Welfare Reform
Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed Gao ID: GAO-03-204 December 6, 2002Pursuant to Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), GAO periodically reports on the implementation of the Job Access and Reverse Commute (Job Access) program. The program is designed to assist low-income people in accessing employment opportunities. This report examines the Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts to evaluate the program and report the results to the Congress. GAO also examined (1) transportation and related services provided by the program; (2) whether the program fosters collaboration between Job Access grantees and others in the design, financing, and delivery of those services; and (3) whether Job Access services would be financially sustainable after the end of Job Access funding.
Since 1999, DOT has awarded over $355 million for 352 Job Access grants in 42 states to help low-income people get to job opportunities and job support services, such as training and child care. Job Access grantees used various approaches to provide transportation for this purpose, such as expanding existing bus service, adding new areas to be served by an existing fixed transit route, or enhancing the frequency of the service. The program has met its goal of encouraging collaboration among transportation, human service, and other community-based agencies in Job Access service design, implementation, and financing. However, most of the program's services are not financially sustainable. For example, 12 percent of Job Access grantees indicated that they could continue their services after the end of program funding, while 41 percent reported they would likely terminate or decrease services, and 47 percent were uncertain about their ability to continue those services. DOT has not evaluated the Job Access program or reported to the Congress, as TEA-21 requires. The department therefore is missing an opportunity to provide timely information to the Congress that could assist it in deciding whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. GAO has several concerns about DOT's plans to evaluate the Job Access program. For its evaluation, DOT initially planned to use one performance measure--employment sites served. However, using a methodology that is based on this measure would yield limited information because it only partially addresses the program's goal of providing transportation to low-income people and does not address other program goals and criteria. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) program officials informed GAO that they also plan to use other performance measures, but they did not provide sufficient detail for GAO to comment on the quality of their evaluation. Moreover, the final report's date of issuance and its contents are uncertain because the report has yet to be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and the Office of Management and Budget. DOT officials did not provide GAO with an estimated date for submitting the report to the Congress.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-204, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-204
entitled 'Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service
Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed' which was released on
December 06, 2002.
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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
December 2002:
WELFARE REFORM:
Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation
Should Be Completed:
GAO-03-204:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOT‘s Evaluation Has Been Delayed and May Not Address Significant
Aspects of the Job Access Program:
Varied Services Delivered and Collaboration Improved, but Projects‘
Sustainability and Use of Federal Funds Can Be Improved:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Summary of Previous GAO Reports:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:
Review of Selected, Ongoing Job Access Projects:
Survey of Job Access Grantees:
Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts:
Appendix III: Services of Selected Job Access Grants
Alliance for Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) -
Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry
Transportation Services - Kings County and Kerns County, California:
Capital District Transportation Authority - Albany, New York:
City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services - Albuquerque, New
Mexico:
City of Santa Rosa Citybus - Santa Rosa, California:
Fort Worth Transportation Authority - Fort Worth, Texas:
Good News Garage, Commuteshare - Burlington, Vermont:
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Frankfort, Kentucky:
Housing Department - Las Vegas, New Mexico:
Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
- Annapolis, Maryland:
Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs - New York City:
State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job
Access:
Transit Authority of River City - Louisville, Kentucky:
Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services:
Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees
Appendix V: GAO COntact and Staff Acknowledgement:
Tables:
Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to Our
Survey:
Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees:
Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited:
Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access
Project:
Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project:
Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access
Project:
Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project:
Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project:
Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access
Project:
Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project:
Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access
Project:
Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job
Access Project:
Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job Access
Program:
Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project:
Table 15: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and Rural
Job Access Project:
Table 16: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and Rural
Job Access Project:
Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access
Services:
Abbreviations:
AITS: Agriculture Industry Transportation Services:
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation:
CTAA: Community Transportation Association of America:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
FWTA: Fort Worth Transportation Authority:
FY: fiscal year:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
LIFT: Low-Income Flexible Transportation:
MTA: Maryland Transit Administration:
MTC: Metropolitan Transportation Commission:
PATH: Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and
Health Access:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program:
TARC: Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, Kentucky):
TDA: Transportation Development Act (California State):
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
Letter December 6, 2002:
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Chairman
The Honorable Phil Gramm
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs
United States Senate:
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman
The Honorable James L. Oberstar
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
The government‘s national welfare reform effort seeks to transition
welfare recipients from welfare to work. One important factor in
welfare recipients‘ finding and keeping work is their access to
adequate transportation. In 1998, the Congress found that while three-
fourths of welfare recipients lived in central cities or rural areas,
two-thirds of new jobs were located in the suburbs. Public
transportation facilities, such as buses or subways, often offer
limited or no access to many of the places where jobs are located. As a
result, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
authorized up to $750 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for
the Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) Job Access and Reverse Commute
(Job Access) Program. The program attempts to fill gaps in
transportation services that constitute barriers to low-income
people[Footnote 1] accessing job opportunities. The program provides
grants to transit agencies, local human service agencies, and others.
DOT‘s two major goals for the program are to (1) provide transportation
and related services to urban, suburban, and rural areas to assist low-
income individuals, including welfare recipients, with access to
employment and related services, such as child care and training, and
(2) increase collaboration among such parties as transportation
providers, human service agencies, employers, and others in planning,
funding, and delivering those services. Since TEA-21 expires at the end
of fiscal year 2003, the Congress will soon be making decisions
regarding the possible reauthorization of the Job Access Program.
TEA-21 requires that we report on the implementation of the Job Access
Program. To date, we have issued six reports on the Program from May
1998 through December 2001, and we also testified on the Program in
April 2002 before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (See app. I for a
summary of the results of our previous reports on the Program.):
As agreed with your offices, this report:
* examines the status of DOT‘s efforts to evaluate the Job Access
Program and report to the Congress and:
* discusses our findings about the Job Access Program‘s efforts to (1)
provide transportation and related services to allow low-income people
to reach employment and related opportunities; (2) increase
collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of the services of
Job Access projects; and (3) foster the financial sustainability of the
services delivered by Job Access projects after program funding
terminates.
To meet these objectives, we examined Program documentation at DOT, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of
Labor (Labor); interviewed officials of these agencies; conducted a
mail survey of all 173 fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Job Access
grantees with projects that were still operating at the time we did our
study,[Footnote 2] achieving a response rate of about 88 percent (or
152 grantees); and interviewed nine experts in welfare reform and/or
transportation. We selected these experts on the basis of our review of
transit and welfare reform literature and referrals from HHS, Labor,
DOT, and national associations, such as the Community Transportation
Association of:
America (CTAA).[Footnote 3] We also visited and documented activities
at 14 locations where Job Access projects were being implemented. We
judgmentally selected these locations to obtain a nationwide geographic
dispersion of existing projects; different sizes (large urban, medium-
size urban, and small cities/rural areas) of the areas served by Job
Access projects; and various types of services funded by Job Access
grants. Moreover, to address the first objective of our study, we
monitored DOT‘s efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the program
and report to the Congress by June 2000, as required by TEA-21. Our
work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. For more
detailed information about our scope and methodology, see appendix II.
Results in Brief:
DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of
the Program, as TEA-21 required; therefore, DOT is missing an
opportunity to provide timely information that could be useful as the
Congress considers whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. Though
required to submit the report by June 2000, DOT neither submitted the
report nor established a date for doing so. Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Program officials are uncertain of when the report
would be submitted to the Congress because the report must undergo a
review and approval process by the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, we
have serious concerns about FTA‘s proposal for the evaluation because,
as we testified in April 2002,[Footnote 4] the agency‘s plan to focus
its evaluation on the number of employment sites[Footnote 5] served by
each Job Access project does not fully address key aspects of the
program. For example, the employment sites measure addresses only the
program goal of providing transportation-related services and does not
address the other goal of encouraging collaboration in the design,
financing, and service delivery of Job Access projects. According to
DOT officials, their report to the Congress will include additional
data that they believe would address both of the program‘s objectives
but not the selection criterion that the services funded by Job Access
projects continue after the termination of program funding. However, we
are unable to comment on the evaluation, because agency officials did
not provide us with a draft of the report.
Our analysis shows that, through its grants, the Job Access Program
funds a variety of transportation-related services that are intended to
assist low-income people in traveling to the workplace and associated
support services, such as child care or job training. In awarding over
$355 million in grants in 42 states through fiscal year 2002, the
program funded such services as extending existing bus routes to serve
low-income populations and informing clients about available
transportation service and their use. In addition, according to
grantees and experts we contacted, the program has increased planning,
financial, and service delivery collaboration among local
transportation providers, human service agencies, employers, and
others. For example, over three-quarters of our survey‘s
respondents[Footnote 6] stated that the program increased collaboration
with other transit and human service agencies. Such collaboration
allows transit agencies to design and provide transportation service
that is based on information from other agencies about where low-income
people live and where jobs and support services are located. However,
more collaboration at the federal level is needed between Labor and DOT
to enable grantees to obtain additional federal funding for Job Access
projects. Specifically, some grantees have not used funds from Labor‘s
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs[Footnote 7] as a match for Job
Access grants because Labor and DOT officials have not yet clarified
the eligibility of WIA funds for this purpose. According to the Job
Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, such as those from
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and the WIA
programs, have an advantage over nonfederal matching funds because
these are formula programs that have a predictable funding stream to
the states and localities so that funding can be maintained without
disruption. However, the ability of many grantees to financially
sustain their Job Access services after the end of program assistance
(a criterion for FTA to consider in the selection of Job Access
projects) is uncertain. Only 12 percent of our survey‘s respondents
said they would maintain or expand the level of Job Access services
after the end of Job Access funding; 41 percent said they would
decrease or discontinue services; and 47 percent were uncertain about
continuing services. According to one expert we contacted, because many
Job Access services are more costly than the services for the general
transit clientele, grantees would likely continue operating the Job
Access services only as long as federal funding covered the associated
costs. According to FTA program officials, FTA has recently taken new
steps to coordinate with Labor by forwarding questions to Labor
requesting clarification on the use of WIA funds as Job Access matching
funds. FTA program officials said that Labor‘s responses might be
published on a government Web site, thereby informing grantees and
other stakeholders of the availability of WIA funds for Job Access
purposes.
We are making a recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation that
DOT report to the Congress on the results of its evaluation of the Job
Access Program, as required by law. Another recommendation is intended
to help ensure that in reporting to the Congress, DOT evaluates the
program against both program goals as well as against the selection
criterion that Job Access projects be financially sustainable after the
end of program funding. A third recommendation addresses barriers to
the use of WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access grants.
We submitted a draft of this report to DOT, including FTA, for review
and comment.
Background:
The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nati‘on‘s system to
provide assistance to the poor. The 1996 act replaced the existing
entitlement program for poor families with block grants to the states
to provide temporary assistance for needy families under the TANF
Program. Also, under the TANF Program, states provide cash assistance
to needy families with children and provide parents with job
preparation; work; and support services, including transportation
benefits. The 1996 act gave states flexibility in designing their
programs to best provide those benefits and services. HHS‘s
Administration for Children and Families manages the TANF Program and
has provided about $16.5 billion annually for states to use to assist
needy families to become self-sufficient, including about $800 million
annually for transportation benefits. In addition, Labor‘s Employment
and Training Administration administers programs authorized under WIA,
with about $4 billion in fiscal year 2002 appropriations to provide
individuals with job training and placement services. The WIA-sponsored
programs also provide transportation services to take their clients to
program-supported services, such as job training and
placement.[Footnote 8] The TANF-and WIA-sponsored transportation
efforts focus on their program clients, while the Job Access Program
attempts to improve transportation for low-income people in general.
With the enactment of TEA-21, DOT became a sponsor of welfare-to-work
initiatives. The Job Access Program is focused on assisting address the
transportation aspect of welfare reform by assisting low-income people
travel to work and/or employment-related activities. Many low-income
people and welfare recipients do not have access to cars and existing
public transportation systems cannot always bridge the gap between
where low-income people live and where jobs are located. In addition,
many entry-level jobs require shift work in evenings or on weekends,
when public transportation services are either limited or unavailable.
When the Job Access Program was established, $750 million was
authorized from fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for the Program.
Appropriations have totaled $375 million through fiscal year 2002, with
$75 million appropriated in each of the fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and
$100 million and $125 million appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and
2002, respectively.[Footnote 9] The Job Access Program was established
to close gaps in transportation services for low-income people in
places where and at times when such transportation was not available.
