Appendix 5 MATERIAL RELATED TO PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION IN NEW YORK JULY 12, 1976. RAYMOND T. SCHULER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, DEAR COMMISSIONER SCHULER: Members of this committee's staff recently met with the directors of several community organizations serving elderly citizens of New York City. A primary focus of these discussions was the progress of vehicle acquisition and service delivery for transportation projects falling under the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's 16(b)2 grant program. I am concerned about several matters discussed at that time, including: (1) Long delays, often exceeding a full year, between grant approval and placement of vehicle orders; (2) Requests received from NYS-DOT to revise orders so as to eliminate equipment and features which the service providers felt was essential but which complicated the ordering process; (3) A feeling that the final contract terms were not as advantageous to New York State as should have been possible considering the order size; and (4) Communications problems between NYS-DOT and the service agencies-for example, one provider ordered a bus and was not informed until 10 months later that the delivery time for buses was 260-345 days as opposed to 90-120 days for vans; in addition, this agency was phoned by a DOT official and asked what color they wanted their bus, without being informed that any color but orange entailed additional costs. As a result, programs have been delayed in commencing or are operating with expensive leased vehicles. Community members solicited for matching funds have gone from enthusiastic expectation to disappointed cynicism. The credibility of the sponsoring organizations has been diminished. And other groups contemplating UMTA applications have been deterred by the paperwork burdens and long delays they are observing. I am, of course, most interested in receiving your views on your experience thus far with the UMTA grant program. I realize that this was the first year of funding and that the Department of Transportation here in Washington was not as prompt as possible in clarifying application procedures. I would welcome any suggestions you might care to make in regards to revising either the governing legislation or the program regulations. My overriding concern is that Federal funds be translated with the greatest practicable speed into cost-efficient transit for our older citizens. Sincerely, Hon. FRANK CHURCH, U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging, FRANK CHURCH, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: This is to acknowledge receipt of your July 12, 1976, letter expressing concern over matters associated with the processing and implementation of applications for assistance under the section 16(b)(2) grant program. I welcome the opportunity to share my experiences with you and your colleagues on the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging so that a more effi(258) cient application process and a much more accelerated delivery procedure can be established. This can be done, I believe, within the context of government's responsibility to assure that the program objectives are met effectively and efficiently, with prudent and responsive use of public funds. Many factors contributed to the problems encountered in the administration of. the section 16(b)(2) grant program since it was enacted in August 1973. Let me point out that the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) placed administrative responsibility for the program with the States in June 1974 without advance notice that would have permitted them time to organize a systematic approach for handling the program. Lack of advance notice of UMTA's intentions to assign responsibility to the States also prevented budgetary planning actions and new staffing patterns. Nonetheless, New York developed a multiagency effort in progressing the program and took the lead in preparing application forms and establishing evaluation criteria. A direct mail campaign provided more than 2,500 agencies with program information and, in record time, more than 100 applications were filed with the department. These actions represented an indication of the State's commitment to the objectives of the program and the needs to be met. The most important reason for the delay between grant approval and placement of vehicle orders was UMTA's requirement of central purchasing at the State level. Individual States were not informed of this requirement until March 1975, 9 months after the program was announced. It was a unilateral decision on the part of UMTA and no consideration was given to the complex administrative procedures that would have to be worked out by State administrators. As a matter of fact, New York State had to get around a State constitution provision which reads: the money of the State shall not be given or loaned to or in aid of any private corporation or association, or private undertaking.” I am informed that other States experienced similar difficulties in this matter. There is no reason to believe that the laws governing State procurement are any more cumbersome in New York State than in other States, or for that matter, those of the Federal Government. Procurement laws or procedures were not written, nor were they intended, to allow government agencies to purchase items of equipment for private corporations or individuals. Usually they are written to defeat such a purpose. Another factor which caused difficulty in progressing the program was the inexperience of applicant organizations in dealing with Federal agencies and their requirements in developing applications for grants-in-aid. It required the State to work over a period of months with the individual applicants to complete all the mandated Federal grant requirements. Our department recognized from the beginning that these private nonprofit organizations would find the application process too complicated and our worst fears were realized. Nonetheless we were eventually able to work out the details involved in the application process. One other area of serious complication for our State was the handling of grant funds for private nonprofit organizations. We were forced to set up an elaborate system of escrow accounts to keep these funds separate from State funds so that they could be expended for equipment delivered to the various private nonprofit agencies. Another major problem would have been removed if UMTA would have agreed to make checks payable directly to the private nonprofit agencies instead of the State. We have recently learned that UMTA did in fact permit this for seven States at a later date but rejected our request at the time we proposed this simplification at the beginning of the program. It is my opinion that UMTA made a serious error in judgment by demanding that the vehicles be purchased centrally by the State, which we knew would make the program unduly complex, introducing numerous problems and delays. Their motives were to ease the administrative burden on themselves by dealing with a limited number of States and for the purpose of nationwide uniformity. Federal officials were concerned with the managerial and control aspect of the program with which they would be faced, as the number of potential applicants would undoubtedly be extremely large. Central purchasing would in effect contain the administrative and management burden by limiting it to dealing with only the 50 States and by shifting the responsibility to them. Other benefits of the central purchasing process were said to be in the economies of quantity purchases, the larger area within which bids would be solicited, the availability of State specialist review of equipment specifications, and availability of mech anisms for processing the necessary paperwork to procure vehicles and to obtain Federal reimbursement. We were well aware of these benefits in March of 1975 when we visited Washington for the express purpose of having the central purchasing concept waived for New York. We recognized then that the compromises and accommodations which would have to be made to