Federal Transit Administration
Progress Made in Implementing Changes to the Job Access Program, but Evaluation and Oversight Processes Need Improvement Gao ID: GAO-07-43 November 17, 2006Begun in 1998, the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program provides grants to states and localities for improving the mobility of low-income persons seeking work. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers this program. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $727 million for JARC for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, changed how these funds were to be awarded after fiscal year 2005, and required FTA to evaluate the program by August 2008. GAO examined (1) SAFETEA-LU's changes to JARC, (2) FTA's progress in implementing these changes, (3) states' and localities' efforts to respond and challenges they have encountered, and (4) FTA's proposed strategy for evaluation and oversight. GAO's work included analyzing program guidance as well as interviewing officials from FTA, industry groups, and more than 30 state and local agencies.
SAFETEA-LU created a formula for distributing JARC funds starting in fiscal year 2006, substantially altering funding allocations provided under earlier grants. Funding in some states increased, with 2 states receiving increases of more than 1,200 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Funding in other states decreased as much as 80 percent, while 18 other states received funds that had not received them in fiscal year 2005. To receive funds, SAFETEA-LU required that states and localities designate a recipient agency to administer JARC funds, award grants on a competitive basis, and certify that projects were derived from a coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. In March 2006, FTA issued interim guidance and proposed strategies for implementing these new requirements, but delays in issuing final guidance have reduced the window of opportunity for states and localities to obligate fiscal year 2006 funding. As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA requested public comment on its interim guidance and proposed strategies, and responding to the more than 200 comments took more time than FTA had initially planned. FTA has specified in its guidance that states and localities have until the end of fiscal year 2008 to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds, so their ability to use the funds is not imminently jeopardized. FTA also encouraged states and localities to implement their programs on the basis of the interim guidance. However, given that officials in a number of areas we interviewed planned to wait for final guidance before moving forward, these areas will have less time available to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds. Most states and localities are in the process of trying to meet these new requirements, and although they have encountered challenges in doing so, FTA is taking steps to alleviate most of these challenges. As of the end of fiscal year 2006, about 4 percent of fiscal year 2006 funding apportioned to states and localities had been obligated. States and localities have raised a number of questions or concerns about the new requirements, such as whether an agency serving as the designated recipient would also be eligible to receive funds. In response, FTA proposed several actions that localities could take to reduce the potential conflict of interest in such situations. FTA is continuing to develop and refine its strategies for evaluation and oversight of JARC. FTA, which has had difficulty assessing this program in the past, proposed a new approach, but states and localities found problems with it. FTA is revising its approach and gathering baseline data for its required evaluation of the JARC program. Even if FTA resolves the concerns that have been raised, gaps in monitoring may still limit its ability to evaluate and oversee the program. FTA plans to use existing oversight processes for monitoring JARC recipients; however, FTA officials noted that SAFETEA-LU did not provide specific program management oversight funds for the JARC program and said that they are looking for alternate sources of funding.
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-07-43, Federal Transit Administration: Progress Made in Implementing Changes to the Job Access Program, but Evaluation and Oversight Processes Need Improvement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-43
entitled 'Federal Transit Administration: Progress Made in Implementing
Changes to the Job Access Program, but Evaluation and Oversight
Processes Need Improvement' which was released on November 17, 2006.
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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
November 2006:
Federal Transit Administration:
Progress Made in Implementing Changes to the Job Access Program, but
Evaluation and Oversight Processes Need Improvement:
GAO-07-43:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-43, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
Begun in 1998, the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program
provides grants to states and localities for improving the mobility of
low-income persons seeking work. The Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) administers this program. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) authorized $727 million for JARC for fiscal years 2005
through 2009, changed how these funds were to be awarded after fiscal
year 2005, and required FTA to evaluate the program by August 2008.
GAO examined (1) SAFETEA-LU‘s changes to JARC, (2) FTA‘s progress in
implementing these changes, (3) states‘ and localities‘ efforts to
respond and challenges they have encountered, and (4) FTA‘s proposed
strategy for evaluation and oversight. GAO‘s work included analyzing
program guidance as well as interviewing officials from FTA, industry
groups, and more than 30 state and local agencies.
What GAO Found:
SAFETEA-LU created a formula for distributing JARC funds starting in
fiscal year 2006, substantially altering funding allocations provided
under earlier grants. Funding in some states increased, with 2 states
receiving increases of more than 1,200 percent between fiscal years
2005 and 2006. Funding in other states decreased as much as 80 percent,
while 18 other states received funds that had not received them in
fiscal year 2005. To receive funds, SAFETEA-LU required that states and
localities designate a recipient agency to administer JARC funds, award
grants on a competitive basis, and certify that projects were derived
from a coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan.
In March 2006, FTA issued interim guidance and proposed strategies for
implementing these new requirements, but delays in issuing final
guidance have reduced the window of opportunity for states and
localities to obligate fiscal year 2006 funding. As required by SAFETEA-
LU, FTA requested public comment on its interim guidance and proposed
strategies, and responding to the more than 200 comments took more time
than FTA had initially planned. FTA has specified in its guidance that
states and localities have until the end of fiscal year 2008 to
obligate fiscal year 2006 funds, so their ability to use the funds is
not imminently jeopardized. FTA also encouraged states and localities
to implement their programs on the basis of the interim guidance.
However, given that officials in a number of areas we interviewed
planned to wait for final guidance before moving forward, these areas
will have less time available to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds.
Most states and localities are in the process of trying to meet these
new requirements, and although they have encountered challenges in
doing so, FTA is taking steps to alleviate most of these challenges. As
of the end of fiscal year 2006, about 4 percent of fiscal year 2006
funding apportioned to states and localities had been obligated. States
and localities have raised a number of questions or concerns about the
new requirements, such as whether an agency serving as the designated
recipient would also be eligible to receive funds. In response, FTA
proposed several actions that localities could take to reduce the
potential conflict of interest in such situations.
FTA is continuing to develop and refine its strategies for evaluation
and oversight of JARC. FTA, which has had difficulty assessing this
program in the past, proposed a new approach, but states and localities
found problems with it. FTA is revising its approach and gathering
baseline data for its required evaluation of the JARC program. Even if
FTA resolves the concerns that have been raised, gaps in monitoring may
still limit its ability to evaluate and oversee the program. FTA plans
to use existing oversight processes for monitoring JARC recipients;
however, FTA officials noted that SAFETEA-LU did not provide specific
program management oversight funds for the JARC program and said that
they are looking for alternate sources of funding.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that FTA update its existing oversight processes to
include the JARC program and specify how often it will monitor
recipients that are not subject to its existing oversight processes, to
help FTA more adequately evaluate and oversee the JARC program. FTA
agreed to consider the report‘s recommendations.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-43].
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 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
SAFETEA-LU Created a Formula for Distributing JARC Funds and Amended
Other Aspects of the Program:
FTA Has Developed Proposed Final Guidance for JARC, but Delays in
Issuing the Final Guidance May Reduce the Time Available to Obligate
JARC Funding:
States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Begun to Implement JARC
Requirements, and FTA Has Taken Steps to Alleviate Implementation
Challenges:
FTA Changed Its Evaluation and Oversight Strategies but Still Needs to
Address Monitoring Issues:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Funding:
Appendix III: Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA's Interim Guidance
and Proposed Strategies for Job Access and Reverse Commute Program:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU's and TEA-21's JARC Provisions:
Table 2: Stakeholders' Key Implementation Challenges and Concerns and
FTA's Response:
Table 3: Summary of Program Stakeholders' Challenges and Concerns and
FTA's Response to the Proposed JARC Performance Measures and Reporting
Mechanism:
Table 4: State Agencies Interviewed for Our Review:
Table 5: Large Urbanized Area Agencies Interviewed for Our Review:
Table 6: Total JARC Apportionments for States and Large Urbanized
Areas, Fiscal Years 2004-2006:
Table 7: Job Access and Reverse Commute Apportionments for Fiscal Year
2006:
Table 8: Amounts Apportioned to Large Urbanized Areas 200,000 or More
in Population:
Table 9: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Small Urbanized
Areas 50,000 to 199,999 in Population:
Table 10: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Nonurbanized Areas
Fewer Than 50,000 in Population:
Table 11: Changes to the JARC Program Proposed in FTA's March 2006
Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies and Program Stakeholder
Responses:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage Change in Job Access and Reverse Commute Funds
Apportioned to States and Large Urbanized Areas from Fiscal Years 2005
to 2006:
Figure 2: Key Requirements under SAFETEA-LU for Receiving JARC Funding:
Figure 3: Timeline for FTA's Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes to
the JARC Program:
Abbreviations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
JARC: Job Access and Reverse Commute program:
MPO: metropolitan planning organization:
NTD: National Transit Database:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act - A Legacy for Users::
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
TEAM: Transportation Electronic Award and Management system:
November 17, 2006:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Chairman:
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Don Young:
Chairman:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Ranking Democratic Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Access to adequate transportation is an important factor in the ability
of low-income individuals--including those who receive government help
to become self-sufficient--to find and retain employment. However,
existing public transportation systems--originally established to allow
city residents to travel within the city and bring suburban residents
to central-city work locations--cannot always bridge the gap between
where these individuals live and where many jobs for which they would
qualify are located. Our previous work has noted that a majority of the
entry-level jobs that low-income individuals would be likely to fill
are located in suburbs that have limited or no accessibility through
existing public transportation systems.[Footnote 1] Furthermore, many
entry-level jobs require shift work in the evenings or on weekends,
when public transit services are either unavailable or limited.
To increase collaboration among transit agencies, local human service
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others, and thereby improve the
mobility of low-income individuals seeking work, the Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC)[Footnote 2] program was first authorized under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21) in 1998.
Administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), this program
provides grants for such purposes as expanding public transit routes,
lengthening service hours, or providing other transportation options.
However, our previous reviews of the JARC program found a number of
challenges that arose in the program, such as difficulties in awarding
grants competitively and inconsistencies with statutory requirements of
other FTA grant programs, making implementation difficult. FTA also
experienced difficulties in evaluating the program, as TEA-21
required.[Footnote 3]
In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $727 million
for the JARC program from fiscal years 2005 through 2009. SAFETEA-LU
also made a number of changes that, beginning with fiscal year 2006
funding, will affect FTA, states, and urbanized areas as they
administer the program. For example, FTA will now provide grant monies
through a formula to states--for distribution to small urbanized and
rural areas--and to large urbanized areas.[Footnote 4] In addition,
SAFETEA-LU requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to evaluate
the effectiveness of the JARC program and report the results to
Congress by August 2008.
SAFETEA-LU also requires us to study the JARC program, beginning 1 year
after the legislation takes effect and every 2 years thereafter. This
report, our first in compliance with this mandate, analyzes what has
happened to date in implementing program changes and installing a
framework for FTA's evaluation of program results in 2008. Our specific
reporting objectives were as follows:
* identify changes made to the JARC program as a result of SAFETEA-LU;
* assess the progress FTA has made in implementing these changes;
* describe the extent to which states and urbanized areas have
implemented changes to the JARC program, and challenges they have
encountered; and:
* determine the extent to which FTA's proposed strategy for evaluation
and oversight of the JARC program will allow the agency to assess
whether the program is meeting its stated goals.
Our work was based in part on our analysis of program documentation,
relevant legislation, Office of Management and Budget circulars,
previous GAO reports and guidance on the JARC program and on program
evaluation and performance measurement, and over 200 comments posted to
the DOT's online docket in response to FTA's March 2006 interim
guidance and proposed strategies for the JARC program.[Footnote 5] We
determined that the data that FTA provided were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report. We also interviewed officials from FTA
and industry associations as well as representatives from 12 state
departments of transportation, 8 metropolitan planning organizations,
and 9 local transportation agencies in 12 large urbanized areas; a
transportation agency in 1 small urbanized area; and 1 nonprofit
organization that works with rural transit providers.[Footnote 6] These
agencies were selected on the basis of several factors, including
changes in JARC funding from fiscal years 2005 to 2006, whether the
areas had formally designated a recipient for JARC funds, and whether
the agency was recommended to us by FTA or an industry association. The
agencies were selected to provide a distribution of the various
factors; however, we did not select them in such a way that we may
project the results as representative of the entire country. Appendix I
contains a detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and
methodology, including more information on how we selected the state
and local agencies we contacted. We conducted our work between May and
October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the JARC program, the most
significant of which was to modify JARC from a discretionary program to
a formula-based program. Whereas in recent years, JARC projects were
competitively selected by FTA or congressionally designated for
funding, SAFETEA-LU's formula distributes funds to states and large
urbanized areas on the basis of the relative number of low-income
individuals and welfare recipients in each area. This change will
significantly alter the allocation of JARC funds, because some states
and large urbanized areas that did not formerly receive funds will now
receive them, and others will receive a different amount than they
received in the past. For example, total funds available in Florida and
Virginia increased by more than 1,200 percent from fiscal years 2005 to
2006 (from $594,708 to $8.3 million and from $84,249 to $2.5 million,
respectively), while total funds available in Alaska and Vermont
decreased by more than 80 percent (from $1.7 million to $207,503 and
from $991,182 to $186,885, respectively). In addition, 18 states were
apportioned JARC funds for fiscal year 2006 that did not receive funds
in fiscal year 2005. Another change is that states and large urbanized
areas have to fulfill the following three key requirements before
receiving JARC funding: (1) identify a designated recipient for JARC
funds, (2) conduct a competitive process to select projects for
funding, and (3) certify that JARC projects were selected from a
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. Other
key changes resulting from SAFETEA-LU include allowing JARC recipients
to use a portion of these funds for planning activities and increasing
the federal government's share of project capital costs.
As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA has used an extensive public comment
process that has helped the agency develop and refine the guidance for
implementing changes to the JARC program, but that also has lengthened
the time needed to issue the guidance, which will likely reduce the
time states and large urbanized areas have to obligate fiscal year 2006
funds under FTA's guidance. Beginning in late-2005, FTA solicited
comments and input from JARC stakeholders through program notices and
listening sessions. Using feedback from these initial efforts, in March
2006 FTA released interim guidance for fiscal year 2006 JARC projects
and proposed strategies for fiscal year 2007. The agency received more
than 200 comments on the March interim guidance and proposed strategies
from state and local departments of transportation, metropolitan
planning organizations, and other JARC stakeholders. FTA officials have
incorporated this feedback into the formulation of proposed final
guidance for JARC, which was issued on September 6, 2006.[Footnote 7]
However, due to the 60-day public comment period following issuance of
the September proposed final guidance, FTA was unable to finalize its
JARC program guidance before fiscal year 2007 began in October. FTA's
March interim guidance and proposed strategies also included a "hold
harmless" provision stating that the final guidance requirements would
not apply retroactively to grants awarded prior to the issuance of the
final guidance. FTA has recognized in its guidance that JARC funds are
available for 2 years after the year of apportionment, meaning that
fiscal year 2006 funds are available through fiscal year 2008 (Sept.
30, 2008). The time available is further reduced, however, by the time
needed to fulfill SAFETEA-LU requirements, such as the requirement to
develop coordinated plans. However, given that a number of states and
large urbanized areas we interviewed planned to wait for final program
guidance before moving forward to program implementation, these areas
will have less time available to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds.
States and large urbanized areas have initiated actions to fulfill
requirements to receive JARC funding, and although they have
encountered challenges in moving forward, FTA has taken steps to
alleviate most of these challenges in its September proposed final
guidance. Nationwide, few states and large urbanized areas have
formally fulfilled the three SAFETEA-LU requirements to receive JARC
funding, as less than 4 percent of fiscal year 2006 funding had been
obligated by states and localities by the end of fiscal year 2006.
Actions to fulfill these requirements were under way, however, in most
of the 12 states and 12 large urbanized areas we contacted. For
example, all 12 of the states and 9 of the large urbanized areas we
contacted had determined which agency would serve as the designated
recipient for JARC funding, although not all of these states and
urbanized areas had formally notified FTA of this determination.
Officials we interviewed as well as other program stakeholders had
encountered a number of challenges in program implementation, including
questions regarding the selection of the designated recipient in large
urbanized areas and a lack of resources for development of coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plans. FTA's proposed
final guidance responds to most of these issues. For example, FTA
clarified information on the process for selecting designated
recipients in large urbanized areas and on whether designated
recipients could allow other organizations to conduct the competitive
selection process to avoid potential conflict-of-interest concerns if
the designated recipient competes for funding. In addition, FTA will
allow a phased-in approach for development of coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plans, in response to program
stakeholders' concerns about the time needed to develop these plans.
FTA is continuing to develop and refine its strategies for evaluation
and oversight of the JARC program in response to comments received on
its March interim guidance and proposed strategies, but a revised
approach may still be limited in its ability to assess whether the
program is meeting its goals. In response to previous concerns about
FTA's measurement of JARC program outcomes, FTA sought public comment
on four new proposed performance measures, including one measure
specifically for JARC (cumulative number of jobs accessed) and three
crosscutting measures (efficiency of operations, program effectiveness,
and customer satisfaction) that reflect SAFETEA-LU's emphasis on the
coordination of human services transportation. In addition, FTA
proposed to use the National Transit Database (NTD)[Footnote 8] for
tracking JARC performance data. However, program stakeholders that we
contacted reported that FTA's proposed cumulative number of jobs
accessed measure called for data that would be difficult to collect,
and noted that the crosscutting measures may not be useful to assess
JARC performance nationwide due to differences in program operation at
the local level. On the basis of these comments, FTA eliminated the
proposed broader coordination measures and clarified that the jobs
accessed measure will assess whether JARC programs are increasing
transportation system coverage for low-income people to access jobs.