The program addressed these gaps by funding, through grants, new
transportation and related services and expanding existing services to
help low-income people access employment opportunities and related
support services. TEA-21 identified a variety of factors for DOT to
consider in funding Job Access projects, such as the need for Job
Access services as evidenced by the percentage of the population in the
area receiving welfare benefits; the demonstrated collaboration between
the grantee and other stakeholders, such as other transportation and
human service agencies; and the extent to which an applicant identified
long-term financing strategies that would support the Job Access
services after the end of the grant. Job Access grantees are required
to provide at least 50 percent matching funds from other sources, which
may include federal sources of funds available for transportation
services, such as the TANF or WIA programs.
DOT has consistently used two goals that it synthesized from TEA-21 as
the primary criteria for evaluating, selecting, and funding Job Access
projects to be funded through program grants. Those goals are that Job
Access projects and services funded should:
* provide transportation and related services to urban, suburban, and
rural areas to assist low-income individuals, including welfare
recipients, with access to employment and related services, such as
child care and training, and:
* increase collaboration among such parties as transportation
providers, human service agencies, employers, and others in designing,
funding, and delivering those transportation services.
In selecting Job Access projects, DOT also considered the extent to
which the projects would be financially sustainable after the end of
Job Access Program funding.[Footnote 10]
DOT‘s Evaluation Has Been Delayed and May Not Address Significant
Aspects of the Job Access Program:
DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of
the Job Access Program, as TEA-21 required. DOT therefore is missing an
important opportunity to provide information that could be useful as
the Congress considers whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. FTA
Program officials are not certain about when the report will be
submitted to the Congress and have not established a date for doing so.
Evaluation Report Has Been Delayed, and Its Submittal Date Is
Uncertain:
DOT has delayed completion of its evaluation of the Job Access Program,
and the date that it will be submitted to the Congress is uncertain.
TEA-21 required that DOT evaluate the Job Access Program and submit a
report to the Congress by June 2000. FTA officials stated their
intentions to us several times and to the Congress to complete and
submit the required evaluation report. DOT‘s delays in issuing the
report have cost it an important opportunity to provide information to
the Congress on the effectiveness of the Job Access Program as the
Congress begins its debate on the reauthorization of the program. In
addition, as shown below, we have repeatedly reported on and emphasized
the need for DOT to evaluate the effectiveness of the Job Access
Program.
* In May 1998, before the program was enacted into law, we reported
that DOT lacked specific information for assessing how a Job Access
Program would improve mobility for low-income workers, and we
recommended that DOT establish specific objectives.
* In December 1998, we reported that DOT was in the process of
establishing an evaluation plan for the program.[Footnote 11]
* In November 1999, we noted that DOT had not yet completed a plan for
evaluating the program, although we had recommended that it do
so.[Footnote 12]
* In December 2000, we reported that the evaluation plan had been
completed and that for the purposes of reporting under the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, DOT had established a goal of
serving 4,050 new employment sites in fiscal year 2000, and 8,050 in
fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 13]
* On April 17, 2002, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we testified that
DOT had not yet prepared the required evaluation report and had
no definite date for submitting the study.[Footnote 14] At that
hearing, DOT officials stated that the report would be completed and
sent to the Congress by June 2002.
Throughout our study, FTA program officials discussed the reasons for
the delays in issuing the report to the Congress. FTA program officials
explained that to meet the requirement that they submit an evaluative
report to the Congress by June 2000, they asked the grantees to submit
data regarding the employment sites served by Job Access projects as
well as the numbers of employers and entry-level jobs at those sites.
They explained that they found that only about two-fifths of the data
they obtained from grantees proved to be useful, because the rest of
the data were inconsistently or inaccurately reported. By the summer of
2001, DOT officials decided that the data were out-of-date. They
decided to wait for new data to be reported to them and to redraft the
report to the Congress using the new data.
As of the end of our review, FTA program officials continued to be
unsure of the date the evaluative report will be submitted to the
Congress. In November 2002, they said that they had completed their
draft report and that the draft was being reviewed by the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation for approval before the report could be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. FTA
Program officials did not provide us with an estimated date for
submitting the draft report to the Office of Management and Budget and
the final report to the Congress.
Reporting Only Employment Sites Would Not Comprehensively Evaluate the
Program, and Contents of Final Report to the Congress Are Uncertain:
When we testified on April 17, 2002, DOT had planned to use only
employment sites as a measure of program effectiveness. We testified
that this measure presents only a partial picture of program
effectiveness in meeting program goals for the following reasons:
* First, employment sites attempt to measure whether the Job Access
Program establishes effective transportation services that help low-
income people reach jobs--only one of the program goals. However,
employment sites do not address the other program goal of whether
projects were designed and implemented in a collaborative fashion
involving the grantee and stakeholders. In addition, employment sites
do not address the selection criterion of whether Job Access projects
can be financially sustained after the end of program funding.
* Second, the use of employment sites does not fully capture whether
the Job Access Program effectively addresses the program goal of
providing transportation-related services to low-income people.
Employment sites do not capture such information as the number of jobs
available at a site or the number of Job Access beneficiaries using a
Job Access service over a period of time.
Grantees that responded to our survey reported that they are using
additional indicators of and data on the performance of Job Access
services. These grantees reported that, for internal reporting
purposes, they collect a variety of data that can indicate the
effectiveness of Job Access services. These survey results are shown in
table 1.
Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to Our
Survey:
Number of passengers that use a new or enhanced transportation service;
Percentage of grantees that cited the performance measure: 81.
Number of trips made by Job Access service; Percentage of grantees that
cited the performance measure: 64.
Number of employment sites accessed through the Job Access service;
Percentage of grantees that cited the performance measure: 60.
Number of employers made available to low-income people through a Job
Access service; Percentage of grantees that cited the performance
measure: 57.
Number of jobs served by a Job Access transportation service;
Percentage of grantees that cited the performance measure: 53.
Number of TANF clients who were able to obtain and keep employment as a
result of Job Access service; Percentage of grantees that cited the
performance measure: 25.
Source: GAO survey of the 173 grantees that were awarded their grants
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and are still operating their Job Access
projects. One-hundred, fifty-two (152) responded to our survey. See
also appendix IV of this report.
[End of table]
In addition to the measures listed in the table, experts we contacted
suggested that DOT consider such measures as (1) the number of new and
expanded transportation services (including data on service frequency,
hours, and miles); (2) the level of collaboration achieved; and (3) the
beneficiaries‘ views of the effectiveness of Job Access services. In
1998, DOT funded a study that also identified many of these same
measures for evaluating prospective Job Access projects.
After we discussed with FTA program officials their plans to use only
employment sites as performance measures, they stated that they planned
to issue an evaluative report to the Congress that would contain
information in addition to employment sites. In September 2002, we
requested that FTA program officials provide a draft of the report for
our review or a description of the evaluative methodology. In response,
on October 4, 2002, they provided us with a memorandum that listed the
contents of the report they proposed for the evaluative report to the
Congress, including a list of the performance measures they proposed to
use. According to FTA program officials and this document, the
evaluative report would contain the results of a study by the
University of Illinois, including surveys of passengers who were riding
Job Access vehicles and studies of Job Access grantees. FTA program
officials told us that they hoped to profile the services provided by
the Job Access Program, including data on the geographic distribution
of the services, the types of transportation-related services provided,
the costs of the services, and the cost per ride. They also proposed an
assessment of the program that would include such indicators as the
number of employment sites, the number of jobs, and the job support
services made available by Job Access projects. Other proposed measures
include Job Access project ridership and user characteristics, such as
users‘ age, income, car ownership, driver‘s license status, and work
history, and information about users‘ assessments of the importance of
the Job Access service. According to the measures that FTA program
officials listed, their report might address the second objective of
the program by conveying information on Job Access planning
partnerships between transportation and human service providers as well
as community representatives and employers. The report also might
address the financial partnerships established to fund Job Access
services, such as the partnerships involving transportation providers,
human service providers, and private and not-for-profit organizations.
Notwithstanding the information given to us by FTA program officials
about the proposed contents for their report to the Congress, for the
following reasons we continue to believe that contents of the final
report are uncertain, including whether the report would evaluate the
program against both program goals and selection criterion:
* First, FTA‘s list of the performance indicators that FTA proposed for
its report to the Congress did not specify how FTA would collect these
additional performance data--an important consideration given the
results of FTA‘s earlier efforts to collect performance data from the
Job Access grantees.
* Second, the document did not contain sufficient information for us to
comment on the adequacy of the report that FTA program officials
propose to submit to the Congress or the rigor of the proposed
evaluative methodology. For example, the document did not specify how
the data would be used to address the goals and selection criterion of
the Job Access Program.
* Third, as previously stated, FTA program officials must still submit
the draft through a review process. The reviewing parties may not
approve the contents of the report as proposed by FTA program
officials.
Varied Services Delivered and Collaboration Improved, but Projects‘
Sustainability and Use of Federal Funds Can Be Improved:
In awarding over $355 million in grants in 42 states through fiscal
year 2002, the Job Access Program funded such services as extending
existing bus routes to serve low-income populations and implementing
services that provide information to clients about available
transportation services and their use. Moreover, the program has
increased planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among
local transportation providers, human service and job placement
agencies, employers, and others in providing access to employment and
employment support services. However, the ability of many Job Access
projects to be financially sustainable after the end of program
assistance (a criterion FTA considered in the selection of Job Access
projects) is uncertain. In addition, some states have not used WIA
funds as Job Access matching funds, because specific guidance on the
use of WIA funds has not been issued.
The Job Access Program Funded a Variety of Services to Help Low-Income
People Travel to Work:
Through Job Access grants, the program served a broad range of
geographic areas, including large and medium-size cities as well as
small towns and rural areas. Most grantees--about two-thirds of them--
are traditional transit providers, such as metropolitan transit
authorities or bus companies. The remaining grantees, such as local
human service agencies, local housing agencies, and faith-and
community-based organizations, do not provide transit services as a
primary activity.
As shown in table 2, Job Access grantees used a variety of approaches
to provide transportation services that assist low-income people to
access job opportunities. Many Job Access projects involved expanding
existing transit resources, such as bus routes. On the basis of our
analysis of project documentation, about 51 percent of the 181 grantees
selected in fiscal year 1999 modified an existing fixed transit route
by adding new areas served or by enhancing the frequency of the
service, while 43 percent added entirely new bus routes to serve the
needs of low-income people.[Footnote 15] For example, the Santa Rosa,
California, transit agency started a new route that provides bus
service from a low-income neighborhood to employment locations on the
other side of town and training centers en-route. According to transit
officials, this service will eventually be incorporated into the
existing transit network once their Job Access grant is ended.
Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees:
Transportation approach: Fixed bus route extension (frequency or
location) established[B]; Percentage of grantees[A]: ; 51.
Transportation approach: New bus service initiated; Percentage of
grantees[A]: 43.
Transportation approach: Demand-responsive service established[C];
Percentage of grantees[A]: 19.
Transportation approach: Connection to existing service
established[D]; Percentage of grantees[A]: 14.
[A] Percentages do not add to 100 because some grantees provided
multiple services. :
[B] Fixed bus routes are traditional bus routes that operate on
predetermined streets and at fixed times.
[C] Demand-responsive service refers to a transit service, often
utilizing small buses or vans, that take riders to locations they
request at times they request.
[D] Connection to existing service refers to a new transit service that
transports riders to preexisting transit routes--for example, bus or
van connections to a subway system.
Source: Analysis of project data on all 181 grantees that FTA selected
in fiscal year 1999 as presented in report GAO/RCED-00-14. These
grantees include over 80 percent of the grantees still participating in
the Job Access Program. :
[End of table]
According to our analysis, grantees used a variety of transportation
modes--in particular, vans, buses, or rail--to provide those
transportation services for low-income people. Forty-one percent of the
Job Access grantees used vans to serve low-income people. For example,
because some low-income people faced problems getting to and from work
during late hours, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) began a demand-responsive[Footnote 16] shuttle van service that
operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for those needing transportation
during late evening and early morning service hours. In addition, 14
percent of the grantees utilized buses or rail to provide Job Access
services, while 9 percent utilized carpools or ridesharing, and 4
percent utilized taxis.
About one-third of the grantees provided information to assist low-
income people to better utilize existing transportation resources to
get to employment and related support services. Specifically, 31
percent of the grantees employed an information coordinator or
information brokerage center to provide information on how to use
existing transit facilities and services for travel to work, training,
child care, and other support services. For example, since fiscal year
1999, WMATA has received about $3.2 million in Job Access funds and,
among other things, created the Washington Regional Call Center that
provides a central location where eligible, low-income people can call
to get exact trip information. Under this same grant, Montgomery
County, Maryland, used Job Access funds to provide transit information
by creating a Web page for human service employment centers to use to
help their clients find ways to get to work. In another example, the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet received a $2.5 million grant in fiscal
year 2000 and established a centralized brokerage system to help low-
income people utilize demand-responsive service in rural areas.
