and from subway stations comprehensive bus terminals. We should have along every existing freeway and every planned one, either subway or elevated mass transportation system. Public transportation should be promoted to first way of reading metro are Los Angeles. If you compare the total street miles to existing Metro Red, Blue, Gold…. Lines it is almost 0. This will help solve congestions, saving fuels and add to the income of families. Raise the sales tax and plan for a un planted beautiful Los Angeles. We will help the city reach its goals.

Magic Carpet Shuttle (6803) Information on grants, increase in possibility for more vehicles for some enrichment activities/camp.

Western Women's Medical Center (2576) Many of our patients are elderly and low-income who need transportation.

Private, non-profit African Community Resource Center (7131) Our agency would like to serve our client to be self sustaining but in Los Angeles County without housing and transportation it is very challenging to us and to our customer. We are looking to have not one kind of transportation a multiple kind, if we spend money for this program in the end will save a good amount of money and most of all the customer satisfaction. Good will be accomplished.

Braille Institute (256) * Drivers having adequate training regarding all disabilities especially sighted guide techniques for blind people. * The call center (complaints) to be responsive. Specifically, even if the complaint has no resolution (traffic, accident, etc) still respond to the person on the phone with a smile in your voice. That alone will decrease hostility from consumers towards Access. * Be practical and reasonable about routine of share rides. Cluster them more, giving the driver flexibility. This way older consumers and consumers with medical issues will get home within an hour, instead of 2-3 hours later. For e.g., diabetics need food, medicine, others may need a restroom.

CALACT (7135) Survey looks great let me know if you would like CALACT to participate in some manner.

Community Assistance Program for Seniors (637) More accessible transportation need, our members on access find it difficult to get the time to be picked up that they need more availability for the same day pick up

East Valley Multipurpose Senior Center (5219) Seniors often need rides outside our working hours.

Easter Seals (6587) Traffic congestion.

ITNSantaMonica (7140) Trips across jurisdictional boundaries. Driver assistance to and from vehicle, and with packages. Door to door and door through door transportation. Transportation at hours not covered by most transportation services (evenings and extended weekend hours).

Kaiser Foundation Hospital (938) When a patient has Access Services and lives in Santa Clarita or Palmdale, there is no coordination of transportation services past boundaries into the San Fernando Valley where our hospital clinics are located. 2. Access bus/van services in the San Fernando Valley often tell the discharge planner or the patient they cannot do "same day". However when a supervisor at Access is called, they will pick up a hospital discharge patient. 3. Is there any funding for hospital discharge patients who cannot pay for wheelchair or escort van? 4. Medi-Cal sometimes will pay for a trip to a nursing facility or for a hospital discharge. However in our area (east of San Fernando Valley) no vendors will accept Medi-cal.

Long Beach Brethren Manor, Inc. (1089) We need more senior vans. They often wait or no-show for return trip through Access. Los Angeles Caregiver Resource Center (6049) 1. door to door to help client out of home and into home 2. shorter rides to limit time person has to be driven around before reaching their destination 3.offer more morning hours 4. provide more coordination with agencies that need periodic service (2X or less a year).

MERCI (Mentally & Educationally Retarded Citizens Appropriate wheelchair vans/lifts. Transportation agencies with an understanding of persons Inc.) (6348) they are servicing. Accommodations for same day pick-ups.

Oldtimers Foundation (528) Better accessibility to roads and highways for more precise on-time performance. Increase in Metro lines within cities with heavy traffic congestion to facilitate transportation within that are aside from vehicle transportation. Increasing or implementing bicycle lanes. Also a way to increase Dial-A-Ride service for clients' personal needs, such that as family visits and running errands.

Tierra del sol Foundation (1407) Unreliability of access services.

United Community Action Network, Inc. (6849) There is inadequate bus service in the Antelope Valley, and little private services for ADA and seniors. Another (CBO) "murrels" did supply limited transportation, funded by "Asian youth" in L. A. "murrels" is no longer in business. Low income families in a 1640 square mile community, have a real problem. We have qualified bus drivers, but lack the funding to implement the program. We are somewhat interested in the coordination, however we need more detailed information. Thank You

Villa Esperanza (4933) Would like to see more funding available for maintenance of vehicles. Maintenance is very costly especially for modified vans. Also would like more resources on mechanics in the area who are familiar with modified vans.

Watts Labor Community Action Committee (5609) Transportation for daily necessities. Expand service to ages 50-60. Evening and weekend services. Increase vehicle fleet. Increase wheelchair vehicles. Increase services to seniors housing facilities. Increase funding.

