Chapter Three: Employer Services Grants - $500,000
An Employer Services grant program was established and made available to employers, jurisdictions, transit agencies, or service providers in the nine CTR-affected counties. A total of $500,000 was available through this program, with no single project eligible for more than $50,000. The money was allocated for specific activities that would help employers overcome specific worksite barriers that prevent employees from participating in worksite CTR programs.
Chapter Three describes results from the Employer Services grant program, lists key lessons learned and suggestions for improvement, and concludes with four examples of successful Employer Services Grant projects.
A subcommittee comprised of employers and staff from local governments, transit agencies, and WSDOT developed program criteria and process. WSDOT CTR staff conducted workshops statewide on the grant program describing its purpose, the application process, and tips on how to draft a grant proposal. All applications were rated on the following criteria, with a maximum of 100 points possible:
- Applicant's ability to successfully complete the projects (30 points)
- Potential impacts or benefits (45 points)
- Cost effectiveness (20 points)
- Other information (5 points).
Chart 4
|
One hundred and thirty-nine grant applications requesting a total of $2.8 million were submitted to WSDOTís CTR Office by July 31, 1998. As illustrated in Chart 4, only 18 percent of all Employer Services grant applications were funded. This unmet need indicates many employers need assistance overcoming worksite barriers that hinder CTR goal progress.
Of the $500,000 allocated to grant recipients, $364,485 actually was spent; some organizations were unable to complete the projects as intended. Appendix A lists the 39 grant recipients, total grant expenditures, employer match amounts, and a key result for each project.
In the final status reports submitted to WSDOT, recipients indicated whether or not they had met their original goals and objectives. For example, a grant recipient may have stated an intent to increase the number of carpools at their worksite by ten. Another example would be an employerís explicit goal to provide all employees with an annual transit pass.
As Chart 5 illustrates, 59 percent accomplished their original goals and objectives while eight percent stated they achieved some but not all of their original goals. Of the 38 grant recipients that responded, 31 percent stated they did not achieve their original goals and objectives.
Chart 5
*Note: One recipient did not answer question.
Explanations for failure to achieve original project goals and objections are worth noting. Several recipients stated goals had simply been set too high. Others stated partnerships they had hoped to form failed to materialize, making it more difficult to reach their original goals.
Even though some projects did not meet their original goals and objectives, in some cases a solid foundation to continue the project was built. One example is the Intercity Transit grant originally designed to assist the development of neighborhood Park and Ride lots. Though these lots failed to materialize by the end of the grant period, Intercity Transit was able to overcome several complicated legal issues and developed language acceptable to both the transit agency and local churches for future use of their parking lots.
Grant recipients were asked how important the grant program was in relation to the goals they had established for themselves. As Chart 6 illustrates, all grant recipients that responded felt the grant was at least somewhat important in achieving goals, with over half of the recipients stating the grant was extremely important. This high rating combined with the $2.3 million of unfilled grant requests indicates the importance of the CTR Grant Program in helping worksites achieve CTR goals.
Chart 6
*Note: Three recipients did not answer question.
Chart 7
|
The total amount of money spent on the Employer Services grant program by WSDOT and employers was nearly $650,000. This represents a 43 percent match by employers. It should be noted the manner by which employers calculated a match varied and a number of employers did not identify a dollar match, but did provide in-kind matches in the form of staff time, printing, and other services.
Feedback from quarterly and final reports was helpful in understanding how the grant program could be improved in the future. WSDOT asked recipients to list important lessons they learned and advice they would offer others. Below is a list of customer commentsóoften in their exact words.
Be prepared for a lot of work and start early.A substantial number of recipients indicated surprise at the amount of work it takes to administer a comprehensive CTR program, especially one with an assortment of incentives, ridematching services, guaranteed ride home, and a marketing campaign. Several recipients also stressed the importance of getting organized earlyóeven before grant dollars are awardedóin order to maximize the impact of the grant dollars. This preparation may include discussions with the employerís payroll or accounting office as tax issues, staff time for additional data entry, and proper accounting practices must be discussed in advance to avoid unforeseen complications.
Set realistic goals.
Several grant recipients stated that their program was less successful than they hoped because they had underestimated the difficulty of encouraging employees to choose alternatives to driving alone.
Focus your program on what works. A few grant recipients stated that they would have had more success if they had offered greater monetary incentives for a few alternative modes, rather than smaller incentives for more modes. They suggested that a close analysis of CTR employee survey results every two years could help program administrators focus their resources on what the majority of employees want from a CTR program.
Use current program participants as salespeople.
Word of mouth advertising and using current members as salespeople works very well. Pierce Transit, for example, paid current members a 'finders fee' if they recruited new members - nine program members recruited 26 new participants.
Positive reinforcement works better than expressing negative consequences.
Several grant recipients stated that a focus on the positive aspects of using an alternative to the single occupant vehicleólike saving money, or helping the organization free up more parking spaces for customersó works better than trying to make co-workers feel guilty.
Program marketing and customer follow-up works.
Getting the word out to employees about the worksiteís CTR program is crucial. A number of employers took advantage of the various marketing tools offered in conjunction with the statewide ëRelax. Thereís more than one way to get thereí marketing campaign. In addition, following up with employees who are trying to use an alternative commute mode makes a huge difference.
New vanpool drivers makes vanpool formation easy.
A few grant programs in King County wanted to increase the number of vanpool drivers. They offered more substantial subsidies and incentives to people who were willing to take on this additional responsibility. But once they had found drivers, getting passengers to ride in them was relatively easy. At least 11 new vanpools were formed as a result of driver reward programs.
Ridematch campaigns work best when done in conjunction with a relocation or a subsidy enhancement.
Worksites with long established CTR programs often have difficulty finding new members for their in-house ridematching system or for the regional ridematch database. In order to increase the number of people who register for a ridematch, the ETC must offer a substantial incentive to attract more registrants. The best time to conduct a ridematch campaign is when an employer is moving to a new worksite, since this will affect employee travel patterns and may produce matches with other employees in the vicinity of the new site.
Make sure the requested grant amount is substantial enough to meet the program objectives.
Several recipients surprised at the amount of work it takes to offer an incentive program found that the value of their staff time far surpassed that of the grant amount. Some individuals suggested that this discrepancy may cause management to question the value of the grant and might make it less likely for management to support future grant applications.
All grant recipients had an opportunity to complete an evaluation about WSDOTís administration of the grant program. The response rate for the survey was 57 percent and overall customer satisfaction was high. Based on these surveys and quarterly and final reports, most grant recipients were satisfied with WSDOTís administration of this grant program.
Grant recipient suggestions for future CTR grant programs:
- More time to implement projects, evaluate projects, and make necessary adjustments. The narrow timeframe - October 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 - prevented many employers from doing this.
- More on-site training on setting up CTR programs. One respondent stated that WSDOT should create and circulate a video on CTR, similar to the one used by recruiters who solicit employee payroll deductions on behalf of United Way.
- More grant dollars for similar projects available in the future. These grant dollars recharged many struggling CTR programs and increased employer awareness about the importance of solving the stateís congestion and air pollution problems.
Eastern Washington University
Microsoft
Washington State Dept. of General Administration
Seattle Goodwill