The most valuable usage of funds for us are: vehicle replacement, vehicle replacement, vehicle replacement.
Data Collection Recommendations
The FTA should provide funding assistance for person s who are disabled (PWDS) to secure and provide their own solar-powered accessible and regular vehicles owned by them for provision of service to supplement existing service in order to accommodate stranded riders who cannot get picked up by wheelchair taxi or paratransit, riders with respiratory allergies and bone and joint disabilities and to transport to areas not ...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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
WV would have very little of this information. It would be burdensome on the subrecipeints and State to collect this information.
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 »
All of the performance measures listed are currently captured in data collection processes for our agency.
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.
Although I cannot speak for all agencies, but for my agency some of the data collection would be difficult because we do not have the funding to: - Increase geographic service area without reducing the level of service in the current service area - Increase service hours - Increase accessibility in terms of accessible vehicles. These are things that our agency would like to do, but we are not in the position to do so. ...more »
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.