Some grantees have provided innovative services for the specialized
needs of low-income people or to serve special populations, as the
following examples demonstrate:
* The Good News Garage--a community-based, nonprofit association, which
is based in Burlington, Vermont--used $277,935 in Job Access funding in
2000 for a service called CommuteShare. The Good News Garage obtains,
repairs, and provides used vehicles to economically disadvantaged
people. The CommuteShare Program made some repaired vehicles available
for carpools and demand-responsive transportation to take low-income
people to and from work. According to Good News Garage officials, about
75 percent of the TANF recipients who receive cars provided by the
project eventually leave TANF and become economically self-sufficient.
About 190 people have participated in the project, with about 25
participating at one time.
* Project Renewal, a rehabilitation center for homeless men and women
located in New York City, used Job Access funding of $799,337 to
implement its Suburban Jobs project.[Footnote 17] Project Renewal
identifies and secures job opportunities in suburban areas around New
York City and places formerly homeless New Yorkers in unsubsidized
employment. According to the project‘s administrator, Suburban Jobs
directs vans daily to five worksites, where employers offer at least
$6.50 per hour to each participant. Project Renewal‘s housing
facilities as well as other nonprofit employment programs refer
qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. Project Renewal identifies
appropriate employment opportunities, prepares clients for interviews,
supplements public transportation through its own van service to the
suburban jobsites, and provides counseling to project beneficiaries on
their way to and from work. (See app. III for more information about
the projects we visited.):
Job Access Program Has Met Its Goal of Improving Collaboration between
Grantees and Stakeholders:
The Job Access Program has met its goal of increasing planning,
financial, and service delivery collaboration among local
transportation providers, human service and job placement agencies,
employers, and others in providing access to employment and employment
support services. Individual Job Access grantees and welfare reform and
transportation experts we contacted stated that the Job Access Program
brought together transit and human service agencies that have not
widely collaborated in the past. According to our survey of grantees
selected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, almost 80 percent of the 152
grantees that responded indicated that the Job Access Program increased
cooperation with other transit agencies, and 88 percent indicated that
the program increased cooperation with human service agencies. In
addition, all but one of the nine transportation and welfare reform
experts we contacted stated that this significant increase in
collaboration at the grantee level was the most successful result of
the Job Access Program. One expert noted that the Job Access
requirement for matching funds further encouraged grantees to approach
state and local agencies that administer TANF funds to use those funds
as part of a project‘s matching funds. About 58 percent of the grantees
that responded to our survey indicated they used TANF funds as part of
their required matching funds.
On the basis of our survey and visits to Job Access grantees,
coordination between grantees and state and local stakeholders to plan
and implement Job Access services occurred in varied forms. In some
cases, transit agencies consulted with human service agencies to design
new transportation services for low-income people. In other cases,
coordination included simple referrals of low-income clients from human
service agencies to the Job Access grantee for information about
transportation services, such as vanpools, bus routes, and demand-
responsive van services. Housing authorities also collaborated with
transit agency grantees to transport low-income people from public
housing to jobs, training, and/or child care. In addition, transit
agency grantees often partnered with local human service agencies and
local workforce investment boards by sending representatives to job
fairs and one-stop job placement and training facilities to train low-
income people to use the transit system to commute to work.
Each of the 14 grantees we visited cited increased cooperation as a
program benefit, although they ascribed varying degrees of difficulty
in achieving such cooperation. Officials of state transportation and
human service agencies we contacted said that applying for the Job
Access grant made transit agencies aware of the need to tailor
transportation services to low-income persons. Human service agency
officials also said their involvement with the Job Access grant
increased their awareness of the need to consider low-income persons‘
transportation needs when implementing human service programs. The
Capital District Transit Authority in Albany, New York, credited its
Job Access project with encouraging it to develop new working
relationships. Transit Authority officials stated that information from
those agencies helped it redesign its bus routes to provide service
that was more responsive to the needs of low-income people. WMATA
officials also credited the Job Access Program with enabling them to
take the lead, as the region‘s largest transit agency, in coordinating
the Job Access services with smaller, regional, transit service
providers. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Transit Authority of River City
coordinated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit agencies
in developing its Job Access project. The Job Access project received
its matching funds from the City of Jeffersontown, Kentucky; United
Parcel Service; and Kentuckiana Works--the Workforce Investment Board
sponsored by Labor. The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department and the University of New Mexico developed several databases
of publicly funded vehicles, TANF households by zip code, and jobsites
to help local agencies plan transportation services for low-income
people. On the other hand, Ft. Worth Transit Authority officials cited
the administrative burden related to obtaining funds from other federal
programs as their reason for being reluctant to seek out matching funds
from other partners.
Collaboration at the Federal Level Is Needed to Clarify That WIA Funds
Can Be Used to Match Job Access Grants:
DOT agreed that the use of WIA funds as a match for Job Access grants
needs to be clarified, and it plans to continue its efforts to
collaborate with Labor to issue new guidance to states. Currently, it
is not clear to grantees or to the state agencies that administer Labor
programs that WIA funds can be used as matching funds for Job Access
grants, in part because Labor, which administers WIA programs, and DOT
have not issued written guidance indicating that WIA funds can be used
for this purpose. Labor, DOT, and trade association officials we
contacted agreed that existing guidelines on the use of WIA funds
indicate that those funds can be used for a variety of purposes, but
are ambiguous on whether those funds can be used to pay for
transportation services. As previously mentioned, applicants for Job
Access grants must obtain at least 50 percent matching funds from other
sources.[Footnote 18] Some grantees used WIA funds as Job Access
project matching funds, while others did not.
DOT and Labor officials are in the process of trying to issue
guidelines about using WIA funds for Job Access purposes. Labor issued
an internal E-mail stating that WIA funds could be used as matching
funds for Job Access projects; however, Labor did not disseminate this
knowledge outside of the department to the state and local agencies
that provide the WIA-funded services. FTA program officials told us
that they are currently working with Labor to issue clarification about
the use of WIA funds and have has sponsored an effort by a CTAA working
group for this purpose. FTA officials said that the working group
queried Labor‘s Employment and Training Administration about the use of
WIA funds. Once answers are received, they may be published over the
Internet on a federal Web site, according to FTA program officials.
According to experts we contacted, as well as CTAA, DOT, and Labor
officials, clarification of federal guidelines could help states
understand that federal funds, such as WIA funds, can be used as part
of the match. According to these officials, some states, such as New
York, have interpreted federal guidelines to reach a conclusion that it
is not permissible to use WIA funds as Job Access project matching
funds. The interpretation has precluded grantees in those states from
using WIA funds as a source for obtaining the necessary match for a Job
Access grant.
Using federal funds as matching funds--such as WIA and TANF funds--can
be advantageous for Job Access grantees because federal funds may be
more predictable and stable than nonfederal matching funds. According
to the Job Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, such as
TANF and WIA, have an advantage over nonfederal matching funds because
these are formula programs that have a predictable funding stream to
the states and localities so that funding can be maintained without
disruption. Also, more sources of funds available as a match for Job
Access grants would provide additional options to grantees and improve
their ability to sustain their projects. One of our previous surveys of
Job Access grantees indicated that soliciting, finding, and maintaining
matching funds was difficult for many grantees. For example, 34 percent
of the grantees selected in fiscal year 1999 that responded to our 2000
survey reported that FTA‘s lengthy grant approval process caused
problems with the availability of their project‘s matching funds, and
seven projects were withdrawn (about 4 percent of the Job Access
projects) after losing their matching funds.[Footnote 19]
Financial Sustainability of Many Job Access Projects Is in Doubt:
The ability of many Job Access projects to be financially sustainable
after the end of Job Access assistance is questionable. DOT selected
Job Access projects by considering, among other factors, the ability of
projects to achieve financial sustainability after the end of Job
Access Program funding. More specifically, in evaluating applications
for Job Access projects, FTA program officials assessed the extent to
which a prospective grantee identified long-term financing strategies
to support the Job Access services after the end of Job Access funding.
However, FTA program officials consider financial sustainability to be
secondary to other program goals.
The results of our survey of grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and
2000 indicate that many Job Access projects would probably be
discontinued after the end of DOT funding, and many other projects
would face uncertain prospects for continuation. Specifically, about 41
percent of the respondents to our survey reported that after the end of
Job Access funding, they would have to decrease the scope of services
or discontinue services altogether once their Job Access funding
ends.[Footnote 20] Another 47 percent of the grantees responded that
they were uncertain about their ability to continue their services. The
remaining 12 percent reported that they would continue their projects
at the same or expanded levels after the end of their Job Access
funding. One expert explained that many Job Access services are more
costly than the services for the general transit clientele; grantees
would likely continue operating the Job Access services only as long as
federal funding covered the associated costs.
Conclusions:
Because DOT has not evaluated the Job Access Program and reported the
findings to the Congress as required by law, the department is missing
an opportunity to provide important information on a timely basis to
the Congress on the effectiveness of the program. FTA program officials
have not provided us with a specific date for issuing the report
because the draft must still be reviewed and approved by the Office of
the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget
before release to the Congress. In addition, the usefulness of the
report is also in doubt: If the report contains information only on
employment sites, then it would address only the first program goal of
providing transportation services to low-income people while ignoring
the other goal of promoting collaboration in the design, financing, and
delivery of those services and the criterion of ensuring that Job
Access projects are financially sustainable after the end of program
funding. Finally, while the law and guidelines allow the use of other
federal funds to match Job Access grants, neither DOT nor Labor have
provided written guidance clarifying the eligibility of funds from
Labor‘s WIA programs for those purposes. As a result, some states will
not allow grantees to use WIA funds to match Job Access grants.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following
actions:
* Report to the Congress, as required by TEA-21, on the results of the
evaluation of the Job Access Program.
* Include in the report to the Congress, an evaluative methodology that
examines the Job Access Program‘s effectiveness in meeting its goals of
(1) establishing transportation-related services that help low-income
individuals, including welfare recipients, reach jobs and employment
support services, such as child care and training, and (2) increasing
planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among local
transportation providers, human services agencies, and others in
providing access to employment and employment support services. The
report also should examine the financial sustainability of Job Access
projects after the end of Job Access Program funding.
* In conjunction with the Department of Labor, issue guidance to states
providing clarification on the use of Workforce Investment Act funds as
matching funds for Job Access projects.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. We
met with DOT and FTA program officials who provided us with comments on
our draft report. The officials generally agreed with most aspects of
our report. They stated that our survey of Job Access grantees provides
interesting, unique, and useful data, worthy of greater emphasis in our
report. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that it is important to
emphasize both our survey and DOT‘s progress in its evaluation report
because DOT risks not having the report available to the Congress in
time to assist in making decisions about reauthorizing the program.
With regard to our first recommendation, agency officials stated that
the Job Access Program evaluation, required by TEA-21, has been drafted
and is being processed through the Department; however, the officials
were not sure when the report would be issued. With regard to our
second recommendation, the officials said that the evaluation report
would fulfill the department‘s statutory requirement and address most
of the elements specified in the recommendation. With regard to our
third recommendation, the officials indicated that DOT has been working
closely with Labor to clarify issues and provide guidance related to
using Labor‘s WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access projects. As
appropriate, we revised our report to, among other things, provide
updated information on the status of DOT‘s evaluative report to the
Congress and DOT‘s efforts to coordinate with the Labor to clarify the
use of WIA funds as Job Access matching funds.
We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional
committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal
Transit Administration; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health
and Human Services; and other interested parties. We will make copies
available to others on request, and the report will be available on
GAO‘s Web site at www.gao.gov for no charge. If you have any questions
about this report, please call me at (202) 512-2834 or e-mail me at
siggerudk@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V.
Katherine A. Siggerud
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Katherine A. Siggurd:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports:
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21) requires
that we report on the implementation of the Job Access and Reverse
Commute (Job Access) Program. To date, we have issued a report on
transportation and welfare reform efforts in May 1998, before the
program was established,[Footnote 21] and five other reports on the
program: in December 1998,November 1999, December 2000, August 2001,
and December 2001.[Footnote 22]
In May 1998, we reported that the proposed Job Access Program would aid
the national welfare reform effort by, among other things, providing
additional resources to transport welfare recipients to work.We
recommended that the Department of Transportation (DOT) (1) establish
specific objectives, performance criteria, and goals for measuring the
program‘s progress; (2) require grantees to coordinate transportation
strategies with local job placement and other social service agencies;
and (3) work with other federal agencies to coordinate welfare-to-work
activities. TEA-21 reflected these recommendations and required
appropriate action by DOT.
