Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program Status and Potential Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes
Gao ID: GAO-04-934R August 20, 2004
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to increase the transportation options of low-income workers. The act created JARC, in part because, as the act states, two-thirds of all new jobs were located in the suburbs, while three-fourths of welfare recipients lived in rural areas or central cities, and even in metropolitan areas with excellent public transportation systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible by transit. Under JARC, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides grants to transit agencies, local human service agencies, and others to fill gaps in transportation services for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals. Both houses of Congress have approved separate legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs including JARC. TEA-21 also required us to provide regular updates on the status of JARC. This letter addresses (1) changes in program funding since fiscal year 1999 and the possible effects of further changes proposed in bills to reauthorize JARC, (2) the possible effects of proposed legislative changes to program coordination requirements, and (3) FTA's 2003 evaluation of the program and plans for future evaluations.
Since fiscal year 1999, the process for awarding JARC program funds has changed, and proposed legislative changes would require further modifications. Initially, FTA competitively selected all grant recipients, but over time Congress has increasingly designated grantees through appropriations legislation. Whereas FTA selected all grantees in fiscal year 1999, Congress designated all grantees in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 through appropriations legislation. Two proposed legislative changes would affect JARC funding. First, the House bill proposes that JARC funds would be distributed to states and urban areas through formula grants rather than through project-specific appropriations. Second, the House bill also proposes to decrease the matching fund requirement for capital expenditures from 50 percent to 20 percent. These proposed changes are not in the Senate bill. Both of these changes would make JARC similar to other FTA grant programs. Grantees and interest groups with whom we spoke had mixed opinions about these changes. Proposed legislative changes to JARC coordination requirements would provide funding and change the requirements for coordination. Specifically, the House's proposed bill would allow up to 10 percent of JARC funds to be used for administrative, planning, and technical assistance activities. Currently, no funds can be used for these activities. This proposed change is not in the Senate bill. This change will likely facilitate program coordination with transportation and human service providers, according to most industry groups and grantees with whom we spoke. Another proposed change in both bills would require agencies that receive JARC funds to certify that their program is the result of a coordinated plan that includes local stakeholders, such as transit providers, human service agencies, and the public. Currently, certification is not required. The effect of this change would depend on the specific guidance that FTA provides for implementing a certification requirement, according to industry groups and grantees with whom we spoke. Although FTA's 2003 evaluation of JARC provides some useful information about some JARC projects, it does not provide national, generalizable evidence of the program's performance. FTA's evaluation is based on several sources of data, most of which cannot be generalized to the entire JARC population. The program is difficult to evaluate because individual programs have different goals and serve different populations, such as those in rural and urban areas. FTA has taken steps to improve its evaluation process and plans further improvements. For example, FTA introduced a Web-based reporting system to facilitate grantees' reporting of program data.
GAO-04-934R, Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-934R
entitled 'Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential
Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes' which was released on August
20, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
August 20, 2004:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Chairman:
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Don Young:
Chairman:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Ranking Democratic Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential
Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes:
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21) authorized
the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to increase the
transportation options of low-income workers. The act created JARC, in
part because, as the act states, two-thirds of all new jobs were
located in the suburbs, while three-fourths of welfare recipients lived
in rural areas or central cities, and even in metropolitan areas with
excellent public transportation systems, less than half of the jobs
were accessible by transit. Under JARC, the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) provides grants to transit agencies, local human
service agencies, and others to fill gaps in transportation services
for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals. Both houses of
Congress have approved separate legislation to reauthorize surface
transportation programs including JARC.
TEA-21 also required us to provide regular updates on the status of
JARC. As agreed with your offices, this letter addresses (1) changes in
program funding since fiscal year 1999 and the possible effects of
further changes proposed in bills to reauthorize JARC, (2) the possible
effects of proposed legislative changes to program coordination
requirements, and (3) FTA's 2003 evaluation of the program and plans
for future evaluations.
To respond to your request, we obtained and summarized financial data
from FTA. We also compared current legislation and program requirements
with proposed requirements in reauthorization bills in both the House
(H.R. 3550) and Senate (S. 1072). We then analyzed the potential
effects of changes in legislation by interviewing interest groups and
JARC grantees. Finally, we reviewed FTA's evaluation of JARC and
interviewed FTA officials about plans for future evaluations. We
determined that all data used in this report were sufficiently reliable
for our purposes. We performed our work from April through July 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our
scope and methodology are discussed in more detail near the end of this
report.
