Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist Gao ID: GAO-03-697 June 30, 2003Millions of Americans are unable to provide their own transportation--or even use public transportation--for Medicaid appointments, Head Start classes, job training, or other services. Such "transportation disadvantaged" persons are often disabled, elderly, or low income. Various federal programs are authorized to provide transportation services to them. GAO was asked to (1) identify the federal programs that fund such transportation services and the amount spent on them, (2) assess the extent of coordination among the various programs, and (3) identify any obstacles to coordination and potential ways to overcome such obstacles.
Sixty-two federal programs--most of which are administered by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and Transportation--fund transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged. The full amount these programs spend on transportation is unknown because transportation is not always tracked separately from other spending. However, available information (i.e., estimated or actual outlays or obligations) on 29 of the programs shows that federal agencies spent at least an estimated $2.4 billion on these services in fiscal year 2001. Additional spending by states and localities is also not fully known but is at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through coordination of transportation activities (through sharing resources or information or consolidating services under a single agency) among federal agencies vary. The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility--a body with representation from the Departments of Transportation and Health and Human Services--has undertaken some activities to improve coordination. However, other agencies that administer a substantial number of programs for the transportation-disadvantaged, such as the Departments of Labor and Education, are not part of the Council. In addition, the Coordinating Council's strategic plan is not linked to its action plan and contains few measurable performance goals. The strategic and annual performance plans of the Departments of Transportation and Health and Human Services contain few references to coordination relating to their subagencies and programs that fund transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged, and the plans of the Departments of Labor and Education do not mention coordinating these services. Obstacles impeding coordination include concern among administrators that their own participants might be negatively affected, program rules that limit use by others, and limited guidance and information on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials and experts suggested making federal standards more consistent, creating a clearinghouse or better Web site to facilitate interagency communication and provide better guidance on coordination, and providing financial incentives or instituting mandates to coordinate.
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-03-697, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-697
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination
Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist' which was released on June 30, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
June 2003:
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation
Services, but Obstacles Persist:
Transportation Coordination:
GAO-03-697:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-697, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Millions of Americans are unable to provide their own transportation”
or even use public transportation”for Medicaid appointments, Head
Start classes, job training, or other services. Such ’transportation-
disadvantaged“ persons are often disabled, elderly, or low income.
Various federal programs are authorized to provide transportation
services to them. GAO was asked to (1) identify the federal programs
that fund such transportation services and the amount spent on them,
(2) assess the extent of coordination among the various programs, and
(3) identify any obstacles to coordination and potential ways to
overcome such obstacles.
What GAO Found:
Sixty-two federal programs”most of which are administered by the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation”fund transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged. The full amount these programs spend on transportation
is unknown because transportation is not always tracked separately
from other spending. However, available information (i.e., estimated
or actual outlays or obligations) on 29 of the programs shows that
federal agencies spent at least an estimated $2.4 billion on these
services in fiscal year 2001. Additional spending by states and
localities is also not fully known but is at least in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through
coordination of transportation activities (through sharing resources
or information or consolidating services under a single agency) among
federal agencies vary. The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility”
a body with representation from the Departments of Transportation and
Health and Human Services”has undertaken some activities to improve
coordination. However, other agencies that administer a substantial
number of programs for the transportation-disadvantaged, such as the
Departments of Labor and Education, are not part of the Council. In
addition, the Coordinating Council‘s strategic plan is not linked to
its action plan and contains few measurable performance goals. The
strategic and annual performance plans of the Departments of
Transportation and Health and Human Services contain few references to
coordination relating to their subagencies and programs that fund
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged, and the
plans of the Departments of Labor and Education do not mention
coordinating these services.
Obstacles impeding coordination include concern among administrators
that their own participants might be negatively affected, program
rules that limit use by others, and limited guidance and information
on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials and experts
suggested making federal standards more consistent, creating a
clearinghouse or better Web site to facilitate interagency
communication and provide better guidance on coordination, and
providing financial incentives or instituting mandates to
coordinate.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Departments of Labor and Education join the
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. GAO also recommends that
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation (1) strengthen the Coordinating Council‘s strategic
plan, (2) include long-term goals and measures for coordination in
their agencies‘ strategic and annual performance plans, and (3)
develop and distribute additional guidance and information to
encourage coordination.
The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation generally concurred with the findings and
recommendations in this report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-697.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact. Katherine Siggerud
at (202) 512-2834.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Sixty-Two Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services to
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
Extent of Spending on Services for the Transportation-Disadvantaged Is
Not Fully Known but Is in the Billions of Dollars:
Coordination Efforts Vary, but Some Successful Efforts Show Promising
Results:
Officials Cited Numerous Obstacles to Successfully Coordinating
Services and Provided Potential Options to Mitigate Them:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs Providing Transportation
Services to the Transportation-Disadvantaged:
Appendix III: Federal and State Coordination Efforts:
Federal Coordination:
State Coordination:
Appendix IV: Informational Resources on Coordination:
Web Sites:
Reports:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Sixteen Programs Identified by CTAA as Regularly Providing
Funding for Transportation:
Table 2: Eleven Programs Spending at Least $4 Million in Fiscal Year
2001:
Table 3: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged by Eight Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year
2001:
Table 4: Status of Federal Responses to GAO's Recommendations to
Improve Coordination:
Table 5: Federal Actions Taken in Response to GAO Recommendations for
Improving Coordination:
Table 6: Examples of State Coordination of Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Programs Providing Transportation Services to the
Transportation-Disadvantaged, by Agency:
Figure 2: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the
Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota:
Abbreviations:
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:
CTAA: Community Transportation Association of America:
CTAP: Community Transportation Assistance Project:
DOL: U.S. Department of Labor:
DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
JARC: Job Access and Reverse Commute:
MOE: maintenance of effort:
P.L.: public law:
RTAP: Rural Transit Assistance Program:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
TCRP: Transit Cooperative Research Program:
U.S.C.: U.S. Code:
VA: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:
VR: Vocational Rehabilitation:
WETAP: Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 30, 2003:
The Honorable Don Young
Chairman
The Honorable James L. Oberstar
Ranking Democratic Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Thomas E. Petri
Chairman
The Honorable William O. Lipinski
Ranking Democratic Member
Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives:
The ability to access personal or public transportation is fundamental
for people to connect with employment opportunities, health and medical
services, educational services, and the community at large. However,
certain populations in the United States lack the ability to provide
their own transportation or have difficulty accessing whatever
conventional public transportation may be available. These
"transportation-disadvantaged" persons may have an age-related
condition, a disability, or income constraints. This is potentially a
sizeable group. For example, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 35.1
million people were over age 65, 44.5 million people were over age 21
and disabled, and 33.9 million people were living below the poverty
line. Many within these populations face significant problems in
accessing transportation.
Many federal programs authorize use of funds to provide transportation
for transportation-disadvantaged people so they can access government
programs. Programs that provide incidental transportation include
health and medical programs, job-training programs, or programs for the
aging. The coordination of these transportation services--through
pooling resources, consolidating trips provided by various agencies
under a single agency, or sharing information between programs--has
been found to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of service. At
the federal level, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility--a
body consisting of representatives from the Departments of Health and
Human Services and Transportation--is charged with coordinating
transportation services provided by federal programs and promoting the
maximum feasible coordination at the state and local levels. In a 1999
report,[Footnote 1] we found that these coordination efforts needed
strengthening. We have also issued other reports raising concerns about
service coordination.[Footnote 2]
You asked that we study the extent to which government agencies and
programs are currently providing transportation services to the
transportation-disadvantaged and coordinating the provision of these
transportation services and that we update you on actions taken by the
Coordinating Council since our 1999 report. This report addresses (1)
the federal programs that provide transportation services for
transportation-disadvantaged populations and the types of services they
provide; (2) federal, state, and local government spending for
transportation services through these federal programs;[Footnote 3] (3)
the extent of coordination among state, local, and federal agencies in
delivering transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, including actions taken by the Coordinating Council; and
(4) any obstacles that may impede effective coordination and potential
options for overcoming such obstacles.
Our overall approach was to (1) review federal laws and regulations
governing the use of federal funds for services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations; (2) analyze spending data where available;
(3) review federal and other governmental activities and the research
literature related to the coordination of transportation services; and
(4) obtain the views of more than 100 officials from federal, state,
and local government agencies, industry and client advocacy groups, and
other experts involved with or affected by the coordination process on
the obstacles and options for improving coordination. Many of these
interviews were part of case studies that we conducted in five states-
-Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin--to understand
how these various federal programs were implemented and coordinated at
the state and local level. We chose these states to include a cross
section of characteristics including urban/rural mix, geographic area
of the country, and presence or absence of a state council or other
coordinating body. Appendix I contains more information about our scope
and methodology.
Results in Brief:
We identified 62 federal programs--most of which are administered by
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation--that are used to fund transportation services for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Sixteen of these seem
particularly relevant in that the Community Transportation Association
of America[Footnote 4] identified them as being regularly used to fund
transportation services. In addition, based on available information,
we identified 11 other programs that are notable, in that
transportation spending under each one was at least $4 million in
fiscal year 2001. While the remaining programs also fund transportation
services, they do so minimally, or the extent of transportation
services funded is unknown, according to program officials. Most
programs purchase transportation services from existing private or
public providers. For example, several programs in the Department of
Labor typically provide bus tokens, and Medicaid providers often
contract with local transportation providers.[Footnote 5] In contrast,
Department of Transportation programs and several others such as Head
Start in the Department of Health and Human Services typically purchase
and operate vehicles or modify them for use by individuals with
disabilities. Several of these 62 programs are required to coordinate
services they provide with other agencies providing similar services,
which can include transportation.
Federal, state, and local spending for these transportation services is
in the billions of dollars, although the full extent of spending is
unknown because transportation spending is not always tracked
separately from other program spending. In the 29 programs for which we
could obtain actual spending amounts or estimates from program
officials, federal spending on transportation services for
transportation-disadvantaged populations was at least $2.4 billion in
fiscal year 2001. Department of Health and Human Services programs
spent about three-quarters of this amount. State and local agencies
also provide funding for many of these programs, often to fulfill
matching requirements, which generally range from 5 to 50 percent of
total program costs for these programs. Estimates of state and local
spending are generally not available because few agencies track such
information at the federal or state level. However, based on available
information, it is evident that state and local contributions for these
services are significant--at least several hundred million dollars.
Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through
coordination of transportation activities among agencies at all levels
of government vary; however, in some areas we visited, close
coordination among providers has shown promising results. Some local
agencies have realized substantial benefits by coordinating their
transportation services through sharing vehicles, consolidating
services under a single agency, or sharing information about available
services. For example, a transit agency in South Dakota consolidated
the transportation services previously provided by both senior and
medical centers as well as other federal, state, and local programs.
This consolidation allowed the agency to expand its service hours and
increase the number of trips provided while reducing the average cost
of providing each trip by about 20 percent. We found instances,
however, in which there were overlapping, fragmented, or confusing
services among programs that did not coordinate. For example, a local
official said that the vans delivering clients to the local job center
are owned by many different programs, but because the programs do not
coordinate, only a few people ride in each van. At the federal level,
agencies have taken some limited steps to coordinate their
transportation programs since our 1999 report.[Footnote 6] For example,
the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility has finalized a
strategic plan and issued guidelines for coordinating transportation
services. However, the long-term goals and objectives in its strategic
plan are generally not measurable, and they are not linked to the
activities in the Council's action plan. Also, the strategic and annual
performance plans of the Departments of Transportation and Health and
Human Services contain few references to coordination of programs for
the transportation-disadvantaged, and the plans of the Departments of
Labor, Education, and the other federal agencies contain no such
references. In addition, the Coordinating Council only includes
officials from two federal departments (Transportation and Health and
Human Services), representing less than half of the 62 federal programs
that can be used to fund services for the transportation-disadvantaged,
while the Departments of Labor and Education, which administer one-
third of the programs, are not members of the Council. Furthermore,
while the Coordinating Council is working to improve its Web site, the
site is not linked to the Web site of the Department of Health and
Human Services, making it more difficult for human service agencies at
all government levels to be aware of and access the site.
Although decision makers face numerous obstacles in trying to
coordinate transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, officials and experts that we consulted also offered
several potential options to mitigate these obstacles and enhance
coordination among federal, state, and local agencies. We grouped the
obstacles into three categories: (1) reluctance to share vehicles and
fund coordination activities due to concerns about possible adverse
effects on clients; (2) different eligibility requirements, safety
standards, and other programmatic requirements that can limit programs'
ability to share transportation resources; and (3) lack of leadership
and commitment to coordinate, as evidenced by the limited guidance and
information provided by federal and state agencies on the possible
techniques for coordinating services. To mitigate these obstacles,
officials and experts suggested three potential options. One option is
to harmonize standards among federal programs--such as safety standards
related to types of seat belts and driver training requirements--so
that programs can serve additional populations or better share
transportation resources. Another option is to expand interagency
forums that would facilitate communication among agencies involved in
coordination efforts and to share additional technical guidance and
information on coordination among federal and state agencies through a
central clearinghouse or improved Web site. The third option is to
provide financial incentives or mandates that would give priority in
federal funding to those grant applicants that show a strong commitment
to coordinate or require specific coordination efforts among grant
recipients as a condition of receiving federal funding. We did not
assess the costs and benefits of these options; however, some would
require extensive statutory or regulatory changes and could cause
agencies to incur significant costs.
Given the multiplicity of federal programs that can fund transportation
services for the transportation-disadvantaged, and the significant
amounts spent on those services, effective coordination efforts are
needed to ensure that transportation services reach the greatest number
of recipients. Accordingly, our report contains several recommendations
designed to strengthen and enhance coordination activities in the four
federal departments that administer most of the programs that fund
transportation services--Health and Human Services, Labor, Education,
and Transportation. In commenting on the draft of this report, those
four departments generally concurred with the findings and
recommendations. In addition, we provided the draft report to two other
departments that provide services to the transportation-disadvantaged-
-Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs--and those
departments also agreed with the findings. In some cases, these
departments also provided technical clarifications, which were
incorporated as appropriate to ensure accuracy.
Background:
Many elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals face significant
challenges in accessing transportation. For example, some of these
challenges are as follows:
* Sixteen percent of respondents over age 75 reported not having a
driver's license in 2001, and 25 percent of the respondents had not
driven at least once in the last month according to an AARP
survey.[Footnote 7] Elderly people are also more likely to have
difficulty accessing traditional public transportation due to physical
ailments.
* Thirty percent of respondents with disabilities reported difficulty
in accessing transportation, compared to 10 percent of respondents
without a disability, according to a 2000 survey by the National
Organization on Disabilities.
* Low-income households are less likely to own a car than other
households due to the prohibitive cost of purchasing, insuring, and
maintaining a car, and public transportation may not provide sufficient
options for their needs. Over 90 percent of public assistance
recipients do not own a car.[Footnote 8]
The importance of coordinating transportation services for
transportation-disadvantaged populations has been evident since the
1970s. In 1977, we issued a report on transportation
coordination,[Footnote 9] which concluded that the most significant
hindrance to the coordination of transportation services under these
programs was confusion at all levels of government as to how much
coordination federally funded projects could engage in. Since 1986,
responsibility for coordinating transportation programs at the federal
level has rested in the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility,
which was created under a memorandum of understanding between the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of
Transportation (DOT). This body is composed of representatives from
program offices within these departments, and employees of the two
departments meet its staffing needs, on a part-time basis.