Our December 1998 report was the first to be completed in response to
the TEA-21 mandate that we periodically review and report on the
implementation of the Job Access Program. We reported on DOT‘s
preliminary steps and strategy for implementing the Job Access Program,
noting that DOT‘s overall plan for implementing the program included
distributing grant funds to as many areas throughout the United States
as possible, subject to grant funding limits of $1 million for large
urban areas and $150,000 for rural areas. DOT announced that it would
use several criteria for selecting projects to fund, including a
project‘s effectiveness in serving a demonstrated regional need; the
degree of local coordination with other regional stakeholders
demonstrated by the prospective grantee in designing and identifying
funding for a project; and the project‘s financial plans and
sustainability after the end of Job Access funding. An application‘s
compliance with these factors would be weighted for each factor, and
DOT said that it would also award bonus points for innovative
approaches to providing Job Access services. DOT also considered the
geographic dispersion of projects in making award decisions. We noted
that DOT made important efforts in attempting to establish
communication channels with various federal welfare reform agencies
through its role in a policy council that involved the White House and
other agencies in formulating interagency policy decisions about the
Job Access Program. DOT also formulated ’Joint Guidance“ with the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of
Labor (Labor) on how the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Program and Welfare-to-Work Program funds[Footnote 23] could be used as
matching funds to help pay for Job Access projects. Regarding
evaluation of the Job Access Program, DOT initially established four
types of data it would collect from grantees in assessing the
performance of Job Access grants and the Job Access Program: (1) the
number of new and expanded transportation services (including data on
service frequency, hours, and miles); (2) the number of jobs made
accessible by the Job Access project; (3) the number of people using
the new service; and (4) the level of collaboration achieved. We agreed
that these were good measures for monitoring Job Access projects, but
DOT still needed to measure the program‘s overall success by
establishing programwide goals or benchmarks against which the
cumulative data on new routes, new system users, and newly accessible
jobs could be compared.
In November 1999, we reported on the implementation of the pProgram in
fiscal year 1999, its first year. We found that DOT had implemented our
second and third recommendations in carrying out TEA-21. Specifically,
DOT had required grantees to coordinate transportation strategies with
local job placement and other social service agencies and had worked
with other federal agencies to coordinate welfare-to-work activities.
DOT also had taken preliminary steps to implement our first
recommendation that it establish specific objectives, performance
criteria, and goals for measuring the program‘s progress. However, we
also found that DOT‘s process for selecting Job Access grant proposals
was not consistent in fiscal year 1999, and the basis for some
selections was unclear.
Our December 2000 report examined DOT‘s implementation of the Program
in fiscal year 2000. We found that DOT had taken steps to improve its
process for selecting Job Access proposals. For example, to promote
greater consistency in the evaluation and selection of grantees, DOT
developed a standard format for reviewing Job Access proposals and
provided more detailed guidance to its reviewers. Almost 90 percent of
the fiscal year 1999 Job Access grantees that responded to our survey
were satisfied with the goals and intent of the program.[Footnote 24]
However, 51 percent said that satisfying various standard FTA grant
requirements took too long--about 9 months, on average. As a result,
about one-third of respondents reported experiencing problems in
obtaining matching funds. In addition, seven projects were withdrawn
(about 4 percent of Job Access projects) for various reasons,
including, in one case, the loss of matching funds. In this report, we
note that DOT had implemented our recommendation that it develop
specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals for its
Job Access Program evaluation. DOT developed a goal to increase new
employment sites by 4,050 in fiscal year 2000, and 8,050 in fiscal year
2001, and it had requested specific data from the grantees.
Our August 2001 report provided our preliminary observations on (1)
DOT‘s proposal to use a formula for allocating grant funds to the
states, (2) the status of obligations for the Job Access Program, and
(3) DOT‘s plans for reporting on the program to the Congress. First,
DOT had proposed a change to the Job Access Program beginning in fiscal
year 2002, under which it would allocate funding to the states via a
formula, instead of to individual grantees. DOT proposed this change in
response to language in the conference reports accompanying DOT‘s
appropriations acts for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 that designated Job
Access funding for specific states, localities, and organizations.
Second, as of August 7, 2001, DOT had obligated 94 percent of the funds
for fiscal year 1999, 67 percent of the funds for fiscal year 2000, and
20 percent of the funds for fiscal year 2001. Third, DOT officials had
missed the June 2000 deadline for a status report to the Congress but
expected to report instead in September 2001.
Our December 2001 report primarily addressed DOT‘s response to language
in conference reports that accompanied its fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
year 2001 appropriations statutes. The conference reports designated
specific grantees that were to receive Job Access funding; these grants
involved up to three-quarters of the appropriated funding for the Job
Access Program in a fiscal year. DOT elected to award grants to the
designated parties in a noncompetitive fashion; however, in doing so,
it was not in compliance with the provisions of the authorizing
legislation--TEA-21--because the act called for a competitive grant
selection process. To address this finding, we recommended that DOT
implement a competitive selection process for all prospective grantees,
including those that were designated by language in conference reports.
As a result of our recommendation, DOT announced that it would
implement a competitive selection process for all grantees--
congressional designated and otherwise.
On April 17, 2002, we testified on the Job Access Program before the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure. We emphasized the need for DOT to evaluate the
program as directed by TEA-21. We noted that, at the time of our
testimony, DOT had no estimated date for issuing the required report.
Further, we stated that DOT‘s use of employment sites as the sole
measure of program success does not address key aspects of the program
nor specifically relate to DOT‘s criteria for selecting Job Access
grantees.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
For its first objective, this report examines the status of DOT‘s
efforts to evaluate the Job Access Program and report to the Congress.
For its second objective, the report discusses our findings about the
Job Access Program‘s efforts to (1) provide transportation and related
services to allow low-income people to reach employment and related
opportunities; (2) increase collaboration in the design, financing, and
delivery of the services of Job Access projects; and (3) foster the
financial sustainability of the services delivered by Job Access
projects after program funding terminates.
In responding to our first objective, we contacted FTA Program
officials to discuss and document their efforts to evaluate the Program
and to issue a report to the Congress. We monitored FTA‘s plans to
evaluate the Program, including their proposal to utilize employment
sites, and we queried Program officials about reasons for their delay
in issuing the report to the Congress and plans for expediting
completion of the evaluation. In addition, through our discussions with
program officials, transportation and welfare reform experts, and
national associations, we identified prospective measurements of
program success and discussed the availability and appropriateness of
those measurements for an evaluation of the Job Access Program.
In responding to our second objective, we examined the services
delivered by Job Access projects in assisting low-income people access
jobs and job-related services. Specifically, we followed up on our
previous findings, observations, and recommendations from our reports;
reviewed the agency‘s ongoing efforts to solicit, evaluate, and select
Job Access grantees in fiscal year 2002; and examined DOT‘s ongoing
implementation of existing grants and projects. Our November 1999
report contained an analysis of project data regarding the
transportation-related services delivered by all 181 projects selected
in fiscal year 1999. Those projects constitute over 80 percent of the
projects that are still operating today. We used this information to
supplement our discussion of the types of services funded through Job
Access grants.
As part of the work for our second objective, we assessed whether the
Job Access Program was increasing collaboration in the design,
financing, and delivery of the services of Job Access projects--a
program goal. We addressed the issue of collaborative project design,
financing, and delivery in our survey of 173 Job Access grantees
selected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 that are still implementing Job
Access projects. We also examined how the implementation of individual
Job Access projects has been integrated into the transportation and
human service efforts of states and local communities by observing the
interactions between grantees, metropolitan planning organizations,
transit agencies, and human service agencies, such as those in the
Albany, New York, area; the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; the
Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, area; the San Francisco Bay area; and the
Louisville, Kentucky, area.
Meeting our second objective also required that we assess whether the
Job Access Program was meeting a criterion for FTA‘s selection of Job
Access projects--whether the projects could achieve financial
sustainability of their services after program funding terminates. Our
previous work on the Job Access Program showed that many projects might
not be sustained if their Job Access funding terminated; therefore, our
survey of Job Access grantees included questions about the likelihood
of Job Access projects retaining their matching funds and continuing to
operate. We also inquired about the prospects for projects‘ financial
sustainability with the grantees we selected for site visits and
discussed financial sustainability with Job Access Program officials,
national associations, and welfare reform and transportation experts.
Finally, as part of our second objective, we examined the use of
federal funds from other programs as matching funds for Job Access
projects. Job Access Program regulations require that grantees obtain
at least 50 percent of their project funding from non-DOT sources,
which may include funding from federal sources such as the TANF Program
and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)-sponsored programs of Labor. We
therefore reviewed policies affecting coordination and cost-sharing in
federal programs, which included Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-87, and we contacted DOT, HHS, and Labor officials about
their efforts to refine the interagency ’Joint Guidance“ regarding
matching funds for Job Access Program grants.
In addition, we selected and utilized three broad methodologies that
addressed both objectives of our study. These methodologies included:
* performing a detailed review of selected, ongoing Job Access projects
at different locations;
* surveying all Job Access grantees selected during fiscal years 1999
and 2000; and:
* consulting with nine welfare reform and transportation experts.
Review of Selected, Ongoing Job Access Projects:
We performed detailed reviews of selected, ongoing Job Access projects
at different locations. We selected these projects to represent the
geographic dispersion of Job Access projects across the United States.
In addition, we selected projects that served the different sizes of
areas prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration‘s (FTA) Job
Access administrative requirements: large urban areas, medium-size
urban areas, and rural areas/small cities. These grantees provided
different types of Job Access service delivery methods (e.g., carpools,
fixed bus and van routes, demand-responsive transportation, and trip
information and assistance). We visited the following:
* Grantees serving large cities:
1. Project Renewal (not-for-profit, community-based, organization,
New York City).
2. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (transit agency,
Washington, D.C.).
3. Maryland Transit Administration (statewide transit agency,
Baltimore,
Maryland).
4. Fort Worth Transit Authority (transit agency, Fort Worth, Texas).
* Grantees serving medium-size cities:
1. Capital District Transit Authority (transit agency, Albany, New
York).
2. Santa Rosa City Department of Transit and Parking (transit agency,
Santa Rosa, California).
3. Transit Authority of River City (transit agency, Louisville,
Kentucky).
City of Albuquerque Transit (transit agency, Albuquerque, New
Mexico).
* Small cities and rural areas:
1. Good News Garage (community-based, not-for-profit, organization,
Burlington, Vermont).
2. New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (state DOT,
Albuquerque, New Mexico).
3. Las Vegas Housing Department (public housing agency, Las Vegas, New
Mexico).
4. California DOT (CALTRANS, state DOT, Sacramento, California).
5. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (state transportation agency,
Frankfort, Kentucky).
6. Alliance for Children and Families (not-for-profit organization,
based in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin).
At each location, we examined how Job Access services were delivered,
how the design and delivery of Job Access services were coordinated
with those of other transportation services and human service agencies
in the area, and whether the grantees could financially sustain their
services if Job Access funding terminated. The grant recipients that we
visited included state and regional agencies that distributed Job
Access funds to subgrantees and that made substantial efforts to
coordinate those services to avoid duplicating ongoing transportation
services that serve low-income people, including welfare recipients.
Survey of Job Access Grantees:
We conducted a mail survey of all 173 Job Access grantees that were
funded in fiscal years 1999 or 2000. (See app. IV for the survey
results.) We did not survey the grantees selected in fiscal year 2001
because they did not have enough time to begin implementing their Job
Access projects. Our survey addressed issues pertaining to the
grantees‘ implementation of their projects, including costs, ridership,
collaboration with other agencies, their financial ability to sustain
services in the absence of Job Access funding, and their views on the
usefulness of the program in addressing the transportation needs of
low-income individuals. Our response rate, about 88 percent (152
respondents), can be generalized to the universe of all grantees funded
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts:
We consulted nine experts from academia, federal and state
transportation and welfare programs, and national associations with
backgrounds in the fields of welfare reform and transportation. They
provided information and views on such matters as the strategy DOT used
to implement the Job Access Program, the role of the Job Access Program
in the national welfare reform effort, the overall effectiveness of the
Program in serving low-income people, ways that the program could be
improved, the sustainability of Job Access projects, and ways in which
DOT could evaluate the program as required by TEA-21. We selected these
experts on the basis of our review of transit and welfare reform
literature and referrals from DOT, HHS, Labor, and national
associations, such as the American Public Transportation Association.