Results in Brief:
Since fiscal year 1999, the process for awarding JARC program funds has
changed, and proposed legislative changes would require further
modifications. Initially, FTA competitively selected all grant
recipients, but over time Congress has increasingly designated grantees
through appropriations legislation. Whereas FTA selected all grantees
in fiscal year 1999, Congress designated all grantees in fiscal years
2003 and 2004 through appropriations legislation. Two proposed
legislative changes would affect JARC funding. First, the House bill
proposes that JARC funds would be distributed to states and urban areas
through formula grants rather than through project-specific
appropriations. Second, the House bill also proposes to decrease the
matching fund requirement for capital expenditures from 50 percent to
20 percent. These proposed changes are not in the Senate bill. Both of
these changes would make JARC similar to other FTA grant programs.
Grantees and interest groups with whom we spoke had mixed opinions
about these changes.
Proposed legislative changes to JARC coordination requirements would
provide funding and change the requirements for coordination.
Specifically, the House's proposed bill would allow up to 10 percent of
JARC funds to be used for administrative, planning, and technical
assistance activities. Currently, no funds can be used for these
activities. This proposed change is not in the Senate bill. This change
will likely facilitate program coordination with transportation and
human service providers, according to most industry groups and grantees
with whom we spoke. Another proposed change in both bills would require
agencies that receive JARC funds to certify that their program is the
result of a coordinated plan that includes local stakeholders, such as
transit providers, human service agencies, and the public. Currently,
certification is not required. The effect of this change would depend
on the specific guidance that FTA provides for implementing a
certification requirement, according to industry groups and grantees
with whom we spoke.
Although FTA's 2003 evaluation of JARC provides some useful information
about some JARC projects, it does not provide national, generalizable
evidence of the program's performance. FTA's evaluation is based on
several sources of data, most of which cannot be generalized to the
entire JARC population. The program is difficult to evaluate because
individual programs have different goals and serve different
populations, such as those in rural and urban areas. FTA has taken
steps to improve its evaluation process and plans further improvements.
For example, FTA introduced a Web-based reporting system to facilitate
grantees' reporting of program data.
Background:
TEA-21 authorized JARC to provide grants to help low-income individuals
and welfare recipients access employment opportunities. The program's
two major goals are to (1) provide transportation and related services
such as childcare and (2) to increase collaboration among
transportation providers, human service agencies, employers, and
others. Local JARC projects can include increasing the frequency of
existing transit along current routes, providing vanpool services, or
providing information to the public about existing transportation
services.
TEA-21 also required FTA to conduct an evaluation of JARC by June 2000.
TEA-21 did not discuss specific elements to be included in the
evaluation. Finally, TEA-21 required that we report on the
implementation of the program, and we have issued multiple reports on
the program from 1998 through June 2003.[Footnote 1] These reports
found, among other things, that JARC has increased coordination among
transit and human service agencies, but that FTA was slow in evaluating
the program. We also recommended that FTA's evaluation address the key
goals of the program.
Process for Awarding Program Funds Has Changed Over Time, and Proposed
Legislation Would Institute Further Changes:
The process for awarding JARC grants has changed from a competition
administered by FTA to an annual designation of grant recipients in
federal appropriations legislation. Two proposed legislative changes
would result in further modifications. First, in the House bill JARC
funds would be distributed to states and urban areas through a formula
grant instead of through project-specific appropriations. Second, the
House bill would also reduce the matching fund requirement for capital
expenditures from 50 percent to 20 percent. These changes are not in
the Senate bill. These changes would make JARC similar to other FTA
grant programs. While these changes could provide a reliable source of
funds for some projects, the changes could adversely affect some JARC
projects in states with low population, according to grantees and
interest groups with whom we spoke.
Congress Has Appropriated Almost $600 Million for JARC and Has
Designated All JARC Grants Since Fiscal Year 2003:
In total, JARC has been appropriated approximately $583 million for
fiscal years 1999 through 2004. TEA-21 authorized JARC to receive a
maximum of $150 million annually since its inception in fiscal year
1999. In addition, some JARC funds are "guaranteed," or subject to a
procedural mechanism designed to ensure that minimum amounts of funds
are made available each year. The guaranteed amount of funding for the
program has risen from $50 million in fiscal year 1999 to $150 million
in fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 2] However, in fiscal year 2003, Congress
transferred $45 million from JARC to the New Starts program.[Footnote
3] As a result, Congress appropriated about $45 million less than the
guaranteed amount in fiscal year 2003 (see fig. 1). The annual
appropriations for JARC have ranged from a low of $75 million in fiscal
years 1999 and 2000 to a high of $125 million in fiscal year 2002.
