1. Mobility Options Project New Frontiers to Enhance Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Individuals with Disabilities with a Non-traditional Provider TX SILC Transportation Works August, 2015 - Lubbock August, 2015 - Lubbock

3. Identifying needs are central to transportation planning  Centers for Independent Living are staffed by and for individuals with cross-disabilities  Major barrier to employment of people with disabilities is the lack of affordable, accessible and reliable transportation  Public transit model based in mass-transit, funding silos for “specialized transportation”  Consumer-directed models based in individual needs, support all mobility options, fill gaps in non-traditional ways

4. Increasing opportunities to access transportation options  2010 – 2012: TxDOT JARC grant for CBCIL Mobility Options Project, a consumer-directed voucher demonstration  Based in APRIL Rural Transportation Voucher Program and United We Ride  First year: researched programs and designed MOP, selected partners  Second year: feasibility study and demonstration – enabled 3 year award

5. Finding the right mix to increase mobility options  Consumer needs identified by consumers  Sustainable funding source(s), local match  Local partnerships with human services  Private and public transportation providers  Workforce Solutions Disability Navigator  Department of Assistive & Rehabilitative Services Vocational Rehab counselors  Accessible Transportation Coalition Initiative Easter Seals Project ACTION technical support

6. The consumer-controlled model  CILs are philosophically and by federal statute grounded in consumer-control  The individual is in charge of his/her life  Unmet needs, gaps in services and solutions are identified by consumers  Transportation services meet consumer needs, goals and preferences  Resources are coordinated when services meet consumer needs  Model aligns with great customer service

7. Mobility Management is key  Advocate access to all transportation resources, identify gaps and options  Coordinate travel process based on consumer needs, goals, preferences  Provide or refer to fixed route travel training  Negotiate trip modes and fees  Manage cost-sharing with multiple sources*  Organize data to reflect outcomes

8. MOP Demonstration Data  Consumers referred to MOP: 19  Consumers receiving trips: 11  Reliable transportation from 4 private providers  Transportation provided: 2,587 miles/186 trips  Average cost per trip: $21.20 total ($16.50 MOP voucher - $4.80 consumer share)  83% of trips before/after service hours  35% of trips on Saturday and Sunday

9. Rural 5310 (pre-MAP-21)  2012-2013: TxDOT funded 5310 trips originating in rural Nueces County  Purchase of service contracts with MOP private providers  Continuation of MOP model, consumer-directed, cost-sharing with Mobility Management beyond employment trip purpose  No competition for the rural Nueces funding

10. MOP Data 2012-2013 - Coastal Bend  JARC: 103 referrals, 45 consumers Trips: 2819 / Miles: 32,665 Average per Trip Cost: $22.46 Voucher subsidy: $21.06 Consumer share: $1.40  5310: 135 referrals, 57 consumers Trips: 1059 / Miles: 11,385 Average per Trip Cost: $22.51 Subsidy: $20.48 Consumer share: $2.01

11. Cost-benefits of MOP Cost-benefits of MOP  TxDOT support for trips approximates support for rural provider trips  MOP consumers paid same or less than public transit – reliability achieved  Average cost per trip with private providers less than para-transit cost per trip  Service gaps clearly identified with MOP  More transportation options provides more services, better mobility, often at less cost

12. MOP Current Supports  TxDOT funding: JARC grant vouchers - ends in 2015 5310 Purchase of Services grants – 2014, 2015  Urban public transit (CC-RTA) funding: New Freedom 2013  Dept. of Assistive and Rehab Services: cost-sharing client referrals - 2015  Volunteer driver program planned

13.  Increased competition for Enhanced Mobility (5310-NF) funding  Threats to non-traditional programs for individuals with disabilities under MAP-21  Transportation coordination planning doesn’t include private providers  Consumer-directed model is not understood nor valued by transit providers  Only one taxi company has accessible cabs  Inadequate disability advocacy to influence  transportation decisions

14.  Partnerships – increase referral sources cost- sharing to leverage/match additional funds  Positioning – demonstrate gap-filling solutions with non-traditional, consumer- directed models (CILs)  Educate – increase public policy and legislative efforts within and outside transit  Advocate – increase advocacy in the disability community and cultivate allies  Move beyond “planning” – by moving people!

15. Mobility Options Project Project Director: Judy Telge judyt@cbcil.org Mobility Coordinator: Sabrina Avila sabrinaa@cbcil.org www.cbcil.org 361-883-8461 or toll free 1-877-988-1999