Our work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Services of Selected Job Access Grantees:
To address the objectives of our review, we visited ongoing Job Access
projects at different locations. At each location, we examined how Job
Access services were delivered, how the design and delivery of Job
Access services were coordinated with those of other transportation
services and human service agencies in the area, and whether these
projects could financially sustain their services if Job Access funding
terminated. We selected these projects to represent the geographic
dispersion of Job Access projects across the United States as well as
the different sizes of areas prescribed by FTA‘s Job Access
administrative requirements: large urban areas, medium-size urban
areas, and rural areas/small cities.
The projects we visited, as well as their locations, the services they
delivered, and the kinds of matching funds used, are summarized in
table 3. Following table 3, we provide more detailed information on
each project. The information contained in this text is based on
interviews with project officials as well as project-specific
documentation, including program and budget information.
Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited:
Organization: Alliance for Children and Families; Project: Ways to
Work; Location: Milwaukee, WI; Type of service: Car purchase/finance
program with carpool requirement; Job access funding: FY 2000 -
$1,000,000.
Organization: California Department of Transportation; Project:
Agriculture Industry Transportation Services Pilot Project; Location:
Kings and Kern Counties, CA; Type of service: Bus/Vanpool service; Job
access funding: FY 2000 - $1,500,000; FY 2001 - $3,000,000.
Organization: Capital District Transportation Authority; Project:
Transit to Jobs; Location: Albany, NY; Type of service: Van service on
fixed routes; Job access funding: FY 2000 - $497,500; FY 2001 -
$497,500.
Organization: City of Albuquerque Transit; Project: Albuquerque Transit
Job Access Program; Location: Albuquerque, NM; Type of service: Demand-
responsive van, rides for employment and transportation, training,
vanpool, and reduced bus pass; Job access funding: FY 1999 - $325,000;
FY 2000 - $1,000,000.
Organization: City of Santa Rosa; Project: Santa Rosa CityBus Route 15-
Stony Point Route Extension Project; Location: Santa Rosa, CA; Type of
service: Fixed route bus service; Job access funding: FY 1999 -
$200,000; FY 2000 - $250,000.
Organization: Fort Worth Transportation Authority; Project: Fort Worth
Transit; Location: Fort Worth, TX; Type of service: Demand-responsive
vans and taxi service and fixed route bus service; Job access funding:
FY 1999 - $175,0000.
Organization: Good News Garage; Project: CommuteShare; Location:
Burlington, VT; Type of service: Demand-responsive rides and carpooling
program; Job access funding: FY 2000 - $277,935.
Organization: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; Project: Human Service
Transportation Delivery System; Location: Frankfort, KY; Type of
service: Demand-responsive trip brokerage system and fixed bus route;
Job access funding: FY 2000 - $2,500,000.
Organization: Las Vegas Housing Department; Project: Las Vegas Housing
Department Welfare-to-Work Program; Location: Las Vegas, NM; Type of
service: Demand-responsive van service; Job access funding: FY 2000 -
$40,798; FY 2001 - $54,386.
Organization: Maryland Transit Administration; Project: Maryland Job
Access and Reverse Commute Program; Location: Maryland (statewide);
Type of service: Fixed route bus service, demand-responsive van
service, and computer project to connect human service employment
centers to a county transit internet site; Job access funding: FY 1999
- $2,119,880; FY 2000 - $3,000,000; FY 2001 - $2,394,720.
Organization: Project Renewal; Project: Suburban Jobs; Location: New
York, NY; Type of service: Van service from city to suburb and return
for clients transitioning to work; Job access funding: FY 1999 -
$398,760; FY 2001 - $400,577.
Organization: State of New Mexico; Project: Transportation Toolkit;
Location: New Mexico (statewide); Type of service: Demand-responsive
van service and extended fixed route; Job access funding: FY 1999 -
$1,198,000
FY 2000 - $601,190; FY 2001 - $1,995,600.
Organization: Transit Authority of River City; Project: Access to Jobs
Program; Location: Louisville, KY; Type of service: Fixed bus route and
demand-responsive van service; Job access funding: FY 1999 -
$1,032,938; FY 2001 - $1,097,400.
Organization: Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority;
Project: Washington Region Access to Jobs Program; Location:
Washington, DC; Type of service: Fixed route bus service, demand-
responsive vanpools, and trip information brokering; Job access
funding: FY 1999 - $1,350,000; FY 2000 - $650,000; FY 2001 - $998,000.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantees.
[End of table]
Alliance for Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) -
Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
Ways to Work, a subsidiary of the Alliance for Children and Families,
provides low-income people with loans of various sizes, ranging from
$750 for car repairs up to $3,000 for the purchase of a used car. For
its Job Access project, Ways to Work implemented a carpool project.
Low-income people that participate in Ways to Work volunteer to be in a
carpool project with other participants. Ways to Work then coordinates
the pool on the basis of home location and jobsite. While approximately
three-fourths of borrowers received government aid at the time of their
loan application, their use of public assistance dropped by 40 percent
within 2 years, and less than 1 percent of borrowers became ’new“ users
of public assistance since receiving their loans. Ways to Work
officials stated that internal studies show that borrowers can average
a 20 percent increase in household income. Currently, the Job Access
project in Alabama is the only ongoing effort under this grant. These
officials told us that Ways to Work is also applying for Job Access
grants in other locations, such as New Philadelphia, Canton, and Akron,
Ohio.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access
Project:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
[End of table]
Coordination:
Ways to Work has had different results with state DOTs. According to
the president of Ways to Work, the relationship with the Alabama DOT
was positive but slow. The Alabama DOT assisted Ways to Work by
coordinating on behalf of Ways to Work with other state and local
resources, such as human service agencies. However, according to Ways
to Work‘s president, this coordination process was too slow because
Ways to Work confronted Alabama‘s slow budget process. As a result, the
Program experienced delays in being implemented. Local participants in
the Job Access project did not have the cash flow to advance the
project, but the funding was obtained from the Alabama DOT.
Sustainability:
Ways to Work would reduce its carpool project if Job Access funds were
no longer available, according to its president. Job Access funding
expanded and strengthened the carpool project and Ways to Work overall.
Ways to Work, however, has been in operation since 1984 and received
most of its funding from foundations, banks, and other private funding
resources; thus, it could find alternative funding sources to maintain
the project. Moreover, as people repay the loans, Ways to Work can
reuse the money, so that successful lending would help stretch funding
out over many years. However, the carpool budget would be reduced,
thereby reducing the scope of the project.
California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry
Transportation Services - Kings County and Kerns County, California:
In May 2001, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
established the Agriculture Industry Transportation Services (AITS)
pilot project in response to a series of accidents involving farm labor
vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley--specifically, the death of 14 farm
workers. Many workers had been using unlicensed and uninsured van
service that charged passengers about $6 to $10 per day. The AITS pilot
project was designed to improve access to safe public transportation
for farm workers and their communities by providing expanded or new
transit service in Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties. There are
two components of the project--first, the Kings County component, which
encompasses the Fresno and Tulare Counties, and second, the Kerns
County component. Service started in May 2002.
The Kings County component involves purchasing 134, 15-passenger vans.
Residents in each of the targeted communities are trained to safely
operate the vanpool vehicles. The operators of these vehicles both
drive the vans and work at the agricultural fields and nearby packing
facilities. Vanpool fare for the pilot project is $50 per person, per
month. In addition, the Kings County component involves purchasing 12,
28-passenger buses. Residents of the community operate the buses
between the communities and nearby agricultural employment centers. Bus
fare is $3 per person, per day, and service frequency varies (from 4 to
7 days a week), depending upon seasonal demand for labor. An average of
26 people per day are currently riding the first bus in operation in
Kings County. The combined van and bus service costs each person about
$5 per day.
The Kerns County component of the AITS Job Access project is an
expansion of a fixed route bus service. Kern Regional Transit provided
expansion of existing portions of the transit system. Previously,
service consisted of one fixed route bus serving the Lamont/Weedpatch
communities, one demand-responsive bus for those, and an intercity
commuter bus linking Lamont with the Bakersfield area. Expansion of
service under this Job Access project consists of a second intercity
bus operating in the communities of Arvin, Weedpatch, and Lamont 6 days
a week, with limited service provided on Sundays. An additional bus was
placed into service for the Lamont/Weedpatch communities providing
improved service for residents in the communities that required transit
services to jobsites. Because the pilot project began operating in May
2002, data compilation and reporting of the project‘s success has not
been completed. CALTRANS officials plan in the future to collect data
on the number of agricultural workers who use the service to measure
the success of the program.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project and the sources of matching funds and amounts.
Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project:
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: $1,500,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: State Public Transportation Account;
Matching funds: Amount: $1,500,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 3,000,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: State Public Transportation Account;
Matching funds: Amount: 2,500,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $4,500,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount:
$4,000,000.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.
[End of table]
CALTRANS was awarded $4.5 million for the AITS pilot project. According
to CALTRANS officials, the $4.5 million was to be matched by funds from
the State Public Transportation Account, derived from fuel tax revenue.
However, the state did not fund the request for the additional $500,000
from the State Public Transportation Account to match the funding
awarded in January 2001. Therefore, CALTRANS will only use $4 million
of the total $4.5 million of Job Access funds.
Coordination:
CALTRANS officials fostered collaboration with other agencies by
conducting statewide workshops to explain the Job Access effort. They
invited the regional transportation agencies, metropolitan planning
organizations, and associated agencies to these workshops. According to
CALTRANS officials, coordination efforts have faced some challenges,
especially because of incompatible tracking systems. CALTRANS has only
been able to track the total number of passengers, whereas the
California Office of Health and Human Services is required to track the
ridership of each individual TANF client. As a result, the Office of
Health and Human Services has had difficulties providing TANF funds for
the required Job Access match because they could not account for the
number of TANF clients who specifically used the mass transit system.
Sustainability:
CALTRANS officials said that the vans would continue to operate without
Job Access funds. The fares paid by the passengers of the Kings County
services are used for insurance, maintenance, fuel, vehicle
replacement, overhead, and drivers‘ salaries. However, the bus service
in Kern County would need to be funded with contributions from local
governments or other organizations to continue operation in the absence
of Job Access funding.
Capital District Transportation Authority - Albany, New York:
The Capital District Transportation Authority provides fixed route bus
and van transit service as well as individualized trip planning and
information brokering. The transit authority‘s Job Access funds are
used to expand the hours of operation for their suburban services,
primarily in Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady Counties. The
extension allowed the transit authority to operate late night service
as well as service during the weekend. As a result of its Job Access
project, transit authority officials said they identified and filled
gaps in its service by developing a system that provides a
transportation solution for TANF clients who had difficulties getting
to and from work. According to transit authority officials, specific
projects being funded by Job Access are not for traditional fixed route
bus services, so services are contracted to companies that use vans in
all three counties. These services are paid for on a cost-per-trip
basis. Taxis are also utilized to take some of the grantee‘s Job Access
clients to and from work.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access
Project:
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $497,500;
[Empty]; Matching funds: New York State Department of Labor; Matching
funds: $900,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 497,500;
[Empty]; Matching funds: New York State Department of Labor; Matching
funds: 3,400,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $995,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: [Empty]; Matching funds: $4,300,000.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.
[End of table]
Coordination:
Transit authority officials said that the Job Access Program has helped
improve the coordination between transit and human service agencies.
According to grantee officials, as part of the Job Access grant
process, the transit authority established a relationship with the New
York State Department of Labor, which created a link to local human
service agencies and made transportation more accessible for TANF
clients while broadening their client focus.
However, coordinating the implementation of the Job Access project
between the grantee and various stakeholders has been complicated by
differences in reporting requirements between these parties and by the
volume of data that has to be collected. To conform with TANF reporting
requirements, the grantee has had to collect data it does not normally
collect for the numbers of TANF recipients that use the Job Access
service. Grantee officials explained that they had difficulties
accounting for their ridership along with determining if their
passengers are TANF clients. In addition, according to these officials,
private and nonprofit organizations operate their own transportation
vans and have services that overlap with Capital District
Transportation Authority services in some areas. Some of these other
agencies operating in the community include the following: the
Department of Aging Markets, the Association of Retarded Citizens, the
Veterans Administration, and the Office of Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities. Transit authority officials stated that
better coordination among these services could result in a more
efficient transportation network.
Sustainability:
Capital District Transportation Authority officials said that their
agency‘s sources of revenue are limited, and that without Job Access
funding, they would be unable to continue the services started under
the Program. The officials stated that the need to provide
transportation during weekends and second and third shifts has produced
a greater need for heavier subsidies. However, many counties are
feeling a budget squeeze, resulting in less funding being available to
contribute to the match necessary to obtain FTA Job Access funding.
City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services - Albuquerque, New
Mexico:
The Albuquerque Transit Department has seven Job Access projects that
include demand-responsive rides for work, job training, or
transportation emergencies; subsidized vanpools; reduced price bus
passes; a free 1-day bus pass available for job-training trips; a free
6-month bus pass for social service agency staff who volunteer to be
travel trainers for their clients; and a mobility manager service that
teaches people how to utilize bus schedules, ride buses, and use other
transit services. The demand-responsive services are available to
anyone at or below 150 percent of the poverty level. Participants are
offered 120 round-trips within 2 years to their jobs, job-related
training, and child care required for their jobs and/or job-related
training. Participants can only utilize the services to these
designated trips if they lack (1) a local bus stop within a quarter-
mile of their home or destination, (2) a local bus service that
duplicates the route in less than 90 minutes, and (3) a local bus
service that is available to their destination. Albuquerque Transit
officials estimate that on-demand van services cost about $17.50 per
ride; eligible participants pay 75 cents per trip.
Albuquerque Transit officials stated that, on the basis of qualitative
measures, their project is successful. The agency has tried to measure
the success of the Program by obtaining community feedback. This
feedback has indicated that the communities like the projects and feel
that the services were long overdue, according to transit officials.
Although it does not have exact numbers, the grantee claims that the
project is helping to reduce the welfare rolls, and that overall
ridership is increasing. In the first 3 months of 2002, the Job Access
project had 120 riders, according to Albuquerque Transit officials.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
Coordination:
Albuquerque Transit has had mixed results coordinating with other
agencies. The project successfully involved about 95 organizations in
the Job Access project. The project has obtained matching funds from
the City of Albuquerque, the New Mexico Human Service Department, and
the University of New Mexico Career Works. Coordination efforts,
however, have faced some challenges. The biggest barriers to
coordinating human service activities with transit services stemmed
from different agency cultures for complying with services standards
for clients, according to transit officials. They said transportation
providers do not speak the same language as human service providers
because the two have different missions and philosophies. The officials
said that compliance with all of the requirements to acquire matching
funds is also a barrier because human service agencies usually only
provide funds under certain conditions, such as are not paying for
nonclients. Consequently, the transit agency has spent considerable
financial resources tracking the number of TANF clients using Job
Access project services.
Sustainability:
According to transit officials, Albuquerque‘s project requires some
sort of public assistance and support to exist. Without Job Access
funding, they would no longer be able to provide the services created
under the project. The grantee officials are unsure of what they would
do if the funds stopped or the Job Access Program was not reauthorized.
Furthermore, they do not expect the state to fill the funding void--New
Mexico is one of four states that provide no state funds for public
transit.
City of Santa Rosa Citybus - Santa Rosa, California:
Santa Rosa, California, is a rapidly growing metropolitan area that is
approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco, in Sonoma County. Santa
Rosa‘s City Department of Transit and Parking (Santa Rosa CityBus)
operates 16 bus routes, most emanating from the transit center in the
downtown area. Santa Rosa CityBus‘s Job Access project established a
new public transit route, Route 15-Stony Point Road, in August 1999.
This new transit route serves the highest concentration of TANF
recipients in Santa Rosa, and it links job seekers with multiple job
opportunity worksites (e.g., light industry and telecommunications) and
human service agencies. According to Santa Rosa CityBus officials,
Route 15 has decreased the travel time of route users because it
eliminates unnecessary transfers through the downtown area. The cross-
town route, extending over 15 miles, requires about 1 hour to make a
round-trip and uses two buses. The service is available to the general
public and all passengers pay the same fare. However, the local health
and human services agency (SonomaWorks) purchases monthly bus passes at
the regular price and provides them at no cost to TANF participants.
Transit officials estimate that the route will service about 132,000
people in fiscal year 2002.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $200,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: MTC, State TDA; Matching funds;
Amount:
$300,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: 250,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: MTC, State TDA; Matching funds;
Amount:
250,000.
Matching funds: Source: : : : MTC, State LIFT[A]; Matching funds;
Amount:
250,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 0; [Empty];
Matching funds: Source: MTC, State LIFT; Matching funds; Amount:
250,000.
Matching funds: Source: : : : State TDA; Matching funds; Amount:
250,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2002; Job Access Program funding: 0; [Empty];
Matching funds: Source: MTC, State LIFT; Matching funds; Amount:
250,000.
Matching funds: Source: : : : MTC, State TDA; Matching funds; Amount:
250,000.
Job Access Program funding: Total: $450,000; Total: [Empty]; Matching
funds: Source: Total: [Empty]; Matching funds: Total: $1,800,000.
Legend:
LIFT Low-Income Flexible Transportation
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
TDA Transportation Development Act:
[A] LIFT funds include 50 percent Job Access funding through a state
grant.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
Santa Rosa CityBus officials worked closely with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), the area‘s metropolitan planning
organization, to develop and acquire funding for Route 15. MTC worked
on a plan that identified the regional shortfalls of existing
transportation services in terms of areas covered and times served. MTC
also helped gather the background information and produced Geographic
Information Systems maps, which plotted the TANF population that needed
to be served in the City of Santa Rosa. This allowed Santa Rosa and
transportation commission officials to identify the service gaps in
Santa Rosa and the areas where the highest concentration of TANF
recipients lived. Because of this collaboration, Santa Rosa CityBus was
able to provide a route linking low-income people to the resources they
need, such as jobs, child care, and health care.
The Job Access Program has also improved collaboration between Santa
Rosa CityBus and the local health and human service agency officials.
SonomaWorks officials, with the assistance of Santa Rosa CityBus staff,
trained local health and human services‘ caseworkers to better inform
their clients about all services being provided by Santa Rosa CityBus-
-specifically, Route 15. However, Santa Rosa officials did not discuss
using TANF funds as a match with SonomaWorks. Santa Rosa officials
stated that they were aware that the Job Access Program allowed for a
federal-to-federal funds match, but they chose not to pursue the
possibility of using TANF funds because they did not face any
difficulties in raising the matching funds.
Sustainability:
Currently there is no plan to discontinue service in the absence of Job
Access funding. Santa Rosa CityBus officials stated that even if the
Job Access Program were discontinued, Route 15 would continue to
operate. They added that it would be virtually impossible to
discontinue any established transit line because the transit users in
the community depend on these services. The goal of the Santa Rosa
CityBus was to use Job Access funding to assist in the establishment of
the route. They expect the route to be self-sustaining without Job
Access funds.
Fort Worth Transportation Authority - Fort Worth, Texas:
Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) is the primary public
transportation system for the city of Fort Worth, Texas. With the use
of the Job Access grant, FWTA employed a vanpool for the city‘s
outlying areas and contracted with a taxi company to provide demand-
responsive service to its clients within the Fort Worth area. Officials
at FWTA identified their target population as TANF recipients and
people with incomes at or below 150 percent of the poverty level. They
stated that their project has resulted in individuals finding jobs and
maintaining employment. They said that they provided transportation
services for 6 months, in the belief that if a person is employed for
that period of time, the person has increased his or her chances of
being hired again. As a result of the Job Access project, FWTA
officials said they have been able to help some people transition from
welfare to work by providing them with transportation to and from work,
daycare, and other services.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access
Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $175,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Fort Worth Transportation Authority[A];
Matching funds: Amount: $50,000.
Matching funds: Workforce Investment Board; Matching funds:
Amount: 50,000.
Matching funds: City of Fort Worth; Matching funds: Amount:
50,000.
Matching funds: Fort Worth Housing Authority; Matching funds:
Amount: 25,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $175,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: $175,000.
[A] FWTA also received a Job Access grant for $240,000 for fiscal year
2001. According to an FWTA official, the project would consist of
expanding fixed-route bus service on two major routes through the city.
However, budgetary constraints prevented the authority from providing
the 50 percent match at this time. According to the official, the
project may yet be implemented as the FTWA‘s financial condition
changes.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
FWTA officials have been reluctant to consult and coordinate with other
stakeholders, such as other transit agencies and human service
agencies, to receive assistance in operating their Job Access project
because of their negative experience in obtaining matching funds from
other stakeholders. They explained that they experienced a significant
administrative burden in complying with the data collection and
reporting requirements imposed by those stakeholders. Specifically, in
the early days of the project when seeking financial contributions from
other partners, they encountered problems in receiving TANF and other
matching funds, because of the significant reporting requirements
imposed by those funding sources. Although FWTA officials received the
required matching funds, they concluded that they would rather have its
partners provide noncash contributions since those contributions would
not result in any administrative requirements. FWTA officials are now
reluctant to request any operating assistance from other stakeholders.
Sustainability:
FWTA officials said that their project could not be continued without
Job Access funds and would require additional assistance and support
for it to continue. FWTA spends about $11.50 on its demand-responsive
taxi service. The cost per trip averages about $17.50 because of the
shared ride nature of each family trip. These costs are comparable to
taxi rides provided on a zone basis. For rides on its fixed route
services, FWTA assumes almost all of the $20 per ride costs of
providing the transit services, charging an average of only 50 cents
per trip. According to FWTA officials, their agency has no dedicated
funding stream for the Job Access services and the fares they collect
are not enough to continue their Job Access project in the absence of
FTA funding.
Good News Garage, Commuteshare - Burlington, Vermont:
CommuteShare is the Job Access project component of the Good News
Garage--a nonprofit association that repairs used vehicles and provides
them to economically disadvantaged applicants. The Good News Garage
donates some of its vehicles to CommuteShare for one carpool service
and four demand-responsive services. Under the carpool service, a
driver keeps the vehicle and provides rides to three other
participants. The demand-responsive service has an assigned volunteer-
driver take people to work upon request. CommuteShare services are free
and available to any person whose household income is less than 225
percent of the federal poverty level. Individuals receiving case-
managed services have free access to the vehicle for 6 months. After
that, there is a sliding fee scale fee that is based on income. Carpool
group members split the cost of fuel and parking, while demand-
responsive passengers each pay a $1 fuel contribution. One-way rides
cost CommuteShare roughly $16--this includes all operating expenses,
such as fuel, insurance, and repairs. About 190 people have
participated in the program, with 25 people participating at any given
time.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the source of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Job Access Program funding: 2000: $277,935; 2000: [Empty]; Matching
funds: Source: 2000: PATH; Matching funds: 2000: $277,935.
Total: $277,935: [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Total: $277,935:
[Empty].
Legend:
PATH Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition,
and Health Access (state funds):
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
Good News Garage and CommuteShare have enjoyed strong coordination with
other agencies, according to project administrators. Lutheran Social
Services, the nonprofit association that is based in New England that
created the Good News Garage, aligned the Garage with the Vermont
Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and Health Access
(PATH)--the state TANF clearinghouse--and the Vermont Department of
Employment and Training. Most Good News Garage and CommuteShare
referrals come from PATH. The Good News Garage also receives referrals
from local battered women‘s shelters. It used PATH state funds to
satisfy its matching funds requirements.
According to a PATH official, CommuteShare and PATH have coordinated
effectively in the overall welfare-to-work effort. PATH helps the Good
News Garage and CommuteShare clients pay for repairs or get them to
work if their car is not working. The support lasts 1 year and
thereafter, is no longer continued. The PATH official added that
positive experiences with demand-responsive service have resulted in
plans to expand such projects. PATH wants to have at least one car in
each of Vermont‘s 12 districts for demand-responsive service.
Sustainability:
CommuteShare officials are not sure if the project can maintain
operations in the absence of Job Access funding. Because of a tight
budget cycle, Vermont may not be able to supplement the required match-
-making a loss of Job Access funding critical to the projects
sustainability. According to project administrators, the project has
some support from the private sector but needs strong public funding to
maintain services. Grantee officials said that CommuteShare appears to
be a successful and innovative Job Access project but may have problems
sustaining itself after the end of Job Access funding.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Frankfort, Kentucky:
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet‘s Human Service Transportation
Delivery project involved consolidating transportation services
previously provided by various state governmental agencies to transport
Medicaid and low-income people to job interviews, job training,
employment, and child care facilities. According to cabinet officials,
services were consolidated because the previous transportation delivery
process was fragmented, increasingly costly, and vulnerable to fraud
and abuse. Kentucky‘s welfare reform initiative was expected to double
transportation needs for TANF recipients. In addition, transportation
services were not easily accessible in some rural areas. For example,
in an 11-county region in Southeast Kentucky, an average of 32.5
percent of the households were living in poverty, while an estimated
46,977 people over the age of 60 and 13,570 households did not have
access to an automobile. As a result, the cabinet began a statewide
demand-responsive service program. Seniors and low-income passengers
needing transportation could contact 1 of the 14 regional
transportation brokers within 72 hours of their trip.[Footnote 25]
Although the cabinet targets low-income people, the project is open to
the public. The service costs 50 cents to $1 for low-income individuals
and the general public. The Kentucky Cabinet for Family and Children
Services pays for TANF recipients‘ fares. According to cabinet
officials, the Job Access project is efficient and a major improvement
from past welfare reform efforts. The brokerage system resulted in more
people taking more trips at less cost. As of June 2002, the project has
provided 549,914 trips for TANF recipients and 330,596 trips for those
participating in Medicaid. Under the Job Access project, revenue
projections indicate that reductions in expenditures will result in a
Medicaid savings of $3 million annually.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access
Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: $2,500,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Kentucky Department of Children and
Family Services; Matching funds: Amount: $1,000,000.
Matching funds: Source: Combined contribution of local
communities; Matching funds: Amount: 1,000,000.
Matching funds: Source: Kentucky State Transportation Funds;
Matching funds: Amount: 500,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $2,500,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount:
$2,500,000.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet coordinated with the Cabinet for
Family and Children Services,[Footnote 26] local communities, human
service agencies, transit departments, and private transportation
operators to implement its Job Access project. According to grantee
officials, the Transportation Cabinet also relied heavily on local
community support. Local areas provided 40 percent of the necessary
match and were excited that the needed services were to start,
according to the cabinet official. The project also required
coordination from the 14 different transportation brokers. One such
broker, the Kentucky River Foothills, estimates that 95 percent of the
clients it transports have incomes that are less than or equal to 150
percent of the official federal poverty income threshold, and 65
percent to 70 percent earn less income than the official federal
poverty level. According to Kentucky River Foothills officials, the
biggest obstacle to coordination is convincing localities to invest in
public transportation.
Sustainability:
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials estimate that about half its
services can be sustained in the absence of Job Access funding. The
services most likely to survive would be those that have the strongest
community and employment ties. For example, in one region, a chicken
factory depends on low-income labor. The factory would most likely
support the Job Access service to keep its workers.
Housing Department - Las Vegas, New Mexico:
The Las Vegas Housing Department‘s Job Access project--a subgrantee of
the New Mexico State Highway Transportation Department--is a
continuation of a welfare-to-work project run by Highlands University.
According to the housing director, the university‘s project was not
working very well because it lacked an effective transportation
component. When the Job Access project began, the Las Vegas housing
director took on the responsibilities of transportation coordinator and
organized a new welfare-to-work project. The new project leveraged
funds from a variety of sources, including the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) and DOT, and had an existing clientele. The
city‘s Housing Department also provided the city Transportation
Department with a facility to enhance their coordination. The Las Vegas
project is open to the public and provides demand-responsive van
service during the traditional workweek. Although the project is
targeted to those who are low-income, anyone can utilize the service.
Las Vegas has a sliding scale for the service costs; the general public
pays a general cost (about $1.50), those who are below 30 percent of
the county median-income level--60 percent of their participants meet
this criteria--pay 75 cents (after applying through the local TANF
office at Highlands University), and residents of the housing
department can access the service for free. The van service requires
24-hour notice to schedule rides and can be used to travel to work,
child care, and retail locations as well as other purposes. According
to the Las Vegas housing director, the Las Vegas Housing Department‘s
project is a success; ridership has doubled in 3 years and housing
participants have improved their lives.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job
Access Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: $40,798.00;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Department of Labor;
Matching funds: Amount: $20,399.00.
Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Human Service Department;
Matching funds: Amount: 20,399.00.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 54,386.00;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Department of Labor;
Matching funds: Amount: 27,193.50.
Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Human Service Department;
Matching funds: Amount: 27,193.50.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $95,184.00;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount:
$95,185.00.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
The housing director was also able to use HUD‘s Drug Elimination grant
funds to help fund the project because the services included taking
teens to after-school activities. The grantee did not use DOT funds for
rural transportation as matching funds for the project, but it did use
them to purchase vans for the service.
Coordination:
According to the housing director, the project is an excellent example
of coordination between local, state, and federal agencies. Highlands
University is the human service provider and is receiving welfare-to-
work money from Labor‘s Welfare-to-Work Program. The state‘s Department
of Labor runs the TANF Program and also is providing matching funds.
The state Department of Labor has increased its number of vans from
three to five, and the department‘s director said he is starting to
receive interest from other rural communities looking to replicate the
project.
Sustainability:
According to project officials, the project cannot exist without public
support, particularly Job Access funds. The housing director argued for
the need to have continued federal funding of the Job Access project.
The housing director stated that clients need to have flexible and free
or cheap service, or else they will purchase a car. However, buying an
old car makes it harder for clients to develop financial independence,
because the costs of maintaining such a car are burdensome. The
director added that Job Access and other welfare-to-work services fail
because people who purchase a car do not have enough remaining funds to
pay for non-work-related automobile trips and to pay for such
necessities as child care, food, and clothing.
Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
- Annapolis, Maryland:
The Maryland Transit Administration‘s (MTA) project serves as a broker
for transportation funds throughout the state. Much of its Job Access
funding is applied toward demand-responsive services, but several
subprojects serve existing public service routes. MTA solicits
subprojects for its Jobs Access project by mailing applications,
advertisements, and guidelines to Maryland localities. MTA uses
performance indicators and standards to grant both awards and award
amounts.
Funding:
The following table describes Job Access subprojects funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job Access
Program:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access program funding: $2,119,880;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Maryland (state); Matching funds:
Amount: $391,250.
Matching funds: Source: Maryland DOT for Montgomery County;
Matching funds: Amount: 200,000.
Matching funds: Source: Maryland Department of Human Resources/
Local Department of Social Services; Matching funds: Amount:
667,375.
Matching funds: Source: Upper Shore Private Industry Council;
Matching funds: Amount: 15,000.
Matching funds: Source: Baltimore Enterprise Zone/Abell
Foundation; Matching funds: Amount: 285,880.
Matching funds: Source: Housing Authority of Baltimore City;
Matching funds: Amount: 200,000.
Matching funds: Source: Local governments; Matching funds:
Amount: 165,375.
Matching funds: Source: Historical East Baltimore Community
Action Coalition; Matching funds: Amount: 150,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access program funding: [Empty].
Matching funds: Source: Anne Arundel Econ. Development Corp;
Matching funds: Amount: 45,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access program funding: 3,000,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Maryland (state); Matching funds:
Amount: 854,679.
Matching funds: Source: Maryland DOT for Montgomery County;
Matching funds: Amount: 405,000.
Matching funds: Source: Maryland Department of Human Resources/
Local Department of Social Services; Matching funds: Amount:
2,767,688.
Matching funds: Source: Upper Shore Private Industry Council;
Matching funds: Amount: 20,000.
Matching funds: Source: Baltimore Enterprise Zone/Abell
Foundation; Matching funds: Amount: 109,844.
Matching funds: Source: Housing Authority of Baltimore City;
Matching funds: Amount: 100,000.
Matching funds: Source: Local governments; Matching funds:
Amount: 515,476.
Matching funds: Source: Historical East Baltimore Community
Action Coalition; Matching funds: Amount: 75,000.
Matching funds: Source: Anne Arundel Econ. Development Corp;
Matching funds: Amount: 151,242.
Matching funds: Source: Frederick County One-Stop; Matching
funds: Amount: 33,000.
Matching funds: Source: Mills Corporation; Matching funds:
Amount: 109,615.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access program funding: 2,394,720;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Maryland (state); Matching funds:
Amount: 997,179.
Matching funds: Source: Maryland Department of Human Resources/
Local Department of Social Services; Matching funds: Amount:
2,551,469.
Matching funds: Source: Baltimore Enterprise Zone/Abell
Foundation; Matching funds: Amount: 300,063.
Matching funds: Source: Local governments; Matching funds:
Amount: 347,389.
Matching funds: Source: Anne Arundel Econ. Development Corp;
Matching funds: Amount: 228,990.
Matching funds: Source: Mills Corporation; Matching funds:
Amount: 149,004.
Matching funds: Source: Chesapeake College; Matching funds:
Amount: 15,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access program funding: $7,514,600;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount:
$11,850,518.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
According to MTA officials, the Job Access Program has encouraged
greater collaboration and coordination between the transportation
agency and human service organizations at the state and local level.
MTA officials said that through an executive order, the Governor
established the State Coordinating Committee for Human Services
Transportation to encourage state agencies to identify needs and
develop strategies to ensure the coordination of human services
transportation. This committee facilitated MTA‘s ability to market the
Job Access project to other state agencies. In addition, MTA mapped out
all transportation projects across the state and extended its outreach
efforts to the local level. MTA officials credited the Jobs Access
Program with helping to formulate and standardize coordination between
transit and social service agencies in providing transportation
services to low-income people.
Sustainability:
Officials at MTA stressed the importance of having the state‘s
administration support public transit that has facilitated other state
and local agencies supporting the Job Access Program. According to MTA
officials, several factors contributed to their success. These
officials said that Maryland‘s existing transportation services (1) do
not serve areas that are too rural, remote, or small; (2) are supported
by the state legislature; and (3) are supported by the public.
Moreover, MTA created its own set of guidelines that would help the
sustainability of its programs. MTA officials added that state
legislation required that at least 25 percent of the required match
toward FTA transportation funds--including Job Access grants--would be
paid by the state. These officials said that this legislation also
requires that a portion of the matching funding be automatically
included in the state‘s transportation budget and provided a total of
$503 million over a 6-year period. They said that were not sure if they
would be able to maintain all of the services they have started without
continued Job Access funding.
Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs - New York City:
Under its Job Access grant, Project Renewal--a rehabilitation center
for homeless men and women--operates a Suburban Jobs Program that
places formerly homeless New Yorkers in unsubsidized employment by
identifying and securing job opportunities in suburban areas around New
York City. Suburban Jobs vans travel daily to five worksites, carrying
an average of about 150 people daily, and has an average employment
retention rate of 81 percent. At Montclair State University--one of the
project‘s five worksites--participants account for up to 75 percent of
the university‘s nonfaculty staffing, according to University
personnel. Each position at the University has a training element and
promotional opportunity.
Project Renewal‘s housing facilities as well as other nonprofit
employment programs refer qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. All
candidates are screened to ensure that they have undergone vocational
education and job readiness training. Project Renewal then identifies
appropriate employment opportunities, prepares clients for interviews,
and supplements public transportation through its own van service to
the suburban jobsites. Vans are necessary since public transportation,
even in a transit-rich city like New York, was not designed for reverse
commutes during nontraditional work shifts, according to project
officials. Personal counseling is provided to Suburban Jobs
beneficiaries while they are being transferred to and from the jobsite.
Including capital and operating expenditures, the rides cost Project
Renewal about $15 per person.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $398,760;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Matching funds: Amount: $398,760.
Fiscal year of funding: 2002; Job Access Program funding: 400,577;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Department of Housing and Urban
Development; Matching funds: Amount: 400, 577.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $799,337;
Matching funds: Amount: $799,337.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.:
[End of table]
Coordination:
Project Renewal has worked closely with its metropolitan planning
organization --the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council--and
has coordinated with other agencies. The Metropolitan Transportation
Council supports Project Renewal by providing guidance for improving
and starting new routes. For its required Job Access matching funds,
Project Renewal utilized HUD funds. Project Renewal also partners with
dozens of agencies and does not ask them to help pay for the
transportation costs of Suburban Jobs beneficiaries.
Sustainability:
According to project officials, Suburban Jobs would likely not exist
without Job Access funding. However, in the absence of DOT funding, the
managers of the project would attempt to continue the services
currently funded by DOT by soliciting greater contributions from
employers. For example, Montclair State University currently
contributes about $300 monthly for the service, and other employers
might be persuaded to contribute also.
State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job Access:
The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department developed a
statewide ’Transportation Toolkit“ to coordinate welfare-to-work
resources and to administer rural Job Access services. The Toolkit
contains several databases of the inventory of vehicles that were
purchased through publicly funded programs and TANF households by zip
code. The Toolkit helps agencies prepare TANF adults for employment: A
TANF adult will be referred, as needed, to appropriate resources, which
may be in different geographic locations. These resources include
counseling for substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence;
classes in parenting, life skills, and job preparation; and programs to
improve literacy and/or to obtain a general equivalency diploma.
The State Highway and Transportation Department also solicits and
awards Job Access grants to rural areas. New Mexico has 22 state Job
Access projects, 18 of which combine resources from DOT‘s funds for
rural transportation. Most of the Job Access projects are demand-
responsive, which makes tracking the number of rides easier.
Participants call 24 hours in advance to request a trip. These services
are available to the general public as well as low-income and TANF
recipients. New Mexico promotes the services to the general public
through local advertisements and to targeted clients through referrals
from local human service agencies.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
:
Table 15: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and Rural
Job Access Project:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $1,198,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Department of Labor;
Matching funds: Amount: $1,700,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: 601,190;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Human Service Department
(FY 2000 and 2001); Matching funds: Amount: 2,700,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 1,995,600;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 0.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $3,794,790;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount:
$4,400,000.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.:
[End of table]
Coordination:
According to the Highway and Transportation‘s Chief of Programs, the
Toolkit has resulted in remarkable coordination of transportation
resources. Responsible state and local agencies, such as the highway,
labor, and social development offices, use the Toolkit to determine the
most effective transportation mode to transport low-income and TANF
people to employment. The Toolkit helps localities determine (1) where
TANF recipients reside, (2) the inventory of vehicles that were
purchased through publicly funded programs, and (3) where jobs are
located for the entire state. The chief of highway programs stated that
the Toolkit is intended to avoid duplication of services and helps
localities determine if the vehicles that were purchased through
publicly funded programs were available for welfare to work. In
addition, the Job Access projects utilized matching funds from the New
Mexico Department of Labor and Human Service Department.
Sustainability:
The State Highway and Transportation Department believes the projects
can exist without Job Access funding. New Mexico uses self-
sustainability as a selection criterion in determining grantees; the
state Highway and Transportation department has been in constant
discussion with subgrantees about finding a way to fund their projects
without Job Access money. Highway and Transportation Department
officials said they believe that the Human Service Department will
continue to fund the Job Access service even if the federal Job Access
Program is not reauthorized by the Congress.
Transit Authority of River City - Louisville, Kentucky:
Through its Job Access project, the Transit Authority of River City
(TARC) offers a variety of services to low-income people:
* The Night Owl bus offers demand-responsive transportation for $1.50
each way to those who live and work in Louisville‘s Jefferson County.
* A Flex-Route deviates from a fixed-path bus route whenever a person
living near the route needs to access the bus service.
* The Job Hunter bus provides free, demand-responsive service for
transporting potential employees to interviews and career development
opportunities. The Job Hunter Bus has transported over 3,500 people
since 1999.
* In coordination with the United Parcel Service, two bus routes
transport students and low-income workers to the United Parcel
Service‘s worldwide hub in Louisville.
* A demand-responsive rideshare service to disabled workers.
* Three fixed route bus services--one for teenagers seeking jobs and
two for taking employees to Blue Grass Industrial Park--a large
employment site.
* A Bikes on Board project placed bike racks on 208 buses. This allows
people to travel from the end of the bus route to their place of
employment and back.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 16: Funding for the Transit Authority of River City Job Access
Project:
Fiscal year of funding: 1999 to 2001[A]; Job Access Program funding:
$2,130,338; [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: City of Jeffersontown;
Matching funds: Amount: $180,000.
Matching funds: Source: United Parcel Service; Matching funds:
Amount: 153,000.
Matching funds: Source: Kentuckiana Works; Matching funds:
Amount: 435,000.
Matching funds: Source: Others; Matching funds: Amount:
2,000.
Matching funds: Source: TARC; Matching funds: Amount:
1,360,338.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $2,130,338;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount:
$2,130,338.
[A] Grantee received $1,032,938 in fiscal year 1999 and $1,097,400 in
fiscal year 2001. :
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
TARC collaborated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit
agencies in developing its Job Access project. TARC also has a kiosk
located in the Workforce Investment Board One-Stop Center, which
provides unemployed persons with job placement and training services.
Sustainability:
TARC has integrated the Job Access services into its general services.
TARC officials said they would evaluate the efficiency of all their
routes and cut the least efficient if the agency lost its Job Access
funding. Currently, however, 80 percent of their ridership is in their
top five routes--none of which are Job Access services. Thus, services
funded through the Job Access project may be among those that could be
eliminated.
Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services:
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) provides
fixed route bus and rail service for Washington, D.C., and surrounding
areas. In its Job Access grant, WMATA provides three types of services:
(1) a trip brokerage service, (2) improved access to fixed bus routes,
and (3) a demand-responsive van service.
WMATA found that some clients faced problems in getting to and from
work during nontraditional work hours--for example, late-night or early
morning hours. Due to a lack of transportation, these employees face a
difficult time maintaining employment. As a result, under its Job
Access grant, WMATA began in 1999 a trip brokerage system that allows
its clients to reserve transportation services for odd hours and in
areas that are underserved by traditional public transit services.
According to WMATA officials, their program has been able to serve
thousands of individuals every month. WMATA‘s demand-responsive
component incurs a cost of about $46 per trip, with no costs to the
client.
In addition to the trip brokerage system, WMATA implements a fixed-
route component of its Job Access Program. While the fixed route
service costs an average of $41.68 per ride, passengers pay a fare of
roughly $1.75 (both the Job Access client and general public pay this
amount). With just over 330 trips per month on fixed bus routes,
WMATA‘s Job Access project has been able to provide service to about
9,500 individuals.
WMATA also established a one-stop information center--the Washington
Regional Call Center--that allows people to access exact trip
information to various locations.
Funding:
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access
Services:
Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding[A]: [Empty].
Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding[A]:
$1,350,000; [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: United People‘s
Organization; Matching funds: Amount: $200,000.
Matching funds: Source: Washington, DC, Dept. of Employment
Services; Matching funds: Amount: 300,000.
Matching funds: Source: Virginia Department of Human Services;
Matching funds: Amount: 195,000.
Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County Department of; Family
Services; Matching funds: Amount: 180,000.
Matching funds: Source: Potomac Rappahannock; Transportation
Commission; Matching funds: Amount: 140,000.
Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County (Gen. Govt.); Matching
funds: Amount: 350,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding[A]: 650,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Washington, DC, Dept. of Employment
Services; Matching funds: Amount: 300,000.
Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County Department of; Family
Services; Matching funds: Amount: 180,000.
Matching funds: Source: Potomac Rappahannock; Transportation
Commission; Matching funds: Amount: 127,000.
Matching funds: Source: Virginia Department of Human Services;
Matching funds: Amount: 195,000.
Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding[A]: 998,000;
[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Washington, DC, Dept. of Employment
Services; Matching funds: Amount: 300,000.
Matching funds: Source: People‘s Involvement Corporation;
Matching funds: Amount: 267,000.
Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County Department of; Family
Services; Matching funds: Amount: 225,000.
Matching funds: Source: Potomac Rappahannock; Transportation
Commission; Matching funds: Amount: 200,000.
Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding[A]:
$2,998,000; [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds:
Amount: $3,159,000.
Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :
[End of table]
Coordination:
According to WMATA officials, the Job Access Program increased their
coordination with human service agencies and others in their service
area because it was designed to address problems related to low-income
people getting transportation services. As the most prevalent transit
provider for the Washington metropolitan area, WMATA and the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Government‘s Transportation
Planning were the regional catalysts for getting transportation and
social services together to provide Job Access services. According to
WMATA officials, WMATA has been able to leverage its status as the
region‘s primary transit provider to encourage the involvement of other
regional transit systems as well as human service agencies across two
states, Washington, D.C., and multiple local jurisdictions. In
addition, WMATA has been able to use the information and outreach
component of its Job Access project to promote the use of transit
programs throughout the region. WMATA has been able to direct welfare
clients to utilize more timely and efficient public transit routes to
and from work, thereby enabling individuals to get to work on time and
keep their jobs. Consequently, WMATA officials noted that employers
have begun to take notice of the WMATA Job Access project because it
has produced a dependable form of transportation for their employees.
WMATA is currently working with the Washington, D.C., Board of Trade
and Chamber of Commerce to encourage more public and private
collaborations in serving low-income populations.
Sustainability:
WMATA officials said they would not be able to sustain services started
with Job Access funding if they did not continue to receive grants.
They believe that theirs is a model program, but they have not been
able to encourage sufficient private sector involvement in the program
to replace Job Access funds.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment:
GAO Contact:
Katherine A. Siggerud (202) 512-2834:
Staff Acknowledgment:
In addition, Sam Abbas, Ernie Hazera, JayEtta Hecker, Landis Lindsey,
Susan Michal-Smith, LuAnn Moy, Josephine Perez, and Frank Taliaferro
made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Job Access program serves ’low-income“ people, who are defined
as having family income at or below 150 percent of the official poverty
line as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). People who are low income and are
eligible to use the Job Access Program include welfare recipients who
qualify for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families Program as well as beneficiaries of other federal assistance
programs.
[2] In 2000, we surveyed organizations responsible for implementing 194
projects selected for award in 1999; the numbers of projects and
grantees have changed since then because some projects were dropped,
some grantees withdrew from the program, and other grants were
consolidated.
[3] The Community Transportation Association of America is an
association with a stated goal of improving the mobility of low-income
and other disadvantaged people. The association conducts research,
provides technical assistance, offers educational programs, and serves
as an advocate for coordinated community transportation.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made
Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program but Has Not Evaluated
the Impact, GAO-02-640T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2002).
[5] An employment site, where employers are located, is considered
accessible if it is located within one-quarter mile of Job Access
transportation services provided by the grantee.
[6] For our study, we surveyed all of the 173 grantees that FTA
selected for grants during fiscal years 1999 and 2000; 152 responded,
for a response rate of 88 percent.
[7] WIA programs provide individuals with job training and placement
services and transportation to those services.
[8] The expenditures for WIA-funded transportation services have not
been estimated or determined.
[9] Some of the Job Access Program funds are ’guaranteed,“ that is,
subject to a procedural mechanism designed to ensure that minimum
amounts of funding are made available each year. TEA-21 provided
guaranteed funding of $50 million for fiscal year 1999, $75 million for
fiscal year 2000, $100 million for fiscal year 2001, $125 million for
fiscal year 2002, and $150 million for fiscal year 2003. In addition,
as of the date of this report, DOT is being funded through a continuing
resolution, and the final funding level for the program for fiscal year
2003 has not been decided.
[10] When selecting projects, DOT also has considered such factors as
the geographic dispersion of Job Access projects and the innovative
nature of proposed Job Access services.
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT‘s
Access to Jobs Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8,
1998).
[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT‘s
Access to Jobs Program in Its First Year, GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making
Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO-01-133
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000).
[14] GAO-02-640T.
[15] The fiscal year 1999 grantees include over 80 percent of the
grantees still participating in the Job Access Program. See GAO/RCED-
00-14.
[16] Demand-responsive service refers to a transit service scheduled in
advance, often utilizing small buses or vans, that take riders to
locations they request at times they request.
[17] FTA provided the Job Access grants for Project Renewal for fiscal
years 1999 and 2001.
[18] DOT and HHS have issued joint guidance to the states and grantees
that TANF funds could be used to match Job Access grants.
[19] GAO-01-133.
[20] Of the 152 grantees that responded to our survey, 142 grantees
answered this question.
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Transportation‘s
Role in Moving from Welfare to Work, GAO/RCED-98-161 (Washington, D.C.:
May 29, 1998).
[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT‘s
Access to Jobs Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec., 8,
1998); Implementing DOT‘s Access to Jobs Program in Its First Year,
GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999); Welfare Reform: DOT
Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO-01-133
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000); Welfare Reform: GAO‘s Recent and
Ongoing Work on DOT‘s Access to Jobs Program, GAO-01-996R (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001); and, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection
Requirement for DOT‘s Job Access Program Was Not Followed, GAO-02-213
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2001).
[23] Labor‘s Welfare-to-Work Program provided $3 billion to states to
help persons who are difficult to employ find work. The program was
initially authorized for 2 years, then was extended for an additional 2
years, and was terminated at the end of fiscal year 2002.
[24] We surveyed grantees that were responsible for 194 Job Access
projects and attained a response rate of 82 percent.
[25] Brokers are a combination of human service agencies, transit
departments, and private contractors such as taxis.
[26] The Department of Family and Children Services, however,
discontinued their funding of this project as of July 1, 2002, because
their state budget for transportation services decreased from $8
million to $3 million.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