Figure 1: JARC Funding, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation.
There is no guaranteed funding amount for fiscal year 2004 because JARC
was authorized through fiscal year 2003 and is currently operating
under the latest in a series of short term extension acts.
[End of figure]
While JARC began as a competitive grant program, the program has become
congressionally designated through appropriations legislation. The
amounts of JARC funds available for competitively selected grants have
decreased since fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 1999, $75 million
(representing all of the appropriated JARC funds) was awarded through
the competitive selection process. This number decreased each year
until 2003 and 2004, when no JARC grants were awarded through the
competitive selection process. In contrast, the amount of
congressionally designated grant money has generally increased over the
life of the program. In fiscal year 1999, no grantees were
congressionally designated; however, Congress designated approximately
$50 million in fiscal year 2000 and then increased the amounts for
designated grants until fiscal years 2003 and 2004, when almost all of
the money appropriated to the program was congressionally designated
(see fig. 2).[Footnote 4]
Figure 2: Funds Appropriated for Competitively Selected and
Congressionally Designated Grants, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Congress has also transferred money from JARC to FTA's New Starts
program through appropriations legislation. Congress transferred $45
million from JARC to the New Starts program in fiscal year 2003 and $20
million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, Congress has transferred
unobligated balances--funds that have not been spent by grantees--when
the funds have remained unobligated for a period of time.
Specifically, Congress transferred through appropriations legislation
approximately $1 million of fiscal year 1999 unobligated balances to
the New Starts program in fiscal year 2003, and approximately $4.5
million of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 unobligated balances to the New
Starts program in fiscal year 2004 (see table 1).
Table 1: Unobligated Amounts as of April 30, 2004, Fiscal Years 1999
through 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FTA.
Note: Data are from fiscal year 2004, so a large unobligated balance
for fiscal year 2004 is expected.
[A] According to FTA officials, $500,000 of the unobligated funds was
not transferred to New Starts because that money was about to be
obligated when Congress transferred funds.
[B] Includes funds for FTA's evaluation.
[End of table]
Stakeholders Identified Advantages and Disadvantages of Formula
Funding:
Proposed legislation in the House would change JARC to a formula grant
program, under which JARC funds would be distributed through a formula
based on the number of low-income individuals and the number of welfare
recipients in each area. The proposed legislation would also continue
the allocation established in TEA-21, in which 60 percent of the funds
would be distributed to urbanized areas with populations equal to or
greater than 200,000; 20 percent of the funds would be distributed to
states for urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000; and 20
percent of the funds would be distributed to the states for nonurban
areas.
FTA officials generally support the change to a formula program, but
expressed concern about one aspect of the formula. According to FTA
officials, changing JARC to a formula program has several benefits.
First, the formula provides a known annual funding allocation that will
result in a steady stream of funds to states and localities. Currently,
JARC funding is determined each year, and it is therefore difficult for
states and localities to predict their future funding level. Second,
according to FTA officials, project sponsors would know how much money
they would get in future years under a formula grant program and would
be able to plan their programs accordingly. Third, FTA officials told
us that states would have the flexibility to commingle funds for
smaller urban and rural areas.[Footnote 5] In the past, the amount of
money available for smaller urban areas has exceeded the demand for
funds; therefore, it would be useful for states to be able to redirect
funds to areas with more need, according to FTA officials. Fourth, FTA
officials told us that changing JARC to a formula grant program may
help prevent JARC funding from being transferred to other programs as
it was in fiscal years 2002 through 2004 because formula program funds
have traditionally not been transferred to other programs. FTA
officials told us that they are concerned about one aspect of the
current legislative proposal--including the number of welfare
recipients as a factor in determining the formula. FTA officials told
us that JARC is designed to serve all low-income individuals and not
just welfare recipients. According to FTA officials, many welfare
recipients begin working as a means of transitioning off of welfare
and, therefore, the number of welfare recipients should not affect the
current demand for JARC services. In addition, these officials told us
that it would be difficult to obtain data needed to include welfare
recipients in the formula. Specifically, FTA officials told us that
data on the number of welfare recipients who live in urban and nonurban
areas is not readily available. As a result, it would be difficult to
include the number of welfare recipients as a factor in distributing
JARC funds.
