This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-496
entitled 'Federal Transit Administration: Progress and Challenges in
Implementing and Evaluating the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program'
which was released on May 22, 2009.
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:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2009:
Federal Transit Administration:
Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Evaluating the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Program:
Federal Transit Administration:
GAO-09-496:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-496, 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 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 the program and made changes, such as allocating funds by
formula to large and small urban and rural areas through designated
recipients, usually transit agencies and states.
SAFETEA-LU also required GAO to periodically review the program. This
second report under the mandate examines (1) the extent to which FTA
has awarded JARC funds for fiscal years 2006 through 2008, and how
recipients are using the funds; (2) challenges faced by recipients in
implementing the program; and (3) FTA’s plans to evaluate the program.
For this work, GAO analyzed data and interviewed officials from FTA,
nine states, and selected localities.
What GAO Found:
FTA is making progress in awarding funds and has awarded about 48
percent of the $436.6 million in JARC funds apportioned for fiscal
years 2006 through 2008 to 49 states and 131 of 152 large urbanized
areas. Recipients plan to use the funds primarily to operate transit
services. However, about 14 percent of fiscal year 2006 funds lapsed.
According to FTA officials, these funds lapsed for several reasons. For
example, some applicants did not meet administrative requirements in
time to apply for funds. FTA officials are working with states and
localities to reduce the amount of funds that lapse in the future.
Recipients plan to use 65 percent of fiscal year 2006 funds to operate
transit services, 28 percent for capital projects, and 7 percent for
administrative costs.
States and local authorities GAO interviewed cited multiple challenges
in implementing the JARC program; a common concern is that, overall,
the effort required to obtain JARC funds is disproportionate to the
relatively small amount of funding available. One challenge cited by
recipients was that FTA’s delay in issuing final guidance and the
process to identify designated recipients reduced the time available to
secure funds before the funds expired. In addition, although recipients
considered the coordinated planning process beneficial, many cited
factors that hindered coordination, including lack of resources and the
reluctance of some stakeholders to participate. Moreover, although the
JARC program requires human service providers to be included as
stakeholders, other transportation planning requirements do not,
complicating the coordinated planning process. Some designated
recipients also expressed concerns about identifying stable sources of
matching funds and duplicative efforts in administering JARC with other
FTA programs. These challenges have delayed applications for funds and
project implementation, and contributed to the lapse in fiscal year
2006 funds.
Although FTA has not completed an evaluation of the JARC program under
SAFETEA-LU, recipients we spoke with indicated that projects have
benefited low-income individuals by providing a means to get to work.
Since 2000, FTA has refined its approach for evaluating the program and
currently has two studies under way to evaluate the JARC program under
SAFETEA-LU. However, both studies may have limitations that could
affect FTA’s assessment of the program. One of these studies—due in
September 2009—will evaluate projects using FTA’s performance measures;
specifically, the number of rides provided and number of jobs accessed.
However, collecting reliable data for these measures is problematic,
particularly for the number of jobs accessed. The other study—due in
the spring of 2010—will include results of a survey of JARC recipients
and individuals using JARC services and will focus on the program’s
impact on those using the services. However, this study will use a
methodology similar to that used in a prior study which had limitations
in the survey instrument design and data analysis. FTA does not have a
comprehensive process in place to assess whether its researchers use
generally accepted survey design and data analysis methodologies.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOT (1) determine actions FTA or Congress could
take to address challenges agencies have encountered and (2) ensure
that program evaluations use generally accepted survey design and data
analysis methodologies. DOT officials reviewed a draft of this report
and commented that the report should include additional information on
FTA’s progress in implementing and evaluating the program; this
information has been incorporated throughout the report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-496] or key
components. For more information, contact David Wise, (202) 512-2834 or
wised@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
FTA Is Making Progress in Awarding JARC Funds, and Recipients Are Using
the Funds Primarily for Operating Services:
JARC Recipients Report Multiple Challenges in Implementing the Program:
JARC Program Recipients Cite Benefits, but FTA's Plans for Current
Evaluations May Have Limitations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary of Areas with Lapsed Fiscal Year 2006 JARC Funds:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: JARC Apportionments, Fiscal Years 2006-2009:
Table 2: New Freedom Program Apportionments, Fiscal Years 2006-2009:
Table 3: Section 5310: Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities Program Apportionments, Fiscal Years 2006-2009:
Table 4: Designated Recipients Interviewed for Our Review:
Table 5: Subrecipients Interviewed for Our Review:
Table 6: Stakeholders Interviewed for Our Review:
Figures:
Figure 1: JARC Requirements and Processes under SAFETEA-LU:
Figure 2: Apportioned JARC Amount Awarded by Fiscal Years 2006 through
2008 (as of March 2009):
Figure 3: Types of Projects Funded for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008
(as of March 2009):
Abbreviations:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation:
APTA: American Public Transportation Association:
AARA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
JARC: Job Access and Reverse Commute:
LEHD: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic:
MPO: metropolitan planning organization:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act--A Legacy for Users:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
TEA-21: Transportation Act for the 21ST Century:
TEAM: Transportation Electronic Awards Management:
UIC: University of Illinois at Chicago:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 21, 2009:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Ranking Republican Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Access to adequate transportation is critical to enabling low-income
individuals to find and retain employment. To address this issue,
Congress established the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program
in 1998.[Footnote 1] Administered by the 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. In 2005,
Congress reauthorized JARC through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),
and authorized $727 million for the program for fiscal years 2005
through 2009. SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes, the most significant
of which changed JARC from a discretionary to a formula program. JARC
funding may be spent on operating projects, such as new or expanded
transit services that could include bus routes, van pool services, and
commuter rail services, or on capital projects, which include mobility
management services[Footnote 2] and equipment purchases. SAFETEA-LU
required that the Department of Transportation (DOT) evaluate the
effectiveness of the JARC program and report the results to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs by August 2008. FTA submitted a
report to Congress on the JARC program in January 2009.
SAFETEA-LU also requires GAO to study the JARC program 1 year after the
legislation took effect and every 2 years thereafter. This report--the
second in response to the mandate--analyzes FTA's progress in
implementing changes to the JARC program. Our specific reporting
objectives were to determine:
* The extent to which FTA has awarded available funds for fiscal years
2006 through 2008, and how recipients are using these funds since
SAFETEA-LU went into effect.
* The challenges recipients have faced in implementing the JARC
program.
* How FTA plans to evaluate the program.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations
and interviewed FTA officials, JARC recipients, and stakeholders. We
obtained and analyzed data from FTA's Transportation Electronic Awards
Management (TEAM) System to determine the extent to which FTA awarded
JARC funds, and assessed the reliability of these data. We determined
that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
report. To examine how recipients have used JARC funds since SAFETEA-LU
went into effect and challenges recipients have encountered in
implementing the program, we interviewed 26 designated recipients and
16 subrecipients.[Footnote 3] We selected the designated recipients
based on criteria that included states and large urbanized areas
receiving an increase or a decrease in JARC funds as a result of
changing to the formula program, states we interviewed for our November
2006 report,[Footnote 4] and states FTA and industry association
officials suggested. We selected subrecipients that covered the three
areas that were apportioned JARC funding under SAFETEA-LU--large and
small urbanized as well as rural areas[Footnote 5]--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 local stakeholders and officials
from industry associations, including the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), the Community Transportation
Association of America, and the National Association of Regional
Councils to obtain their views on challenges associated with
implementing the JARC program. Furthermore, to identify challenges
faced by human services agencies associated with the coordinated human
services transportation planning process, we interviewed officials from
the U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, and associations representing elderly and disabled persons,
including Easter Seals, the Association of Programs for Rural
Independent Living, and AARP. To determine how FTA plans to evaluate
the JARC program, we reviewed previous evaluations and interviewed
officials from FTA and two contractors that are evaluating the program.
For each evaluation, we assessed the contractor's scope and methodology
using standard survey and economic principles and practices as
criteria. We also interviewed designated recipients, subrecipients, and
other state and local officials to obtain their perspectives on FTA's
JARC performance measures. See appendix I for additional information on
our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to May 2009, 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 provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
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).[Footnote 6] TANF provides about
$16.5 billion annually to states to help families become self-
sufficient, imposes work requirements for adults, and limits the time
individuals can receive federal assistance.
However, accessing entry-level jobs to meet TANF work requirements can
be challenging for low-income individuals, many of whom do not own cars
or have poorly maintained cars that are not equipped to drive long
distances. As we reported in 2004, many rural TANF recipients cannot
afford to own and operate a reliable vehicle and public transportation
to and from employment-related services and work is often not
available.[Footnote 7] Existing public transportation systems cannot
always bridge the gap between the location of individuals' homes and
jobs for which they qualify, not to mention child care and other
domestic responsibilities and employment-related services. These
systems were originally established to allow urban residents to travel
within cities and bring suburban residents to central-city work
locations. According to 2007 U.S. Census Bureau data, a higher
proportion of people in metropolitan areas who are below the poverty
level live in cities in those areas than in the corresponding suburbs.
[Footnote 8] Furthermore, employees at many entry-level jobs must work
shifts in the evenings or on weekends, when public transit services are
either unavailable or limited.
As a result, Congress created the JARC program in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to support the nation's
welfare-reform goals. The purpose of the program was to improve the
mobility of low-income individuals by awarding 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. JARC funds were awarded to grantees designated for project
funding in the conference reports that accompanied appropriations acts.
TEA-21 also required GAO to review the JARC program every 6 months. In
a series of reports from December 1998 to August 2004, GAO found, among
other things, that JARC had increased coordination among transit and
human service agencies, but that FTA was slow in evaluating the
program.[Footnote 9] These reports included recommendations to assist
FTA in improving its evaluation process. In response to these
recommendations, FTA developed specific objectives, performance
criteria, goals, and performance measures for the JARC program,
although GAO noted limitations in the performance measures and
recognized that FTA planned to continue to develop more comprehensive
and relevant performance measures.
SAFETEA-LU made several changes to the JARC program that affected
recipients.[Footnote 10] Most notably, SAFETEA-LU created a formula to
distribute funds beginning with fiscal year 2006: SAFETEA-LU requires
that 40 percent of JARC funds each year be apportioned among states for
projects in small urbanized and rural areas--those with populations of
50,000 to 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.[Footnote 11] As a
result, rural and small urbanized areas were each apportioned a total
of $27.3 million in fiscal year 2006, while large urbanized areas were
apportioned a total of $82 million (see table 1). The change to a
formula grant program significantly altered the allocation of JARC
funds because some states and large urbanized areas that did not
formerly receive funds now receive them, and others receive different
amounts 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). Similarly, the funds available
for the large urbanized area of Tampa/St. Petersburg increased 64
percent from 2005 to 2006 (from $594,708 to $978,029). However, the
total funds available to Alaska and Vermont decreased by more than 80
percent (from $1.7 million to $207,503 and from $991,182 to $186,885,
respectively), and the funds available to the Birmingham, Alabama, area
decreased 88 percent from 2005 to 2006 (from $3 million to $356,107).
In addition, 18 states were apportioned JARC funds for fiscal year 2006
that did not receive funds in fiscal year 2005.
Table 1: JARC Apportionments, Fiscal Years 2006-2009 (Dollars in
millions):
Type of area: Rural;
2006: $27.3;
2007: $28.8;
2008: $31.2;
2009: $36.6;
Total: $123.9.
Type of area: Small urbanized;
2006: $27.3;
2007: $28.8;
2008: $31.2;
2009: $36.6;
Total: $123.9.
Type of area: Large urbanized;
2006: $82.0;
2007: $86.4;
2008: $93.6;
2009: $109.9;
Total: $371.9.
Type of area: Total;
2006: $136.6;
2007: $144.0;
2008: $156.0;
2009: $183.1;
Total: $619.7.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of table]
Recipients have up to 3 years in which to apply for funds for each
fiscal year. For example, recipients could apply for fiscal year 2006
funds until September 30, 2008. Any funds not applied for by then
lapsed and would have been reapportioned among all recipients for
fiscal year 2009. Similarly, fiscal year 2007 funds are available until
September 30, 2009 and fiscal year 2008 funds will be available until
September 30, 2010.
The amount of available JARC funds is relatively small compared to
FTA's primary grant programs. For example, FTA's Urbanized Area Formula
Grant program (Section 5307), which provides transit funding for large
and small urbanized areas, was apportioned $3.9 billion for fiscal year
2008, while FTA's Rural Area Formula Grant program (Section 5311) was
apportioned about $416 million in fiscal year 2008. In contrast, the
total amount of JARC funds available for the 3 fiscal years 2006
through 2008 is $436.6 million.
SAFETEA-LU also requires JARC recipients to fulfill specific
requirements and follow specific processes (see figure 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 recipient for large urbanized
areas.
Certify 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 included 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 applicant.
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
TEAM. Designated recipients then distribute it to selected projects.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
* SAFETEA-LU required that a recipient be designated to award JARC
funds. This recipient is responsible for distributing funds to other
agencies. The governor of each state designated a recipient--almost
always the state department of transportation--for JARC funds at the
state level for small urbanized and rural areas. For large urbanized
areas, the governor, local officials, and public transportation
operators selected designated recipients, often a major transit agency
or metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
* SAFETEA-LU required that designated recipients certify that JARC
projects are derived from locally developed coordinated public transit-
human services transportation plans. The coordinated planning process
must include representatives of public, private, and nonprofit
transportation and human services providers and participation by the
general public. In general, among the states we contacted, either the
designated recipient or MPO has taken the lead in developing
coordinated plans in large urbanized areas. For small urbanized and
rural areas, some designated recipients at the state level have
generally delegated responsibility to develop plans to agencies at the
local level, while in others the designated recipients have taken the
lead. Local officials must ensure that appropriate transportation and
human services providers participate in the process.[Footnote 12]
* Under SAFETEA-LU, designated recipients at the state level must
develop a solicitation process for small urbanized and rural areas to
apply for funds. States must use a competitive selection process to
select projects for these areas. Large urbanized areas must also
develop and conduct a competitive selection process for their projects.
After projects are selected, states and large urbanized areas must
apply to FTA to fund the projects and certify that selected projects
were derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan.
* SAFETEA-LU allows states and large urbanized areas to use 10 percent
of JARC funds for administrative activities, including planning and
coordination activities. Under TEA-21, the use of JARC funds for
planning and coordination activities was prohibited.
* To ensure designated recipients fulfill their stewardship roles, FTA
requires designated recipients to submit a management plan describing
how they plan to administer the JARC program. Designated recipients for
large urbanized areas submit program management plans, while state
agencies that are designated recipients for small urbanized and rural
areas submit state management plans. States have submitted management
plans in the past for other transit programs.[Footnote 13] FTA allows
states to amend existing management plans to include the JARC program.
* SAFETEA-LU increased the federal government's share of capital costs
to no more than 80 percent. Under TEA-21, the federal match for capital
projects was 50 percent, which was inconsistent with the federal share
for capital projects in other FTA programs. As under TEA-21, JARC
recipients must identify and raise 50 percent of the funds for
operating projects. Matching funds may come from other federal programs
that are not administered by DOT, such as TANF block grants, as well as
from non-cash sources, such as in-kind contributions, employer
contributions, and volunteer services.
SAFETEA-LU also requires that two other FTA programs that provide
funding for transportation-disadvantaged populations[Footnote 14]
certify that projects be derived from a locally developed coordinated
human services transportation plan. One of these, the New Freedom
program, was created by SAFETEA-LU[Footnote 15] to support new public
transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond
those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to
FTA, the program is intended to fill gaps between human service and
public transportation services and to facilitate integrating
individuals with disabilities into the workforce as well as full
participation in the community. The program provides alternatives to
assist individuals with disabilities with transportation, including
transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. The
second 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.[Footnote 16] However, 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. These
purchases are also considered to be capital expenses.
As indicated in tables 2 and 3, Congress apportioned $283.3 million and
$408 million for the New Freedom and the Section 5310 programs,
respectively, from fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Similar to the JARC
program, the New Freedom and Section 5310 programs are relatively small
in comparison with FTA's regular transit formula programs. Recipients
apply separately for funds for each of these programs.
Table 2: New Freedom Program Apportionments, Fiscal Years 2006-2009
(Dollars in millions):
Type of area: Rural;
2006: $15.4;
2007: $16.2;
2008: $17.5;
2009: $20.2;
Total: $69.3.
Type of area: Small urbanized;
2006: $15.4;
2007: $16.2;
2008: $17.5;
2009: $20.2;
Total: $69.3.
Type of area: Large urbanized;
2006: $46.3;
2007: $48.6;
2008: $52.5;
2009: $60.5;
Total: $207.9.
Type of area: Total;
2006: $77.2;
2007: $81;
2008: $87.5;
2009: $100.9;
Total: $346.5.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
Note: Totals differ due to rounding.
[End of table]
Table 3: Section 5310: Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities Program Apportionments, Fiscal Years 2006-2009
(Dollars in millions):
Fiscal year: 2006:
Amount: $110.3;
Fiscal year: 2007:
Amount: $116.7;
Fiscal year: 2008:
Amount: $126.7;
Fiscal year: 2009:
Amount: $135.8;
Fiscal year: Total:
Amount: $489.5.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of table]
In our last evaluation of FTA's progress--our first report under
SAFETEA-LU, issued in November 2006--we noted that, in response to our
previous concerns over performance evaluation, FTA was taking steps to
further improve its evaluation process, such as revising the JARC
performance measures. We also noted that FTA was developing its
strategies to evaluate and oversee the program and had not yet issued
final guidance to implement JARC, and states were still working to meet
the new requirements.[Footnote 17] At that time, 3 states and 9 out of
152 large urbanized areas had received fiscal year 2006 funds as of the
end of that fiscal year; these funds represented less than 4 percent of
the fiscal year 2006 JARC funds apportioned to states and large
urbanized areas. In our report, we recommended 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.[Footnote 18] FTA agreed to consider our
recommendations and has incorporated oversight provisions for the JARC
program into its review processes. FTA also issued final guidance
implementing the changes to JARC in May 2007.[Footnote 19] As part of
that guidance, FTA established policies and procedures for agencies to
implement the program and established two performance measures to
evaluate the performance of JARC projects: number of rides and number
of jobs accessed.
FTA Is Making Progress in Awarding JARC Funds, and Recipients Are Using
the Funds Primarily for Operating Services:
FTA has awarded 48 percent (about $198.0 million) of JARC funds for
fiscal years 2006 through 2008 to 49 states and 131 of 152 large
urbanized areas. However, about 14 percent of fiscal year 2006 funds
lapsed--primarily in small urbanized areas--for various reasons,
including delays in fulfilling administrative requirements under
SAFETEA-LU. According to FTA data, recipients plan to use the funds
awarded thus far primarily to operate transit services as opposed to
capital and other projects.
FTA Is Making Progress in Awarding Fiscal Year 2006 through 2008 Funds,
Although Some Fiscal Year 2006 Funds Lapsed:
Overall, FTA has awarded almost half of the apportioned $436.6 million
available for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 (about 48 percent) to 49
states and 131 of 152 large urbanized areas, as of March 2009. This
level represents significant improvement since GAO's last evaluation of
FTA's progress in 2006, when 3 states and 9 large urbanized areas had
received fiscal year 2006 funds. As shown in figure 2, FTA has awarded
about $118 million (around 86 percent) of fiscal year 2006 JARC funds,
approximately $56.7 million (around 39 percent) of fiscal year 2007,
and around $23.2 million (about 15 percent) of fiscal year 2008. The
majority of the fiscal year 2006 JARC funds (about 64 percent) were
awarded in fiscal year 2008 before the September 30, 2008, deadline.
Recipients we spoke with who did not apply for these funds until fiscal
year 2008 said they delayed applying partly because of FTA's delay in
issuing guidance and other challenges discussed later in the report.
Figure 2: Apportioned JARC Amount Awarded by Fiscal Years 2006 through
2008 (as of March 2009):
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Fiscal year: 2006;
Apportioned amount[A]: $136.6 million;
2006 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 3.9% ($5.3
million);
2007 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 16.6% ($22.7
million);
2008 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 64.0% ($87.4
million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 86.4%
($118.0 million).
Fiscal year: 2007;
Apportioned amount[A]: $144.0 million;
2007 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 5.0% ($7.2
million);
2008 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 33.1% ($47.6
million);
2009 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 2.4% ($3.5
million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 41.8%
($60.2 million).
Fiscal year: 2008;
Apportioned amount[A]: $156.0 million;
2008 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 14.3% ($22.4
million);
2009 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 4.8% ($6.0
million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 18.7%
($29.2 million).
Fiscal year: 2009[C];
Apportioned amount[A]: $67.1 million;
2009 Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 0.6% ($0.4
million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 0.6% ($0.4
million).
Fiscal year: Total (2006-2008);
Apportioned amount[A]: $436.6[D];
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 47.5%
($207.4 million).
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] Apportioned amount is available to recipients during the fiscal
year of apportionment plus 2 additional years. Apportioned fiscal year
2006 funds were available until September 30, 2008, while fiscal year
2007 and 2008 funds will be available until September 30, 2009, and
September 30, 2010, respectively.
[B] States are allowed to transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 rural
formula grant program and/or Section 5311. As of March 2009, about $2.6
million of fiscal year 2006, $1.9 million of fiscal year 2007, and $0.9
million of fiscal year 2008 were transferred to the Section 5307 and/or
Section 5311 programs. The amount of transferred funds are included in
the total awarded amount each year and the total awards for fiscal
years 2006 to 2008. However, the percentage of funds awarded does not
include the total with the transferred amount.
[C] Although the total amount apportioned for fiscal years 2006 through
2009 is $619.7 million, the apportioned amount for fiscal year 2009 is
not included in the analysis.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of figure]
However, about $18.6 million (roughly 14 percent) of fiscal year 2006
funds lapsed and will be reapportioned to all recipients with the
fiscal year 2009 JARC funds apportionments.[Footnote 20] While the
largest amount of funds that lapsed were for large urbanized areas
(about $10.9 million, or about 13 percent of the amount allocated for
those areas), a greater proportion lapsed in small urbanized areas
(about $5.2 million, or 19 percent of the amount allocated for those
areas). Thirty-three out of 152 large urbanized areas (about 22
percent) allowed a portion of the fiscal year 2006 JARC funds to lapse.
While 5 out of the 33 large urbanized areas allowed less than 1 percent
of their allocated funds to lapse,[Footnote 21] about 64 percent of
those recipients allowed all of the allocated funds to lapse. For
instance, Miami, Florida, allowed all of its appropriated JARC funding-
-almost $2.8 million--to lapse. For small urbanized areas, 11 states
and one U.S. territory had about $5.2 million funds lapse, with 6
states and U.S. territories having the entire allocated funds lapse.
[Footnote 22] Finally, for rural areas, five states and one U.S.
territory had about 9 percent (about $2.5 million) lapse.[Footnote 23]
(See appendix II for a complete list of areas that allowed fiscal year
2006 funds to lapse.)
According to FTA officials, fiscal year 2006 JARC funds lapsed for
various reasons. Some areas encountered delays in developing the
coordinated public transit human service transportation plan, and did
not complete the plans in time to apply to FTA for fiscal year 2006
funds. (The next section of the report discusses these challenges in
more detail.)
Despite the lapse of fiscal year 2006 funds, FTA is making progress to
award the funds remaining for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 before the
deadlines at the end of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, respectively.
According to FTA, regional and headquarters staff have contacted
stakeholders in areas where funds lapsed to explore ways for these
communities to use the remaining funds. For example, in March 2009, FTA
headquarters and Region 4 staff in Atlanta, Georgia., conducted a
conference call with Miami transit providers and MPOs to discuss
strategies for the large urbanized area to use its remaining JARC
funds. During the call participants agreed to select a designated
recipient, finalize coordinated plans, and conduct a competitive
selection in time to apply for the area's fiscal year 2007 JARC funds.
As of May 2009, the Governor of Florida has selected a designated
recipient and the competitive selection process for JARC projects
within the Miami area is underway.
As a result of such efforts, FTA has awarded more fiscal year 2007 and
2008 JARC funds, relative to the rate at which it awarded fiscal year
2006 funds. For example, FTA awarded about 3.9 percent of fiscal year
2006 funds in the first year of availability, compared with
approximately 5.0 percent and 14.3 percent awarded in the first year of
available fiscal years 2007 and 2008 funds, respectively. FTA officials
and designated recipients we interviewed attributed the increase in the
rate of awarding funds to various factors, including availability of
and improvements to the final guidance, overcoming the initial learning
curve in implementing the program, and awarding projects on a 2-year
funding cycle. FTA expects to award more than 90 percent of fiscal year
2007 funds--slightly more than the 86 percent for fiscal year 2006--
before the September 30, 2009, deadline.
Recipients Plan to Use Awarded Funds Primarily to Operate Existing
Transit Services:
Recipients have used or plan to use JARC funds primarily to operate or
expand existing transit routes in an effort to target low-income
populations. Recipients have the discretion to use JARC funds for three
types of expenditures: (1) operating assistance to subsidize the cost
of operating new or existing transit services, such as staffing,
advertising costs, insurance and fuel; (2) capital assistance, such as
purchasing vehicles and equipment; and (3) administrative costs.
Designated recipients can use up to 10 percent of allocated JARC funds
for administrative costs, such as the cost to conduct coordinated
planning and competitive selection processes, but have discretion on
how to use the remaining allocated amount--whether for operating
assistance or capital projects. As shown in figure 3, recipients have
used or plan to use about 65.3 percent of fiscal year 2006 funds
primarily for operating assistance, compared to about 27.5 percent for
capital expenses and 7.2 percent for administrative costs.
Figure 3: Types of Projects Funded for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2008
(as of March 2009):
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Fiscal year: 2006;
Apportioned amount[A]: $136.6 million;
Awarded amount, Operating Assistance (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 65.3% ($75.4 million);
Awarded amount, Capital Expense (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]:
27.5% ($31.7 million);
Awarded amount, Administration and Planning (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 7.2% ($8.3 million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 100%
($118.0 million).
Fiscal year: 2007;
Apportioned amount[A]: $144.0 million;
Awarded amount, Operating Assistance (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 68.6% ($40.0 million);
Awarded amount, Capital Expense (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]:
24.7% ($14.4 million);
Awarded amount, Administration and Planning (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 6.7% ($3.9 million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 100% ($60.2
million).
Fiscal year: 2008;
Apportioned amount[A]: $156.0 million;
Awarded amount, Operating Assistance (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 84.0% ($23.8 million);
Awarded amount, Capital Expense (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]:
11.3% ($3.2 million);
Awarded amount, Administration and Planning (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 4.7% ($1.3 million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 100% ($29.2
million).
Fiscal year: 2009[C];
Apportioned amount[A]: $67.1 million;
Awarded amount, Operating Assistance (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 69.7% ($0.09 million);
Awarded amount, Capital Expense (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]:
22.2% ($0.3 million);
Awarded amount, Administration and Planning (Percentage of apportioned
amount)[B]: 8.1% ($0.03 million);
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: 100% ($0.4
million).
Fiscal year: Total (2006-2008);
Apportioned amount[A]: $436.6[D] million;
Total Awarded amount (Percentage of apportioned amount)[B]: $207.4
million.
[A] Apportioned amount is available to recipients during the fiscal
year of apportionment plus two additional years. Apportioned fiscal
year 2006 funds were available until September 30, 2008, while fiscal
year 2007 and 2008 funds will be available until September 30, 2009,
and September 30, 2010, respectively.
[B] States are allowed to transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 rural
formula grant program and/or Section 5311. As of March 2009, about $2.6
million of fiscal year 2006, $1.9 million of fiscal year 2007, and $0.9
million of fiscal year 2008 were transferred to the Section 5307 and/
or Section 5311 programs. The amount of transferred funds are included
in the total awarded amount each year and the total awards for fiscal
years 2006 to 2008. However, the percentage of funds awarded does not
include the total with the transferred amount.
[C] Although the total amount apportioned for fiscal years 2006 through
2009 is $619.7 million, the apportioned amount for fiscal year 2009 is
not included in the analysis.
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[End of figure]
Many recipients we interviewed are using funds to help cover the cost
to operate existing transit routes, or to expand transit services
targeted at low-income populations. For example, the Rochester-Genesee
Regional Transportation Authority, a designated recipient in a large
urbanized area in upstate New York, plans to use JARC funds to operate
an existing reverse commute, fixed route service[Footnote 24] during
evenings and on weekends from the city of Rochester to employment
locations in outlying suburban areas. Similarly, New Jersey Transit
awarded the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority funds to
offset operating costs for its demand response transit service[Footnote
25] in Bergen County, New Jersey Recipients also plan to use funds to
operate other types of transit projects eligible under JARC, such as
bicycle loan or auto repair programs. For instance, the Southwestern
Wisconsin Community Action Program is currently using JARC funds to
operate an auto loan program to assist low-income workers in rural
areas in purchasing vehicles for shared rides to work, while the
Kenosha Achievement Center in the Kenosha, Wisconsin, small urbanized
area is using JARC funds to operate a bike loan program that would
provide transportation to jobs for low-income job seekers.
Fewer JARC recipients we interviewed plan to use the funds for capital
assistance. Although JARC provides up to 80 percent of federal funds
for recipients' capital assistance and 50 percent for operating
assistance, recipients noted that the available funding is not
generally sufficient to start new services and/or purchase vehicles and
equipment--both of which can be costly--and continue operating services
after receiving JARC funds. For instance, representatives of a
designated recipient in Georgia told us that they would like to
establish and operate new bus routes to transport low income workers to
a new employment center being developed. The designated recipient was
allocated about $192,000 for fiscal year 2006, but officials indicated
that this amount would only allow them to purchase one transit bus,
which typically costs about $300,000 to purchase and $200,000 per year
to operate. The funding would not cover additional buses or sustain
operations beyond 1 year. The designated recipient may apply for fiscal
year 2007 and 2008 funds but would still have difficulty continuing the
routes under current budget constraints in the region.
Nevertheless, other recipients we contacted do plan to use JARC funds
for capital expenses, such as purchasing a van for a vanpool or a
global positioning system to assist in operating a mobility management
program. For instance, the Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center
plans to use its fiscal years 2006 and 2007 JARC funds to operate 12
regional vanpools that will serve eight passengers per vehicle and
provide two trips per day in the southern rural areas of Georgia, while
the Lower Savannah Council of Governments plans to use some of its
funds to defray the cost of operating a new mobility management program
in its rural and small urbanized regions. A few designated recipients
also indicated that they plan to use some of their JARC funds to
implement such a program. Finally, many designated recipients chose not
to use the funds for administrative purposes because they wanted to use
the funds for transportation rather than support services.
JARC Recipients Report Multiple Challenges in Implementing the Program:
Recipients and local authorities we interviewed cited multiple
challenges throughout the process for implementing JARC-funded
projects. Although many of these recipients and local authorities have
addressed these challenges and have received JARC funding, a common
concern we heard is that, overall, the amount of effort required to
obtain JARC funds is disproportionate to the relatively small amount of
funding available compared to other transit programs. FTA officials are
taking steps to address these challenges, and noted that some
challenges--such as the amount of funding and flexibility in using JARC
funds--are rooted in statute and would need to be addressed by Congress
in the next surface transportation reauthorization.
Initial Delay in Issuing Final Guidance Hindered Implementation:
Although many designated recipients we interviewed commented that FTA
has made progress in implementing JARC, some noted that issues with
FTA's guidance hindered implementation. First, FTA did not issue its
final guidance until May 2007, almost 2 years after SAFETEA-LU was
enacted in August 2005 and 2 months after FTA initially planned to
issue it. As we previously reported,[Footnote 26] FTA used an extensive
public participation process to develop the guidance and received a
large volume of public input, partially in response to requests from
transit agencies and stakeholders.[Footnote 27] While this process
helped FTA develop the final guidance, it also delayed its issuance.
Consequently, FTA's interim guidance included a "hold harmless"
provision stating that the final guidance requirements would not apply
retroactively to grants awarded before FTA issued the final guidance.
Some designated recipients chose to implement JARC programs using FTA's
interim guidance. Others, however, were hesitant to do so because of
uncertainties in interpreting policies and procedures and chose to wait
for the final guidance. This ultimately reduced the time available for
these recipients to apply for JARC funds appropriated in fiscal year
2006.
Second, some JARC recipients found FTA's interim and final guidance
vague and overly broad. Designated recipients noted that the guidance
did not provide sufficient specific information on whether a project
was eligible for JARC funds or the standards of oversight for
subrecipients.[Footnote 28] Specifically, designated recipients in
Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania commented that FTA's guidance
does not provide enough information on overseeing and managing
subrecipents. For example, one recipient was unsure of the parameters
for funding and monitoring JARC auto loan projects.[Footnote 29]
Recipients were also unsure how to oversee and manage projects that
cross boundaries throughout the region, such as large and small
urbanized and rural areas. For example, a recipient and subrecipient in
Arizona were unsure about how to develop a cost-allocation method for
demand response and fixed route projects that operate across large and
small urbanized and rural boundaries. An FTA official stated that the
guidance was intended to provide a broad framework for implementation
and allow states and large urbanized areas flexibility to administer
programs that best meet local and regional needs without being overly
prescriptive. FTA also noted that the final JARC circular includes
examples and detailed lists to supplement the guidance.
In addition, some designated recipients and an industry association
representative commented that FTA provided inconsistent information.
For instance, one FTA regional office required all designated
recipients in its jurisdiction to submit locally developed, coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plans to verify that
project applications for JARC funds were derived from the plans.
However, this practice was not consistent with other FTA regions. FTA
subsequently directed regional offices to instead rely on JARC
applicants' certification that projects were derived from the plans.
They also directed regional offices to confirm that the individual
applicants and projects submitted are included in the program of
projects required to receive JARC funds. An FTA official acknowledged
inconsistent information and interpretation of its guidance among some
regional offices and stated that FTA has been using a document entitled
"Questions and Answers on the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom
Programs" posted on its Web site to reduce inconsistencies among
regional offices. An FTA official also noted that the agency has
periodically taken advantage of its regularly scheduled bi-weekly
meetings between headquarters and regional staff to clarify JARC
program guidance and to provide additional guidance to regional staff.
Delays in Identifying Designated Recipients in Some Large Urbanized
Areas Contributed to Delays in Awarding Funds:
Some recipients commented that delays in identifying designated
recipients in large urbanized areas contributed to delays in awarding
fiscal year 2006 funds and implementing transit projects. Some states
and large urbanized areas did not identify designated recipients until
fiscal year 2008. Moreover, although the majority of designated
recipients have been identified, as of September 2009, 5 out of 152
large urbanized areas had not yet identified a designated recipient;
these 5 areas allowed fiscal year 2006 funds to lapse. This may be
because prospective designated recipients are reluctant to take on the
role. Officials with the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority
reported that they did not want to be the designated recipient
primarily because they were not sure they could fulfill the
requirements with the limited amount of funds available to administer
and manage the program. Specifically, SAFETEA-LU allows non-profit
agencies to receive JARC funding and FTA requires that designated
recipients ensure that subrecipients, which could include non-profit
agencies, comply with federal requirements. Some non-profit agencies
have not received FTA funds in the past and local officials were not
confident these agencies had the financial capability to manage JARC
funds and comply with FTA's requirements. These agency officials
expressed concern that they would be held liable if non-profit agencies
ultimately did not comply with those requirements. In particular, many
New York City transit agencies had these concerns and, as a result, the
New York State DOT agreed to become the designated recipient for the
New York City portion of the New York-Newark large urbanized area.
Concerns about taking on the designated recipient role were not limited
to areas without designated recipients. For instance, the Port
Authority of Allegheny County, the major transit agency in the
Pittsburgh large urbanized area, plans to transfer the designated
recipient role to the area's MPO--the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Commission--because the administrative requirements exceeded its
capacity and regional jurisdiction.[Footnote 30] Additionally, 8
states--4 of which we contacted--took on the role of designated
recipient for 16 large urbanized areas. According to officials in New
York and Wisconsin, the state departments of transportation took on the
responsibility primarily because they did not want funds to lapse and
local authorities did not want to take on the responsibilities,
respectively. For instance, officials with the MPOs in Madison and
Milwaukee told us they asked the Wisconsin DOT to be the designated
recipient for those large urbanized areas because the state had
experience with administering the program under TEA-21 and the MPOs had
insufficient resources to take on the responsibilities.
Because the process of identifying designated recipients in some areas
took more than 2 years after SAFETEA-LU was enacted, it reduced the
time available for those areas to conduct a coordinated planning
process, develop a coordinated human services transportation plan,
conduct a competitive selection process, and apply to FTA for funds
before the September 30, 2008, deadline to award fiscal year 2006
funds. Designated recipients that were not identified until fiscal year
2008 were at a particular disadvantage because they had less time to
apply for JARC funds. Designated recipients in large urbanized areas in
California and Georgia and a subrecipient in Chicago all commented that
the process for identifying and selecting designated recipients
ultimately delayed applications to FTA for fiscal year 2006 funds and
hindered implementing projects.
Multiple Designated Recipients in Some Areas Lead to Additional Steps
to Administer Funds and Limited Funding Flexibility:
Some recipients indicated that assigning multiple designated recipients
to administer and manage JARC funds has resulted in additional steps to
administer JARC. Under SAFETEA-LU, state agencies must be the
designated recipients for small urbanized and rural areas, while local
agencies, such as a major transit agency or MPO, can serve as
designated recipients in large urbanized areas. However, the
jurisdiction of some local agencies that were selected as designated
recipients in large urbanized areas may include small urbanized and
rural areas. Specifically, officials in Sacramento, Los Angeles, and
San Francisco/Oakland in California, and Phoenix, Arizona, indicated
that this infrastructure is disjointed and confusing because states are
responsible for rural and small urbanized areas that may also be under
the jurisdiction of designated recipients for other FTA programs in
large urbanized areas.
For example, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments--the MPO and
designated recipient for Sacramento--has jurisdiction over the large
urbanized area as well as the small urbanized and rural areas[Footnote
31] in the region for the federally required Transportation Improvement
Program.[Footnote 32] Subrecipients that provide transit services for
the large urbanized area as well as rural areas need to apply to both
the state and the designated recipient in a large urbanized area to
receive funds for the urbanized and rural areas as well as report to
both the MPO and state.
To facilitate coordination and share resources, some states, such as
Arizona and California, have delegated the administration of JARC
projects in small urbanized areas to designated recipients in large
urbanized areas, while retaining jurisdiction over rural areas. For
instance, California delegated the responsibility for conducting a
competitive selection process to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission in the San Francisco-Oakland area and the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments in Sacramento for small urbanized areas under
those agencies' jurisdiction.
While delegating administration of JARC projects in small urbanized
areas to designated recipients in large urbanized areas may facilitate
coordination, it also results in additional work for designated
recipients for both the state and large urbanized areas. As the
designated recipient for small urbanized areas, the state is ultimately
responsible for all aspects of funding distribution and oversight of
subrecipients in those areas. Thus, it must ensure and certify that the
statewide competitive selection process resulted in a fair and
equitable distribution of funds. Consequently, states may want to
review and assess projects for small urbanized areas that were selected
as part of the large urbanized area's competitive selection process to
ensure that they were derived from the locally developed, coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plan. Some states may want
designated recipients for large urbanized areas to apply for small
urbanized area funds through the state's designated recipient, rather
than directly to FTA. For instance, a designated recipient for a large
urbanized area in California that was delegated responsibility to
oversee the competitive selection process for small urbanized areas
instructed the agency to send its selected JARC projects to the state
for additional review and competition with other small urbanized areas
in the state. The state then applied to FTA for funding. This process
increased the time and effort to award funds for small urbanized areas.
As previously mentioned, a greater proportion of funds lapsed in small
urbanized areas, compared to funds allocated to large urbanized and
rural areas. Some designated recipients suggested allowing states
discretion to select designated recipients for small urbanized and
rural areas, rather than requiring the state to take on that role.
However, SAFETEA-LU requires that the state be the designated recipient
for small urbanized and rural areas.
Moreover, although SAFETEA-LU's formula allocating funds by large and
small urbanized and rural area classifications provides funds to areas
that had not previously received JARC funds, some designated recipients
indicated that the funding allocations between urban and rural areas
limited them from distributing funds where they are most needed. Some
recipients we contacted would like discretion to use funds where they
are most needed in the state and the region. Currently, large urbanized
areas receive more funding than small urbanized and rural areas, since
the funding formula is based on the population and number of eligible
low-income residents. In some cases this may meet needs, but officials
from New Jersey Transit commented that transportation needs of New
Jersey's small urbanized and rural areas have been disproportionately
affected by the formula, making it difficult to meet the transit needs
of small urbanized and rural areas because allocated funds cannot be
transferred from large urbanized areas. Additionally, officials from
the Oregon Department of Transportation[Footnote 33] indicated that the
state could not transfer funds from its small urbanized areas to its
rural areas, even if the state received more applications from rural
areas than from small urbanized areas. In another case, officials from
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission indicated that they had
difficulties awarding JARC funds to potential recipients in Petaluma,
California--a relatively wealthy, small urbanized area in northern
California--because the area did not have a large concentration of low-
income residents and did not qualify for the funds that were allocated
to the area. As mentioned earlier, California was one of the states in
which funds lapsed for small urbanized and rural areas. Designated
recipients in California, New Jersey, and Wisconsin suggested
eliminating the urbanized area classifications established in SAFETEA-
LU and giving local agencies discretion to allocate funds where they
are most needed in the region. According to officials, this would give
designated recipients flexibility to transfer funds to areas that may
need more funds, such as rural areas with fewer resources than large
urbanized areas.
Furthermore, designated recipients in large urbanized areas that cross
state lines--such as New York City, New York and Newark, New Jersey--
had to take additional steps to administer the program. Industry
associations noted concerns about how large urbanized areas that
crossed state lines would implement changes to JARC. Although the
designated recipients in multi-state jurisdictions we interviewed
indicated that awarding JARC funds was not as much of an issue as
expected, the process did require additional administrative and
coordination efforts. For instance, in several multi-state large
urbanized areas--like Chicago, Illinois - Northwestern Indiana;
Augusta, Georgia -Aiken, South Carolina; and New York City, New York -
Newark, New Jersey--the cities in one of the states decided not to
apply for or use all of the allocated JARC funding. Specifically,
officials in northwestern Indiana, Augusta, and New York City decided
not to apply for or use all of the allocated JARC funding. Each of
these cities transferred JARC funding to the city in the other state to
ensure that the funds would be used. For example, the New York City
Metropolitan Transportation Authority decided not to apply because it
already provides extensive transit services 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week and did not need the relatively small amount of JARC funds
available. However, to accomplish this transfer, the designated
recipients had to agree on how to split the apportionment and notify
FTA annually of the split and the geographic area each recipient would
manage. For example, when New York transferred some of the New York
City portion of the JARC funds to New Jersey so that it could be used
for a project in Newark, officials had to negotiate the formula to use
to determine the amount of the funds to transfer to New Jersey for
Newark's use. These negotiations took some time, which subsequently
delayed New Jersey Transit's efforts to award JARC funds in the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.-Camden, New Jersey area.[Footnote 34] In
another instance, northwestern Indiana was not able to use its JARC
funding during the summer of 2008, and transferred the funds to
Illinois for Chicago to use. Officials with Chicago's Regional
Transportation Authority stated that they had to quickly identify
projects to include in its application so that the funds would not
lapse.
Although Recipients Considered Coordination Beneficial, Multiple
Factors Make It Difficult:
Many state and designated recipient officials we interviewed considered
the coordinated planning process beneficial and worthwhile. Recipients
noted that including stakeholders from transit and planning agencies as
well as human services agencies provided different perspectives and
resources and brought together agencies that traditionally do not work
together. As a result, the coordination process helped identify transit
service needs and gaps. One planning agency stated that the coordinated
planning requirement helped build on efforts it previously had in place
because it compelled agencies to work together to receive federal funds
and forced them to plan more strategically.
However, designated recipients cited multiple factors that challenged
coordination efforts:
Lack of sufficient funds, resources, and expertise:
Many designated recipients noted that the limited amount of funds, lack
of resources and, in some cases, lack of planning expertise, made
coordination difficult:
* Some designated recipients that used the 10 percent of JARC funds
SAFETEA-LU allows for administration and planning commented that the
amount is insufficient to cover the cost of planning. For instance, a
designated recipient in a large urbanized area in Georgia hired a
consultant to conduct the coordinated planning process and develop a
plan, but the allowance did not cover the cost of the consultant. In
another case, Oregon can use about $59,800--the allowed amount for
fiscal year 2006--for administrative purposes. However, officials noted
that, in total, the state spent about $400,000 to develop coordinated
plans for its 46 local and tribal agencies. Similarly, Arizona obtained
a grant from the United We Ride initiative to help defray--but not
entirely cover--the cost to develop a coordinated public transit-human
services transportation plan for small urbanized and rural areas.
[Footnote 35] Although FTA allows designated recipients to also combine
JARC funds with 10 percent of the funds from the New Freedom and the
Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (commonly
referred to as Section 5310) programs,[Footnote 36] some designated
recipients decided not to use the funds for administrative activities
because they wanted to use the relatively small amount of allocated
funds for transportation services rather than support services.
* Six of the nine state-level designated recipients we spoke with
indicated that rural areas, in particular, have fewer resources and
thus find JARC's coordinated planning requirements more challenging
than do large and small urbanized areas.[Footnote 37] One state
official stated that while some rural areas have used Section 5311
rural formula program[Footnote 38] funds to pay for planning and
coordination costs, others that do not receive other FTA funds have no
funds available for planning and coordination. In other areas, state
budget issues may limit how funds can be used. For instance, Georgia
applied to use JARC funds for administrative purposes, but current
state budget problems have prohibited funds from being used to hire
additional staff to coordinate and develop plans for rural areas.
Rural areas in some states do not have a regional planning
infrastructure or staff with planning expertise to conduct and develop
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans. For
instance, Wisconsin officials indicated that their state does not have
a regional rural planning infrastructure because the state develops
rural area policies and derives projects from that process. An Illinois
official commented that rural areas had never developed public
transportation plans before SAFETEA-LU. The state hired planning
coordinators to help develop coordinated plans in rural areas because
those areas lacked staff with planning expertise. Nevertheless,
recipients in other rural areas indicated that the planning process did
not present challenges in rural areas, and coordinated planning in
rural areas is critical because these areas are isolated and
coordination is critical to providing transit services.
Despite these concerns, many recipients have developed coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plans. These plans will
need to be periodically updated. Recipients noted that challenges in
coordinating and periodically updating plans will continue,
particularly if stakeholders are asked to meet regularly but are not
guaranteed to receive funds, given the limited amount of JARC funding
available. Recipients indicated that the amount of effort required to
coordinate and develop a plan, along with conducting a competitive
selection process, is disproportionate to the small amount of JARC
funds available.
Difficulties in engaging human services agencies:
Another coordination challenge cited was convincing other
organizations, such as human service agencies, to consistently
participate in the planning process. While designated recipients
encourage stakeholders from human services agencies to participate in
the coordination effort, these agencies are not necessarily required to
coordinate. Some designated recipients have required these agencies to
participate in the coordinated planning process in order to receive
funds. However, according to a designated recipient, the relatively
small amount of JARC funds does not offer sufficient incentive for some
agencies to participate. Some designated recipients suggested that
federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services,
that provide and allow funds to be used for transportation services
should require grantees to participate in coordinated planning efforts.
According to Department of Health and Human Services officials, federal
officials are making efforts to increase participation by other
organizations, but ultimately, local human services agencies decide
whether or not to participate in the coordinated planning process.
Officials with FTA and other federal agencies, including the Department
of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, reported that
they have been working through the Federal Interagency Coordinating
Council on Access and Mobility to encourage federal grantees to
participate in coordinated transportation planning efforts. In 2003, we
recommended that federal agencies develop and distribute additional
guidance to states and other grantees to encourage coordinated
transportation by clearly defining allowable uses of funds, explaining
how to develop cost-sharing arrangements for transporting common
clientele, and clarifying whether funds can be used to serve
individuals other than a program's target population.[Footnote 39]
While the respective federal agencies have since issued guidance
[Footnote 40] encouraging grant recipients to share resources with
local transit and planning agencies through the Federal Interagency
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, the agencies are still
developing a cost sharing policy. However, officials from the
departments of Labor and Health and Human Services indicated that local
human services agencies may have other competing priorities that limit
their ability to coordinate with transit agencies.
Difficulties integrating JARC planning requirements with existing
planning requirements:
Additionally, the different requirements between JARC's coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plan and the state and
metropolitan transportation plans can result in additional work for
designated recipients. For instance, under SAFETEA-LU, states and MPOs
are not required to include human services providers as stakeholders in
the transportation planning process; states and MPOs are only required
to provide stakeholders a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
state and metropolitan transportation plans. JARC, on the other hand,
requires designated recipients to include human services agencies in
the planning process and have a role in developing the coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plan. Some designated
recipients indicated that integrating human services agency
coordination for JARC into existing transportation planning process
would help streamline efforts.
Some Recipients Indicated Challenge in Identifying and Raising Matching
Funds:
Designated recipients in four states and four large urbanized areas
commented that identifying and generating matching funds has been
challenging, particularly for small urbanized and rural areas. Although
the state and local match for capital projects--20 percent--is less
than the match for operating projects--50 percent--many recipients use
JARC funds for operating projects and thus must identify and raise 50
percent of the cost of these projects. Some states, such as California
and Pennsylvania, and large urbanized areas such as Chicago, have a
dedicated source of funds, such as state or local sales taxes, to match
federal transit programs, but other states, such as Georgia, and large
urbanized areas--such as Milwaukee and Madison in Wisconsin and
Savannah and Augusta in Georgia--do not.
Recipients in locations with dedicated sources of matching funds also
noted that those sources are not always stable. For example, a
designated recipient and subrecipient relying on sales tax revenues
dedicated to transit noted decreased sales tax revenues due to the
current economic slowdown. Moreover, dedicated sources of matching
funds are not always sufficient to cover program costs. For instance,
designated recipients in New York urbanized areas have a dedicated tax
that can be used for capital expenditures but not for operating
projects. In addition, two recipients noted that funds from other
federal agencies, such as TANF funds, are increasingly being used for
purposes other than transportation, reducing the amount available for
use as matching funds for JARC projects.
Lack of Competition Raises Concern:
Although some recipients we contacted indicated that the competitive
process has been fair and transparent, regional FTA officials and a few
designated recipients expressed concern over the lack of competitive
JARC projects in some geographic areas. For instance, the designated
recipient for the Phoenix large urbanized area noted that it received
only one project application for the competitive selection process for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007 funds.
Some designated recipients noted that competition does not exist in
certain areas because some potential subrecipients, particularly
nonprofit organizations, cannot meet federal requirements, limiting the
number of candidates that can apply for JARC funds. Several designated
recipients indicated that nonprofit organizations may not have the
capacity to meet federal mandates, such as FTA's procurement
requirements for purchasing vehicles, and/or manage FTA funded
projects. Additionally, large transit agencies that had previously
received JARC funds are in a better competitive position, which might
discourage smaller transit agencies or nonprofit agencies from
applying. For instance, Maricopa County's Special Transportation
Services in Phoenix, Arizona, has experience applying for federal
funds, as it has historically received JARC funding since 1999, and is
in a good position to compete. The agency has the resources available,
such as a fleet of shuttle vans that are already in compliance with
federal regulations and requirements. On the other hand, according to
the designated recipient, a nonprofit agency in Phoenix that was new to
the JARC program withdrew its application for funds after determining
that it could not comply with federal regulations and the
administrative requirements for purchasing vehicles.
Some Recipients Reported That Requirements to Administer and Manage
JARC Duplicate Other FTA Program Requirements:
Several states and designated recipients in large urbanized areas noted
that the requirements to manage and administer JARC duplicate those of
FTA's two other relatively small transit programs, New Freedom and
Section 5310. Although some designated recipients voiced concerns about
consolidating the programs because they serve populations with
different needs, others suggested streamlining or consolidating them
because they have similar administrative requirements, such as
coordinating with human services agencies and developing a coordinated
plan. FTA allows designated recipients to streamline and consolidate
planning efforts for all three programs. However, some recipients
commented that applying for the funds separately for these programs is
redundant and time consuming. For instance, a subrecipient in Arizona
submitted two identical applications--one for JARC and one for New
Freedom--to the designated recipient, which in turn submitted similar
applications to FTA for both JARC and New Freedom funds. Designated
recipients noted that consolidating JARC with related FTA programs,
such as the New Freedom and Section 5310 programs, would lessen the
amount of administrative effort required to receive and manage the
programs.
Transit industry associations have proposed consolidating JARC with
other federal transit programs to streamline and eliminate the
administrative burden of coordinating and managing various FTA transit
programs. AASHTO proposed consolidating JARC with FTA's urbanized area
and rural area formula grants programs[Footnote 41] and combining the
New Freedom program with Section 5310. The American Public
Transportation Association proposed consolidating JARC with New Freedom
and Section 5310. Both associations indicated that the intent of the
proposals is to reduce the programs' administrative requirements while
still maintaining the programs' intent to provide transportation
services to disadvantaged populations. Nevertheless, associations
representing elderly and disabled persons, such as the Easter Seals,
AARP, and Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living
expressed concern that consolidating these programs would jeopardize
advances in providing transportation to these populations. Officials
from all of the associations--those representing the transportation
agencies as well as those representing elderly and disabled persons--
agreed that any changes to the JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310
programs need to ensure that the programs' intent remains intact.
JARC Program Recipients Cite Benefits, but FTA's Plans for Current
Evaluations May Have Limitations:
Although FTA has not completed an evaluation of the JARC program under
SAFETEA-LU, recipients we spoke with indicated that projects have
benefited low-income individuals by providing a means to get to work.
FTA has improved its approach for evaluating the program since 2000 and
currently has two studies under way to evaluate the JARC program under
SAFETEA-LU. However, both studies--one on performance measures and
another on the program's economic impacts--may have limitations that
could affect FTA's assessment of the program.
Program Recipients Cite Positive Benefits:
Although FTA's evaluations of the JARC program are not yet complete,
many designated recipients and subrecipients believe that the program
is beneficial because it has helped people access and maintain jobs.
State and local officials that we interviewed cited numerous examples
in which projects benefited individuals because they provided a means
for them to get to work. Officials noted that, without the
transportation that JARC services provided, these individuals would not
have been able to obtain and maintain jobs. For example, officials in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, noted that JARC bus routes provided 96,000 rides
during a 6-month period, suggesting that many people were using the
routes to get to jobs or job training. Similarly, in New Jersey,
surveys of individuals who use JARC services indicated that 70 percent
of them could not get to work without the transportation services being
provided. Despite these individual experiences, however, designated
recipients and other state and local officials agreed that JARC
projects funded under SAFETEA-LU have not been in effect long enough to
determine the projects' impact. Any evaluation of the projects would
also have to consider program costs, such as the time and effort
designated recipients and others invest to implement the program and
comply with its requirements.
Collecting Data for JARC Performance Measures Could Be Difficult:
FTA has contracted with CES and TranSystems--which have been evaluating
the JARC program since 2003--to further develop and improve the
performance measures established in FTA's final JARC guidance in May
2007. The current performance measures include the number of rides on
JARC-funded projects and the number of jobs accessed. Designated
recipients[Footnote 42] will report data on JARC projects to CES and
TranSystems in May 2009. These data will likely include projects funded
under SAFETEA-LU, as most of the projects implemented under SAFETEA-LU
were awarded in fiscal year 2008. FTA officials anticipate a report in
September 2009.[Footnote 43]
However, limitations inherent in the performance measures could affect
the usefulness of this evaluation:
* Actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips):
According to designated recipients and other state and local agency
officials we spoke with, determining the number of rides to access jobs
presents challenges because individuals use fixed route services for
many reasons in addition to traveling to work, including shopping and
medical appointments. For example, for projects that provide bus
service to shopping malls, determining whether people are traveling to
reach jobs at the malls, shop, or go to restaurants is difficult. In
addition, CES and TranSystems noted that anyone can use these services,
not just low-income populations. Although transit agency officials
noted that people are not comfortable providing information on their
income, FTA officials noted that they are not asking designated
recipients to report the number of riders served or the incomes of
these riders. FTA officials also noted that because SAFETEA-LU requires
that JARC projects be derived from a coordinated plan identifying
priorities to meet the transportation needs of low-income individuals
traveling to employment or related activities, they believe they can
presume that projects serve predominantly low-income populations.
Nevertheless, because anyone can use JARC services, FTA will not know
with certainty whether the targeted population is using the services to
find work or better paying jobs.
* Number of jobs accessed: Although FTA does not plan to have
designated recipients provide information on the number of jobs
accessed, CES and TranSystems representatives, designated recipients,
and other local officials we spoke with expressed concerns about
determining the number of jobs accessed. They noted that assessing this
performance measure is difficult because many designated recipients and
local agencies do not have the information necessary to determine the
number of jobs accessed in a given area by people using JARC services.
Even if agencies could determine the number of jobs accessed, agencies
would likely calculate it differently, resulting in inconsistent
information. For example, while one official indicated his agency could
survey riders, others indicated they would estimate the number of jobs
accessed based on employment data or the number of businesses in the
area.
FTA officials and CES and TranSystems representatives explained that,
rather than ask designated recipients to provide the number of jobs
accessed, they intend to request that designated recipients provide
data on the geographical areas in which they provide JARC services. For
fixed route projects, designated recipients will provide information on
the geographic area surrounding the length of the route. For demand
response services, designated recipients will provide the geographic
area--such as the state or county--in which the service is provided.
CES and TranSystems will use this information to estimate the number of
jobs accessed. CES and TranSystems officials noted that, in some cases,
the actual number of jobs accessed is known. For example, a
subrecipient in Ohio provides transportation that only serves temporary
employees traveling to jobs in a manufacturing plant. Consequently, the
provider knows the number of jobs being accessed and can report that
number rather than information on the geographical area.
In addition to limitations in the performance measures, the method to
estimate the number of jobs accessed has limitations. CES and
TranSystems plan to use the geographic data to calculate a very rough
estimate of the number of jobs accessed. CES and TranSystems will use a
Census Bureau program, the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic
(LEHD), to estimate the number of jobs accessed[Footnote 44] by
calculating the number of jobs in a given geographical area. For
example, for fixed route services, CES and TranSystems will estimate
the number of jobs within a ½-mile "zone" along the route, i.e., ¼-mile
on either side of the route. For demand response services, CES and
TranSystems will estimate the number of jobs within a geographical
unit, such as the county in which a service is provided. According to
CES and TranSystems officials, this approach only estimates the number
of jobs accessed at a national level and cannot be used to estimate the
number of jobs at a state or local level. This approach has other
limitations:
* The LEHD program does not include information from all 50 states. As
of September 2008, 47 states supplied data. Of those, 42 were included
in the program.
* For demand response services, CES and TranSystems can estimate the
total number of jobs and low-wage jobs within specific geographic
boundaries, such as a county or state. However, if the demand response
service area does not correspond directly to specific geographic units,
job information is not available.
FTA officials acknowledged these limitations and noted that CES and
TranSystems have been working with FTA to improve the quality of the
jobs accessed measure. Specifically, CES and TranSystems noted that
this performance measure actually estimates the potential number of
jobs, which overstates the number of jobs accessed. Consequently, CES
and TranSystems developed two alternatives:
* translating ridership into jobs reached by assuming that individuals
make round trips when traveling for work-related purposes, and dividing
the number of trips by two; and:
* comparing theoretical capacity to jobs accessed by determining the
number of individuals who could be served and dividing by two (again
assuming round trips).
CES and TranSystems noted that each of these approaches have advantages
and disadvantages. For example, while the first alternative directly
translates ridership into jobs, it also assumes that all riders are
traveling to jobs, which is not realistic. Moreover, it does not
consider that different people use services on different days. As a
result, the estimates could misstate the number of jobs accessed. The
second approach, which compares theoretical capacity to jobs accessed,
considers the transit system's capacity. However, CES and TranSystems
acknowledge that this approach may not be realistic as services are not
necessarily filled to capacity while in operation. Although these
approaches attempt to address the weaknesses of the current efforts to
estimate jobs accessed, they could still misstate the extent to which
the target population benefits from the JARC program.
CES and TranSystems have also developed measures for other JARC
services allowed under SAFETEA-LU that cannot be measured using the
number of riders and number of jobs accessed, such as informational
services and capital projects. CES and TranSystems are using a matrix
to capture key information regarding the projects such as the number of
requests for information services mobility managers received or the
number of additional vehicles purchased.
Evaluation of Economic Outcomes of JARC Programs Has Limitations in
Survey and Analysis Design:
The second study, conducted under contract with the University of
Illinois at Chicago (UIC), will focus on analyzing the economic impact
of the JARC program using data from a survey of JARC service users,
program managers, and coordinated human services transportation plan
participants.[Footnote 45] As of May 2009, researchers were in the
process of finalizing the survey instruments for this study. FTA
expects UIC to issue a report in the spring of 2010.
According to FTA officials and UIC researchers, the survey design and
analysis for the planned 2010 report will use a methodology similar to
a June 2008 survey-based economic analysis that UIC conducted on JARC
outcomes under TEA-21.[Footnote 46] In the 2008 study, the researchers
estimated the benefits and costs associated with the program.[Footnote
47] Potential benefits of the JARC program include higher paying jobs
that participants may gain as a result of being able to travel to areas
with better paying jobs. Potential costs include those associated with
operating the program.
However, we noted several limitations in the 2008 study, including
weaknesses in the design of the survey as well as the analysis of data
obtained from the survey. Although all surveys are potentially subject
to sources of error, the researchers did not use standard practices
that would help minimize these sources of error when developing and
implementing the survey used in the 2008 report. This limitation could
affect the reliability of the survey data used to estimate the economic
impacts. Specifically, the researchers may have overstated the benefits
to the target population.
For example, the survey estimates were reported as if they were based
on a probability sample and were generalizable to the population that
the JARC program targets. However, the estimates were not based on a
probability sample and, therefore, should not be generalized. In
addition, they did not disclose this fact or take it into account when
developing overall economic impacts. According to FTA officials, the
researchers were careful to not generalize the results of their survey
research. While the report does note that generalizing the results is
difficult, the report made several conclusions that, as written, appear
to apply to the population of JARC users as opposed to the survey
sample. For example, the report concluded that employment
transportation services are providing valuable services to users and
that those services are being appropriately targeted. In addition, the
report indicates that the individuals using the services are greatly
dependent on them, and that the benefits to the users are high and
likely to persist over time. However, the report does not qualify the
results to clarify that they apply only to the users surveyed. Without
this qualification, the report appears to extend the results to all
users, which would be inappropriate because the users surveyed were not
selected as part of a probability sample. The absence of this
qualification thus limits the usefulness of their assessment. In
addition, the researchers did not consider the need to qualify the
results when developing overall economic impacts.
In addition, the survey used in the 2008 study is subject to
nonsampling errors, including coverage error, non-response error, and
measurement error:
* The 2008 survey is subject to coverage error, which results when all
members of the survey population do not have an equal or known chance
of being sampled for participation. Standard practice is to note to
whom and when the surveys are disseminated. For example, if the
transportation system providing JARC services operates 24 hours a day,
researchers would have to survey across all days and time frames.
Otherwise, individuals using the service on days and times that
researchers do not survey would have a zero chance of being selected.
The researchers indicated that they rode the selected services for 6 to
12 hours so they could cover at least one if not both rush-hour periods
and, where appropriate, they also rode during off-peak hours including
late night and early morning. In addition, researchers said that in a
few cases they administered surveys over multiple days to ensure that
they surveyed a sufficient number of respondents. However, the
researchers did not include in the study a detailed sampling plan that
would fully explain how coverage issues were addressed. As a result,
the extent of coverage error is unknown, and the 2008 survey results
should not be generalized to all JARC users.
* The 2008 survey also suffers from nonresponse error, which results
when people responding to a survey differ from sampled individuals who
did not respond, in a way that is relevant to the study. Standard
practice to minimize this type of error includes using a systematic
sampling approach when disseminating surveys and noting, to the extent
possible, who is not participating, to see if non-respondents differ
from respondents.[Footnote 48] For the June 2008 study, UIC researchers
indicated that they boarded buses and developed a rapport with some
riders. However, the researchers acknowledged that not all riders were
willing to complete the survey. In addition, the study does not
identify the survey response rate and did not consider potential
differences between respondents and nonrespondents. Without this
information, the extent to which the estimates are biased is unknown.
* Finally, the wording for the questions used in the 2008 survey may
have resulted in inaccurate or uninterpretable responses. In general,
standard practice includes pretesting and technical review of the
instrument before administering to help minimize measurement error.
Although the researchers indicated that they pretested the survey
instrument and made changes based on the pretests and believed that the
pretest was thorough, we found obvious weaknesses in the survey
instrument. For example, we found that some response categories in the
survey were not mutually exclusive or exhaustive, questions appeared
ambiguous, and instructions for responding were not clear.
Collectively, we believe that these potential sources of error raise
questions about the validity of the survey data as it was used to
estimate the economic effect of the JARC program in the 2008 study. We
found similar limitations in the draft survey instrument that the
researchers have proposed to use for the 2010 study and provided
specific technical review feedback to FTA and the researchers regarding
these limitations. FTA officials indicated that the researchers had
made numerous changes that incorporated our comments as well as the
results of pretests and their own internal reviews.
We also identified limitations in the economic analysis used to
estimate the benefits and costs of the JARC program in the June 2008
study. For example, the researchers used a before-and-after approach to
analyze the benefits and costs.[Footnote 49] That is, the program was
analyzed in terms of its effect on individuals (for example, on changes
in earnings) before and after using the service. However, this approach
does not indicate what would have happened without the program. For
example, an individual's earnings may have increased over time even
without the program. The researchers said that because they implemented
the survey just after the JARC service started, they believe they
primarily captured the program's effects. The researchers also
indicated that they plan to refine the survey questions for the next
study to more precisely capture the program's effect and exclude
significant life events that might also affect an individual's
earnings.
In addition, the researchers found that, overall, the net benefits of
the program are positive. However, when analyzing more specific aspects
of the program, such as the benefits and costs of fixed route and
demand response services, the researchers reported that the program's
net benefits are negative.[Footnote 50] The researchers attribute this
conflicting result to their use of averages in computing net benefits
[Footnote 51] and indicated that they used averages to smooth out
irregularities in the survey responses. For example, the study
indicates that the survey data had a wide distribution with some large
positive and negative values (for example, some survey respondents may
have lost higher-paying jobs before using the JARC service and took a
lower-paying job after using the service.) However, the extent to which
the reported irregularities in the survey data are reasonable
differences in responses between riders or are due to the survey
limitations discussed above is not clear. In addition, the reported
economic results make it difficult to ascertain whether the program is
generating positive net benefits and whether it is an efficient use of
society's resources.
The researchers acknowledged some of these limitations and indicated
they have taken steps to improve their research design for the current
study, such as incorporating changes into their survey instrument. They
also indicated that they plan to make other improvements. We believe
that changes to address the limitations could improve the usefulness of
the results in assessing the economic effect of the JARC program.
Nevertheless, FTA does not have a comprehensive process in place to
ensure that evaluations of the impact of the JARC program use generally
accepted survey design and data analysis methodologies. Although FTA
officials indicated that an FTA economist reviewed the researchers'
proposed data collection and evaluation methodology at the beginning of
the project, FTA did not review the draft report. FTA officials
indicated that they did not have the expertise to do so and noted that
another entity--such as the Bureau of Transportation Statistics within
DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration--would need to
assist with this type of evaluation. Since the study was published in
2008, FTA officials said that the results did not inform FTA's
decisions about how to implement the JARC program. However, FTA
indicated that the results of the study as well as other evaluations
contribute to discussions on the program's future.
Conclusions:
FTA has made progress in awarding JARC funds since Congress passed
SAFETEA-LU in 2005, although FTA's delay in issuing final guidance and
other challenges contributed to a lapse in some fiscal year 2006 funds.
Now that the final guidance has been issued and recipients have had
experience implementing the program, the expectation is that more
fiscal year 2007 and 2008 funds will be awarded to implement more
projects, and accordingly, less funds will lapse in the future.
Recipients have faced several challenges in implementing JARC. A
message we consistently heard from designated recipients and
subrecipients is that the requirements for the current program are
extensive considering the relatively small amount of funding available.
Although FTA and recipients are becoming accustomed to the new formula
program and its requirements--which could lessen the severity of these
challenges in the future--recipients told us that they continue to face
challenges in a number of circumstances, such as when:
* designated recipients for large urbanized areas have jurisdiction
over small urbanized and/or rural areas and when the service provided
by an individual transit provider overlaps two or more of these areas;
* designated recipients are responsible for ensuring that organizations
that do not traditionally receive FTA funding comply with FTA
requirements;
* local agencies, particularly those in rural areas, have limited
staff, funding, and/or expertise needed to update coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plans; and:
* JARC requirements duplicate the requirements for other programs, such
as New Freedom and Section 5310.
The results of FTA's evaluations of the JARC programs under SAFETEA-LU
may have limitations that could affect FTA's assessment of the program.
FTA's current performance measures--number of rides and number of jobs
accessed--have limitations that could misstate the program's
performance. FTA's ongoing study of JARC's economic outcomes, conducted
by UIC, may also have limitations if it utilizes the same survey design
and data analysis methodology used in UIC's June 2008 study of the JARC
program under TEA-21. While FTA does not have the expertise to review
the methodologies used in these studies, other entities, such as the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics within DOT's Research and
Innovative Technology Administration, could assist with this review.
Recognizing that FTA has improved its evaluation approach over time and
that the JARC program is relatively small compared with FTA's regular
transit formula programs, drawing on this expertise within DOT could
provide additional assurances that the methodologies used in the
evaluations follow generally accepted survey design and data analysis
practices without expending significant additional resources.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Secretary of DOT direct the FTA to:
* Determine what actions FTA or Congress could take to address the
challenges agencies have encountered. For example, these actions could
include providing more specific guidance to assist large urbanized
areas with jurisdiction over small urbanized or rural areas, or
suggesting that Congress consider consolidating the application
processes for JARC and other programs with similar requirements.
* Ensure that program evaluations use generally accepted survey design
and data analysis methodologies by conducting a peer review of current
and future program evaluations, including UIC's current study of the
JARC program. This review could be conducted with the assistance of
another agency within DOT, such as the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics within DOT's Research and Innovative Technology
Administration.
Agency Comments:
DOT reviewed a draft of this report and provided comments by e-mail
requesting that we incorporate information providing additional
perspective on FTA's progress in implementing the JARC program,
including its evaluations of the program, which we have done. For
example, DOT officials noted that FTA's current evaluation framework
responds to prior GAO concerns by using an access to jobs measure
rather than an access to employment sites measure. We agree that FTA's
current methodology for evaluating the JARC program--although still
limited in some respects--represents an improvement over the agency's
previous approaches and that the agency has been responsive to GAO's
prior concerns. DOT also provided technical corrections, which we have
incorporated 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. 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 III.
Signed by:
David Wise:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We are mandated to evaluate the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC)
program every 2 years under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).[Footnote 52]
This report addresses (1) the extent to which FTA has awarded available
JARC funds for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and how recipients are
using the funds since the changes went into effect under SAFETEA-LU,
(2) the challenges recipients have faced in implementing the program,
and (3) how FTA plans to evaluate the JARC program.
To determine the extent to which FTA awarded available JARC funds, we
collected and analyzed JARC grants award data from FTA's Transportation
Electronic Awards Management (TEAM) System. To assess the reliability
of TEAM data, we (1) reviewed existing documentation related to the
data source and (2) obtained information from the system manager on
FTA's data reliability procedures. We also brought discrepancies we
found in the data to FTA officials' attention so they could resolve
them before we conducted our analyses. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. To examine how
recipients have used JARC funds since SAFETEA-LU went into effect, we
interviewed 26 designated recipients--9 states and 17 agencies
representing large urbanized areas--and 16 subrecipients[Footnote 53]
that were selected from a nonprobability sample.[Footnote 54] Table 4
lists the 26 designated recipients and table 5 lists the 16
subrecipients we interviewed.
Table 4: Designated Recipients Interviewed for Our Review:
State: Arizona;
Agency: Arizona Department of Transportation.
State: California;
Agency: California Department of Transportation.
State: Connecticut;
Agency: Connecticut Department of Transportation.
State: Georgia;
Agency: Georgia Department of Transportation.
State: Illinois;
Agency: Illinois Department of Transportation.
State: New Jersey;
Agency: New Jersey Transit.
State: New York;
Agency: New York State Department of Transportation.
State: Pennsylvania;
Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
State: Wisconsin;
Agency: Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Large Urbanized Area: Atlanta, Georgia;
Agency: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority and Atlanta
Regional Commission.
Large Urbanized Area: Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia--South Carolina;
Agency: Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission and Lower Savannah
Council of Governments.
Large Urbanized Area: Buffalo, New York;
Agency: Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority.
Large Urbanized Area: Chicago, Illinois--Indiana;
Agency: Regional Transit Authority.
Large Urbanized Area: Lancaster, Pennsylvania;
Agency: Red Rose Transit Authority.
Large Urbanized Area: Los Angeles--Long Beach--Santa Ana, California;
Agency: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority[A].
Large Urbanized Area: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--New Jersey--Delaware--
Maryland;
Agency: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority.
Large Urbanized Area: Phoenix--Mesa, Arizona;
Agency: City of Phoenix Public Transit Department.
Large Urbanized Area: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Agency: Port Authority of Allegheny County.
Large Urbanized Area: Riverside--San Bernardino, California;
Agency: Southern California Association of Governments[B].
Large Urbanized Area: Rochester, New York;
Agency: Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority.
Large Urbanized Area: Sacramento, California;
Agency: Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Large Urbanized Area: San Francisco--Oakland, California;
Agency: Metropolitan Transportation Commission[C].
Large Urbanized Area: Savannah, Georgia;
Agency: Savannah Chatham Area Transit Authority.
Large Urbanized Area: Washington, D.C.--Virginia--Maryland;
Agency: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Source: GAO analysis of interviewed agencies.
[A] Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is also
the designated recipient for the Lancaster--Palmdale, Calif. large
urbanized area.
[B] Southern California Association of Governments is also the
designated recipient for the Indio--Cathedral City--Palm Springs,
California; Temecula--Murrieta, California; and Victorville--Hesperia-
-Apple Valley, California large urbanized areas. The agency is located
in Los Angeles, California.
[C] Metropolitan Transportation Commission is also the designated
recipients for the Antioch, California; Concord, California; San Jose,
California; and Santa Rosa, California large urbanized areas.
[End of table]
Table 5: Subrecipients Interviewed for Our Review:
Agency: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Agency;
Location: Oakland, California;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: Bucks County Transportation Management Agency;
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: Chicago Transit Authority;
Location: Chicago, Illinois;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: City of Avondale;
Location: Avondale, Arizona;
Type of areas it serves: Small urbanized areas.
Agency: City of Danville Mass Transit;
Location: Danville, Illinois;
Type of areas it serves: Small urbanized area.
Agency: Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center;
Location: Brunswick, Georgia;
Type of areas it serves: Rural area.
Agency: Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council;
Location: Ithaca, New York;
Type of areas it serves: Small urbanized area.
Agency: Kenosha Achievement Center;
Location: Kenosha, Wisconsin;
Type of areas it serves: Small urbanized areas.
Agency: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works;
Location: Los Angeles, California;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: Maricopa County Human Services Department;
Location: Phoenix, Arizona;
Type of areas it serves: Large and small urbanized and rural areas.
Agency: Metra Rail;
Location: Chicago, Illinois;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: Milwaukee County Transit System;
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: Pace;
Location: Chicago, Illinois;
Type of areas it serves: Large urbanized area.
Agency: Pima County Rural Transit;
Location: Pima, Arizona;
Type of areas it serves: Rural areas.
Agency: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments;
Location: San Luis Obispo, California;
Type of areas it serves: Small urbanized and rural areas.
Agency: Southwestern Wisconsin Community Action Program;
Location: Dodgeville, Wisconsin;
Type of areas it serves: Rural areas.
Source: GAO analysis of interviewed agencies.
[End of table]
We collected and reviewed information from these recipients on the
different types of JARC projects being planned or implemented,
including demand response and fixed route transit services, auto loan
projects, mobility management services, and vanpool services.[Footnote
55] We selected the designated recipients based on a diverse range of
criteria that included states and large urbanized areas that:
* received an increase or a decrease in JARC funds as a result of
changing to the formula program;
* were previously interviewed for our November 2006 report;
* had awarded all or portions of fiscal year 2006 funds, as of May
2008;
* had not identified a designated recipient as of May 2008; and:
* FTA and industry association officials suggested.
We also chose large urbanized areas that crossed multiple states and
considered the geographic locations of states and large urbanized areas
to obtain a wider range of geographic coverage and dispersion. We
selected subrecipients that covered the three types of areas that were
apportioned JARC funding under SAFETEA-LU--large and small urbanized as
well as rural areas[Footnote 56]--and were based on recommendations
from designated recipients. These interviews cannot be generalized to
the entire JARC recipient and stakeholder population because they were
selected from a non-probability sample.
To identify the challenges recipients have encountered in implementing
the program, we interviewed officials from our selected non-probability
sample of designated recipients and subrecipients as well as 19
stakeholders, such as metropolitan planning organizations and local
public transit agencies, to obtain their views on challenges associated
with implementing the JARC program. Table 6 lists the 19 stakeholders
we interviewed.
Table 6: Stakeholders Interviewed for Our Review:
Agency: Bay Area Rapid Transit;
Location: Oakland, California;
Type of agency: Local transit agency.
Agency: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission;
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Type of agency: Metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
Agency: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission;
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Access to Work Interagency Cooperative;
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Type of agency: Local agency.
Agency: Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission;
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Augusta Public Transit;
Location: Augusta, Georgia;
Type of agency: Local transit agency.
Agency: Metropolitan Planning Commission;
Location: Savannah, Georgia;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Maricopa Association of Governments;
Location: Phoenix, Arizona;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Department of Workforce Development;
Location: Madison, Wisconsin;
Type of agency: State agency.
Agency: Madison Area Transportation Planning Board;
Location: Madison, Wisconsin;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission;
Location: Waukesha, Wisconsin;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning;
Location: Chicago, Illinois;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: New York Metropolitan Transit Authority;
Location: New York City, New York;
Type of agency: Local transit agency.
Agency: New York Metropolitan Transportation Commission;
Location: New York City, New York;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Metropolitan Planning Commission;
Location: Savannah, Georgia;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council;
Location: Buffalo-Niagara, New York;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: Genesee Transportation Council;
Location: Rochester, New York;
Type of agency: MPO.
Agency: City of Madison Metro Transit;
Location: Madison, Wisconsin;
Type of agency: Local transit agency.
Source: GAO analysis of interviewed agencies.
[End of table]
In addition, we interviewed the applicable FTA regions responsible for
the states and large urbanized areas we visited to obtain their
perspective on challenges identified in the region. We also interviewed
officials from industry associations, including the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the
American Public Transportation Association, the Community
Transportation Association of America, and the National Association of
Regional Councils to identify challenges faced by the agencies these
associations represent. Our interviews with AASHTO included discussions
with officials from state departments of transportation from
California, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas.
We summarized our interview responses to identify common challenges in
implementing the program. We also reviewed relevant laws and
regulations, including SAFETEA-LU and FTA's final guidance on
administering JARC, and other FTA information, such as the Frequently
Asked Questions document posted on FTA's Website, to clarify the
guidance. To identify challenges faced by human services agencies
associated with the coordinated human services transportation planning
process, we interviewed officials from the U.S. Department of Labor and
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, we
interviewed officials of associations representing the elderly and
disabled, including Easter Seals, AARP, the Association of Programs for
Rural Independent Living, and North Country Independent Living to
obtain their perspectives on consolidating JARC with other FTA transit
programs, such as the New Freedom, Elderly Individuals and Individuals
with Disabilities, and urbanized and rural area programs.[Footnote 57]
To determine how FTA plans to evaluate the JARC program, we reviewed
previous evaluations and interviewed officials from FTA and two
contractors, TranSystems/CES and the University of Illinois at Chicago
(UIC), that are evaluating the JARC program. For each evaluation, we
assessed the contractors' scope and methodology. Specifically, for the
TranSystems/CES evaluation, which focuses on JARC performance measures,
we determined the contractor's plans to collect and analyze data on
JARC projects. We also interviewed designated recipients, subrecipients
and other state and local officials to obtain their perspectives on
FTA's JARC performance measures. For the UIC evaluation, which focuses
on JARC's economic impact and outcomes, we reviewed UIC's June 2008
evaluation of the JARC program under TEA-21 using standard survey and
economic principles and practices as criteria, and interviewed UIC
researchers to identify similarities and differences between UIC's
methodologies for the prior and current studies and the implications
those methodologies could have on UIC's current evaluation. We also
reviewed and assessed the survey document UIC used on the prior
evaluation as well as the survey documents UIC plans to use in the
current study and provided feedback to the researchers.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary of Areas with Lapsed Fiscal Year 2006 JARC Funds:
Large urbanized areas:
Service Area: Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian, Puerto Rico;
Allocated Amount: $530,843;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $530,843; (100%).
Service Area: Austin, Texas;
Allocated Amount: $406,084;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $406,084; (100%).
Service Area: Bakersfield, California;
Allocated Amount: $318,265;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $238,265; (74.9%).
Service Area: Barnstable Town, Massachusetts;
Allocated Amount: $75,115;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $14,105; (18.8%).
Service Area: Columbia, South Carolina;
Allocated Amount: $191,671;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $191,671; (100%).
Service Area: Columbus, Georgia-Alabama;
Allocated Amount: $487,856;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $149,168; (30.6%).
Service Area: Daytona Beach-Port Orange, Florida;
Allocated Amount: $136,539;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $136,539; (100%).
Service Area: Durham, North Carolina;
Allocated Amount: $152,453;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $18,975; (12.4%).
Service Area: Fayetteville, North Carolin;
Allocated Amount: $152,079;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $152,079; (100%).
Service Area: Greenville, South Carolina;
Allocated Amount: $154,803;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $154,803; (100%).
Service Area: Gulfport-Biloxi, Mississippi;
Allocated Amount: $116,718;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $116,718; (100%).
Service Area: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
Allocated Amount: $118,352;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $118,352; (100%).
Service Area: Honolulu, Hawaii;
Allocated Amount: $296,056;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $296,056; (100%).
Service Area: Jackson, Mississippi;
Allocated Amount: $188,181;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $188,181; (100%).
Service Area: Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky;
Allocated Amount: $125,080;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $125,080; (100%).
Service Area: Miami, Florida;
Allocated Amount: $2,798,658;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $2,798,658; (100%).
Service Area: Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Allocated Amount: $586,353;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $307,613; (52.5%).
Service Area: Mission Viejo, California;
Allocated Amount: $110,760;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $110,760; (100%).
Service Area: Palm Bay-Melbourne, Florida;
Allocated Amount: $162,591;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $162,591; (100%).
Service Area: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware-Maryland;
Allocated Amount: $2,177,282;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $156,161; (7.2%).
Service Area: Port St. Lucie, Florida;
Allocated Amount: $134,102;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $134,102; (100%).
Service Area: Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, New York;
Allocated Amount: $138,244;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $138,244; (100%).
Service Area: Reading, Pennsylvania;
Allocated Amount: $108,520;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $108,520; (100%).
Service Area: Richmond, Virginia;
Allocated Amount: $325,063;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $292,557; (90.0%).
Service Area: Riverside-San Bernandino, California;
Allocated Amount: $1,025,531;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $347,894; (33.9%).
Service Area: San Juan, Puerto Rico;
Allocated Amount: $3,175,710;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $3,175,710; (100%).
Service Area: Spokane, Washington-Idaho;
Allocated Amount: $178,704;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $178,704; (100%).
Service Area: Victorville-Hesperia-Apple Valley, California;
Allocated Amount: $130,784;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $130,784; (100%).
Service Area: Total[A];
Allocated Amount: $14,163,709;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $10,879,217; (76.8%).
Service Area: Total allocated to large urbanized areas;
Allocated Amount: $81,972,000;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $10,879,217; (13.3%).
Small urbanized areas in the state:
Service Area: California;
Allocated Amount: $2,846,331;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $1,050,607; (36.9%).
Service Area: Delaware;
Allocated Amount: $47,028;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $47,028; (100%).
Service Area: Hawaii;
Allocated Amount: $51,652;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $51,652; (100%).
Service Area: Indiana;
Allocated Amount: $672,488;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $18,627; (2.8%).
Service Area: Louisiana;
Allocated Amount: $793,743;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $250,000; (31.5%).
Service Area: Mississippi;
Allocated Amount: $142,431;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $142,431; (100%).
Service Area: Nevada;
Allocated Amount: $37,708;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $37,708; (100%).
Service Area: New York;
Allocated Amount: $513,343;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $426,704; (83.1%).
Service Area: North Carolina;
Allocated Amount: $871,922;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $550,122; (63.1%).
Service Area: Puerto Rico;
Allocated Amount: $2,571,505;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $2,571,505; (100%).
Service Area: Utah;
Allocated Amount: $126,160;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $1,535; (1.2%).
Service Area: Wyoming;
Allocated Amount: $97,515;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $97,515; (100%).
Service Area: Total;
Allocated Amount: $8,771,826;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $5,245,434; (59.8%).
Service Area: Total allocated to small urbanized areas;
Allocated Amount: $27,324,000;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $5,245,434; (19.2%).
Non-urbanized, rural areas in the state:
Service Area: California;
Allocated Amount: $1,392,047;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $880,209; (63.2%).
Service Area: Delaware;
Allocated Amount: $60,739;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $60,739; (100%).
Service Area: Indiana;
Allocated Amount: $547,252;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $312,252; (57.1%).
Service Area: North Carolina;
Allocated Amount: $1,377,832;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $862,267; (62.6%).
Service Area: Puerto Rico;
Allocated Amount: $354,265;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $354,265; (100%).
Service Area: Total;
Allocated Amount: $3,732,135;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $2,469,732; (66.2%).
Service Area: Total allocated to non-urbanized rural areas;
Allocated Amount: $27,324,000;
Lapsed Amount (percent): $2,469,732; (9.0%).
Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.
[A] Although 33 out of 152 large urbanized areas allowed a portion of
the fiscal year 2006 JARC funds to lapse, 5 of these--Dayton, Ohio;
Madison, Wisconsin; New York, New York-Newark, New Jersey-Connecticut;
Portland, Oregon-Washington; and Reno, Nevada---awarded about 99
percent of their allocated funds and are not included in this table.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David Wise (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Other key contributors to this report were Sara Vermillion (Assistant
Director), Lynn Filla-Clark, Kathleen Gilhooly, Timothy Guinane,
Jennifer Kim, Heather May, Jaclyn Nelson, Karen O'Conor, Lisa Reynolds,
Terry Richardson, and Amy Rosewarne.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Section 3037 of Pub. L. No. 105-178.
[2] 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
wide range of transportation options and service providers and do not
include operating public transportation services.
[3] Designated recipients are state and local agencies that have been
designated to administer and distribute JARC funds to local agencies.
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 award JARC funds to subrecipients, which are
local transit agencies, non-profit organizations, or local government
authorities that receive JARC funds for eligible transit projects.
[4] GAO, Federal Transit Administration: Progress Made in Implementing
Changes to the Job Access Program, but Evaluation and Oversight
Processes Need Improvement, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-43] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17,
2006).
[5] Large urbanized areas are defined as urbanized areas with a
population of more than 200,000. Small urbanized areas are defined as
urbanized areas with a population of between 50,000 to 199,999. Rural
areas are defined as areas having a population of less than 50,000.
[6] 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 persons at-risk.
[7] GAO, Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many
Strategies to Address Rural Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-921] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10,
2004).
[8] U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data from the
2007 American Community Survey, (Washington, D.C.: August 2008).
[9] GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-36] (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 8, 1998); Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs
Program in Its First Year, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-14] {Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26,
1999); Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job
Access Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-133]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000); Welfare Reform: GAO's Recent and
Ongoing Work on DOT's Access to Jobs Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-996R] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17,
2001); Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for
DOT's Job Access Program Was Not Followed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-213] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17,
2001); Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service
Coordination, but Evaluations Should Be Completed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-204] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6,
2002); and DOT's Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Briefing to
Congressional Staff (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).
[10] Section 3018 of Pub. L. No. 109-59.
[11] The SAFETEA-LU formula apportions JARC funds on the basis of
"eligible" low-income individuals in an area. SAFETEA-LU defined
eligible low-income individuals as those whose family income is at or
below 150 percent of the poverty line.
[12] TEA-21 required that JARC projects be part of a coordinated public
transit-human services transportation planning process but did not
require certification that projects were derived from the plan.
[13] These include the Section 5310 Public Transportation for Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program and the Section
5311 Nonurbanized program.
[14] "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.
[15] Section 3019 of Pub. L. No. 109-59; 49 U.S.C., Section 5317.
Specifically, the (DOT) Secretary may make grants under this section to
a recipient for new public transportation services and public
transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.) that assist
individuals with disabilities with transportation, including
transportation to and from jobs and employment support services.
[16] 49 U.S.C. § 5310. Specifically, the (DOT) Secretary may make
grants to states and local governmental authorities under this section
for public transportation capital projects planned, designed, and
carried out to meet the special needs of elderly individuals and
individuals with disabilities.
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-43].
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-43].
[19] FTA, The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program Guidance
and Application Instructions, FTA C 9050.1 (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2007).
[20] States and large urbanized areas had to apply for fiscal year 2006
JARC funds, and have FTA obligate the funds by September 30, 2008.
Otherwise, the funds lapsed and were no longer available for designated
recipients' use.
[21] The five large urbanized areas that awarded about 99 percent of
their allocated fiscal year 2006 funds are: Dayton, Ohio; Madison,
Wisconsin; New York, New York - Newark, New Jersey - Connecticut;
Portland, Oregon - Washington; and Reno, Nevada.
[22] The 11 states that allowed fiscal year 2006 funds to lapse in
small urbanized areas are California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Utah, and
Wyoming. The five states that allowed their entire funds to lapse are
Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, and Wyoming. In addition, the
territory of Puerto Rico allowed its entire fiscal year 2006 funds to
lapse.
[23] The four states that allowed fiscal year 2006 funds to lapse in
rural areas are California, Delaware, Indiana, and North Carolina. In
addition, the territory of Puerto Rico allowed funds to lapse in rural
areas.
[24] Reverse commute projects are public transportation projects
designed to transport residents in urbanized and rural areas to
employment locations in suburban areas. Fixed route service provides
transportation along a designated route or station, such as a bus or
train route. Customers must arrange travel from their home to a bus or
train station, where they are transported to the station closest to
their final destination. Customers then must arrange to travel from the
station to their final destination.
[25] Demand response transit services provide transportation between
specific locations at a customer's request. For example, customers can
arrange to be picked up at home and dropped at their place of
employment.
[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-43].
[27] FTA also decided to publish the JARC circular at the same time it
published circulars for the New Freedom and Section 5310 programs
because the circulars contained significant cross-cutting guidance.
[28] Subrecipients must include JARC projects in a locally developed
coordinated human services transportation plan, as well as apply and be
selected through a designated recipient's competitive selection process
to receive JARC funds.
[29] This recipient was uncertain as to how it can fund and monitor
loans for automobiles that should be used specifically for travel to
employment locations. Individuals who receive a loan with JARC funds
and purchase automobiles can use the vehicle for purposes other than
access to jobs, such as shopping and visiting friends. FTA noted that
it has since developed more detailed guidance on funding and monitoring
auto-loan projects and is working to make it available to grant
recipients and other interested parties.
[30] The Port Authority of Allegheny County will retain the designated
recipient role until Pennsylvania's governor notifies FTA to re-
designate the role to the MPO.
[31] As previously mentioned, SAFETEA-LU's JARC formula apportions and
distributes funds among three geographic areas--large urbanized, small
urbanized, and rural areas--based on the size of the population and the
number of eligible low-income individuals and welfare recipients in the
geographic area.
[32] The Transportation Improvement Program lists specific projects
that will be implemented over the next 4 years. MPOs receive federal
planning funds from FTA to develop the list of surface transportation
projects that receive federal funds, are subject to a federally
required action, or are regionally significant. The Sacramento Area
Council of Governments, as the federally designated MPO for the six-
county Sacramento Region, prepares and adopts the Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Plan about every 2 years.
[33] Although Oregon was not one of the states selected in our non-
probability sample, we spoke with officials from the Oregon Department
of Transportation and officials from other state DOTs, including Iowa,
North Dakota, and Texas, during interviews with AASHTO.
[34] New Jersey Transit is the designated recipient for all of New
Jersey.
[35] United We Ride is a federal interagency initiative that supports
states and localities in developing coordinated human service delivery
systems. In addition to state coordination grants, United We Ride
provides states and local agencies a transportation-coordination and
planning self-assessment tool, technical assistances, and other
resources to help coordinate transportation in local communities.
[36] The New Freedom and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities programs provide funding for transportation-disadvantaged
populations. While the New Freedom program provides funding for new
public transportation and public transportation alternatives that
assist individuals with disabilities, the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities program provides formula funding for
capital projects to assist in meeting transportation needs of elderly
and persons with disabilities.
[37] The coordinated planning effort varied from state to state, and
while one state agency led the coordinated planning process for small
urbanized and rural areas, other states delegated the responsibility
for coordination and developing plans to local small urbanized and
rural regions.
[38] The Section 5311 rural formula program provides funding for public
transportation in rural areas. FTA apportions funds for rural areas to
the states according to a formula based on each state's rural
population and land area.
[39] 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).
[40] Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility,
Vehicle Resource Sharing Final Policy Statement (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
1, 2006).
[41] The urbanized formula program is commonly referred to as Section
5307; the rural formula program is commonly referred to as Section
5311.
[42] FTA requires designated recipients to report performance data.
However, designated recipients can delegate this responsibility to
subrecipients.
[43] FTA originally planned to request that designated recipients begin
reporting in February 2009. However, FTA delayed reporting to allow
agencies time to apply for projects under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA), (Pub. L. 111-5). Many designated recipients
handle other transit programs and had a limited period of time in which
to apply for ARRA funds. Although CES and TranSystems officials
indicated that they have already collected data in some states, FTA
officials indicated that these data were collected in conjunction with
pretests of the contractors' data collection instrument.
[44] The LEHD began in 1997 as an initiative to merge available data on
households and employment using advanced statistical techniques. Its
broad purpose is to integrate data from administrative records, the
Census, and surveys to create new information on U.S. society and the
economy. LEHD combines federal and state administrative data on
employers and employees with core Census Bureau censuses and surveys
while protecting the individual confidentiality of people and firms
providing the data. Through the Local Employment Dynamics partnership,
states voluntarily supply employment data to the Census Bureau on the
number of employees at individual worksites. These data are combined
with other information to create Quarterly Workforce Indicators, which
are geocoded and mapped according to census geography.
[45] In addition to evaluating the JARC program, this study will
analyze the economic benefits of the New Freedom program and the
effectiveness of the post-SAFETEA-LU coordinated planning provisions
for JARC, New Freedom, and Section 5310.
[46] Economic Benefits of Employment Transportation Services,
University of Illinois at Chicago (Chicago, Illinois: June 2008).
[47] A benefit-cost analysis is generally used to assess whether the
social benefits of a program outweigh its social costs (that is,
whether net benefits are positive), compared to alternatives, such as
the status quo or the way the world would look without the program. The
alternative that maximizes net benefits is expected to be an efficient
investment of society's resources. Typically, in estimating net
benefits, the sum total of the incremental (compared to the status quo)
benefits is compared with the sum total of the incremental costs.
According to FTA, the traditional cost benefit analysis approaches used
in transportation or social service programs do not lend themselves to
evaluating JARC and the UIC researchers developed a hybrid benefit-cost
approach that combines methods used in transportation with methods from
labor economics. For example, FTA indicated that the researchers
measured the impact of the JARC program on other low-wage workers in
the same labor market including effects such as wage deflation and job
losses that might have occurred as low-skilled workers were transported
to jobs where other workers were already employed.
[48] Biased estimates can result when respondents and nonrespondents
differ on the variables being studied.
[49] The researchers also developed an alternative evaluation design to
analyze the effect of the program but did not report a new societal net
benefit estimate. Under this approach, the researchers compared a
treatment with a control group, where the control group represented a
scenario in which users would not have access to JARC services. The
treatment group represented a scenario in which users would have access
to JARC services.
[50] The researchers considered several scenarios in their analyses.
They found that net benefits are positive overall but negative for
subcategories in one of these, specifically the researchers' Scenario
III base year analysis that uses a more conceptually-appropriate
measure of economic effect (social surplus) and assesses the potential
effect of the program on the labor market. The net benefit estimates
for the other, less comprehensive base year scenarios were generally
positive.
[51] Typically, net benefits are computed using the sum of incremental
benefits minus the sum of incremental costs, not average values. The
researchers said that the conflicting result is probably due to
Simpson's Paradox, a condition that can arise when estimating an
average using two or more subgroups of data. The average of the
combined data can be different than the average of the subgroups due
to, for example, different sample sizes or omitted variables.
[52] We last reported on the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA)
progress in implementing JARC in November 2006. GAO, Federal Transit
Administration: Progress Made in Implementing Changes to the Job Access
Program, but Evaluation and Oversight Processes Need Improvement,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-43] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 17, 2006).
[53] Designated recipients are state and local agencies that have been
designated to administer and distribute JARC funds to local agencies.
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 award JARC funds to subrecipients, which are
local transit agencies, non-profit organizations, or local government
authorities that receive JARC funds for eligible transit projects.
[54] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[55] Demand response transit services provide transportation between
specific locations at a customer's request. For example, customers can
arrange to be picked up at home and dropped off at their place of
employment. Fixed route services provide transportation along a
designated route or station, such as a bus or train route. Customers
must arrange travel from their home to a bus or train station, where
they are transported to the stop closest to their final destination.
Customers then must arrange travel from the stop to their final
destination. Mobility management services consist of planning and
management activities and projects 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 wide range of
transportation options and service providers and do not include
operating public transportation services.
[56] Large urbanized areas are defined as urbanized areas with a
population of more than 200,000. Small urbanized areas are defined as
urbanized areas with a population of between 50,000 to 199,999. Rural
areas are defined as areas having a population of less than 50,000.
[57] The New Freedom and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities programs provide funding for transportation-disadvantaged
population. While the New Freedom program provides funding for new
public transportation services and public transportation alternatives
that assist individuals with disabilities, the Elderly Individuals and
Individuals with Disabilities program provides formula funding for
capital projects to assist in meeting transportation needs of elderly
and persons with disabilities. FTA's urbanized and rural area program
is commonly referred to as Section 5307 and Section 5311, respectively.
Section 5307 urbanized area program provides formula funding for
transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas, while the
rural area program provides formula funding to states for public
transportation services in rural areas.
[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: