Non-profits vary greatly in their mission and goals for each program. Instead of cookie cutter data- allow them to establish their own performance measures (based on a set of standard measurements- clients served, cost per ride, etc.) LET THE STATE, MPO, OR LARGE UZA collect the data and publish it in their annual update to the Human Services Coordination Transportation Plan. THE NON-PROFIT INFO DOES NOT TRULY COINCIDE ...more »
Data Collection Recommendations
WV would have very little of this information. It would be burdensome on the subrecipeints and State to collect this information.
MDOT recommends all reporting be done by the designated recipient and rolled up at the designated recipient level. FTA should not collect data at the subrecipient level. Some state DOTs have one hundred or more Section 5310 subrecipients As directed by federal law, these subrecipients are often not transportation professionals, but non-profit agencies that provide transportation services in support of their core mission ...more »
Recipients of the Section 5310 program tend to be small nonprofit organizations with limited resources, whose main mission is often not transportation services. Overly rigorous data collection and reporting requirements may preclude these entities from participating in the 5310 program, and thus reduce the effectiveness of the program. Under MAP-21, Caltrans has delegating program development for the large urbanized ...more »
Please describe the extent to which your agency has or would be able to collect data to report on the following performance measures: a. Increased geographic service area – We currently collect this data. b. Improved quality of transportation service provided – We currently do not collect data specific to consumer satisfaction with transportation. We do collect data on consumer satisfaction with our overall services. ...more »
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on FTA’s “National Online Dialogue: Seeking Input on Section 5310 Performance Measures.” AASHTO represents the 50 State Departments of Transportation as well as the Transportation Departments in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In the spirit of providing comments based upon field experience ...more »
a. Increased geographic service area; Milwaukee County would be administering Section 5310 funds to the Milwaukee urbanized area – Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington and Waukesha Counties. Milwaukee County will be able to document the geographic service areas that would be covered but several years’ worth of data would be required before documenting statistically sufficient increases. b. Improved quality of transportation ...more »
All of the performance measures listed are currently captured in data collection processes for our agency.
Lack of transportation can lead to situations of abuse and neglect. Working with Adult Protective Services to find out where transportation gaps are leading to either severe self neglect and/or active neglect by others could open a more effective way to determine where more transportation options are needed.
This should be part of a negotiated Performance Measurement section of an application. Expecting a small non-profit to deal with NTD is grossly unrealistic. The data collection requirements of the old New Freedom program were unrealistic - and precluded many organizations who could have competently provided a needed service from applying.
The monthly reporting for small orgs receiving one or two vans must skew DRPTs overall results. There needs to be an exemption for small orgs that are limited by who they can transport, rural location. The measurement should be more about community integration and where the people get to go.
Are there examples in states of when users have been asked to document the need for services while applying for 5310 funds? This information, if collected nationally, could help connect the dots between need and the use of 5310 funding.