FTA also proposed to add a measure on ridership, which will count the
number of rides provided for low-income individuals. FTA officials
reported that they are currently testing the JARC performance measure
and intend to obtain baseline data for use in FTA's required evaluation
of the JARC program, which will be submitted to Congress in August
2008. In addition, FTA revised its proposal to use the NTD for
collecting performance data after some grantees reported that it may be
challenging for smaller organizations to use the system. Finally, to
address grantees' concerns about the lack of feedback on their
performance, FTA officials told us that the agency would be more
explicit about how it used the JARC performance data grantees submitted
and would explore posting this information on its Web site in the
future. Even if FTA resolves its performance measurement and reporting
issues, however, we identified gaps in FTA's processes for monitoring
JARC that may affect its ability to evaluate and oversee the program.
Although FTA has proposed to use existing oversight processes to
monitor JARC recipients, these oversight processes do not explicitly
include provisions for oversight of the JARC program. Furthermore,
FTA's proposed process for oversight of agencies that do not fall under
existing processes could lead to inconsistent oversight of JARC
recipients. FTA officials said that SAFETEA-LU does not provide project
management oversight funds for the JARC program, and that they are
currently looking for alternate sources of funding for this purpose.
To establish adequate and consistent evaluation and oversight processes
for JARC recipients, and thereby enable FTA to determine whether
projects are meeting JARC program goals, we are recommending that the
Secretary of Transportation direct FTA to develop a plan for including
the JARC program in its established review mechanisms and to clarify
how often recipients that are not covered by those review mechanisms
will be monitored. DOT, including FTA, reviewed a draft of this report.
FTA officials generally agreed with the report's findings and said that
they would consider the recommendations as they move forward with
implementing the program. FTA officials also provided technical
comments that were incorporated in the report as appropriate to ensure
accuracy.
Background:
The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nation's system to
provide assistance to low-income families with children. The act
replaced the existing entitlement program with fixed block grants to
the states to provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF).[Footnote 9] TANF provides about $16.5 billion annually for the
states to use for families to become self-sufficient, imposes work
requirements for adults, and establishes time limits on the receipt of
federal assistance. Without adequate transportation, however, TANF
recipients and other low-income individuals face significant barriers
in finding and keeping jobs. Evidence from metropolitan areas, such as
Atlanta, Boston, and Cleveland, shows that TANF recipients
disproportionately live in inner-city neighborhoods, far from entry-
level employment opportunities located in the suburbs. Although poverty
has declined in central cities, urban poverty rates were still twice as
high as suburban poverty rates in 1999 (approximately 16 percent versus
8 percent).[Footnote 10] In addition, available jobs may not be located
near central cities. For instance, one study in 2001 found that in
Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, and a number of other metropolitan areas,
more than 60 percent of the regional employment was located more than
10 miles from the city center.[Footnote 11] Similarly, the TEA-21
legislation noted that even in metropolitan areas with excellent public
transportation systems, less than one-half of the jobs were accessible
by transit. This spatial mismatch between low-income individuals and
the locations of jobs or other employment-related services may hinder
those individuals' ability to both find and keep jobs.
These challenges are especially acute for low-income individuals who do
not own cars and for those who generally drive long distances in poorly
maintained cars. Data from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey
indicated that 26.5 percent of households that earn less than $20,000
do not own a car, as compared with 1.2 percent of households with
incomes over $75,000.[Footnote 12] Lack of adequate modes of
transportation makes it difficult to make multiple trips each day to
accommodate child care and other domestic responsibilities and
employment-related services. As we reported in 2004, many rural TANF
recipients also cannot afford to own and operate a reliable private
vehicle, and public transportation to get to and from training,
services, and work is often not available. In addition, several
caseworkers and service providers in rural areas identified the lack of
valid driver's licenses as a problem for many of their
clients.[Footnote 13] A study from the Journal of the Transportation
Research Board has shown that access to jobs and job-related
opportunities, on the other hand, increases the employment and earnings
of TANF recipients and reduces TANF-use rates.[Footnote 14]
The JARC program was created in 1998 to support the nation's welfare
reform goals by filling gaps in transportation services. JARC funds can
be used to expand existing public transit routes or service hours,
among other things (see sidebars). However, JARC projects are not
limited to mass transit services; some JARC projects include
ridesharing activities and the promotion of transit voucher programs.
DOT's two major goals for the JARC program are to (1) provide
transportation and related services to urban, suburban, and rural areas
to assist low-income individuals, including welfare recipients, with
access to employment and related services, such as child care and
training, and (2) increase collaboration among transportation
providers, human service agencies, employers, and others in planning,
funding, and delivering those services.
FTA experienced a number of challenges in implementing JARC under TEA-
21. For instance, we have reported that DOT had previously awarded
grants to designated parties in a noncompetitive fashion; however, in
doing so, DOT was not in compliance with the provisions of the
authorizing legislation, TEA-21, because the act called for a
competitive grant selection process.[Footnote 15] Another challenge
some grantees noted was that JARC funds could not be used for planning
and coordination activities, which required grantees to find
alternative sources to fund the administrative activities done for
JARC. Also, the statutory matching requirement for JARC was
inconsistent with other FTA programs because JARC projects could
receive grants for up to 50 percent of the project's capital expenses,
rather than 80 percent. While we have reported that FTA had met its
JARC program goal of improving collaboration between grantees and
stakeholders, we also have reported that more collaboration is needed
at the federal level to enable grantees to obtain federal funding for
JARC projects. TEA-21 required FTA to report to Congress on the results
of an evaluation of JARC; however, FTA has struggled to develop
comprehensive performance measures that assess a national program when
individual programs, operations, and features vary.
SAFETEA-LU Created a Formula for Distributing JARC Funds and Amended
Other Aspects of the Program:
SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the JARC program, the most
notable of which was the creation of a formula to distribute JARC funds
beginning with fiscal year 2006. Whereas in recent years, JARC projects
were competitively selected by FTA or congressionally designated for
funding, SAFETEA-LU created a formula to distribute funds to states and
large urbanized areas. This change is significant because some states
and large urbanized areas will receive substantially more funds than
under the discretionary program, while others will receive
substantially less. In addition, the formula program will result in
some areas receiving JARC funds that had not received them in the past.
Other JARC changes resulting from SAFETEA-LU include (1) the need for
states and large urbanized areas to designate a recipient for JARC
funds, competitively select projects for funding, and certify that
selected projects came from a locally developed coordinated plan and
(2) the ability to use a portion of JARC funds for planning activities.
Table 1 compares key JARC provisions under SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21.
Table 1: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU's and TEA-21's JARC Provisions:
Provision: Distribute JARC funds by formula;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005):
* Requires the Secretary of Transportation to apportion funds among
states and designated recipients of large urbanized areas through a
formula that considers the number of eligible low-income individuals[A]
and welfare recipients in each state or large urbanized area relative
to other states or large urbanized areas;
* Sixty percent of JARC funds is apportioned to designated recipients
of urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more, 20 percent is
apportioned to states for projects in urbanized areas with a population
of fewer than 200,000, and 20 percent is apportioned to states for
projects in other-than-urbanized areas;
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005):
* The Secretary of Transportation was required to conduct a national
solicitation for applications for grants and to select grantees on a
competitive basis. In practice, however, projects were congressionally
designated in recent years;
* The same percentage of JARC funds were allocated among large
urbanized areas, small urbanized areas, and other-than-urbanized areas
as provided under SAFETEA-LU.
Provision: Designate JARC recipient;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005): The governor must
designate a recipient at the state level to competitively select and
award funds for projects in small urban and other-than-urbanized areas,
and within each large urbanized area to competitively select and award
funds in that area;
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005): Not
required under TEA-21. Rather, FTA competitively selected JARC projects
and more recently awarded funds for projects that were congressionally
designated.
Provision: Use coordinated public transit-human services transportation
plan to select projects for funding;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005):
* JARC projects selected for funding must be derived from a locally
developed coordinated public transit-human services transportation
plan. Designated recipients must certify that selected projects were
derived from this plan;
* Additional FTA programs that provide funding for services for
transportation-disadvantaged populations are also subject to this
requirement beginning in fiscal year 2007.[B];
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005):
JARC projects were required to be part of a coordinated public transit-
human services transportation planning process, but there was no
requirement to certify that selected projects were derived from this
plan.
Provision: Use competitive selection process;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005): Designated
recipients in urbanized areas are required to conduct a solicitation
for applications for grants in cooperation with the appropriate
metropolitan planning organization;[C] designated recipients in states
are required to conduct a statewide solicitation for applications for
grants. Grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis;
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005): The
Secretary of Transportation was required to conduct a national
solicitation for applications for grants and to select grantees on a
competitive basis. In practice, however, projects were congressionally
designated in recent years.
Provision: Allow the use of funds for administration, planning, and
technical assistance;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005):
* A recipient may use up to 10 percent of its apportionment to
administer, plan, and provide technical assistance for JARC projects;
* Planning is also included as an eligible expense, along with capital
and operating expenses;
Program as previously administered under TEA- 21 (1999-August 2005): No
statutory provision for administration and technical assistance under
TEA-21.[D] Planning and coordination activities were prohibited
expenses.
Provision: Provide for transfers of JARC funds;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005): States may
transfer funds among the small urbanized area and other-than-urbanized
area apportionments if the governor certifies that JARC objectives are
being met in the specified area. States may also transfer funds from
the small urbanized area and other-than-urbanized area apportionments
to projects in any area in the state if it has a statewide program for
meeting JARC objectives. States may also transfer funds to FTA's
Urbanized Area or Nonurbanized Area Formula programs if the funds are
used for eligible JARC projects.[E];
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005): No
provision under TEA-21.
Provision: Increase federal government's share of capital costs;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005): JARC grants for
capital projects may not exceed 80 percent of the net capital costs of
the project. Grants for operating assistance may not exceed 50 percent
of the net operating costs of the project;
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005):
Grants for projects could not exceed 50 percent of the total project
cost. No differentiation between capital and operating projects.
Provision: Remove limit on reverse commute project funding;
Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since August 2005): No limit on the
amount that can be used for reverse commute projects;
Program as previously administered under TEA-21 (1999-August 2005): No
more than $10 million could be used each fiscal year for reverse
commute project grants.
Source: GAO analysis of SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21.
[A] Eligible low-income individuals are those whose family income is at
or below 150 percent of the poverty line.
[B] FTA programs in addition to JARC that serve these populations are
the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program and
the New Freedom program.
[C] Metropolitan planning organizations are federally mandated regional
organizations responsible for comprehensive transportation planning and
programming in urbanized areas.
[D] FTA allowed JARC grantees to use up to 10 percent of funds for
administration and technical assistance activities.
[E] FTA officials explained that this transfer allows for
administrative ease of processing using a simplified single
application.
[End of table]
JARC Became a Formula Program:
A key SAFETEA-LU change to the JARC program was the creation of a
formula to distribute JARC funds. Under TEA-21, JARC was a
discretionary grant program for which FTA competitively selected JARC
projects and, more recently, awarded funds for congressionally
designated projects. Under SAFETEA-LU, states and large urbanized areas
have been apportioned funding for JARC projects through a formula that
is based on the relative number of low-income individuals and welfare
recipients in each area.[Footnote 16] Forty percent of JARC funds each
year is required to be apportioned among states for projects in small
urbanized and other-than-urbanized areas, and the remaining 60 percent
is required to be apportioned among urbanized areas with a population
of 200,000 or more. For fiscal year 2006, the allocation was as
follows:
* nonurbanized areas - $27.3 million,
* small urbanized areas - $27.3 million, and:
* large urbanized areas - $82.0 million.
The change to a formula program is significant because some states and
urbanized areas will receive substantially more funds than they
received under the discretionary program, while others will receive
substantially less (see fig. 1). In 22 states, the total amount of JARC
funding available decreased from fiscal years 2005 to 2006, when the
formula-based program began. The percentage decrease in funding for
these 22 states ranged from 33 percent to 88 percent. For example:
* Alaska's funding decreased approximately 88 percent, from $1.7
million in fiscal year 2005 to $207,503 in fiscal year 2006.
* Vermont also saw its JARC apportionments decrease more than 80
percent, from $991,182 to $186,885.[Footnote 17]
The total amount of JARC funding available for 2 states (Michigan and
West Virginia) remained approximately the same over the 2 fiscal years,
while in 13 states, the total funding increased. The percentage
increase for these 13 states ranged from 17 percent to 2,931 percent.
* Florida, for instance, had its JARC funds increased by more than
1,200 percent, from $594,708 in fiscal year 2005 to $8.3 million in
fiscal year 2006.
* Virginia experienced the greatest percentage increase--more than
2,900 percent--from $84,249 in fiscal year 2005 to $2.5 million in
fiscal year 2006.
Eighteen states were allocated fiscal year 2006 JARC funds that had not
received JARC funds for fiscal year 2005. These states represent
approximately 16 percent of the total JARC funding for fiscal year
2006. (App. II lists the dollar amount of the fiscal year 2006
apportionments for all of the states and large urbanized areas.)
Figure 1: Percentage Change in Job Access and Reverse Commute Funds
Apportioned to States and Large Urbanized Areas from Fiscal Years 2005
to 2006:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: FTA.
Note: This figure includes funds congressionally designated for
specific projects in fiscal year 2005 or apportioned to states and
large urbanized areas within each state for fiscal year 2006. This
figure does not include the following 18 states that were not allocated
fiscal year 2005 JARC funds: American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Guam,
Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Utah, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Large urbanized areas also saw substantial changes to their JARC
funding as a result of formularization. Of the 11 large urbanized areas
we interviewed that had received prior JARC grants, 1 saw its JARC
funding increase 64 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 5 had
their funds decrease from 3 percent to 88 percent between fiscal years
2005 and 2006, and 5 had received JARC grants in the past but not in
fiscal year 2005.
* For example, Tampa/St. Petersburg was apportioned $978,029 in fiscal
year 2006, a 64 percent increase from its two fiscal year 2005 grants
that totaled $594,708.
* By contrast, Jefferson County in the Birmingham, Alabama, area had
received a JARC grant for almost $3 million in fiscal year 2005,
whereas the urbanized area was apportioned $356,107 for fiscal year
2006, a decrease of 88 percent.[Footnote 18]
In addition, the formula program will result in some states and areas
receiving JARC funds that had not received them in the past. Eighteen
states received JARC funds in fiscal year 2006 that did not receive
them in fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 19] For example, Wyoming, which has
not received JARC funds before, was apportioned $202,360 for fiscal
year 2006 as a result of the formula. An official from the Wyoming
Department of Transportation told us that the state will be able to use
the funding to provide vanpool and bus services to the new employment
opportunities created by the state's natural gas and mining operations,
many of which are located in areas without public transportation.
Puerto Rico, also new to JARC, was apportioned $6.6 million under the
formula. Many large urbanized areas, such as Fresno, California, will
also be receiving JARC apportionments for the first time.
Officials from the industry associations and the 29 state and local
agencies that we interviewed had mixed reactions to this change. Some
of these state and local agencies said the change from a discretionary
to a formula program would result in a more equitable distribution of
funds or that formula funding would provide a more consistent source of
funding than congressional designation. Some of the 29 agencies said
that they would likely add or expand transportation services in their
area, and a few thought that formularization would result in improved
coordination among transportation and human service agencies. By
contrast, some of the state and local agencies we interviewed said that
the change to a formula program and the associated program requirements
they would need to fulfill would increase the administrative burden on
their agency, with 3 of these agencies noting that the additional
burden might outweigh the benefits of the program. Other agencies said
that the change to a formula program would result in a loss of funds to
their state or area, while 1 agency and 1 industry association said the
change would spread an already small amount of money even thinner.
Several agencies also said that they might have to reduce or eliminate
services as a result. Still other agencies said that the change to a
formula program would have little or no impact on transportation
services in their area. Some indicated that the impact would vary by
location, while a few other agencies and 1 industry association noted
that it is too soon to know the impact.
SAFETEA-LU Introduced Three Key Requirements for Receiving JARC Funding
and Made Other Changes:
In addition to creating a formula for distributing JARC funds, SAFETEA-
LU also requires states and large urbanized areas to fulfill the
following three key requirements before applying to FTA to receive
their apportioned JARC funding: (1) identify a designated recipient for
JARC funds, (2) conduct a competitive process to select projects for
funding, and (3) certify that JARC projects were derived from a
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (see fig.
2).
Figure 2: Key Requirements under SAFETEA-LU for Receiving JARC Funding:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Under SAFETEA-LU, the governor of each state must designate a recipient
for JARC funds at the state level to competitively select and award
funds for projects in small urban and other-than-urbanized areas within
the state. In large urbanized areas, the recipient must be jointly
designated by the governor, local officials, and publicly owned
operators of public transportation. These designated recipients will
then solicit applications and develop and conduct a competitive process
for selecting projects for funding. SAFETEA-LU also extended a JARC
coordinated planning requirement to additional FTA programs. In the
past, JARC projects were required to be part of a coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan; a similar requirement is
included in SAFETEA-LU. However, this requirement will apply in fiscal
year 2007 to two other FTA programs that provide funding for
transportation-disadvantaged populations.[Footnote 20] In addition,
recipients in states and urbanized areas that select JARC projects must
now certify that their selections were based on this plan.