Interest groups that represent state and community transportation
employees had some concerns about formula funding if the program
continues to be authorized at the current level. Specifically, interest
groups we spoke with expressed concern that, under a formula, states
that are largely rural or have low populations may not get the level of
support necessary to continue all of the JARC services currently funded
within their states. This is because some rural projects have benefited
from congressional designation, and their state could receive less
money under a formula grant. One interest group characterized the
formula funding mechanism as spreading around the available JARC funds
across the country, rather than concentrating the limited funds on
individual projects. Interest groups also told us that formula funding
could be more beneficial to JARC if the program received more funds and
could, therefore, continue to fund projects throughout the country.
However, within a constrained transit budget, increases in JARC funding
could come at the expense of other federal transit programs.
Grantees we spoke with expressed mixed opinions about formula funding
as follows:[Footnote 6]
* Seven of 18 grantees told us that they do not support formula
funding. Some grantees said they are concerned that they may receive
less funding under a formula grant mechanism. For example, one grantee
we interviewed said that if formula funding was used, it would receive
less funding, and another grantee told us that formula funding could
cause JARC projects within its rural state to shut down.
* In contrast, 4 of 18 grantees told us that they support formula grant
funding because they believe that they will be able to plan their
projects if they have a reliable source of funds for several years. One
grantee that supports formula funding for this reason added that the
worst thing a transportation provider can do is to start, stop, and
restart service because the provider loses credibility with riders.
Another grantee that supports this change had counted on funding for
fiscal year 2005 but did not receive funds through the appropriations
process.
* In addition, 3 of 18 grantees told us that they would prefer to
receive JARC money directly from FTA and not have to work through their
state governments. Under a formula grant, nonurban areas would receive
funds through the state. Grantees told us that JARC might not receive
the attention it deserves from their states.
* In contrast, one grantee told us that state involvement would be
beneficial, particularly in fostering coordination, because human
service agencies already have established relationships with the state
and know how to work with the state, so they may be more likely to
participate in JARC.
Decrease in Matching Fund Requirement Would Make JARC Similar to Other
FTA Programs:
Another proposed legislative change in the House bill would make the
matching fund requirement for JARC consistent with the matching
requirements for other FTA programs. Specifically, grantees could
receive a grant for up to 80 percent of the project's capital expenses,
which are used to purchase capital equipment such as buses. Currently,
projects can receive a grant for up to 50 percent of the project's
capital expenses. Projects would continue to be eligible for grants of
up to 50 percent of their operating expenses--that is, the costs of
their day-to-day operations. FTA officials told us that this change
would lessen any confusion about matching requirements among grant
recipients who participate in multiple FTA programs.
Some interest groups echoed what FTA told us--that this change would
make the requirements for JARC consistent with those for other FTA
programs. We spoke to some members of one interest group who are
employees in state departments of transportation. One of those members
expressed concern that the decrease in the matching fund requirement
could lead to greater capital investment at the expense of program
operations. This member is concerned that JARC may become like other
FTA programs, which, according to this member, stress capital
investment over service delivery.
Grantees with whom we spoke told us that this change would either be
positive or not affect their programs. Six of 18 grantees told us that
changing the matching fund requirement for capital costs would allow
them to increase the services they provide and the numbers of vehicles
they use to provide services. Four of 18 grantees told us that this
change would be positive because it would make the requirements for
matching funds in JARC similar to the matching requirements for other
FTA programs. In contrast, 4 of 18 grantees told us that this change
would not affect them because they do not use any capital funds in
their project. FTA officials told us that approximately 15 percent of
JARC funds are currently spent on capital costs. Therefore, this
change may increase the proportion of JARC funds used for this purpose.
Allowing Program Funds to Be Used for Administration Could Enhance
Coordination, but Some Stakeholders Expressed Concern about
Certification Requirements:
Two proposed legislative changes would affect program coordination. The
first change is only in the House bill and would allow 10 percent of
JARC funds to be used for technical assistance activities, including
planning projects and coordinating with local stakeholders. Currently,
no JARC funds may be used for these activities. This change would
likely facilitate program coordination, according to the interest
groups and grantees that we interviewed. The second change is in the
House and Senate bills and would require agencies to certify that their
JARC project is the result of a coordinated plan. The effect of this
change on program coordination would depend on the guidance that FTA
provides.
