Summer Meals Transportation Barriers and Solutions



Summer Meals Transportation Barriers and Solutions:Opportunities and Practices for Promising Partnerships and Recommendations for StakeholdersClient: Share our Strength’s No Kid Hungry Campaign, Center for Best PracticesClient Liaison: Kim Caldwell, Senior Program Manager, kcaldwell@, 202-478-6524 Team: Joy Bentley, Stephanie Chan, Deborah Swerdlow, Theresa Toll, Megan TraczDecember 1, 2015ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe thank our client liaison, Kim Caldwell, for her guidance and support throughout this research project—from providing us with background information on the summer meals program and connecting us with potential interviewees to promptly answering questions as they arose. We are grateful for the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to No Kid Hungry’s mission and help summer meals program serve their communities.We also thank our interviewees for taking the time to answer our questions, both in the initial phone interviews and in subsequent follow-up conversations via email or phone. This report would not exist without the generous contributions of their time and the patience they showed us.Lastly, we thank our research advisors, Joan Dudik-Gayoso and Francisco Moris-Orengo, for sharing their expertise, thoughtful feedback, and words of encouragement throughout this process.Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGEREF _Toc436734604 \h iEXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGEREF _Toc436734605 \h iiiINTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc436734606 \h 1BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc436734607 \h 2Overview of Childhood Hunger in America PAGEREF _Toc436734608 \h 2The Federal Summer Meals Program and the Summer Hunger Gap PAGEREF _Toc436734609 \h 3The Transportation Barrier in Summer Meals Programs PAGEREF _Toc436734610 \h 6Promising Practices with Summer Meals PAGEREF _Toc436734611 \h 6METHODOLOGY PAGEREF _Toc436734612 \h 7Research Questions PAGEREF _Toc436734613 \h 7Data Methods PAGEREF _Toc436734614 \h 9FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc436734615 \h 10Cross-Sector Collaboration for Local and State Solutions PAGEREF _Toc436734616 \h 16Bringing Meals to Sites PAGEREF _Toc436734617 \h 19Bringing Children to Sites PAGEREF _Toc436734618 \h 22RECOMMENDATIONS PAGEREF _Toc436734619 \h 30CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc436734620 \h 33REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc436734621 \h 35APPENDIX PAGEREF _Toc436734622 \h 39ADDENDUM PAGEREF _Toc436734623 \h 50Core Courses Applied to Our Capstone Project PAGEREF _Toc436734624 \h 50EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) aims to ensure that children who receive free and reduced-price school meals can continue to receive healthy food when school is out. However, only 12 percent of eligible children nationwide participate in SFSP. One reason why summer meals programs are underutilized is that many families lack safe, reliable transportation to a summer meals site. Although far from the only barrier to summer meals participation, this transportation barrier has been identified by summer meals sponsors and Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry (NKH) campaign as a pressing area of concern because even the best planned, most engaging summer meals program will not succeed if children cannot reach the site.This project aims to answer three research questions: 1) In what ways are state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites building partnerships to overcome transportation barriers to summer meals programs? 2) What practices are associated with promising partnerships between summer meals sponsors and sites and state or local transit providers? and 3) How can the NKH Center for Best Practices support summer meals stakeholders such as state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites that are trying to overcome transportation barriers? Given the relatively few communities that are implementing transportation solutions and the early stages of those partnerships, we have limited our findings to identifying practices associated with promising partnerships.Our research design consisted of a literature review and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in summer meals, including national agencies, state agencies, local transit providers, summer meals sponsors and sites (who also received a pre-interview questionnaire to collect background information), and advocacy organizations at the national, state, and local level. We found that the local and state context matters greatly for determining how to address transportation barriers and that cross-sector collaboration is a fundamental underpinning to promising partnerships. We also found that transportation partnerships tend to fall into two categories: bringing meals to sites (making it easier for sites to be closer to children by eliminating the need for on-site food preparation) and bringing children to sites, either through fixed-route service, demand-response service, or vehicles that are owned by the summer meals program or shared with other community groups. For each area of our findings (cross-sector collaboration, meals to sites, and children to sites), we identified practices that appear to be associated with promising partnerships. We also compiled recommendations for the main stakeholders involved in transportation partnerships: state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites.We concluded our research with five recommendations for the NKH Center for Best Practices as they support stakeholders trying to overcome summer meals transportation barriers: Include information about transportation barriers in existing and future NKH summer meals resources so stakeholders begin thinking about addressing transportation early on.Draw on our findings, analysis, and recommendations for summer meals sponsors and sites to create a toolkit about how sponsors and sites can reduce transportation barriers.Share our recommendations for state agencies and local transit providers with the intended audiences, both directly and through national agencies that work with them.Collect more information about existing summer meals-transportation partnerships.Evaluate transportation partnerships to confirm the promising practices we identified.INTRODUCTIONShare Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry (NKH) campaign aims to end childhood hunger by connecting children in need to nutritious food, teaching their families how to cook healthy and affordable meals, and investing in community organizations dedicated to these goals. Increasing access to the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is a major priority of the NKH campaign because the program ensures that children who rely on free and reduced-price school meals can continue receiving healthy food during the summer. Although student participation in summer child nutrition programs has steadily increased over the last three years, NKH surveys and other researchers have found that the programs remain severely underutilized due to persistent barriers that include: lack of program awareness, lack of safe and reliable transportation, questions about safety and legitimacy of the sites, concerns about food quality, and a lack of activities for the children and meals for parents.The NKH Center for Best Practices provides the tools and resources needed to help elected officials and their staff, educators, and community leaders achieve success in fighting childhood hunger. The Center for Best Practices has identified transportation as a pressing area of concern for the summer meals program, since summer meals sponsors and sites ultimately need children to be present to sustain the program. NKH is aware of a few summer meals programs piloting innovative partnerships with local transportation providers and other community organizations to address the transportation barrier, and the Center for Best Practices wants to understand how these partnerships work and explore whether these partnerships have practices that other summer meals stakeholders can share and scale nationwide.The purpose of this research project is to 1) identify ways that summer meals programs are partnering with local transit providers to address transportation barriers; 2) identify practices that appear to be associated with promising summer meals-transportation partnerships; and 3) provide guidance to NKH about how to support state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites in replicating these partnerships in their communities.BACKGROUNDOverview of Childhood Hunger in AmericaFood security—having access at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life—is fundamental to child health and educational success (Orovecz, Pincus, Todd, & Welch, 2015). The stark reality is that more than 15.3 million children in the United States (about 1 in 5 children) live in food-insecure households, meaning they lack the certainty that there will be enough food to feed all members of the household at all times during the year (Coleman-Jansen, Rabbitt, Gregory, & Singh, 2015). Households in nonmetropolitan areas are more likely to experience food insecurity than metropolitan and suburban areas, and the region with the highest percentage of food-insecure households is the South (Coleman-Jansen et al., 2015).Food insecurity among children is associated with a variety of health problems including anemia, higher levels of aggression and anxiety, higher risks of hospitalization, poorer overall general health and oral health, and cognitive decline (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014). Additionally, food insecurity is associated with poorer psychosocial function and development in school-age children, behavior problems for youth, higher rates of depression, and suicidal symptoms in adolescents (Food insecurity in the United States, 2010). Food insecurity is also associated with lower math and reading gains from kindergarten to third grade and a higher likelihood of repeating a grade for children age 6-11 (Food insecurity in the United States, 2010). The Federal Summer Meals Program and the Summer Hunger GapThe federal government has responded to child food insecurity concerns through a variety of food assistance programs, including “child nutrition programs,” a term used to collectively describe the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in schools or other institutional settings (Aussenberg, 2014). These child nutrition programs include the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Special Milk Program, and the underutilized Summer Food Service Program. The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)First piloted in 1968, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) exists to ensure that low-income children 18 years and younger can continue to access healthy food in the summer when school is not in session (Summer Food Service Program Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ], n.d.). SFSP, colloquially referred to as “summer meals,” is funded by the USDA; administered by state agencies, such as state departments of education; and run by public and private organizations, including schools, community centers, and faith-based organizations that serve as sponsors for one or more meal sites. USDA reimburses sponsors only for the meals served at each site, so any unserved meals represent a loss that can be difficult to recoup. The reimbursement rate varies by meal type (breakfast, lunch, supper, or snack), location of the site (rural or urban), and whether the site or a vendor prepares the meal (Aussenberg, 2014). Sites can serve up to two reimbursed meals to children each day (Aussenberg, 2014). State agencies approve summer meal sites as one of three types:Open sites provide food to all children in the community and are based in areas in which more than 50 percent of families are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Enrolled (or closed) sites provide meals to children who are participating in an activity or program at a site where at least half of the children are eligible for free or reduced meals. Summer camps can also be summer meals sites, but reimbursement is only provided for meals served to children who are eligible for free or reduced meals (FAQ, n.d.).In 2014, 2.66 million children regularly received summer meals, compared to 21.7 million children who received free or reduced-price meals during the school year (Summer Food Service Program: Average Daily Attendance, 2015). Unsurprisingly, research finds that households with school-age children experience higher rates of food insecurity in the summer (Nord & Romig, 2006). Seasonal differences in food insecurity are even greater in states providing fewer summer meals than other states (Nord & Romig, 2006). Considering the higher rates of food insecurity in the summer and the extent to which food insecurity impacts child health and education, it is essential to understand why summer meals programs are underutilized. At the most basic level, one can consider challenges facing summer meals programs from a supply and demand framework.Supply ChallengesSponsors cite a variety of factors impacting their ability to open and maintain summer meals sites. A Share Our Strength survey of summer meals sponsors finds that