More recent reviews have continued to identify a need for stronger
efforts in this area. In a 1999 report on transportation
coordination,[Footnote 10] we found that coordination efforts of the
Coordinating Council, DOT, and HHS were ongoing but still needed
strengthening. This report also noted that the Congress had endorsed
increased coordination as evidenced by several provisions in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),[Footnote 11]
and significant financial benefits had been realized through
coordination. In addition, reports by advocacy groups and
transportation researchers have raised concerns over continuing
duplication of effort among federal programs and certain sub-
populations still not being served effectively.[Footnote 12]
Sixty-Two Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services to
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:
We identified 62 federal programs that fund transportation services to
populations that are transportation-disadvantaged.[Footnote 13] As
shown in figure 1, the bulk of these programs are administered by four
federal agencies--23 programs in HHS, 15 programs in the Department of
Labor (DOL), 8 programs in the Department of Education, and 6 programs
in DOT.[Footnote 14] The remaining 10 programs are administered by the
Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs
(VA), Agriculture, and the Interior. A full listing of programs, their
authorizing legislation, typical uses, types of trips provided, target
populations, and spending information is found in appendix II.
Figure 1: Number of Programs Providing Transportation Services to the
Transportation-Disadvantaged, by Agency:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many of the 62 programs are significantly involved in providing
transportation services to their recipients. These include 16 programs
identified by the Community Transportation Association of America
(CTAA)[Footnote 15] as being routinely used to provide transportation
and an additional 11 programs that we identified as spending at least
$4 million for transportation services to transportation-disadvantaged
populations in fiscal year 2001 on the basis of funding data or
estimates that were available. The remaining programs also fund
transportation services, but do so minimally, or the extent of
transportation services funded is unknown, according to program
officials. Table 1 shows the 16 programs identified by CTAA and how
they provide transportation. These 16 programs are administered by DOT,
HHS, Education, and DOL. As the table shows, transportation is not the
primary purpose of most of these programs. For example, Medicaid
provides payments for medical services, and the Vocational
Rehabilitation Grants Program provides training and employment services
to individuals with disabilities.
Table 1: Sixteen Programs Identified by CTAA as Regularly Providing
Funding for Transportation:
Agency: Department of Education; Program: Vocational Rehabilitation
Grants; Description: Assists states in operating programs that provide
vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities.
Services include counseling, training, job placement, and other
supportive services, including transportation.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Program: Grants for
Supportive Services and Senior Centers; Description: Assists states in
developing a community-based system of services for older individuals.
Services provided include nutrition services, caregiver support
services, senior centers, and transportation services.
Program: Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native
Hawaiian Elders; Description: Assists tribal organizations in the
delivery of supportive services to older Native Americans. Services
provided include nutrition services, caregiver support services, senior
centers, and transportation services.
Program: Head Start; Description: Assists local grantees in providing a
program of comprehensive health, educational, and other services to
promote school readiness for low-income children. Transportation to and
from program services is generally provided.
Program: Medicaid; Description: Assists states in payments for medical
assistance to populations that meet categorical eligibility (such as
families with children or persons who are elderly or disabled) as well
as income and resource requirements. States are required to assure
transportation to medical services.
Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Description: Provides
grants to states or tribes to assist needy families with children.
Grantees have the flexibility to use funds in any manner that meets the
purposes of the program, which can include transportation to services.
Agency: Department of Labor; Program: Senior Community Service
Employment Program; Description: Assists states and other grantees in
providing work opportunities in community service activities for low-
income individuals 55 years of age and older. Transportation to
training and job placements can be provided.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Adult Services Program; Description:
Assists states in providing workforce investment activities.
"Intensive" services provided to low-income participants include
occupational and basic skills training, and transportation can be
provided to access such services.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program;
Description: Assists states in providing workforce investment
activities. "Intensive" services provided to low-income participants
include occupational and basic skills training, and transportation can
be provided to access such services.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; Description:
Assists states in providing workforce investment activities that will
help low-income youth acquire the skills, training, and support needed
to achieve employment success. Transportation can be provided to access
services.
Agency: Department of Transportation; Program: Capital Investment
Grants; Description: Assists states in financing facilities for use in
mass public transportation service. Projects can include those that are
designed to meet the special needs of elderly or disabled individuals.
Program: Urbanized Area Formula Program; Description: Assists urbanized
areas in financing capital projects for use in mass transportation
service. Ten percent of funds may be used to pay for ADA paratransit
operating costs.[A].
Program: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; Description: Assists
nonurbanized areas with capital and operating expenses needed to
provide public transportation service. Ten percent of funds may be used
to pay for ADA paratransit operating costs.
Program: Job Access and Reverse Commute; Description: Provides grants
to develop transportation services to connect low-income persons to
employment and support services. Funds can be used for capital and
operating costs associated with new or expanded service.
Program: Capital and Training Assistance for Over-the-Road Bus
Accessibility; Description: Assists private operators of over-the-road
buses with financing capital and training costs associated with making
buses accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Program: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons
with Disabilities; Description: Provides financial assistance to
nonprofit organizations in meeting the transportation needs of elderly
persons and persons with disabilities where public transportation
services are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. Funds may be
used for eligible capital expenses, such as purchasing vehicles, or to
contract for service.
Sources: CTAA and Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
[A] The ADA required that all fixed route transportation services and
facilities be accessible to individuals with disabilities, including
wheelchair users. While the ADA gave priority to providing such
transportation in the same vehicles used by the general riding public,
it also required complimentary paratransit systems as a "safety net"
for individuals whose disabilities prevent them from using accessible
fixed-route services.
[End of table]
Table 2 shows the 11 programs we identified as spending at least $4
million on transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged in
fiscal year 2001.
Table 2: Eleven Programs Spending at Least $4 Million in Fiscal Year
2001:
Agency: Department of Agriculture; Program: Food Stamp Employment and
Training Program.
Agency: Department of Education; Program: 21st-Century Community
Learning Centers.
Agency: Department of Labor; Program: Job Corps.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Program: Community
Health Centers.
Program: HIV Care Grants.
Program: Social Services Block Grants.
Program: State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Program: Community
Development Block Grant.
Program: Supportive Housing Program.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Program: Automobiles and
Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans.
Program: Veterans Medical Care.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Under most of the federal programs providing transportation services,
funding recipients typically purchase the services from existing
sources, according to program officials. This includes contracting for
services with private transportation providers or providing bus tokens,
transit passes, taxi vouchers, mileage reimbursement to volunteers or
program participants, or some combination of these methods. For
example, recipients of funds from DOL's Workforce Investment Act Adult
Services Program typically provide bus tokens or mileage reimbursement
for participants to access training, while recipients of HHS's Grants
for Supportive Services and Senior Centers most often contract with
local transportation providers to provide client transportation. The
funding recipients of several programs, however, typically purchase and
operate vehicles, or modify existing vehicles for use by individuals
with disabilities. These programs include Head Start and the Program
for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Hawaiian Elders in HHS; the
Vocational Rehabilitation Grants Program in the Department of
Education; and the six programs within DOT.
Several of these programs have requirements for grantees to coordinate
their services with other agencies providing similar services, which
would include transportation, among other services. For example, Head
Start grantees are required to make every reasonable effort to
coordinate transportation services they provide with other human
service transportation in their communities. Similarly, DOT's Capital
Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities,
Job Access and Reverse Commute, and Nonurbanized Area Formula Program
have requirements for grantees to coordinate their transportation
services. In addition, some programs have provisions designed to avoid
duplication of effort and encourage the use of existing community
resources. For example, Workforce Investment Act programs may use funds
to support those who are participating in the program only if those
individuals are unable to obtain services through other programs,
according to program officials. Also, the Veterans' Workforce
Investment Program requires grantees to provide information on the
linkages this program will have with other providers of services to
benefit veterans.
Extent of Spending on Services for the Transportation-Disadvantaged Is
Not Fully Known but Is in the Billions of Dollars:
Available information shows that federal programs spent an estimated
$2.4 billion on transportation services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations in fiscal year 2001, and additional state and
local spending for these populations was several hundred million
dollars more. Complete spending information is not available because
many federal funding recipients are not required to distinguish
transportation from other spending when reporting spending information
to federal agencies.
Spending by 29 Federal Programs Is Estimated at $2.4 billion in Fiscal
Year 2001:
Information on federal spending for transportation is available for 29
of the 62 programs we identified.[Footnote 16] These programs spent an
estimated $2.4 billion on transportation services in fiscal year 2001.
(Appendix II lists available spending data for each federal program.)
Based on available information, HHS programs as a whole spent the most
on transportation for transportation-disadvantaged populations in
2001--an estimated $1.8 billion. Table 3 shows estimated transportation
spending by the eight federal agencies that fund services for the
transportation-disadvantaged.
Table 3: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged by Eight Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year
2001:
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Amount spent on
transportation for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions):
$1,771.0; Percent of total estimate: 72.4%; Number of programs included
in estimate: 10; Total number of programs that provide transportation:
23.
Agency: Department of Transportation; Amount spent on transportation
for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $317.3; Percent of
total estimate: 13.0%; Number of programs included in estimate: 6;
Total number of programs that provide transportation: 6.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Amount spent on transportation
for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $160.8; Percent of
total estimate: 6.6%; Number of programs included in estimate: 3; Total
number of programs that provide transportation: 3.
Agency: Department of Education; Amount spent on transportation for
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $135.3; Percent of total
estimate: 5.5%; Number of programs included in estimate: 2; Total
number of programs that provide transportation: 8.
Agency: Department of Labor; Amount spent on transportation for
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $26.4; Percent of total
estimate: 1.1%; Number of programs included in estimate: 3; Total
number of programs that provide transportation: 15.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Amount spent on
transportation for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $21.7;
Percent of total estimate: 0.9%; Number of programs included in
estimate: 4; Total number of programs that provide transportation: 4.
Agency: Department of Agriculture; Amount spent on transportation for
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $13.0; Percent of total
estimate: 0.5%; Number of programs included in estimate: 1; Total
number of programs that provide transportation: 1.
Agency: Department of the Interior; Amount spent on transportation for
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): Not available; Percent of
total estimate: 0.0%; Number of programs included in estimate: 0; Total
number of programs that provide transportation: 2.
Agency: Total (for 8 agencies); Amount spent on transportation for
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $2,445.5; Percent of total
estimate: 100.0%; Number of programs included in estimate: 29; Total
number of programs that provide transportation: 62.
Sources: GAO summary of HHS, DOT, VA, Education, DOL, Agriculture, HUD,
and Interior data and estimates.
[End of table]
More than three-quarters of our estimate is based on spending for
transportation in five programs. Of the five, Medicaid and Head Start,
both in HHS, spent the most on transportation in fiscal year 2001--an
estimated $976.2 million and $514.5 million, respectively. The three
other programs, all of which spent more than $100 million on services
for the transportation-disadvantaged in fiscal year 2001, were DOT's
Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with
Disabilities,
HHS's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and VA's Veterans
Medical Care Benefits.
The amount spent on transportation services by the remaining 33 federal
programs is unknown, mainly because the majority of programs do not
require recipients of federal funds to report transportation spending
information to the federal agency.[Footnote 17]
State and Local Transportation Spending Is Unknown, but Is Likely
Significant:
Total state and local spending for transportation services, which
supplements federal spending for such programs, is likely significant-
-at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars--although the total is
unknown because most programs do not require grantees to report these
data. Matching requirements, which represent the nonfederal
contributions to the program's costs that come from state, local, or
private funds, provide some information on state and local spending on
transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged. About half of the
62 programs have matching requirements that generally require states
and localities to contribute between 5 and 50 percent of total
costs.[Footnote 18] Additionally, limited information from officials in
the five states we visited indicates that total state and local
spending on transportation runs into the hundreds of millions of
dollars. For example:
* Nonfederal contributions for Medicaid nonemergency transportation
ranged from 32 to 50 percent of the total spending on this service in
the five states that we visited.[Footnote 19] In New York, 50 percent,
or an estimated $139.4 million, of the state's total spending on
Medicaid funded transportation in 2001 was from nonfederal sources. In
Florida and Wisconsin approximately 40 percent of the total amount
spent on nonemergency medical transportation in the state was from
nonfederal sources; state contributions in those states were $28.6
million and $13.4 million, respectively, in 2001. In Arizona and South
Dakota, approximately one-third of the total amount spent on Medicaid
transportation was from nonfederal sources in those states in 2001,
approximately $7.0 million and $490,000, respectively.
* In Wisconsin nearly 38 percent, or $922,000, of the funding to
provide transportation services through DOT's Capital Assistance
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities in 2001 was
from nonfederal sources. The program requires grantees to provide 20
percent of total program funding.
* In New York, about 30 percent of the spending on transportation under
the Department of Education's Vocational Rehabilitation Program in
2002, or $2.6 million, was from nonfederal sources.[Footnote 20]
Similarly, about 27 percent or $673,000 of Florida's funding was from
nonfederal sources in 2001. The program requires states to contribute
21.3 percent of total costs.
Although some states and localities currently spend a significant
amount for transportation through federal programs, many now face
budget deficits that could diminish their future contribution to these
programs. In a 2003 survey by the National Conference of State
Legislatures,[Footnote 21] 36 states reported budget deficits midway
through their fiscal year. Fifteen of these states reported deficits in
excess of 5 percent of the state budget, and four states are facing
deficits greater than 10 percent of the state budget. Because 49 states
have balanced budget requirements, such large deficits could lead to a
decrease in the amount of funds available to states for programmatic
spending, including transportation programs. For example, according to
the National Conference of State Legislatures report, 29 states have
imposed across-the-board cuts in response to budget deficits.
State budget deficits have affected state transportation spending
differently in the five states that we visited. For example:
* Two of the states have cut their state programs that local grantees
used to fund services for the transportation-disadvantaged, according
to transportation officials in those states. In one state, the state
legislature eliminated the state's transportation assistance program to
help deal with the state's budget deficit; as a result, the state
official and the director of a senior center in the state said that
some of the projects funded through the program will likely be
discontinued because grantees cannot find replacement funds. In the
other state, the state legislature cut a state fund that grantees used
to supplement federal transportation funding. According to an official,
the loss of this fund, combined with the increasing costs of fuel and
insurance, may lead providers to cut service to transportation-
disadvantaged populations by as much as 40 percent.
* In another state, the Governor's plan for closing the state's budget
gap includes reducing spending on Medicaid nonemergency medical
transportation by $5 million, or 7.6 percent; however, the state's fund
dedicated to providing other services for the transportation-
disadvantaged was not recommended for cuts.
* Transportation officials in two states told us that they had not yet
experienced cuts in state funding for services for the transportation-
disadvantaged. In one of the states, local grantees rely on a state
transportation fund and a large set-aside of TANF funds to provide
services to transportation-disadvantaged populations. Without these
two funds, local grantees would have difficulty financing services for
the transportation-disadvantaged, according to an official. The other
state is not currently anticipating cuts in state funding for services
for transportation-disadvantaged populations, however, according to an
official, the full impact of the fiscal situation in that state will
not be known until local governments develop program budgets for 2004
because the local governments--which are also facing budget
constraints--play a key role in determining what services will be
provided.