Groups Generally Support Use of Grant Funds for Administrative
Activities:
A change proposed in the House bill would allow up to 10 percent of
JARC grants to be used for administrative, planning, and technical
assistance activities. These activities include planning new JARC
projects and coordinating with stakeholders. According to FTA
officials, interagency and stakeholder coordination may be strengthened
because JARC funds could be applied to collaborative activities.
Interest groups told us that allowing funds to be used for
administrative, planning, and technical assistance activities is a good
idea, because it would provide funds for coordination. However, one
interest group questioned why funds for these activities are capped at
10 percent; this group believes that there should be no restriction on
how funds are spent.
Twelve of 18 grantees we spoke with said that this change would
increase coordination because they could bring these funds to the
planning table and show potential partners that there is money to
cover collaborative activities. Four of 18 grantees said that there
would be no discernable effect because agencies will perform
administrative, planning, and technical assistance activities
regardless of whether funds are authorized for this purpose. According
to these grantees, they would perform collaborative and administrative
activities even if they were not reimbursed for them. Nevertheless, 3
of 18 grantees said that this change would be helpful because, in the
past, they had to use other sources to fund their collaborative
activities.
Some Stakeholders Are Concerned about Proposed Certification
Requirements:
Both the Senate and the House bills propose that JARC grantees certify
that their projects were developed from a locally coordinated plan that
resulted from a process that included key stakeholders. Under this
proposal, states would review locally coordinated plans and FTA would
periodically evaluate the review process in each state and urban area.
FTA supports this certification requirement as a means of ensuring
that coordination continues if the program transitions to a formula
grant. FTA officials told us that the success of the certification
requirement would depend largely on the implementation guidance that
they would develop after reauthorization legislation passes.
Interest groups we interviewed expressed the following variety of
opinions about the proposed certification requirement:
* Some interest groups that we spoke with stressed the importance of
FTA's role as well as that of Congress in setting clear guidelines in
developing and instituting coordination certification. Some members
from one interest group stressed that they already participate in
complex, organized planning processes, and they are concerned about how
the new requirement would fit into their current activities. They
suggested that FTA delay enforcing this requirement until states have
had an opportunity to fully incorporate the guidelines into their
planning process.
* One interest group is concerned that a formal certification process
may detract from the importance of developing a genuinely coordinated
plan. This group also believes that certification may be overly
prescriptive and administratively burdensome and could discourage
potential grantees from participating in JARC.
* However, one interest group told us that it supports the
certification requirement and does not believe that the requirement
will be difficult or burdensome.
Eleven of 18 grantees that we interviewed said certification would have
no impact on their programs because agencies already coordinate and
will continue to do so. Two:
of 18 grantees said they understand the need for this requirement to
ensure that collaboration is occurring, and grantees are hopeful that
future certification requirements will clarify the requirements for
coordination. Six of 18 grantees are concerned that the process of
certifying coordination may be administratively burdensome.
FTA's Evaluation Provides Useful Information, but It Does Not
Constitute a National Assessment of JARC:
Although FTA's evaluative report to Congress provides some useful
information about some JARC projects, it does not provide national,
generalizable evidence of the program's performance. The program is
difficult to evaluate, and FTA plans to continue to improve its
evaluation process.
TEA-21 Required FTA to Evaluate JARC:
As previously stated, TEA-21 required FTA to report once to Congress by
June 2000 on the results of its evaluation of JARC. Although TEA-21 did
not describe specific elements that should be included in the
evaluation, we recommended in December 2002 that the report should
address JARC's effectiveness in meeting its goals of providing
transportation-related services and enhancing collaboration among
stakeholders.[Footnote 7] FTA issued its report in May 2003 that
addressed JARC's key goals.[Footnote 8] According to FTA's evaluation,
JARC has made thousands of entry-level jobs and employers accessible
for the program's target populations; increased access to employment
support sites; created significant low-income ridership; and
established collaborative partnerships among transportation and human
service agencies and local, state, and national government.