SAFETEA-LU made a number of other changes to the JARC program, several
of which address issues that we have raised in past reports on JARC and
the coordination of transportation services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations. One such change is the ability of a
recipient to use up to 10 percent of its JARC allocation for
administration, planning, and technical assistance.[Footnote 21]
SAFETEA-LU also expanded the definition of eligible activities to
include planning as well as capital and operating activities. In 2004,
we reported that a majority of the JARC grantees we interviewed
supported this proposed change because planning activities could
increase coordination with potential partners.[Footnote 22] We also
reported in 2003 that the overall costs of coordination, which can
include additional staff members and staff time needed for maintaining
and overseeing coordination efforts, can be significant.[Footnote 23]
According to FTA, the 10 percent of JARC funds that will now be
available for administration, planning, and technical assistance can be
used for coordination activities, which can help state and local
agencies improve services and achieve cost savings.
SAFETEA-LU also increased the federal government's share of capital
costs and removed a restriction on the amount of funding available for
reverse commute projects to help individuals gain access to suburban
employment opportunities. In 2004, we reported that the change in the
matching fund requirement for JARC would make that program consistent
with the matching requirements for other FTA programs.[Footnote 24]
Under TEA-21, projects could receive a grant for up to 50 percent of
the project's capital expenses, which are used to purchase capital
equipment such as buses. Grantees will now be able to receive a grant
for up to 80 percent of the project's capital expenses.[Footnote 25]
FTA officials had told us that this change would lessen any confusion
about matching requirements among grant recipients who participate in
multiple FTA programs.
FTA Has Developed Proposed Final Guidance for JARC, but Delays in
Issuing the Final Guidance May Reduce the Time Available to Obligate
JARC Funding:
FTA has been developing guidance to help JARC recipients implement
changes to the program resulting from the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, but
delays in releasing final guidance will reduce the window of
availability of fiscal year 2006 funding. To formulate JARC guidance,
FTA has been using an extensive public participation process, including
notices, commenting periods, listening sessions, and focus groups. This
strategy has provided FTA with an abundance of feedback, and the agency
has incorporated these comments into its September proposed final
guidance.[Footnote 26] However, an extension of the public comment
period and the volume of public input have also contributed to delays
in issuing guidance, which meant that FTA was not able to release final
program guidance prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2007. Given that
FTA allows 3 years to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds, this delay
results in 1 less year for states and urbanized areas to obligate JARC
funding.
FTA Has Engaged in Extensive Public Outreach to Formulate JARC
Guidance:
As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA has used an extensive notice and comment
process to gain public input to formulate guidance for the JARC
program. In November 2005, FTA published a notice of changes to JARC
and other relevant programs.[Footnote 27] This notice provided
information on changes to the JARC program and solicited public comment
on aspects of the program, such as technical assistance needs and the
coordinated planning requirements. In addition, FTA held five public
listening sessions across the country on a number of programs,
including JARC, to obtain comments and input on the issues that should
be addressed in future guidance. The agency also convened a focus group
to discuss possible changes to the implementation of JARC. In March
2006, drawing on information received in comments and the listening
sessions, FTA released interim JARC guidance for fiscal year 2006 and
requested comments on its proposed implementation strategies.
When the interim guidance and proposed strategies was released, it
generated many questions and concerns among stakeholders. FTA received
more than 200 comments on its March interim guidance and proposed
strategies from state and local departments of transportation,
metropolitan planning organizations, private transportation service
providers, interest groups, and other JARC stakeholders. FTA officials
reviewed this feedback and addressed many of the stakeholders' issues
in the proposed final guidance for JARC, which was released in
September. We will discuss these comments in more detail later in this
report, and appendix III provides a summary of these comments.
FTA's Formulation of Guidance Has Been Delayed Due to Extensive Public
Comments on JARC Changes:
FTA has been incorporating stakeholder concerns into its formulation of
guidance, but the volume of this input has contributed to delays. FTA
officials originally stated that they planned to issue proposed final
guidance in the early summer of 2006. However, FTA extended the comment
period for the March 2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies from
April 21 to May 22 to accommodate additional comments, and more than
100 comments were submitted on or after the last day of the comment
period. Because of these additional comments, FTA officials later told
us that they expected to issue the proposed final guidance in late July
or early August. FTA ultimately issued the proposed final guidance on
September 6, 2006 (see fig. 3). Public comments were accepted for 60
days following the release of the September proposed final guidance,
after which FTA began reviewing the comments to inform its final
guidance. Consequently, FTA was not able to release its final guidance
prior to the start of the 2007 fiscal year in October. FTA officials
said that they currently plan to release final program guidance in
March 2007.
Figure 3: Timeline for FTA's Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes to
the JARC Program:
[See PDF for image] - graphic text:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure] - graphic text:
Delays in Issuing Final Guidance May Reduce the Time Available to
Obligate Fiscal Year 2006 JARC Funding:
FTA's issuance of final guidance for JARC has been delayed, and this
may reduce the time available to projects to access fiscal year 2006
funding. FTA officials noted that although the notice and comment
process has affected the timeliness of the program guidance, they feel
that it has enriched the development of guidance. However, the delays
associated with taking this approach have reduced the time between
issuing the final guidance on how to apply for fiscal year 2006 funds
and the deadline for obligating these funds by the end of fiscal year
2008.
A number of states and large urbanized areas have proceeded to
implement JARC's requirements using the interim guidance and proposed
strategies. Nineteen of the 29 state and local agencies we interviewed
in the summer of 2006 were proceeding with the implementation of JARC
in the absence of proposed final guidance. Many of these agencies are
required to comply with local and state planning and budget schedules,
which have compelled them to move ahead with JARC implementation. FTA
officials told us that they encouraged states and urbanized areas to
begin implementing changes to the JARC program on the basis of the
March interim guidance and proposed strategies, and that FTA is
accepting applications for funding prior to issuance of final guidance.
In addition, FTA's March 2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies
included a "hold harmless" provision stating that the final guidance
requirements would not apply retroactively to grants awarded prior to
the issuance of the final guidance. FTA later extended this "hold
harmless" provision to grant applications submitted in fiscal year 2007
on the basis of coordinated planning or competitive selection processes
that were substantially complete before the issuance of final
guidance.[Footnote 28]
Even if the delay in issuing the final guidance does not affect the
efforts already under way, states and large urbanized areas will need
to keep the remaining window of time in mind, or their ability to
secure fiscal year 2006 funding allocated to them could be affected.
Through the guidance, FTA implemented a 3-year period to obligate JARC
funds for a given fiscal year (the fiscal year of apportionment plus an
additional 2 years). Under this view, the availability of fiscal year
2006 funding would expire at the end of fiscal year 2008, and those
agencies that chose to wait for the final guidance to be released
before applying for fiscal year 2006 JARC funds would have only 2 years
in which to obligate those funds. A number of state and local agencies
we interviewed indicated that they are waiting on FTA's final program
guidance before moving forward to program implementation. While these
areas will benefit from having the final guidance before they submit
their JARC applications, given that the guidance was not available by
the beginning of fiscal year 2007, they will have less time available
to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds.
States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Begun to Implement JARC
Requirements, and FTA Has Taken Steps to Alleviate Implementation
Challenges:
States and large urbanized areas that were apportioned JARC funds have
generally begun to implement requirements to receive this funding. As
they have done so, they have encountered challenges, most of which FTA
has taken steps to alleviate. To date, few states and large urbanized
areas have fulfilled the necessary SAFETEA-LU requirements to receive
fiscal year 2006 JARC funds, but most states and large urbanized areas
we contacted reported that they are in the process of fulfilling these
requirements. Officials we interviewed as well as other program
stakeholders have encountered several challenges in program
implementation, such as questions regarding the selection of the
designated recipient in large urbanized areas. FTA responded to most of
these issues in its September 2006 proposed final guidance.
Few States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Received Fiscal Year 2006
JARC Funds, Although Most We Interviewed Are in the Process of
Fulfilling Funding Requirements:
As we previously noted, states and large urbanized areas must fulfill
three SAFETEA-LU requirements prior to applying to FTA to receive JARC
funds to award for projects: identify a designated recipient for JARC
funds, conduct a competitive selection process, and certify that JARC
projects were derived from a coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plan. To date, few states and urbanized areas have
fulfilled these requirements and received fiscal year 2006 JARC
funding. Nationwide, 3 states and 9 of the 152 large urbanized areas
that were apportioned JARC funding had received fiscal year 2006 funds
as of the end of fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 29],[Footnote 30] These
obligated funds constitute less than 4 percent of the total fiscal year
2006 JARC funding apportioned to states and large urbanized areas.
While few states and large urbanized areas have fulfilled the
requirements to receive JARC funds, officials in most of the 12 states
and 12 large urbanized areas we contacted in June, July, and August
2006 reported that they have begun to implement these requirements to
receive funding. Specifically:
* Identifying the JARC designated recipient. Officials in each of the
12 states we contacted reported that the state had determined its
designated recipient for JARC. In 7 of these states, officials reported
that the governor had signed a letter to formally designate the
recipient, as required by SAFETEA-LU, although not all of these states
had submitted the letter to FTA. The other 5 states reported that their
formal designation was in-progress. Officials in 9 of the 12 large
urbanized areas we contacted also reported that the area had determined
which agency would serve as the designated recipient for JARC funds,
although none had submitted a designation letter to FTA at the time of
our interviews. There is some variety in the agencies that will serve
as the designated recipient in the large urbanized areas we contacted.
A metropolitan planning organization will be the designated recipient
in 4 of the areas we contacted, while a transit agency will be the
designated recipient in the other 5 areas. The other 3 areas had not
yet decided on the likely designated recipient.
* Developing coordinated plans. Almost all of the states and large
urbanized areas we contacted had taken actions related to the
establishment of locally developed coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plans. SAFETEA-LU requires states and urbanized
areas to certify that they derived JARC projects from these plans. In
11 of the 12 large urbanized areas we contacted, officials reported
that they either had determined their strategy for meeting the
coordinated plan requirement or had initiated a coordinated planning
process. In addition, officials in all 12 states we contacted reported
that the state will be involved in coordinated planning for the JARC
program, although the extent of their participation varied. For
example, one state official we interviewed reported that his agency
will lead the coordinated planning process for small urbanized and
rural areas within the state, while another state official reported
that rural areas will be responsible for developing plans while the
state provides assistance on a case-by-case basis. In a majority of the
states and large urbanized areas we contacted, officials anticipated
completing these plans in early-to mid-2007. While FTA has allowed
states and large urbanized areas to apply for up to 10 percent of their
apportionment for administration, planning, and technical assistance
prior to applying for funding for project implementation, only 1 of the
states and 1 large urbanized area we contacted had received this
funding, and another large urbanized area we contacted was in the
process of applying for the funding. Reasons that officials we
interviewed cited for not applying for this funding included the
intention to wait until fiscal year 2007 to use the funding, and the
use of other funding sources for these activities.
* Conducting a competitive selection process. Few states and large
urbanized areas we contacted had conducted a competitive selection
process to award fiscal year 2006 JARC funds. Officials in 2 large
urbanized areas reported that they had conducted a competitive
selection process to award fiscal year 2006 funds. In addition, 3
states we contacted had competitively selected JARC projects, but at
the time of our interviews, none had yet applied to FTA for the state's
fiscal year 2006 funding to award for project implementation. Officials
in a majority of the remaining states and large urbanized areas
anticipated competitively selecting projects in early-to mid-2007. More
than half of the states and large urbanized areas we contacted reported
that they considered or may consider a project's prior receipt of JARC
funding to some extent in selecting projects for funding. For example,
officials from 2 metropolitan planning organizations we interviewed
noted that they would consider a project's prior receipt of JARC funds
to continue successful projects. Other criteria that officials
anticipated they would consider in selecting projects included the
capacity of the organization to administer the funds, whether the
project had matching funds, and how the project would address the needs
of the community.
States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Encountered Several
Implementation Challenges, Most of Which FTA Has Responded to in Its
Proposed Final Guidance:
In comments submitted on FTA's March interim guidance and proposed
strategies and in interviews with selected state and local officials,
program stakeholders expressed several implementation challenges they
had encountered or concerns they had as the program moves forward.
These issues included questions regarding the designated recipient in
large urbanized areas, and challenges in ensuring stakeholder
participation and adequate resources for the development of coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plans. FTA responded to
many of these issues in its proposed final guidance, which it issued in
September 2006. Table 2 below summarizes stakeholders' key
implementation challenges and concerns and FTA's actions to respond to
these issues.
Table 2: Stakeholders' Key Implementation Challenges and Concerns and
FTA's Response:
Implementation information in FTA's notice of program changes (November
2005) and interim JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 2006):
Designated recipients in large urbanized areas: Large urbanized areas
are to designate the JARC recipient under the same process that governs
the designation of recipients for FTA's Urbanized Area Formula program,
known as the Section 5307 program.[A];
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Confusion regarding the need for a designation of a recipient
separate from the FTA Section 5307 program.
* Stakeholder comments that SAFETEA-LU identified existing Section 5307
designated recipients as the intended JARC designated recipients;
FTA's response in proposed final JARC guidance (September 2006):
* Clarifies that a designation of the JARC recipient is needed separate
from the Section 5307 program.
Implementation information in FTA's notice of program changes (November
2005) and interim JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 2006):
Designated recipients in large urbanized areas: Notes stakeholders'
concerns that a potential conflict of interest could exist in large
urbanized areas when the designated recipient both conducts the
competitive selection process and is eligible to receive funds. Interim
guidance describes strategies and policies to ensure that projects are
selected through a fair and equitable process;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Different opinions among program stakeholders regarding the potential
for a conflict of interest;
* Claims that there was inconsistent information from FTA staff
regarding the designated recipient's ability to allow another
organization to conduct the competitive selection process, to avoid
potential conflict- of-interest issues;
FTA's response in proposed final JARC guidance (September 2006):
* Clarifies that designated recipients may establish partnerships with
other organizations to competitively select projects to address
potential conflict-of-interest concerns.
* States that the designated recipient may be an existing Section 5307
program designated recipient or that another agency may be a preferred
choice that is based on local circumstances.
Implementation information in FTA's notice of program changes (November
2005) and interim JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 2006):
Development of coordinated public transit-human services transportation
plans: Recommended that the lead agency developing the coordinated plan
include a number of groups in the process, including nonprofit
transportation providers, private transportation providers, and human
service agencies;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Challenges in getting other organizations, such as human service
agencies, to participate in the planning process;
FTA's response in proposed final JARC guidance (September 2006):
* Notes that FTA is working with other federal agencies on the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility to encourage
organizations that receive other sources of human service
transportation funding to participate in coordinated transportation
planning.
* Notes that the extent of outreach and participation in the planning
process will be based on local circumstances.
Implementation information in FTA's notice of program changes (November
2005) and interim JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 2006):
Development of coordinated public transit-human services transportation
plans: Areas must derive JARC projects receiving fiscal year 2006
funding from a coordinated public transit-human services plan. This
requirement applies to the New Freedom program and the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program, known as the
Section 5310 program, in fiscal year 2007.[B];
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Difficulties in developing plans within established time frames;
FTA's response in proposed final JARC guidance (September 2006):
* Allows a phased-in approach to the development of coordinated plans.
Implementation information in FTA's notice of program changes (November
2005) and interim JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 2006):
Program funding: Up to 10 percent of a state or large urbanized area's
apportionment is available for administration, planning, and technical
assistance. Recipients may apply for this funding prior to applying for
project implementation;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* The cost of developing coordinated plans exceeds available resources.
* Areas will incur higher initial costs to implement new program
requirements;
FTA's response in proposed final JARC guidance (September 2006):
* Identifies other sources of FTA funding that states and urbanized
areas can use for administration and to develop coordinated plans.
* Proposes that recipients can combine the administrative funding
available under the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom programs to
develop a single coordinated public transit-human services
transportation plan.
* Notes that administrative funds are not specific to one year, and
that recipients may roll over administrative funding into a subsequent
year for the anticipated future costs of current projects.
* Notes that planning activities are an eligible expense for the JARC
program.
Implementation information in FTA's notice of program changes (November
2005) and interim JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 2006):
Program funding: Grantees may use federal JARC funding for 80 percent
of capital expenses and 50 percent of operating expenses;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Difficulties in securing matching funds for JARC projects;
FTA's response in proposed final JARC guidance (September 2006):
* Lists potential sources of matching funds, including other federal
programs that provide funding for transportation.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA information.
[A] The Section 5307 program makes federal resources available to
urbanized areas and to governors for transit capital and operating
assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning.
For urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more, funds are
apportioned and flow directly to a designated recipient selected
locally to apply for and receive federal funds.
[B] The Section 5310 program provides formula funding to states for
capital projects to assist in meeting the transportation needs of the
elderly and persons with disabilities.
[End of table]
Designated Recipient in Large Urbanized Areas:
Selected urbanized area officials we interviewed and stakeholder
comments on FTA's interim JARC guidance raised several questions and
issues regarding the designated recipient in large urbanized areas. For
example, transit agency officials we interviewed in 2 large urbanized
areas were under the impression that their agency's status as the
designated recipient for FTA's Urbanized Area Formula program (Section
5307 program) automatically made the agency the JARC designated
recipient. In addition, two comments on FTA's March 2006 interim
guidance and proposed strategies noted the stakeholders' belief that
SAFETEA-LU identified existing Section 5307 designated recipients as
the intended JARC designated recipients. FTA officials acknowledged
that on the basis of the interim guidance and proposed strategies,
there was some confusion about the process to designate the JARC
recipient. To clarify this issue, the preamble of the September
proposed final guidance notes that in large urbanized areas, a new
designation letter shall be issued for the JARC program, regardless of
whether the designated recipient is the same or different than the
Section 5307 designated recipient.