While some states are not currently experiencing reductions in their
transportation programs, many states are anticipating that budget
deficits will continue into 2004. According to the National Conference
of State Legislatures report, 36 states are anticipating budget gaps
for 2004; nearly all of these states anticipate gaps greater than 5
percent of their state budget and half of these states expect gaps
greater than 10 percent.[Footnote 22]
Coordination Efforts Vary, but Some Successful Efforts Show Promising
Results:
Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through
coordination of transportation activities among agencies at all levels
of government vary. At the state and local levels, the extent and the
type of coordination activities differ, ranging from one state body
providing guidance and overseeing coordination efforts for most of its
programs to two local agencies sharing vehicles. In some areas within
the five states we visited, coordination among providers has resulted
in significant benefits, such as improved customer service and lower
unit costs. However, we also found some examples of overlapping,
fragmented, or confusing services resulting from a lack of
coordination. At the federal level, DOT, HHS, and--to some extent--DOL
have undertaken some activities aimed at improving coordination among
their programs. DOT and HHS implement many of their activities through
the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. However, DOT and HHS
make only a few mentions of coordinating services for the
transportation-disadvantaged in their strategic and annual performance
plans, and other agencies do not mention such activities at all. Also,
several federal agencies that provide services to the transportation-
disadvantaged are not involved in coordination efforts at the national
level.
Extent of State and Local Transportation Coordination Varies:
While agencies within each state we visited were involved in some form
of coordination, the extent of coordination of transportation services
varies widely. For example, Florida has a state organization that
oversees the coordination of most of the transportation services for
the transportation-disadvantaged, while some other states we visited
had no statewide coordination body. Even in states without such a
coordinating body, however, some state and local agencies are engaged
in coordination efforts. This variation also occurred in the nation as
a whole, according to data from a preliminary report by the National
Academy of Sciences' Transportation Research Board, which found that
roughly half of U.S. states have a state transportation coordinating
body. [Footnote 23] (See appendix III for information on the type of
coordination in the five states we visited and the state agencies
involved.)
Within each state, local efforts also varied. Examples of coordination
activities include the following:
Coordinated planning: In this type of coordination, some combination of
human service and transportation agencies and providers work together
to plan transportation services for their clients. For example, in
northwestern Wisconsin, at the initiative of staff from a center for
independent living, the Area Consortium on Transportation was formed in
2001 to improve the planning and provision of transportation for the
disabled and others who are transit-dependent. The council--which
consists of consumers, transit providers, county and city officials,
disability organizations, and aging groups--is instituting several
pilot programs to test various methods of coordination.
Brokerage: [Footnote 24] In this type of coordination, one agency or
provider serves as the central point of contact for providing ride and
eligibility information or actually arranging transportation services
for clients of multiple programs. For example, officials in several New
York counties wanted to maximize residents' mobility by coordinating
transportation services offered by various federal and state programs,
but lacked the expertise or start-up costs to do so. With a grant from
the state Departments of Transportation and Health, the counties
instituted a coordination demonstration project whereby one agency
arranges an average of 2,500 daily trips for clients from a number of
populations--such as the disabled, senior citizens, former welfare
recipients, and others--served by different federal and state programs.
Shared use of vehicles among multiple programs: In this type of
coordination, one agency may provide transportation for clients of
multiple programs, or each program may own its own vehicles but allow
them to be used by other programs. For example, in Arizona, vans from
one county's vocational rehabilitation center travel to a neighboring
county to pick up program clients. While there, they also transport
clients of Jobs Administration programs. The two programs split the
cost of transportation equally.
Appendix IV contains a list of some informational resources available
for agencies interested in coordinating.
Coordination Has Led to Improvements, While Lack of Coordination Can
Result in Overlap:
In some areas we visited, coordination among providers--through sharing
vehicles, consolidating services under a single agency, or sharing
information about available services--has resulted in significant
benefits, such as improved customer service and lower unit costs. State
and local agencies providing transportation under the 62 federal
programs often serve similar client groups, provide similar services,
and operate in similar geographic areas, so there can be duplication of
effort and inefficiency in providing transportation when those agencies
do not coordinate. In our site visits, we found several examples of
overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services in places where agencies
were not coordinating.
Benefits of Coordination:
Through coordination, some local agencies have realized both improved
levels of service and financial benefits, such as reduced costs of
providing each trip, as follows:
Improved customer service:
* A coordinated system in central Florida provides transportation for
Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation, and other programs. According to
local officials, vans used to show up late, if at all, and clients had
difficulty finding out the status of their ride. Since consolidating
services under a single provider and bringing scheduling and dispatch
services in-house, officials report service improvement.
* Through collaboration, information-sharing, and cost-sharing among
county agencies, the Clinton County transit system in New York serves
both Medicaid and elderly populations, making it easier for those
populations to access medical and community services because they only
have to be familiar with one system.
* A federal regional official said that coordination could remove the
stigma of specialized transportation because all recipients use the
same service and are treated equally.
Financial benefits:
* Three New York counties joined in a transportation brokering service
that saved an estimated $92,000 in 2001 by identifying a lower-cost
alternative means of transportation, that is, moving groups of clients
in buses rather than transporting individual clients in taxis. This
brokerage service provides transportation to Medicaid patients, the
disabled, veterans, and other client groups.
* In Aberdeen, South Dakota, the local transit agency consolidated the
transportation services previously provided by both senior and medical
centers as well as other federal, state, and local programs. This
consolidation allowed the agency to increase the number of trips
provided while reducing the average cost of providing each trip by
about 20 percent--from about $5 to $4. The agency has also improved its
services by coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and
weekend trips.
Effects of a Lack of Coordination:
Although the various programs we reviewed target specific populations,
some populations are eligible to receive transportation services from
multiple programs, resulting in duplication and inefficiency in some
cases. In our visits with state and local transportation and human
service agencies and providers, officials we interviewed identified
several examples of overlapping services in areas or programs that were
not coordinating. A for-profit transportation provider in one state
told us that he often has two vehicles overlap on the same route at the
same time, one for medical trips and one for paratransit,[Footnote 25]
because it is too difficult to mix clients due to complicated fee
structures and paperwork requirements imposed by the state for the two
programs. An official from a workforce development program in another
state told us that many programs in his county use their own vans to
deliver clients to the job center, but because the programs do not
coordinate, only a few people ride in each van. In another locality
that state and local officials said has had difficulty coordinating,
several human service providers hired a consultant to study the extent
to which various agencies provide similar transportation services
within a geographic region. This research showed substantial overlap in
local services for the transportation-disadvantaged, as shown in figure
2. The consultant identified ways in which the number of routes could
be substantially reduced through better coordination, which are being
considered by the agencies involved.
Figure 2: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the
Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This picture shows the daily routes of vehicles operated by seven
different agencies in the same region of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Overlap occurs when routes have the same or nearby starting and ending
points and are transporting similar clients at similar times. This
graphic illustrates that many of these agencies have similar starting
and ending points. Among the agencies shown in this graphic are two
vocational rehabilitation agencies (serving the same general
population) as well as agencies that serve low-income clients or
clients with disabilities. While the graphic cannot show the time
element, many of these routes represent trips occurring within 30
minutes of each other in the morning and afternoon.
[End of figure]
State and local officials also provided examples of fragmented services
and confusion in localities without coordinated programs. One official
in an uncoordinated area said that a lack of coordination results in
fragmented services, placing a burden on people who receive
transportation through many different programs, depending on trip
purpose, because they must be familiar with multiple systems, rules,
and requirements. Fragmentation also occurs when adjoining counties do
not coordinate their public transportation routes, leaving riders
stranded due to unconnected transit systems. In one state, local
officials told us that paratransit services do not extend beyond county
lines, so people have to schedule two separate trips to get from their
homes in one county to medical services in an adjoining county. When
the first paratransit ride is behind schedule, a passenger sometimes
has to wait for hours for the connecting ride. A provider in another
state has contracts to provide transportation services for clients in
multiple human service programs. Because of a lack of coordination
among those programs, the transportation provider said that his company
has to maintain two separate dispatching and reservation systems for
its vehicles to comply with differing reporting and eligibility
requirements. Vehicles can only operate under one dispatching system at
a time, so the drivers cannot provide rides to more than one type of
client at a time. The provider also said that clients who call for
rides are confused by the sheer number of programs, and the agents who
make their reservations do not know for which programs the clients are
eligible.
Federal Progress toward Improved Coordination Varies:
Although the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility and various
federal agencies have taken a number of steps to improve coordination,
these efforts have had mixed results.
Some Prior Recommendations to the Coordinating Council Have Been
Implemented:
As shown in table 4, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility--
a body consisting of representatives from DOT and HHS--has responded to
three of the recommendations we made in our 1999 report[Footnote 26] by
adopting a strategic plan, developing an action plan, and helping to
ensure that planned coordination efforts reinforce one another by
issuing guidelines for coordinating transportation services. Goals and
objectives in the strategic plan include such things as promoting
interdepartmental collaboration at the federal level through the
development of a joint agenda for transportation research that is of
common use to multiple federal departments. According to the most
recent action plan, the Council has completed some activities, such as
producing a series of "how to" publications on using intelligent
transportation systems to assist in the coordination of HHS programs
with local transit agencies.
Table 4: Status of Federal Responses to GAO's Recommendations to
Improve Coordination:
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The DOT/ HHS Coordinating Council
on Access and Mobility should adopt a prioritized strategic plan.;
Completed: Yes; Under way: No.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should
develop an action plan with specific responsibilities.; Completed: Yes;
Under way: No.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should
issue an annual report on its major initiatives and accomplishments to
the Secretaries of DOT and HHS.; Completed: No; Under way: Yes.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: DOT and HHS should ensure that
planned coordination efforts reinforce one another.; Completed: Yes;
Under way: No.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: DOT and HHS should direct their
regional working groups to assess obstacles to transportation
coordination.; Completed: No; Under way: Yes.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should
strengthen its Web site and make information available on obstacles to
coordination and strategies to overcome them.; Completed: No;
Under way: Yes.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The Council's responses to the other three recommendations are still
ongoing. For example, Council representatives told us that they plan to
issue their first annual report on coordination achievements in June
2003, although this report was originally due to be issued in October
2000, according to the Council's strategic plan. With regard to the
recommendation on regional working groups, the 10 DOT and HHS regional
offices have been convening workshops with state transportation
officials during 2003 to discuss obstacles to coordination and other
issues.
Finally, the Council's efforts to strengthen its Web site have had
mixed results. One of the tasks listed in the Council's strategic plan
is to develop and maintain a Web site that would, among other things,
enhance the exchange of coordination ideas, issues, and concerns. The
Council has developed a Web site[Footnote 27]--operated by DOT in
conjunction with CTAA--that is reachable through a link on the Federal
Transit Administration's section of DOT's Web site. However, there is
no similar link from HHS's Web site (or the Web sites of other federal
agencies that fund transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged), possibly making it more difficult for human service and
other agencies to be aware of and access the site. In addition, the
site does not yet contain specific information on obstacles to
coordination or strategies for overcoming them, which we recommended in
1999, though it does contain links to some reports on the subject.
There is also a page from which viewers can E-mail the Council with
questions or suggestions. The Council is working with CTAA to further
strengthen the site.
DOT and HHS Have Sponsored Other Coordination Activities:
Through the Council, DOT and HHS have sponsored a number of other
efforts to enhance coordination. For example, as part of an item in the
Council's action plan, DOT and HHS helped initiate a consortium of
national professional organizations and interest groups[Footnote 28] to
conduct research and provide educational activities related to
coordinating services for the transportation-disadvantaged. Among
other tasks, the consortium has been asked to pursue several items from
the Council's action plan, such as identifying promising practices and
obstacles in transportation coordination and developing strategies for
addressing the obstacles. Officials from the Council said that working
with the consortium provides a depth of knowledge and experience
because consortium members represent local as well as national
interests so that issues are pursued "from both ends.":
As part of the upcoming regional workshops sponsored by the DOT and HHS
regional offices, participants will discuss expanded opportunities for
achieving more coordinated delivery of transportation services in
medical, aging, and other assistance programs, and technical assistance
resources will be shared with participants. Intended audiences include
state transportation coordinating councils; state agencies that
administer medical, aging, and other assistance programs; and agencies
serving individuals with disabilities. According to DOT and HHS,
participants will be asked to develop state transportation coordination
action plans for their home state, and resources will be made available
to assist states in implementing their plans following the workshop.
(See appendix III for more information on federal coordination
activities.):
Coordination Remains Largely Unaddressed in Strategic Planning Efforts:
Because it is not a federal executive branch agency, the Coordinating
Council is not subject to the requirements of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993[Footnote 29] and, therefore,
does not have to follow the act's guidance for producing strategic
plans, annual performance plans, and annual reports. However, there are
several best practices in strategic planning that could be useful
guides for improving the Council's strategic plan when it is updated at
the end of 2003 and the action plan when it is next updated. For
example, the current strategic plan does not contain an overall mission
statement for the Council or performance measures that clearly relate
to its long-term goals and objectives, both of which are considered
best practices in strategic planning.[Footnote 30] In addition, there
are no explicit links between the stated goals and objectives in the
strategic plan and the activities in the action plan. For example, the
current action plan includes seven tasks related to the use of
information technology systems, but those tasks are not clearly linked
to any of the Council's long-term goals or objectives.
Because the Council has no funding or full-time staff of its own, it is
dependent on support from HHS and DOT. However, neither department
currently highlights the coordination of services for the
transportation-disadvantaged as a priority in its long-term strategic
plan or annual performance plan. According to GPRA guidance, agencies
are encouraged to identify programs with common purposes or
crosscutting issues in their strategic plans. In addition, the
agencies' annual performance plans should identify performance goals
that reflect activities being undertaken to support programs of a
crosscutting nature, and show evidence of coordination among
crosscutting programs.[Footnote 31] DOT's most recent strategic plan
and performance plan do not explicitly mention the Coordinating
Council, although both briefly discuss coordinating special-needs
transportation with other federal agencies under DOT's Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC) program. However, there is no mention of
coordination of DOT's Transit Capital Assistance Program for Elderly
Persons and Persons with Disabilities with other programs for elderly
or disabled populations.[Footnote 32] At the subagency level, the
Federal Transit Administration's strategic plan includes the
Coordinating Council in an appendix on coordination of crosscutting
functions, under the strategic goal of promoting economic growth and
trade, and its performance plan mentions working with the Council under
a different goal--that of promoting mobility and
accessibility.[Footnote 33]
HHS's current strategic plan does not discuss coordination of
transportation services with other agencies, but its draft plan for
2003-2008 specifically lists DOT and state and local transportation and
human service agencies as important partners in providing
transportation to access services in distressed communities and for
health care and employment and training programs elsewhere. Education,
DOL, HUD, and VA are not listed, however.[Footnote 34] The performance
plans of individual HHS components vary widely in their treatment of
transportation coordination. For example, the performance plan of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid does not mention transportation at all,
while the Administration on Aging's performance plan states that the
agency works closely with HHS and DOT officials on the Coordinating
Council in pursuit of improved transportation services.
The strategic and annual performance plans of the other federal
agencies that fund transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged generally do not mention coordination of such services.