permit State purchasing would seriously impair the program. We were also aware that our State Office of General Services, which by statute has responsibility for the procurement of all equipment for State agencies, would not be able to advance the purchasing process as quickly as we desired. Our request for a waiver was denied by Federal officials but if they had knowledge of the difficulties we were to encounter and the frustrations our agencies were to experience, I'm sure a different conclusion would have been reached. Apparently they did grant such waivers later to some States but without notification to the rest of us. As is indicated in your letter, there have been exceedingly long delays in advancing the program in New York. Estimates of when vehicle deliveries will be completed remain somewhat obscure as contractors are running into difficulty in delivery because of model year changeovers since bids were made and the resulting price escalations that have occurred. My staff has been negotiating alternative ways of overcoming this obstacle so as to assure timely delivery at bid prices. We have been in close contact with UMTA in Washington to have purchasing procedures relaxed to permit individual agency purchasing. It is a matter of record that we were unable to effectuate a purchasing system that could respond with any measure of flexibility despite earnest attempts to do so. Your second concern was that vehicle orders of applicant agencies were revised by this department to facilitate central purchasing. In New York we were working with 72 agencies that are scheduled to receive 211 vehicles. To negotiate a separate contract for each of the 211 vehicles would have been completely impractical and would have forced the State to abandon the program. Therefore, there was a grouping of the vehicle orders into like vehicle categories, with options being specified to meet the various needs of the separate agencies. It may be that the final bid prices were less advantageous to some applicant agencies than had been anticipated. However, this undoubtedly resulted from general inflationary price increases from date of applications to the date of bid receipt over 18 months. Given the delay occasioned by central purchasing, whether it can achieve any dollar economies is questionable and far less urgent than obtaining timely delivery of the vehicles. You commented on a communications problem between the department and local applicant agencies. This was a result of a lack of accurate information. The cost of optional equipment, including vehicle color, was not known until after the bids were awarded to contractors. This was necessarily subsequent to the deposit of the local agencies' matching shares, since the State could not advertise for bids until after the matching shares was on deposit. Agencies apparently misinterpreted followup letters and telephone calls by department staff which were necessary to inform them of actual bid prices, etc., as a breach in the communications system. Yet, it was not that at all, but only that, at that time, was informaion as to actual prices known. The section 16(b)(2) grant program is now in its second year. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration has issued new guidelines with respect to project administration that are even more demanding than those provided in the first year. Detailed transportation planning requirements are now specified, release statements are now required from local transit and paratransit operators and coordination of service efforts must be documented in the application form. And, again, it is required that the central purchasing process be followed by administering State agencies. There are other requirements which generally reflect a tightening in program controls across the board. I am certain that UMTA can justify requiring the additional data now required in application forms but I am not sure that it is essential to the program. As I see it, the time has come for a serious reevaluation of the administration of this program. You have requested my suggestions to improve upon the program. It is now a matter of experience that a strict central purchasing processs precludes timely delivery, at least in New York State. The purchasing of equipment by the individual appplicant agencies under State review and guidelines is a viable alter native, though I admit that in every instance the lowest possible price for a given vehicle may not be obtained because of the smaller volume being bid on. However, there are even more important issues which Congress and UMTA must address: -Do we really want to create a multitude of separate and uncoordinated subtransit service operations by human service agencies? -Can these agencies absorb their new transit responsibilities and administer them efficiently and effectively or will it detract from their primary functions? —Are there other ways of reaching the same goal, i.e., providing needed transportation services to the elderly and handicapped, at less cost? -Is this program impairing present transit systems by foreclosing their ability to expand into such services? -Will the cost of administering this program in its present form, together with the cost of ongoing monitoring and followup to assure compliance with grant agreement terms for the life of the vehicles, be so excessive that it cannot be justified and potentially exceed the program's value in services to the elderly and handicapped? -What tyes of controls are necessary to assure that the intent of the legislation is followed? I thank you for the opportunity of presenting my views on the subject and gladly offer my services to your committee if you think I may be of assistance. Sincerely, RAYMOND T. SCHULER, Appendix 6 LETTER FROM SENATOR FRANK CHURCH, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGING, TO MICHAEL J. CODD, POLICE COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY, DATED NOVEMBER 12, 1976, AND REPLY FROM MR. CODD, DATED DECEMBER 13, 1976 DEAR COMMISSIONER CODD: I am very concerned about reports of the upsurge in homicides and other crimes of violence committed against elderly residents of New York City, but I am heartened by the response and actions already expressed by Mayor Beame and other city officials. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and whatever information you could provide on the following matters: Please describe the history and operations of the Department's Senior Citizen Robbery Unit, as well as any other activities you have directed against this problem. What further steps would you recommend to improve crime prevention for the elderly; and what actions can be taken to assure that those older persons who do fall prey to criminal activities receive adequate victim assistance, are not overwhelmed or overlooked by the courts, and make effective witnesses? Have you as yet formulated plans to take advantage of the provisions of the Crime Control Act of 1976 which provide for funding, through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, for elderly crime prevention; and which also allocate moneys to community and citizens' groups through the new Office of Community Anti-Crime Programs? Finally, are there further Federal legislative steps which could be taken to assist you in combatting this trend? Your remarks will be useful to us as we prepare a chapter on "Crime and the Elderly" in our annual report, Developments in Aging. We are planning to submit our final drafts to the printer by December 15, and it would therefore be most helpful if we could receive your reply as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, SENATOR FRANK CHURCH, Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, FRANK CHURCH. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: In response to your letter of November 12, 1976, concerning the crimes of violence committed against the elderly in the city of New York, enclosed is an attachment containing the information you requested. I am hopeful this material will be of assistance to you and wish you every success in this worthwhile endeavor. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. CODD, [Enclosure.] |