the most common challenges affecting sites are: low participation by children (19 percent major challenge, 39 percent minor challenge), insufficient funds to cover the costs of meals (11 percent major, 29 percent minor), insufficient capacity to manage paperwork (8 percent major, 25 percent minor), and insufficient capacity to serve meals (6 percent major, 20 percent minor) (Caldwell & Sims, 2015). Transportation barriers that impact a sponsor’s ability to provide an adequate supply of sites include both a lack of transportation for children to travel to sites and a lack of transportation for meals to get to sites (Endahl & Singh, 2004). Molaison & Carr (2005) find that transportation challenges are a reason sponsors would not start a program or would discontinue a site, and Endahl and Singh (2004) find that 36 percent of former sponsors cited the lack of transportation as a very important reason behind their discontinuation of the program. Demand ChallengesMolaison & Carr (2005) find that sponsors viewed lack of knowledge about the program and lack of transportation to get to summer meals sites as the main barriers to participation. Similarly, a USDA survey of sponsors finds that the top two factors limiting participation were lack of publicity about the program and lack of transportation (Gordon & Briefel, 2003). Though these surveys are more than 10 years old, the findings are consistent with our interviews in which interviewees defined transportation as the “greatest challenge” for summer meals (T. Craddock, personal communication, October 22, 2015). Given the interconnected nature of the transportation barrier affecting a sponsor’s ability to host sites and children’s ability to access sites, the NKH Center for Best Practices focused our research project on this topic. The Transportation Barrier in Summer Meals ProgramsEven though many of the summer meals programs take place at common gathering places for families with children, such as schools, parks, churches, and community buildings, transportation to and from these sites remains an issue for both urban and rural children. In rural areas, children tend to live in isolated areas, which may limit access to meal service sites (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mobile Feeding Model, n.d.). In urban areas, a lack of perceived safe transportation options may limit the number of locations to which children will travel (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mobile Feeding Model, n.d.). Many parents, whether in rural or urban settings, do not believe their children can safely attend these meal programs unless the program provides transportation (Harvard Family Research Project, 2004). While some sponsors or sites provide transportation, the additional costs of providing safe transportation for children is not feasible for many programs (Harvard Family Research Project, 2004). Grants are available to some programs for transporting children to sites, but these grants may not be enough to transport all eligible children (Harvard Family Research Project, 2004). Often, sponsors facing transportation barriers either simply do not provide transportation or discontinue their summer meals program (Molaison & Carr, 2005). The USDA has concluded that “whether it’s getting the meals to children or children to the meals, drivers, well-functioning vehicles, and a coordinated system are necessary keys to success” (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges, n.d., para. 1).Promising Practices with Summer MealsAlthough our research focuses on addressing the transportation barriers impacting a sponsor’s ability to host sites and children’s ability to access meals, solving transportation barriers is not the final answer to creating and sustaining summer meals sites. A few common characteristics make sites attractive places where children will want to go and where parents will feel comfortable sending them.The majority of parents (72 percent) will only send their children to programs at safe, local places where they are familiar with both the organization and staff (Share Our Strength, 2013). One incentive for program participation is to have activities that engage children at sites, which allows staff to connect with children and build rapport—a high priority for parents (Share Our Strength, 2013; A. Jeppesen, personal communication, October 30, 2015). The majority of sponsors already offer activities at all or most of their sites (69 percent all, 14 percent most) (Caldwell & Sims, 2015). These activities should also create an atmosphere that reduces the stigma of being poor or needing food assistance, welcomes parents, and makes children want to return. In other words, these activities should create a sense of community, rather than operating simply as a feeding location (A. Jeppesen, personal communication, October 30, 2015). Still, no matter how many incentives a site has for attendance, many children must find a way to safely travel to summer meals sites, and food must be seamlessly available once children arrive.METHODOLOGYWe developed three research questions in coordination with the Center for Best Practices.Research QuestionsIn what ways are state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites building partnerships to overcome transportation barriers to summer meals programs? What practices are associated with promising partnerships between summer meals sponsors and sites and state or local transit providers? Signs of promising partnerships may include an increase in meals served at sites involved in the transportation partnership or the achievement of other goals and benchmarks that stakeholders set at the beginning of the partnership.How can the No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices support summer meals stakeholders such as state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites that are trying to overcome transportation barriers? Given the relatively few communities that are implementing transportation solutions and the early stages of these partnerships, we limit our findings to identifying practices associated with promising partnerships. We recognize that we have drawn these practices based on interview responses without longitudinal data on outcomes. Moreover, only a small number of interviewees evaluate their partnerships in a formal way. Our findings point to practices that, at this time, are perceived to address transportation barriers to summer meals. Additional research is needed to measure the impact of these summer meals-transit partnerships and determine whether more children are being served because of them. Also important to note is that our study relied on interviews with entities involved in providing summer meals, administering the program, and transporting meals or children to summer meals sites. Our data does not reflect interviews with summer meals recipients due to the limited time frame of our project and the sensitivities involved with interviewing program recipients. Instead, we rely on summer meals sponsors who interact regularly with program recipients to relay the transportation needs they are seeing in their programs and their perceptions as to what solutions work best. Further research reflecting opinions of children and their parents may provide additional insight to the transportation barriers impacting summer meals and possible solutions. For now, our findings remain limited in that respect.Data MethodsWe relied on three methods to address the research questions: a literature review, semi-structured phone interviews with five types of stakeholders, and a pre-interview questionnaire distributed to select interviewees. We compiled a standardized list of interview questions for five types of stakeholders: 1) USDA and Department of Transportation (DOT) officials involved in administering the federal summer meals program and federal transit programs, respectively; 2) state transit partners and state summer meals administrators; 3) summer meals sponsors and sites; 4) local transit officials providing transportation for summer meals in their communities; and 5) national, state, and local advocacy organizations involved in supporting summer meals programs.The initial interviewee list came from Center for Best Practices suggestions and team research. We used snowball sampling to identify additional interviewees, asking at the end of each interview for suggestions of others involved in transportation partnerships whom we should contact. We conducted 29 interviews with the five types of identified stakeholders (see Table 1). Table 1. Number of Interviews by TypeType of IntervieweenNational USDA and DOT Representatives6State Transit and State Administrators 5Sponsors & Sites8Local Transit Agencies4Advocacy Organizations 6Total Interviews29Of these 29 interviews conducted over a period of three weeks, 13 were with individuals involved in transportation partnerships classified as either meals-to-sites or children-to-sites partnerships. To ensure consistency, the team used standard language to request and conduct interviews. Summer meals sponsors and sites received a pre-interview questionnaire to collect background information such as the number of years they have been operating the summer meals program and the number of meals they served in 2015 (Appendix A). The pre-interview questionnaire allowed us to collect background information in advance to maximize the amount of time spent in the interviews discussing transportation barriers and solutions.To systematically analyze interview responses, we completed a summary sheet for each interview (Appendix C). Data from those summary sheets were synthesized using a template allowing us to view responses by stakeholder group and identify key themes that answer the research questions.FINDINGS AND ANALYSISWe found that many sponsors and sites, as well as other stakeholders involved in the summer meals program, have devised innovative solutions to address the transportation barrier to summer meals. These local and state solutions often involve cross-sector collaboration and can take the form of bringing meals to sites (so that a lack of food preparation or storage facilities no longer hinders a sponsor from placing sites closer to children) or bringing children to sites (so that a lack of safe and/or reliable transportation no longer hinders children from attending summer meals programs in their community). Table 2 lists all the summer meals-transportation partnerships we identified along with key characteristics of each one. We first detail our findings on cross-sector collaboration as a fundamental underpinning to promising transportation partnerships. Then we examine the meals-to-sites and children-to-sites approaches in depth.Table 2: Summer Meals-Transit Partnerships Identified through the Research ProjectCity/county, stateSite location(s)Organizations involvedType of partnershipDetails, such as promising signs and challenges to date1. Humboldt County, CaliforniaRuralFood for People (FFP), Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA), United Parcel Service (UPS)Meals-to-sitesFFP staff packs 400 lunches in coolers, and the FFP driver delivers coolers to sites that are within a 20-mile radius of the food bank and to designated HTA and UPS stops. HTA and UPS drivers then pick up the coolers at their designated stops and deliver the meals to sites beyond the 20-mile radius. Interviewee said that one goal of the partnership is to enable FFP to add new sites and match or increase the number of meals served from the previous year. FFP opened three new sites in 2015, and with the addition of the new sites, the number of meals served increased by 7 percent. 2. OklahomaRuralFeed the Children (FTC), various community groupsMeals-to-sitesFTC identifies community partners with refrigeration space that can serve as “hubs” and store food for several sites, or “spokes,” to pick up. FTC saw a 306 percent increase in the number of meals served between 2014 and 2015 (the first year of the Hub and Spoke model).3. Cedar Rapids, IowaUrbanHorizons, Neighborhood Transportation Service (NTS)Meals-to-sitesHorizons prepares meals in its central kitchen, and NTS drivers pick up the meals and deliver them to Horizons’ 20. Horizons and NTS merged in 2015 (the second year of the partnership), which is the same year that Horizons served the highest number of meals (23,900). Interviewee said that one goal of the partnership is to prevent Horizons from needing to shift drivers away from its Meals on Wheels program, and it was able to accomplish this goal in 2015.4. Rock Island, Illinois*UrbanChurch of PeaceMeals-to-sitesChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleThrough the Church of Peace website, the team learned that the church uses volunteers to transport meals to sites across the county. Through the Illinois No Kid Hungry website, the team learned that the church provides transportation for children to reach its multiple sites. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites or how many meals are served.5. Muscatine, Iowa**UrbanMuscaBusChildren-to-sites: fixed routeMuscaBus runs four fixed routes, which reach the schools, libraries, and other places that serve as summer meals sites. Children can ride for free in the summer. Free rides are advertised through school newsletters, radio and bus ads, and media coverage. MuscaBus lacks data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.6. Washington County, VermontRuralWashington County Hunger Council (convened by Hunger Free Vermont), Green Mountain Transit Agency (part of the Hunger Council)Children-to-sites: fixed routeAs part of annual discussions in the Hunger Council about summer meals programs, Green Mountain Transit Agency determines if there is adequate transportation to the sites and, if not, adjusts its fixed routes as needed. Unclear if children are able to ride for free; GMTA’s website indicates children can ride fixed routes at a reduced rate year-round. Interviewee did not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.7. Topeka, Kansas*UrbanTopeka Metropolitan Transit Authority (TMTA)Children-to-sites: fixed routeTMTA offers free rides to children on all fixed-route buses in the summer. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.8. Huntsville, Alabama*UrbanHuntsville School District, City of Huntsville, Durham ServicesChildren-to-sites: fixed route and shared or purchased vehiclesCity of Huntsville offers free bus passes for children to ride the fixed-route Huntsville Shuttle to summer meals sites. Bus passes are distributed through the schools and summer meal sites. The city also partners with community organizations to transport children to sites using Durham Services’ school buses. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to summer meals sites.9. Newton, IowaRuralHeart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA), Newton Community School DistrictChildren-to-sites: demand responseHIRTA runs a demand-response route to transport groups of children from daytime activities at the Newton elementary school to lunch at the middle school, and then back. HIRTA provides the rides for free even though it does not have dedicated funding to do so.10. Boone County, IowaRuralHIRTA, Boone Community School District, United Methodist Church, and United Way of Boone CountyChildren-to-sites: demand responseHIRTA builds demand-response routes to bring children to the Boone school site and the three United Methodist Church sites based off of requests from individual riders. The free transportation service is advertised through the school newsletters. HIRTA does not receive extra funding to provide transportation to the school site, and it uses funds from the United Way of Boone County to cover transportation to the church’s sites. In 2014, 1,024 one-way trips were provided to all four sites.11. Effingham County, IllinoisRuralEffingham County Public Transportation (ECPT), School District Unit 40, Mission Summer: Fun (group of businesses, community organizations, and citizens)Children-to-sites: demand responseECPT provides demand-response service for individual riders to reach multiple sites in the county, once parents have signed a permission form for their children. Rides are provided for free because of funds raised by Mission: Summer Fun. Transportation is advertised through the school, radio, and newspapers. In 2015, ECPT added group demand-response service to transport children from a local daycare center to the summer meals site and back. Interviewee said that the goal of its partnership is to increase the number of children who can access summer meals. Number of one-way rides provided to summer meals increased from 172 in 2014 to 954 in 2015.12. Brownfield, TexasRuralSpartan Transportation, Boys and Girls Club of BrownfieldChildren-to-sites: demand responseSpartan Transportation provides demand-response service to bring a group of children from daytime activities at the Boys & Girls Club to a nearby summer meals site. Rides are provided for free even though Spartan does not have dedicated funding for the service. Spartan has asked the Boys & Girls Club to identify funding for 2016. In the first year (2015), Spartan provided 2,800 one-way rides for summer meals.13. Nevada, IowaUrban and ruralNevada Community School District, United Way of Story County (UWSC), HIRTAChildren-to-sites: demand response and shared or purchased vehicleHIRTA provides individual demand-response service to two sites (a Catholic Church and Central Elementary School) for children who live on the periphery of the school district. Nevada Community School District uses its school buses to pick up children who live inside the district’s boundaries. UWSC pays HIRTA so the rides can be offered to children for free. Transportation has been a part of the summer meals programs in Nevada since the sites were first established. In 2015, the Nevada and Ames sites (see below) served 3,063 meals.14. Ames, IowaUrbanAmes Community School DistrictChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleThe school district uses its school buses to bring children to an enrolled summer meals site at the middle school, where the United Way of Story County (UWSC) provides enrichment activities. The school district has to stop providing transportation in summer 2016 due to budget cuts, so UWSC is exploring other transit options.15. Haysville, KansasUrbanUSD 261 Haysville SchoolsChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleUSD 261 uses its school buses to bring children to three summer meals sites hosted at its schools. Children must be 8 years old to ride by themselves; children younger than 8 must be accompanied by an older sibling or parent. Number of meals served in 2015 increased by 17 percent, which the interviewee attributed in part to transportation and in part due to earlier advertising. Interviewee suspects that USD 261 runs the service at a loss because rides are provided for free.16. Moscow, KansasRuralUSD 209 Moscow SchoolsChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleUSD 209 provides meals during summer school and uses its school buses to bring children to the site. Transportation stops when summer school ends, even though meals are still served, and the interviewee reported a steep drop in the number of meals served once the transportation stops.17. Scott City, KansasRuralCompass Behavioral Health (CBH), First United Methodist Church of Scott CityChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleCBH sponsors a closed site at the First United Methodist Church for participants in its psychological rehabilitation summer program. To transport children to and from the program, CBH offers door-to-door service in its own vans. Medicaid reimbursement for the rehabilitation program helps cover transportation costs.18. Montgomery County, GeorgiaRuralMontgomery County SchoolsChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleMontgomery County Schools uses its school buses to transport children to and from summer meals. The school system pays for the transportation from its general fund and reports that it might not be able to run the buses in 2016 due to funding issues. Interviewee did not provide number of meals served.19. Depoe Bay, Oregon*RuralNeighbors for KidsChildren-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleThrough the Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon website, the team learned that Neighbors for Kids used a grant in 2015 to purchase a van to bring children to its summer meals site. Due to lack of interview, team does not have data on how many children ride to the site or how many meals are served.20. Tulsa, Lawton, and Oklahoma City, OklahomaUrbanFeed the Children (FTC)Children-to-sites: shared or purchased vehicleFTC matches community partners with extra vehicles and/or volunteer drivers to sites with transportation needs.*Team was unable to interview someone directly associated with this partnership.**In 2011, MuscaBus engaged in a short-term, one-time partnership with the Muscatine Community School District to provide demand-response service from Franklin Elementary School (where the children were for activities) to Garfield Elementary School (where lunch was served) because road construction made it too dangerous for the children to walk between the schools.Cross-Sector Collaboration for Local and State SolutionsThrough our interviews, it is clear that the local and state context matters in addressing transportation barriers to summer meals and that promising partnerships evolve through cross-sector collaboration. Transit infrastructure varies from state to state (T. Craddock, personal communication, October 22, 2015) and from urban to rural communities, making state and local solutions particularly necessary. Cross-sector collaboration (CSC) “links the resources, activities, information, and capabilities of two or more sectors to achieve outcomes that could not be achieved by one sector alone” (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006, p. 44). CSC is more likely to succeed when certain elements exist, such as intentional stakeholder engagement, continuous trust-building, agreement on vision, mission and goals, leaders who are champions and sponsors, and deliberate and emergent planning (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). In our interviews, many of the elements outlined by Bryson, Crosby & Stone (2006) surfaced as key practices for developing promising partnerships to address transportation barriers. Those CSC practices in the summer meals context include:Convene diverse decision-makers and engage existing contacts. Whether through a one-time regional summer meals summit or through regular city, county, or regional meetings, it is important to bring together diverse stakeholders who have authority to make decisions. Many of the individuals we interviewed explained that the partnership unfolded easily and quickly because the right decision-makers were in the room. Relying on existing relationships can be particularly helpful in smaller, tight-knit, rural communities, which may experience even larger transportation barriers. In any partnership, conveners should consider inviting nonprofits, public and private transit providers, schools, social services agencies, houses of worship, community foundations and funders, and state and/or national agency representatives who can offer resources and share promising practices from other localities. Communities should also gain input from parents about how they view the problem and their preferred transportation solution. As one transit professional stated, “The ‘build a mode of transportation and they will come’ mantra does not always hold true,” so partners should be mindful of community input.Articulate a clear vision about the goal of a potential partnership, and make it clear how stakeholders can benefit. The benefit may be fulfillment of the vision that no child go hungry during the summer, but we discovered that for transit providers, emphasizing the value of increasing ridership, cultivating public transit users, reducing the stigma of using public transit, and generating broader awareness of transportation services was helpful for gaining buy-in (see page 24 for further insights). Additionally, it is important to provide data demonstrating the need and opportunity. When possible, it is helpful to include a map showing the gaps in summer meals services so that transportation partners can visualize the problem and opportunities (K. Banta, personal communication, October 21, 2015; K. Davis, personal communication, November 3, 2015).Consider the assets that partners bring to the table and think creatively in formulating the plan. There are many resources to map and consider as plans take shape, whether partners have volunteers who might be able to pack lunches or drive vans, vehicles to loan, expertise in transit logistics, or funding to cover fuel or other costs.Start small and build on success. The transportation barrier is a serious challenge that will not be solved overnight. One interviewee reinforced that it takes three years for a transportation partnership to mature (G. Lee, personal communication, October 28, 2015). Partners should consider that there are incremental wins, such as providing one additional neighborhood with transit or opening one more site, on the path to helping all eligible children access summer meals.One example of a CSC valuable to summer meals is a Transit Advisory Group (TAG). TAGs are comprised of business partners, human services groups, transit providers, and others who work to identify long-term goals and solutions to transportation problems (B. Bartlett, personal communication, November 6, 2015). TAGs can facilitate conversations between transit agencies and summer meals programs and get other local agencies involved (J. Johnson-Miller, personal communication, October 23, 2015). As one transit partner said, “If we can bring in the people who are working with these riders every day, that changes the conversation.” TAGs are often convened by mobility managers, who are akin to case managers for transportation and whose primary role is to act as conveners for stakeholders with an interest in transportation, such as state agencies, advocacy organizations, nonprofit organizations, and transportation agencies (R. Opstelten, personal communication, October 22, 2015). The practice of mobility management, with or without a TAG, can lead to CSC that is highly useful for summer meals sponsors and sites (R. Opstelten, personal communication, October 22, 2015).We also learned that national agencies and advocacy organizations can be helpful in supporting state and local CSCs for summer meals transportation barriers through information sharing and building connections among transportation providers, sponsors and sites, and other partners. For example, the DOT and USDA are focused on finding and elevating examples of successful summer meals-transportation partnerships and increasing awareness of Federal Transit Administration funding opportunities (T. Craddock, personal communication, October 22, 2015). The DOT is also working with the National Center for Mobility Management, an initiative of its United We Ride program, to create a summer meals resource aimed at mobility managers (P. Friedman, personal communication, October 20, 2015). State agencies and advocacy groups say that building connections is one of their primary roles, which they accomplish by reaching out to organizations, managing distribution lists and email communications, organizing meetings to discuss transportation solutions, or providing technical assistance to sites (K. Chanay, personal communication, November 6, 2015; S. Dross, personal communication, October 30, 2015; G. Norman, personal communication October 20, 2015; P. Friedman, personal communication, October 20, 2015).Bringing Meals to SitesFrom a supply perspective, areas must have an adequate number of sites in convenient locations for children to access meals. However, many potential sites near children lack food preparation and storage facilities, and many sponsors lack the capacity to deliver meals to sites that do not have such facilities. To address these barriers and increase the supply of sites, communities are establishing transportation partnerships to deliver meals to sites. Meals-to-sites solutions identified in this study include:Packing meals in coolers and sending them on fixed-route buses, mail carrier trucks, or private delivery trucks or vans, as do Food for People (FFP) in Humboldt County, California, and Horizons in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Once the sites have received the food, summer meals program staff and volunteers unpack the coolers and proceed with serving meals to the children in attendance. FFP created its meals-to-sites partnership with the Humboldt Transit Authority (HTA) more than 15 years ago and began working with United Parcel Service (UPS) in 2015 (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). To ensure smooth transfer of meals, FFP communicates regularly with HTA, UPS, and its sites about the procedures and allows sites only two strikes for missing a drop-off before they lose their site status (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). Horizons began working with a nonprofit organization called Neighborhood Transportation Services (NTS) in 2014, and the two organizations merged in 2015 (B. Siguenza, personal communication, October 29, 2015).Devising a “Hub and Spoke” model in which community partners with food storage space serve as the “hub” for several sites, or “spokes,” that pick up meals from the hub and bring the meals to their site. Feed the Children in Oklahoma (FTC) designed and employed this model in 2015, with five hubs serving a total of 25 spokes in the inaugural year (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015).Our interviews suggest that meals-to-sites solutions are well suited for sponsors and sites in rural areas and sponsors with a larger number of sites. In rural areas, the distance between sponsors and potential sites is vast—for example, FFP has 21 sites spread across 200 miles (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015)—that it can be cost prohibitive to set up new sites without a meals-to-sites transportation partnership. FTC deployed its Hub and Spoke model in rural areas for this reason and developed a different model for urban and suburban areas (see “Bringing Children to Sites”) (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015). Granted, the Horizons and Church of Peace meals-to-sites solutions take place in urban areas, which suggests that this solution can be applied beyond rural communities. Nonetheless, all of the sponsors involved in meals-to-sites solutions, whether in rural or urban areas, have at least 20 sites, which suggests that meals-to-sites solutions can help sponsors looking to increase the supply of sites without limiting themselves to places with food preparation and storage facilities.Practices Associated with Promising Partnerships for Bringing Meals to SitesThe meals-to-sites partnerships represent a small portion of our sample, and all but the FFP-HTA partnership have existed for two years or less. Nonetheless, interviewees involved in these partnerships shared preliminary lessons learned, from which we identified the following practices that are perceived to be associated with promising meals-to-sites partnerships:Send chilled food with transit or delivery providers. In its first year of the Hub and Spoke model (2015), FTC learned that cold meals presented fewer health department issues and were easier to transport to sites (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015). FFP also packs cold meals in coolers (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). More information about other meals-to-sites partnerships is needed to confirm whether this practice is associated with promising partnerships or is relevant only to the partnerships covered in this bine resources across organizations and sectors to achieve the same goal. FFP utilizes staff and volunteers to pack the meals into coolers, deploys its one full-time driver to deliver the coolers to designated HTA stops and UPS pickup stations, and relies on HTA and UPS to pick up the coolers and deliver them to remote sites (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). In short, FFP combines staff and volunteer resources across three organizations and three sectors (nonprofit, public, and private) to achieve the same goal of delivering meals to sites—reinforcing many of the practices discussed above with CSCs. The Hub and Spoke model also combines resources across organizations by determining which community organizations can serve as hubs and matching the resources of those organizations—namely, food storage space—with the sites in need.Clearly communicate procedures to every entity involved in the process. Clear communication is key because meals-to-sites solutions involve a large number of sites and multiple steps (e.g., packing meals, assigning drivers to specific pickup and drop-off points, and ensuring that drivers know when to make their pickups and drop-offs and that sites know when to expect their drop-offs).More research and evaluation is needed to determine whether these promising meals-to-sites partnerships are ultimately successful and whether the practices we have identified above are associated with that success. FFP does not formally evaluate its program and instead relies on verbal feedback from sites and transportation partners (C. Smith, personal communication, October 21, 2015). FTC sent out surveys to the Hubs and Spokes at the end of Summer 2015 to evaluate the first year of the meals-to-sites model, but did not share any of its results with us (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 5, 2015). Bringing Children to SitesOur research indicates that solutions to bring children to sites generally follow one of three forms: fixed-route transportation, demand-response, and shared or purchased vehicles. Table 3 describes each type of solution. As Table 2 shows, summer meals stakeholders can also combine these types when creating a summer meals-transportation partnership (see #8 and #13).Table 3. Methods of Bringing Children to SitesMethodDescriptionFixed-Route ServiceWhat many riders consider when they think of public transit—a bus traveling a regular route with fixed stops and scheduled times that are consistent from day to day. Fixed-route service is more common in urban areas, where the population is concentrated enough to fill a bus that runs a regular route. Fixed-route solutions are often implemented through partnerships with local transit providers (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges, n.d.).Demand-Response ServiceAlso referred to as “call-to-ride” programs, riders must request a ride (typically at least 24 hours in advance), and the transit provider builds a route each day in response to demand (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges, n.d.). Public transit in rural areas is typically demand-response service because the routes can be tailored to meet a specific demand across a wide geographic area. If a rider has a regular request, such as a weekly ride to a doctor’s appointment or a daily ride to a summer meals site, the transit provider can schedule that rider for regular pickup. In this way, demand-response service can mimic fixed route service, although the actual route traveled each day might differ depending on other rider requests along the way.Shared or Purchased VehicleUtilizing vehicles that provide transportation to other programs such as redirecting a vehicle that an organization already owns (such as a school bus or passenger van), purchasing a new vehicle, or partnering with another community organization that is willing to lend one or more of its vehicles for transporting children to summer meals. Partners can include churches and community action agencies, which can either provide vehicles or volunteer drivers (Summer Food Service Program: Transportation, n.d.).In addition to the overall goal of feeding children, both fixed-route and demand-response providers said that they were motivated to become involved in bringing children to summer meals sites because it helps them: 1) counteract summer dips in ridership, which keeps formula funding levels steady and, in some cases, results in funding increases if summer meals transportation leads to a net increase in total number of rides provided; 2) cultivate children into lifelong transit users by reducing the stigma around public transit; and 3) enhance awareness of their services within the broader community. Kari Banta, the program manager for the public transportation division in the Texas Department of Transportation, suggested that local public transit providers might be more receptive to summer meals-transportation partnership proposals if summer meals sponsors and sites demonstrate that they understand this environment in which the providers operate (personal communication, October 21, 2015).Fixed-Route ServiceWe found four fixed-route solutions, three of which serve urban areas. These solutions include:Letting children ride for free over the summer on fixed routes that already reach summer meals sites, as do the transit partnerships in Muscatine, Iowa; Huntsville, Alabama; and Topeka, Kansas. Interviewees described this solution as a win-win because it removes the cost and the transportation barrier for children to access summer meals sites without requiring any extra resources from the transit side. MuscaBus Transit Supervisor Kristy Korpi said her agency will run the fixed route no matter who rides (or who pays), so if offering a free ride means that a child can access healthy food over the summer, then MuscaBus is willing to do so (personal communication, November 5, 2015). MuscaBus does not track how many children use its fixed routes to reach summer meals sites.Adjusting fixed routes for the summer so that they reach all summer meals sites, as does Green Mountain Transit Authority (GMTA) in Washington County, Vermont. GMTA became involved in summer meals through its membership in the Washington County Hunger Council, which Hunger Free Vermont convenes (K. Davis, personal communication, November 3, 2015). GMTA uses a geographic information system (GIS) map to visualize where the sites are located in relation to its fixed routes and make adjustments as needed (K. Davis, personal communication, November 3, 2015). Davis did not know whether children have to pay to ride the fixed routes in the summer, and the GMTA representative on the Hunger Council did not return requests for interviews. Additionally, no data was available on any changes in the number of meals served due to the transportation service.One potential drawback of fixed-route solutions is that the routes are open to the public, which can present safety concerns for parents (T. Craddock, personal communication, October 22, 2015). None of the interviewees implementing fixed-route solutions discussed ways that they are addressing this concern, and it is unknown whether the agencies involved in the two fixed-route partnerships we did not interview—Huntsville, Alabama, and Topeka, Kansas—are addressing this concern. Thus, we identify this question of how to make summer meals public transportation safer as an area for further research.Demand-Response ServiceWe identified five demand-response solutions, all of which serve rural areas. These solutions include:Picking up individual riders along a door-to-door route that is built each day based on rider requests, as do the partnerships in Boone, Iowa; Nevada, Iowa; and Effingham County, Iowa. Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA), the transit provider in Boone and Nevada, collects children’s pickup locations at the beginning of the summer so that it can build the route and assign drivers in advance, although parents can change the pickup location if needed as long as the request is made with 24 hours’ notice (J. Kresse, personal communication, October 30, 2015; B. Ramsey, personal communication, November 10, 2015). Jennifer Moore, mobility manager for Effingham County Public Transit (ECPT), said ECPT also requires at least 24 hours’ notice for all requests and requires parents to sign a permission form at the beginning of the summer to reduce ECPT’s liability (personal communication, November 5, 2015).Picking up groups of students located in one place, as HIRTA does in Newton, Iowa, and Spartan Transportation does in Brownfield, Texas. ECPT also added group demand-response service in 2015 to bring children from a daycare center to a summer meals site and back, which resulted in a more than five-fold jump in the number of rides provided that summer (J. Moore, personal communication, November 5, 2015). Having the children in one place for group pickup makes demand-response service more efficient (B. Baker, personal communication, November 6, 2015). In Texas, where Spartan Transportation brought groups of children at the Boys & Girls Club to and from a summer meals site. This demand-response route was technically open to the public and would have deviated if other riders in the area had requested transportation, but Spartan Transportation received no such requests (B. Baker, personal communication, November 6, 2015).Although demand-response service is open to the public, parents utilizing these services tend to be less concerned about safety as the driver is typically the same person every day, the number of riders is smaller, and the riders themselves are often the same each day (J. Johnson-Miller, personal communication, October 23, 2015).Shared or Purchased Vehicles We found this transportation solution to be the most common children-to-sites partnership (10 out of 17 total children-to-sites partnerships). Shared or purchased vehicle solutions include:Using school buses to bring children to school-based summer meals sites, as do the school districts in Huntsville, Alabama; Nevada, Iowa; Ames, Iowa; Haysville, Kansas; Moscow, Kansas; and Montgomery County, Georgia. The school bus routes and rules for summer meals transportation are not always identical to the routes and rules during the school year. For example, USD 261 Haysville Schools in Kansas adjusts the bus stops, pick-up times, and drop-off times to more closely match where students are coming from in the summer and the summer meals schedule (G. Lee, personal communication, October 28, 2015). Also, because of liability concerns during the summer, when the day is less structured, USD 261 requires that children must be at least 8 years old to ride by themselves (G. Lee, personal communication, October 28, 2015). Gina Lee of USD 261 said some parents were surprised by and unhappy with the age requirement for children riding alone, so she intends to communicate that rule and the reasoning behind it more clearly in the future (personal communication, October 28, 2015).Using another vehicle owned by the summer meals sponsor or site, as do the partnerships in Scott City, Kansas; Rock Island, Illinois; and Depoe Bay, Oregon. In Scott City, Compass Behavioral Health (the summer meals sponsor) uses its own vehicle to transport children to its closed summer meals site (K. Hill, personal communication, October 30, 2015). Little information is known about the Rock Island and Depoe Bay partnerships beyond the fact that they use shared or purchased vehicles because our team was unable to conduct interviews with those organizations in this project’s time frame.Relying on community partners to supply vehicles and/or volunteer drivers to bring children to summer meals sites, as does Feed the Children (FTC) in Oklahoma. FTC surveys community organizations to learn which ones have extra vehicles and/or volunteer drivers and then matches those community organizations with summer meals sites that need transportation for children (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 4, 2015). The community partners and sites sign memoranda of understanding or other written agreements, and all volunteers undergo background checks before becoming drivers (C. McKnight, personal communication, November 4, 2015).Safety is less of a concern with shared or purchased vehicle solutions since the service provided on those vehicles is dedicated specifically to the sites that serve summer meals. However, organizations involved in these partnerships still try to minimize liability and maximize safety by requiring children under a certain age to be accompanied by a parent or older sibling (as USD 261 does) or requiring volunteer drivers to undergo training (as do FTC and Compass Behavioral Health).Practices Associated with Promising Partnerships for Bringing Children to SitesWhile we explored a variety of models for transporting children to sites, fixed-route partnerships and demand-response services that transport groups of children appear to be the most cost effective and scalable solutions since they rely on existing transit infrastructure. Shared or purchased vehicle partnerships can be helpful for organizations that have available vehicles or for communities with less public transit infrastructure and partners willing to loan vehicles. We advise caution in offering purely individual demand-response service, which would require more resources to plan and more advertising in order to produce enough individual requests to justify a demand-response route. Nonetheless, some communities have found individual demand-response service to be promising, reinforcing again that the local context matters in designing a solution.Based on common themes heard in interviews with organizations involved in 17 different children-to-sites partnerships, we identified the following practices that are perceived to be associated with promising children-to-sites partnerships, regardless of the type of solution:Provide free or significantly reduced-price rides to children. The fact that transit providers and summer meals sponsors and sites are going to great lengths to provide free or reduced-price rides—such as operating at a loss, dipping into general funds, or creating a new coalition of community groups to fundraise for the free service (see #9–15 and #18 in Table 2)—suggests that reducing the cost barrier for lower income children to take transportation is a key practice. To confirm whether this practice is associated with a promising children-to-sites partnership, more research is needed on whether changes in the price of summer meals transportation impact the number of rides provided and number of meals served. In the meantime, though, summer meals stakeholders looking to replicate this practice should heed caution from the details provided in Table 2 and in the findings above: while fixed-route providers do not appear to be struggling with the cost burden of letting children ride for free (since they are running those routes regardless of whether a rider is paying), summer meals programs using demand-response and shared or purchased vehicle solutions report serious funding challenges.Advertise transportation services directly to children and parents through schools. Schools represent the strongest connecting points to children and parents, and most of the organizations involved in children-to-site partnerships indicated that they advertise their summer meals transportation services through school newsletters for that reason. Organizations also utilize bus and radio advertisements and local newspaper coverage, so more research is needed to clarify which forms of advertising are most effective. Nonetheless, interviewees still perceive that school-based advertising is essential, and the repetition of this perception across interviews suggests that it is an important practice.Build risk management strategies into the transportation solution. Transporting children will always involve safety and liability concerns, but summer meals programs can minimize these concerns through risk management strategies. Examples of such strategies include screening and training drivers (see FTC and Compass Behavioral Health), requiring parental permission forms for all children (see ECPT) and chaperones for younger children (see USD 261), and clearly communicating the safety precautions to parents (see USD 261). More research is needed to confirm whether more or stronger risk management strategies are associated with greater utilization of summer meals transportation services.RECOMMENDATIONSBased on our findings and our analysis of practices for promising transportation partnerships, we advise the NKH Center for Best Practices to follow these five recommendations to support summer meals stakeholders in their efforts to overcome transportation barriers. Recommendations #1–3 address what NKH should do with the findings and analysis presented here, while recommendations #4 and #5 address future research that NKH should conduct.Bring transportation barriers to the foreground in all summer meals resources. NKH should incorporate information about transportation barriers—e.g., what the common barriers are, general information about using cross-sectoral collaborations to solve them, and where to find more advice for addressing transportation barriers (see recommendation #2 below)—into all of its existing and future NKH resources for summer meals stakeholders, including toolkits and presentations at its annual National Summer Meals Summit. Doing so will ensure that summer meals stakeholders begin thinking about addressing transportation barriers early on.Create a toolkit to guide summer meals sponsors and sites in addressing transportation barriers. This toolkit should draw on the above findings and future NKH research (see recommendations #4 and #5 below) to suggest steps that sponsors and sites can take to establish, execute, and sustain summer meals-transportation partnerships. Appendix E provides a list of preliminary recommendations for sponsors and sites that can be incorporated into this toolkit, pending further research. Based on the research provided in this study, the toolkit should highlight the importance of: 1) connecting with community stakeholders to establish partnerships at the local level; 2) identifying the transportation need and articulating to potential partners a vision to address that need; 3) advertising summer meals transportation services through schools once a partnership has been established; and 4) being persistent and proactive about sustaining the partnership through regular communication with partners, program evaluations, and continual searches for additional funding opportunities. (See Appendix E for more details.)Share the findings and analysis presented here with state summer meals administrators, state transit agencies, and local transit providers. Since this research identifies ways that state agencies and local transit providers can facilitate and establish summer meals-transportation partnerships (respectively), NKH should share our findings and analysis with these stakeholders. Appendix E distills the findings and analysis into specific recommendations for state agencies (both state summer meals administrators and state transit agencies) and local transit providers to make sharing this information easier for NKH. As Appendix E details, state agencies should facilitate connections between potential partners in local communities and champion the need for additional funding sources while local transit providers should connect with their local summer meals counterparts and request funding as soon as possible. Additionally, NKH can share the state agency and local transit provider recommendations with the DOT and USDA, who can determine other ways to disseminate these recommendations to the intended audiences.Future research: Collect more information about the ways state agencies, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites are building partnerships to overcome transportation barriers and the practices associated with promising partnerships. This study resulted in a number of leads that we were unable to interview due to our limited time frame. We recommend that NKH interview these leads and identify other sources through questionnaires and existing networks of summer meals sponsors and sites (see Appendix D for a list of leads). When interviewing people involved with partnerships that utilize public transit to bring children to sites (either fixed route or demand response), we recommend that NKH ask specifically about how partners are making public transit safer for children, since none of our interviewees involved in public transit identified what they are doing in this area.Future research: Conduct evaluations of transportation partnerships to confirm the practices that we have identified as being associated with promising partnerships and identify others. As explained above, our findings and analysis rely mostly on interviewees’ perceptions of the practices associated with promising partnerships since formal evaluations of these partnerships are rare. NKH can fill this gap by conducting evaluations of summer meals-transportation partnerships throughout the country, beginning with a manageable subsample of the partnerships identified in this paper. NKH can then use the evaluation findings to enhance the information provided in the toolkit (see recommendation #2 above). When designing the evaluations, we recommend that NKH focus on:Measuring the impact of these transportation partnerships and determining whether more children are able to access summer meals because of themAssessing whether more or stronger risk management strategies are associated with greater utilization of summer meals transportation servicesClarifying which forms of advertising (school-based, media coverage, or bus ads) are associated with greater use of summer meals transportation servicesConfirming whether changes in the price of summer meals transportation affects the numbers of rides taken and meals served at sites reached by the transportation. CONCLUSIONTransportation is clearly a pressing issue that needs to be addressed in order to increase access to summer meals and ultimately reduce food insecurity among children. The good news is that communities are pursuing cross-sector collaborations to address the transportation barrier and several partnership models exist that could increase access to summer meals. We have identified promising models and associated practices, including bringing meals to sites by sending coolers on fixed-route transportation or adopting a hub-and-spoke model and bringing children to sites through fixed-route, demand-response, or shared and purchased vehicles partnerships. Although our research is limited by the lack of longitudinal data on outcomes, we hope that the Share Our Strength No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices will use this research as a starting point to better understand what types of partnerships currently exist and to help sponsors, sites, and transit agencies create partnerships that are ultimately successful in increasing utilization of summer meals programs.REFERENCESAussenberg, R. A. (2014). School meals programs and other USDA child nutrition programs: A primer (CRS Report No. R43783). Retrieved from the National Agricultural Law Center: , J., Crosby, B., and Stone, M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55. Caldwell, K., & Sims, K. (2015). Summer nutrition insights: 2014 national summer meals sponsor survey findings. Share Our Strength. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from . Coleman-Jansen, A., Rabbitt, M. P., Gregory, C., & Singh, A. (2015). Household Food Security in the United States in 2014 (Report No. ERR-194). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from , L. (2015, July 16). Summer food program serves thousands of Q-C kids. Quad-City Times. Retrieved November 28, 2015, from . Endahl, J., & Singh. A. (2004). Evaluation of the 14 state Summer Food Service Program pilot project (Report No. CN-04-SFSP14). Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Retrieved from insecurity in the United States. (2010). Congressional Digest, 89(10), 301-306. Gordon, A. & Briefel, R. (2003). Feeding low-income children when school is out - the Summer Food Service Program; Executive Summary (Report No. E-FAN-03-001). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved from Gundersen, C. & Ziliak, J. P. (2014). Childhood food insecurity in the U.S.: Trends, causes, and policy options. The Future of Children, 24(2), 1-19. doi: 10.1353/foc.2014.0007.Harvard Family Research Project (2004). Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation. (Issue Brief No. 6). Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from , E. F. & Carr, D. H. (2005). Overcoming barriers to participation in the Summer Food Service Program - An identification of best practice solutions. National Food Service Management Institute, University of Mississippi. Retrieved from . Nord, M., & Romig, K. (2006). Hunger in the summer: Seasonal food insecurity & the national school lunch & summer food service programs. Journal of Children & Poverty, 12(2), 141-158. doi:10.1080/10796120600879582.Orovecz, K., Pincus, E., Todd, N., & Welch, M. (2015). Summer nutrition program social impact analysis. Deloitte & Share Our Strength. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from . Share Our Strength. (2013). Share Our Strength Summer Meals Survey Full Report. APCO Insight & Share Our Strength. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from Food Service Program: Average Daily Attendance. (2015). In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from Food Service Program Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from Food Service Program: Transportation. (n.d.). In U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved October, 1, 2015, from . Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Summer Meals and Transportation Challenges [Toolkit]. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from . Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Mobile Feeding Model [Toolkit]. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from A Pre-Interview QuestionnaireAppendix B? List of Interview QuestionsAppendix C? Interview Summary SheetAppendix D??? Interview List of ContactsAppendix E??? Recommendations for NKH StakeholdersClient Liaison: Kim Caldwell, Senior Program Managerkcaldwell@, 202-478-6524Pre-Interview QuestionnaireThank you for providing your time and perspective to the GW graduate student team that is assisting the NKH Center for Best Practices in researching the ways that state and local agencies, sponsors, and sites are addressing transportation barriers in summer meals programs. Your answers in the forthcoming interview will help the team develop recommendations and promising practices for NKH summer meals program stakeholders that want to address transportation barriers in their community.The purpose of this pre-interview questionnaire is to collect basic background information about your summer meals program to inform the subsequent interview. If you have any questions about this document, please contact the member of the GW student team who has arranged your interview. The GW Team will respect ethical parameters set by GW’s Institutional Review Board’s training for conducting social and behavioral research. Basic InfoYour OrganizationYour Name and TitleYour role in the summer meals program in your community (e.g. Do you complete and submit the paperwork for summer meals reimbursement? Do you implement programming at a site? etc.)Number of years in that role (If less than one year, please give the number of months)Your Summer Meals ProgramHow long has your organization been implementing the summer meals program?How many meals did you serve in summer 2015? How does this number compare to the number of meals served in 2014 or in previous years?If you are a sponsor, how many sites do you have? (If you are not a sponsor, leave blank)If you are a site, what is the structure of your program? (e.g.: Do you provide other activities along with meals? Do you operate out of a place of worship or a recreation center? Do you provide meals for parents and children?)How many employees does your organization have, and how many of them are dedicated to the summer meals program? For the employees who are dedicated to the summer meals program, is it their main, full-time role, or only a part of their job?Tell us about the geographic location you serve: Is it urban, suburban, or rural? What are the key demographics of the area or the population you serve?Thank you for helping us!Are there additional people or programs you know of whom you think we should talk to?If there is anything you think would be useful for us to know before the interview, please feel free to tell us here.Interview QuestionsSCRIPT TO READ AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY INTERVIEWThank you for providing your time and perspective to our graduate student team that is assisting the No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices in researching the ways that state and local agencies, sponsors, and sites are addressing transportation barriers in summer meals programs. We are conducting many interviews like this one through the first week in November. Then we will be synthesizing our results and delivering our final recommendation to the Center for Best Practices in December. Your answers in this interview will help our team develop recommendations and promising practices for summer meals program stakeholders that want to address transportation barriers in their community. As required by GW, this graduate student team will respect ethical parameters set by GW’s Institutional Review Board’s training for conducting social and behavioral research. Do you have any questions before we begin?SCRIPT TO READ AT THE END OF EVERY INTERVIEWThank you again for taking the time to speak with me as part of the graduate student project for the No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices. Do you have any materials or resources you would like to share with us that would be helpful for identifying promising practices? (IF YES: Is it OK with you if we include these materials as appendices in our final report, if relevant?) What is the best way for me to be in touch if I have any clarifying or follow-up questions?Questions to Ask All IntervieweesHow do you define success when it comes to the summer meals program?How do you define success in terms of summer meals-transit partnerships??[at the end] Anything else you’d like to add?[in intro email and at end] Can you refer to us to other people/organizations/partners whom you think we should talk to?Questions for Sponsors & SitesTransportation Partnership OverviewTell us about your partnership that allows you to address the transportation barrier.Who are your partners? How formal is this partnership? Do you have an MOU or contract? When was the partnership created?What factors or situations on the ground made you decide to address the transportation barrier, and why were you compelled to address it?How did you decide to pursue this particular form of partnership?Creating the partnershipTell us about how you went about forming this partnership.Who did you reach out to? Did others help you make this connection?What initial steps did you take to form this partnership?Once the partnership was formed, how did you implement it? About how long did it take from start (deciding to go this path) to finish (delivering the first meal or child to a site)?What barriers did you encounter along the way, and how did you overcome them?Evaluating the partnershipWhat were the results of the partnership?Did you see any increases in meals served or financial stability of the sites?Do you evaluate your program in any way?Do you have any formal or informal feedback from children/parents regarding their experiences accessing summer meals through the partnership?Would you describe this partnership as successful? Why or why not?IF YES: What elements do you think were key to your success?IF NO: What elements do you think contributed to the lack of success? In hindsight, how might you have done things differently to achieve success?Are you planning to pursue this partnership again in summer 2016? Why or why not?IF YES: What changes, if any, are you planning to make to the program?IF NO: Are you still in communication with that transit partner? Do you think you would try to pursue this partnership in the future, or other solutions to the transportation barrier? What would need to be in place for you to try this again?If you were giving advice to other summer meals program sponsors or sites about how to pursue this partnership to address the transportation barrier, what would you say to them?Questions for USDA-FNS, State Agencies that Administer Summer Meals Program, and Advocacy GroupsRoles and Big PictureTell us a little more about your role executing/administering/supporting the summer meals program.Are there other national/state agencies you work with to execute/administer/support the summer meals program? Which ones, and how do you work with them? In your opinion, what is working best with the summer meals program (in your state)? What are the greatest challenges for the summer meals program (in your state)? Deeper dive on Transportation Barriers & SolutionsHow do you define the transportation problem for the summer meals program? Are there any states or regions where the transportation problems are particularly severe?At what level do you think the transportation barrier is best resolved? (local solutions, state partnerships, national partnerships - all of the above)? What role for each?Based on your experience and knowledge of successful models, how do you think transportation barriers are best addressed?What is USDA-FNS/your agency/your organization doing to address the problem? State and local transit partnerships To your knowledge, what states/regions are doing a good job addressing transportation barriers in summer meals through partnerships? Tell me about those partnerships. If they have concrete information: Refer to Sponsors/Site interview questionsIf relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative? Are you familiar with any states/regions that have tried to address transportation barriers through partnerships and been unsuccessful? If yes, what happened? If relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative? Based on what you know of these transit partnerships, what promising practices come to mind that are themes for successful partnerships? Are there clear take-aways about what doesn’t work? What are they? If you were giving advice to summer meals program sponsors or sites about how to pursue partnerships to address the transportation barrier, what would you say to them?Questions for DOT, State Transit Agencies, and Local Transit ProvidersOverview on Agency, Structure, and Partnership RoleTell me a little about your agency/department’s mission and responsibilities?How do you work to support state DOTs? What are the state DOTs’ chief charges? How does your agency/department currently work with USDA and summer meals?Strategies and resources to address transportation barriersTell us about your approach to mobility management. How does your department help address transportation barriers to public programs, and in what ways is that different for programs that involve transporting children?What strategies have you seen effective for reducing transportation barriers to public programs? What about specifically for summer meals or other children’s programs? What resources are available to state and local partners to address transportation barriers? Which do you think are most relevant for the summer meals program?State and Regional Transit PartnershipsTo your knowledge, what states/regions are doing a good job addressing transportation barriers (with “mobility management”) to public programs/summer meals through transit partnerships? Tell me about those partnerships. If they have concrete information: Refer to Sponsors/Site interview questionsIf relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative? Are you familiar with any states/regions that have tried to address transportation barriers to public programs/summer meals through transit partnerships and been unsuccessful? If yes, what happened?If relevant: Would you be able to connect my team with a representative?Based on what you know of these transit partnerships, what promising practices come to mind that are themes for successful partnerships? Are there clear take-aways about what doesn’t work? What are they? What first steps might you recommend for beginning a transit partnership?Interview Summary SheetContact Name and Title: Interviewer Name:Organization:Date of Interview:City, State: Email:Scope and Type of Organization:(Scope: National, State, Local)(Type: Sponsor, Site, Administrator, Advocacy Organization, Transit Partner, Other - Please Describe)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------How would you describe the overall relevance of the interview? Did the contact provide little, moderate, or a lot of helpful detail? What were the main issues/themes that struck you with this contact?Summarize the information you received (or did not receive) on the following:Definition of Success for Summer MealsDefinition of Success for Summer Meals Transportation PartnershipsHow Contact is Addressing Summer Meals Transportation BarriersSteps Taken to Create Summer Meals-Transportation PartnershipsLessons Learned in Summer Meals / Summer Meals-Transportation PartnershipsAdvice for Organizations Seeking to Address Transportation BarriersResources SharedSuggested Follow-Up ContactsNotable Quotes from ContactAnything else that struck you as salient, interesting, illuminating, or important with this contact? Are there any implications for our research questions, methods, or interviews moving forward?Interview List of ContactsInterview ContactsOrganizationContact NameTitleCity, StateScope & Type of OrganizationNational USDA & DoT RepresentativesDoT & USDA FNSRik OpsteltenUnited We Ride Program Analyst, DOTWashington, DCFederal agenciesTony Craddock, Jr.Program Assistant, USDA FNSPam PhillipsChief of Partnerships/Communications Officer, USDA FNSNational Center for Mobility ManagementPamela FriedmanSenior Program SpecialistWashington, DCNational technical assistance providerFNS, Mountain Plains Regional Office (MPRO)Melissa MageeCommunity Nutrition Program Team LeadEvergreen, COFederal agency, regional officeTandy JonesProgram Specialist, USDA FNS, MPROState Transit & AdministratorsIowa DoTJeremy Johnson-MillerTransit Programs Administrator/Statewide Mobility CoordinatorDes Moines, IAState agencyBureau of Nutrition and Health Services, Iowa Department of EducationStephanie DrossFFVP & SFSP Education Program ConsultantDes Moines, IAState administratorTexas DoT, Public Transportation DivisionKari BantaProgram ManagerAustin, TXState agencyKansas Department of EducationKelly ChanayAssistant Director, Child Nutrition & WellnessTopeka, KSState administratorIA Regional Transit Authority Bridget BartlettMobility CoordinatorDubuque, IAState/regional transit providerSponsors & SitesUnited Way of Story CountyJean KressePresident and CEOAmes, IAChildren-to-sites; demand response and shared or purchased vehicle; urban and ruralCompass Behavioral HealthKent HillRegional DirectorScott City, KSChildren-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor with 1 site, ruralUSD 209, Moscow, KS Public SchoolsStu MooreSuperintendent/PK-5 PrincipalMoscow, KSChildren-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor with 1 site, ruralUSD 261 Haysville SchoolsGina LeeFood Service DirectorHaysville, KSChildren-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor with 3 sites, urbanMontgomery County SchoolsCatherine PartenDir. of School Food & NutritionMontgomery, GAChildren-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle; Sponsor, ruralHarvesters (A Feeding America Food Bank)Angela JeppesenProgram ManagerKansas City, MOSponsor with 73 sites across urban, suburban, and rural areasHorizons, A Family Service AllianceBrian SeguenzaClient Services CoordinatorCedar rapids, IAMeals-to-sites; Sponsor with 20 sites, urbanFood for People, Inc. (FFP)Carrie SmithChild Nutrition Programs CoordinatorHumboldt, CAMeals-to-sites; Sponsor with 21 sites, ruralLocal TransitMuscaBusKristy KorpiTransit SupervisorMuscatine, IAChildren-to-sites; Fixed Route; Local public transit agency, urbanEffingham County Public Transportation/Central Illinois Public TransitJennifer MooreMobility ManagerEffingham County, ILChildren-to-sites; Demand-Response; Local public transit agency, ruralSpartan TransportationBrian BakerDirectorLevelland, TXChildren-to-sites; Demand-Response; Local public transit agency, ruralHeart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA)Brooke RamseyOperations ManagerUrbandale, IAChildren-to-sites; Demand-Response; Local public transit agency, ruralAdvocacy OrganizationsD.C. Hunger SolutionsMelissa RoarkAmericorps VISTAWashington, DCLocal advocacy organizationHunger Free VermontKaty DavisNutrition Education & Outreach ManagerSouth Burlington, VTState advocacy organization that convenes the Washington County Hunger CouncilKansas Appleseed Center for Law and JusticeRebekah GastonDirector, Childhood Hunger InitiativeTopeka, KSState advocacy organizationTexas Hunger Initiative (THI)Grace NormanTHI-Lubbock Regional Director/Child Hunger Outreach SpecialistBrownsville, TXState advocacy organizationFood Research Action Center (FRAC)Signe AndersonSenior Child Nutrition Policy AnalystWashington, DCNational advocacy organizationFeed the Children (FTC)Clint McKnightDomestic Programming ManagerOklahomaMeals-to-sites in rural and children-to-sites in urban; shared or purchased vehicle; National advocacy organizationInterview LeadsOrganizationContact NameTitleCity, StateScope & Type of OrganizationHuntsville School District, City of Huntsville, Durham ServicesScott GilliesTransportation CoordinatorHuntsville, ALChildren-to-sites; fixed route and shared or purchased vehicles, urbanChurch of PeaceKevin CarneyOutreach Director and Communication CoordinatorRock Island, ILSponsor with 31 sites; Meals-to-sites and children-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle, urbanNeighbors for KidsToby WinnExecutive DirectorDepoe Bay, ORSite; Children-to-sites; shared or purchased vehicle, ruralTopeka Metropolitan Transit Authority (TMTA)Denise EnsleyChief Operations OfficerTopeka, KSChildren-to-sites; fixed route; Local transit agency, urbanFood Bank for the HeartlandMichelle SauseChild Hunger Program ManagerOmaha, NEMeals-to-sitesRecommendations for Summer Meals StakeholdersBased on our findings and analysis of practices that appear to be associated with promising transit partnerships, the following are recommendations for state transit agencies, state agencies that administer the summer meals program, local transit providers, and summer meals sponsors and sites. One key recommendation for all stakeholders is to keep communication open in order to share information and work collaboratively. The table below outlines how state agencies, transit agencies, and sponsors and sites can keep communication open by recommending that the stakeholders in the first column reach out to the stakeholders going across the table.Recommendations for State SFSP Administrators and State Transit AgenciesChampion additional federal and state funding that local transit providers can use for summer meals-transportation partnerships. Because funding is an ongoing challenge for summer meals-transportation partnerships, state agencies can champion new state funding sources for these partnerships or increased funding levels for existing state grant programs that can support these partnerships. In addition, some state agencies can appeal to their contacts at the federal level to allocate more funding for summer meals-transportation partnerships or adjust grant criteria so that more funds can be used toward these partnerships.Recommendations Specific to State Transit AgenciesSignal to local transit agencies that the state transit agency endorses their involvement in summer meals-transportation partnerships. By educating local transit agencies about the transportation needs in summer meals program or lifting up examples of successful partnerships, for example, the state transportation agency can signal to local transit agencies the importance of summer meals. This signaling can be done at statewide or regional conferences for local transit agencies, in webinars or group email communications, or one-on-one conversations between a state department of transportation and its local agencies.Encourage formation of transit advisory groups (TAGs). In addition to connecting local transit providers with their summer meals counterparts, state agencies can encourage those connections to happen by encouraging the formation of transit advisory groups, or TAGs.Recommendations Specific to State Agencies that Administer Summer Meals ProgramsAdditional information for communications recommendations:Develop regular communication with sponsors and sites statewide. These administrators, who ensure compliance with SFSP program standards, should connect sponsors and sites so they can share ideas and lessons learned and foster the connections that this study reveals are key to addressing barriers. Communication should be two-way: not solely newsletter blasts from the top-down, but also bottom-up information sharing.Connect with advocacy groups. Advocacy groups often have resources and the capacity to help identify gaps in service and propose solutions.Recommendations for Local Transit ProvidersEngage with the community to promote available transportation services. Interactions with social service agencies and schools enable local transit agencies to explain their services so that summer meals stakeholders can better understand how a local transit provider can help. Once a summer meals-transportation partnership has been set up, being present at community events, such as summer meals kickoffs or school fairs, is one of the best ways for local transit providers to promote the service and ensure it will be utilized.Request funding from city agencies and nonprofit organizations as early as possible. Once the basic framework of a summer meals-transportation partnership has been developed, local transit providers can talk to the city council and mayor, local United Ways, or other local funders for funding. If a transit provider is not a 501c3 nonprofit organization and has trouble applying for a grant, they can ask a partner nonprofit to serve as fiscal agent.Develop a transit advisory group (TAG) to bring together local social service agencies and community organizations. TAGs help local transit providers assess transportation needs in various community programs and adjust local transit services to meet those needs when feasible. TAGs also provide a forum for key stakeholders to form relationships with each other for ongoing partnership. When assembling a TAG, it’s important to convene those who are authorized to make decisions on behalf of their agency or organization.Recommendations for Summer Meals Sponsors and SitesAdditional information for communications recommendation: Connect with community stakeholders. Sponsors should also reach out to their state summer meals administrators for recommendations of potential partners and successful transportation models. To connect with transit providers, sponsors and sites should look for community meetings that local transit providers or human services are hosting and talk to city council members to seek contacts. When talking with transit providers, sponsors should position a potential summer meals partnership as a tool for transit agencies to increase ridership, reduce stigma, and cultivate new lifelong users of public transit. Sponsors and sites should engage with a broad group of stakeholders including hunger advocacy groups, human service nonprofits and agencies, TAGs, United Ways, city council, the local school district, transit authority, and parents to think collaboratively about transportation partnerships.Determine the transportation needs and develop a vision. In order to develop a clear vision of the need and opportunity for a transportation partnership, sponsors and sites should: Consider their capacity to bring meals to sites or children to sites to help identify type of transportation support that is needed.If the type of transportation need identified is bring children to sites: survey program participants to learn more about their needs and which solutions they would be likely to utilize.Consider potential transit resources that may already be in place, such as school buses, public transportation services, private transportation services, and community groups with access to vans or buses.Research potential funding streams that can help sustain a partnershipBe prepared to demonstrate how a summer meals-transportation partnership ultimately supports individual stakeholders and the community at-large.Advertise a summer meals-transportation partnership to schools, parents, and key stakeholders to maximize use of transit opportunities. Like any transportation service, summer meals transportation services must be well advertised in order to be utilized. Advertisements for summer meals transportation services also have a side effect of helping public transit agencies enhance their public image and promote their services in the broader community.Be persistent and proactive about establishing and sustaining a summer meals-transportation partnership. Because any partnership will encounter unexpected challenges and barriers, it is important for sponsors and sites to be proactive about sustaining these partnerships if problems arise. To do this, summer meals programs can:Have a communication plan in place and be responsive to transit partners during unplanned setbacks. Gather feedback and conduct evaluations with transit partners to help strengthen and extend the partnership.Continue to seek funding opportunities to bolster the summer meals-transportation partnership. Consider reading out to private donors in the local community and applying for grants from federal and state agencies, local corporations and foundations, the local United Way, city council, and nonprofit organizations. Communications MatrixThe stakeholders in the first column should reach out to the stakeholders going across the table.State transit agenciesState summer meals administratorsLocal transit agenciesSponsors & sitesAdvocacy groups & other stakeholdersAll state agenciesShare information, facilitate summer meals-transit partnerships statewide, and champion additional federal and state funding that local transit providers can use for summer meals-transportation partnershipsFacilitate connections between local transit and sponsors/sites by providing contact information and connecting both parties with each otherState transit agenciessee aboveEducate local transit about the transportation needs for summer mealsApproach sponsors/sites about their transportation needsState SFSP administratorssee aboveConnect sponsors/sites with other sponsors/sites to share ideas for solving transportation barrierTap advocacy groups to help identify gaps in service and propose solutionsLocal transit agenciesReach out to summer meals administrators to find the key summer meals contacts in their communityApproach summer meals sponsors or sites about their transportation needs as early as possible to determine summer meals needsReach out to advocacy organizations, local schools, and social services providers to find the key summer meals contacts in their communitySponsors & sitesAsk state summer meals administrators for recommendations of potential transit partners and successful transportation models Position a summer meals partnership as a tool for transit agencies to increase ridership, reduce stigma, and cultivate new lifelong users of public transitEngage hunger advocacy groups, human service nonprofits and agencies, TAGs, United Ways, city council, the local school district, transit authority, and parents to think collaboratively about transportation partnershipsADDENDUMCore Courses Applied to Our Capstone ProjectWe applied many lessons from our Master of Public Administration (MPA) core courses to our capstone project focused on addressing transportation barriers in the summer meals program. Of particular significance were Cross-Sectoral Governance in the U.S. Federal System (PPPA 6000), Research Methods and Applied Statistics (PPPA 6002), and Leadership in Public Administration and Public Policy (PPPA 6004), for which we outline lessons in depth below. Introduction to Public Service and Administration (PPPA 6001) and Public and Nonprofit Program Evaluation (PPPA 6016)—while not a core course for MPA students—provided helpful guidance as well. Ultimately our core courses prepared us to work successfully as a team, manage a research project, and deliver a professional product to our client, Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices. Cross-Sectoral Governance in the U.S. Federal System (PPPA 6000) introduced us to the roles of the public, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors and grounded us with an understanding of the interaction of federal, state, and local governments with each other and with other sectors. One reading in particular, The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature by Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone (2006), provided practical guidance on the conditions that are likely to generate cross-sector collaborations and the features of cross-sector collaborations that are most likely to lead to successful outcomes. Based on an extensive literature review, Bryson et al. (2006) offer a framework for understanding cross-sector collaborations that highlights variables related to process, structure and governance, contingencies and constraints, and outcomes.In learning from our client about existing partnerships that address transportation barriers to summer meals, we realized that the majority of our interviews would involve cross-sector collaborations at the local and state level. Having a solid understanding of the core components of cross-sector collaboration from the Bryson et al. reading informed our interview questions. As we sought to document the processes (informal and formal) and structures used to create and manage transportation partnerships, we found that many of Bryson et al.’s conclusions rang true in our interviews, particularly the importance of agreeing on the problem and mission, involving leaders who have the authority to act, having a process for engaging stakeholders, and continuously building trust within the collaboration. The Bryson et al. article provided us helpful context for our project and served as a central component of our literature review. The authors’ final conclusion that cross-sector collaborations are necessary to address complex public problems—though hardly easy to successfully create and sustain—is another important lesson to bear in mind, as many of the collaborations we documented are in the early stages. Research Methods and Applied Statistics (PPPA 6002) provided us with skills to critically evaluate the empirical studies we considered for our literature review and instructed us on the research methods available to us in conducting this project. We found the class sessions and readings related to data collection methods to be particularly relevant. We learned about the variety of probability and non-probability sampling designs and quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as the benefits and limitations of each. Within non-probability sampling designs, the concept of snowball sampling proved highly useful for our project, as we were given a small number of initial leads from our client and needed to generate more interviewees by talking with stakeholders who knew about existing partnerships. The course also made us acutely aware of the importance of validity in research. Measurement validity was important to consider as we generated our pre-interview questionnaire so that we were accurately measuring what we intended to measure.Regarding qualitative research, we learned that the strengths of this method involve the ability for in-depth study, rich description, and opportunities to explore unanticipated topics. We also learned that qualitative methods are helpful for inductive research—gathering data to inform theory—which was particularly relevant as our client needed to grasp a better understanding of what practitioners are doing to address summer meals transportation barriers and what works in promising partnerships. Granted, we experienced firsthand some of the limitations of qualitative methods outlined in the class, including that it is time consuming and can be challenging to analyze since statistical description is not possible. In the course, we were also cautioned that qualitative data can be influenced by the interviewer, so we used a standardized set of questions to ask each type of interviewee and developed scripts to begin and end each interview. Finally, we learned that the small samples involved with interviews can make it difficult to generalize (external validity), so we have taken into account that limitation of our research for our client. Leadership in Public Administration and Public Policy (PPPA 6004) helped our team navigate management of this project and of our team as a whole. This course also provided theoretical and operational perspectives of leadership and management that we kept in mind as we interacted with our client and the stakeholders we interviewed. In particular, we found that the concept of evidenced-based management carried into our capstone project by challenging us to consider evidence from the local context, practitioner expertise, research from the literature, and stakeholder perspectives. In making our recommendations to our client, and ultimately to summer meals stakeholders (Appendix E), we considered these elements knowing full-well that context matters immensely and local stakeholder input is essential. In terms of our group management, the leadership course helped us to individually reflect on our strengths and weaknesses as leaders such that collectively we could maximize our effectiveness as a group. We had all completed the Gallup Strengthsfinder assessment as part of the Trachtenberg School Women’s Leadership Fellows program, and we used that information to communicate our strengths in executing, influencing, relationships and strategic thinking (just as we had used the tool in crafting our Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats analysis in the leadership course). In the leadership course, we also learned about the five components of emotional intelligence (E.I.), including the self-management aspects of self awareness, self-regulation, and motivation and the relationship management aspects of empathy and social skill. Each of us practiced E.I. throughout our project, which contributed to our success as a team in many respects. We worked with each other holistically—valuing and respecting each person and managing ourselves appropriately—which fueled our group productivity, enabling us to smoothly complete the project.Further lessons that helped our project included concepts from PPPA 6001 and PPPA 6016. Introduction to Public Service and Administration (PPPA 6001) introduced us to the discipline of public administration and provided key information about the theoretical approaches of public service organizations. We found Charles Lindblom’s concept of incrementalism to be a pragmatic approach for setting realistic expectations and empowering public administrators to take small steps toward a bigger goal—likely a necessary concept for administrators attempting to address significant transportation barriers to summer meals programs. Public and Nonprofit Program Evaluation (PPPA 6016) taught our team how to ethically design and conduct program evaluations and how to assess program evaluations done by others. The emphasis on ethical research was at the forefront of our minds as we designed our methodology and interacted with our interviewees. PPPA 6016 also taught us the value of evaluation writ large. The class helped us recognize a major limitation of our research—that few of the summer meals-transportation partnerships have been formally evaluated—and consequently led us to recommend that our client conduct and encourage evaluations of these partnerships when possible. Our core courses equipped us well for a successful capstone project. With our lessons in research methods, evaluation, and ethics, we were able to thoughtfully design and execute a research project employing sound qualitative research practices. The seminal work of Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone (2006) on cross-sector collaboration informed our literature review and interview questions, and the concepts of evidenced-based management and incrementalism also influenced our team’s approach to the work. With the leadership lessons we gained in class and have since practiced, our team dynamics enabled a productive and enjoyable group experience despite a rigorous project with a demanding time frame. Ultimately, our course lessons positioned us for success on our capstone project, and we will carry these lessons with us into our professional lives upon graduation. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download