Other Federal Agencies Are Involved in Some Coordination Efforts:
Other federal agencies are also involved in some coordination efforts
outside the scope of the Council. For example, DOL is working with CTAA
and DOT to implement several rounds of pilot projects testing various
transportation strategies in support of local one-stop employment and
training centers.[Footnote 35] Officials from DOT and DOL are also in
the process of developing guidelines for using Workforce Investment Act
funds (a DOL program) for Job Access purposes (a DOT program). In
addition, some of DOL's research studies and technical assistance
materials provide examples of transportation coordination
efforts.[Footnote 36] However, we did not find examples of involvement
in transportation coordination efforts at the national level at the
Departments of Education, HUD, and VA, although some of these agencies
are involved in transportation working groups in some of the federal
regional offices. The membership of the Coordinating Council only
consists of DOT and HHS officials, representing less than half of the
62 federal programs that can be used to fund services for the
transportation-disadvantaged. Although these two agencies comprise the
majority of funding for transportation that we were able to identify,
the Departments of Labor and Education also have a significant number
of programs--more than one-third of the total--that provide services to
the transportation-disadvantaged. Officials from the Council said that
other agencies had expressed interest in coordination activities and
had been invited to observe Council meetings in the past, but only DOL
sent a representative for a short time period.[Footnote 37] Council
officials said it would be very beneficial to have other agencies
formally involved in their coordination efforts, which would require a
renewal of the Council's charter and memorandums of understanding among
all agencies involved as well as other formal mechanisms to ensure that
the proper people are engaged in the effort.
Officials Cited Numerous Obstacles to Successfully Coordinating
Services and Provided Potential Options to Mitigate Them:
Although some federal, state, and local agencies encourage the
coordination of services for the transportation-disadvantaged and some
coordination efforts have been established, federal, state, and local
officials, as well as representatives of national advocacy and industry
organizations with whom we spoke, identified numerous obstacles that
impede effective coordination. We clustered the wide range of
identified obstacles into three categories related to (1) sharing
vehicles and the low priority given to funding coordination activities;
(2) programmatic differences; and (3) limited federal, state, and local
leadership and commitment to undertake and sustain coordination
efforts. To mitigate these obstacles, these officials and other experts
suggested three potential options: harmonizing standards and
requirements among federal programs with a transportation component,
providing and disseminating additional guidance and information on
coordination, and providing financial incentives or mandates to
coordinate.
Officials May Be Reluctant to Share Vehicles and Provide Financial
Resources for Coordination:
One set of obstacles was related to officials' reluctance to share
vehicles or their tendency to give low priority to funding coordination
activities. In addition, some areas have limited transportation
services available, thus limiting any opportunities to benefit from
coordination.
Apprehension about Sharing Vehicles:
In interviews in every state we visited, as well as with national
advocacy and industry organizations, the unwillingness or inability to
share vehicles was identified as a major obstacle. Administrators of
some federal programs may be apprehensive about sharing vehicles for
coordination due, in part, to their belief that only they understand
their clients' needs and can provide the necessary personalized
services. For example, program administrators reported being concerned
about a loss of control over the quality and convenience of
transportation services for their clients and wanted to maintain their
discretion over how to serve their clients and which transportation
resources to purchase. Program administrators also expressed concern
over mixing vulnerable populations, such as the developmentally
disabled and children, or frail, sick, and healthy populations, in one
coordinated system. According to a report on coordinated transportation
systems, this reluctance among providers to cooperate can lead to an
underutilization of vehicles.[Footnote 38] Likewise, some human service
clients may be apprehensive about using coordinated transportation
because they may be uncomfortable mixing with members of other
populations with whom they are unfamiliar or they may fear a loss of
accommodation or convenience, such as having to switch from door-to-
door service to curb-to-curb service or public transit.
Low Priority Given to Funding Coordination Activities:
The overall costs of coordination, which can include additional staff
members and staff time needed for maintaining and overseeing
coordination efforts, can be significant. For example, a transportation
brokerage firm in one state faced substantial added costs when it began
coordinating transportation for human services programs due to
requirements to meet more stringent state and federal safety standards.
However, some officials stated that the low priority given to funding
coordination activities could impede coordination efforts. For example,
according to officials in one state, although recipients of funds from
DOT's Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with
Disabilities are required to coordinate with other local transportation
services provided from federal sources, the program's current allotment
for administrative expenses would not support any staff to work on
coordination activities. In addition, some states invest in
coordination, while others do not allocate funds specifically for
coordination, and efforts to coordinate often become ancillary
activities for those involved.
Limited Transportation Services Available to Realize Benefits from
Coordination:
Guidelines issued by the Coordinating Council state that coordination
will not solve all transportation problems in all communities.[Footnote
39] Coordination may not be an effective strategy in those communities
that have limited transportation services available, particularly in
those communities that are not served by public transportation. For
example, in some remote areas--such as the northwestern part of South
Dakota where services available to many communities are 40 to 60 miles
away--there are few transportation services available to transport
individuals to hospitals or other services. In these areas,
coordination may not be a workable or cost-effective option.
Differing Program Requirements Can Impede Coordination:
Coordinating multiple programs administered at various levels of
government is complicated because the programs have different
requirements with respect to eligibility, funding, reporting, and
safety; and they differ in their programmatic goals and missions.
Different Eligibility Requirements:
Federal program rules that specify the eligible populations that each
program can serve may limit opportunities for collaboration. For
example, DOT officials in one region stated that they were unable to
combine DOL and DOT funds for a DOT transportation program for migrant
farm workers because DOL funds are designated for U.S. citizens, while
there is no such restriction on the use of DOT funds. In addition, some
liability insurance policies specify that a program's vehicles may
serve only a certain population, thus those programs face additional
insurance costs to transport individuals other than program clients.
Such restrictions may lead to inefficient transportation services
within a community. For example, an official in one state we visited
commented that one agency's vehicle provided medically related trips
three times per week to that agency's clients, but would not transport
other individuals seeking similar medical services provided under other
federal programs due, in part, to liability insurance restrictions.
Safety requirements may also vary by program and jurisdiction, thus
complicating efforts to transport multiple client groups. Some
programs, such as Head Start, have specific vehicle standards that are
often more stringent than those of other programs, making it difficult
to share vehicles. For instance, different standards for roof strength,
types of seat belts, and driver qualifications pose problems for
schools, human service agencies, and public transit providers
interested in sharing vehicles. Some areas have been able to overcome
specific program rules to share vehicles. For example, a Head Start
grantee in one state we visited was able to transport students using
vehicles supplied by the local public transit provider because these
vehicles met the same safety standards as school buses.
Varying Funding Streams and Cycles:
Funding streams and cycles vary across federal programs, making
coordination more difficult. For example, DOT funds generally flow from
the state to counties or cities, while DOL funds flow through the state
to local designees. In addition, funding for programs such as Head
Start flow directly to grantees rather than through states, making it
more difficult for the states to directly manage the coordination
activities of local grantees, according to an official in one state.
There is also complexity in working with different funding time frames
and cycles under multiple federal programs. For example, although DOT's
JARC program allows grantees to use other federal funds to provide the
local "match" required to obtain JARC funds, the funding time frames
and cycles of these other funding sources are different, complicating
efforts to combine financial resources.
Lack of Uniform Data Collection and Reporting Requirements among
Programs:
Different reporting requirements among programs can create excessive
paperwork in a coordinated system and may make it difficult for
agencies to determine their true transportation costs and the benefits
that may be realized from coordination. For example, one report
commented that a transit provider was required to give each of several
human service agencies a separate bill for services provided, which
reflected the unique requirements imposed by each of those
agencies.[Footnote 40] Furthermore, according to officials, Medicaid
requires the state Medicaid agency to demonstrate that individuals
receiving transportation under Medicaid are not receiving
transportation from any other source and that the transportation is
medically necessary, complicating the determination of how to fund
transportation services for each Medicaid recipient in a coordinated
system in which costs are shared among agencies. In addition, human
service agencies and providers may not be required or accustomed to
collecting complete and uniform transportation data for their programs.
A recent report concluded that such information was beneficial because
it enabled administrators to re-evaluate how best to provide
transportation services and the savings they could achieve through
coordination.[Footnote 41] For example, when Florida's statewide
coordination program was established, state and local agencies in
Florida reported their total estimated annual transportation-related
expenditures at $8 million. However, once reporting requirements were
in place for all agencies providing services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, actual expenditures were estimated to total $224.9
million statewide--much higher than the initial estimate. Such
information has helped agencies in Florida understand the true costs of
providing transportation and has encouraged some agencies to become
more interested in coordination as they realize the potential for cost
savings.
Distinct Purposes and Goals among Agencies:
Unlike transportation agencies, human service agencies provide
transportation as a secondary service so that their clients may access
primary human services. Therefore, while DOT-funded transportation
agencies have specific and relatively uniform federal requirements for
transportation planning, human service agencies do not typically
conduct transportation planning or collect transportation-related data
for their programs, making the planning of coordinated transportation
between transit and human service agencies challenging.[Footnote 42] In
addition, human service, transportation, medical, and workforce
agencies all have distinct technical languages and cultures, which may
inhibit collaboration among these agencies. In one state we visited,
the labor and transportation departments experienced difficulty
collaborating because some common terms have completely different
meanings within each agency. For example, transportation officials
interpreted the term "cost-allocation" as an accounting methodology to
estimate the overall cost of operating transportation services in order
to determine the appropriate rate to charge for these services, while
state labor officials interpreted the term as a way to determine what
proportion of overall costs will be funded by each agency.
Program Officials May Not Know How to Coordinate Effectively:
Although some federal and state agencies have recognized the potential
offered by coordination and provided some assistance toward this end,
officials we interviewed expressed concerns about the amount and
effectiveness of the guidance they have received on coordination. In
addition, the absence of interagency forums or other mechanisms to
develop and share information about coordination initiatives limits the
support that local providers receive to effectively coordinate.
Limited Federal Guidance and Information on Coordination:
Officials in some states we visited said that they receive little
federal guidance on potential strategies to coordinate services. As a
result, they develop their own approaches without the benefit of
guidance on the most effective way to coordinate services. We found the
following examples of this in our work:
* Officials in one state said that the guidance on how to share costs
among programs for projects funded jointly by DOT's JARC grants, HHS's
TANF Program, and DOL's Welfare-to-Work Program funds did not indicate
how such sharing could or should be done. Instead, the officials had to
seek advice from other states.
* While FTA disseminated coordination guidelines for FTA and HHS
programs to transportation officials, some HHS and transportation
officials said these guidelines were not widely disseminated to human
services officials or programs.
* According to state Medicaid offices and a national organization of
individuals and agencies concerned with human services, the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services have not provided sufficient guidance on
how to coordinate Medicaid transportation with existing public transit
or other transportation resources.
* The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility has limited
visibility for agencies actually involved in implementing coordination
efforts. In several states, human service program administrators with
whom we spoke were not aware of the Council or its Web site.
Limited State Guidance and Leadership on Coordination:
In the five states we visited--even in those states with a coordinating
body--there was limited state guidance to help local areas implement
coordination, and some officials stated that the lack of leadership and
commitment at the state level was a major obstacle to local
coordination. In addition, while some states have established
coordinating councils or bodies or have designated a lead agency for
coordination, nearly half of the states have no coordinating body,
according to one report.[Footnote 43] Officials in one state explained
that the lack of a coordinating body that requires various agencies to
discuss and resolve transportation issues is the main obstacle toward a
more coordinated system.
Limited Local Leadership and Commitment to Coordinate:
Even in states with a coordinating council or a lead state agency,
there may be a lack of local leadership or commitment to coordination
efforts. For example, one city we visited was unsuccessful in achieving
a coordinated system despite state encouragement to coordinate and some
state-provided technical assistance. Stakeholders there described a
lack of local commitment and leadership in maintaining lines of
communication among those involved in coordination efforts as a factor
leading to the failure. In addition, program administrators may not
have data on the extent of existing transportation services that may be
available to their clients within a geographic region and, therefore,
may fail to realize the extent of overlapping and complementary
services within their local area. Such data can produce improvements.
For example, in response to a lack of data on local services, an agency
in one state we visited took the lead in conducting a study that showed
the extent to which various agencies provide similar transportation
services within a geographic region. An agency official was hopeful
that once other agencies saw the extent of overlap, they would be more
willing to coordinate.
Potential Options to Improve Coordination:
Federal, state, and local officials, as well as experts in the area,
have suggested three potential options to improve coordination of
transportation services among federal programs: (1) harmonizing
standards and requirements among federal programs, (2) expanding
interagency forums and providing and disseminating additional guidance
and information on coordination, and (3) providing financial incentives
or coordination mandates.
Harmonizing Program Standards and Requirements:
Officials and experts expressed a need to harmonize requirements among
federal programs, such as providing more flexible regulatory language
that would allow providers to serve additional client groups, creating
consistent cost accounting methods, and adopting common safety
standards. For example, one official commented that federal program
regulations could include language permitting other client groups to
make use of available transportation options. Also, some officials
believed that adopting standard accounting procedures among all federal
human service programs could provide a consistent measure for comparing
services, allowing administrators to evaluate how best to provide
transportation services and determine the savings they could achieve
through coordination. Likewise, making standards for safety (e.g.,
types of seat belts), driver training, and liability insurance
provisions uniform among federal human service programs, as
appropriate, may facilitate the shared use of vehicles and drivers in
one coordinated system, according to some officials. Finally, some
officials suggested that federal grant programs that allow the use of
funds from multiple sources should be under the same funding cycle or
time frame so that these funds may be combined more easily. These
officials also commented that harmonizing the time frames under which
federal funding is allocated could possibly aid collaborative planning.
However, differing program standards exist to ensure that the distinct
needs of specific target populations are adequately served and that
agencies maintain accountability for providing these services. Thus,
the benefits from any change in standards or requirements would need to
be balanced against continuing to properly meet client needs and
sufficiently control funds distributed to grantees. In addition,
harmonizing program standards and requirements among 62 federal
programs authorized by more than 20 pieces of legislation would
necessitate extensive legislative changes and could impose additional
costs for agencies to meet new requirements.
Expanding Interagency Forums and Providing and Disseminating Additional
Guidance and Information on Coordination:
Some officials advocated expanding the number of agencies involved in
coordination, establishing interagency forums, and improving central
clearinghouses as ways to better develop and disseminate guidance on
coordination. To enhance coordination efforts at the federal level,
some officials suggested expanding the membership of the Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility to include additional federal agencies,
so that a broader array of agencies that serve the transportation-
disadvantaged are represented. This could include agencies such as DOL
and the Department of Education that we identified as being significant
because a large number of their programs authorize funding of
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged. In
addition, establishing state-level forums may also facilitate
communication among agencies involved in coordination and can lead to
benefits. For example, one state has established an interagency task
force on transportation coordination, which has resulted in a number of
benefits--including the pooling of vehicles and the expansion of
services--in some areas of the state. Some officials and experts
suggested that federal agencies provide additional guidance and other
information that result from forums or other sources to clearly define
the allowable uses of funds, assist agencies in developing cost-sharing
arrangements for transporting common clientele, and encourage the
establishment and participation in interagency forums. This additional
guidance and information could be better disseminated through a central
clearinghouse, such as the Coordinating Council's Web site.