Public Antelope Valley Mental Health Center (3716) Better/More frequent routes incorporating the outlying areas of the Antelope Valley (Littlerock, Lake, Los Angeles etc.)

Arcadia Mental Health (3717) Routine clinic visit transportation so clients can keep formal appointments for medication.

City of Agoura Hills (5153) Timing or service pickup and drop off. Seniors are told a general time of a few hours to be available. Times are not always accurate.

City Of Alhambra - Community Services (4037) Not always eligible for Access Services and Access Services is difficult to obtain, and the process for registration is long, and once eligible it is difficult to schedule, and the rides are not dependable. That said - access to other cities is very difficult for seniors and disabled. Some sort of safety net service would be a great asset.

City of El Monte/Senior Services Division (410) Door to door transportation services, more outreach to involve more seniors in driver safety programs, increase transportation options, coordinated efforts with medical related associations to transport specialty clients with chronic conditions.

City of Norwalk - Norwalk Transit (31) Some of the special needs would be providing door to door or door thru door transportation and carrying packages for passengers who cannot handle them. These services are seen as potential liability issues, not to mention the cost of the services. Also there are certain requirements such as waiting outdoors for the drivers, since drivers are not allowed to honk (in some neighborhoods) or go inside to get them. There are certain emergency needs (not 911 calls) such as running out of prescriptions that would require same day reservations that may not be easily accommodated. Drivers are also not trained to handle certain disabled passengers if they travel alone without an attendant.

City of Pasadena - Adaptive Recreation at Jackie 1. Current riders are being reviewed for "eligibility" for use of the service. Staff feels that many Robinson Center (7144) of these riders "do" need the service, or they would not ask for it. 2. Within Pasadena/Altadena we can utilize Dial-A-Ride, but outside of the area, consumers need access to get to our programs. We've had numerous problems with Access as stated in this survey question # 8. 3. Many participants can take the bus, but would it be a good idea for these participants to take two or three buses to get to our program and then go home at night on their own.

City of West Hollywood - Transportation (614) Human/social service agencies must be more proactive in funding their own transportation services. Door to door assistance is difficult to provide, but needed. Provision and coordination of volunteers for local systems.

City of Whittier (5) Improve on-time performance of Access Service for local residents. More local funding for capital improvements to replace buses, install real time GPS software and assist with operational costs.

LADOT-Citiride (5509) Transportation services are plentiful but the public must be informed on where and how to access the information to be part of a specific program that would meet their needs.

Subsidies and paratransit services should be limited to the low-income or should be process substantially higher for those who can afford other services.

The public should be limited so they do not abuse programs by amassing more service for themselves while others receive a smaller share of the services available.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Greater density of bus stops. Service for remote areas, and 24 hour service at a greater number Services - GAIN program (2602) of bus stops in low income areas. Free public transportation for public assistance recipients through EBT.

Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (4085) Continued operation of our dial-a-ride service is dependent on Board approval of annual budgets.

Rancho/ USC Alzheimer Research Center of Access does not recognize and is unable to accurately assess or meet needs of cognitively California (2093) impaired which are mentally different from physically impaired.

APPENDIX D1

Outreach Meeting/Interview Summaries Key Stakeholders January thru March 2007

Notes from meeting with Maxine Waters Employment Center 1-16-07

Address: 10925 S. Central Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90059

Description of agency and background information • Adult Education Center, (Education Career Center). • School focuses on preparing for employment, core academics and vocational training. • Student population is approximately 400,000 and diverse. • The school is a destination point. • There are 27 branch locations for Adult Education programs. • Adult schools, principals have regular meetings. • There are other occupational centers including West Valley, North Valley and East Los Angeles. • Do not operate own transportation.

Transportation Needs/potential projects • Reliability and timeliness of transportation so that students arrive on time is the key issue. Access Services is undependable and students arrive late for a test or classes. Revenue for agency is based upon number of students there at certain hours. Need to communicate best time to reserve use of the van. • Many students do not have transportation and need subsidies. • Vehicle to provide peripheral parking shuttle service (they do not currently operate transportation). Need to expand service, there are three housing projects (have considered remote parking). • Access Services needs an improved information campaign and more funding to improve services. • Goal is to be self-sufficient. • Due to construction at the Center site, will lose parking spaces so need to address this problem.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies • No real barriers, already coordinating with other agencies. • Have MOUs with DPSS, WLAC and King Drew Medical. • Work with EDD, SCIV and Child Care Centers/Early Education. • Regarding transportation programs, need to look at liability issues.

Notes from meeting with Chinatown Service Center 1-23-07

Address: 112 N. Chandler Avenue, Suite 105 Monterey Park, CA 91754-1577

Description of agency and background information • Provide in-home care services for seniors, disabled and low-income individuals. • Transportation services are referred to Access Services and transit agencies. • Since clientele rarely come to Monterey Park office, transportation issues deal with clients trying to get to medical appointments and other services from their homes. • The Chinatown Center Office has clients who come directly to the office. They walk, take the bus or drive to the site.

Transportation Needs/potential projects • Language issues. When they contact Access Services or other transportation operators, they have difficulty getting information. • Limits on the distance (ten miles) that transportation service provides e.g. City-Ride, Dial-a- ride. • Transportation to medical appointments, in some cases need "door-to-door", curb to curb service. • They spend one whole day on one medical appointment because of transportation issues, have to wait all day for service to come. • With Access Services, have to make appointment 24 hours ahead of time. • Add more drivers and staff that is multi-lingual.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies • Interested in working with other agencies but are concerned about funding and liability issues, as well as 503B guidelines.

Notes from meeting with Community Rehabilitation Training Center (CRTC) 1-24-07 Address: 536 North Vincent Covina, CA 91722

Description of agency and background information • Provide occupational rehabilitation services for clients, disabled. • Transportation services are referred to other agencies. • Clients utilize Access Services, bus passes, "door to door" vanpool services. • Contact the San Gabriel Pomona Regional Center for information on transportation services. They coordinate transportation services.

Transportation Needs/potential projects • Reliable transportation. Current transportation is late, and clients miss the start time at the CRTC. • If client is late, then CRTC is unable to invoice for services, unless they are there 6.5 hours per day. Only a 15 minute window to be late.

• Need to call several times to confirm appointment. (If you cancel so many times then they will not extend service and get penalized).

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies • Referred to SGPRC for input and information on transportation services.

Notes from meeting with Didi Hirsch Community Mental Health Center 1-29-07 Address: 4760 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Culver City, CA 90230

Description of agency and background information • Provides mental health, substance abuse treatment and prevention services through-out Los Angeles County. • 9 separate sites with 40 programs. • Have a one year residential program for women and children (Pacoima). • Other sites include, South Central Los Angeles, Inglewood and La Cienega and Robertson, Culver Palms Mar Vista area, Westlake. • Majority of clients utilize Access Services and Public Transportation (bus, subway), (a limited number depend upon families), DH staff use own vehicles and/or vans to transport clients and provide bus tokens, also help with transit route planning and how to utilize public transportation.

Transportation Needs/potential projects • Clients need to get to medical appointments, social services, jobs and social activities. • Challenging for clients to "navigate" using public transportation, difficult to figure out routes/schedules and have a low "frustration level", some are on medications and can become disoriented, cost of service (many have very limited financial resources). • Would like to see more vans and make user-friendly. • Make bus fare free since many are disabled and are low income, and some have no access to a phone, jobs are low paying. • Give them a pass to subsidize cost and identify them as disabled. • Unsure about language issues.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies • Currently work on getting clients to other agencies for services. They do not coordinate transportation services with other agencies. • Would consider coordinating services however there are logistical and geographical concerns. Have sites all over Los Angeles County. A client may live in one city but seek services at a site in another city. May need to visit multiple agencies.

Notes from meeting with L.A. Care Health Plan 2-1-07 Address: 555 West Fifth Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013

Description of agency and background information • L.A. Care Health Plan is a community accountable health plan that serves residents of Los Angeles County through programs such as Medi-Cal, Healthy Families and Healthy Kids. Includes approximately 750,000 clients. • It works through Health Management Organizations (HMOs) which consists of four plans, (Blue Cross, Kaiser, Care First and Community Health). In addition, L.A. Care delivers Medi-Cal care directly to low-income families. • L.A. Care has about 60,000 Medi-Cal patients and they estimate that number to increase by 5,000. • While its primary mission is to provide health care services, transportation has become a key issue because access to services is an increasingly for low-income families.