FTA's Evaluation Is Limited:
FTA told us that it faced several obstacles in evaluating JARC,
primarily because grantees had difficulty collecting and submitting
information. For example, in 2001 FTA required grantees to report
quarterly data using a database that many grantees found to be
burdensome. Some grantees even had to acquire the database software and
learn the program, according to FTA officials. In addition, grantees
were required to submit data on a quarterly basis and were required to
submit some data that were difficult to obtain, such as the number of
potential employers reached by JARC services and the number of jobs
accessible within a quarter mile of a new fixed-route stop.[Footnote 9]
Finally, some transportation providers were not accustomed to reporting
the socioeconomic data FTA wanted, while some human service
organizations were not used to maintaining the transportation
statistics that FTA requested.
FTA used data from five sources in its 2003 JARC evaluation: (1) annual
grantee reports as of January 1, 2000; (2) fourth quarter 2001 grantee
reports; (3) a University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) report based on
a survey of riders at 23 sites; (4) 16 case studies that FTA conducted;
and (5) GAO's 2000 survey of JARC grantees. The evaluation uses these
data sources to present a descriptive analysis of some JARC projects;
however, the mix of data sources does not provide a consistent
evaluation of the program over time and among grantees. In addition,
specific information in FTA's evaluation may not be consistent because
some grantees did not always follow a standardized reporting system.
Specifically, grantees that completed an annual grantee report in 2000
did not follow a standardized reporting system--in these reports,
grantees only described the effectiveness of individual projects--and
so information taken from these reports may not be consistent.
The data FTA used in its 2003 evaluation are limited because four of
the five sources FTA used provided data and descriptions of benefits
for specific project locations, but these results could not be
generalized to all JARC grantees. Specifically, the results of the 2000
annual grantee reports, 2001 quarterly grantee reports, UIC report, and
FTA's case studies are not generalizable to all JARC grantees for at
least three reasons. First, the response rates of the annual and
quarterly grantee reports were low, 24 percent and 42 percent,
respectively. Second, there is no assurance that the grant recipients
who submitted these reports were similar to those recipients who did
not submit reports. For example, we do not know if the grantees that
submitted reports had more effective programs than those who did not
submit reports. Though FTA recognizes that generalizing the findings of
the quarterly grantee reports to the entire grantee population could be
misleading, FTA relies on these data sets to provide much of the key
information used to assess the program. For example, FTA reported on
the number of new employment sites accessed with JARC funds--a level of
precision not justified by the number of responses obtained. Third and
finally, the UIC study data are not generalizable because they are
based on a small number of sites (23) that were not randomly selected.
The fifth source, GAO's 2000 survey of JARC grantees, had an 89 percent
response rate, so the information from the survey reliably reflected
the views of the grantees surveyed, and the results could be
generalized to the entire grantee population.[Footnote 10] The survey
addressed JARC grantees' opinions about FTA's implementation of JARC,
the program's effect on coordination among the variety of organizations
involved in getting people to work, and the usefulness of JARC.
Finally, the 2000 and 2001 grantee reports do not indicate the
completeness or the accuracy of the data that were reported by grant
recipients. The grantee reports contain self-reported information,
which FTA does not verify. In addition, JARC grantees generally had
difficulty submitting complete information on a timely basis. FTA
acknowledges that it could be misleading to use the data from these
reports to determine JARC's performance nationwide. However, FTA uses
these data to provide key information, such as the number of new
employment sites made accessible by JARC services.
Because FTA's evaluation of JARC lacks consistent, generalizable, and
complete information, the data cannot be used to draw any definitive
conclusions about the program as a whole. The evaluation only provides
information about some JARC projects and does not represent an overall
evaluation of the program.
FTA Plans to Improve the Evaluation Process:
FTA has plans in place for improving its next program evaluation and
the grantee reporting process. However, it has been and continues to be
a struggle for FTA to develop comprehensive performance measures that
assess a national program when individual grantee programs, operations,
and features vary. For example, it would be difficult to use one set of
measures to assess a program that provides fixed-route transportation
services and then use the same set of measures to assess a program that
provides information and coordination services. FTA is working with a
consultant and UIC to improve program evaluation and reporting and
plans to fully implement a new reporting system by fiscal year 2005.
To make reporting less burdensome for grantees, FTA has replaced its
initial reporting system with a Web-based system and now requires
reports on an annual rather than a quarterly basis. FTA officials
report that they have seen improvement in the number of grantees who
submit reports. Specifically, according to FTA officials, almost 80
percent of grantees submitted reports for fiscal year 2003. Once the
reported data is verified, it should allow FTA to make national
performance projections for JARC, according to FTA officials. In
addition, FTA is considering revising performance measures for the
program. For example, FTA officials said that they are considering the
feasibility of measuring the actual number of employers reached rather
than the number of new employment site stops created by JARC services.
FTA is just beginning to acquire new data and update their performance
measures for evaluating JARC. Therefore, it is too early for us to
determine if these changes to the evaluation process will improve the
quality of information FTA obtains. As a result, we do not know if FTA
will be able to issue a better evaluation of JARC if Congress requires
FTA to evaluate the program when it reauthorizes JARC.
Scope and Methodology:
To summarize financial information for JARC for fiscal years 1999
through 2004, we gathered and analyzed data from FTA's Web site and
agency officials on dollar amounts authorized, guaranteed,
appropriated, congressionally designated, competitively allocated,
obligated, and unobligated. To assess the reliability of the data, we
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and checked
for obvious errors in completeness and accuracy. We determined the
information was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also
researched TEA-21 and appropriations acts to determine the amount of
funds authorized, guaranteed, appropriated, rescinded, and transferred
under JARC.
To analyze the potential effects of proposed legislative changes on
JARC, we reviewed current legislative and program requirements and
compared them with proposed legislative requirements. We designed and
conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 18 of the 185 JARC
grantees that were active last fiscal year--2003--to gain their
perspectives on proposed legislative changes. We classified the
grantees into six categories (state departments of transportation,
cities, metropolitan planning organizations, transportation agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and others) and randomly selected three
grantees from each category to obtain the views of a variety of
grantees. However, these surveys cannot be generalized to the entire
JARC grantee population because of the small survey population. We
also interviewed FTA officials and officials from interest groups,
including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, the American Public Transportation Association, the
Community Transportation Association of America, and the National
Association of Regional Councils, to obtain their views on the
possible effects of proposed changes.
To assess the extent to which FTA has evaluated JARC, we reviewed FTA's
program evaluation, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Report to
Congress (May 2003) and focused on the performance measures and
indicators used; the existence of relevant, reliable, and timely
information; the methodology used; the extent of effective monitoring
of the program; and reported results. We also interviewed agency
officials about FTA's plans for future evaluations.
Agency Comments:
We provided DOT a draft of this report for their review and obtained
comments from agency officials in FTA and the Office of the Secretary.
These officials provided some clarifying comments, which we have
incorporated where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the FTA Administrator.
The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at siggerudk@gao.gov or Catherine Colwell at
colwellc@gao.gov. Alternatively, I can be reached at (202) 512-2834.
Major contributors to this report were Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Denise C.
McCabe, Susan Michal-Smith, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and John W. Shumann.
Signed by:
Katherine A. Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
(542034):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program,
GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 1998).
GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program in Its
First Year, GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999).
GAO, Welfare Reform: DOT is Making Progress in Implementing the Job
Access Program, GAO-01-133 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000).
GAO, Welfare Reform: GAO's Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT's Access to
Jobs Program, GAO-01-996R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001).
GAO, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT's
Job Access Program Was Not Followed, GAO-02-213 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
17, 2001).
GAO, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service
Coordination, but Evaluations Should Be Completed, GAO-03-204
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002).
GAO, DOT's Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Briefing to
Congressional Staff. (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).
[2] There is no guaranteed funding amount for fiscal year 2004 because
the program was authorized through fiscal year 2003 and is currently
operating under the latest in a series of short term extension acts.
[3] FTA's New Starts program awards full funding grant agreements for
fixed-guideway rail, certain bus, trolley, and ferry projects.
[4] In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, all funds were congressionally
designated except for approximately $300,000 each fiscal year that was
designated for FTA's evaluation.
[5] See H.R. 3550, § 5316 (c) (3), 108TH Cong. (2004).
[6] The number of grantee opinions does not add up to 18 (100 percent
of those we spoke to) because some grantees had more than one opinion
on a subject matter while others had no opinion. In addition, these
numbers are not generalizable to all JARC grantees.
[7] GAO-03-204.
[8] Federal Transit Administration, Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program Report to Congress. (Washington, D.C.: May 2003).
[9] At a fixed-route stop, vehicles stop to pick up and deliver
passengers along a specific route.
[10] GAO-01-133.