Providing Financial Incentives or Mandates:
Some officials and experts believed that incentives or mandates could
help improve coordination, although others expressed concerns that such
actions would have negative effects on the ability of local agencies to
respond to community needs. Officials provided several examples,
including the following:
* Federal grant applications could contain provisions giving priority
in funding to those grantees committed to coordination efforts.
* With legislative changes, current funds allotted by multiple federal
sources could be combined into one federal, state, or local fund for
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged.
* Funding opportunities could be tied to federal or state coordination
mandates so that there are financial consequences for a failure to
coordinate.
However, officials pointed out that these options also had some
potential downsides that would need to be carefully considered. For
example, combining funds into a single source could result in some
populations being unfairly overlooked because smaller agencies at the
state or local level would be at a disadvantage in competing for
funding with larger agencies serving more clients. Several officials
also raised concerns about mandates to coordinate. For example, some
officials said that mandates might reduce the flexibility of agencies
to design and deliver transportation services that specifically address
their communities' needs. In addition, some officials noted that state
efforts or mandates might not guarantee successful local coordination.
For example, a city in one state we visited was unsuccessful in
coordinating its multiple transportation services despite state
encouragement to do so and despite losing some federal funding as a
result.
Conclusions:
Successful coordination among programs for the transportation-
disadvantaged is not a simple matter. One clear need, given the sheer
number of programs involved, is active and sustained leadership at the
federal level. While the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility is
positioned to supply that leadership, its efforts are constrained in
two main ways. The first is limited membership: only two departments--
DOT and HHS--are members. While these departments administer nearly 30
programs that can be used for transportation, the Departments of
Education and Labor administer almost as many. The absence of Education
and Labor lessens the ability to muster a collective effort for greater
coordination. The second constraint is a limited ability to translate a
strategic vision into a set of actions. At present, there are no clear
links between the long-term goals in the Council's strategic plan and
the individual tasks in its action plan. Without such links, the
Council risks judging its progress on the basis of activities
undertaken rather than on the outcomes of those activities and their
contribution toward achieving long-term goals. Linking these goals and
actions to the strategic and annual performance plans of participating
departments--because the Council relies heavily on support from its
member agencies--would provide an additional incentive to pursue
coordination activities in the departments' activities.
There is great diversity in the specific suggestions we received about
how to overcome obstacles to greater coordination. Two of the three
main options raised by various officials we interviewed--making federal
program standards more uniform and creating some type of requirement or
financial incentive for coordination--would require substantial
statutory or regulatory changes and include potential costs. The third
option, expanding forums and disseminating guidance, can be done in the
context of existing laws, regulations, and procedures, and may,
therefore, be the most expeditious starting point. In this regard,
clarification from federal agencies about how funds can be used for
coordination could help state and local agencies overcome some of the
obstacles identified. Similarly, state and local agencies may be in a
better position to coordinate efforts if they have more knowledge about
what has worked elsewhere. Although the Council has a Web site with
information about coordinating transportation services, some state and
local officials were unaware of it. State and local officials' point of
contact is more likely to be the Web site of the department
administering the program at the federal level. Establishing better
links between the Council's Web site and the sites of the departments
could help connect grantees with information that may help them
coordinate with other programs, better serve clients, and use funds
more efficiently.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
* To increase communication and collaboration among the major agencies
involved in providing transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of
Labor and Education join the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility.
* To promote and enhance federal, state, and local transportation
coordination activities, we recommend that the Secretaries of the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation take the following actions:
* As member agencies of the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility, ensure that the long-term goals in the Council's strategic
plan have clear links to the individual tasks in its action plan and
that these actions are tied to measurable annual performance goals.
* Ensure that strategic and annual performance plans discuss their
departments' transportation coordination efforts and incorporate long-
term goals and performance measures that address the need for
coordination among programs for the transportation-disadvantaged.
* Develop and distribute additional guidance to states and other
grantees that encourages coordinated transportation by clearly defining
the allowable uses of funds, explaining how to develop cost-sharing
arrangements for transporting common clientele, and clarifying whether
funds can be used to serve individuals other than the program's target
population.
* Link the Web sites of their agencies involved in providing services
for the transportation-disadvantaged to the Coordinating Council's Web
site and advertise the site in agency correspondence and during
conferences or other outreach opportunities.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor,
Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans
Affairs with draft copies of this report for their review and comment.
We requested verification of key facts from the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior, but we did not seek comments from these
departments because they did not administer significant numbers of
programs that benefit the transportation-disadvantaged.
All six departments generally agreed with the findings and conclusions
in the report and provided technical clarifications, which were
incorporated as appropriate. The four departments to whom we made
recommendations--Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and
Transportation--also generally concurred with those recommendations.
In particular:
* The Department of Health and Human Services provided written comments
on the draft of this report which are presented and evaluated in
appendix V. The department noted that it has initiated actions to
implement our recommendations, including (1) strengthening the linkage
between the Coordinating Council's strategic and action plans, (2)
reviewing the department-wide strategic plan for opportunities to
reflect its transportation coordination efforts, (3) developing
coordination guidance, and (4) linking the Coordinating Council's Web
site to the Department of Health and Human Services' Web site. The
department also suggested that we consider incorporating other
researchers' estimates of transportation spending by health and human
service programs. However, we estimated program expenditures only for
those programs where there was sufficient evidence to support an
estimate.
* Department of Labor officials stated that the department looks
forward to joining the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility to
improve the transportation services provided by federal human service
programs. In addition, department officials commented that the
reauthorization of some human service and surface transportation
legislation was forthcoming during the preparation of this report and
that these legislative changes may impact the future directions of the
federal programs included in this report.
* The Department of Education provided written comments on the draft of
this report, which are presented in appendix VI. The department said
that it would look favorably on an opportunity to join the Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility and it would consider developing
coordination guidance for state and other grantees and instituting
methods of linking Web-based information resources about
transportation.
* Department of Transportation officials said that the Federal Transit
Administration is committed to accomplishing effective transportation
coordination and noted that the list of the agency's activities and
accomplishments in appendix III of this report demonstrate its
commitment and support for coordination. It also stated that the
administration's proposal for the reauthorization of surface
transportation legislation, introduced in May 2003, includes provisions
that would encourage further coordination efforts.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and to the Secretaries and other appropriate officials of
the Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Labor,
Education, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs,
Agriculture, and the Interior. We also will make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
siggerudk@gao.gov or at (202) 512-2834. Additional GAO contacts and
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.
Katherine Siggerud
Acting Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Signed by Katherine Siggerud:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our scope of work included federal programs that provide transportation
services to the transportation-disadvantaged. To provide information on
the purposes and types of such federal programs, we first determined
the universe of programs by reviewing an existing inventory produced by
the Community Transportation Association of America[Footnote 44] and a
report prepared for the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility.[Footnote 45] We then supplemented and modified this inventory
of programs on the basis of interviews with agency officials and
searches of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. We included
only those programs that provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface
transportation services of any kind, targeted to transportation-
disadvantaged populations. We interviewed program administrators to
identify the general target population and the types of transportation
services and trips that are typically provided under each program.
To address the issues related to program funding, effects of
coordination, and coordination obstacles and options, we (1) conducted
interviews and document reviews in the pertinent eight federal agencies
that administer the 62 federal programs that fund transportation
services for the transportation-disadvantaged; (2) conducted five case
studies in Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; (3)
reviewed the literature on the challenges encountered in coordinating
services for the transportation-disadvantaged; and (4) interviewed
industry representatives and advocacy groups representing elderly and
disabled populations. We did not verify spending data or estimates
received from federal agencies for accuracy.
At the federal level, we interviewed officials from the headquarters of
the Federal Transit Administration in the Department of Transportation;
the Administration on Aging, the Administration for Children and
Families, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Health
Resources Services Administration, the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services; the
Employment and Training Administration in the Department of Labor; the
Department of Agriculture; the Department of Education; the Department
of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of the Interior; and
the Department of Veterans Affairs. We also interviewed federal
officials from the 10 regional offices of the Federal Transit
Administration and some regional officials in the Departments of Health
and Human Services and Labor. The federal officials we met with
included representatives of the Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility from the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of
Health and Human Services.
In conducting our case studies in the five states, we reviewed
documentation and interviewed more than 100 officials from state and
local transportation and human service agencies and service providers,
as well as consumers of transportation services. We judgmentally chose
the states to include three states without a state mandate or state
coordinating body and two states with such conditions. We also chose
states on the basis of relative concentrations of elderly, disabled,
and low-income populations, and for some, geographic dispersion. Within
each state, we spoke with state officials responsible for coordinating
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged and/or
overseeing funds from the 62 federal programs we identified. We also
asked some of these state officials for recommendations of local
officials and transportation providers to interview in a range of
urban, suburban, and rural areas and coordinated and uncoordinated
programs within the state.
Finally, we interviewed representatives of professional, industry, and
advocacy organizations that are part of the National Consortium on the
Coordination of Human Services Transportation, a group that represents
a broad spectrum of stakeholders involved with coordination of
transportation for the disadvantaged. We conducted our work from July
2002 through June 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs Providing Transportation
Services to the Transportation-Disadvantaged:
Program: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:
Program: Food Stamp Employment and Training Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: Service: Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended;
U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
7 U.S.C. § 2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(I); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Reimbursement or advanced payment for gasoline
expenses or bus fare; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
To access education, training, employment services, and employment
placements; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Low-income persons between the ages of 16 and 59; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $12,952,956[C].
Program: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education:
Program: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers; Popular title of
authorizing legislation: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 20 U.S.C. § 7173(a)
(10); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Contract for
service; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access
educational services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Students from low-income families; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $84,600,000 (estimate)[D].
Program: Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement:
Program: Voluntary Public School Choice; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: 20 U.S.C. § 7225a(a); Typical
uses as reported by program officials: Contract for services, purchase
and operate vehicles, hire bus drivers
and transportation directors, purchase bus passes, redesign
transportation plans including new routing systems, offer professional
development for bus drivers; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: To access educational services and programs; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Students from under-
performing schools who choose to transfer to higher performing schools;
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: New program, no
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Department of Education, Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services:
Program: Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities;
Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(22),
1411(a)(1); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Purchase and
operate vehicles, contract for service; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access educational services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Children with disabilities; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or
estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Centers for Independent Living; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 796f-4(b)(3) and
705(18)(xi); Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Referral, assistance, and training in the use of
public transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
To access program services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Persons with a significant disability; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are
Blind; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of
Agriculture, Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation: 29 U.S.C. § 796k(e)(5);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Referral, assistance, and
training in the use of public transportation; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access program services, for general
trips; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons
aged 55 or older who have significant visual impairment; Fiscal year
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Independent Living State Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation: Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation:
29 U.S.C. §§ 796e-2(1) and 705(18)(xi); Typical uses as
reported by program officials: Referral, assistance, and training in
the use of public transportation; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access program services, employment
opportunities; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Persons with a significant disability; Fiscal year 2001 federal
spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available
from the federal agency.
Program: Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Most
Significant Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Workforce
Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
29 U.S.C. §§ 795g and 705(36); Typical uses as reported by program
officials:
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation (e.g. bus,
taxi, and paratransit), training in the use of public transportation;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access employment
placements, employment services, and vocational rehabilitation
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons
with most significant disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending
on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency[E].
Program: Vocational Rehabilitation Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. § 723(a)(8); Typical uses as reported
by program officials:
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation (e.g.
bus, taxi, and paratransit), training in the use of public
transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To
access employment placements, employment services, and vocational
rehabilitation services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Persons with physical or mental impairments; Fiscal year
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $50,700,000 (estimate)[E].
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families:
Program: Child Care and Development Fund; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 9858c; Typical
uses as reported by program officials
States rarely use CCDF funds for transportation
and only under very restricted circumstances; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access child care services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Children from low-income
families; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $0
(estimate)[F].
Program: Community Services Block Grant Programs; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Community Opportunities, Accountability, Training, and
Educational Services Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 9904; Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Taxi
vouchers, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
General trips; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Low-income persons; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance;
Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and
Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15081(2)(D); Typical uses as reported by program
officials:
Transportation information, feasibility studies, planning; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons with
developmental disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency[G].
Program: Head Start; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Augustus F.
Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 USCA § 9835(a)(3)(C) (ii);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Purchase and operate vehicles,
contract with transportation providers, coordinate with local education
agencies; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access
educational services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Children from low-income families; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $514,500,000 (estimate)[H].
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance State Administered Programs;
Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Targeted Assistance; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Voluntary Agency Programs;
Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D),
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Social Services Block Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds
for transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 1397a(a)(2)(A); Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access medical or social services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: States determine what
categories of families and children; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending
on transportation[B]: $18,459,393.
Program: State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and Protection
and Advocacy Systems; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15025;
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, State Councils provide small
grants and contracts to local organizations to establish transportation
projects or collaborate in improving transportation for people with
disabilities; Protection and Advocacy Systems ensure that people with
disabilities have access to public transportation as required by law;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: All or general trips;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons with
developmental disabilities and family members; Fiscal year 2001 federal
spending on transportation[B]: $786,605 (partial outlay)[I].
Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
42 U.S.C. §§ 604(a), (k); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Any
use that is reasonably calculated to accomplish a purpose of the TANF
program and the allowable matching portion of JARC grants; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: No assistance is
provided to families without a minor child, but states determine
specific eligibility; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: $160,462,214 (partial outlay)[J].
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on
Aging:
Program: Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 3030d (a)(2);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Contract for services; Types
of trips as reported by program officials: To access program services,
medical, and for general trips; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Program is targeted to persons aged 60 or over; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $72,496,003.
Program: Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native
Hawaiian Elders; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Older Americans Act of
1965, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
42 U.S.C. §§ 3057, 3030d(a)(2); Typical uses as reported by program
officials:
Purchase and operate vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: To access program services, medical, and for general trips;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Program is for
American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian elders; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or
estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services:
Program: Medicaid; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Social Security Act, as
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. §§
1396a, 1396n(e)(1)(A); Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Bus tokens,
subway passes, brokerage services; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access health care services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Recipients are generally low-income
persons, but states determine specific eligibility; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $976,200,000 (estimate)[K].
Program: State Children's Health Insurance Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act of 2000; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
42 U.S.C. §§ 1397jj(a)(26), (27); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Any
transportation-related use; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: To access health care services; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Beneficiaries are primarily children from low-
income families, but states determine eligibility; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $4,398,089.
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and
Services Administration:
Program: Community Health Centers; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 254b(b)(1)(A) (iv); Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Bus tokens, vouchers, transportation coordinators, and
drivers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access
health care services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Medically underserved populations; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $4,200,000 (estimate)[L].
Program: Healthy Communities Access Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 256(e)(1)(B)(iii); Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Improve coordination of transportation; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: To access health care services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Uninsured or
underinsured populations; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Healthy Start Initiative; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 254c-8(e)(1); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Bus
tokens, taxi vouchers, reimbursement for use of own vehicle; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: To access health care services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Residents of
areas with significant perinatal health disparities; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: HIV Care Formula Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300ff-21(a),
23(a)(2)(B); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Bus passes, tokens, taxis,
vanpools, vehicle purchase by providers, mileage reimbursement; Types
of trips as reported by program officials: To access health care
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons
with HIV or AIDS; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: $19,500,000 (estimate)[M].
Program: Maternal and Child Services Grants; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1)(A); Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access health care services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Mothers, infants and
children, particularly from low-income families; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Rural Health Care, Rural Health Network, and Small Health Care
Provider Programs; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Health Centers
Consolidation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 254c; Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Purchase
vehicles, bus passes; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
To access health care services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Medically underserved populations in rural areas; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or
estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration:
Program: Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 300x-1(b)(1); Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access program services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Adults with mental
illness and children with emotional disturbance; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 300x-32(b);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Any transportation-related
use; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access program
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons
with a substance related disorder and/or recovering from substance
related disorder; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Community Planning and Development:
Program: Community Development Block Grant; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 5305(a)(8);
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, Purchase and operate vehicles;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Program must serve a
majority of low-income persons; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: $6,761,486 (partial outlay)[N].
Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 12907(a)(3); Typical uses as reported by program
officials:
Contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
To access health care and other services; Target population as defined
by program officials[A]: Low-income persons with HIV or AIDS and their
families; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]:
$190,252 (partial outlay)[O].
Program: Supportive Housing Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 11385; Typical
uses as reported by program officials
Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, purchase and operate
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access
supportive services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Homeless persons and families with children; Fiscal year
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $14,000,000;
(estimate)[P].
Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public
and Indian Housing:
Program: Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. §
1437v(l)(3); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Bus tokens, taxi vouchers,
contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
Trips related to employment or obtaining necessary supportive services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Residents of the
severely distressed housing and residents of the revitalized units;
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $700,000
(estimate)[Q].
Program: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Program: Indian Employment Assistance; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Adult Indian Vocational Training Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
25 U.S.C. § 309; Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Gas vouchers; Types of trips as reported by program officials:
To access training; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Native American persons between the ages of 18 and 35;
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data
or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Indian Employment, Training and Related Services[R]; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Indian Employment, Training and Related Services
Demonstration Act of 1992; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
25 U.S.C. § 3401; Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Gas vouchers;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Employment-related;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Low-income Native
American persons; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration:
Program: Job Corps; Popular title of authorizing legislation:
Workforce
Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
29 U.S.C. §§ 2888(a)(1), 2890; Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Bus
tickets; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access Job
Corps sites and employment services; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Low-income youth; Fiscal year 2001 federal
spending on transportation[B]: $21,612,000.
Program: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker[S]; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2912(d); Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Mileage reimbursement; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access employment placements or intensive and
training services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Low-income persons and their dependents who are primarily
employed in agricultural labor that is seasonal or migratory; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or
estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Native American Employment and Training; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. § 2911(d)(2); Typical uses as reported
by program officials:
Bus tokens, transit passes, use of tribal vehicles and grantee
staff vehicles, mileage reimbursement for participants operating "car
pool" services; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To
access employment placements, employment services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Unemployed American Indians and other
persons of Native American descent; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending
on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Senior Community Service Employment Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Older Americans Act of 1965; U.S. Code provisions authorizing
funds for transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 3056(c)(6)(A) (iv); Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Mileage reimbursement, reimbursement for travel costs, and
payment for cost of transportation; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access employment placements; Target population
as defined by program officials[A]: Low-income persons aged 55 or over;
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $4,400,000
(estimate)[S].
Program: Trade Adjustment Assistance - Workers; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Trade Act of 1974, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
19 U.S.C. § 2296(b); Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Mileage reimbursement, transit fares; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access training; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Persons found to be impacted by
foreign trade, increased imports, or shift in production; Fiscal year
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and
Alaska Natives[T]; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 612(a)(3)(C); Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Any transportation-related use, though purchasing
vehicles for individuals is not allowable; Types of trips as reported
by program officials: To access employment placements, employment
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
American Indians and other persons of Native American descent who are
long-term welfare recipients or are low-income; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities[T]; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(5)(C); Typical uses as reported by program
officials: Any
transportation-related use, though purchasing vehicles for individuals
is not allowable; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To
access employment placements, employment services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Long-term welfare recipients or low-
income individuals; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Work Incentive Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2864(d)(2); Typical uses
as reported by program officials:
Encourage collaboration with transportation
providers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access
one-stop services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Persons with disabilities who are eligible for employment
and training services; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the
federal agency.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Adult Services Program; Popular title
of authorizing legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46),
2864(e)(2); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Mileage reimbursement, bus
tokens, vouchers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To
access training; Target population as defined by program officials[A]:
Priority must be given to people on assistance and low-income
individuals; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46),
2864(e)(2); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Transportation allowance or
reimbursement, bus/subway tokens; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: To access transition assistance in order to find or qualify
for new employment; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Includes workers who have been laid off, or have received
an individual notice of termination, or notice that a facility will
close; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46),
2854(a)(4); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department
of Agriculture, Public transportation;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access training and
other support services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Youth with low individual or family income; Fiscal year
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Youth Opportunity Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2914(b); Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program
officials: To access program services; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Youth from high poverty areas, empowerment zones,
or enterprise communities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: $415,000 (estimate)[U].
Program: Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration:
Program: Black Lung Benefits Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
30 U.S.C. § 923; Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Mileage reimbursement, transit fares, taxi vouchers; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: To access health services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Disabled coal
miners; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency[V].
Program: Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service:
Program: Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001; U.S.
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of
Agriculture, 38 USCA §§ 2011, 2021; Typical
uses as reported by program officials
Bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: To access employment services; Target population as
defined by program officials[A]: Homeless veterans; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate
available from the federal agency.
Program: Veterans' Employment Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2913; Typical uses as
reported by program officials:
Bus tokens, minor repairs to vehicles; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: To access employment services;
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Veterans; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or
estimate available from the federal agency.
Program: Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration:
Program: Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus
Accessibility; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of
Agriculture, Title 49 Recodification, P.L.
103-272; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
49 U.S.C. §
5310; Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, To make vehicles wheelchair
accessible and training required by ADA; Types of trips as reported by
program officials: General trips; Target population as defined by
program officials[A]: Persons with disabilities; Fiscal year 2001
federal spending on transportation[B]: $2,877,818.
Program: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons
with Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department
of Agriculture, Title 49 Recodification,
P.L. 103-272; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for
transportation:
49 U.S.C. § 5310; Typical uses as reported by program officials:
Assistance in
purchasing vehicles, contract for services; Types of trips as reported
by program officials: To serve the needs of the elderly and persons
with disabilities; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Elderly persons and persons with disabilities; Fiscal
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $174,982,628.
Program: Capital Investment Grants; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
49 U.S.C. § 5309; Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Assistance for bus and bus-related capital projects; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: General public, although
some projects are for the special needs of elderly persons and persons
with disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: $17,500,000 (estimate)[W].
Program: Job Access and Reverse Commute; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
49 U.S.C. § 5309 note; Typical uses as reported
by program officials:
Expand existing public transportation or initiate new service;
Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access employment
and related services; Target population as defined by program
officials[A]: Low income persons, including persons with disabilities;
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $85,009,627.
Program: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; Popular title of
authorizing legislation:
Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 103-272; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
49 U.S.C. § 5311; Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Capital and operating assistance for public transportation
service, including paratransit services, in nonurbanized areas; Types
of trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: General public, although
paratransit services are for the special needs of persons with
disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]:
$0; (partial obligation)[X].
Program: Urbanized Area Formula Program; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 103-272, as amended; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
49 U.S.C. § 5307; Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Capital assistance, and some operating assistance for public
transit, including paratransit services, in urbanized areas; Types of
trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: General public, although
paratransit services are for the special needs of persons with
disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]:
$36,949,680 (partial obligation)[Y].
Program: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration:
Program: Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled
Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Disabled Veterans and Servicemen's Automobile Assistance Act of 1970;
U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department
of Agriculture, 38 U.S.C. § 3902; Typical
uses as reported by program officials
Purchase of personal vehicles, modifications of
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: General
trips; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Veterans
and service members with disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal
spending on transportation[B]: $33,639,000.
Program: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health
Administration:
Program: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; Popular
title of authorizing legislation:
Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act
of 1992; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation:
38 U.S.C. § 7721
note; Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of
Agriculture, 20 vans were purchased under
this program; Types of trips as reported by program officials: General
trips; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Homeless
veterans; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]:
$565,797.
Program: Veterans Medical Care Benefits; Popular title of authorizing
legislation:
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994; U.S. Code provisions
authorizing funds for transportation
38 U.S.C. § 111; Typical uses as reported by
program officials:
Mileage reimbursement, contract for service; Types of trips as
reported by program officials: To access health care services; Target
population as defined by program officials[A]: Veterans with
disabilities or low incomes; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on
transportation[B]: $126,594,591.
Program: Total (reported or estimated spending on transportation
services for the transportation-disadvantaged): $2,445,453,139.
Sources: GAO analysis of information from the Departments of
Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, the Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs;
the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility; the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance; the U.S. Code; the Code of Federal Regulations;
and the Community Transportation Association of America.
[A] A supplemental source for the target populations was the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
[B] Actual outlays or obligations on transportation are given for
programs that track this information. All data are outlays, except for
the following programs, which are obligations: Capital Investment
Grants, Urbanized Area Formula Program, Nonurbanized Area Formula
Program, Job Access and Reverse Commute, Capital and Training
Assistance for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, Capital Assistance
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Automobiles
and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the
Armed Forces, and Veterans Medical Care Benefits. Actual data and
estimates are the total for the program, unless otherwise noted as
partial outlays or obligations in the table. When actual information
was not available, estimates are given based on information provided by
program officials or the officials agreed with an estimate made by
another source.
[C] According to a program official, outlays for the Food Stamp
Employment and Training Program have increased due to changes in the
program from the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill eliminates the $25
per month cap that the Department of Agriculture will reimburse the
states for transportation and other work costs incurred by
participants. In fiscal year 2002, federal outlays for transportation
were $18,523,535.
[D] A program official said that 10 percent of total program outlays
would be a conservative estimate of transportation outlays.
[E] Grantees report total expenditures and unliquidated obligations
made by the state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Agency for
transportation services provided to individuals served under the State
VR Services Program for a fiscal year. Total obligations include both
federal and nonfederal funds under the State VR Services Program, the
supplemental federal funds awarded to the State VR Agency for the cost
of supported employment services under the Supported Employment
Program, and funds from other rehabilitation sources. The Department of
Education does not collect data on the specific sources of funds used
for transportation obligations under the program. However, based on
information available from total annual obligations on a national
aggregate basis, a program official estimated that of the total amount
reported for transportation, about 96 percent would be from the State
VR Services Program, and of that amount approximately 76 percent would
be federal funds. Similar estimates could not be made for the Supported
Employment Program.
[F] A program official said that, while transportation is an allowable
use of funds, using funds for transportation is not encouraged. Program
officials estimate that transportation expenditures are zero or close
to zero for this program.
[G] Fiscal year 2001 data are not available because transportation was
not an area of emphasis until fiscal year 2002. The preliminary fiscal
year 2002 outlays for transportation projects totaled $1,084,798.
[H] A program official estimated that transportation outlays were 8.3
percent of total outlays.
[I] This is a partial outlay based on voluntary reporting by grantees.
Full outlays are not available because, according to a program
official, grantees were not required to report transportation outlays
prior to fiscal year 2002. Fiscal year 2002 data are incomplete,
however preliminary data on transportation outlays from 46 of the 51
grantees totaled $2,215,498.
[J] This is a partial outlay based on the amount grantees reported as
non-assistance outlays in a category exclusively for transportation.
States reported an additional $356.5 million as outlays on assistance
in a category that includes transportation and supportive services,
however program officials were unable to determine what percentage of
the outlays on assistance were spent on transportation.
[K] Program officials indicate that federal data on nonemergency
medical transportation are not available. Estimate assumes that
transportation outlays are 0.73 percent of total program outlays, based
on previous research, including a survey of state Medicaid programs.
[L] According to a program official, grantees report total outlays for
transportation and it is not possible to distinguish between federal
and nonfederal funds. The official said 22 percent of total
transportation outlays would be a good estimate of the federal portion
of fiscal year 2001 transportation outlays.
[M] Estimate of transportation outlays is based on data from grantee's
budget allocations, as suggested by an agency official.
[N] This is a partial outlay for transportation through the Community
Development Block Grant program. This figure includes transportation
outlays for the Entitlement program, but excludes the State
Administered program.
[O] This is a partial estimate because, according to a program
official, data on transportation outlays are not available from all
grantees. The program official could not provide an estimate of outlays
for transportation for all grantees.
[P] HUD provided data for transportation spending by 3,187 grantees in
fiscal year 2001 that totaled $7,221,569. According to HUD program
officials, there are a total of 6,323 grantees, about twice as many as
reported data. The officials therefore estimated that about $14,000,000
would have been spent on transportation from all grantees in fiscal
year 2001.
[Q] Estimate of outlays for transportation is based on a program
official's review of the budgets from 15 grantees who renewed their
grants in fiscal year 2001. The official projected total transportation
outlays for the program based on these 15 grantees.
[R] Public Law 102-477 is applied to allow tribal governments to
consolidate funding from several federal programs. These include: the
Department of Health and Human Services's Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, and Child Care and Development Fund programs; the
Department of Labor's Native American Employment and Training, and
Welfare-to-Work Grants for Federally Recognized Tribes programs; and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Employment Assistance, Indian Social
Service and Welfare Assistance, Adult Basic Education, and Higher
Education programs. The Indian Social Services and Welfare Assistance
Program is not used for transportation outside 102-477. The Adult Basic
Education and Higher Education programs do not target transportation-
disadvantaged populations as defined in this study outside of 102-477.
The Employment Assistance program and the HHS and DOL programs provide
transportation assistance separately from 102-477.
[S] A program official estimated that transportation outlays were
approximately 1 percent of total program outlays.
[T] Program funding from fiscal year 1998 and 1999 may still be spent,
but the program no longer receives funding.
[U] Estimate of transportation outlays is based on a program official's
review of grantee obligations.
[V] According to a program official, fiscal year 2001 data are not
available due to changes in the program's reporting system. The
official reported that transportation outlays for fiscal year 2002
totaled $478,408.
[W] According to a program official, there are three distinct
allocations of funds under the Capital Investment Grants: the New
Starts allocation, which funds new rail projects; the fixed-guideway
modernization allocation, which provides funding to maintain and update
aging rail systems; and the bus allocation, which provides funding for
the purchase of buses, bus-related equipment and paratransit vehicles,
and for the construction of bus-related facilities. Because the Capital
Investment Grants fund projects that provide services for the general
public, the transportation-disadvantaged likely benefit from many
projects funded through each of the three allocations, but information
was not available to estimate what portion of these funds for the
general public benefit the transportation-disadvantaged. However, the
program official said that the bus allocation would likely provide the
most direct benefit for the transportation-disadvantaged and the
obligation level could be estimated by totaling allocations to purchase
vans, buses for the elderly or disabled, or paratransit vehicles and
equipment.
[X] The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program funds projects that provide
services for the general public, however grantees can use up to 10
percent of their funds to provide complementary ADA paratransit
services. Although grantees did not report obligations for
complementary ADA paratransit, a program official said that
transportation-disadvantaged populations might benefit from other
services provided through this grant, such as demand-responsive
services. However, the program official could not identify the amount
of spending that directly benefits the transportation-disadvantaged.