Transportation Needs/potential projects • Need for “non-obligated transportation services”. An ambulance is an “obligated service” while other non-emergency services are not. Some health care programs provide van service. These programs are small but will grow in time, because the number of persons with disabilities will increase over time. • Doctors will call because patients cannot get to their appointments. • Paratransit services are frequently late, need reliable transportation service. • Families with small children, dialysis patients, and patients undergoing chemotherapy need transportation on an on-going basis. • People are turning to health care plans for transportation to medical services. • The alternative of hiring a private paratransit vendor is not feasible because of the high costs for many individuals. Private companies may charge $40 to $50 for a 20 mile trip versus public transportation that may cost $2. (HMOs use contractors to provide transportation services.) • Some may use a taxi voucher but it is difficult for those who use wheel chairs. • Kaiser Hospital has an inter-hospital van service. • Language issues, clients have challenges communicating with the drivers. • Persons with hearing or speech loss have safety concerns about not being properly strapped in. • Clients need assistance getting into the van. • Individuals have not been escorted to the door. • There have been verbal arguments between the client and the driver. • Persons with brain injuries may be unable to communicate and some may have anger control challenges. • Persons with cognitive and visual disabilities in some cases will be assisted by private vendors

• Need to negotiate tiers of service with Access Services, L.A. Health Care and would consider working with other agencies. Tier 1) Regularly scheduled appointments such as kidney and chemotherapy treatments seem to work better and Tier 2) For those who may be eligible can use cabs and if they have the same driver, they develop a relationship where there may be a better understanding of the client’s needs. • For “low vision” clients, the dream system would be responsive, timely and have flexibility. • Three types of appointments: 1) known appointments that you can plan for, 2) one day critical care (e.g. abscess tooth) and 3) Emergency. • Need to create training programs for drivers with clear rules to provide assistance to access the vehicle and address sensitivity for various situations and disabilities.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies • None.

Notes from meeting with San Gabriel/Pomona Regional Center (SGPRC) 2-2-07 Address: 761 Corporate Center Drive Pomona, CA 91768

Description of agency and background information

• 21 Regional Centers in the state that are under the Department Rehabilitation Centers. • Provide contract services from Altadena to Claremont, foothills to Hacienda Heights. • Provide residential programs, independent living, aftercare and early intervention programs. • Offer Day programs, work activities, for younger clients, therapy, and medical appointments. • Fund services and contract with vendors, conduct case management and generate requests for assistance and send to vendors. • Provide “curb to curb” service using vans or shuttle vehicles for day or work trips and transfers to fixed-routes. • Some agencies contract with SGPRC to arrange for transportation services and others provide the service with funding from the Regional Center.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• Medical appointments that cannot be adequately served by fixed route transit. • Taxis for evening routes for those who work the night shift. • Need more bus passes. • Request that Access Services reimburse with coupons and tokens. • Access Services will not provide service in the hills.

• The window of time is a limitation for the Rehabilitation Centers, unless the client arrives within that window, they cannot receive funding for providing services. • Client needs to call everyday to schedule an appointment. • Need reliable transportation. • Some clients to do not have the cognitive capability to use bus passes. • Rising costs of fuel increases costs of transportation, the state imposes caps on rates. • Need to have skilled drivers. • Challenges for persons with autism in using public transportation, the numbers are growing. • Some clients may need an aide to accompany them. • Persons who use wheel chairs (oversize) have difficulty using buses. • Persons with cerebral palsy need assistance. • Need more Access Services training for drivers who provide transportation for persons with developmental disabilities. • Expand ¾ mile to at least 1 mile. • Install GPS to track contractors to ensure another level of safety. To prevent speeding, unauthorized stops and/or protect the driver and the client. • Debit cards for when the client is boarding and disembarking from the vehicle. To help with tracking and disagreements.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies • None. Already coordinate and work with other agencies.

Notes from meeting with All Peoples Christian Center 2-2-07 Address: 822 East 20th Street Los Angeles, CA 90011 Description of agency and background information

• Provides social services for clients that range from newborns to senior citizens. • Have a pre-school. • 61% of the clients are under 17 years of age. • Provide tokens for clients. • Provide transportation to different locations/events/field trips. • Have 3 to 4 vans (but not always available due to maintenance). • Staff utilizes their own vehicles to transport clients.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• There is a high demand for use of the vans. • Have a food distribution program and clients have to “hand carry” groceries back to their residences. As a result, they sometimes are unable to bring home all that they may need. • Need car seats to transport infants.

• Clients when they leave the Youth Authority do not have enough bus tokens or passes. • Some clients need to travel through “at risk” areas so they do take the bus. There are safety issues, so a van would be safer. • For youth, school near 49th street and Jefferson, distance to travel is an issue. • Need vans to transport clients/youth to sports leagues. • Gas is not included in their budget to drive clients, gas prices affect the budget. • Restrictions on taxis service which are confined to a 7 mile radius, and some drivers not want to take clients and/or infants. • Metro is too expensive, costs more to take the Blue Line and transfer. • Children have to take more than one bus. • San Pedro DASH, MTA Blue line stop are close to agency. Would like to work with the City to use DASH to bring students from John Adams to their Center.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies

• None.

Notes from meeting with County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services 2-6-07 Address: 12820 Crossroads Pkwy. So. W/ Annex City of Industry, CA 91746 Description of agency and background information

• Oversee CalWORKS program, goal is have clients reach self-sufficiency. • Provide bus passes, tokens, cash or mileage reimbursement and transit schedules. • Have shuttle service at remote parking lots for certain office locations. • Have a Vehicle Repair program that offers up to $1,000 for repairs to a client’s vehicle.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• There are challenges with transporting children to Day Care or school. Transportation to “multiple destinations” is an issue. If a parent is attending training and needs to get the child to school or day care, it is difficult logistically. Some children receive bus passes and those under five travels for free. • Incorporate Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card as a means to for clients to access public transportation. EBT cards are used to provide funds for items such as groceries. It would be helpful to load the transportation fares on to the card and create an “easy pass”. Would like to coordinate with Metro to offer transportation subsidies on the EBT card. Currently, they have to get to locations to cash the check and this can reduce the amount to use for transportation. • Create a universal bus pass. • Reduce the cost of or make transportation free. (DPSS services over 40,000 clients)

• Santa Clarita, Lancaster only have day passes. Having a monthly pass would be helpful. DPSS sends out checks to pay for bus passes) • Some remote areas have no bus stops, so need more stops. • Increase service during non-traditional hours

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies

• Coordinate with agencies and interested in working with other agencies on transportation projects to assist clients with travel issues.

Notes from meeting with MAP Pasadena 2-13-07 Address: 1845 North Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103

Description of agency and background information

• Pasadena Public Health Department’s MAP Campaign is a community-wide approach to improve the health of the Pasadena community. • MAP is a working group that meets to discuss Health Services Information and issues within the Pasadena area. These agencies serve children, young adults and senior citizens. Includes Planned Parenthood and the Department of Health for the City of Pasadena • Some organizations provide bus tokens and taxis. • Volunteers use their own vehicles to transport clients. • Clients use Pasadena public transportation and the Gold Line; however bus service is not efficient.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• Timeliness and availability of transportation is needed. • Pasadena Department of Health Services needs to transport patients with infectious ailments, so using public transportation is not feasible. • For taxi cabs, car seats are needed for children and infants. • Limitations on distances that can be traveled. For example, traveling to USC can be too far. • Need more direct bus routes such as the “119” to go to LA County. • More funding needed and vouchers for transportation. • Need routes to serve health facilities. • There will be an increase of those on SSI to be on managed care and will increase the demand for transportation services within the next one to two years.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies

• A barrier for Access Services vans is that adults cannot travel with the client. Some clients need assistance or may be a minor. • Challenges include situations when there is a negotiated price with the taxi company. There may be drivers who may not accept the fare and leave the client stranded. Also, the client only has funds for the taxi fare and cannot “tip”, so the driver has less of an incentive to take them.

Notes from meeting with Family Adult Day Health Care (FADHC) 2-21-07 Address: 2280 Lomita Blvd. Lomita, CA 90717

Description of agency and background information

• FADHC provides a day program that offers therapeutic, medical and social services to adults with disabilities and frail elderly persons with physical and mental impairments. • They service Lomita, San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Redondo Beach, Torrance and Carson. If an area out of their service boundaries does not offer the services that FADHC provides or they have a closer cultural tie to the client, then they will make the center accessible to the client. • They provide transportation services for clients by picking them up from their home and bringing them to FADHC’s site for services and activities. These include therapy. Visits to the site range from four to six hours. • They have 2 buses that carry 11 clients and 2 vans that seat 6. The total number of clients averages approximately 50 and they visit center from Monday through Friday. • Some clients utilize Access Services and in rare instances they use taxi service. The charge from one city is $1.00 for seniors. • Clients use Access Services to get to Doctor appointments and shopping. There is $1.80 for one zone and $2.70 for the second zone. One client uses Access Services four to five times a week and is satisfied with the service. There is a 20 minute window and you need to call the day before for service. It is less expensive than a cab where you might spend $60 for a trip. If you are disabled, the bus is not feasible because access to the vehicle is difficult. Sometimes they are too early or late. • Family members help out or others may use “Dial-a-Ride” which is $1 for a one way trip.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• Would like to expand service to other areas so need more shuttles and vans. There are gaps in service between cities such as Lomita and Torrance where for example Access Services, city public transportation (Dial-A-Ride) is limited. • Public Transportation can be time consuming and confusing clients to utilize. • They are interested in coordinating transportation with other agencies.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies

• For Access Services, need to call the day before for non-emergency trips. • The application process is difficult and time consuming. If you miss the appeal process deadline, then client may be out of system for services. • Need to make renewals easier. Sending a representative to collect the applications would make the process easier. • Communication via phones is not good for those with sensory impairments. Hearing, seeing and language issues are challenges. Being able to fax items would help.

Notes from meeting with Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment, Head Start (PACE) 2-26-07

Address: 1055 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Description of agency and background information

• The Head Start Program serves approximately 40,000 children in Los Angeles County. • PACE Head Start serves 18 schools on-site Head Start programs in areas such as Lawndale, Gardena and Redondo Beach. • Program serves low-income families, typically within a two mile radius. • An estimated 10 percent have special needs. • The majority of their clients (children and parents) walk to school and a few drive. • Some of the children are driven to the school but this is unusual. In some instances, tokens and taxi vouchers are utilized.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• PACE provides field trips twice a year. However, due to Federal Regulations such as safety restraints and bus monitors, it is becoming difficult to continue the program. In the past, PACE has received a waiver but that will expire on June 30th. • For those clients who walk further than the two mile radius (3 to 4 miles), there are safety concerns. Also, the weather (when it rains) can discourage attendance (because many walk to school).

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies

• Differences in compliance with Federal Regulations. Los Angeles Unified District is under different regulations and does not need to comply with the same requirements

Notes from meeting with Southern California Directors of Community Services 3-1-07

Address: 1000 South Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91802-7916

Description of agency and background information

• Representatives of Regional Centers that are under the Department Rehabilitation Centers.

Transportation Needs/Potential Projects

• Communication with Access Services is an issue for clients because many do not have telephones. • Clients are frail and reliable service is important because they have been stranded for up to 1.5 hours • Some wait up to 20 minutes for Access Services drivers to show-up. • Hilly areas where public transportation is not available. • Submitted application for GPS project to do tracking of trips and help with security for projects including Human Services.

Barriers or Deterrents to working with other agencies

• Currently, coordinate with other agencies.

Notes from interview Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) 3-6-07 Address: 453 South Spring Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013

Description of agency and background information

• Serve two roles as a joint-powers authority for Los Angeles County and the 88 local jurisdictions. • Manage hundreds of contracts to provide various services and budgeting as well. • Pasadena, Glendale and Long Beach provide their own services and are not a part of the LAHSA. • Manage contracts with vendors to provide transportation services and also operate direct services. • LAHSA has an Emergency Response Team that provides daily transportation services for homeless families that need medical assistance and shelter. (Contract is with the Department of Social Services.) • Includes about 300 families with their vans traveling over 2,000 miles as far out to Pomona. • Have vans that service the Metro area (skid row) and travel over 1,000 miles. • Vehicles include 9 vans and 2 cars. • The service is direct transportation and is “door-to-door”.

• LAHSA also allocates bus tokens to clients to get to appointments, storage facilities and medical visits. They distribute 1,000 tokens per year. In addition, they coordinate through the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program, by helping clients to fill- out application forms to get bus passes. • The total number of clients assisted is about 850 individuals which include 280 to 300 families.

Transportation Needs/potential projects

• Need to increase mobility for the disabled. Having vans that are accessible for the disabled would be very helpful. Vans are needed because the Homeless face challenges in utilizing public transportation. For example, many have hygiene problems and are not allowed on the bus. They are unable to bathe. • Wheelchairs get stolen. • Traveling long distances to places such as Lancaster is an issue. • Tokens have a limited use. • Access Services is limited, need transportation to bus stops, the application process takes too long. • Homeless families have a difficult time accessing bus tokens. LAUSD has tokens but potential riders have a difficult time getting them. Staff is not always available to distribute the tokens because they have to cover seven schools. There is not adequate information on where to find the staff. • Families face challenges when children attend different schools and transporting them is difficult. (An example of challenges, there is family of five with three children all attending different schools.) • Need transportation to After School Programs. Children cannot attend After School Programs because the school bus leaves at 3:00 pm and they have no way of getting home. Parents cannot pick their children up by 5:00 pm because the bus is unable to allow them to get there in time. • Parents have difficulty getting to job interviews • Cities have used “creative” approaches to helping Homeless individuals and families. These include making public transportation free. • Need to provide identification card to allow access to public transportation and/or big discounts for low income individuals.

Barriers include the application process which can be time consuming

• Barriers to coordination is not an issue. LAHSA already coordinates with multiple agencies.

Notes from interview with Metro, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Specialized Transportation Funding Programs 3-20-07 Address: 1 Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012

• The Immediate Needs Transportation Program (INTP) and the General Relief Token Program (GRTP) have been in existence for about 17 years. • The INTP offers subsidized bus/taxi fares to Los Angeles County residents who do not have sufficient resources to pay for needed transportation services. The program provides $5 million annually. • The General Relief Token Program distributes bus tokens for the clients of the Los Angeles County Department of Social Services (DPSS). The program provides about $700,000. • Metro’s primary role is to provide these transportation subsidies and tokens which are distributed by non-profit agencies and Los Angeles County. • A new Mission Statement has been developed for the INTP and will go into effect on July 1, 2007. It provides information on the target population, participants, guidelines for eligibility and subsidies.

APPENDIX D2

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS BARRIERS TO AGENCY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS COORDINATION POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Bulk purchasing of bus passes and resell to consumers. Bus driver Clients face high levels of anxiety in using public transit. ASI training programs conducted by mental health clinic personnel. Local Arcadia Mental reliability is an on-going concern, particularly for vision impaired group arrangement with Arcadia Dial- Health Clinic individuals. Local trips to the agency are needed in addition to fixed- route service. Transit information is needed for c None. a-Ride for route between center and off-site location. Updated ride guides and tra None. Currently coordinate with other agencies. Have MOUs with Maxine Waters various agencies. Employment Center Provide shuttle service for students Need to look at (will need to examine liability issues liability issues. and funding).

Rancho Los Clients suffer from poor memory, orientation and judgement and Amigos/USC some experience Dementia and Alzheimer's. They may be waiting Research Center at the wrong location for transportation. Need escorts for clients. Create a transportation coordinator However it is a challenge because caregiver is usually older None. position. BARRIERS TO AGENCY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS COORDINATION POTENTIAL PROJECTS Waive 21 day ADA certification review to allow patients to qualify for On-time arrival is the most critical transportation issue. Late arrival transportation benefits more quickly. impacts the overall scheduling the amount of time for treatment. On-call vehicles to assist patients who miss their scheduled departure DaVita High demand for dialysis facilities, patients must travel long distances Appointments usually are every other day thr None. time. One way transportation for situations where families can manage to pr

Willing to coordinate with Language barriers for clients. They have difficulty getting other agencies. Need to address Chinatown Service information from transportation providers. Limits on the distance issues related to Center that can be traveled. Transportation to medical appointments which includes "door-to-door" and "curb-to-curb". Reliability of s liabilities, funding and non-profit Train drivers and staff to be multi- status. lingual.

BARRIERS TO AGENCY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS COORDINATION POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Interested in coordinating with other agencies. Logistical and Didi Hirsch Clients need to get to medical appointments, social services, jobs geographical Psychiatric and social activities. Challenging for clients to "navigate" using challenges to Services Center public transportation, difficult to comprehend transit coordination. routes/schedules and they have a "low frustration level". Some us Have sites all over Los Angeles County and More vans to transport clients. Make clients may visit bus fares free and provide bus multiple sites. passes that would identify clients as disabled. Address language issues.

Trips to non-emergency appointments, including regularly Develop projects with other agencies Los Angeles Care scheduled appointments and one-day critical care. Reliable/timely, that have two tiers: 1) Regularly Health Plan inexpensive and flexible service. Para transit is often late and scheduled appointments and 2) transportation is costly for clients. In-language communications None. usage of taxi services for special needs. BARRIERS TO AGENCY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS COORDINATION POTENTIAL PROJECTS

High demand for use of vans. Transporting groceries on buses is a All Peoples challenge. Car seats for infants. More bus tokens and passes. Christian Center Identify ways to address gas reimbursement. Restrictions on 7 mile Willing to Coordinate with DASH and Metro to radius for taxis. Reduce costs on Metro for clients. Safe coordinate with other agencies. bring children from local schools to the Center. d like to expand shuttle service for clients.

County of Los Angeles, Addressing transportation needs to multiple destinations for clients. Currently Work with Metro to include Department of Create a means of providing transportation fare for clients in a user- coordinate with transportation funds on to Electronic Social Services friendly and more efficient approach. Reduce cost of public other agencies Benefit Transfer card. Work with transportation. Encourage all public transit operators and welcome local operators to have monthly opportunity to passes implemented, develop bus work on projects. stops in remote areas and increase service during off-peak hours. Develop a universal bus pas

Change regulations to Timeliness and availability of transportation. Public Transportation allow aides to MAP Health not an option for those with infectious diseases. Need car seats for travel with clients Providers taxis. Travelling long distances is limited and need more direct (minors). routes to various destinations including health fac Limitations on funds related to transportation vendors. Work on seeking funding for vans.

Need to expand service to other areas and fill gaps in service Family Adult Day between local jurisdictions. ASI Public transportation process and Health Care applications can be too time consuming and confusing for clients. Willing to Renewal process needs to be made easier for persons with se coordinate with Wou l other agencies.

BARRIERS TO AGENCY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS COORDINATION POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Submitted funding applications for Southern California Regarding ASI communication for clients is an issue since many do projects including Human Services Directors of not have phones. Clients are frail and reliable service is important Transportation Coordination Community because clients have been stranded or waited for up to 1.5 hours. Coordinate with organization and GPS program to do Services Some wait 20 minutes for ASI to show-up. Use taxi ca other agencies. tracking and help with security.

Need more vans and automobiles to transport clients under the Acquire more vans and automobiles. Emergency Response Team program. Vans are best mode for Seek ways to make public Los Angeles transporting disabled clients as well other homeless individuals. Coordinate transportation free or provide Homeless Services Wheelchairs have been stolen. Need better distribution of tokens extensively with identification card to allow access for Authority for agencies. homeless families and individuals.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

Coordination Project Program Possibilities [From SAFETEA-LU Circulars for Programs 5310, 5316, and 5317)

JARC-Funded Eligible Activities (Section 5316 – FTA C. 9050.1)

Capital, planning and operating assistance to support: - Late-night and weekend service - Guaranteed ride home service - Shuttle service - Expanding fixed-route public transit routes - Demand-responsive van service - Ridesharing and carpooling activities - Transit-related aspects of bicycling - Local car loan programs

Promotion through marketing efforts, of the: - Use of transit by workers for non-traditional work schedules - Use of transit voucher programs by appropriate agencies for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals - Development of employer-provided transportation shuttles, ridesharing, carpooling - Use of transit pass programs

New Freedom Program Eligible Activities (Section 5317 - FTA C. 9045.1)

New Public Transportation Services Beyond the ADA 1. Enhancing public transportation services beyond minimum requirements of the ADA 2. 2. Feeder services to commuter rail, commuter bus, intercity rail and intercity bus stations 3. Making accessibility improvements to transit and intermodal stations not designated as key stations. 4. Travel training

New Public Transportation Alternatives Beyond the ADA 1. Purchasing vehicles to support new accessible taxi, ride sharing and/or vanpooling programs. 2. Supporting the administration and expenses related to new voucher programs for transportation services offered by human services providers. 3. Supporting new volunteer driver and aide programs. 4. Supporting new mobility management and coordination programs among public transportation providers and other human services agencies providing transportation. - Promotion, enhancement and facilitation of access to transportation services, including integration and coordination of services for individuals with disabilities, older adults and low income individuals. - Plan and implementing coordinated services. - Support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils. - Operation of transportation brokerages.

- Provision of coordination services – Transportation Management Organizations and Human Services Organization’s customer-oriented travel navigator systems. - One-stop traveler call centers. - Operational planning for intelligent transportation technologies.

Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310 – FTA C 9070.1F)

Eligible Capital Expenses may include:

- Buses - Vans - Radios and communications equipment - Vehicle shelters - Wheelchair lifts and restraints - Vehicle rehabilitation, manufacture and overhaul - Preventative maintenance, as defined in the NTD - Extended warranties which do not exceed the industry standard - Computer hardware and software - Initial component installation costs - Vehicle procurement, testing, inspection and acceptance costs - Lease of equipment - Introduction of new technology - Transit related intelligent transportation systems - Supporting new mobility management and coordination programs