Officials we interviewed in large urbanized areas and several
stakeholder comments on FTA's interim guidance and proposed strategies
also raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest with respect
to the designated recipient in large urbanized areas, and noted
uncertainty about the ability of designated recipients to allow other
organizations to conduct the competitive selection process. In its
March interim guidance and proposed strategies, FTA noted that many
comments on its November 2005 Notice of Program Changes expressed
concern that a conflict of interest could exist in large urbanized
areas when the designated recipient, specifically a provider of
transportation services, conducts the competitive selection process and
is eligible for funding. In addition, officials at 12 of the 17
agencies we contacted in large urbanized areas and 18 stakeholder
comments on FTA's March 2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies
believed there would be a potential conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interest in this arrangement. Eight other
stakeholder comments stated that a transparent competitive selection
process or the involvement of metropolitan planning organizations in
the selection process would ameliorate any conflict-of-interest
concerns. While officials we interviewed in 2 large urbanized areas
raised the possibility of the designated recipients allowing another
organization to conduct the competitive selection process to avoid
potential conflict-of-interest issues, officials in 1 of these areas
said that prior to the release of FTA's proposed final guidance, they
received inconsistent information from FTA staff regarding this issue.
The ability of designated recipients to both conduct the competitive
selection process and compete for funds through this process does
present potential conflict-of-interest concerns. However, FTA outlined
a number of strategies and controls in its JARC guidance that, if
adhered to by designated recipients, should address many of these
potential conflict-of-interest concerns and minimize perceptions of
unfairness in the competitive selection process. These controls relate
to GAO's internal control standards for the federal government, one of
which addresses the policies and procedures in place within an agency
to ensure proper stewardship and accountability for government
resources.[Footnote 31] These strategies and controls were as follows:
* Selection of the designated recipient. To address stakeholders'
concerns of a potential conflict of interest, FTA recommended in its
March interim guidance and proposed strategies that the designated
recipient not be a provider of transportation services. FTA noted that
it received a wide range of comments on this proposal, and, in
response, the September proposed final guidance stated that the
designated recipient may be the same as the area's existing Section
5307 program designated recipient or that another agency may be a
preferred choice that is based on local circumstances.
* Strategies for a transparent competitive selection process. FTA's
interim guidance and proposed strategies and proposed final guidance
advised that the designated recipient follow a simple and
straightforward selection process that is transparent, and provided
several potential strategies for areas to consider when implementing a
competitive selection process. These strategies include ensuring
greater inclusion at the onset of the coordinated planning process to
alleviate concerns about a level playing field, and ranking projects
using methods such as third-party review, peer review, or review by a
panel of planning partners.
* Allowing other organizations to conduct the competitive selection
process. While officials we interviewed in 1 large urbanized area said
that FTA officials had previously provided conflicting information
about the ability of designated recipients to allow other organizations
to conduct the competitive selection process, FTA's September proposed
final guidance affirms that designated recipients can work with other
organizations to conduct the competitive selection process to alleviate
conflict-of-interest concerns. FTA's proposed final guidance also notes
that the SAFETEA-LU requirement for designated recipients to conduct
the competitive selection process in cooperation with the metropolitan
planning organization in large urbanized areas should mitigate this
potential conflict-of-interest concern.
* FTA oversight of the competitive selection process. Once designated
recipients select projects and submit applications to FTA for funding
for project implementation, FTA officials reported that they will
review the applications to ensure that areas used a competitive process
to select projects. In addition, at the time of submitting an
application for funding, designated recipients are required to certify
that they distributed funds on a fair and equitable basis, and FTA has
advised that a transparent and inclusive competitive selection process
should serve as the basis for this certification.
Development of Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation
Plans:
State and local officials we interviewed and stakeholder comments on
FTA's interim guidance and proposed strategies also cited several
challenges and concerns related to the development of the coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plans. These issues
included participation in the planning process and the amount of time
needed to develop coordinated plans. For example, officials in 3 large
urbanized areas and 5 states we contacted noted challenges in getting
other organizations, such as human service agencies, to participate in
the planning process. One of these officials noted her concern that
organizations that do not want to receive FTA funding will have no
reason to participate in the planning process. In addition, five
comments on FTA's interim guidance and proposed strategies suggested
that federal agencies that provide other sources of federal funds for
transportation services should require their grantees to participate in
coordinated planning efforts. FTA officials reported that they have
been working with members of the Federal Interagency Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility to encourage federal grantees that
receive other sources of human service transportation funding to
participate in coordinated transportation planning.[Footnote 32]
Although it will take time to put coordination provisions in place
within each agency, FTA officials said they were encouraged by this
progress.
Program stakeholders also expressed concern about their ability to
develop coordinated plans within FTA's time frames. For JARC, the
requirement to derive projects from a coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan was in place for fiscal year 2006 and
applied to the New Freedom program and the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities program beginning in fiscal year 2007.
Seven stakeholder comments on FTA's interim guidance and proposed
strategies noted that it would be difficult to develop a plan within
this time frame. Officials in 2 large urbanized areas we contacted
shared similar concerns. In its proposed final guidance, FTA focuses on
a phased-in approach to the development of coordinated plans through
fiscal year 2007, with full implementation of the coordinated planning
requirements for projects funded in fiscal year 2008. FTA officials
also said they are encouraging areas to build on existing planning
efforts to fulfill SAFETEA-LU requirements.
Competitive Selection of JARC Projects:
State and local officials we interviewed cited fewer challenges related
to the competitive selection of JARC projects. The reason could be
because few state and local agencies we contacted had completed a
competitive selection process, and many did not anticipate selecting
projects until early-to mid-2007. However, officials in 1 large
urbanized area and 1 state we contacted noted the difficulty in
initiating a competitive selection process without additional FTA
guidance. One of these officials said that they did not want to have to
begin a new process if their actions contradict any future FTA
guidance. Another state official with whom we spoke said that he would
like FTA to clarify questions his agency had about the competitive
selection process, such as what it means to certify that the state
derived projects that were based on a coordinated plan. FTA's proposed
final guidance provided recipients with additional information on how
to certify that they selected projects that were based on a coordinated
plan.
Other Implementation Challenges:
In addition to challenges related to the designated recipient,
coordinated planning, and competitive selection of JARC projects, state
and local officials we interviewed also cited implementation challenges
related to funding and their communication with FTA. Officials in
nearly half of the states and large urbanized areas we contacted did
not believe that the 10 percent of an area's JARC apportionment
available for administration, planning, and technical assistance would
be sufficient for these activities, although the reasons for these
beliefs varied. For example, officials in 1 state and in 1 large
urbanized area did not believe these funds would be sufficient because
they will incur higher initial costs to meet the new program
requirements, while officials in 2 other states and 1 large urbanized
area did not believe this funding would be sufficient due to the costs
of developing coordinated plans. FTA received a number of comments
about funding for administration, planning, and technical assistance,
and the September proposed final guidance informs recipients of other
sources of FTA funding that are available for planning activities.
These sources include funding from FTA's Urbanized and Non-urbanized
Area Formula programs as well as its Metropolitan and Statewide
Planning programs. The proposed final guidance also proposes that
recipients may combine the administrative funding available under the
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (known as Section
5310), JARC, and New Freedom programs to develop a single coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plan.[Footnote 33] In
addition, the proposed final guidance notes that the 10 percent of an
apportionment available for these activities is not specific to one
year, and that recipients may roll over administrative funding into a
subsequent year for the anticipated future costs of projects. Lastly,
the proposed final guidance notes that planning activities are an
eligible expense for the JARC program, beyond the 10 percent of an
apportionment available for administration, planning, and technical
assistance.
Several officials we interviewed also cited challenges in meeting the
JARC program matching requirements. Under SAFETEA-LU, grantees may use
federal JARC funding for 80 percent of capital expenses and 50 percent
of operating expenses. Matching funds may come from other federal
programs that are not administered by DOT, such as the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, as well as from
noncash sources, such as in-kind contributions and volunteer services.
One state official we interviewed, whose agency previously received
JARC funding, noted that the agency had struggled in the past to secure
matching funds and, as a result, has yet to spend all of its past
federal JARC funding. A metropolitan planning organization official we
interviewed noted that the ability of smaller nonprofit organizations
in her area to secure the required matching funds was an issue, because
these organizations have limited resources to use for matching funds.
In addition, 1 state official and officials in 1 large urbanized area
said that their areas anticipated or had seen cutbacks in matching
funding they had received in the past from agencies that provided
funding from programs such as TANF.[Footnote 34] As a result, these
officials said they will have less state and local matching funding
available for projects. Although the JARC matching requirements are set
in the SAFETEA-LU legislation, FTA's proposed final guidance provides
information on potential sources of matching funds for JARC projects.
While several officials we interviewed had positive comments about
FTA's efforts to solicit public input as it implements changes to JARC
and other programs, some officials also noted challenges they had
encountered in communicating with FTA regarding JARC implementation.
Receiving consistent information from FTA was one challenge cited by
officials we interviewed. As we previously noted, officials from one
metropolitan planning organization reported that they received
inconsistent information from different FTA staff in response to a
question about the responsibilities of the designated recipient. In
addition, officials we interviewed in 1 state said they received
different answers regarding the timeline for completing a coordinated
plan. Other officials we interviewed cited challenges in receiving
information to answer implementation questions. Officials in 2 states
we contacted noted difficulties in getting specific answers to their
implementation questions, with 1 state official noting that with new
programs, FTA should be prepared to answer specific questions about
program implementation instead of providing general information.
FTA Changed Its Evaluation and Oversight Strategies but Still Needs to
Address Monitoring Issues:
Although FTA revised its original JARC evaluation and oversight
proposals to respond to current and past concerns raised by program
stakeholders, gaps in monitoring may limit FTA's ability to assess
whether the program is meeting its goals. In previous work, we and
others have reported that FTA could better measure and communicate the
outcomes of the JARC program to program stakeholders, including
Congress and JARC grantees. To address these issues, FTA sought public
comment on four new performance measures--one specifically for JARC and
three crosscutting measures--and an existing data collection mechanism
to track JARC performance data, the National Transit Database (NTD).
However, several program stakeholders noted various obstacles to
collecting reliable data on FTA's proposed measures, and some state and
local officials we interviewed reported that it would be challenging to
use the NTD system. In addition, state and local officials expressed
ongoing concerns about the lack of feedback on their performance after
submitting their data to FTA. In response to these concerns, FTA
clarified the performance measures, introduced a plan to use its
existing grant management system for collecting performance data, and
proposed to be more explicit with grantees about how reported JARC
performance data were being used. FTA officials also reported that they
are testing the JARC performance measure and obtaining baseline data
for use in the required evaluation of the JARC program, which will be
submitted to Congress in August 2008. Even if FTA resolves its
performance measurement and reporting issues, gaps in monitoring may
continue to limit FTA's ability to evaluate and oversee the JARC
program. FTA plans to use existing oversight processes for monitoring
JARC recipients; however, FTA officials also noted that SAFETEA-LU did
not specifically provide project management oversight funds for the
JARC program. As a result, FTA officials are looking for alternate
sources of funding--such as the agency's administrative funding--to
provide program oversight for JARC.
Past Concerns about the JARC Program Have Included Performance
Measurement, Reporting, and Evaluation:
The need for agencies to measure performance is based upon the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),[Footnote
35]which was intended to improve federal program effectiveness,
accountability, and service delivery. GPRA helped create a
governmentwide focus on results by establishing a statutory framework
for performance management and accountability, with the necessary
infrastructure to generate meaningful performance information. This act
required federal agencies to develop strategic plans and annual
performance plans, link them with outcome-oriented goals, and measure
agency performance in achieving these goals. The Office of Management
and Budget also plays a role in GPRA implementation and reviews
agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. Overall, GPRA's requirements have laid a solid
foundation for results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and
reporting by providing more objective information on achieving goals
and on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs
and spending.
Past GAO reports on performance measurement and performance budgeting
have noted the importance of using outcome-oriented measures to assess
the extent to which a program achieves its objectives on an ongoing
basis and the importance of linking resources to results.[Footnote 36]
However, our previous reviews of the JARC program have found that FTA
lacked the data needed to evaluate and report on the program as
required by Congress. For example, in May 1998, we recommended that FTA
establish specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable
goals to assess how the JARC program would improve mobility for low-
income workers.[Footnote 37] In response, FTA instituted an evaluation
plan and selected access to employment sites as the sole measure of
program success. However, we later found that this measure did not
address key aspects of the program, such as increasing collaboration
between grantees and stakeholders and establishing transportation-
related services that help low-income individuals.[Footnote 38] We also
reported in August 2004 that grantees found it difficult to obtain the
data requested by FTA, such as the number of potential employers
reached by JARC services. Furthermore, the grantee reports used to
evaluate the JARC program contained self-reported information, which
FTA did not verify. As a result, we stated that FTA's 2003 evaluation
of JARC was limited because it lacked consistent, generalizable, and
complete information, thereby making it difficult to use these data to
draw any definitive conclusions about the program as a whole.[Footnote
39] In recognition of these concerns, FTA began taking steps to
consider ways to improve its evaluation process, such as revising the
JARC performance measures.
In previous reports on the JARC program, we and others have also
highlighted issues with FTA's reporting mechanism and lack of
communication with grantees about their performance. Performance
reporting is a critical element for establishing accountability and
evaluating whether and to what extent program managers are meeting the
goals contained within agency strategic and performance plans. In 2004,
we reported that JARC grantees were required to report quarterly data
using a database that many found to be burdensome. We also noted that
specific information in FTA's JARC evaluation may not have been
consistent because grantees did not follow a standardized reporting
system.[Footnote 40] Our past work on data quality has highlighted the
importance of ensuring that reported performance data are sufficiently
credible for decision making.[Footnote 41] In a 2003 FTA-contracted
study of JARC evaluation efforts, some grantees recommended that FTA
allow agencies to report performance data using existing systems, such
as the NTD, and that the reporting structure be flexible enough to
enter qualitative or narrative information to reflect the different
types of services provided by JARC programs.[Footnote 42] Grantees also
stated that they would be interested in receiving feedback from FTA on
the JARC evaluation process and stressed the importance of
communicating program findings to help them assess and improve their
performance.[Footnote 43] We previously have identified the
distribution of information in a form and time frame that allows
managers, staff, and external stakeholders to perform their duties and
to provide them with a basis for focusing their efforts and improving
performance as a critical practice for managing program
results.[Footnote 44]
FTA Clarified Its Proposed JARC Performance Measures and Introduced a
Different Reporting Mechanism in Response to Concerns Expressed by
Program Stakeholders:
FTA's extensive public participation process helped to inform changes
made to the proposed final guidance issued in September, including the
introduction of new performance measures to evaluate the JARC program
as well as a different reporting mechanism for collecting data. In its
March 2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies, FTA had proposed
using one JARC-specific measure and three crosscutting measures to
assess the JARC program's outcomes and impacts:
* Cumulative number of jobs accessed (JARC-specific): Cumulative number
of jobs reached through the provision of JARC-related services for low-
income individuals and welfare recipients.
* Efficiency of operations (crosscutting measure): Number of
communities and states reporting the use of shared resources between
different agencies and organizations so they can provide more rides for
people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower
incomes at the same or lower cost.
* Program effectiveness (crosscutting measure): Number of communities
that have a simple point of entry-coordinated human service
transportation system for people with disabilities, older adults, and
individuals with lower incomes so they have easier access to
transportation services.
* Customer satisfaction (crosscutting measure): Level of customer
satisfaction reported in areas related to the availability,
affordability, acceptability, and accessibility of transportation
services for people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals
with lower incomes.
According to FTA, the JARC-specific measure was intended to reduce the
numerous JARC data requirements, while the three crosscutting measures
reflected SAFETEA-LU's emphasis on the coordination of human services
transportation and would apply to the JARC, New Freedom, and Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) programs.
In addition, FTA proposed to address past concerns regarding the burden
of collecting program data on JARC by using existing mechanisms,
including the NTD, which is used to track operational, service, and
financial data on other transit formula programs.
In both the docket comments and in our interviews, program stakeholders
cited potential obstacles to collecting accurate data on the number of
jobs accessed measure, such as a lack of guidance from FTA and limited
resources (see table 3 for a summary of stakeholder concerns regarding
the proposed measures). For example, 7 state and local officials we
interviewed reported that FTA's definition for the number of jobs
accessed was unclear, or that they did not know how to determine this
measure. Specifically, one metropolitan planning organization official
wanted FTA to clarify whether the jobs accessed measure referred to the
number of low-income people using a JARC-funded service to travel to
their jobs or to the total number of jobs available in the area being
served by a JARC-funded service. Three state transportation officials
that we contacted were also concerned that they did not have sufficient
staff to conduct the required data collection. Program stakeholders
expressed similar concerns in their docket comments. For example, 2
stakeholders noted in their written comments to FTA that collecting
data on the proposed performance measures may be overly burdensome for
small agencies.