[Y] According to a program official, the Urbanized Area Formula Program
funds projects that provide services for the general public, however
grantees can use up to 10 percent of their funds to provide
complementary ADA paratransit services. The figure listed in the table
is the total obligations that grantees reported for providing
complementary ADA paratransit services. Although grantees may benefit
from other services provided through this grant, such as demand-
responsive services, the amount spent on complementary ADA paratransit
is the only portion that program officials could identify as directly
benefiting the transportation-disadvantaged.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Federal and State Coordination Efforts:
Federal and state efforts to coordinate the services for the
transportation-disadvantaged provided through their programs vary
widely. This appendix offers some examples of those efforts.
Federal Coordination:
In 1999, we reviewed the coordination efforts of the Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility, a body of representatives from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).[Footnote 46] We made several recommendations
for improving coordination between these two agencies. Table 5 shows
the recommendations and actions taken in response.
Table 5: Federal Actions Taken in Response to GAO Recommendations for
Improving Coordination:
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The DOT/ HHS Coordinating Council
on Access and Mobility should adopt a prioritized strategic plan.;
Specific actions completed or products issued in response: In August
2000, the Coordinating Council adopted a prioritized strategic plan for
fiscal years 2000 to 2004 and distributed the plan to its members.;
Actions in progress and further concerns: The plan has not been updated
or distributed widely because the Council is now focused on a more
"product-oriented" approach. The plan will be updated at the end of
2003.; The entire Coordinating Council has not met formally since
December 2000, but specific workgroups have been developing action
agendas and interagency agreements.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should
develop an action plan with specific responsibilities.; Specific
actions completed or products issued in response: The Council developed
and issued an action plan in fiscal year 2003 and a number of actions
have been completed, such as producing a series of "how to"
publications on using intelligent transportation systems to assist in
the coordination of HHS programs with local transit agencies.; Actions
in progress and further concerns: Other actions were not completed by
the expected date, such as the preparation of a promotional brochure on
state Medicaid brokerage initiatives. Also, the outcome of actions is
unknown due to the lack of an annual report.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should
issue an annual report on its major initiatives and accomplishments to
the Secretaries of DOT and HHS.; Specific actions completed or products
issued in response: No annual report has yet been issued.; Actions in
progress and further concerns: The Council plans to issue its first
annual report in June 2003.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: DOT and HHS should ensure that
planned coordination efforts reinforce one another.; Specific actions
completed or products issued in response: The document "Planning
Guidelines for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation
Services" was issued by the Council in December 2000 and distributed to
state and local transit agencies. The guidelines are also available on
the Web sites of the Council and DOT's Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). These guidelines provide information to facilitate the
coordination of transportation services for 12 HHS and 10 DOT
programs.; Actions in progress and further concerns: Distribution to
health and human service providers may not have been as thorough.
According to some regional FTA and HHS officials we interviewed, the
guidelines might have more impact if they are delivered to human
service agencies and providers. Other officials mentioned the need for
more specific guidance, such as models for cost sharing.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: DOT and HHS should direct their
regional working groups to assess obstacles to transportation
coordination.; Specific actions completed or products issued in
response: The Council's strategic plan provides for regional
coordination action plans, including the identification and assessment
of obstacles to transportation coordination.; Actions in progress and
further concerns: All 10 of the regions produced action plans, but most
have not been updated since fiscal year 2000. In addition, the outcomes
of actions are not routinely tracked.; The FTA and HHS regional offices
are jointly sponsoring conferences in spring 2003 for state
transportation and human service officials to, among other things,
identify obstacles to coordination and best practices in successfully
overcoming them.
Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should
strengthen its Web site and make information available on obstacles to
coordination and strategies to overcome them.; Specific actions
completed or products issued in response: The Council's official Web
site was discontinued due to lack of funding, but another site was
established in May 2002, operated by FTA in conjunction with the
Community Transportation Association of America. The site is linked to
FTA's Web site. (www.fta.gov/CCAM/www.index.html); Actions in progress
and further concerns: The Coordinating Council's Web site is not yet
linked to HHS's Web site.; The Council's Web site does not contain an
explicit list of obstacles to coordination or strategies to overcome
them, but it does contain links to several reports that address these
issues.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
As a result of items in the Coordinating Council's strategic plan and
action plan, FTA and HHS have undertaken multiple efforts to coordinate
transportation services provided through their programs. Other federal
agencies are also involved in coordination activities. Examples of
federal coordination efforts include the following:
* The FTA and HHS's Administration on Aging have entered into a
memorandum of understanding to increase coordination of transportation
for older adults. For example, the agreement says that FTA and the
Administration on Aging will work together to better coordinate the
provision of funding opportunities to the aging services and
transportation networks for the purpose of fostering coordination of
transportation services and developing innovative service delivery
models.
* FTA and HHS's Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are developing
an action plan between them to address the coordination of Medicaid
funded transportation.
* Department of Labor (DOL) and DOT officials are developing guidelines
about using Workforce Investment Act[Footnote 47] funds for programs
funded under DOT's Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.
* Some federal regional offices have interagency working groups to
discuss transportation and other areas of mutual concern. Four of the
10 regions have formal working groups that meet regularly to discuss
ways to use federal funds more efficiently, including for
transportation services. These groups include officials from FTA, HHS
and, in some regions, the Departments of Labor, Education, Housing and
Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, and others. In 4 other regions,
FTA and some components of HHS work together informally. One of the
regions also has a formal working group that meets quarterly to discuss
Workforce Investment Act programs.
* A study undertaken on behalf of DOT and HHS examined seven specific
planning strategies that can be used as part of a flexible regional
planning process for coordinating transportation services of health and
human service and transit agencies. The report is available on the
Coordinating Council's Web site.[Footnote 48]
* The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) is an
organization consisting primarily of rural and small community
transportation providers, and it serves the dual role of transportation
industry representative and mobility advocate. It also has
responsibility for updating and maintaining the Coordinating Council's
Web site. CTAA sponsored a National Summit on Coordination in May 2003
to encourage federal, state, and local coordination. The participants-
-who came from federal departments, human service agencies, state
associations, and transit providers--discussed, among other things,
obstacles to coordination and strategies for addressing them.
* CTAA established a Web site for the National Transit Resource Center,
an information clearinghouse funded by DOT and HHS.[Footnote 49] The
site contains links to the Coordinating Council as well as to the
Community Transportation Assistance Project (CTAP) and the Rural
Transit Assistance Program (RTAP). CTAP, funded by HHS, provides
information about transportation issues, such as accessibility,
coordination, funding opportunities, training, management, and
legislation and regulations. CTAP also compiled a comprehensive list of
federal funding resources for community transportation providers. The
purpose of RTAP, funded by FTA, is to provide training and technical
assistance for rural public transportation operators, improve
professionalism and safety of rural public transit services, promote
efficiency and effectiveness of rural transit services, and support
coordination with human service transportation.
* HHS and CTAA have developed and distributed an Employment
Transportation Toolkit designed to help communities improve access to
transportation for employment purposes.
* DOL is working with CTAA and DOT to implement several rounds of pilot
projects testing various transportation strategies in support of local
one-stop employment and training centers.[Footnote 50] According to DOL
officials, these strategies can include referral services,
transportation information, transportation services coordination,
mobility management, and other transportation strategies.
* DOL also provides funding to CTAA to convene regional workshops among
workforce development, human services, transportation, and business
communities, and to update a technical assistance toolkit for
employment transportation. The toolkit includes promising practices
from the state and local levels, as well as information on how
businesses can be employment transportation partners.
* According to agency officials, DOL's Employment and Training
Administration sponsored a "Promising Practices" project that includes
transportation coordination efforts.
* The National Consortium on the Coordination of Human Services
Transportation--an initiative of FTA and HHS, under the direction of
CTAA--plans to design and conduct a survey of state Medicaid directors
to compile data on the Medicaid transit pass program, brokerages, and
other transportation funding mechanisms within Medicaid; develop a new
brochure outlining the benefits of the Medicaid pass program; develop
case studies of successful brokerage programs and design a brochure
describing them; identify promising practices and obstacles in human
service transportation coordination and develop strategies for
addressing these obstacles; and provide outreach on coordination
efforts and resources.[Footnote 51]
* The federally-funded Transportation Research Board, an arm of the
National Academy of Sciences, has several completed and ongoing
projects on transportation coordination, including the following:
* In June 2000 the board issued "Welfare-to-Work: Integration and
Coordination of Transportation and Social Services." This report
identifies obstacles former welfare recipients face in making the
transition to work and suggests practical strategies to improve access
to job opportunities.
* A draft report of TCRP Project B-24, "Toolkit for Rural Community
Coordinated Transportation Services," is expected in June 2003. The
objective of this research is to develop a practical toolkit for use by
local communities, state agencies, and tribal governments in planning
and implementing coordinated community transportation services in rural
areas.
* The final report of TCRP Project H-26, "Economic Benefits of
Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Transit Services," is
expected in late 2003. The executive summary has been made available
for distribution. In this project, the researchers are examining the
economic benefits associated with various strategies and practices for
coordinating health and human services and transit providers, as well
as additional benefits (beyond costs) that might be obtained through
further coordination efforts.
* TCRP Project H-30, "Strategies to Increase Coordination of
Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged," has an
expected completion date of January 2004. The objective of this
research project is to develop strategies for initiating or improving
coordination of local and regional publicly funded transportation
services for the transportation-disadvantaged.
State Coordination:
Coordination of transportation services at the state level varies. We
visited two states with formal coordinating bodies, one state with a
formal arrangement between two agencies, and two states with no formal
coordination. Table 6 identifies the states' coordination arrangements
and the agencies involved in formal coordination efforts.
Table 6: Examples of State Coordination of Services for the
Transportation-Disadvantaged:
State: Arizona; Type of coordination: None; Statewide coordinating
body: None; Departments/ organizations involved in formal coordination:
None.
State: Florida; Type of coordination: State-administered brokerage
system; Statewide coordinating body: Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged; Departments/ organizations involved in formal
coordination: * Departments of Transportation, Education, Veterans
Affairs, Children and Families, Elder Affairs, Labor and Employment
Security; * Agency for Health Care Administration; * Florida Transit
Association; * Community Transportation Coordinators; * Transportation
operators; * Nontransportation business community; * Florida
Association for Community Action; * Early Childhood Council; *
Representatives for the disabled, elderly, rural, and urban
populations.
State: New York; Type of coordination: None; Statewide coordinating
body: None; Departments/ organizations involved in formal coordination:
None.
State: South Dakota; Type of coordination: Statewide planning body;
Statewide coordinating body: Transportation Planning and Coordinating
Task Force; Departments/ organizations involved in formal coordination:
* Departments of Transportation, Human Services, Social Services,
Labor, and Health; * Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities.
State: Wisconsin; Type of coordination: None for entire state;
Statewide coordinating body: None; Departments/ organizations involved
in formal coordination: * Departments of Transportation and Workforce
Development jointly administer Wisconsin Employment Transportation
Assistance Program (WETAP).
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
* Arizona does not have formal transportation coordination efforts at
the state level, though some state agencies work together informally,
and some localities have similar arrangements. For example, an official
from the Jobs Administration in the Department of Economic Security
said that the Administration works with the Department of
Transportation to try to avoid duplication of services in rural areas.
* Florida has a state coordinating body that oversees local
coordination efforts among most programs. This body is called the
Commission for the Transportation-Disadvantaged and was created in 1989
by the Florida Legislature to oversee the implementation of coordinated
transportation disadvantaged services. The commission appoints local
Community Transportation Coordinators who are responsible for the
arrangement or delivery of transportation services for transportation-
disadvantaged persons, either by brokering services or by providing
transportation directly. Agencies are required to purchase
transportation through the coordinated system, unless the services
offered do not meet the needs of the client or the agency can find a
lower cost alternative that meets the same safety standards.
* New York does not have a formal coordinating body, but some state
agencies work together informally and many local agencies have entered
into brokerage agreements. Officials from the Departments of Labor and
Transportation say they have been working together to identify needs
and initiate transportation projects for employment programs. In
addition, five state agencies review and comment on applications for
FTA's Transit Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and
Persons with Disabilities.
* South Dakota has a state coordination task force that provides
guidance to local coordination efforts, but not all localities or
programs have developed coordinated systems. South Dakota established
its Transportation Planning and Coordinating Task Force in 1998 at the
initiative of the governor's office. Additionally, the Departments of
Human Services and Transportation require all of their programs or
applicants to coordinate with other resources in the community.
* Wisconsin does not have a single body in state government that
coordinates all of Wisconsin's services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, but some state and local programs do coordinate. The
state Departments of Transportation and Workforce Development jointly
administer the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program
(WETAP), which uses a combination of federal, state, and local funds to
provide transportation for low-income residents to get to jobs and
employment services. WETAP applicants are required to demonstrate
coordination, and only one grant application is accepted per county.
Other agencies are also working to improve coordination. The
Departments of Transportation and Health and Family Services are trying
to coordinate Medicaid transportation. In addition, the Department of
Health and Family Services convened a conference in August 2002 to
discuss ways to improve coordination of transportation for people with
disabilities.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Informational Resources on Coordination:
Web Sites:
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/
www.index.html:
Community Transportation Association of America, www.ctaa.org:
Workforce Investment Act Transportation Resources, www.doleta.gov/
usworkforce/resources/transport.asp:
Reports:
Community Transportation Association of America. 2002. Building
Mobility Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment.
Washington, D.C.: Community Transportation Association of America.
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. 2000. Planning Guidelines
for State and Local Coordination. Washington, D.C.: Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility.
Creative Action, Inc. 2001. Coordinating Transportation Services: Local
Collaboration and Decision-Making. Prepared for Project Action. Akron,
OH: Creative Action, Inc.
National Governor's Association. 2002. Improving Public Transportation
Services through Effective Statewide Coordination. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 2002. Innovative State
and Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Transportation.
Westat. Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation
and Transit Services. Transit Cooperative Research Project of the
Transportation Research Board. Forthcoming.
Westat. Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation
Services. Transit Cooperative Research Project of the Transportation
Research Board. Forthcoming.
National Transportation Consortium of States, Ecosometrics, Inc., and
the American Public Works Association for the Coordinating Council on
Access and Mobility. 2000. Working Together: A Directory of State
Coordination Programs, Policies, and Contacts: 1999-2000. Washington,
D.C.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See page 7.
See comment 2.
See comment 1.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
MAY 30 2003:
Ms. Katherine Siggerud:
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Siggerud:
Enclosed are the department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist." The comments represent the tentative position of the
department and are subject to reevaluation when the final version of
this report is received.
The department also provided several technical comments directly to
your staff.
The department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Duquette:
Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General:
Signed by Dennis J. Duquette:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the department's
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office
reports. The OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
Comments of the Department of Health and Human Services on the General
Accounting Office's Draft Report, "Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing
Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist" (GAO-03-697):
The Department of Health and Human Services (department / HHS)
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the General Accounting
Office's (GAO) draft report, "Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing
Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist." Overall, this is a
comprehensive, well-written report that should inspire further interest
in seeking ways to resolve the ongoing problem of coordination and
limited resources. The department would like to offer several general
comments that we feel would strengthen this report.
