Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
Progress Made in Using Funds and Stakeholder Views on Proposed Program Changes Gao ID: GAO-11-518 May 26, 2011Established in 1998, the Job Access and Reverse Commute program (JARC)--administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-- awards formula based grants to states and localities to provide transportation to help low-income individuals access jobs. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) reauthorized this program and made changes, such as allocating funds by formula to subrecipients in three areas--large urban, small urban, and rural--through designated recipients (usually transit agencies and states). SAFETEA-LU required GAO to periodically review JARC. This third report under the mandate examines (1) the progress FTA and recipients have made in reducing the instances and amounts of funds they allowed to lapse without using them; (2) the challenges recipients have faced in implementing JARC; and (3) the tradeoffs, according to stakeholders, of proposals to revise JARC during the next surface reauthorization process. For this work, GAO reviewed FTA grant data; interviewed officials from FTA, 9 designated recipients, 10 subrecipients, and industry associations; and reviewed recent proposals to revise JARC. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOT officials reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical corrections, which were incorporated as appropriate.
Since GAO's last report on JARC in 2009, the instances of recipients letting their funds lapse--allowing the funds to be reapportioned to all recipients-- have decreased. Recipients have 3 years from the time of apportionment to use the funding before it is reapportioned. In fiscal year 2008, 29 designated recipients, or 11.2 percent, let their entire fiscal year 2006 apportioned funds lapse. In fiscal year 2010, 11 designated recipients, or 4.3 percent, let their entire fiscal year 2008 apportioned funds lapse. In addition, the amount of funds lapsing has decreased. In fiscal year 2008, $16.7 million (12 percent) of apportioned funds lapsed, and fiscal year 2010, $10.2 million (6.5 percent) of apportioned funds lapsed. A few recipients have allowed a large amount of funds to lapse; however, others have made progress in using JARC funds, in part due to FTA's efforts. The designated recipients GAO interviewed reported that they have overcome many of the challenges identified in our 2009 report. This improvement was due in part to actions taken by FTA, such as issuing guidance on project eligibility and providing workshops to help officials in areas where a large portion of JARC funds had lapsed. However, three challenges remain. First, some JARC funds have been allowed to lapse because subrecipients have difficulty providing the local funding required to receive JARC funding. Second, three recipients we interviewed faced challenges coordinating with human service organizations, as required. Finally, officials from three of the five states we interviewed said that the funding classifications they receive either do not align with local demands for JARC services or create confusion among local area recipients. Stakeholders have proposed changing JARC. Officials GAO interviewed cited various tradeoffs to these proposals. Some proposals would combine JARC with other transit programs designed to help people who are elderly and/or have disabilities. Proponents of these proposals cited potential benefits such as increased flexibility to use funding to meet specific needs, while critics of these proposals were concerned that targeted populations will no longer receive the same amount of funding unless they are protected.
GAO-11-518, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Progress Made in Using Funds and Stakeholder Views on Proposed Program Changes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-518
entitled 'Job Access And Reverse Commute Program: Progress Made in
Using Funds and Stakeholder Views on Proposed Program Changes' which
was released on May 26, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
May 2011:
Job Access And Reverse Commute Program:
Progress Made in Using Funds and Stakeholder Views on Proposed Program
Changes:
GAO-11-518:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-518, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Established in 1998, the Job Access and Reverse Commute program (JARC)”
administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)”awards
formula based grants to states and localities to provide
transportation to help low-income individuals access jobs. In 2005,
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act–A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) reauthorized this program and made
changes, such as allocating funds by formula to subrecipients in three
areas”large urban, small urban, and rural”through designated
recipients (usually transit agencies and states).
SAFETEA-LU required GAO to periodically review JARC. This third report
under the mandate examines (1) the progress FTA and recipients have
made in reducing the instances and amounts of funds they allowed to
lapse without using them; (2) the challenges recipients have faced in
implementing JARC; and (3) the tradeoffs, according to stakeholders,
of proposals to revise JARC during the next surface reauthorization
process. For this work, GAO reviewed FTA grant data; interviewed
officials from FTA, 9 designated recipients, 10 subrecipients, and
industry associations; and reviewed recent proposals to revise JARC.
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOT officials
reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical corrections,
which were incorporated as appropriate.
What GAO Found:
Since GAO‘s last report on JARC in 2009, the instances of recipients
letting their funds lapse-”allowing the funds to be reapportioned to
all recipients”-have decreased. Recipients have 3 years from the time
of apportionment to use the funding before it is reapportioned. In
fiscal year 2008, 29 designated recipients, or 11.2 percent, let their
entire fiscal year 2006 apportioned funds lapse. In fiscal year 2010,
11 designated recipients, or 4.3 percent, let their entire fiscal year
2008 apportioned funds lapse. In addition, the amount of funds lapsing
has decreased. In fiscal year 2008, $16.7 million (12 percent) of
apportioned funds lapsed, and fiscal year 2010, $10.2 million (6.5
percent) of apportioned funds lapsed. A few recipients have allowed a
large amount of funds to lapse; however, others have made progress in
using JARC funds, in part due to FTA‘s efforts.
The designated recipients GAO interviewed reported that they have
overcome many of the challenges identified in our 2009 report. This
improvement was due in part to actions taken by FTA, such as issuing
guidance on project eligibility and providing workshops to help
officials in areas where a large portion of JARC funds had lapsed.
However, three challenges remain. First, some JARC funds have been
allowed to lapse because subrecipients have difficulty providing the
local funding required to receive JARC funding. Second, three
recipients we interviewed faced challenges coordinating with human
service organizations, as required. Finally, officials from three of
the five states we interviewed said that the funding classifications
they receive either do not align with local demands for JARC services
or create confusion among local area recipients.
Stakeholders have proposed changing JARC. Officials GAO interviewed
cited various tradeoffs to these proposals. Some proposals would
combine JARC with other transit programs designed to help people who
are elderly and/or have disabilities. Proponents of these proposals
cited potential benefits such as increased flexibility to use funding
to meet specific needs, while critics of these proposals were
concerned that targeted populations will no longer receive the same
amount of funding unless they are protected.
Table: Number and Amount of Lapsed JARC Apportionments, Fiscal Year
2008 to Fiscal Year 2010:
Fiscal year: 2008;
Number of recipients that allowed their entire funds to lapse: 29;
Amount of funds allowed to lapse: $16,672,359.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Number of recipients that allowed their entire funds to lapse: 16;
Amount of funds allowed to lapse: $12,708,611.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Number of recipients that allowed their entire funds to lapse: 11;
Amount of funds allowed to lapse: $10,154,772.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of table]
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-518] or key
components. For more information, contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-
2834 or wised@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Recipients--with FTA Help--Have Made Progress Using Apportioned Funds,
but a Few Areas Continue to Let Funds Lapse:
FTA Addressed a Number of Challenges Recipients Had Identified
Implementing JARC, but Three Challenges Remain:
Proposals to Revise JARC Engender Tradeoffs:
Agency Comment:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: JARC Activities:
Appendix III: Proposed Changes to JARC:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: JARC Reauthorization Proposals and Key Concepts:
Table 2: Designated Recipients and Subrecipients Interviewed for Our
Review:
Table 3: JARC Reauthorization Proposals:
Figures:
Figure 1: JARC Requirements and Processes under SAFETEA-LU:
Figure 2: Fewer Designated Recipients Let JARC Funds Lapse after
Fiscal Year 2010 than after Fiscal Years 2009 or 2008:
Figure 3: Fewer JARC Apportionments Lapsed after Fiscal Year 2010 than
after Fiscal Years 2009 or 2008:
Figure 4: Three States and Puerto Rico Accounted for 77 Percent of All
JARC Funds Allowed to Lapse from the End of Fiscal Year 2008 through
the End of Fiscal Year 2010:
Figure 5: JARC Transportation Service Types Provided in Fiscal Year
2009:
Abbreviations:
DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
JARC: Job Access and Reverse Commute:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 26, 2011:
The Honorable Tim Johnson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Chairman:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Access to transportation is critical for enabling low-income
individuals to find and retain employment. To help provide this
access, Congress established the Job Access and Reverse Commute
program (JARC) in 1998. Administered by the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Federal Transit Administration (FTA), JARC
provides grants to states and localities to fill gaps in
transportation services for low-income individuals needing access to
jobs and related services, such as child care and training. JARC funds
can also be used to fund public transportation projects designed to
transport residents of urbanized areas and other than urbanized
(rural) areas to suburban employment opportunities regardless of
income. In 2005, JARC was reauthorized through the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), which authorized $602.5 million for the program for
fiscal years 2006 through 2009. In March 2011, JARC's funding
authorization was extended through fiscal year 2011, with the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2011[Footnote 1].
SAFETEA-LU required us to evaluate JARC 1 year after the legislation
took effect and every 2 years thereafter. We previously reported that
JARC provides an important benefit to low-income individuals, but also
that states and localities have not always submitted projects for FTA
to obligate JARC funds within the allowable time period.[Footnote 2]
When these unobligated funds lapse most of the funds are lost to the
original states and/or large urbanized areas when they are
reapportioned to all recipients. Thus, most of the benefit of those
funds is lost to individuals in those areas who might have benefited
from JARC services. FTA reapportions lapsed funds across all
recipients in subsequent years, including those areas that allowed
funds to lapse. Our 2009 report identified challenges, such as delays
in issuing final program guidance and identifying designated
recipients, faced by designated recipients and subrecipients[Footnote
3] and we recommended actions that FTA or Congress could take to
address these challenges. In response to our 2009 report, DOT
indicated that FTA continues to provide guidance and technical
assistance to help recipients address the challenges of JARC and
continues to discuss opportunities to simplify the program in the next
reauthorization. In addition, DOT indicated that a decrease in the
percentage of funds recipients allowed to lapse after fiscal year
2009, compared with the prior fiscal year, indicates that recipients
are improving their efforts to meet the challenges that had caused
funds to lapse.[Footnote 4] Anticipating the reauthorization of
SAFETEA-LU during 2009, several stakeholders--including legislators,
DOT, and public interest groups--proposed modifications to JARC. These
proposed changes include funding changes, revisions to specific
program requirements, and merging JARC with various other transit
programs.
This report--our third in response to the SAFETEA-LU mandate--
addresses FTA's progress in implementing changes to JARC. Our specific
reporting objectives were to determine:
1. the progress FTA and designated recipients have made in reducing
the instances and amounts of lapsed funds;
2. the challenges designated recipients and subrecipients have faced
in implementing JARC; and:
3. the tradeoffs, according to stakeholders, of proposals to revise
JARC in the surface transportation reauthorization process.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and FTA
guidance. We also interviewed FTA officials, select JARC designated
recipients and subrecipients, and industry stakeholders. We obtained
and analyzed data from FTA's Transportation Electronic Awards and
Management system and FTA's Web site to determine the amount of FTA's
apportionments for JARC and the extent to which JARC funds have been
allowed to lapse. We assessed the reliability of these data by
comparing FTA's data with data from designated recipients and
interviewing FTA officials about their procedures. We determined that
the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. To
examine challenges recipients have encountered in implementing the
program, we interviewed 9 designated recipients and 10 subrecipients
in five states and compared the challenges they reported to those we
identified in our 2009 report. We selected the designated recipients
based on criteria that included jurisdictions where funds had been
allowed to lapse as well as states identified through industry
association contacts. We selected subrecipients that covered the three
areas that were apportioned JARC funding under SAFETEA-LU--large and
small urbanized areas plus rural areas--as well as those that
designated recipients recommended. Since we used a nongeneralizable
sampling approach, the results of these interviews cannot be used to
make inferences about all designated recipients and subrecipients. We
also interviewed stakeholders and officials from industry
associations, including the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials and the Community Transportation Association
of America, to obtain their broader views on challenges associated
with implementing JARC and potential program modifications. To
determine the advantages and disadvantages of JARC modification
proposals, we reviewed published proposals and discussed modification
concepts with designated recipients, subrecipients, and stakeholder
organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through May 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I
for more information about our scope and methodology.
Background:
Congress created JARC in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the
21ST Century to support the nation's welfare-reform goals--including
helping adults meet new work requirements to receive federal
assistance.[Footnote 5] A purpose of JARC was to improve the mobility
of low-income individuals through grants that states and localities
could use to provide additional or expanded transportation services
and thus provide more opportunities for individuals to get to work.
Accessing entry-level jobs can be challenging for low-income
individuals, many of whom do not own cars, have poorly maintained cars
that are not sufficient for daily commuting, or do not have access to
transit options that link them to jobs.
In 2005, SAFETEA-LU made several changes to JARC. Notably, SAFETEA-LU
created a formula[Footnote 6] to distribute $602.5 million over 4
years beginning with fiscal year 2006 and required that state or local
recipients[Footnote 7] be designated to competitively allocate JARC
funds. These recipients are responsible for distributing funds to
other agencies. SAFETEA-LU required that 40 percent of JARC funds be
apportioned annually among states for projects in small urbanized and
rural areas (those with populations of 50,000-199,999 and less than
50,000, respectively). It also required that the remaining 60 percent
be apportioned among large urbanized areas (those with populations of
200,000 or more). In fiscal year 2010, a total of $175 million in JARC
funds were apportioned to designated recipients.
JARC funds must be obligated within a certain time period, can be used
for some administrative activities, and must be supplemented by local
funding. Funds must be obligated within 3 years from the time of
apportionment or they lapse. Lapsed funds are reapportioned among all
states and large urbanized areas in the following fiscal year. For
example, $18.6 million in JARC funds apportioned for fiscal year 2006
was allowed to lapse, per FTA records, at the end of fiscal year 2008.
Accordingly, FTA increased the JARC apportionments for fiscal year
2009 by $18.6 million. The reapportionment process allows lapsed JARC
funds to be used in other areas. SAFETEA-LU authorizes states and
large urbanized areas to use 10 percent of JARC funds for
administrative activities, including planning and coordination
activities. Currently, the federal government's cost share for JARC
projects is limited to no more than 80 percent for capital costs and
no more than 50 percent of operating costs. For example, if a
subrecipient purchases a bus with JARC funds, it is eligible for up to
80 percent federal funding; however if JARC funding is used for
operating the bus (bus drivers, fuel, etc.), it is eligible for up to
50 percent federal funding.
SAFETEA-LU also required JARC recipients to fulfill specific
requirements and follow specific processes (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: JARC Requirements and Processes under SAFETEA-LU:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Actions to fulfill statutory requirements:
Identify and select designated recipients:
* State agencies are required to be designated recipients for small
urbanized and rural areas;
• State governor and others designate recipients for large urbanized
areas.
Certify that projects were derived from plan:
Designated recipients must certify that JARC projects were derived
from a locally developed coordinated human services transportation
plan.
Designated recipients must conduct a coordinated human services
transportation planning process that includes representatives of
public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services
providers and participation by the public.
A coordinated human services transportation plan must be developed
from the coordination planning process.
Conduct competitive selection process:
Designated recipients must conduct a competitive selection process to
select projects for designated areas.
Develop application and evaluation criteria for project eligibility
and selection;
Announce a call for projects;
Collect and review applications;
Form and conduct a review panel to evaluate project applications
against developed criteria;
Notify applicants.
Actions to fulfill FTA requirements:
Ensure JARC projects are included in metropolitan and/or statewide
transportation plan:
To receive JARC funds, projects in urbanized areas must be included in
the metropolitan transportation plan, the transportation improvement
program (TIP), and the statewide transportation improvement program
(STIP). Projects outside urbanized areas must be included in, or be
consistent with, the statewide long-range transportation plan and must
be included in the STIP.
Develop and submit program of projects and distribute awarded funds to
selected projects:
Designated recipients must submit list of projects to be funded and
apply for funds. FTA awards JARC funds to designated recipients via
the Transportation Electronic Award and Management system. Designated
recipients then distribute them to selected projects. Funds are
obligated by FTA at time of award.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance.
[End of figure]
In addition to the requirement that a recipient be designated to
competitively allocate JARC funds, SAFETEA-LU required that designated
recipients certify that JARC projects are derived from locally
developed, coordinated public transit-human service transportation
plans. The coordinated planning process must include representatives
of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services
providers and participation by the public. Furthermore, SAFETEA-LU
required that states and large urbanized areas develop and conduct a
competitive selection process for their projects. After projects are
selected, states and urbanized areas must apply to FTA to fund the
projects.
Recipients have used JARC funds for a wide variety of projects to help
low-income workers get to jobs and related activities. Many projects
expand the service area or extend the hours of existing bus routes.
For example, in Danbury, Connecticut, JARC funds were used to add
evening and weekend hours to an existing bus route. Some projects fund
van pools that take groups of workers to work sites. For example, JARC
funds were used for both capital and operating expenses for a van pool
to employment centers from a rural area in Texas. Other projects pay
for vehicle loans or vehicle repairs. For example, a human service
organization in Dodgeville, Wisconsin--a rural area without transit--
uses JARC funds to provide low-interest car loans to low-income
workers. As of 2009, the program helped 352 low-income individuals
obtain loans to purchase a car for work.[Footnote 8] See appendix II
for more information on types of projects supported by JARC funds.
In addition to JARC, other federal transit programs support
transportation for specific purposes and populations. For example, the
New Freedom program, created by SAFETEA-LU, supports new public
transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond
those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fiscal year
2010, $99 million was apportioned for this program. The Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program (commonly
referred to as the Section 5310 program), has existed since 1975. The
Section 5310 program originally provided formula funding for capital
projects to help meet the transportation needs of elderly individuals
and persons with disabilities. In 1991, Congress expanded the Section
5310 program to allow funds to be used to acquire services to promote
the use of private-sector providers and to coordinate with other human
service agencies and public transit providers. In fiscal year 2010,
$134 million was apportioned to state agencies for Section 5310.
SAFETEA-LU requires that both of these programs, as with JARC, certify
that projects be derived from a locally developed, coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan. FTA's Urbanized Area
Formula Grant Program (Section 5307) and Other Than Urbanized (Rural)
Area Grant Program (Section 5311) also provide formula funds for
general public transit programs. The Section 5307 program provides
transit funding for large and small urbanized areas, while the Section
5311 program provides transit funding for rural areas. In fiscal year
2010, $4.6 billion was apportioned for these programs: $4.1 billion
for the Section 5307 program and $438 million for the Section 5311
program.
In our 2009 report on JARC, we found that about 14 percent of the
fiscal year 2006 JARC funds lapsed, in part due to the fact that some
applicants did not meet administrative requirements, such as
developing a coordinated public transit-human service transportation
plan, in time to apply for funds. We also found that recipients faced
several challenges in implementing JARC, including the inability to
provide the required local match, and that overall, the effort
required to obtain JARC funds was disproportionate to the relatively
small amount of funding available.
Recipients--with FTA Help--Have Made Progress Using Apportioned Funds,
but a Few Areas Continue to Let Funds Lapse:
Recipients Have Made Progress Using JARC Funds:
JARC funds have been apportioned to 258 geographic areas and each year
since SAFETEA-LU was enacted the number of designated recipients
allowing JARC funds to lapse has decreased.[Footnote 9] Where JARC
funds lapsed, the designated recipients lost the funds and those funds
were FTA reapportioned to all designated recipients. For fiscal year
2006 apportionments, at least some of the JARC funds were allowed to
lapse in 49 areas at the end of fiscal year 2008. The number of areas
where funds lapsed dropped to 45 at the end of fiscal year 2009 and
then to 37 at the end of fiscal year 2010.
Further, the number of recipients allowing all their JARC funds to
lapse decreased steadily from the end of fiscal year 2008 through
2010. In fiscal year 2008, 29 designated recipients (or 11.2 percent
of all designated recipients) let all funds apportioned in fiscal year
2006 lapse. By the end of fiscal year 2010, 11 designated recipients
(or 4.3 percent of all designated recipients) allowed all the JARC
funds to lapse that were apportioned to them for fiscal year 2008.
(See figure 2.)
Figure 2: Fewer Designated Recipients Let JARC Funds Lapse after
Fiscal Year 2010 than after Fiscal Years 2009 or 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Federal Fiscal Year After Which Funds Lapsed Designated Recipients
Lapsing Any JARC Funds Designated Recipients Lapsing All JARC Funds
Number of designated recipients:
Fiscal year: 2008;
Designated recipients lapsing any JARC funds: 49;
Designated recipients lapsing all JARC funds: 29.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Designated recipients lapsing any JARC funds: 45;
Designated recipients lapsing all JARC funds: 16.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Designated recipients lapsing any JARC funds: 37;
Designated recipients lapsing all JARC funds: 11.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
Note: These recipient counts adjust FTA data reports for instances
when FTA restored lapsed funds and the restoration of those funds
shifted the recipient's lapse category.
[End of figure]
The Amount of Funding Allowed to Lapse Decreased:
In addition, the amount of funding allowed to lapse also steadily
declined from the end of fiscal year 2008 through 2010. In fiscal year
2008, approximately $16.7 million, or 12 percent of all apportioned
funds, were allowed to lapse. By the end of fiscal year 2010, the
amount of lapsed funds had dropped to about $10.2 million, or 6.5
percent of all funds apportioned for fiscal year 2008. (See fig. 3):
Figure 3: Fewer JARC Apportionments Lapsed after Fiscal Year 2010 than
after Fiscal Years 2009 or 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2008;
Amount of funds: $16.67 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Amount of funds: $12.71 million.
Fiscal year: 2010;
Amount of funds: $10.16 million.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
Note: We did not include funds for three areas--California small
urbanized areas and California nonurbanized areas (reported as lapsed
after fiscal year 2008 but restored in fiscal year 2010); and
Washington, D.C. (reported as lapsed after fiscal year 2010, but
where, according to FTA officials, funds were restored in fiscal year
2011).
[End of figure]
A Few Jurisdictions Allowed Large Amounts of Funds to Lapse:
Recipients allowing JARC funds to lapse were concentrated in three
southeastern states--Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina--plus
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Recipients in those jurisdictions
accounted for 77.4 percent of the $39.5 million that was allowed to
lapse from the $436.6 million apportioned to JARC recipients for
fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Puerto Rico alone accounted for
$18.9 million, or 48 percent, of funds allowed to lapse during this
period. Florida's large urbanized area recipients allowed $4.8 million
in JARC funds to lapse. Recipients in Mississippi and North Carolina
accounted for more than $3 million in lapsed funds for each state.
According to designated recipients and FTA officials, recipients
allowed funds to lapse for reasons that included lack of proposals
from potential project sponsors and a lack of matching funds. We
discuss these reasons in more depth later in the report.
Recipients in 30 other states allowed $8.9 million of JARC funds to
lapse; in no case did the amount of funds allowed to lapse in any of
these jurisdictions exceed $1 million (see fig. 4). Some of these
lapses were not due to lack of interest in taking advantage of the
JARC program or other program-related barriers, according to DOT
officials. Rather, in some cases, funds lapsed because the grant
recipients' budgets for JARC projects totaled less than the entire
amount of JARC funds available. The remaining unobligated funds could
range from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
Designated recipients--state agencies and large urbanized areas--in 21
states and the District of Columbia allowed none of the $65.5 million
in JARC funds apportioned to them to lapse for fiscal years 2006
through 2008.
Figure 4: Three States and Puerto Rico Accounted for 77 Percent of All
JARC Funds Allowed to Lapse from the End of Fiscal Year 2008 through
the End of Fiscal Year 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Jurisdictions with lapsed JARC funds:
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico:
Total JARC apportionments, fiscal years 2006 through 2008: $21.2
million;
JARC funds allowed to lapse at the end of fiscal years 2008 through
2010: $18.9 million.
Florida:
Total JARC apportionments, fiscal years 2006 through 2008: $26.5
million;
JARC funds allowed to lapse at the end of fiscal years 2008 through
2010: $4.8 million.
North Carolina:
Total JARC apportionments, fiscal years 2006 through 2008: $10.7
million;
JARC funds allowed to lapse at the end of fiscal years 2008 through
2010: $3.5 million.
Mississippi:
Total JARC apportionments, fiscal years 2006 through 2008: $4.6
million;
JARC funds allowed to lapse at the end of fiscal years 2008 through
2010: $3.3 million.
All others with lapses (30):
Total JARC apportionments, fiscal years 2006 through 2008: $35 million;
JARC funds allowed to lapse at the end of fiscal years 2008 through
2010: $8.9 million.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of figure]
Recently These Areas Have Made Progress in Using JARC Funds:
Recipients in Puerto Rico, Florida, North Carolina, and Mississippi
have shown progress recently toward reducing the amount of funds
allowed to lapse.
* Puerto Rico allowed $13.6 million to lapse for fiscal years 2006 and
2007--all its JARC funds apportioned for those years--but was able to
use $2.2 million of its fiscal year 2008 funds for San Juan, a large
urbanized area, plus $72,000 of its small urbanized area fiscal year
2008 funds.
* Florida's lapsed funds were limited to its large urbanized areas.
For fiscal year 2006, among Florida's 12 large urbanized areas, 8
areas used all their JARC funds, while 4 areas allowed $3.2 million,
their entire apportionments, to lapse.[Footnote 10] For fiscal year
2007, three large urbanized areas allowed apportionments to lapse--
Daytona Beach-Port Orange allowed all of its apportionments to lapse,
while Miami and Tallahassee allowed part of their JARC apportionments
to lapse. By the end of fiscal year 2010, Florida's recipients no
longer allowed funds to lapse.
* North Carolina allowed 62.8 percent of its fiscal year 2006
apportionments for small urbanized areas and rural areas to lapse. In
contrast, the percentage of funds lapsed for those areas was 40.1
percent for 2007 apportionments and 25.3 percent for 2008
apportionments.
* One of Mississippi's two large urbanized areas, Gulfport-Biloxi,
allowed all its funds to lapse in fiscal year 2006, but all of that
area's JARC funds were obligated for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
However, recipients continue to allow much of Mississippi's rural and
small urban areas funds to lapse.
FTA Staff Have Worked With Officials to Reduce Instances of Lapsed
Funds:
Lapsed funds remained a significant issue at the end of fiscal year
2010 for Puerto Rico, Mississippi, and, to a lesser extent, North
Carolina. To address lapsed funds, FTA's Region IV staff reported
working extensively with officials in these three jurisdictions to
help local officials more effectively use JARC funds.
* FTA staff began working with Puerto Rico in December 2007 and
through most of 2010 conducted a series of workshops and quarterly
meetings with the local officials to help Puerto Rico use its JARC
apportionments. The first eligible project application for Puerto Rico
was submitted in August 2010, but it still allowed more than $5
million to lapse at the end of fiscal year 2010, or 70 percent of the
$7.6 million apportioned to Puerto Rico for fiscal year 2008.
* FTA staff reported working with Mississippi officials at annual
Mississippi transit conferences and also having the United We Ride
Ambassador[Footnote 11] facilitate workshops in Mississippi to raise
interest in the program. Furthermore, FTA regional staff reported
providing technical assistance for officials in Jackson, the large
urbanized area in Mississippi that has allowed all its JARC funds to
lapse. The United We Ride Ambassador conducted regional coordinated
planning workshops in Mississippi to help local officials develop
their regional coordination plans and identify sources of matching
funds. After the end of fiscal 2010, Mississippi recipients let $1.5
million lapse, or 92 percent of the funds apportioned for Mississippi
for fiscal year 2008. According to the Ambassador, as of February
2011, Mississippi officials were making progress at identifying
sources of matching funds needed to use available JARC funds.
* By the end of fiscal year 2010, more than $3 million was being used
by North Carolina, but more than $650,000 was allowed to lapse for
small urbanized areas and rural areas, plus $174,000 (or all funds)
for Fayetteville for fiscal year 2008. FTA Region IV officials
reported providing technical assistance and holding a workshop for
Fayetteville. To help North Carolina's small urbanized areas better
use their JARC apportionments, FTA staff reported assisting with
coordinated plan development in 2008 and working with North Carolina
officials at workshops, state conferences, and quarterly meetings with
state officials. The United We Ride Ambassador conducted coordinated
planning workshops in North Carolina to help local officials
understand the coordinated planning process and identify sources of
matching funds.
FTA Addressed a Number of Challenges Recipients Had Identified
Implementing JARC, but Three Challenges Remain:
Our 2009 report on JARC indicated that recipients had specific
challenges implementing the program. Challenges were primarily related
to administratively setting up and implementing the program given
changes in SAFETEA-LU. Designated recipients we spoke with more
recently indicated that the types of challenges they faced in 2009 had
generally been addressed. However, three challenges remain:
* Limited funding available to provide the local match.
* Coordination with human services organizations can be difficult.
* Formula funding not aligned with local demands.
FTA Has Taken Steps to Address Difficulties Recipients Faced:
The designated recipients and subrecipients we interviewed reported
that they have overcome many of the challenges we identified in our
2009 report. Specifically, most of the designated recipients that we
interviewed had (1) instituted procedures to solicit grant
applications and select projects competitively; (2) created locally
developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation
plans; and (3) designated recipients identified for all areas. Among
the nine designated recipients that we interviewed, four said that the
program is less challenging to implement than it was in the past and
four said the challenges have not changed or new challenges have
replaced older ones, while one said the program is more challenging
because of increased applications, among other things.
Some designated recipients attribute the improvement to actions taken
by FTA to help recipients overcome barriers to using JARC funds.
First, in May 2007, FTA finalized implementing guidance to help
recipients better understand the change to the "new" formula program.
Second, FTA officials answered many questions that designated
recipients had raised about running competitions and determining
project eligibility. FTA regional offices, and in some cases FTA
headquarters, have worked to respond to recipient questions about
project eligibility. For example, a recipient indicated that when they
had questions their regional office worked closely with them to
resolve their questions. Finally, FTA has provided outreach to
specific jurisdictions that were slower to use JARC funds.
Increased Difficulty in Providing Required Local Match Has Resulted in
Lapsed Funds:
According to most of the recipients and subrecipients we spoke with,
providing a local match has increasingly become a challenge,
particularly with current economic conditions, and in some locations
recipients allowed JARC funds to lapse because local officials are
unable to provide matching funds. JARC requires that recipients supply
a local match to receive funding. The program requires at least a 20
percent local match for capital expenses and a 50 percent match for
operating expenses. The recipients we interviewed indicated that they
use several different sources of matching funds, including local
taxes, toll credits,[Footnote 12] and in-kind services. In addition,
as permitted by statute,[Footnote 13] some recipients have used other
sources of federal funds such as Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF).[Footnote 14]
Officials in some FTA regional offices and states reported that
recipients allowed funds to lapse in some areas because they were not
able to match federal funds. FTA officials in one region said that it
is difficult for grantees to justify using funding for JARC projects
that would establish new routes while simultaneously cutting existing
services due to constrained budgets. In the two jurisdictions--
Mississippi and Puerto Rico--in which nearly all funding lapsed, a
Mississippi Department of Transportation official and FTA officials
partially attributed the lapses to the inability to provide matching
funds. Some FTA officials and designated recipients that we
interviewed said that, in some cases, JARC funds were allowed to lapse
because they chose to use their local funds for other programs that
are less burdensome and provide more funding.
JARC Recipients in Three Areas Reported that Coordination with Human
Services Organizations Can Be Difficult:
While not a challenge in all jurisdictions, recipients in three areas
indicated that coordination with other human service organizations
that provide transportation services was difficult. JARC recipients
are required to participate in a local coordinated transportation
planning process at least every 4 to 5 years to receive funding. As
previously mentioned, human service funding, for example TANF funding,
can be a potential match to federal JARC funds. According to data from
the Department of Health and Human Services, among the 60 percent of
states that used TANF funding for transportation, about $270 million
was used for transportation assistance in fiscal year 2009. However,
according to the three designated recipients that we interviewed,
human service organizations' funding sources generally don't have the
same requirement to coordinate in order to receive funding and
therefore they may be less inclined to participate in the process.
Officials from one state told us that involving the human service
community in a coordinated plan can sometimes be difficult, but some
activities, such as providing funding for local mobility managers,
[Footnote 15] have made this easier.
State requirements can help subrecipients fulfill the coordinated
planning requirement. Officials from one state we spoke to indicated
that their state had a state requirement for a coordinated plan prior
to the JARC requirement, and another state's officials indicated that
their coordinated transportation planning process began 15 years ago.
For example, Connecticut had a collaborative and jointly planned and
funded access to jobs program prior to JARC because Connecticut's
welfare reform mandates predated federal welfare reform and JARC.
Thus, meeting the JARC requirement that the projects come from the
plan is relatively easy to meet as they already know and have
relationships with the right people. On the other hand, officials from
three states indicated that the coordinated plan was difficult to do.
In Some Areas, Officials Reported that Area and Program Funding
Classifications Create Challenges:
In some locations, state transportation officials indicated that JARC
funding apportionments created confusion and did not align with needs.
SAFETEA-LU's formula apportions funds by large and small urbanized
area and rural area classifications. While these classifications allow
designated recipients to transfer funds among small urban and rural
areas, the funds can not be distributed away from large urban areas.
As we reported in our 2009 report, some state transportation
department officials indicated that eliminating the urbanized area
limits would give designated recipients funds where they see the most
need, such as rural areas with fewer resources than large urbanized
areas. Officials from three states that we interviewed suggested that
it would be beneficial to remove these classifications and give
designated recipients, usually states, discretion to allocate funds as
they see fit across rural areas and small and large urbanized areas
because local area recipients find the process confusing. Furthermore,
officials from one state said that they could better address state
needs if they had more flexibility about where to allocate funds.
Officials from two states indicated that they had a good state process
and would be willing to conduct such project competitions in large
urban areas as well. Finally, two states already do that for all
areas--rural, small urban, and large urban.
Some officials we spoke to also mentioned that the needs for other
programs outweighed the needs for JARC. For example, officials from
one FTA regional office indicated they see a bigger demand for New
Freedom program funds than JARC. In addition, one designated recipient
indicated that its New Freedom funds are smaller than JARC funds, but
the response to calls for projects is greater under the New Freedom
program. An official at a state department of transportation reported
that the biggest need is for elderly and disabled programs like
Section 5310.
Proposals to Revise JARC Engender Tradeoffs:
Transportation interest groups, legislators, and DOT have issued
proposals to revise JARC since 2008. These proposals generally were
offered to help Congress consider JARC provisions in the next surface
transportation reauthorization. The proposals advance three broad
concepts for reauthorizing JARC: (1) streamline JARC by merging it
with other related programs, (2) revise JARC funding amounts or
matching requirements, and (3) revise transportation coordination
provisions. See the sources and topics addressed by these proposals in
table 1. See appendix III for further information on these proposals.
Table 1: JARC Reauthorization Proposals and Key Concepts:
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation;
Proposal: Refocus. Reform. Renew: A New Transportation Approach for
America (2008)[A];
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Check];
Revise program coordination: [Empty].
Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials;
Proposal: Transit Reauthorization Recommendations (2008);
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Empty];
Revise program coordination: [Empty].
Source: American Public Transportation Association;
Proposal: APTA Recommendations on Federal Public Transportation
Authorizing Law (2008);
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Empty];
Revise program coordination: [Check].
Source: President-Elect's Urban Agenda;
Proposal: The Obama-Biden Plan (2008);
Streamline by merging: [Empty];
Revise funding: [Check];
Revise program coordination: [Empty].
Source: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure;
Proposal: Draft Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009;
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Empty];
Revise program coordination: [Empty].
Source: Community Transportation Association of America;
Proposal: A New Surface Mobility Vision for America (2009);
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Check];
Revise program coordination: [Check].
Source: Transportation for America;
Proposal: America's Route to Reform (2009);
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Check];
Revise program coordination: [Check].
Source: National Transportation Policy Project, Bipartisan Policy
Center;
Proposal: Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S. Transportation
Policy (2009);
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Check];
Revise program coordination: [Empty].
Source: S. 176, 111th Cong. (2009);
Proposal: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Improvements Act of
2009;
Streamline by merging: [Empty];
Revise funding: [Check];
Revise program coordination: [Check].
Source: President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request;
Proposal: Department of Transportation Budget Appendix (2011);
Streamline by merging: [Check];
Revise funding: [Empty];
Revise program coordination: [Empty].
Source: As indicated and GAO analysis.
[A] DOT is working on a new reauthorization proposal to more closely
reflect current thinking.
[End of table]
Proposals to Consolidate JARC with Other Transportation Programs May
Improve Efficiency and Flexibility but Might Disadvantage Some
Stakeholders:
Eight of the 10 proposals we examined would consolidate JARC with
other related programs, generally to improve program efficiency and/or
flexibility. Four proposals recommended combining JARC with FTA's
other specialized programs for transportation-disadvantaged
populations--the New Freedom program for people with disabilities and
the program for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities
(Section 5310).[Footnote 16] The President's Budget Request for Fiscal
Year 2012 proposes combining JARC with the New Freedom and the Section
5310 programs. The combined program would continue goals of the
current programs. However, other proposals suggested merging JARC with
other programs. As noted in our 2009 JARC report, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials proposed
consolidating JARC with FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program
(Section 5307) and Other Than Urbanized (Rural) Area Grant Program
(Section 5311). The Community Transportation Association of America
proposed new urban and rural transit programs that would each include
JARC elements. The National Transportation Policy Project proposed
combining JARC in an essential access program that would include the
Safe Routes to School program, the Over the Road Bus Accessibility
program, as well as New Freedom and Section 5310 programs.
In general, consolidating JARC with other programs could offer greater
program efficiency and flexibility:
* The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported that its proposal would reduce the
administrative burden on both the grantees and FTA by creating a
unified program application to achieve a variety of mobility and
access goals.
* Combining JARC with the New Freedom and Section 5310 programs would,
as noted in support for two plans, maintain the importance of
coordination already implied by the locally developed, coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plan already required by
SAFETEA-LU.
* Four recipients we talked with would like to see a combination of
programs as it could give them more flexibility in terms of how they
allocate the grants to meet the transportation gaps specific to their
area. For example, one state said it has more demand for services to
help people who are elderly and/or have disabilities than for JARC
grants and could better respond to state priorities by shifting its
JARC funds to New Freedom or Section 5310 programs.
Combining JARC and related programs may have disadvantages for some
stakeholders:
* As we noted in our 2009 JARC report, associations representing
people who are elderly and those with disabilities expressed concern
that consolidating these programs with JARC would jeopardize
transportation to these populations. Without a set-aside for various
populations, some may not be assured that the funding levels would
remain steady for their population group. The consolidation proposal
by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure provided minimum funding targets to protect funds for
specific populations during the first year of the consolidated program
and other protections in later years. However, officials in one state
that we interviewed were concerned that while it would increase
flexibility, it would not simplify reporting.
* Not every designated recipient may want the flexibility to determine
funding allocations between the populations now served by the current
programs because creating more discretion for designated recipients
will also bring more political pressure to their role, according to a
state program director.
* Two recipients indicated that FTA's implementation of a consolidated
program would impact the extent to which they would benefit from this
flexibility. In other words, if FTA were to still treat these as
separate programs in terms of reporting, it may not decrease the
administrative burden.
* An official from a small urbanized area transit system said that the
current programs are easy to explain to local officials as separate
programs and the reporting requirements are straight-forward.
Combining programs might result in a more complex program that could
be more difficult to explain and could involve complicated reporting
to track benefits provided to different population groups.
Proposals to Alter JARC Funding Could Improve Program Effectiveness
and Help Prevent Funds from Lapsing, but Might Reduce Overall Scope of
JARC:
The JARC proposals we examined addressed two types of funding changes--
increasing the federal funds directed to the program and changing the
match ratios that JARC subrecipients have to meet in their project
proposals. Two proposals we examined suggested increasing the amount
of funding for JARC or its successor program.
* Transportation for America's proposal would increase funding by an
unspecified amount for a new program that consolidates the JARC, New
Freedom, and Section 5310 programs. According to the proposal, the
advantage of this change would be to help low-income and other
populations that are inadequately served by existing transit programs.
* The 2008 Obama-Biden Plan proposed doubling JARC funding in order to
ensure that additional federal public transportation dollars flow to
the highest-need communities.[Footnote 17]
In addition, three proposals we reviewed would adjust match
requirements:
* The Community Transportation Association of America's proposal would
reduce local operating match requirements from 50 percent to 20
percent.
* The 2008 DOT proposal--Refocus. Reform. Renew. A New Transportation
Approach for America--would reduce the local match requirement for
both capital and operating expenses to 10 percent.
* S. 176, 111th Cong. (2009) would reduce the local match requirement
for operating expenses of a JARC project as an incentive for projects
that coordinate with programs serving other transportation-
disadvantaged populations.
Reducing the local matching requirement could reduce the incidence of
lapsed JARC funds. As previously discussed, some recipients told us
that lack of match was a reason that their apportioned funds were
allowed to lapse. Other recipients said that their current matching
funds are just enough to support their current grants and they expect
that it will be more difficult for those match sources to sustain
their JARC support in the future. Lower match rates could have the
disadvantage of reducing the overall spending for JARC. For example,
we earlier reported that matching funds are important to maintaining
recipients' level of spending for a program.[Footnote 18] Thus, if
project sponsors rely more heavily on federal funds then fewer local
funds will likely be used to support programs, and total program
expenditures may decline.
Proposals Suggest Improving JARC's Coordination with Other
Transportation Programs for the Transportation-Disadvantaged:
SAFETEA-LU required recipients of FTA's three grant programs for the
transportation-disadvantaged to develop a coordinated plan.[Footnote
19] We previously noted that JARC recipients in three areas we spoke
to still indicated that coordination with human service organizations
was difficult. We reported in 2009 that some recipients had suggested
that federal agencies that provide and allow funds to be used for
transportation services should require grantees to participate in
coordinated transportation planning efforts.
A reauthorization proposal, as previously noted, would provide an
incentive for projects that coordinate at least two of the three FTA
grant programs for the transportation-disadvantaged.[Footnote 20]
Coordination among all federal transportation programs for the
transportation-disadvantaged has been a concern noted in our prior
reports. Our reports in 2003 and 2004 analyzed federal spending aimed
at transportation-disadvantaged populations.[Footnote 21] While the
full extent of such spending could not be determined, available data
showed federal expenditures of $2.4 billion, of which just $317
million, or 13 percent, was by DOT programs.[Footnote 22] Furthermore,
we reported in 2011 that, to assure coordination benefits are
realized, Congress may want to consider requiring key programs to
participate in coordinated planning.[Footnote 23] The American Public
Transportation Association's 2008 proposal would require changes in
authorizing laws for transportation, health, and human services to
assure coordination and cost-sharing between agencies for human
services transportation. The Community Transportation Association of
America's 2009 proposal for streamlined urban, rural, and intercity
programs would, according to the proposal, end the proliferation of
stand-alone transportation programs, each with its own guidance,
regulations and purposes. The Community Transportation Association of
America also proposed that these new programs would be funded partly
by $3 billion in transfers from other federal programs.
Agency Comment:
DOT reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical
corrections, which were incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees with
responsibility for transit issues, the Secretary of Transportation,
and the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration. 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 at
(202) 512-2834 or at wised@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:
David Wise:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that we evaluate the Job Access
and Reverse Commute program (JARC) every 2 years.[Footnote 24] This
report addresses (1) the progress the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) and recipients have made in reducing the instances and amounts
of lapsed funds; (2) the challenges recipients have faced in
implementing JARC; and (3) the tradeoffs of proposals to revise JARC,
according to stakeholders, during the upcoming surface transportation
reauthorization process.
To determine the extent to which FTA and recipients have made progress
in reducing the instances and amounts of lapsed funds, we obtained and
analyzed data from FTA's Transportation Electronic and Awards
Management system and apportionment data from FTA's Web site. We used
these data to determine the amount of FTA's apportionments for JARC
and the extent to which JARC funds lapsed. We did not include restored
funding of $1.9 million for California and almost $1 million for
Washington, D.C., in our analysis of funds allowed to lapse because
these designated recipients had access to the funds in subsequent
fiscal years. Although these funds show up as lapsed in FTA's
Transportation Electronic and Awards Management system data, they were
restored for specific reasons such as initial coding errors. In
addition, we assessed the reliability of these data by (1) obtaining
information from the system manager on FTA's data reliability
procedures and (2) comparing FTA's data with data from designated
recipients. We discussed discrepancies with FTA officials. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of our report.
To examine challenges recipients have encountered in implementing the
program, we interviewed 9 designated recipients and 10 subrecipients
in five states and compared the challenges to those we identified in
our 2009 report.[Footnote 25] We selected the nine designated
recipients based on criteria to achieve a mix of the following
criteria:
* some were located in areas that have allowed funds to lapse;
* some had been previously interviewed for our May 2009 report;
* all were chosen to provide diversity across geographic locations;
and:
* some were identified through an industry association contact.
We selected subrecipients that covered the three areas that were
apportioned JARC funding under SAFETEA-LU--large and small urbanized
areas plus rural areas--as well as those that designated recipients
recommended. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling approach, the
results of these interviews cannot be used to make inferences about
all designated recipients and subrecipients. In addition, we
interviewed FTA regional officials for each of these selected areas.
Table 2 lists the 9 designated recipients and 10 subrecipients that we
interviewed.
Table 2: Designated Recipients and Subrecipients Interviewed for Our
Review:
Agency: California Department of Transportation;
Organization: State agency;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Connecticut Department of Transportation;
Organization: State agency;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Montana Department of Transportation;
Organization: State agency;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Texas Department of Transportation;
Organization: State agency;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Wisconsin Department of Transportation;
Organization: State agency;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Sacramento Area Council of Governments;
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Southern California Association of Governments;
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Lubbock City Transit Management Company (Lubbock, TX);
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX);
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Check];
Subrecipient: [Empty].
Agency: Milwaukee County Transit System;
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Capitol Region Council of Governments (Hartford, CT);
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Greater New Haven Transit District (New Haven, CT);
Organization: Local agency for large urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: City of Simi Valley (Simi Valley, CA);
Organization: Local agency for small urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Kenosha Achievement Center (Kenosha, WI);
Organization: Local agency for small urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: METropolitan Transit (Billings, MT);
Organization: Local agency for small urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Housatonic Area Regional Transit District (Danbury, CT);
Organization: Local agency for small urbanized area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Community Transportation Agency (Galt, CA);
Organization: Local agency for rural area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe (Pablo, MT);
Organization: Local agency for rural area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Agency: Southwestern Wisconsin Community Action Program (Dodgeville,
WI);
Organization: Local agency for rural area;
Designated recipient: [Empty];
Subrecipient: [Check].
Source: GAO analysis of interviewed agencies.
[End of table]
We also interviewed FTA regional and state officials in areas that
allowed the greatest amount of funds to lapse including Mississippi,
North Carolina, and Puerto Rico. In addition, we interviewed the
United We Ride Ambassador responsible for these areas. We interviewed
stakeholders and officials from industry associations, including the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and
the Community Transportation Association of America, to obtain their
views on challenges associated with implementing JARC and potential
program modifications.
To identify proposals to modify JARC issued since 2008 we conducted a
literature search and interviewed FTA officials. To determine the
advantages and disadvantages of these proposals, we reviewed published
proposals; identified common features of these proposals; and
discussed modification concepts with designated recipients,
subrecipients, and interested stakeholder organizations.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2010 through May 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: JARC Activities:
JARC funds are available for operating expenses and capital expenses
that support services to transport low-income individuals to and from
jobs and activities related to their employment. Eligible projects may
include, but are not limited to, activities such as:
* late-night and weekend service,
* guaranteed ride home service,
* shuttle service,
* expanding fixed-route public transit routes,
* demand-responsive van service,
* ridesharing and carpooling activities,
* transit-related aspects of bicycling,
* local car loan programs that assist individuals in purchasing and
maintaining vehicles for shared rides, and:
* promoting the use of transit by workers with nontraditional work
schedules.
An FTA report, dated October 2010, showed the specific types of JARC
services being offered during fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 26] The
report was based on data from 171 JARC grant recipients[Footnote 27]
who reported on 910 services. According to that report:
* trip services--transportation provided directly to individuals--
accounted for 81 percent of the service types reported;
* information services--for example, mobility managers--accounted for
10 percent of the service types reported; and:
* capital investment projects--for example, vehicle loans,[Footnote
28] purchases, and technology investments--accounted for 9 percent of
the service types reported.
Within the trip services category, the top four service categories
reported were "fixed route," "demand response," "flexible route," and
"shuttle/feeder." Within the capital investment projects category, the
top three services were "vehicle for agency," "vehicle for
individual," and "Intelligent Transportation Systems investments."
Agencies used JARC funds to acquire more than 80 vehicles and provided
about 870 automobile loans to individuals. Figure 5 lists the number
of each type of JARC service in fiscal year 2009.
Figure 5: JARC Transportation Service Types Provided in Fiscal Year
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Service type: Fixed route (trip);
Number of services: 370.
Service type: Demand response (trip);
Number of services: 218.
Service type: Flexible routing (trip);
Number of services: 58.
Service type: Mobility manager (information);
Number of services: 44.
Service type: Shuttle/Feeder (trip);
Number of services: 42.
Service type: Vehicle for agency (capital);
Number of services: 40.
Service type: Vehicle for individual (capital);
Number of services: 30.
Service type: User-side subsidy (trip);
Number of services: 28.
Service type: Vanpool (trip);
Number of services: 21.
Service type: Materials and marketing (information);
Number of services: 15.
Service type: One-stop center (information);
Number of services: 12.
Service type: Intelligent Transportation Systems investments (capital);
Number of services: 7.
Service type: One-on-one transit training (information);
Number of services: 7.
Service type: Transportation resource training (information);
Number of services: 5.
Service type: Internet-based information (information);
Number of services: 4.
Service type: Other capital projects (capital);
Number of services: 3.
Service type: Trip/itinerary planning (information);
Number of services: 2.
Service type: Vanpool vehicles (capital);
Number of services: 2.
Service type: Car-sharing (capital);
Number of services: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Proposed Changes to JARC:
In 2005, JARC was reauthorized through SAFETEA-LU, which authorized
$727 million for the program for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
Sponsors listed in table 3 developed proposals in anticipation of
reauthorization of this legislation.[Footnote 29]
Table 3: JARC Reauthorization Proposals:
Sponsor: U.S. Department of Transportation, Refocus. Reform. Renew: A
New Transportation Approach for America;
Date proposed: 2008;
Program consolidation: Creates a Mobility Enhancement program to meet
needs now addressed by the JARC, New Freedom, and Elderly and People
with Disabilities programs. Funds can also be used for certain highway
and bridge activities;
Program funding and other key features: Provides 90 percent federal
funding of projects.
Sponsor: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials;
Date proposed: 2008;
Program consolidation: Would eliminate JARC;
Program funding and other key features: Transfers funding and
activities to the public transit formula programs for urbanized areas
(Section 5307) and nonurbanized areas (Section 5311).
Sponsor: American Public Transportation Association;
Date proposed: October 2008;
Program consolidation: Would merge JARC with the New Freedom and the
Elderly and People with Disabilities programs;
Program funding and other key features: Keeps SAFETEA-LU funding
formulas and match rates. Funding to grow at a rate consistent with
recommended overall transit program growth. Streamlines agency
reporting. Improves coordination among agencies providing human
services transportation.
Sponsor: President-Elect's Urban Policy Agenda-The Obama-Biden Plan;
Date proposed: 2008;
Program consolidation: Does not propose changes to the structure;
Program funding and other key features: Would double the funding.
Sponsor: U. S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure;
Date proposed: June 2009;
Program consolidation: Would merge JARC with the New Freedom and the
Elderly and People with Disabilities programs;
Program funding and other key features: Keeps SAFETEA-LU match rates
(50 percent federal/50 percent local operating expenditures; 80
percent federal/20 percent local capital expenditures).
Sponsor: Community Transportation Association of America;
Date proposed: 2009;
Program consolidation: Creates three new programs: rural transit,
urban transit, and intercity bus/rail service and absorbs JARC
functions;
Program funding and other key features: Operating match rates go to 80
percent federal/20 percent local. Doubles investment in surface
mobility.
Sponsor: Transportation for America;
Date proposed: 2009;
Program consolidation: Would merge JARC with the New Freedom and the
Elderly and People with Disabilities programs;
Program funding and other key features: Doubles current federal
funding. Sets goals and targets.
Sponsor: National Transportation Policy Project, Bipartisan Policy
Center;
Date proposed: 2009;
Program consolidation: Combines JARC, New Freedom, Elderly and People
with Disabilities, and other programs for an Essential Access Program;
Program funding and other key features: Essential Access Program gets
2 percent of total transit funding.
Sponsor: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Improvement Act, S.
176, 111[TH] Cong. (2009);
Date proposed: 2009;
Program consolidation: Preserves JARC as a continuing program;
Program funding and other key features: JARC rises to $265 million per
year by fiscal year 2014. Provides 80 percent match for operating
costs as incentive to combine or coordinate projects.
Sponsor: President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request;
Date proposed: 2011;
Program consolidation: Consolidates JARC with the New Freedom and the
Elderly and People with Disabilities programs in a Consolidated
Specialized Transportation Grant Program that continues the goals of
the three current programs;
Program funding and other key features: Funding for the consolidated
program would be similar to funds apportioned in fiscal year 2010 for
the three current programs.
Source: GAO analysis of proposals.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Catherine Colwell (Assistant
Director), Richard Calhoon, Colin Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, Sara Ann
Moessbauer, and Stephanie Purcell made important contributions to this
report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Section 306 of Pub. L. No. 112-5, 125 Stat. 14, 19 (Mar. 4, 2011).
[2] GAO, Federal Transit Administration: Progress and Challenges in
Implementing and Evaluating the Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-496]
(Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2009).
[3] Designated recipients are state and local entities that have been
designated to administer and distribute JARC funds to local entities.
Under SAFETEA-LU, state agencies are required to be designated
recipients for small urbanized and rural areas, while local agencies
are identified as designated recipients for large urbanized areas.
Designated recipients competitively allocate JARC funds to
subrecipients, which include local transit agencies, nonprofit
organizations, or state or local governmental authorities that receive
JARC funds for eligible transit projects.
[4] GAO-09-496 also recommended that FTA use generally accepted survey
design and data analysis methodologies in its program evaluations. FTA
indicated that it would conduct a peer review of its program
evaluation and consult with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to
modify its survey methodology.
[5] The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 significantly changed the system for providing assistance
to low-income families with children by replacing the existing
entitlement program with fixed block grants to states to provide
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Among other things,
TANF imposes work requirements for adults.
[6] Prior to SAFETEA-LU, JARC funds were awarded to grantees based on
funding in the conference reports that accompanied appropriations
acts. The change to a formula program significantly altered the
allocation of JARC funds because some states and large urbanized areas
that did not formerly receive funds started receiving funds. For
example, 18 states were apportioned JARC funds for fiscal year 2006
that did not receive funds in fiscal year 2005. Furthermore, some
grantees received different amounts after SAFETEA-LU--either higher or
lower--than they had received in the past.
[7] In this context, states refer to the 50 U.S. states, American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and the U.S.Virgin Islands. Furthermore, in this context local
recipients include the District of Columbia.
[8] FTA Circular C 9050.1 indicates that individuals obtaining
vehicles must make them available for shared rides.
[9] An entity may be a designated recipient for multiple geographic
areas. For example, in many states, the state department of
transportation serves as the designated recipient for small urbanized
and rural areas.
[10] The eight large urbanized areas in Florida for which all JARC
funds were obligated for fiscal year 2006 were Bonita Springs-Naples,
Cape Coral, Jacksonville, Orlando, Pensacola, Sarasota-Bradenton,
Tallahassee, and Tampa-St. Petersburg. The four large urbanized areas
that allowed all of their 2006 apportionments to lapse were Daytona
Beach-Port Orange, Miami, Palm Bay-Melbourne, and Port St. Lucie.
[11] United We Ride Ambassadors are consultants who provide technical
training and assistance to states on public transportation and human
services transportation. They work for the National Resource Center
for Human Service Transportation Coordination, which is operated by
the Community Transportation Association of America under a
cooperative agreement with FTA.
[12] According to Federal Highway Administration documentation, toll
credits are credits earned based on revenues generated by a toll
authority (i.e., toll receipts, concession sales, right-of-way leases,
or interest), including borrowed funds (i.e., bonds or loans)
supported by this revenue stream, that are used by the toll authority
to build, improve, or maintain highways, bridges, or tunnels that
serve interstate commerce.
[13] SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 3018(a), 119 Stat. 1144, 1601-
05 (Aug. 10, 2005).
[14] TANF provides fixed block grants to states to help families
become self-sufficient.
[15] Mobility management services consist of activities for delivering
coordinated transportation services to customers, including elderly
individuals, people with disabilities, and lower-income individuals.
These services focus on meeting individual customer needs through a
wider range of transportation options and service providers and do not
include operating public transportation services.
[16] Combining JARC with the New Freedom and Section 5310 programs was
recommended in proposals by the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, American Public
Transportation Association, Transportation for America, and the
President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2012.
[17] However, the President's position has evolved since December 2008
and no longer advocates increasing JARC funding. The President's
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2012 proposed a consolidated JARC, New
Freedom, and Section 5310 program funded at $405 million, the
approximately $427 million apportioned for these three programs in
fiscal year 2010 (includes approximately $19 million of reapportioned
funds from JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310 program lapses).
[18] GAO, Federal Grants: Design Improvements Could Help Federal
Resources Go Further, GAO/AIMD-97-7 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 1996).
[19] According to SAFETEA-LU, DOT shall coordinate JARC activities
with related activities under programs of other federal departments
and agencies. Designated recipients encourage stakeholders from human
services agencies to participate in the coordination effort, but these
agencies are not necessarily required to coordinate, as we reported in
GAO-09-496.
[20] S. 176, 111th Cong. (2009).
[21] GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination
Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but
Obstacles Persist, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-697]
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003) and Opportunities for Congressional
Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds: Budgetary Implications
of Selected GAO Work, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-
649] (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004).
[22] Spending data were from eight federal departments: Agriculture,
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs.
[23] GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1,
2011).
[24] We last reported on the Federal Transit Administration's progress
in implementing JARC in May 2009. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-496].
[25] Designated recipients are state and local entities that have been
designated to administer and distribute JARC funds to local entities.
Under SAFETEA-LU, state agencies are required to be designated
recipients for small urbanized and rural areas, while local entities
are identified as designated recipients for large urbanized areas.
Designated recipients competitively allocate JARC funds to
subrecipients, which include local transit agencies, nonprofit
organizations, or state or local governmental authorities that receive
JARC funds for eligible transit projects.
[26] FTA, Connecting People to Employment: An Evaluation of Job Access
and Reverse Commute Program Services Provided in 2009 (Washington,
D.C., October 2010).
[27] FTA began with a list of 282 potential reporting candidates. FTA
required recipients to self-report if they provided JARC services
between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2009. FTA directed grant
recipients to not report on congressionally designated earmark
projects so FTA could focus on programs funded through the SAFETEA-LU
formula programs. According to FTA's report, the 171 responses from
grant recipients are based on a 99 percent response rate.
[28] FTA Circular C 9050.1 indicates that individuals obtaining
vehicles must make them available for shared rides.
[29] In March 2011, JARC's funding authorization was extended through
fiscal year 2011, with the Surface Transportation Extension Act of
2011. Section 306 of Pub. L. No. 112-5, 125 Stat. 14, 19 (Mar. 4,
2011).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