Table 3: Summary of Program Stakeholders' Challenges and Concerns and
FTA's Response to the Proposed JARC Performance Measures and Reporting
Mechanism:
Implementation information in FTA's interim guidance and proposed
strategies (March 2006): JARC-Specific Performance Measure: Cumulative
number of jobs accessed; Cumulative number of jobs reached through the
provision of JARC-related services for low-income individuals and
welfare recipients;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Collecting data on the number of jobs accessed is hard because it is
difficult to isolate JARC riders from other transit customers;
* Tracking whether JARC riders are using fixed-route systems[A] to
access jobs or for other purposes is challenging;
* Factors outside of agencies' control may make it difficult to measure
the number of jobs accessed;
* FTA's definition of "number of jobs accessed" is unclear, and it is
difficult to know how this measure will be determined;
* Administrative burden of collecting data on measures (e.g., number of
jobs accessed) is high for the amount of JARC funds available;
* Data collection will be burdensome for some agencies (e.g., rural or
small organizations) with limited staff capacity or resources;
FTA's response in proposed final guidance (September 2006): FTA
clarified that the proposed cumulative number of jobs accessed measure
in its proposed final guidance will measure the following: (1) the
increase in access to jobs related to geographic coverage and/or
service times that impact the availability of transportation services
for low-income individuals as a result of the JARC projects implemented
in the current reporting year and (2) the number of rides provided for
low-income individuals as a result of the JARC projects implemented in
the current reporting year. FTA has also hired a contractor to test the
feasibility of implementing the new increase in access to jobs measure.
Implementation information in FTA's interim guidance and proposed
strategies (March 2006): Crosscutting Performance Measure 1: Efficiency
of Operations; Number of communities and states reporting the use of
shared resources between different agencies and organizations so they
can provide more rides for people with disabilities, older adults, and
individuals with lower incomes at the same or lower cost;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Proposed measure does not translate well for measuring performance in
some areas (e.g., rural areas) and for providing service to underserved
populations;
* Concerned that operational efficiency is viewed as a "more service
for lower dollars" approach;
* Proposed measure reflects the number of coordination relationships
between communities and states reporting the use of shared resources,
rather than the increase in the total number of rides provided to the
different populations;
* Local areas need flexibility to develop performance measures that
meet and reflect the unique needs and conditions of their communities;
FTA's response in proposed final guidance (September 2006): FTA
officials did not include this measure in the proposed final guidance
on the basis of comments received. However, FTA officials reported that
they are developing a tool and plan to provide technical assistance
through the United We Ride Initiative to help states and local areas
measure their own performance.
Implementation information in FTA's interim guidance and proposed
strategies (March 2006): Crosscutting Performance Measure 2: Program
Effectiveness; Number of communities that have a simple point of entry-
coordinated human service transportation system for people with
disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes so they
have easier access to transportation services;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Proposed measure appears to give preference to projects with a
"simple point of entry coordinated human service transportation
system," which may not be the only way to achieve coordination in
different local areas;
* FTA's definition of "communities" is vague;
* Local areas need flexibility to develop performance measures that
meet and reflect the unique needs and conditions of their communities;
FTA's response in proposed final guidance (September 2006): FTA
officials did not include this measure in the proposed final guidance
on the basis of comments received. However, FTA officials reported that
they are developing a tool and plan to provide technical assistance
through the United We Ride Initiative to help states and local areas
measure their own performance.
Implementation information in FTA's interim guidance and proposed
strategies (March 2006): Crosscutting Performance Measure 3: Customer
Satisfaction; Level of customer satisfaction reported in areas related
to the availability, affordability, acceptability, and accessibility of
transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, and
individuals with lower incomes;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Proposed customer satisfaction measure is very subjective and
amorphous;
* Some agencies do not have the staff or resources to survey riders to
measure customer satisfaction;
* On- board transit surveys for some measures, such as customer
service, are expensive and labor-intensive to conduct;
* Local areas need flexibility to develop performance measures that
meet and reflect the unique needs and conditions of their communities;
FTA's response in proposed final guidance (September 2006): FTA
officials did not include this measure in the proposed final guidance
on the basis of comments received. However, FTA officials reported that
they are developing a tool and plan to provide technical assistance
through the United We Ride Initiative to help states and local areas
measure their own performance.
Implementation information in FTA's interim guidance and proposed
strategies (March 2006): JARC Reporting Mechanism: National Transit
Database[B]; JARC grantees would use the existing NTD system to collect
and report JARC performance data;
Challenges and concerns expressed by program stakeholders:
* Some providers, including rural and nontraditional recipients, may
find the NTD difficult to use for collecting and managing data;
* Smaller agencies may need staff training to use the NTD;
* Not all JARC information can be easily translated into the data
elements contained in the NTD;
FTA's response in proposed final guidance (September 2006): FTA will
not require grantees to use the NTD for data collection and reporting.
Instead, FTA proposes that grantees use their existing Transportation
Electronic Award and Management system for JARC reporting. This system
can be used to record qualitative information.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance, comments submitted to FTA's
docket, and interviews with state and local officials.
[A] Fixed-route systems refer to a system providing designated public
transportation on which a vehicle is operated along a prescribed route
according to a fixed schedule.
[B] FTA currently uses the NTD to collect uniform operational, service,
and financial data on existing department programs, including the
Urbanized Area and Nonurbanized Area Formula programs.
[C] United We Ride is an interagency federal national initiative that
supports states and their localities in developing coordinated human
service delivery systems. In addition to state coordination grants,
United We Ride provides state and local agencies with a transportation-
coordination and planning self-assessment tool, help along the way,
technical assistance, and other resources to help their communities
with these efforts.
[End of table]
FTA officials acknowledged that there was confusion among program
stakeholders about the JARC-specific measure and how it should be
measured, and they subsequently clarified the original proposal on the
basis of the comments received. FTA's proposed final guidance stated
that the JARC-specific measure would assess the following:
* Job access: The increase in access to jobs related to geographic
coverage and/or service times that impact the availability of
transportation services for low-income individuals as a result of the
JARC projects implemented in the current reporting year.
* Rides provided: The number of rides provided for low-income
individuals as a result of the JARC projects implemented in the current
reporting year.
According to FTA, the jobs accessed measure is a measure of "system
coverage," describing the number of jobs reachable by JARC-funded
services. FTA also clarified that the new measure is not a
determination of an actual number of riders who are getting and going
to jobs, which was a concern raised by some program stakeholders in
their docket comments and in our interviews. FTA also intends to
monitor JARC service use by measuring the number of rides actually
provided by the JARC service annually.
In addition to clarifying the JARC measure, FTA is also taking steps to
test its JARC performance measure and to collect baseline data for its
upcoming evaluation of the program. For example, FTA has hired a
contractor to examine the feasibility of collecting data for the
increase in the jobs accessed measure and is currently analyzing the
strategies for capturing this more precise measure and testing its
implementation. FTA also is soliciting public comments on the revised
JARC performance measures, which will be used to formulate the final
JARC guidance. Once the measures are finalized, FTA will test the JARC-
specific performance measure and plans to obtain baseline data for
fiscal year 2006 and beyond using JARC grants active during fiscal year
2005.[Footnote 45] FTA officials plan to use these data to conduct the
required evaluation of the JARC program, which must be submitted to
Congress in August 2008.[Footnote 46] FTA's proposed final guidance
states that it will conduct independent evaluations of the JARC program
focused on specific data elements to better understand the
implementation strategies and related outcomes associated with the
program. This approach is supported by our recent report on grants
management, in which we recommended that performance data should be
tested to make sure they are credible, reliable, and valid.[Footnote
47] An FTA official we spoke with told us that FTA hopes to have a
formal reporting methodology targeted to be in place by spring 2007.
Program stakeholders also reported potential difficulties with FTA's
proposed crosscutting national coordination measures to assess program
performance. (See table 3 for a summary of stakeholder concerns
regarding the proposed performance measures.) For example, some program
stakeholders stated in their docket comments that the performance
measures would be too prescriptive and would stifle local creativity,
while 13 stakeholders recommended that performance measures should be
developed locally to address local conditions and needs. Specifically,
two commenters noted that FTA's proposed crosscutting performance
measures did not necessarily acknowledge the differences in providing
JARC services in urbanized areas compared with rural areas, where the
number of transit providers may be limited and the routes typically
serve fewer people at a higher cost. In addition, two local officials
and one state department of transportation official that we interviewed
reported that measuring customer satisfaction would likely require
administering a survey, which could be expensive or labor-intensive.
In recognition of these concerns, FTA did not include the three
crosscutting coordination measures in its proposed final guidance,
noting instead that individual communities will have the option to
include evaluation strategies for their own activities. We have
previously observed that designing results-oriented performance
measures for intergovernmental programs, such as JARC, is complicated
by the broad range of objectives identified for some programs and the
discretion states and localities have in achieving those objectives.
According to FTA, the crosscutting measures were created in response to
recommendations stemming from the Interagency Coordinating Council on
Access and Mobility's United We Ride initiative to develop a national
performance measure for coordination. After reviewing the comments,
however, FTA officials that we interviewed told us that they realized
the difficulty of devising national measures and determined that
measuring coordination should be done at the local level. FTA also
clarified that the intent of the crosscutting measures was to capture a
national picture of JARC-funded services, rather than compare
individual communities or service systems. However, FTA officials
reported that they will encourage grantees to develop additional
measures for evaluating whether their programs are meeting their
intended state or local goals. This proposal is supported by our past
work, in which we reported that performance measures should tell each
organizational level how well it is achieving its goals.[Footnote 48]
In addition, the United We Ride initiative is developing a tool and
plans to provide technical assistance to assist with these efforts in
the future.
Program stakeholders expressed mixed opinions about FTA's proposal to
use the NTD to streamline data collection. For example, 5 state and
local agencies that we interviewed were generally positive about FTA's
proposal to use the NTD for JARC reporting, in part because they were
familiar with using this system to collect and report data on other FTA
programs. However, 5 agencies that we interviewed told us that small
and rural agencies may find it difficult to use the NTD for collecting
and managing data. In addition, two agency officials we interviewed
reported that NTD can be cumbersome to use, while two program
stakeholders noted in their docket comments that smaller agencies may
need staff training to use the NTD.
Due in part to the comments received, FTA decided not to use the NTD
for JARC reporting.[Footnote 49] FTA told us that while the NTD is in
place, it is currently not set up or designed to collect the
qualitative measures that are important for understanding the trends
related to human service transportation. FTA proposed that JARC
grantees report their data as an attachment to their annual report
submissions in the Transportation Electronic Award and Management
(TEAM) system, which the agency uses to manage and track its grants.
One FTA official told us that TEAM would be better suited for
collecting JARC data because it can track qualitative information, and
that JARC grantees that receive funding through other FTA programs
would be familiar with how to collect and report data using TEAM.
Finally, state and local officials that we interviewed also expressed
ongoing concerns about the lack of feedback on their JARC performance
after they report data to FTA, which may limit their ability to manage
program performance. For example, 19 of the 23 states and large
urbanized areas that had received JARC grants in the past commented
that FTA had not provided them with any feedback on their performance
data after it was submitted. Three state and local officials also told
us that they would like to know how the performance data they report is
being used by FTA. Meanwhile, two state transportation officials and
two local officials said that receiving feedback from FTA would be
helpful to know how they are performing and to make improvements or
corrections. Previous reports by GAO and others[Footnote 50] have found
that providing frequent and effective feedback on performance
information can enhance its use for decision making.[Footnote 51]
According to FTA, the JARC data collected to date have not been
intended to be used to evaluate individual projects, but rather were
geared toward assessing how the program was achieving goals nationally,
as required by GPRA and the Office of Management and Budget. However,
during a recent interview with FTA officials, they said that they would
be more explicit with grantees about how they are using JARC
performance data, and that they are open to exploring the possibility
of posting this information on the FTA Web site in the future.
Gaps in Monitoring May Limit FTA's Ability to Evaluate and Oversee the
JARC Program:
Even if FTA resolves its performance measurement and reporting issues,
gaps in its plan for monitoring JARC recipients may continue to limit
FTA's ability to evaluate and oversee the program. While FTA has
proposed using existing oversight processes to monitor JARC recipients,
these oversight processes do not explicitly include provisions for
oversight of the JARC program. Furthermore, FTA's proposed process for
oversight of agencies that do not fall under existing processes could
lead to inconsistent oversight of JARC recipients.
FTA does not have a complete plan for oversight of the JARC program.
Monitoring of policies and procedures to ensure proper stewardship of
government resources is an important aspect of internal control. FTA is
responsible for ensuring that grantees follow federal mandates along
with statutory and administrative requirements. In its March interim
guidance and proposed strategies, FTA stated that it would monitor
implementation of JARC and other programs using pre-and post-award
review processes used for grant applications and grant management,
including self-certifications, progress reports, and site visits. FTA's
proposed final guidance states that FTA will also use existing
oversight processes for other FTA programs to conduct JARC oversight.
These processes are as follows:
* State Management Reviews: These reviews assess states' implementation
and management of the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities program (Section 5310) and the Nonurbanized Area Formula
program (Section 5311).
* Triennial Reviews: These reviews assess grantees receiving Urbanized
Area Formula program (Section 5307) grants. These grantees are
primarily transit agencies and some metropolitan planning
organizations.
FTA has proposed using these processes--which FTA uses for oversight of
programs that award funding to states, transit agencies, and
metropolitan planning organizations--to oversee the JARC program
because they should cover most JARC designated recipients. FTA's
proposed final guidance also notes that JARC designated recipients that
are not a state or a Section 5307 recipient may be subjected to
periodic spot reviews of their administration of the program. However,
two issues with FTA's monitoring proposal may result in gaps in its
oversight of the JARC program.
First, the use of periodic spot reviews of designated recipients that
are not states or Section 5307 recipients may result in inconsistent
monitoring of JARC recipients. For example, while some metropolitan
planning organizations that serve as JARC designated recipients also
receive Section 5307 funding and will be subject to FTA oversight
through its triennial review process, other metropolitan planning
organizations serving as JARC designated recipients do not receive
Section 5307 funding, and will be subject to FTA oversight through its
proposed periodic spot reviews. It is not clear from FTA's proposed
final guidance if these periodic reviews will be more or less frequent
than the 3-year cycle of FTA's triennial reviews and state management
reviews. As a result, JARC designated recipients may be held to
different oversight standards on the basis of what other types of FTA
funding they receive.
Second, FTA's existing oversight processes currently do not include
provisions for JARC program oversight. For example, FTA's State
Management Review guidance, which contains information on the Section
5311 program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities program, does not include JARC program requirements and
information, such as the requirement to distribute funds on a fair and
equitable basis. We previously noted that this requirement would be
important for recipients to adhere to in order to address potential
conflict-of-interest concerns. While FTA officials said that they have
begun to work to incorporate JARC into their existing oversight
processes, they noted that SAFETEA-LU omitted JARC from the list of
programs for which FTA may specifically use appropriated funds to
obtain contractual support for project management oversight and review
of major capital projects.[Footnote 52] They are presently researching
other sources of funding--such as the agency's general administrative
funding--that can be used to ask detailed programmatic questions of
JARC recipients and to conduct site visits and project reviews. FTA
officials also said that they currently do not know how much of a
problem this will pose, because they do not yet know which entities
will be the designated recipients for most of the areas receiving JARC
funds. As a result, they are uncertain of how many JARC designated
recipients will already be covered by existing oversight processes
because they receive funds for other FTA programs, such as Section
5307. Given this issue, FTA officials said that they were still
determining the frequency and level of JARC oversight that could be
supported with their current resources. Until it develops a complete
plan for implementing and funding JARC oversight, FTA's key oversight
processes will not provide assurance that recipients are meeting
program requirements.
Conclusions:
FTA has made progress in implementing changes to the JARC program,
gathering extensive public input to develop program guidance for states
and large urbanized areas. However, FTA lacks an important element of
program accountability and performance measurement for the JARC
program, specifically related to monitoring. FTA officials have
proposed to use the agency's oversight mechanisms for other FTA
programs for JARC monitoring, but acknowledged that they have not
finalized how this will work. Without the inclusion of JARC program
requirements--such as the fair and equitable distribution of funding--
in these existing oversight processes, FTA will have limited assurances
that JARC recipients are administering the program in accordance with
FTA's requirements and are meeting program objectives. In addition, FTA
has proposed an alternative oversight process for recipients that are
not covered by its existing Triennial Reviews and State Management
Reviews, but FTA has not specified how often these recipients will be
subject to its oversight, which may result in inconsistent or
infrequent oversight of JARC recipients.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To establish adequate and consistent oversight processes that will
enable FTA to evaluate and oversee JARC projects and determine whether
they are meeting JARC program goals, we recommend that the Secretary of
Transportation direct the Administrator, FTA, to take the following two
actions:
* Develop a plan for including the JARC program in Triennial Reviews
and State Management Reviews, and update monitoring guidance and
information accordingly.
* Specify in the JARC final guidance how frequently FTA will perform
spot reviews of designated recipients that are not subject to FTA's
Triennial Reviews and State Management Reviews, and make the interval
for conducting spot reviews consistent with the 3-year cycles for
Triennial Reviews and State Management Reviews, or more frequently if
FTA determines it necessary.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
for review and comment. Officials from the department and FTA generally
agreed with the report's findings and said that they would consider the
recommendations as they move forward in implementing the JARC program.
Although FTA officials recognized the need for program oversight and
indicated that they are already taking steps to incorporate the JARC
program into their existing review processes, they reiterated their
concerns that SAFETEA-LU did not provide them with a specific source of
oversight funding for the JARC program. As a result, they are seeking
other sources of funding--such as the agency's general administrative
funds--to carry out this activity. Finally, FTA officials provided
technical clarifications, which we incorporated in the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees with
responsibility for transit issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; and the Director, Office
of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me on
(202) 512-2834 or at siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report addresses the following four objectives: (1) changes that
were made to the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program as a
result of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); (2) progress that the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made in implementing these
changes; (3) the extent to which states and large urbanized areas have
implemented changes to the JARC program, and challenges they have
encountered; and (4) whether FTA's proposed strategy for evaluating and
overseeing the JARC program will allow the agency to assess the extent
to which the program is meeting its stated goals.
To identify the changes that SAFETEA-LU made to the JARC program, we
reviewed the provisions of SAFETEA-LU and of its predecessor, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), dealing with
the JARC program. We also reviewed previous GAO reports on JARC and
interviewed officials from FTA's headquarters and one regional office.
To summarize financial information for JARC for fiscal years 1999
through 2009, we gathered and analyzed data from FTA's Web site and
agency officials on dollar amounts authorized, appropriated, rescinded,
obligated, and unobligated. To assess the reliability of these data, we
interviewed FTA officials about FTA's policies and procedures for data
collection and verification. Specifically, we asked them whether their
policies and procedures had changed significantly since we reviewed
them for our 2004 report on JARC.[Footnote 53] FTA officials told us
that there were no significant changes in their data collection and
verification procedures for JARC information. We also compared these
data with data published in the Federal Register and data on FTA's Web
site for obvious errors in completeness and accuracy. Therefore, we
determined that the FTA information presented was sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report.
To describe the progress FTA has made in implementing changes to JARC,
we interviewed FTA officials and officials from industry associations,
including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, the American Public Transportation Association, the
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Community
Transportation Association of America, and the National Association of
Regional Councils, to obtain their views on FTA's progress in
implementing the program changes. We also reviewed FTA's JARC interim
program guidance for fiscal year 2006 and proposed strategies for
fiscal year 2007 (issued in March 2006), and its proposed final
guidance for fiscal year 2007 (issued in September 2006).[Footnote 54]
To describe the extent to which states and large urbanized areas have
implemented changes to the JARC program and any challenges they have
encountered in doing so, we obtained data from FTA officials on the
number of states and large urbanized areas that had officially
designated a recipient for JARC funds, selected projects and applied
for funding, and obligated funds.
To determine whether FTA's proposed strategy for evaluating and
overseeing the JARC program will allow the agency to assess whether the
program is meeting its stated goals, we interviewed FTA officials about
their performance measurement and evaluation plans. We reviewed FTA's
earlier JARC program evaluation, Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program: Report to Congress (May 2003). We also reviewed relevant
legislation, FTA program guidance, Office of Management and Budget
circulars and guidance on performance measurement, prior GAO JARC
reports, and GAO reports and guidance on performance measurement and
program evaluation. We did not evaluate FTA's proposed performance
measures, because those measures were too preliminary at the time of
our review to allow meaningful comparison with our criteria for
successful performance measures. In addition, FTA had recently hired a
contractor to evaluate the feasibility of collecting data for one of
the proposed measures.
To address the third and fourth objectives, we also designed and
conducted semistructured telephone interviews with officials from 24 of
the 209 states and large urbanized areas that were apportioned fiscal
year 2006 JARC funds. The interviews were designed to gain state and
local officials' perspectives on a number of topics, including the
effect of changing from a discretionary program to a formula-based
program on JARC services in their area; the process of selecting a
designated recipient, developing a coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan, and conducting a competitive selection
process for JARC projects; FTA's proposed performance measures and
program oversight mechanisms for JARC; and any challenges they may have
encountered in implementing changes to the JARC program. After
conducting the interviews with all 24 states and large urbanized areas,
we used a content analysis to systematically determine the state and
local officials' views on key interview questions and identify common
themes in their responses. Two analysts reached consensus on the coding
of the responses, and a third reviewer was consulted in case of
disagreements, to ensure that the codes were reliable. The interviews
included officials from the departments of transportation of 12 states
and from 8 metropolitan planning organizations and 9 transportation
agencies from 12 large urbanized areas. We conducted the interviews in
June, July, and August 2006.
We selected the 12 states to obtain diversity in a range of criteria,
as follows:
* Change in JARC funding: Analyzed the percentage change and selected 4
states that received an increase in their federal JARC funds from
fiscal years 2005 to 2006, 5 states whose JARC funds decreased from
2005 to 2006, 1 state that received approximately the same amount of
funding in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and 2 states that did not
receive JARC funds in 2005.
* Comments: Whether a state department of transportation had submitted
comments to the Department of Transportation's (DOT) online docket on
FTA's interim JARC program guidance for fiscal year 2006 and proposed
strategies for fiscal year 2007.
* Statewide program: Whether a state was identified in FTA's fiscal
year 2005 grant apportionment notice as having a statewide JARC
program, which meant that the state likely had previous experience in
administering JARC funds.
* Designated recipient: Whether a state had notified FTA of its
designated recipient (as of June 2006) for the JARC funds, from which
we inferred that a state had taken some action to implement the JARC
program.
* Planning funds: Whether a state had applied to FTA for 10 percent of
its apportionment for planning/administration/technical assistance, as
allowed by statute, from which we inferred that a state had taken some
action to implement the JARC program.
* Recommendations: Referral by FTA or industry associations.
Table 4 lists the 12 states that we selected on the basis of these
criteria.
Table 4: State Agencies Interviewed for Our Review:
State: Alabama;
Agency: Alabama Department of Transportation.
State: Alaska;
Agency: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
State: Arkansas;
Agency: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department.
State: California;
Agency: California Department of Transportation.
State: Maryland;
Agency: Maryland Transit Administration.
State: New Mexico;
Agency: New Mexico Department of Transportation.
State: Oklahoma;
Agency: Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
State: Texas;
Agency: Texas Department of Transportation.
State: Virginia;
Agency: Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
State: Washington;
Agency: Washington State Department of Transportation.
State: West Virginia;
Agency: West Virginia Department of Transportation.
State: Wyoming;
Agency: Wyoming Department of Transportation.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To obtain the perspectives of small urbanized areas and rural areas
that had previously received JARC grants directly and would now have to
apply to the state designated recipient for funding, we supplemented
the state interviews with interviews with officials from a
transportation agency in Galveston, Texas--a small urbanized area--and
from a nonprofit agency in Stigler, Oklahoma, that provides
transportation in rural areas of the state.
We selected 12 large urbanized areas to obtain diversity in a range of
criteria, as follows:
* Prior receipt of JARC funding: Whether a large urbanized area had
received a JARC grant prior to fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 55]
* Receipt of fiscal year 2006 funding: Whether a large urbanized area
had successfully applied to FTA for its fiscal year 2006 JARC funding
(as of July 2006).
* Comments: Whether a metropolitan planning organization or local
transportation agency in a large urbanized area had submitted comments
to the DOT's online docket on FTA's interim JARC program guidance for
fiscal year 2006 and proposed strategies for fiscal year 2007.
* Designated recipient: Whether a large urbanized area had notified FTA
of its designated recipient (as of July 2006) for the JARC funds, from
which we inferred that the area had taken some action to implement the
JARC program.
* Recommendations: Referral by FTA or industry associations.
* Population: Whether a large urbanized area had a population over 1
million.
* Multistate area: Whether the large urbanized area covers multiple
states, which we assumed could present unique issues for an area in
implementing the JARC program.
* Location: Whether the large urbanized area was in a state that we had
already selected for interviews.
Table 5 lists the 12 large urbanized areas we selected on the basis of
these criteria, and the agencies that we interviewed.
Table 5: Large Urbanized Area Agencies Interviewed for Our Review:
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Agency: Mid-Region Council of Governments.
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Agency: ABQ Ride.
Location: Birmingham, Alabama;
Agency: Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority.
Location: Denver, Colorado;
Agency: Denver Regional Council of Governments.
Location: Denver, Colorado;
Agency: Denver Regional Transportation District.
Location: Fresno, California;
Agency: Fresno Council of Governments.
Location: Fresno, California;
Agency: City of Fresno Department of Transportation.
Location: Kansas City, Missouri;
Agency: Mid-America Regional Council.
Location: Los Angeles, California;
Agency: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Location: Lubbock, Texas;
Agency: Citibus.
Location: Memphis, Tennessee;
Agency: Memphis Area Transit Authority.
Location: Riverside/San Bernardino, California;
Agency: Southern California Association of Governments.
Location: Seattle, Washington;
Agency: Puget Sound Regional Council.
Location: Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida;
Agency: Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Location: Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida;
Agency: Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority.
Location: Washington, D.C;
Agency: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Location: Washington, D.C;
Agency: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
It is important to note that these interviews cannot be generalized to
the entire JARC recipient population because they were selected from a
nonprobability sample.
We supplemented the information obtained from these semistructured
interviews by analyzing the more than 200 public comments submitted to
DOT's online docket regarding FTA's interim program guidance for fiscal
year 2006 and proposed guidance for fiscal year 2007. We used a content
analysis to systematically identify common themes in the comments
submitted. Two analysts reached consensus on the coding of the
responses, and a third reviewer was consulted in case of disagreements,
to ensure that the codes were reliable. In summarizing the comments for
appendix III, we only included comments that were made by more than one
entity.
We conducted our work from May through October 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Funding:
Table 6: Total JARC Apportionments for States and Large Urbanized
Areas, Fiscal Years 2004-2006:
State: Alabama;
Fiscal year: 2004: $4,460,669;
Fiscal year: 2005: $6,046,205;
Fiscal year: 2006: $2,391,281.
State: Alaska;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,610,797;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,709,786;
Fiscal year: 2006: 207,503.
State: American Samoa;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0 ;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 82,198.
State: Arizona;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,734,705;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,646,131.
State: Arkansas;
Fiscal year: 2004: 446,067;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,406,220.
State: California;
Fiscal year: 2004: 5,515,370;
Fiscal year: 2005: 10,010,929;
Fiscal year: 2006: 19,573,127.
State: Colorado;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,221,339;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,670,641.
State: Connecticut;
Fiscal year: 2004: 3,221,594;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,477,954;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,126,113.
State: Delaware;
Fiscal year: 2004: 743,445;
Fiscal year: 2005: 743,386;
Fiscal year: 2006: 263,929.
State: District of Columbia;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,982,520;
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,716,930;
Fiscal year: 2006: 379,168.
State: Florida;
Fiscal year: 2004: 3,469,409;
Fiscal year: 2005: 594,708;
Fiscal year: 2006: 8,292,479.
State: Georgia;
Fiscal year: 2004: 991,260;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,180,598;
Fiscal year: 2006: 3,726,294.
State: Guam;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 82,308.
State: Hawaii;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 456,441.
State: Idaho;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 629,153.
State: Illinois;
Fiscal year: 2004: 817,789;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,120,034;
Fiscal year: 2006: 5,042,471.
State: Indiana;
Fiscal year: 2004: 743,445;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,377,741;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,303,911.
State: Iowa;
Fiscal year: 2004: 991,260;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,982,362;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,034,427.
State: Kansas;
Fiscal year: 2004: 2,914,304;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,387,653;
Fiscal year: 2006: 927,663.
State: Kentucky;
Fiscal year: 2004: 297,378;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,139,859;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,844,076.
State: Louisiana;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,477,954;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,888,701.
State: Maine;
Fiscal year: 2004: 489,682;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,486,772;
Fiscal year: 2006: 505,003.
State: Maryland;
Fiscal year: 2004: 5,253,677;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,676,190;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,774,151.
State: Massachusetts;
Fiscal year: 2004: 674,056;
Fiscal year: 2005: 991,182;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,325,356.
State: Michigan;
Fiscal year: 2004: 3,667,662;
Fiscal year: 2005: 4,162,961;
Fiscal year: 2006: 3,979,218.
State: Minnesota;
Fiscal year: 2004: 495,630;
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,147,001;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,414,253.
State: Mississippi;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,457,627.
State: Missouri;
Fiscal year: 2004: 4,460,669;
Fiscal year: 2005: 6,393,119;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,233,393.
State: Montana;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 456,288.
State: Nebraska;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 561,622.
State: Nevada;
Fiscal year: 2004: 495,630;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,982,362;
Fiscal year: 2006: 857,434.
State: New Hampshire;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 352,447.
State: New Jersey;
Fiscal year: 2004: 5,005,862;
Fiscal year: 2005: 5,203,702;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,838,709.
State: New Mexico;
Fiscal year: 2004: 594,756;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,527,513;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,094,686.
State: New York;
Fiscal year: 2004: 8,846,994;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,833,685;
Fiscal year: 2006: 9,760,182.
State: North Carolina;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 3,355,608.
State: North Dakota;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 198,236;
Fiscal year: 2006: 291,404.
State: Northern Mariana Islands;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 125,962.
State: Ohio;
Fiscal year: 2004: 2,081,646;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,131,039;
Fiscal year: 2006: 4,425,095.
State: Oklahoma;
Fiscal year: 2004: 5,947,550;
Fiscal year: 2005: 7,929,461;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,625,985.
State: Oregon;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,090,386;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,676,189;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,467,897.
State: Pennsylvania;
Fiscal year: 2004: 8,072,819;
Fiscal year: 2005: 14,553,514;
Fiscal year: 2006: 5,022,975.
State: Puerto Rico;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 6,632,323.
State: Rhode Island;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,399,659;
Fiscal year: 2005: 1,635,449;
Fiscal year: 2006: 466,849.
State: South Carolina;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,872,308.
State: South Dakota;
Fiscal year: 2004: 247,815;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 312,746.
State: Tennessee;
Fiscal year: 2004: 7,112,288;
Fiscal year: 2005: 7,681,654;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,670,486.
State: Texas;
Fiscal year: 2004: 5,457,846;
Fiscal year: 2005: 2,329,275;
Fiscal year: 2006: 12,423,907.
State: Utah;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 890,393.
State: Vermont;
Fiscal year: 2004: 247,815;
Fiscal year: 2005: 991,182;
Fiscal year: 2006: 186,885.
State: Virgin Islands;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 82,637.
State: Virginia;
Fiscal year: 2004: 1,645,492;
Fiscal year: 2005: 84,249;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,553,291.
State: Washington;
Fiscal year: 2004: 4,708,484;
Fiscal year: 2005: 4,782,450;
Fiscal year: 2006: 2,479,628.
State: West Virginia;
Fiscal year: 2004: 991,260;
Fiscal year: 2005: 991,182;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,059,097.
State: Wisconsin;
Fiscal year: 2004: 2,577,275;
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,855,696;
Fiscal year: 2006: 1,887,559.
State: Wyoming;
Fiscal year: 2004: 0;
Fiscal year: 2005: 0;
Fiscal year: 2006: 202,360.
State: Community Transportation Association of America's national
Joblinks program;
Fiscal year: 2004: 2,478,149;
Fiscal year: 2005: 3,270,899;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0.
State: Technical assistance support and performance reviews of the JARC
grants program (DC);
Fiscal year: 2004: 298,230;
Fiscal year: 2005: 297,600;
Fiscal year: 2006: 0.
State: Total;
Fiscal year: 2004: $104,380,500;
Fiscal year: 2005: $124,000,000;
Fiscal year: 2006: $136,620,000.
Source: FTA.
[End of table]
Table 7: Job Access and Reverse Commute Apportionments for Fiscal Year
2006:
Urbanized area/state: 200,000 or more in population (large urbanized
areas);
Apportionment: $81,972,000.
Urbanized area/state: 50,000-199,999 in population (small urbanized
areas);
Apportionment: 27,324,000.
Urbanized area/state: Nonurbanized areas;
Apportionment: 27,324,000.
Urbanized area/state: National Total;
Apportionment: $136,620,000.
Source: FTA.
[End of table]
Table 8: Amounts Apportioned to Large Urbanized Areas 200,000 or More
in Population:
Urbanized area/state: Aguadilla--Isabela--San Sebastian, PR;
Apportionment: $530,843.
Urbanized area/state: Akron, OH;
Apportionment: 248,837.
Urbanized area/state: Albany, NY;
Apportionment: 230,802.
Urbanized area/state: Albuquerque, NM;
Apportionment: 326,277.
Urbanized area/state: Allentown--Bethlehem, PA--NJ;
Apportionment: 216,401.
Urbanized area/state: Anchorage, AK;
Apportionment: 83,959.
Urbanized area/state: Ann Arbor, MI;
Apportionment: 121,240.
Urbanized area/state: Antioch, CA;
Apportionment: 84,732.
Urbanized area/state: Asheville, NC;
Apportionment: 114,045.
Urbanized area/state: Atlanta, GA;
Apportionment: 1,343,016.
Urbanized area/state: Atlantic City, NJ;
Apportionment: 97,112.
Urbanized area/state: Augusta-Richmond County, GA--SC;
Apportionment: 191,466.
Urbanized area/state: Austin, TX;
Apportionment: 406,084.
Urbanized area/state: Bakersfield, CA;
Apportionment: 318,265.
Urbanized area/state: Baltimore, MD;
Apportionment: 871,013.
Urbanized area/state: Barnstable Town, MA;
Apportionment: 75,115.
Urbanized area/state: Baton Rouge, LA;
Apportionment: 294,683.
Urbanized area/state: Birmingham, AL;
Apportionment: 356,107.
Urbanized area/state: Boise City, ID;
Apportionment: 97,255.
Urbanized area/state: Bonita Springs--Naples, FL;
Apportionment: 73,314.
Urbanized area/state: Boston, MA--NH--RI;
Apportionment: 1,373,901.
Urbanized area/state: Bridgeport--Stamford, CT--NY;
Apportionment: 260,506.
Urbanized area/state: Buffalo, NY;
Apportionment: 484,616.
Urbanized area/state: Canton, OH;
Apportionment: 112,893.
Urbanized area/state: Cape Coral, FL;
Apportionment: 147,513.
Urbanized area/state: Charleston--North Charleston, SC;
Apportionment: 219,710.
Urbanized area/state: Charlotte, NC--SC;
Apportionment: 277,956.
Urbanized area/state: Chattanooga, TN--GA;
Apportionment: 168,882.
Urbanized area/state: Chicago, IL--IN;
Apportionment: 3,537,943.
Urbanized area/state: Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN;
Apportionment: 579,180.
Urbanized area/state: Cleveland, OH;
Apportionment: 777,417.
Urbanized area/state: Colorado Springs, CO;
Apportionment: 169,456.
Urbanized area/state: Columbia, SC;
Apportionment: 191,671.
Urbanized area/state: Columbus, GA--AL;
Apportionment: 149,168.
Urbanized area/state: Columbus, OH;
Apportionment: 487,856.
Urbanized area/state: Concord, CA;
Apportionment: 100,625.
Urbanized area/state: Corpus Christi, TX;
Apportionment: 200,511.
Urbanized area/state: Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX;
Apportionment: 1,987,478.
Urbanized area/state: Davenport, IA--IL;
Apportionment: 125,901.
Urbanized area/state: Dayton, OH;
Apportionment: 303,522.
Urbanized area/state: Daytona Beach--Port Orange, FL;
Apportionment: 136,539.
Urbanized area/state: Denton--Lewisville, TX;
Apportionment: 83,301.
Urbanized area/state: Denver--Aurora, CO;
Apportionment: 698,475.
Urbanized area/state: Des Moines, IA;
Apportionment: 127,421.
Urbanized area/state: Detroit, MI;
Apportionment: 1,684,895.
Urbanized area/state: Durham, NC;
Apportionment: 152,453.
Urbanized area/state: El Paso, TX--NM;
Apportionment: 640,747.
Urbanized area/state: Eugene, OR;
Apportionment: 133,005.
Urbanized area/state: Evansville, IN--KY;
Apportionment: 99,338.
Urbanized area/state: Fayetteville, NC;
Apportionment: 152,079.
Urbanized area/state: Flint, MI;
Apportionment: 207,202.
Urbanized area/state: Fort Collins, CO;
Apportionment: 85,767.
Urbanized area/state: Fort Wayne, IN;
Apportionment: 120,203.
Urbanized area/state: Fresno, CA;
Apportionment: 479,768.
Urbanized area/state: Grand Rapids, MI;
Apportionment: 207,260.
Urbanized area/state: Greensboro, NC;
Apportionment: 115,730.
Urbanized area/state: Greenville, SC;
Apportionment: 154,803.
Urbanized area/state: Gulfport--Biloxi, MS;
Apportionment: 116,718.
Urbanized area/state: Harrisburg, PA;
Apportionment: 118,352.
Urbanized area/state: Hartford, CT;
Apportionment: 314,651.
Urbanized area/state: Honolulu, HI;
Apportionment: 296,056.
Urbanized area/state: Houston, TX;
Apportionment: 2,225,913.
Urbanized area/state: Huntsville, AL;
Apportionment: 91,103.
Urbanized area/state: Indianapolis, IN;
Apportionment: 462,916.
Urbanized area/state: Indio--Cathedral City--Palm Springs, CA;
Apportionment: 167,671.
Urbanized area/state: Jackson, MS;
Apportionment: 188,181.
Urbanized area/state: Jacksonville, FL;
Apportionment: 395,633.
Urbanized area/state: Kansas City, MO--KS;
Apportionment: 520,534.
Urbanized area/state: Knoxville, TN;
Apportionment: 210,450.
Urbanized area/state: Lancaster, PA;
Apportionment: 109,172.
Urbanized area/state: Lancaster--Palmdale, CA;
Apportionment: 163,748.
Urbanized area/state: Lansing, MI;
Apportionment: 150,738.
Urbanized area/state: Las Vegas, NV;
Apportionment: 611,063.
Urbanized area/state: Lexington-Fayette, KY;
Apportionment: 125,080.
Urbanized area/state: Lincoln, NE;
Apportionment: 93,940.
Urbanized area/state: Little Rock, AR;
Apportionment: 193,589.
Urbanized area/state: Los Angeles--Long Beach--Santa Ana, CA;
Apportionment: 8,008,861.
Urbanized area/state: Louisville, KY--IN;
Apportionment: 402,958.
Urbanized area/state: Lubbock, TX;
Apportionment: 143,142.
Urbanized area/state: Madison, WI;
Apportionment: 141,053.
Urbanized area/state: McAllen, TX;
Apportionment: 667,460.
Urbanized area/state: Memphis, TN--MS--AR;
Apportionment: 582,443.
Urbanized area/state: Miami, FL;
Apportionment: 2,798,658.
Urbanized area/state: Milwaukee, WI;
Apportionment: 586,353.
Urbanized area/state: Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN;
Apportionment: 713,835.
Urbanized area/state: Mission Viejo, CA;
Apportionment: 110,760.
Urbanized area/state: Mobile, AL;
Apportionment: 230,386.
Urbanized area/state: Modesto, CA;
Apportionment: 206,464.
Urbanized area/state: Nashville-Davidson, TN;
Apportionment: 333,424.
Urbanized area/state: New Haven, CT;
Apportionment: 200,291.
Urbanized area/state: New Orleans, LA;
Apportionment: 747,095.
Urbanized area/state: New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT;
Apportionment: 9,052,591.
Urbanized area/state: Ogden--Layton, UT;
Apportionment: 140,657.
Urbanized area/state: Oklahoma City, OK;
Apportionment: 425,034.
Urbanized area/state: Omaha, NE--IA;
Apportionment: 258,026.
Urbanized area/state: Orlando, FL;
Apportionment: 549,368.
Urbanized area/state: Oxnard, CA;
Apportionment: 186,082.
Urbanized area/state: Palm Bay--Melbourne, FL;
Apportionment: 162,591.
Urbanized area/state: Pensacola, FL--AL;
Apportionment: 178,078.
Urbanized area/state: Peoria, IL;
Apportionment: 118,652.
Urbanized area/state: Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD;
Apportionment: 2,177,282.
Urbanized area/state: Phoenix--Mesa, AZ;
Apportionment: 1,437,345.
Urbanized area/state: Pittsburgh, PA;
Apportionment: 755,115.
Urbanized area/state: Port St. Lucie, FL;
Apportionment: 134,102.
Urbanized area/state: Portland, OR--WA;
Apportionment: 651,875.
Urbanized area/state: Poughkeepsie--Newburgh, NY;
Apportionment: 138,244.
Urbanized area/state: Providence, RI--MA;
Apportionment: 550,347.
Urbanized area/state: Provo--Orem, UT;
Apportionment: 165,680.
Urbanized area/state: Raleigh, NC;
Apportionment: 167,695.
Urbanized area/state: Reading, PA;
Apportionment: 108,520.
Urbanized area/state: Reno, NV;
Apportionment: 135,396.
Urbanized area/state: Richmond, VA;
Apportionment: 325,063.
Urbanized area/state: Riverside--San Bernardino, CA;
Apportionment: 1,025,531.
Urbanized area/state: Rochester, NY;
Apportionment: 302,343.
Urbanized area/state: Rockford, IL;
Apportionment: 111,425.
Urbanized area/state: Round Lake Beach--McHenry--Grayslake, IL--WI;
Apportionment: 46,165.
Urbanized area/state: Sacramento, CA;
Apportionment: 735,658.
Urbanized area/state: Salem, OR;
Apportionment: 204,737.
Urbanized area/state: Salt Lake City, UT;
Apportionment: 323,584.
Urbanized area/state: San Antonio, TX;
Apportionment: 860,804.
Urbanized area/state: San Diego, CA;
Apportionment: 1,401,052.
Urbanized area/state: San Francisco--Oakland, CA;
Apportionment: 1,250,507.
Urbanized area/state: San Jose, CA;
Apportionment: 461,635.
Urbanized area/state: San Juan, PR;
Apportionment: 3,175,710.
Urbanized area/state: Santa Rosa, CA;
Apportionment: 105,190.
Urbanized area/state: Sarasota--Bradenton, FL;
Apportionment: 224,190.
Urbanized area/state: Savannah, GA;
Apportionment: 134,548.
Urbanized area/state: Scranton, PA;
Apportionment: 192,821.
Urbanized area/state: Seattle, WA;
Apportionment: 961,747.
Urbanized area/state: Shreveport, LA;
Apportionment: 199,860.
Urbanized area/state: South Bend, IN--MI;
Apportionment: 122,001.
Urbanized area/state: Spokane, WA--ID;
Apportionment: 178,704.
Urbanized area/state: Springfield, MA--CT;
Apportionment: 276,090.
Urbanized area/state: Springfield, MO;
Apportionment: 118,633.
Urbanized area/state: St. Louis, MO--IL;
Apportionment: 853,416.
Urbanized area/state: Stockton, CA;
Apportionment: 263,196.
Urbanized area/state: Syracuse, NY;
Apportionment: 204,341.
Urbanized area/state: Tallahassee, FL;
Apportionment: 132,584.
Urbanized area/state: Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL;
Apportionment: 978,029.
Urbanized area/state: Temecula--Murrieta, CA;
Apportionment: 87,126.
Urbanized area/state: Thousand Oaks, CA;
Apportionment: 47,093.
Urbanized area/state: Toledo, OH--MI;
Apportionment: 252,191.
Urbanized area/state: Trenton, NJ;
Apportionment: 99,038.
Urbanized area/state: Tucson, AZ;
Apportionment: 441,408.
Urbanized area/state: Tulsa, OK;
Apportionment: 285,281.
Urbanized area/state: Victorville--Hesperia--Apple Valley, CA;
Apportionment: 130,784.
Urbanized area/state: Virginia Beach, VA;
Apportionment: 617,451.
Urbanized area/state: Washington, DC--VA--MD;
Apportionment: 1,192,035.
Urbanized area/state: Wichita, KS;
Apportionment: 181,906.
Urbanized area/state: Winston-Salem, NC;
Apportionment: 132,231.
Urbanized area/state: Worcester, MA--CT;
Apportionment: 179,318.
Urbanized area/state: Youngstown, OH--PA;
Apportionment: 218,946.
Urbanized area/state: Total;
Apportionment: $81,972,000.
Source: FTA.
[End of table]
Table 9: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Small Urbanized
Areas 50,000 to 199,999 in Population:
State: Alabama;
Apportionment: $764,603.
State: Alaska;
Apportionment: 34,455.
State: Arizona;
Apportionment: 275,606.
State: Arkansas;
Apportionment: 491,466.
State: California;
Apportionment: 2,846,331.
State: Colorado;
Apportionment: 458,275.
State: Connecticut;
Apportionment: 279,431.
State: Delaware;
Apportionment: 47,028.
State: Florida;
Apportionment: 1,592,836.
State: Georgia;
Apportionment: 872,603.
State: Hawaii;
Apportionment: 51,652.
State: Idaho;
Apportionment: 295,735.
State: Illinois;
Apportionment: 628,307.
State: Indiana;
Apportionment: 672,488.
State: Iowa;
Apportionment: 404,283.
State: Kansas;
Apportionment: 184,930.
State: Kentucky;
Apportionment: 251,401.
State: Louisiana;
Apportionment: 793,743.
State: Maine;
Apportionment: 241,388.
State: Maryland;
Apportionment: 300,190.
State: Massachusetts;
Apportionment: 256,565.
State: Michigan;
Apportionment: 851,344.
State: Minnesota;
Apportionment: 231,017.
State: Mississippi;
Apportionment: 142,431.
State: Missouri;
Apportionment: 284,808.
State: Montana;
Apportionment: 218,262.
State: Nebraska;
Apportionment: 14,563.
State: Nevada;
Apportionment: 37,708.
State: New Hampshire;
Apportionment: 218,838.
State: New Jersey;
Apportionment: 140,132.
State: New Mexico;
Apportionment: 270,568.
State: New York;
Apportionment: 513,343.
State: North Carolina;
Apportionment: 871,922.
State: North Dakota;
Apportionment: 165,554.
State: Northern Mariana Islands;
Apportionment: 79,198.
State: Ohio;
Apportionment: 640,802.
State: Oklahoma;
Apportionment: 173,538.
State: Oregon;
Apportionment: 221,712.
State: Pennsylvania;
Apportionment: 839,555.
State: Puerto Rico;
Apportionment: 2,571,505.
State: South Carolina;
Apportionment: 490,363.
State: South Dakota;
Apportionment: 123,942.
State: Tennessee;
Apportionment: 569,892.
State: Texas;
Apportionment: 3,065,349.
State: Utah;
Apportionment: 126,160.
State: Vermont;
Apportionment: 65,427.
State: Virginia;
Apportionment: 582,583.
State: Washington;
Apportionment: 758,209.
State: West Virginia;
Apportionment: 519,275.
State: Wisconsin;
Apportionment: 695,169.
State: Wyoming;
Apportionment: 97,515.
State: Total;
Apportionment: $27,324,000.
Source: FTA.
[End of table]
Table 10: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Nonurbanized Areas
Fewer Than 50,000 in Population:
State: Alabama;
Apportionment: $914,681.
State: Alaska;
Apportionment: 89,089.
State: American Samoa;
Apportionment: 82,198.
State: Arizona;
Apportionment: 491,772.
State: Arkansas;
Apportionment: 689,681.
State: California;
Apportionment: 1,392,047.
State: Colorado;
Apportionment: 258,668.
State: Connecticut;
Apportionment: 66,653.
State: Delaware;
Apportionment: 60,739.
State: Florida;
Apportionment: 789,522.
State: Georgia;
Apportionment: 1,083,301.
State: Guam;
Apportionment: 82,309.
State: Hawaii;
Apportionment: 108,733.
State: Idaho;
Apportionment: 236,073.
State: Illinois;
Apportionment: 615,969.
State: Indiana;
Apportionment: 547,252.
State: Iowa;
Apportionment: 393,228.
State: Kansas;
Apportionment: 391,699.
State: Kentucky;
Apportionment: 996,767.
State: Louisiana;
Apportionment: 853,320.
State: Maine;
Apportionment: 263,615.
State: Maryland;
Apportionment: 170,073.
State: Massachusetts;
Apportionment: 106,263.
State: Michigan;
Apportionment: 733,405.
State: Minnesota;
Apportionment: 469,403.
State: Mississippi;
Apportionment: 988,678.
State: Missouri;
Apportionment: 804,275.
State: Montana;
Apportionment: 238,026.
State: Nebraska;
Apportionment: 244,224.
State: Nevada;
Apportionment: 73,267.
State: New Hampshire;
Apportionment: 114,174.
State: New Jersey;
Apportionment: 90,750.
State: New Mexico;
Apportionment: 460,625.
State: New York;
Apportionment: 876,414.
State: North Carolina;
Apportionment: 1,377,832.
State: North Dakota;
Apportionment: 125,851.
State: Northern Mariana Islands;
Apportionment: 46,764.
State: Ohio;
Apportionment: 937,886.
State: Oklahoma;
Apportionment: 742,132.
State: Oregon;
Apportionment: 375,739.
State: Pennsylvania;
Apportionment: 996,074.
State: Puerto Rico;
Apportionment: 354,265.
State: Rhode Island;
Apportionment: 15,592.
State: South Carolina;
Apportionment: 763,722.
State: South Dakota;
Apportionment: 188,804.
State: Tennessee;
Apportionment: 890,321.
State: Texas;
Apportionment: 2,180,328.
State: Utah;
Apportionment: 134,311.
State: Vermont;
Apportionment: 121,458.
State: Virgin Islands;
Apportionment: 82,637.
State: Virginia;
Apportionment: 640,772.
State: Washington;
Apportionment: 461,887.
State: West Virginia;
Apportionment: 539,821.
State: Wisconsin;
Apportionment: 466,065.
State: Wyoming;
Apportionment: 104,846.
State: Total;
Apportionment: $27,324,000.
Source: FTA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA's Interim Guidance
and Proposed Strategies for Job Access and Reverse Commute Program:
In its March 15, 2006, interim guidance and proposed strategies, FTA
proposed several changes that would affect the operation of the JARC
program. FTA allowed for a 30-day comment period, and after a request
for an extension, the agency allowed approximately 1 month for
comments. FTA received over 200 comments, and program stakeholders that
commented included the following: state transportation agencies, trade
associations, metropolitan planning organizations, public transit
providers, private transit providers, individuals, and advocates. Table
11 summarizes FTA's proposed changes to the coordinated planning
process, the designated recipient and competitive selection process,
and the performance measurement and reporting requirements.
Table 11: Changes to the JARC Program Proposed in FTA's March 2006
Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies and Program Stakeholder
Responses:
Proposed change: Coordinated plan: Elements: FTA identified five key
elements of a coordinated plan: (1) an assessment of transportation
needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and persons with
limited incomes; (2) an inventory of available services that identifies
areas of redundant service and gaps in service; (3) strategies to
address the identified gaps in service; (4) identification of
coordination actions to eliminate or reduce duplication in services and
strategies for more efficient utilization of resources; and (5)
prioritization of implementation strategies. FTA proposed that choosing
a lead agency be a local decision and defining "local" is a decision to
be made at the state, regional, and local levels;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* Agree that local communities should have flexibility in developing
the coordinated plan (12);
* Agree with the key elements of the coordinated plan (9);
* Suggest that minimization of duplication of services should be a key
element (10);
* Suggest that an evaluation plan should be another key element (2);
* It is unrealistic to expect that coordinated plans will be completed
by the fiscal year 2007 funding cycle (7);
* Satisfying FTA's requirements is a time-consuming process for
coordinated plans (2);
* Agencies may not have available staff resources to develop
coordinated plans (2);
* FTA requirements may cost more to produce than the available
resources will allow (2);
* Any planning requirements should be commensurate with the level of
funding provided (3);
* Agree that designation of a "lead agency" should be a local decision
(2);
* Appreciate the flexibility of defining "local" (2);
* States should be involved in determining the definition of "local"
(2).
Proposed change: Coordinated plan: Elements - Framework for Action: FTA
suggested states and communities utilize the United We Ride Framework
for Action when developing a coordinated plan;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* Framework for Action is a useful and helpful tool (3);
* Concern that local coordinating entities may be at a disadvantage if
they do not use the Framework for Action tool (2);
* The guidance should continue to indicate use of the Framework for
Action tool as a suggestion, not a requirement (2).
Proposed change: Coordinated plan: Participation: FTA provided examples
of groups and organizations that may be included in the planning
process, recognizing that this proposed list would not limit or require
participation. FTA also suggested allowing many ways to participate and
making good-faith efforts for inclusion as well as documenting the
efforts. FTA also proposed that it would coordinate with other federal
agencies to facilitate other funding sources;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* Support local communities having flexibility to coordinate
participation (3).
* Suggest other federal agencies should require their grantees to fully
participate in the coordinated planning effort (5).
* Encourage FTA to work with its partners on the Federal Interagency
Coordinating Council (5).
* FTA should make it clear that private operators must be represented
(14).
* FTA should affirm that the private sector may participate in the
planning process and also propose on projects (12).
* Agree that lead agencies should document their outreach efforts (3).
* FTA should require rather than suggest more proactive outreach (23).
Proposed change: Designated recipient: In urbanized areas with
populations fewer than 200,000 and other than urbanized areas, FTA
proposed that the state be the designated recipient. In urbanized areas
of over 200,000 in population, FTA proposed that a recipient of JARC
funds must be officially designated through a process consistent with
the provision in Section 5307. FTA also proposed that the designated
recipient for JARC does not have to be the same as the designated
recipient for Section 5307 funds;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* The designated recipient for JARC should be the same as for FTA's
other formula programs (e.g., Sections 5307, 5310, or 5311), and FTA
should not create separate designated recipients for JARC (8).
* Having a JARC designated recipient separate from the Section 5307
designated recipient is counterproductive because it will not encourage
coordination and cooperation (3).
* The JARC designated recipient should not be the same entity as the
designated recipient for 5307 funds due to potential conflict of
interest (2).
* The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) should be the designated
recipient (6).
* The MPO is ill- equipped to function as the designated recipient (2).
* FTA should clarify the roles and responsibilities of the designated
recipient (6).
Proposed change: Designated recipient: Competitive Selection: A
recipient charged in administering the JARC programs should be
designated by the chief executive officer of a state, responsible local
officials, and publicly owned operators of public transportation. To
address concerns that a "conflict of interest" could exist, FTA
recommended that the designated recipient of funds not be a provider of
transportation services. FTA also proposed that when the MPO is the
designated recipient of these funds, the MPO be responsible for the
competitive selection process. FTA also provided a list of potential
strategies for the competitive selection process;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* The competitive selection process should not be managed by a
transportation provider in large urbanized areas (2).
* There could be a conflict of interest if a transportation provider is
the designated recipient, so the MPO should conduct the competitive
selection process (18).
* Concerns about a conflict of interest would be ameliorated by a
transparent competitive selection process or by the MPO's oversight
(8).
* When the designated recipient is also a provider of transportation,
the designated recipient should document how it selected projects and
avoided conflicts of interest, and should demonstrate that all projects
were given equal opportunity (23).
* The competitive selection process and criteria should be derived at
the local level (7).
Proposed change: Performance measures: To evaluate all three programs,
Sections 5310, 5316, and 5317, FTA recommended three crosscutting
performance measures: (1) Efficiency of Operations, (2) Program
Effectiveness, and (3) Customer Satisfaction. FTA also recommended one
JARC-specific performance measure, Cumulative Number of Jobs Accessed;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* The specific definitions proposed for the performance measures seem
to have a tenuous connection to the goals they are designed to address
(2).
* Proposing performance measures that are too narrow and prescriptive
will stifle local ability and creativity (4).
* Establishing specific performance measures is premature (4).
* Performance measures should be developed locally to address local
conditions and needs (13).
* Cost-effectiveness should be taken into consideration (16).
* The proposed strategies for evaluation and performance measurement
are burdensome, especially for small operators and systems (2).
* It is difficult and sensitive to identify income and other personal
information among passengers (3).
* Regarding performance measure one: It may be more costly to provide
transportation for difficult-to-serve populations, especially in small
and rural areas (2).
* The proposed measures are sensitive to external factors, such as
local economic circumstances (2).
* Regarding performance measure two: The definition of "communities" is
too vague and difficult to understand (2).
* Regarding performance measure three: "Customer satisfaction" is very
subjective and amorphous, and the performance measure should be more
objective or technical (4).
* FTA should consider administration costs; funding should be
commensurate with performance measurement strategies, such as surveys
(3).
Proposed change: Reporting requirements: FTA proposed reporting
requirements to focus on the minimum data needed to meet the
requirements of various performance initiatives set forth by Congress
and the Office of Management and Budget, such as the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. FTA also proposed building on
existing infrastructure and data collection mechanisms, including the
use of the National Transit Database;
Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of similar
comments:
* Compliance with burdensome reporting requirements could easily cost
more than the grant amounts in many communities (2).
* Suggest grantees should only report simplified or basic information
(3).
* Reporting requirements should focus on readily available or existing
information mechanisms (2).
* Many smaller agencies and areas may need staff training to use the
National Transit Database (2).
Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance and public comments posted on
FTA's docket.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Other key contributors to this report were John Finedore (Assistant
Director), Vidhya Ananthakrishnan, Lauren Heft, Foster Kerrison,
Jessica Lucas-Judy, Nancy Lueke, Kimanh Nguyen, and Stan Stenersen.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA's Implementation
of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior
Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and Information. GAO-
04-971. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004.
Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects of
Proposed Legislative Changes. GAO-04-934R. Washington, D.C.: August 20,
2004.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Agencies Are Taking
Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating
Transportation Services. GAO-04-420R. Washington, D.C.: February 24,
2004.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.
Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination,
but Evaluation Should Be Completed. GAO-03-204. Washington, D.C.:
December 6, 2002.
Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access
Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact. GAO-02-640T. Washington,
D.C.: April 17, 2002.
Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT's Job
Access Program Was Not Followed. GAO-02-213. Washington, D.C.: December
7, 2001.
Welfare Reform: GAO's Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT's Access to Jobs
Program. GAO-01-996R. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2001.
Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access
Program. GAO-01-133. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program in Its First
Year. GAO/RCED-00-14. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 1999.
(542092):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Welfare Reform: Transportation's Role in Moving From Welfare
to Work, GAO/RCED-98-161 (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 1998).
[2] "Reverse commute" projects are projects related to the development
of transportation services designed to transport residents of urban
areas and other areas to suburban employment opportunities.
[3] GAO, Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential
Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes, GAO-04-934R (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 20, 2004);
Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination,
but Evaluation Should Be Completed, GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: Dec.
6, 2002);
and Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job
Access Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact, GAO-02-640T
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2002).
[4] In information on the JARC program, the term "states" includes
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands. FTA also refers to urbanized areas with a
population of 200,000 or more as "large urbanized areas," urbanized
areas with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 as "small urbanized
areas," and rural and small urbanized areas with populations of fewer
than 50,000 as "other than urbanized areas."
[5] 71 Fed. Reg. 13456 (Mar. 15, 2006). In this FTA document, the
agency provided interim guidance for fiscal year 2006 JARC program
implementation and notice and request for comment on proposed
strategies for fiscal year 2007.
[6] See appendix I for a complete list of the states and areas we
selected.
[7] 71 Fed. Reg. 52610 (Sept. 6, 2006).
[8] The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data
needed by the Secretary of Transportation to administer department
programs, including FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Program (which is
known as the Section 5307 program) and Nonurbanized Area Formula
Program (which is known as the Section 5311 program). These data
consist of selected financial and operating data that describe public
transportation characteristics.
[9] TANF is a federal block grant to states that provides cash and
noncash assistance to low-income families, such as employment services
and training, work and other supports, and aid for the at-risk.
[10] Bruce Katz, "Smart Growth: The Future of the American Metropolis?"
Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics,
CASEpaper 58 (July 2002).
[11] Edward Glaeser and Matthew Kahn, Job Sprawl: Employment Location
in U.S. Metropolitan Areas (Brookings Institution Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy, Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[12] John Pucher and John L. Renne, "Socioeconomics of Urban Travel:
Evidence from the 2001 NHTS," Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3,
Summer 2003, 49-77.
[13] GAO, Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many
Strategies to Address Rural Challenges, GAO-04-921 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 10, 2004).
[14] Evelyn Blumenberg and Paul Ong, "Cars, Buses, and Jobs: Welfare
Participants and Employment Access in Los Angeles," Journal of the
Transportation Research Board (Washington, D.C.: 2001), 1756.
[15] Although JARC began as a competitive grant program, under TEA-21
the program became congressionally designated through appropriations
legislation. Whereas FTA selected all grantees in fiscal year 1999
through a competitive selection process, the amount of funding awarded
to congressionally designated projects increased over time. In fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005, Congress designated all grantees through
appropriations legislation. In 2001, we reported that FTA had
instituted a two-track process for selecting JARC grantees, with a
noncompetitive process for those projects identified in Congress'
conference reports. The exclusion of significant JARC funds from the
competitive selection process decreased FTA's ability to fund projects
that might have emerged from this process as the most promising in
meeting the JARC program's objectives. (See GAO, Welfare Reform:
Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT's Job Access Program
Was Not Followed, GAO-02-213 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2001).) While
FTA subsequently instituted a competitive process for awarding funds to
all JARC grantees, including congressionally designated projects, we
later reported that the annual determination of JARC funding made it
difficult for states and localities to predict their future funding
levels (see GAO-04-934R).
[16] The SAFETEA-LU formula apportions JARC funds on the basis of
"eligible" low-income individuals in an area. Eligible low-income
individuals are defined in SAFETEA-LU as individuals whose family
income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line.
[17] The dollar amounts in this paragraph include funds that were
congressionally designated for specific projects in fiscal year 2005 or
apportioned to states and to large urbanized areas within each state
for fiscal year 2006.
[18] We were unable to determine the change in funding for all large
urbanized areas that had received fiscal year 2005 JARC funds because
some previous grants were awarded to agencies that serve more than one
metropolitan area, or to local agencies for use statewide. As such, it
was not practical to isolate the fiscal year 2005 amount for each large
urbanized area.
[19] Some of the states and large urbanized areas that did not receive
JARC funds in fiscal year 2005 had received them in previous years. We
were unable to determine the total number of states and large urbanized
areas that had never before received JARC funds because, as we
previously noted, some previous grants were awarded to agencies that
serve more than one state or metropolitan area or to local agencies for
use statewide.
[20] "Transportation-disadvantaged populations" refers to populations
that lack the ability to provide their own transportation or have
difficulty accessing whatever conventional public transportation may be
available. FTA programs in addition to JARC that serve these
populations are the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities program, which provides formula funding for capital
projects to assist in meeting the transportation needs of the elderly
and persons with disabilities, and the New Freedom program, which
provides formula funding for new public transportation services and
public transportation alternatives that assist individuals with
disabilities with transportation, including transportation to and from
jobs and employment support services. We reported in 2003 that some
federal and state officials believed that providing financial
incentives or mandates for coordination was one way to improve the
coordination of transportation services among federal programs. (See
GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination
Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles
Persist, GAO-03-697 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003).)
[21] While TEA-21 had not included a statutory provision regarding a
percentage that could be used for administration and technical
assistance, FTA allowed JARC grantees to use up to 10 percent for these
activities.
[22] GAO-04-934R.
[23] GAO-03-697.
[24] GAO-04-934R.
[25] Under both TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, projects are eligible for grants
of up to 50 percent of their operating expenses--that is, the costs of
their day-to-day operations.
[26] FTA refers to guidance for grantees and stakeholders as a
"circular." In this report, we refer to FTA's draft and final circulars
for JARC as "proposed final guidance" and "final guidance."
[27] 70 Fed. Reg. 71950 (Nov. 30, 2005).
[28] 71 Fed. Reg. 63838 (Oct. 31, 2006).
[29] None of the large urbanized areas that have received fiscal year
2006 grant awards have submitted a letter to notify FTA of the
designated recipient for JARC funds. FTA officials noted that to allow
areas to move forward in implementation for fiscal year 2006, they
awarded grants to agencies that would be the JARC designated recipient,
if the recipient was in the process of receiving its formal designation
for the JARC program. To receive funding for fiscal year 2007, FTA
states that all recipients must submit an official letter designating
the JARC recipient.
[30] FTA officials reported that FTA has also awarded JARC funds to a
small urbanized area in an additional state that applied directly to
FTA for funding after it was awarded funds through its state's
competitive selection process.
[31] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[32] Executive Order 13330 established the Interagency Transportation
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility in February 2004, currently
known as the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility. The council comprises senior leadership from 11 federal
departments and agencies--including the Departments of Transportation,
Health and Human Services, and Labor--and the National Council on
Disability. The council is tasked with seeking ways to simplify access
to transportation services for persons with disabilities, persons with
lower incomes, and older adults.
[33] As we previously mentioned, the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities program, also known as the Section 5310
program, provides formula funding for capital projects to assist in
meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with
disabilities. The New Freedom program provides formula funding for new
public transportation services and public transportation alternatives
that assist individuals with disabilities with transportation,
including transportation to and from jobs and employment support
services.
[34] While the overall amount of TANF funding has remained relatively
stable, states have discretion over the types of services and
activities to fund. We previously have reported that spending for
noncash assistance, including transportation supports, varies by state.
For more information, see GAO, Welfare Reform: Better Information
Needed to Understand Trends in States' Uses of the TANF Block Grant,
GAO-06-414 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 2006).
[35] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[36] GAO, 21ST Century Challenges: Performance Budgeting Could Help
Promote Necessary Reexamination, GAO-05-709T (Washington, D.C.: June
14, 2005);
and Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and
Relationships, GAO-05-739SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2005).
[37] GAO/RCED-98-161.
[38] GAO-03-204.
[39] GAO-04-934R.
[40] GAO-04-934R.
[41] GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and
Validation of Agency Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139
(Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999).
[42] Federal Transit Administration, JARC Reporting Issues: An
Examination of Current Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) Program
Evaluation Efforts (Washington, D.C.: February 2003).
[43] JARC Reporting Issues.
[44] GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
[45] Fiscal year 2005 is the last year that JARC funds were distributed
through congressionally designated earmarks. FTA officials that we
spoke to indicated that they may have to rebaseline the data next year
because few grants have been made under the new formula program in
fiscal year 2006, and they anticipate that there will be increased JARC
activity in fiscal year 2007.
[46] SAFETEA-LU requires in § 3018, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 5316(i)(2),
that DOT conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the JARC
program no later than 3 years after the legislation was passed.
[47] GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 29, 2006).
[48] GAO, Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An
Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/
AIMD-10.1.18 (Washington, D.C.: February 1998).
[49] FTA officials that we interviewed also noted that the agency does
not have the statutory authority to use the NTD for JARC reporting.
[50] Harry P. Hatry et al., How Federal Programs Use Outcome
Information: Opportunities for Federal Managers (IBM Endowment for The
Business of Government and the National Academy of Public
Administration, May 2003), available online at
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/HatryReport.pdf.
[51] GAO-05-927.
[52] See the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act --A Legacy for Users, Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 3026, codified
at 49 U.S.C. § 5327(c). This provision authorizes the use of certain
appropriated funds for contractual support for management and oversight
functions for major construction projects. The Job Access and Reverse
Commute program is not included in this list of programs.
[53] GAO, Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential
Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes, GAO-04-934R (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 20, 2004).
[54] This guidance also addressed two related FTA programs--the Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (also known as Section
5310) and the New Freedom programs.
[55] We initially selected 11 large urbanized areas on the basis of
information on JARC grants for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Specifically, we selected large urbanized areas that would receive more
funding as a result of formularization, areas that would receive less
funding, and areas that did not receive funding in fiscal year 2005.
However, it became apparent after conducting the interviews that all 11
of the large urbanized areas had received JARC grants at some point in
the program's history. We subsequently selected a 12TH large urbanized
area that had no prior experience with JARC.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
