Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Many Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination Persist Gao ID: GAO-03-698T May 1, 2003Numerous federal government programs provide assistance to "transportation-disadvantaged" individuals--those who are unable to provide their own transportation as a result of a disability, an age-related condition, or an income constraint. The assistance is provided to help these populations connect with services such as health and medical care, employment and training activities, and education programs. Coordination of this assistance--through such steps as pooling resources, consolidating transportation services under a single state or local agency, and sharing information about available services--has been found to improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of service. GAO was asked to identify (1) the federal programs that provide these transportation services and the amount spent on these programs; (2) the effect of coordination--or lack of coordination--on the delivery of transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged; and (3) any obstacles that may impede effective coordination and potential ways to overcome such obstacles.
GAO found 62 federal programs--most of which are administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and Transportation--that currently fund a variety of transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged. The full amount of spending for these programs is unknown because transportation expenditures are not always tracked separately from other program expenditures. However, available information (i.e., estimated or actual outlays or obligations) on 28 of the programs shows that federal agencies spent at least an estimated $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 on these services. Effective coordination can help avoid duplication of effort and inefficiency in providing transportation services. GAO's preliminary results indicate that some jurisdictions have realized significant benefits, such as improved customer service and lower unit costs, and through coordination efforts such as sharing vehicles, consolidating services under one provider, or sharing information among programs. By contrast, GAO found several examples of overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services resulting from a lack of coordination. GAO identified numerous obstacles impeding coordination, including: (1) reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination; (2) differences in federal program standards and requirements; and (3) limited guidance and information on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials and experts suggested harmonizing standards among federal programs to better share resources and serve additional populations, expanding forums to facilitate communication among agencies, providing and disseminating additional guidance, and providing financial incentives or instituting mandates to coordinate.
GAO-03-698T, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination Persist
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-698T
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal
Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination
Persist' which was released on May 01, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Testimony:
Before the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and
Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 1, 2003:
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
Many Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to
Coordination Persist:
Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Acting Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-03-698T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-698T, a testimony before the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Numerous federal government programs provide assistance to
’transportation-disadvantaged“ individuals”those who are unable to
provide their own transportation as a result of a disability, an
age-related condition, or an income constraint. The assistance is
provided to help these populations connect with services such as
health and medical care, employment and training activities, and
education programs. Coordination of this assistance”through such
steps as pooling resources, consolidating transportation services
under a single state or local agency, and sharing information about
available services”has been found to improve the cost-effectiveness
and quality of service. GAO was asked to identify (1) the federal
programs that provide these transportation services and the amount
spent on these programs, (2) the effect of coordination”or lack of
coordination”on the delivery of transportation services for the
transportation-disadvantaged; and (3) any obstacles that may impede
effective coordination and potential ways to overcome such obstacles.
What GAO Found:
GAO found 62 federal programs”most of which are administered by the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation”that fund a variety of transportation services for the
transportation-disadvantaged. The full amount of spending for these
programs is unknown, because transportation expenditures are not always
tracked separately from other program expenditures. However, available
information (i.e., estimated or actual outlays or obligations) on 28 of
the programs shows that federal agencies spent at least an estimated
$2.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 on these services.
Effective coordination can help avoid duplication of effort and
inefficiency in providing transportation services. GAO‘s preliminary
results indicate that some jurisdictions have realized significant
benefits, such as lower unit costs and improved customer service,
through coordination efforts such as sharing vehicles, consolidating
services under one provider, or sharing information among programs. By
contrast, GAO found several examples of overlapping, fragmented, or
confusing services resulting from a lack of coordination.
Overlapping Routes of the Vehicles of Seven Agencies that Separately
Serve the Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
This graphic illustrates that many of these seven agencies‘ routes have
similar starting and ending points. Many of these routes represent
trips serving similar populations and occurring within 30 minutes of
each other.
GAO identified numerous obstacles impeding coordination, including: (1)
reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination; (2) differences in
federal program standards and requirements; and (3) limited guidance
and information on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials
and experts suggested harmonizing standards among federal programs to
better share resources and serve additional populations, expanding
forums to facilitate communication among agencies, providing and
disseminating additional guidance, and providing financial incentives
or instituting mandates to coordinate.
What GAO Recommends:
This testimony is based on ongoing work being done for the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. GAO expects to issue a
report in June 2003, at which time there may be recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-698T. To view the full testimony,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Committees:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the coordination of
transportation services for people with limited access to
transportation. At the request of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, we have been examining transportation assistance that the
federal government funds to benefit these individuals. Our work focuses
on a population we call "transportation-disadvantaged"--that is, people
who are unable to provide their own transportation as a result of a
disability, an age-related condition, or an income constraint. This is
a sizeable group. For example, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 35.1
million people were over age 65, 44.5 million people over age 21 were
disabled, and 33.9 million people were living below the poverty line.
We have been studying the assistance available to help such people
connect with the services provided through government programs, such as
health and medical care, employment and training activities, and
education programs. For many people in this group, traditional public
transportation may not be an option to access such services.
Providing transportation services to these populations and coordinating
them across program lines are becoming more critical issues as the
transportation-disadvantaged populations grow and financial
constraints on the federal government and other government levels
increase due to budget deficits. With these trends, it will become more
important to maximize efficiency wherever possible to avoid having to
reduce services. The coordination of transportation services--through
pooling resources, consolidating transportation services under a single
state or local agency, or sharing information about available services-
-has been found to improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of
service.
My statement today, which is based on the preliminary results of our
ongoing work for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
addresses (1) the federal programs that provide transportation services
for transportation-disadvantaged populations; the types of services
they provide; and federal, state, and local government spending for
transportation through these federal programs; (2) the effect of
coordination--or lack of coordination--on the delivery of
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged; and (3)
any obstacles that may impede effective coordination and potential
options for overcoming such obstacles. We are continuing to examine
these issues and expect to report on the final results of our work in
June 2003.
Our work is based on an analysis of pertinent federal laws and
regulations, available data on federal and state spending, and the
research literature on coordination of transportation services. We also
conducted an in-depth study of coordination efforts in five states--
Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. We selected
these five states to include a cross-section of characteristics
including the presence or absence of a state-level coordinating body
and geographic dispersion. Appendix I contains more information about
our scope and methodology.
In summary:
* Sixty-two federal programs--most of which are administered by the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation--fund a variety of transportation services for the
transportation-disadvantaged, and spending for these programs is
estimated to be in the billions of dollars.[Footnote 1] Most of these
programs purchase transportation from existing public or private
sources, such as providing bus tokens or passes, or contracting for
service from private providers. Also, several programs fund the
purchase or modification of vehicles for agencies to provide
transportation for their clients. The full amount of spending for these
programs is unknown because transportation is not always tracked
separately from other program spending. Available information on actual
or estimated spending shows that federal agencies spent at least an
estimated $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 on various transportation
services. Department of Health and Human Services programs spent about
three-quarters of this amount. State and local agencies also provide
significant funding for many of these programs, often to fulfill
matching requirements, which generally range from 5 to 50 percent of
total program costs for these programs. However, estimates of state and
local spending are not available because few agencies track such
information at the federal or state level.
* We found some agencies that have realized substantial benefits by
coordinating their transportation services through sharing vehicles,
consolidating services under a single agency, or sharing information
about available services, while others that do not coordinate have
experienced overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services. In
locations where coordination among programs has occurred, agencies and
users are realizing significant benefits, such as improved customer
service and lower unit costs. For example, a transit agency in South
Dakota consolidated the transportation services previously provided by
both senior and medical centers as well as other federal, state, and
local programs. This consolidation allowed the agency to increase the
number of trips provided while reducing the average cost of providing
each trip by more than 20 percent. The agency has also improved its
services by coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and
weekend trips. In areas without coordination, local officials reported
some examples of (1) overlapping services, such as the transportation
provider who often runs two vehicles on the same route at nearly the
same time to accommodate different paperwork requirements; (2)
fragmented services, when transportation services provided by different
counties or programs do not connect and riders have difficulty
scheduling complete trips; and (3) confusion, when both providers and
users are overwhelmed by the sheer number of programs and their
different requirements.
* Decision makers face numerous obstacles in trying to coordinate
services for the transportation-disadvantaged; officials and experts
that we consulted offered several potential options to mitigate these
obstacles and enhance coordination among federal, state, and local
agencies. We grouped the obstacles that impede coordination into three
categories: (1) reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination
activities; (2) programmatic differences, including fragmented
administration and distinct reporting requirements among programs; and
(3) limited guidance and information on coordination, as shown by the
limited technical assistance provided by federal and state agencies on
the possible techniques for coordinating services. To mitigate these
obstacles, some officials and experts have suggested three potential
options that may be undertaken to improve coordination. One option is
to harmonize standards among federal programs--such as safety standards
related to types of seat belts and driver training requirements--so
that they may serve additional populations or better share
transportation resources. Another option is to expand forums that would
facilitate communication among agencies involved in coordination and to
share additional technical guidance and information on coordination
among federal and state agencies through a central clearinghouse or
improved Web site. The third option is to provide financial incentives
and mandates that would give priority in federal funding to those
applicants that show a strong commitment to coordinate. Some of these
options, however, would require extensive statutory or regulatory
changes and may cause agencies to incur significant costs.
Background:
Concern over coordinating transportation services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations has been evident since the 1970s. In 1977, we
issued a report on transportation coordination,[Footnote 2] which
concluded that the most significant hindrance to the coordination of
transportation services under these programs was confusion at all
levels of government as to how much coordination federally funded
projects could engage in.
Since 1986, responsibility for coordinating transportation programs at
the federal level has rested in the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility. This body is composed of representatives from program offices
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department
of Transportation (DOT), and its staffing needs are met, on a part-time
basis, by employees of these agencies.
In a 1999 report on transportation coordination,[Footnote 3] we found
that coordination efforts of the Coordinating Council, DOT, and HHS
were ongoing but needed strengthening. This report also noted that the
Congress had endorsed increased coordination as evidenced by several
provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21),[Footnote 4] and significant financial benefits had been realized
through coordination. More recently, reports and agency officials have
raised concerns over continuing duplication of effort among federal
programs and certain sub-populations still not being served
effectively.[Footnote 5]
Sixty-two Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged, and Spending on Them Is in the Billions
of Dollars:
We identified 62 federal programs that fund a variety of transportation
services to populations that are transportation-
disadvantaged.[Footnote 6] The bulk of these programs are administered
by 4 federal agencies--23 programs in HHS, 15 programs in the
Department of Labor (DOL), 8 programs in the Department of Education,
and 6 programs in DOT.[Footnote 7] The remaining 10 programs are
administered by the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
Veterans Affairs (VA), Agriculture, and the Interior. A full listing of
programs with their authorizing statutes, typical uses, types of trips
provided, target populations, and available spending information is
found in appendix II.
According to program officials, most of these 62 programs typically use
existing public or private transportation services through such methods
as contracting for services with private transportation providers, or
through providing bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers, or mileage
reimbursement to volunteers or program participants. For example, DOL's
Workforce Investment Act Adult Program typically provides participants
with bus tokens, while HHS's Grants for Supportive Services and Senior
Centers program most often contracts with local transportation
providers to provide client transportation. Several programs, however,
are typically used to purchase, modify, or operate vehicles. These
include Head Start and the Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native,
and Native Hawaiian Elders in HHS; the Vocational Rehabilitation Grants
program in the Department of Education; and the Capital Assistance
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, the
Urbanized and Nonurbanized Area Formula Programs, and the Job Access
and Reverse Commute program in DOT.
Spending by 28 Federal Programs Is Estimated at $2.4 billion in Fiscal
Year 2001:
Information on federal spending for transportation is available for 28
of the 62 programs we identified.[Footnote 8] These programs spent an
estimated $2.4 billion on transportation services in fiscal year
2001.[Footnote 9] (Appendix II lists available spending data for each
federal program.) Based on available information, HHS programs as a
whole spent the most on transportation for transportation-disadvantaged
populations in 2001--an estimated $1.8 billion. Table 1 shows estimated
transportation spending by the eight federal agencies that fund
services for the transportation-disadvantaged.
Table 1: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged by Eight Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year
2001:
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Amount spent on
transportation (in millions): $1,771.0; Percent of total estimate:
72.9%; Number of programs included in estimate: 10; Total number of
programs that provide transportation: 23.
Agency: Department of Transportation; Amount spent on transportation
(in millions): $317.3; Percent of total estimate: 13.1%; Number of
programs included in estimate: 6; Total number of programs that provide
transportation: 6.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Amount spent on transportation
(in millions): $160.8; Percent of total estimate: 6.6%; Number of
programs included in estimate: 3; Total number of programs that provide
transportation: 3.
Agency: Department of Education; Amount spent on transportation (in
millions): $133.8; Percent of total estimate: 5.5%; Number of programs
included in estimate: 2; Total number of programs that provide
transportation: 8.
Agency: Department of Labor; Amount spent on transportation (in
millions): $26.4; Percent of total estimate: 1.1%; Number of programs
included in estimate: 3; Total number of programs that provide
transportation: 15.
Agency: Department of Agriculture; Amount spent on transportation (in
millions): $13.0; Percent of total estimate: 0.5%; Number of programs
included in estimate: 1; Total number of programs that provide
transportation: 1.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Amount spent on
transportation (in millions): $7.5; Percent of total estimate: 0.3%;
Number of programs included in estimate: 3; Total number of programs
that provide transportation: 4.
Agency: Department of the Interior; Amount spent on transportation (in
millions): Not available; Percent of total estimate: 0.0%; Number of
programs included in estimate: 0; Total number of programs that provide
transportation: 2.
Agency: Total for 8 agencies; Amount spent on transportation (in
millions): $2,429.8; Percent of total estimate: 100.0%; Number of
programs included in estimate: 28; Total number of programs that
provide transportation: 62.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS, DOT, VA, Education, DOL, Agriculture, HUD,
and Interior data.
[End of table]
The amount spent on transportation services by the remaining 34 federal
programs is unknown, mainly because the majority of programs do not
require recipients of federal funds to report transportation spending
information to the federal agency.
Total State and Local Transportation Spending Is Unknown, but May Be
Significant:
Total state and local spending for transportation services, which
supplements federal spending for such programs, is likely significant-
-reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars at least--although
the total is unknown because most programs do not require grantees to
report these data. Matching requirements, which represent the
nonfederal contributions to the program's costs that come from state,
local, or private funds, provide some information on state and local
spending on transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged. For
example, according to state officials, state and local spending for one
program--Medicaid--made up between 32 and 50 percent of the total
spending on nonemergency medical transportation in the five states that
we visited, totaling $188.9 million in 2001 in those five
states.[Footnote 10] Thirty-two of the programs that we identified have
matching requirements that generally require states and localities to
contribute between 5 and 50 percent of total program costs.
Coordination Has Led to Improvements, while Lack of Coordination Can
Result in Overlap:
Coordination Has Financial Benefits and Can Lead to Improved Service:
Through coordination, some local agencies have realized both improved
levels of service and financial benefits, such as reduced costs of
providing each trip, as follows:
Improved customer service:
* A coordinated system in central Florida provides transportation for
Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation, and other programs. According to
local officials, vans used to show up late, if at all, and clients had
difficulty finding out the status of their ride. Since consolidating
services under a single provider and bringing scheduling and dispatch
services in-house, officials report service improvement.
* Through collaboration, information-sharing, and cost-sharing among
county agencies, the Clinton County transit system in New York serves
both Medicaid and elderly populations, making it easier for those
populations to access medical and community services because they only
have to be familiar with one system.
* A federal regional official said that coordination can remove the
stigma of specialized transportation because all recipients use the
same service and are treated equally.
Financial benefits:
* Three New York counties joined in a transportation brokering
service[Footnote 11] that saved an estimated $92,000 in 2001 by
identifying a lower-cost alternative means of transportation, that is,
moving groups of clients in buses rather than transporting individual
clients in taxis. This brokerage service provides transportation to
Medicaid patients, the disabled, veterans, and other client groups.
* In Aberdeen, South Dakota, the local transit agency consolidated the
transportation services previously provided by both senior and medical
centers as well as other federal, state, and local programs. This
consolidation allowed the agency to increase the number of trips
provided while reducing the average cost of providing each trip by more
than 20 percent--from about $5 to $4. The agency has also improved its
services by coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and
weekend trips.
Lack of Coordination Can Lead to Overlapping Services and Confusion:
Although the various programs we reviewed target specific populations,
some populations are eligible to receive transportation services from
multiple programs, resulting in duplication and inefficiency in some
cases. In our visits with state and local transportation and human
service agencies and providers, we found examples of areas or programs
that were not coordinating, resulting in overlapping services. A for-
profit transportation provider in one state told us that he often has
two vehicles overlap on the same route at the same time, one for
medical trips and one for paratransit,[Footnote 12] because it is too
difficult to mix clients due to complicated fee structures and
paperwork requirements imposed by the state for the two programs. An
official from a workforce development program in another state told us
that many programs in his county use their own vans to deliver clients
to the job center, but because the programs do not coordinate, only a
few people ride in each van. In another area that has had difficulty
coordinating, several human service providers hired a consultant to
study the extent to which various agencies provide similar
transportation services within a geographic region. This research
showed substantial overlap in local services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, as shown in figure 1. The consultant identified ways in
which the number of routes could be substantially reduced through
better coordination.
Figure 1: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the
Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota:
[See PDF for image]
This picture shows the daily routes of vehicles operated by seven
different agencies in the same region of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Overlap occurs when routes have the same or nearby starting and ending
points and are transporting similar clients at similar times. This
graphic illustrates that many of these agencies have similar starting
and ending points. Among the agencies shown in this graphic are two
vocational rehabilitation agencies (serving the same general
population) as well as agencies that serve low-income clients or
clients with disabilities. While the graphic cannot show the time
element, many of these routes represent trips occurring within 30
minutes of each other in the morning and afternoon.
[End of figure]
We also found examples of fragmented services and confusion among users
as a result of uncoordinated programs. One official said that a lack of
coordination results in fragmented services, placing a burden on people
who receive transportation through many different programs, depending
on trip purpose, because they must be familiar with multiple systems,
rules, and requirements. Fragmentation also occurs when adjoining
counties do not coordinate their public transportation routes, leaving
riders stranded due to unconnected transit systems. For example, a
local transit administrator said that a 62-year old woman regularly
walks 1.5 miles from the northern border of the county to her job in
the next county, along roads with no sidewalks, because the counties do
not coordinate and the bus service does not connect across county
lines. Another provider in the same state has contracts to provide
transportation services for clients in multiple human service programs.
Because of a lack of coordination among those programs, the
transportation provider has to maintain two separate dispatching and
reservation systems for its vehicles to comply with differing reporting
and eligibility requirements. Vehicles can only operate under one
dispatching system at a time, so the drivers cannot provide rides to
more than one type of client at a time. In addition, the provider said
that clients who call for rides are confused by the sheer number of
programs, and the agents who make their reservations do not know for
which program the clients are eligible.
Officials Cited Numerous Obstacles to Successfully Coordinating
Services and Provided Potential Options to Mitigate Them:
Although some federal, state, and local agencies encourage the
coordination of services for the transportation-disadvantaged and some
coordination efforts have been established, officials representing
these agencies and experts in the area cited numerous obstacles that
impede more effective coordination of transportation services among
agencies, as well as potential ways for overcoming these obstacles.
Obstacles Related to Sharing Vehicles and Providing Financial Resources
for Coordination:
Officials pointed out that agencies may be reluctant to share vehicles
or may give low priority to funding coordination activities. In
addition, some areas have limited transportation services available,
thus limiting any opportunities to benefit from coordination.
Apprehension About Sharing Available Financial Resources and Vehicles:
Administrators of federal programs may be apprehensive about sharing
vehicles for coordination due, in part, to their concerns about a loss
of control over the quality of client services or their concerns about
mixing frail, sick, and healthy populations in one coordinated system.
According to a report on coordinated transportation systems, this
reluctance among providers to cooperate can lead to an underutilization
of vehicles.[Footnote 13] Likewise, some human service clients may be
apprehensive about using coordinated transportation because they may be
uncomfortable mixing with members of other populations with whom they
are unfamiliar or they may fear a loss of accommodation or convenience,
such as having to adjust from door-to-door service to curb-to-curb
service or public transit.
Low Priority Given to Funding Coordination Activities:
Despite the per unit cost-savings that some agencies have experienced
through coordinating, the overall cost of coordination can be
significant. For example, a transportation brokerage firm in one state
faced substantial added costs when it began providing transportation to
human service programs due to requirements to meet more stringent state
and federal safety standards. However, some officials stated that the
low priority given to funding coordination activities could impede
coordination efforts. For example, according to officials in one state,
although recipients of funds from DOT's Capital Assistance Program for
Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities are required to
coordinate with other local transportation services provided from
federal sources, DOT does not currently encourage the use of these
funds for administration of the program and, thus, the current
allotment for administrative expenses would not support any staff to
work on coordination activities.
Limited Availability of Transportation Services:
Coordination may not be an effective strategy in those communities that
have limited transportation services available, particularly in those
communities that are not served by public transportation. For example,
in some remote areas--such as the northwestern part of South Dakota
where services available to many communities are 40 to 60 miles away--
there are few transportation services available to transport
individuals to hospitals or other services. In these areas,
coordination may not be a workable or cost-effective option.
Obstacles Related to Programmatic Differences:
Coordinating multiple programs administered at various levels of
government is complicated because the programs have different
requirements with respect to eligibility, funding, reporting, and
safety; and they differ in their programmatic goals and missions.
Different Eligibility Rules:
Federal program rules that specify the eligible populations that each
program can serve may limit opportunities for collaboration. For
example, DOT officials in one region stated that they were unable to
combine DOL and DOT funds for a DOT transportation program for migrant
farm workers because DOL funds are designated for U.S. citizens, while
there is no such restriction on the use of DOT funds. In addition, some
liability insurance policies specify that a program's vehicles may
serve only a certain population, thus those programs face additional
insurance costs to transport individuals other than program clients.
Such restrictions can lead to inefficient transportation services
within a community. For example, an official in one state we visited
commented that one federal agency's vehicle provided medically related
trips three times per week to that agency's clients, but would not
transport other individuals seeking similar medical services provided
under other federal programs due, in part, to liability insurance
restrictions. Safety requirements also vary by program and
jurisdiction, thus complicating efforts to transport multiple client
groups. For instance, different standards for roof strength, types of
seat belts, and driver qualifications pose problems for schools, human
service agencies, and public transit providers interested in sharing
vehicles. Some areas have been able to overcome specific program rules
to share vehicles. For example, a Head Start grantee in one state we
visited was able to transport students using vehicles supplied by the
local public transit provider because these vehicles met the same
safety standards as school buses.
Varying Funding Streams and Cycles:
Funding streams and cycles vary across federal programs, making
coordination more difficult. For example, DOT funds generally flow from
the state to counties or cities, while DOL funds flow through the
states to local workforce investment boards. In addition, funding for
programs such as Head Start flows directly to grantees rather than
going through states, making it more difficult for the states to
directly manage the coordination activities of local grantees,
according to an official in one state. There is also complexity in
working with different funding time frames and cycles under multiple
federal programs. For example, although DOT's Job Access and Reverse
Commute (JARC) program encourages grantees to use other federal funds
to provide the local "match" required to obtain JARC funds, the funding
time frames and cycles of these other funding sources are different,
complicating efforts to combine financial resources.
Lack of Uniform Data Collection and Reporting Requirements Among
Programs:
Different reporting requirements among programs can create excessive
paperwork in a coordinated system and may make it difficult for
agencies to determine their true transportation costs and the benefits
that may be realized from coordination. For example, one report
commented that a transit provider was required to give each of several
human service agencies a separate type of bill for services provided,
which reflected the unique requirements imposed by each of those
agencies.[Footnote 14] In addition, human service agencies and
providers may not be required or accustomed to collecting complete and
uniform transportation data for their programs, even though such
information may enable administrators to estimate their transportation-
related costs and re-evaluate how best to provide transportation. For
example, when Florida's statewide coordination program was established,
state and local agencies in Florida reported their total estimated
annual transportation-related expenditures at $8 million. However, once
reporting requirements were in place for all agencies providing
services to the transportation-disadvantaged, actual expenditures were
estimated to total $224.9 million--much higher than the initial
estimate. Such information has helped human service agencies in Florida
understand their true transportation costs, which has encouraged some
of these agencies to be more interested in coordination as they realize
the potential for cost savings.
Distinct Purposes and Goals Among Agencies:
Unlike transportation agencies, human service agencies provide
transportation as a secondary service so that their clients may access
primary human services. Therefore, while DOT-funded transportation
agencies have specific and relatively uniform federal requirements for
transportation planning, human service agencies do not typically
conduct transportation planning or collect transportation-related data
for their programs, making the planning of coordinated transportation
services between transportation and human service agencies
challenging.[Footnote 15] In addition, human service, transportation,
medical, and workforce agencies all have distinct technical languages
and cultures, which may inhibit collaboration among these agencies. In
one state we visited, the labor and transportation departments
experienced difficulty collaborating because some common terms have
completely different meanings within each agency. For example,
transportation officials interpreted the term "cost-allocation" as an
accounting methodology to estimate the overall cost of operating
transportation services in order to determine the appropriate rate to
charge for these services, while state labor officials interpreted the
term as a way to determine what proportion of overall costs will be
funded by each agency.
Obstacles Related to Limited Federal and State Guidance and Information
on Coordination:
Although some federal and state agencies have recognized the potential
offered by coordination and provided some assistance toward this end,
some state officials we interviewed expressed concerns about the amount
and effectiveness of the guidance they have received on coordination.
In addition, the absence of interagency forums or other mechanisms to
develop and share information about initiatives to coordinate services
limits the support that local providers receive to effectively
coordinate.
Limited Federal Guidance and Information on Coordination:
Officials in some states we visited said that they receive little
federal guidance on potential strategies to coordinate services. As a
result, they develop their own approaches without the benefit of
guidance on the most effective way to coordinate services. For example,
officials in one state said that there was insufficient guidance on how
to share costs among programs for projects funded jointly by DOT's JARC
grants, HHS's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and DOL's
Welfare-to-Work program funds. Instead, they had to seek advice from
other states. In addition, the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility is not directly funded and has limited visibility for agencies
actually involved in implementing coordination efforts. For example,
although the Council has developed a Web site[Footnote 16] that is
accessible through a link on the Federal Transit Administration's
section of DOT's Web site, there is no similar link from HHS's Web
site, possibly limiting human service agencies' awareness of and
ability to access the site. In several states, human service program
administrators with whom we spoke were not aware of the Council or its
Web site.
Limited State Guidance and Information on Coordination:
In the five states we visited--even in those states with a coordinating
body--there was limited state guidance to help local areas implement
coordination, and some officials stated that the lack of leadership and
commitment at the state level was a major obstacle to local
coordination. In addition, while some states have established
coordinating councils or bodies or have designated a lead agency for
coordination, nearly one-half of the states have no coordinating body,
according to one report.[Footnote 17] Officials in one state explained
that the lack of a coordinating body that requires various agencies to
discuss and resolve transportation issues is the main obstacle toward a
more coordinated system.
Potential Options to Improve Coordination:
Federal, state, and local officials, as well as experts in the area,
have suggested a number of potential ways to improve coordination of
transportation services among federal programs. We are still in the
process of collecting additional information and reviewing it with
stakeholders, but three key options have emerged thus far.
Harmonizing Program Standards and Requirements:
Officials and experts expressed a need to harmonize requirements among
federal programs, such as providing more flexible regulatory language
that would allow providers to serve additional client groups, creating
consistent cost accounting methods, and adopting common safety
standards. For example, one official commented that federal program
regulations could include language permitting other client groups to
make use of available transportation options. Also, some officials
believed that adopting standard accounting procedures could provide a
consistent measure for comparing services, allowing administrators to
evaluate how best to provide transportation services and determine the
savings they could achieve through coordination. Likewise, making
standards for safety (e.g., types of seat belts) and driver training
uniform among federal human service programs, as appropriate, may
facilitate the shared use of vehicles and drivers in one coordinated
system, according to some officials. Finally, some officials suggested
that federal grant programs that allow the use of funds from multiple
sources should be under the same funding cycle or time frame so that
these funds may be combined more easily. However, differing program
standards exist to ensure that the distinct needs of specific target
populations are adequately served and that agencies maintain
accountability for providing these services. Thus, the benefits from
any change in standards or requirements would need to be balanced
against continuing to properly meet client needs and sufficiently
control funds distributed to grantees. In addition, harmonizing program
standards and requirements among 62 federal programs authorized by more
than 20 pieces of legislation would necessitate extensive legislative
changes and could impose additional costs for agencies to meet new
requirements.
Expanding Forums and Providing and Disseminating Additional Guidance
and Information on Coordination:
Some officials advocated expanding the number of agencies involved in
coordination, establishing interagency forums, and improving central
clearinghouses as ways to better develop and disseminate guidance on
coordination. To enhance coordination efforts at the federal level,
some officials suggested expanding the membership of the Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility to include additional agencies so that a
broader array of agencies that serve the transportation-disadvantaged
are represented. This could include agencies such as DOL and the
Department of Education that we identified as being significant because
a large number of their programs authorize the funding of
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged. In
addition, establishing state-level forums may also facilitate
communication among agencies involved in coordination and can lead to
benefits. For example, one state has established an interagency task
force on transportation coordination, which has resulted in a number of
benefits--including the pooling of vehicles and the expansion of
services--in some areas of the state. Some officials and experts
suggested that federal agencies provide additional guidance and other
information that result from forums or other sources to clearly define
the allowable uses of funds, assist agencies in developing cost-sharing
arrangements for transporting common clientele, and encourage the
establishment and participation in interagency forums. This additional
guidance and information could be better disseminated through a central
clearinghouse, such as the Coordinating Council's Web site.
Providing Financial Incentives or Mandates:
Some officials and experts believed that incentives or mandates could
help improve coordination, although others expressed concerns that such
actions would have negative effects on the ability of local agencies to
respond to community needs. Officials provided several examples,
including the following:
* Federal grant applications could contain provisions giving priority
in funding to those grantees committed to coordination efforts.
* Current funds allotted by multiple federal sources could be combined
into one state or local fund for transportation services for the
transportation-disadvantaged.
* Funding opportunities could be tied to federal or state coordination
mandates so that there are financial consequences for a failure to
coordinate.
However, officials pointed out that these options also had some
potential downsides that would need to be carefully considered. For
example, combining funds into a single source could result in some
populations being unfairly overlooked because smaller agencies would be
at a disadvantage in competing for funding with larger agencies serving
larger numbers of clients. In addition, several officials also raised
concerns about mandates to coordinate. For example, some officials said
that mandates might reduce the flexibility of agencies to design and
deliver transportation services that specifically address their
communities' needs. In addition, some officials noted that state
efforts or mandates might not guarantee successful local coordination.
For example, a city in one state we visited was unsuccessful in
coordinating its multiple transportation services despite state
encouragement to do so and despite losing some federal funding as a
result.
Messrs. Chairmen, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or Members of the Committees may
have at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Rita Grieco,
Bradley Hunt, Susan Irving, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Sara Ann Moessbauer,
Hilary Murrish, Ryan Petitte, Stanley Stenersen, Andrew Von Ah, and
Randall Williamson.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our scope of work included federal programs that provide transportation
services to the transportation-disadvantaged. To provide information on
the purposes and types of such federal programs, we first determined
the universe of programs by reviewing an existing inventory produced by
the Community Transportation Association of America[Footnote 18] and a
report prepared for the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility.[Footnote 19] We then supplemented and modified this inventory
of programs based on interviews with agency officials and searches of
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. We included only those
programs that provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface
transportation services of any kind, targeted to transportation-
disadvantaged populations. We interviewed program administrators to
identify the general target population and the types of transportation
services and trips that are typically provided under each program.
To address the issues related to program funding, effects of
coordination, and coordination obstacles and strategies, we: (1)
conducted interviews and document reviews in the pertinent federal
agencies; (2) conducted five case studies in Arizona, Florida, New
York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; (3) reviewed the literature on the
challenges encountered in providing and coordinating services to the
transportation-disadvantaged; and (4) interviewed industry
representatives and advocacy groups representing elderly and disabled
populations. We did not verify spending data or estimates received from
federal agencies for accuracy.
At the federal level, we interviewed officials from the headquarters of
the Federal Transit Administration in the Department of Transportation;
the Administration on Aging, the Administration for Children and
Families, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Health
Resources Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration in the Department of Health and Human
Services; the Employment and Training Administration in the Department
of Labor; the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Education;
the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of the
Interior; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We also interviewed
federal officials from the 10 regional offices of the Federal Transit
Administration and some regional officials in the departments of Health
and Human Services and Labor. The federal officials we met with
included representatives of the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility from the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of
Health and Human Services.
In conducting our case studies in the five states, we reviewed
documentation and interviewed officials from state and local
transportation and human service agencies and service providers, as
well as consumers of transportation services. We judgmentally chose the
states to include three states without a state mandate or state
coordinating body and two states with such conditions. We also chose
states on the basis of relative concentrations of elderly, disabled,
and low-income populations, and for some, geographic dispersion.
Finally, we interviewed representatives of professional, industry, and
advocacy organizations that are part of the National Consortium on the
Coordination of Human Services Transportation, a group that represents
a broad spectrum of stakeholders involved with coordination of
transportation for the disadvantaged. We conducted our work from July
2002 through April 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs:
Table 2: :
Program: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
Program: Food Stamp Employment and Training Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 7 U.S.C. § 2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(I); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Reimbursement or advanced payment for gasoline
expenses or bus fare; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access
education, training, employment services, and employment placements;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income persons between the
ages of 16 and 59; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $12,952,956[C].
Program: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education.
Program: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 20 U.S.C. § 7173(a)(10); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Contract for service; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access educational services; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Students from low-income families; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $84,600,000 (estimate)[D].
Program: Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement.
Program: Voluntary Public School Choice; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds
for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 20 U.S.C. § 7225a(a); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Contract for services, purchase and operate vehicles, hire bus drivers
& transportation directors, purchase bus passes, redesign
transportation plans including new routing systems, offer professional
development for bus drivers; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access educational services and programs; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Students from under-performing schools who choose to transfer
to higher performing schools; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: New program, no actual data or estimate available
from the federal agency.
Program: Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
Program: Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities;
Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 20 U.S.C. §§
1401(a)(22), 1411(a)(1); Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase and
operate vehicles, contract for service; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access educational services; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Children with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Centers for Independent Living; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 796f-4(b)(3) and 705(18)(xi); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Referral, assistance, and training in the use of
public transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access
program services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with a
significant disability; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are
Blind; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Workforce Investment Act of
1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §
796k(e)(5); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Referral, assistance, and
training in the use of public transportation; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access program services, for general trips;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons aged 55 or older who
have significant visual impairment; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Independent Living State Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 796e-2(1) and 705(18)(xi); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Referral, assistance, and training in the use of
public transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access
program services, employment opportunities; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Persons with a significant disability; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe
Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Workforce Investment Act of
1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§
795g and 705(36); Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Vehicle
modifications, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access employment placements, employment services, and vocational
rehabilitation services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Persons with a significant disability; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency[E].
Program: Vocational Rehabilitation Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. § 723(a)(8); Typical uses as reported
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Vehicle modifications, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access employment placements, employment services, and
vocational rehabilitation services; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Persons with physical or mental impairments; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $49,200,000 (estimate)[E].
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families.
Program: Child Care and Development Fund; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 9858c; Typical
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: States rarely use CCDF funds for transportation
and only under very
restricted circumstances; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access child care services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Children from low-income families; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $0 (estimate)[F].
Program: Community Services Block Grant Programs; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Community Opportunities, Accountability, Training, and
Educational Services Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 9904; Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Taxi
vouchers, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income persons; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance;
Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: Developmental Disabilities Assistance and
Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15081(2)(D); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Transportation information, feasibility studies, planning; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Persons with developmental disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency[G].
Program: Head Start; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Augustus F.
Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 USCA § 9835(a)(3)(C)(ii);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase and operate vehicles,
contract with transportation providers, coordinate with local education
agencies; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access educational
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Children from
low-income families; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $514,500,000 (estimate)[H].
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access employment and educational services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Refugees; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance State Administered Programs;
Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access employment and educational services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Refugees; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Targeted Assistance; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access employment and educational services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Refugees; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Voluntary Agency Programs;
Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access employment and educational services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Refugees; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Social Services Block Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds
for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 1397a(a)(2)(A); Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access medical or social services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: States determine what categories of families and
children; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $18,459,393.
Program: State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and Protection
and Advocacy Systems; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15025;
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: States are encouraged to
provide transportation services instead of vehicles; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Attendance at meetings, conferences, trainings;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with developmental
disabilities and family members; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $786,605 (partial outlay)[I].
Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
42 U.S.C. §§ 604(a), (k); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any
transportation-related use, matching portion of JARC grants; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: No assistance is provided to families without a minor child,
but states determine specific eligibility; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $160,462,214 (partial outlay)[J].
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Aging.
Program: Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 3030d (a)(2);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Contract for services; Types
of trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: To access program services, medical, and
for general trips; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Program is targeted to persons aged 60 or over; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $72,496,003.
Program: Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native
Hawaiian Elders; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Older Americans Act of
1965, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
42 U.S.C. §§ 3057, 3030d(a)(2); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Purchase and operate vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access program services, medical, and for general trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Program is for American
Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian elders; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.
Program: Medicaid; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Social Security Act, as
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. §§
1396a, 1396n(e)(1)(A); Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens,
subway passes, brokerage services; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access health care services; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Recipients are generally low-income persons, but states
determine specific eligibility; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $976,200,000 (estimate)[K].
Program: State Children's Health Insurance Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement Act of
2000; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. §§
1397jj(a)(26), (27); Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any
transportation-related use; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access health care services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Beneficiaries are children from low-income families, but states
determine eligibility; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $4,398,089.
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and
Services Administration.
Program: Community Health Centers; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 254b(b)(1)(A)(iv); Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Bus tokens, vouchers, transportation coordinators, and
drivers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access health care
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Medically
underserved populations; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $4,200,000 (estimate)[L].
Program: Healthy Communities Access Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 256(e)(B)(iii); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Improve coordination of transportation; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Uninsured or underinsured
populations; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Healthy Start Initiative; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 254c-8(e)(1); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus
tokens, taxi vouchers, reimbursement for use of own vehicle; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Residents of areas with
significant perinatal health disparities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: HIV Care Formula Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. §§ 300ff-21(a),
23(a)(2)(B); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus passes, tokens, taxis,
vanpools, vehicle purchase by providers, mileage reimbursement; Types
of trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with HIV or AIDS; FY
2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $19,500,000 (estimate)[M].
Program: Maternal and Child Services Grants; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1)(A); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Mothers, infants and children, particularly from
low-income families; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Rural Health Care, Rural Health Network, and Small Health Care
Provider Programs; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Health Centers
Consolidation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
42 U.S.C. § 254c; Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase
vehicles, bus passes; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access health
care services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Medically
underserved populations in rural areas; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration.
Program: Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 300x-1(b)(1); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access program services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Adults with mental illness and children with
emotional disturbance; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 300x-32(b);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related
use; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access program services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with a substance
related disorder and/or recovering from substance related disorder; FY
2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Community Planning and Development.
Program: Community Development Block Grant; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 5305(a)(8);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase and operate vehicles;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Program must serve a majority
of low-income persons; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $6,761,486
(partial outlay)[N].
Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: AIDS Housing Opportunity Act; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 12907(a)(3); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access health
care and other services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Low-income persons with HIV or AIDS and their families; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $73,000
(estimate)[O].
Program: Supportive Housing Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 11385; Typical
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, purchase and operate
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access supportive
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Homeless persons
and families with children; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency[P].
Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public
and Indian Housing.
Program: Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. §
1437v(l)(3); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens, taxi vouchers,
contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Trips related to
employment or obtaining necessary supportive services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Residents of the severely
distressed housing and residents of the revitalized units; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $700,000 (estimate)[Q].
Program: Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Program: Indian Employment Assistance; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Adult Indian Vocational Training Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 25 U.S.C. § 309; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Gas vouchers; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access
training; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Native American
persons between the ages of 18 and 35; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Indian Employment, Training and Related Services[R]; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Indian Employment, Training and Related Services
Demonstration Act of 1992; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
25 U.S.C. § 3401; Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Gas vouchers;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Employment-related; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income Native American
persons; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
Program: Job Corps; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Workforce
Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
29 U.S.C. §§ 2888(a)(1), 2890; Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus
tickets; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access Job Corps sites and
employment services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Low-income youth; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $21,612,000.
Program: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2912(d); Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Mileage reimbursement; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access employment placements or intensive and training services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income persons and their
dependents who are primarily employed in agricultural labor that is
seasonal or migratory; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Native American Employment and Training; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. § 2911(d)(2); Typical uses as reported
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Bus tokens, transit passes; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access employment placements, employment services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Unemployed American Indians
and other persons of Native American descent; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Senior Community Service Employment Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Older Americans Act of 1965; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 3056(c)(6)(A)(iv); Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Mileage reimbursement, reimbursement for travel costs, and
payment for cost of transportation; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access employment placements; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Low-income persons aged 55 or over; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $4,400,000 (estimate)[S].
Program: Trade Adjustment Assistance - Workers; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Trade Act of 1974, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 19 U.S.C. § 2296(b); Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Mileage reimbursement, transit fares; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access training; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Persons found to be impacted by foreign trade, increased
imports, or shift in production; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and
Alaska Natives[T]; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 612(a)(3)(C); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related use, though purchasing
vehicles for individuals is not allowable; Types of trips as reported
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access employment placements, employment services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: American Indians and other
persons of Native American descent who are long-term welfare recipients
or are low-income; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities[T]; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(5)(C); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any
transportation-related use, though purchasing vehicles for individuals
is not allowable; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access
employment placements, employment services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Long-term welfare recipients or low-income
individuals; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Work Incentive Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2864(d)(2); Typical uses
as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Encourage collaboration with transportation
providers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access one-stop
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with
disabilities who are eligible for employment and training services
under WIA; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Adult Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46),
2864(e)(2); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Mileage reimbursement, bus
tokens, vouchers; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access
training; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Priority must be
given to people on public assistance and low-income individuals; FY
2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46),
2864(e)(2); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Transportation allowance or
reimbursement, bus/subway tokens; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access transition assistance in order to find or qualify for new
employment; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Includes workers
who have been laid off, or have received an individual notice of
termination, or notice that a facility will close; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46),
2854(a)(4); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Public transportation;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access training and other
support services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Youth with low
individual or family income; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Youth Opportunity Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2914(b); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To
access program services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Youth from high poverty areas, empowerment zones, or enterprise
communities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $415,000 (estimate)[U].
Program: Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration.
Program: Black Lung Benefits Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 30 U.S.C. § 923; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Mileage reimbursement, transit fares, taxi vouchers; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: To access health services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Disabled coal miners; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency[V].
Program: Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service.
Program: Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 38 USCA §§ 2011, 2021; Typical
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To access employment services; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Homeless veterans; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Veterans' Employment Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2913; Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Bus tokens, minor repairs to vehicles; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: To access employment services; Target population
as defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Veterans; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.
Program: Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus
Accessibility; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Title 49 Recodification, P.L.
103-272; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. §
5310; Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To make vehicles wheelchair
accessible and training required by ADA; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: General trips; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Persons with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $2,877,818.
Program: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons
with Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Title 49 Recodification,
P.L. 103-272; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
49 U.S.C. § 5310; Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Assistance in
purchasing vehicles, contract for services; Types of trips as reported
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: To serve the needs of the elderly and persons with
disabilities; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Elderly persons
and persons with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $174,982,628.
Program: Capital Investment Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5309; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Assistance for bus and bus-related capital projects; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: General public, although some projects are for the special
needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $17,500,000 (estimate)[W].
Program: Job Access and Reverse Commute; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5309; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Expand exisiting public transportation or initiate new
service; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access employment and
related services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income
persons, including persons with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $85,009,627.
Program: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 103-272; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5311; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Capital and operating assistance for public transportation
service, including paratransit services, in nonurbanized areas; Types
of trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: General public, although paratransit services are for the
special needs of persons with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $0; (partial obligation)[X].
Program: Urbanized Area Formula Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 103-272, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5307; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Capital assistance, and some operating assistance for public
transit, including paratransit services, in urbanized areas; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: General public, although paratransit services are for the
special needs of persons with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $36,949,680 (partial obligation)[Y].
Program: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration.
Program: Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled
Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Disabled Veterans and Servicemen's Automobile Assistance Act of 1970;
U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 38 U.S.C. § 3902; Typical
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: Purchase of personal vehicles, modifications of
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Veterans and service members
with disabilities; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $33,639,000.
Program: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health
Administration.
Program: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; Popular
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act
of 1992; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 38 U.S.C. § 7721
note; Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 20 vans were purchased under
this program; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Homeless veterans; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $565,797.
Program: Veterans Medical Care Benefits; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service: 38 U.S.C. § 111; Typical uses as reported by
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service: Mileage reimbursement, contract for service; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: Veterans with disabilities or low-incomes; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $126,594,591.
Program: Total spending on transportation services for the
transportation-disadvantaged; FY 2001
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service: $2,429,835,887.
Source: GAO analysis of information from the Departments of
Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility; the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance; the U.S. Code; the Code of Federal Regulations;
and the Community Transportation Association of America.
[A] A supplemental source for the target populations was the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
[B] Actual outlays or obligations on transportation are given for
programs that track this information. All data are outlays, except for
the following programs, which are obligations: Capital Investment
Grants, Urbanized Area Formula Program, Nonurbanized Area Formula
Program, Job Access and Reverse Commute, Capital and Training
Assistance for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, Capital Assistance
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Automobiles
and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the
Armed Forces, and Veterans Medical Care Benefits. Actual data and
estimates are the total for the program, unless otherwise noted as
partial outlays or obligations in the table. When actual information
was not available, estimates are given based on information provided by
program officials or the officials agreed with an estimate made by
another source.
[C] According to a program official, outlays for the Food Stamp
Employment and Training Program have increased due to changes in the
program from the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill eliminates the $25
per month cap that the Department of Agriculture will reimburse the
states for transportation and other work costs incurred by
participants. In fiscal year 2002, federal outlays for transportation
were $18,523,535.
[D] A program official said that 10 percent of total program outlays
would be a conservative estimate of transportation outlays.
[E] According to a program official, grantees report total
transportation outlays for Vocational Rehabilitation Grants, Supported
Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Disabilities, and other
rehabilitation sources together. The program official reports that
transportation outlays for Vocational Rehabilitation Grants are
approximately 90 percent of the total amount reported, but did not
provide a similar estimate for Supported Employment Services for
Individuals with Severe Disabilities.
[F] A program official said that, while transportation is an allowable
use of funds, using funds for transportation is not encouraged. Program
officials estimate that transportation expenditures are zero or close
to zero for this program.
[G] Fiscal year 2001 data are not available because transportation was
not an area of emphasis until fiscal year 2002. The preliminary fiscal
year 2002 outlays for transportation projects totaled $1,084,798.
[H] A program official estimated that transportation outlays were 8.3
percent of total outlays.
[ I] This is a partial outlay based on voluntary reporting by grantees.
Full outlays are not available because, according to a program
official, grantees were not required to report transportation outlays
prior to fiscal year 2002. Fiscal year 2002 data are incomplete,
however preliminary data on transportation outlays from 46 of the 51
grantees totaled $2,215,498.
[J] This is a partial outlay based on the amount grantees reported as
non-assistance outlays in a category exclusively for transportation.
States reported an additional $356.5 million as outlays on assistance
in a category that includes transportation and supportive services,
however program officials were unable to determine what percentage of
the outlays on assistance were spent on transportation.
[K] Program officials indicate that federal data on nonemergency
medical transportation are not available. Estimate assumes that
transportation outlays are 0.73 percent of total program outlays, based
on previous research, including a survey of state Medicaid programs.
[L] According to a program official, grantees report total outlays for
transportation and it is not possible to distinguish between federal
and nonfederal funds. The official said 22 percent of total
transportation outlays would be a good estimate of the federal portion
of fiscal year 2001 transportation outlays.
[M] Estimate of transportation outlays is based on data from grantee's
budget allocations, as suggested by an agency official.
[N] This is a partial outlay for transportation through the Community
Development Block Grant program. This figure includes transportation
outlays for the Entitlement program, but excludes the State
Administered program.
[O] This is a partial estimate because, according to a program
official, data on transportation outlays are only available from
competitive grantees; formula grantees are not required to report
outlays for transportation. The program official could not provide an
estimate of outlays for transportation through the formula grant
program. The program official said that fiscal year 2001 data for the
competitive grant program are incomplete and the agency is still
collecting fiscal year 2001 data from approximately one-third of its
competitive grantees, due to differing reporting schedules. As of March
2003, competitive grantees reported outlays of approximately $60,000 on
transportation, and the program official expects total outlays for
transportation to reach the level of outlays on transportation in
fiscal year 1999 (approximately $73,000) or more after all competitive
grantees report data.
[P] Data on outlays for transportation are not available. The agency
does collect data on the amount that grantees request for various
supportive services, including transportation. These requests may cover
1, 2, or 3 years; a program official said that they could not easily
determine for how many years grantees are requesting money. In fiscal
year 2001, grantees requested $12,973,992 for transportation.
[Q] Estimate of outlays for transportation is based on a program
official's review of the budgets from 15 grantees who renewed their
grants in fiscal year 2001. The official projected total transportation
outlays for the program based on these 15 grantees.
[R] Public Law 102-477 allows tribal governments to consolidate funding
from several federal programs. These include: the Department of Health
and Human Services's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Child
Care and Development Fund programs; the Department of Labor's Native
American Employment and Training, and Welfare-to-Work Grants for
Federally Recognized Tribes programs; and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs's Employment Assistance, Indian Social Service and Welfare
Assistance, Adult Basic Education, and Higher Education programs. The
Indian Social Services and Welfare Assistance Program is not used for
transportation outside 102-477. The Adult Basic Education and Higher
Education programs do not target transportation-disadvantaged
populations as defined in this study outside of 102-477. The Employment
Assistance program and the HHS and DOL programs can provide
transportation assistance separately from 102-477.
[S] A program official estimated that transportation outlays were
approximately 1 percent of total program outlays.
[T] Program funding from FY 1998 and 1999 may still be spent, but the
program no longer receives funding.
[U] Estimate of transportation outlays is based on a program official's
review of grantee obligations.
[V] According to a program official, fiscal year 2001 data are not
available due to changes in the program's reporting system. The
official reported that transportation outlays for fiscal year 2002
totaled $478,408.
[W] According to a program official, there are three distinct
allocations of funds under the Capital Investment Grants: the New
Starts allocation, which funds new rail projects; the fixed-guideway
modernization allocation, which provides funding to maintain and update
aging rail systems; and the bus allocation, which provides funding for
the purchase of buses, bus-related equipment and paratransit vehicles,
and for the construction of bus-related facilities. Because the Capital
Investment Grants fund projects that provide services for the general
public, the transportation-disadvantaged likely benefit from many
projects funded through each of the three allocations, but information
was not available to estimate what portion of these funds for the
general public benefit the transportation-disadvantaged. However, the
program official said that the bus allocation would likely provide the
most direct benefit for the transportation-disadvantaged and the
obligation level could be estimated by totaling allocations to purchase
vans, buses for the elderly or disabled, or paratransit vehicles and
equipment.
[X] The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program funds projects that provide
services for the general public, however grantees can use up to 10
percent of their funds to provide complementary ADA paratransit
services. Although grantees did not report obligations for
complementary ADA paratransit, a program official said that
transportation-disadvantaged populations might benefit from other
services provided through this grant, such as demand-responsive
services. However, the program official could not identify the amount
of spending that directly benefits the transportation-disadvantaged.
[ Y] According to a program official, the Urbanized Area Formula
Program funds projects that provide services for the general public,
however grantees can use up to 10 percent of their funds to provide
complementary ADA paratransit services. The figure listed in the table
is the total obligations that grantees reported for providing
complementary ADA paratransit services. Although grantees may benefit
from other services provided through this grant, such as demand-
responsive services, the amount spent on complementary ADA paratransit
is the only portion that program officials could identify as directly
benefiting the transportation-disadvantaged.
[End of table]
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this testimony, spending refers to actual or estimated outlays
or obligations, depending on what information was available from the
agency.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Hindrances to Coordinating
Transportation of People Participating in Federally Funded Grant
Programs: Volume I, GAO/RCED-77-119 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 1977).
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Coordination:
Benefits and Barriers Exist, and Planning Efforts Progress Slowly, GAO/
RCED-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 1999).
[4] P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998).
[5] For example, a report prepared for the AARP found that
transportation resources for the elderly, disabled, and other groups
were often not coordinated and led to duplication of services. The
services were also found to vary in quality and to fail to address the
needs of individuals who did not meet specific agency or program
eligibility requirements. See Jon E. Burkhardt, Coordinated
Transportation Systems (AARP, Washington, D.C.: September 2000).
[6] In addition to these 62 programs, it is likely that there are other
federal programs that could be used to fund transportation improvements
or other transportation services. Our scope included programs that
provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface transportation services,
targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations. We excluded most
programs that were strictly for research or demonstration activities or
provided strictly cash assistance with no restrictions on use, as well
as some economic development programs that benefit the general public
and are not targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations.
Efforts by other researchers to inventory all federal programs that
could conceivably provide transportation yielded additional programs
not found in our inventory due to differing selection criteria.
Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility
Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.:
March 2002).
[7] Two DOT programs that are included here, the Urbanized Area and
Nonurbanized Area Formula Programs, are used to support mass transit
intended for the general public, many of whom could conceivably provide
their own transportation. We include them because the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 126) requires that transit
operators provide accessible paratransit service that is comparable to
their regular service for disabled individuals who are unable to
provide their own transportation or access the regular transit system,
and TEA-21 allows a portion of these transit formula grants to be used
to offset paratransit operating costs. Because it is impossible to
determine the amount these programs spend to provide transportation to
transportation-disadvantaged populations, who are among the general
population that is served by these programs, we only report on the
portion of these funds used for ADA paratransit.
[8] Of these 28 programs, 16 provided actual spending data for fiscal
year 2001. Program officials for the remaining 12 programs provided an
estimate of transportation spending for 2001.
[9] There was no spending information available on four programs viewed
as important providers of transportation services. These programs
included HHS's Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native
Hawaiian Elders and DOL's Workforce Investment Act Adult Program,
Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program, and Workforce
Investment Act Youth Activities. The Community Transportation
Association of America, a national, professional membership association
that conducts research and provides technical assistance for community
transportation providers, identified the four programs, whose total
obligations were $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2001, as routinely used to
provide transportation. While information was not available on the
portion of the $3.7 billion devoted to providing transportation
services, we were able to analyze data on other human services programs
which indicates that, on average, about 3 percent of total spending on
those programs was devoted to transportation.
[10] The amount that states are required to contribute depends on how
states claim transportation under Medicaid. If states claim
transportation as an optional medical expense, the state or local
portion ranges from 17 to 50 percent of total costs, based on a measure
known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. If states claim
transportation as an administrative expense, the state or local portion
is 50 percent of total costs.
[11] The Community Transportation Association of America defines
brokerage as a method of providing transportation where riders are
matched with appropriate transportation providers through a central
trip-request and administration facility. The transportation broker may
centralize vehicle dispatch, record keeping, vehicle maintenance, and
other functions under contractual arrangements with agencies,
municipalities, and other organizations. Actual trips are provided by a
number of different vendors.
[12] Paratransit most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-
response van service, according to the Community Transportation
Association of America, and is more flexible than fixed route transit
but more structured than the use of a private automobile.
[13] Moss Adams LLP, Community Transportation Association of America,
The Coordination Challenge (Seattle, WA: June 2000).
[14] Ecosometrics, Inc., Recommended Framework for Developing State and
Local Human Services Transportation Planning Guidance (Bethesda, MD:
Sept. 22, 1998).
[15] Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Innovative State and
Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation (Washington, D.C.:
February 2002).
[16] www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/www.index.html
[17] Westat, Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation
Services, Transit Cooperative Research Project of the Transportation
Research Board, Project B-24, Interim Report (Rockville, MD: March
2002).
[18] Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility
Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.:
March 2002).
[19] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines
for State and Local Coordination (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2000).