The department concurs with the GAO's recommendations for executive
action. Implementation of several of the GAO's recommendations are
already underway, including strengthening the linkage between the
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility's (Coordinating Council)
Strategic and Action Plans, reviewing the HHS Strategic Plan for
opportunities to reflect the department's transportation coordination
efforts, working with HHS program offices to develop coordination
guidance for the specific program networks, and linking the
Coordinating Council's web site to the department's web site.
The department also concurs with the GAO findings regarding the need to
harmonize program eligibility and reporting requirements as well as the
need to develop mandates or incentives to improve coordination.
General Comments:
The department suggests that the GAO consider a more concise, specific
title for the report, such as "Coordination of Human Services
Transportation: Progress Made but Obstacles Persist." The report has
generated significant interest within Congress, federal agencies and
among states and localities. A title containing the word "coordination"
will make it easier for interested parties to obtain the report through
electronic searches.
The report makes clear the difficulty of accessing detailed data on the
expenditures or investments that fund human service transportation. Of
equal importance for the planning and coordination of transportation
resources is the need for detailed information on the need for these
services. The department has found determining the level of need to be
almost as difficult as identifying current funding outlays.
Although implied, the report does not make explicit that the
Coordinating Council owes its existence to a 15 year-old memorandum of
understanding between HHS and the Department of Transportation. There
is no congressional charge that underlies the Coordinating Council.
The department has found it useful to attempt estimates of
transportation expenditures despite the lack of available data in some
of the department's programs. In earlier work by Jon Burkhardt through
Ecosometrics, Inc., an estimate of 5 percent of the program
expenditures was used to identify a working figure for discussion. When
specific programs voiced concern that this estimate was too high, a
more conservative estimate was made. Using this methodology, the
department's expenditures were estimated at just under $2 billion and
by extrapolation could be estimated at close to $3 billion currently.
We suggest that the GAO take a second look at possible estimates based
on the role transportation plays in health and human service programs
where data is available.
The draft HHS 2002-2008 Strategic Plan is under review for
opportunities to strengthen the language with regard to coordination
and human services transportation. It is anticipated that there will be
areas within the Strategic Plan that present options for addressing the
department's support for the coordination of transportation services.
The department would like to highlight some recent hopeful developments
in the effort to enhance federal coordination. The Coordinating Council
recently established three targeted workgroups to address the specific
transportation needs and coordination strategies for the target
populations of the elderly, the medically indigent and individuals with
disabilities. The Coordinating Council has also announced its intention
to establish a fourth workgroup on rural transportation issues. These
workgroups are using a similar model of action: developing goals and
objectives, signing a memorandum of agreement between the appropriate
HHS agencies and the Federal Transit Administration, developing an
action plan with timeframes and performance measures, and assigning
responsibility for the actions. In addition, the workgroup addressing
transportation of individuals with disabilities has also been
designated as a subcommittee for the HHS New Freedom Initiative.
Discussions are already underway on the most effective way to include
the Departments of Labor and Education in these efforts.
A description of coordination efforts quickly becomes complex for many
reasons and requires careful delineation of the various sectors and
governmental levels involved. The report will achieve better clarity
with identification of the levels, sectors and affiliations of
officials and other interviewees.
The following are GAO's comments on HHS's letter dated May 30, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. HHS suggested that we consider incorporating other estimates of
transportation spending by health and human service programs,
particularly one estimate that assumed transportation spending
accounted for 5 percent of total program spending. In developing our
estimate of transportation spending, we only included actual or
estimated figures for which the agencies could provide supporting
evidence. For those programs that had actual or estimated spending
information, on average, about 3 percent of total spending for those
programs was devoted to transportation. We do not know whether this 3
percent is an appropriate estimate of transportation spending for other
programs because grantees are generally not required to report
transportation spending information to the federal agency administering
the program. Furthermore, several officials who administer programs
that had no spending data told us that transportation services probably
represented less than 1 percent of their total program spending.
2. HHS proposed that we identify the levels, sectors, and affiliations
of officials and others we interviewed. In all agencies and locations
we talked with key human service and transportation officials
responsible for the delivery and coordination of human and
transportation services. We interviewed more than 100 officials in
numerous federal, state, and local transportation and human service
agencies as well as individuals representing service providers,
consumers, and professional and industry advocacy organizations. In our
scope and methodology section (see app. I), we generally describe the
responsibilities and affiliations of those we interviewed.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES:
MAY 28 2003
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
Ms. Katherine Siggerud:
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues General Accounting
Office:
441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Siggerud:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report entitled,
"Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist
" (GAO-03-697). I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Department of
Education. Deputy Assistant Secretary Loretta Petty Chittum testified
for the Department at the related joint hearing on transportation
coordination held May 1 by the House Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Education and the Workforce.
We have reviewed the draft report and have only minor technical
suggestions to Appendix II as reflected below. The Secretary of
Education would look favorably on an opportunity to join the
Secretaries of Transportation and Health and Human Services on the
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. The Department would
consider guidance on transportation coordination for State and other
grantees, and methods of linking Web-based information resources about
transportation. The Department's involvement in transportation
services is in all cases to provide or allow access to the educational
and other services provided through programs we administer.
While the Rehabilitation Act was reauthorized in 1998 as part of WIA,
the Rehabilitation Act is typically cited independently as has been
done in the entry for Vocational Rehabilitation. The Supported
Employment program is contained in title VI of the Rehabilitation Act
and the cite for the program should be the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, title VI, Part B. The Independent Living Programs are
contained in title VII of the Rehabilitation Act and the cites for
those programs are as follows: Centers for Independent Living -
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Title VII, chapter 1, Part C;
Independent Living Services for Older Individuals who are Blind -
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Title VII, chapter 2; and
Independent Living State Grants - Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, Title VII, chapter 1, Part B. The reference to the Supported
Employment program (page 41) should be edited by replacing "Severe"
with "Most Significant" and a conforming change should be made to
"Target Population." The USC cite for the Supported Employment program
should be 29 USC 795g et seq. The USC cite for the Centers for
Independent Living program should be 29 USC §§ 796f-4(5) and
706(18)(xi). The USC cite for the Independent Living State Grants
should be 29 USC §§ 796e-2(1) and 706(18)(xi). The "Target Population"
box for the Vocational
Rehabilitation program (page 41) could be read to imply that any
individual with a disability could be eligible for transportation
services. A better description would be "Persons with disabilities that
result in a substantial impediment to employment and who require VR
services to obtain or maintain employment.":
I hope you find that our comments have been helpful.
Sincerely
Robert H. Pasternack, Ph. D.
Signed by Robert H. Pasternack:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov Rita A. Grieco
(202) 512-2834 or griecor@gao.gov Randall Williamson (206) 287-4860 or
williamsonr@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individuals above, Christine Bonham, Bradley Hunt,
Bert Japikse, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Hilary Murrish,
Ryan Petitte, Stanley Stenersen, and Andrew Von Ah made key
contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Coordination:
Benefits and Barriers Exist, and Planning Efforts Progress Slowly, GAO/
RCED-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 1999).
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program
Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be
Completed, GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002); Hindrances to
Coordinating Transportation of People Participating in Federally Funded
Grant Programs: Volume I, GAO/RCED-77-119 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17,
1977).
[3] For the purposes of this report, spending refers to estimated or
actual outlays or obligations, depending on what information was
available from the agency.
[4] The Community Transportation Association of America is a national,
professional membership association that conducts research and provides
technical assistance for community transportation providers. See
Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility
Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.:
March 2002).
[5] Medicaid is a joint federal-state program to finance health care
coverage for certain categories of low-income individuals, including
families with children, persons with disabilities, and elderly
individuals.
[6] GAO/RCED-00-1.
[7] Anita Stowell Ritter, Audrey Straight, Ed Evans, Understanding
Senior Transportation: Report and Analysis of a Survey of Consumers Age
50+ (Washington, D.C.: AARP Public Policy Institute, 2002).
[8] U.S. Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Federal Transit
Administration, 2002 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington, D.C.: Department of
Transportation, 2003).
[9] GAO/RCED-77-119.
[10] GAO/RCED-00-1.
[11] P.L. 105-178.
[12] For example, a report prepared for AARP found that transportation
resources for the elderly, disabled, and other groups were often not
coordinated, leading to duplication of services. The services were also
found to vary in quality and to fail to address the needs of
individuals who did not meet specific agency or program eligibility
requirements. See Jon E. Burkhardt, Coordinated Transportation Systems
(Washington, D.C.: AARP, September 2000).
[13] In addition to these 62 programs, it is likely that there other
federal programs that could be used to fund transportation improvements
or other transportation services. Our scope included programs that
provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface transportation services,
targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations. We excluded most
programs that were strictly for research or demonstration activities or
provided strictly cash assistance with no restrictions on use, as well
as some economic development programs that benefit the general public
and are not targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations.
Efforts by other researchers to inventory all federal programs that
could conceivably provide transportation yielded additional programs
not found in our inventory due to differing selection criteria. See
Building Mobility Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment.
[14] Two DOT programs that are included here, the Urbanized Area and
Nonurbanized Area Formula Programs, are used to support mass transit
intended for the general public, many of whom could conceivably provide
their own transportation. We include them because the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 126) requires that transit
operators provide accessible paratransit service that is comparable to
their regular service for disabled individuals who are unable to
provide their own transportation or access the regular transit system,
and TEA-21 allows a portion of these transit formula grants to be used
to offset paratransit operating costs.
[15] Building Mobility Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal
Investment.
[16] Of these 29 programs, 17 provided actual spending data for fiscal
year 2001. Program officials for the remaining 12 programs provided an
estimate of transportation spending for 2001.
[17] Total program obligations for these 33 programs were about $14.8
billion in fiscal year 2001. While information was not available on the
portion of the $14.8 billion devoted to providing transportation
services, we were able to analyze data on other human services programs
which indicate that, on average, about 3 percent of total spending on
those programs was devoted to transportation. We do not know whether
this 3 percent is an appropriate estimate of transportation spending
for these 33 programs because grantees are not required to report
transportation spending information to the federal agency. Furthermore,
several officials who administer programs that had no spending data
told us that transportation services probably represented less than 1
percent of their total program spending.
[18] It is difficult to determine the amount of nonfederal
contributions to transportation services on the basis of matching
requirements because grantees are generally required to match total
program spending rather than spending for a particular service, such as
transportation. To illustrate, Head Start grantees are required to
contribute 20 percent of total program costs, not necessarily 20
percent of transportation costs. Transportation under the program could
be entirely funded from federal dollars while the local share is used
to fund teachers or other program costs. The issue is further
complicated because some of these programs have maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirements (which require states and localities to maintain
their contributions to a program at some pre-determined level) rather
than matching requirements. Under the TANF program, for example, the
state's MOE requirement is determined through an index against the
amount the state spent for fiscal year 1994 under the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children program. MOE funds will, therefore, constitute
a different percentage of total program spending for each state in each
year.
[19] The amount that states are required to contribute depends on how
states claim transportation under Medicaid. If states claim Medicaid as
an optional medical expense, the state or local portion ranges from 17
to 50 percent of total costs, based on a measure known as the Federal
Medical Assistance Percentage. If states claim transportation as an
administrative expense, the state or local portion is 50 percent of
total costs.
[20] Data for state fiscal year 2001 were not available. Program
officials indicate that there should not be significant differences in
2001 and 2002 spending information.
[21] National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Update:
February 2003 (Washington, D.C.: February 2003).
[22] Eleven states and the District of Columbia did not report 2004
budget deficit information.
[23] Westat, Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation
Services, Transit Cooperative Research Project of the Transportation
Research Board, Project B-24, Interim Report (Rockville, MD: March
2002).
[24] The Community Transportation Association of America defines
brokerage as a method of providing transportation where riders are
matched with appropriate transportation providers through a central
trip-request and administration facility. The transportation broker may
centralize vehicle dispatch, record keeping, vehicle maintenance, and
other functions under contractual arrangements with agencies,
municipalities, and other organizations. Actual trips are provided by a
number of different vendors.
[25] Paratransit most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-
response van service, according to the Community Transportation
Association of America, and is more flexible than fixed route transit
but more structured than the use of a private automobile.
[26] GAO/RCED-00-1.
[27] www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/www.index.html.
[28] To date, the consortium consists of the AARP, Amalgamated Transit
Union, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, American Public Transportation Association, American Public
Human Services Association, American Public Works Association, American
Red Cross, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
Children's Health Fund, Community Transportation Association of
America, Easter Seals Project Action, National Association of Area
Agencies on Aging, National Conference of State Legislatures, National
Governor's Association, and the Taxicab, Limousine, and Paratransit
Association.
[29] P.L. 103-62.
[30] U.S. General Accounting Office, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under
GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1997).
[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, The Results Act: An Evaluator's
Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 1998).
[32] U.S. Department of Transportation, Strategic Plan 2000-2005
(September 2000) and U.S. Department of Transportation, Performance
Plan-FY 2004 (Washington, D.C.: February 2003).
[33] U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration,
Strategic Plan 1998-2002 (Washington, D.C.: March 1998) and U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration FY 2002
Performance Plan.
[34] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, draft of Strategic
Plan Fiscal Years 2003-2008, Appendix A (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).
[35] In an effort to coordinate service delivery for employment and
training programs, the Workforce Investment Act established one-stop
centers in all states. Individuals seeking employment opportunities and
training can receive services from more than a dozen federal programs
that are required to offer their services through these one-stop
centers.
[36] See "One-Stop Innovations: Leading Change under the WIA One-Stop
System," a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor by the John
H. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey (Mar. 12, 2002).
[37] In addition, one of DOL's divisions in 2001 had a liaison to the
Council's Technical Committee--which focused on coordinating
employment programs for low-income individuals. However, the DOL
liaison indicated that little activity ensued after the liaison briefed
the committee on the one-stop centers, and the committee later went
dormant with the change in administration.
[38] Moss Adams, LLP, Community Transportation Association of America,
The Coordination Challenge (Seattle, WA: June 2000).
[39] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines
for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2000).
[40] Ecosometrics, Inc., Recommended Framework for Developing State and
Local Human Services Transportation Planning Guidance (Bethesda, MD:
Sept. 22, 1998).
[41] Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Innovative State and
Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation (U.S. Department of
Transportation, February 2002).
[42] Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Innovative State and
Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation.
[43] Westat, Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation
Services.
[44] Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility
Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.:
March 2002).
[45] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines
for State and Local Coordination (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2000).
[46] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Coordination:
Benefits and Barriers Exist, and Planning Efforts Progress Slowly, GAO/
RCED-00-1 (Oct. 22, 1999).
[47] P.L. 105-220.
[48] Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Innovative State and
Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation, (U.S. Department of
Transportation, February 2002).
[49] http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc.
[50] In an effort to coordinate service delivery for employment and
training programs, the Workforce Investment Act established one-stop
centers in all states. Individuals seeking employment opportunities and
training can receive services from more than a dozen federal programs
that are required to offer their services through these one-stop
centers.
[51] To date, the consortium consists of the AARP, Amalgamated Transit
Union, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, American Public Transportation Association, American Public
Human Services Association, American Public Works Association, American
Red Cross, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
Children's Health Fund, Community Transportation Association of
America, Easter Seals Project Action, National Association of Area
Agencies on Aging, National Conference of State Legislatures, National
Governor's Association, and the Taxicab, Limousine, and Paratransit
Association.
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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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:
