Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job
Access Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact (17-APR-02,
GAO-02-640T).
The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Job Access and Reverse
Commute (Job Access) Program, has presented implementation
challenges for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In
November 1999, DOT's process for selecting Job Access grantees
was inconsistent and the basis for some selections was unclear.
In response, DOT took steps to improve its process for selecting
grantees by developing a standard format for reviewing proposals
and providing more detailed guidance to its reviewers. Grantees
reported problems in meeting standard grant requirements for
obtaining Job Access funding. Half of the respondents GAO
surveyed said that it took too long to satisfy standard FTA grant
requirements--on average, about nine months from the time an
applicant had been selected for a grant until the time the
applicant had satisfied the requirements and received its grant.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century required DOT
to evaluate the Job Access program and issue a report by June
2000. However, DOT reportedly has no estimated date for issuing
the report. DOT developed a plan and selected an increase in
access to employment sites as the sole measure of program
success. The use of employment sites as the sole measure of
program success neither addresses key aspects of the program nor
specifically relates to DOT's criteria for selecting Job Access
grantees.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-640T
ACCNO: A03088
TITLE: Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the
Job Access Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact
DATE: 04/17/2002
SUBJECT: Eligibility determinations
Grants
Program evaluation
Public assistance programs
Workfare
DOL Welfare-to-Work Program
DOT Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-640T
Testimony Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit U. S. House of Representatives
United States General Accounting Office GAO Not to be Released Before 10: 00
a. m. EDT Wednesday April 17, 2002 WELFARE REFORM
DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program but Has Not
Evaluated the Impact
Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues GAO-
02- 640T
Page 1 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee: We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the results of our
work on the Department of Transportation?s (DOT) Job Access and Reverse
Commute (Job Access) Program. This program, designed to support the nation?s
welfare reform goals, has presented implementation challenges for the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within DOT, which primarily administers
programs focused on investments in transit infrastructure. Over the last
several years, we have made a number of recommendations to improve the
implementation of this program. We expect to issue another report in
December 2002 examining the overall role and performance of the program in
increasing the mobility of low- income individuals seeking employment. We
are here today to discuss (1) DOT?s and grantees? challenges in implementing
the Job Access program and (2) the status of DOT?s program evaluation
efforts. Based on a series of our reviews of the Job Access program 1 that
are
mandated by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA- 21)
and some preliminary results from our ongoing work, we are offering the
following observations on the implementation and evaluation of the program.
DOT and grantees have faced challenges in implementing the Job
Access program. Specifically,
In November 1999, we found that DOT's process for selecting Job Access
grantees was not consistent and the basis for some selections
1 See app. I for a listing of GAO reports on the Job Access program and
other transit programs.
Page 2 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs was unclear. 2 In response to these
findings, DOT took steps to improve its process for selecting Job Access
grantees by developing a standard format for reviewing proposals and
providing more detailed
guidance to its reviewers. 3 In addition, in December 2001, we reported that
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, DOT allocated about 75 percent of the
funding made available for the Job Access program under a noncompetitive
process, in response to designations contained in the conference reports
accompanying its appropriations acts for those years. This practice was not
consistent with TEA- 21. 4 In response to our recommendations, DOT recently
issued a solicitation of grant
proposals for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, which states that applicants for
projects in ?congressionally- designated areas? will be evaluated, scored,
ranked, and funded along with all other applicants.
Grantees also reported problems in meeting standard grant requirements
necessary to obtain Job Access funding. About half of the respondents to our
survey of applicants selected for funding in fiscal year 1999 said it took
too long to satisfy standard FTA grant
requirements- on average, about 9 months from the time DOT announced that an
applicant had been selected for a grant until the time the applicant had
satisfied these grant requirements and could
2 Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT?s Access to Jobs Program in Its First
Year (GAO/ RCED- 00- 14, Nov. 26, 1999). 3 Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making
Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program (GAO01- 133, Dec. 4, 2000).
4 Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT?s Job
Access Program Was Not Followed (GAO- 02- 218, Dec. 7, 2001).
Page 3 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs receive its grant. 5 Over one- third of
the respondents said they had experienced problems in obtaining matching
funds because of the time
needed to satisfy these requirements.
TEA- 21 required DOT to evaluate the Job Access program and issue a report
to the congressional authorizing committees by June 2000; however, according
to a DOT official, DOT has no estimated date for issuing the report. We have
previously emphasized the need to evaluate the program; specifically, in May
1998 (before the Job Access program was authorized), we reported that DOT
lacked specific information for assessing how a Job Access program would
improve mobility for low- income workers, and we recommended that DOT
establish specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals
for a Job Access program. 6 DOT has instituted an evaluation plan and
selected an increase in access to employment sites as the only measure of
program success. However, preliminary results of our
ongoing work indicate that DOT?s use of employment sites as the sole measure
of program success does not address key aspects of the program nor
specifically relate to DOT?s criteria for selecting Job Access grantees. In
our next report, to be issued in December 2002, we plan to address factors
that affect the Job Access program in helping welfare recipients transition
to work. The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nation?s system to
5 For our December 2000 and 2001 reports, we surveyed all of the applicants
for the 194 projects selected for the Job Access program in fiscal year 1999
and we received responses from over 80 percent of them each year 6 Welfare
Reform: Transportation?s Role in Moving from Welfare to Work (GAO/ RCED-
98161,
May 29, 1998).. Background
Page 4 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs provide assistance to the poor. The act
replaced the existing entitlement program for poor families with fixed block
grants to the states to provide
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF provides about $16.5
billion annually for the states to use for families to become
selfsufficient, imposes work requirements for adults, and establishes time
limits on the receipt of federal assistance. Without adequate
transportation, however, welfare recipients face significant barriers in
moving from welfare to work. In 1998, the Congress found that threefourths
of welfare recipients live in central cities or rural areas, while twothirds
of new entry- level jobs are located in suburbs. Public transportation
facilities, such as buses or subways, often offer limited or no access to
many of these jobs. Although the jobs can be reached by car,
many welfare recipients do not have cars. A number of federal programs have
been designed to facilitate the transition from welfare to work, including
the Job Access program established by TEA- 21 and the U. S. Department of
Labor?s Welfare to Work program. While TEA- 21 authorized record levels of
funding for a variety of transit programs ($ 41 billion for the six- year
period from fiscal years 1998 through 2003), with the majority of this
funding directed to constructing or improving transit infrastructure, TEA-
21 authorized up to $750 million for fiscal year 1999 through 2003 for the
Job Access program. 7 Under the Job Access program, DOT provides grants on a
competitive
basis to local agencies, nonprofit organizations, transit authorities, and
others to improve the mobility of welfare recipients and low- income
individuals seeking work. In each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the 7
Appendix I identifies GAO?s transit- related reports issued since 1998.
Page 5 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs Congress provided $75 million for the
program. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Congress provided $100 million
and $125 million, respectively. Since the program?s inception, DOT has
selected 368 Job Access projects
for grants totaling $247 million. Further, TEA- 21 required DOT to evaluate
the program and submit a report to congressional authorizing committees by
June 2000.
Both DOT and grantees have faced significant challenges in implementing the
Job Access program. TEA- 21 directed DOT to conduct a national solicitation
for grant applicants and to select grantees on a competitive basis using a
variety of factors. Among other things, TEA- 21 required DOT
to consider the percentage of welfare recipients in the population of the
area to be served, the need for additional services, and the degree of
coordination with existing transportation providers. To evaluate
applications for Job Access grants, DOT synthesized the factors contained
in the statute into four broad categories: (1) a project?s potential
effectiveness; (2) an area?s need for the services; (3) the degree of local
coordination; and (4) the project?s sustainability. TEA- 21 also required
those selected for Job Access grants to meet the requirements applicable
to urban area transit formula grantees as well as any other requirements
established by DOT. 8 DOT Implementation Challenges Since FTA primarily
administers programs focusing on transit
infrastructure, implementing the Job Access program presented it with unique
challenges. In our November 1999 report, we found that DOT?s 8 Under the
urbanized area formula grant program, DOT generally makes transit grants to
urbanized areas with populations of 50, 000 or more. DOT and Grantees
Have Faced Challenges in Implementing the Job Access Program
Page 6 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs process for selecting Job Access grant
proposals was not consistent and the basis for selections was unclear. 9 In
addition, reviewers did not
uniformly apply the criteria for ranking and selecting the applications, and
DOT officials could not consistently demonstrate how applications? overall
rankings were determined from the scores for each individual criterion. The
inconsistency in DOT?s evaluation and selection approach occurred because
the information supplied by applicants varied in detail and quality
and the guidance to reviewers on how to review and rank the applications was
not specific enough to ensure consistent results. In response to our
findings, during fiscal year 2000, DOT took steps to promote greater
consistency and uniformity in the data contained in the proposals. For
example, DOT developed a standard format that it suggested prospective
grantees use in applying for Job Access grants. DOT also provided guidance
to its reviewers that specified in more detail
what factors should be emphasized and how points should be assigned under
each of the four selection criteria.
In addition, for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, DOT allocated most of the
funding made available for the program under a noncompetitive process. In
response to language in the conference reports accompanying the Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts for fiscal years
2000 and 2001 that designated Job Access funds for specific states,
localities, and organizations, DOT adopted a two- track process for the
selection of Job Access grantees. DOT instituted a noncompetitive
process for entities identified in the conference reports, or applicants
selected by those entities, setting aside funds for those entities and
making selections without comparing their applications to those submitted by
9 GAO/ RCED- 00- 14, Nov. 26, 1999.
Page 7 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs other applicants. DOT implemented its
previously established competitive selection process for other applicants.
This two- track approach resulted in DOT allocating about 75 percent of the
funding made available for the
program over these 2 years on a noncompetitive basis. DOT had designed its
competitive selection process to help ensure that the projects selected for
funding would best achieve the program?s objectives. DOT?s two- track
process for the selection of Job Access grantees in fiscal years 2000 and
2001 decreased opportunities for DOT to fund projects that could have been
identified as ?meritorious? through the competitive selection process.
Moreover, DOT?s noncompetitive allocation of Job Access funds to entities
designated in conference reports was not consistent with TEA- 21, which
requires grantees to be selected on a
competitive basis. Since the conference reports provided DOT with no legal
basis to deviate from the requirements of TEA- 21, DOT?s use of a
noncompetitive process for the selection of Job Access grantees in fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 was not authorized.
In December 2001, 10 we recommended that, in the absence of statutory
authority to select Job Access grantees on a noncompetitive basis, the
Secretary of Transportation ensure that future grants to entities designated
in conference reports be made on a competitive basis as required by TEA- 21.
While DOT officials disagreed with our finding that the department had
awarded grants using a noncompetitive process, the April 2002 solicitation
of grant proposals for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 reflects a significant
modification to the process, which is now consistent with our
recommendation. 11 Specifically, applicants for projects in
10 GAO- 02- 218, Dec. 7, 2001. 11 67 Fed. Reg. 16790 (2002).
Page 8 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs ?congressionally- designated areas? will
be evaluated, scored, and ranked along with all other applicants. Available
funds will be allocated among all
projects, including those in ?congressionally- designated areas,? based upon
their ranking in the competitive evaluation process and other factors set
forth in the notice. The other factors include the time frame in which the
projects can be implemented, geographic distribution of project funds, and
?congressional designation? of projects for funding.
Grantees Have Expressed Concern About the Award Process but Were Satisfied
With Some Program Achievements Grantees have reported problems in meeting
standard FTA grant
requirements necessary to obtain funding. To determine the views of Job
Access grantees, we surveyed all of the applicants for the 194 projects
selected for the Job Access program in fiscal year 1999. A majority of the
respondents indicated that it took too long to meet the standard grant
requirements- an average of about 9 months on average from the time
DOT announced that an applicant had been selected for a grant until the time
the applicant had satisfied these grant requirements and could receive its
grant. Also, over one- third of them stated that, because of the time it
took to satisfy these requirements, they had experienced problems in
obtaining matching funds. Furthermore, seven projects were withdrawn for
varied reasons. For example, one grantee reported
withdrawing from the program after losing its matching funds. Officials for
another respondent said they withdrew because the relatively small grant
amount did not justify the effort needed to satisfy the standard FTA grant
requirements. Despite these concerns, the majority of respondents decided to
apply for grants the following year.
Page 9 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs The respondents were generally satisfied
that the program was achieving one of its main goals of transporting welfare
recipients to work. A number
of them indicated that the program created new transportation services where
none were previously available or expanded existing services. For example,
officials from one county noted the program allowed them to establish
transit routes that were not previously covered by any public
transportation. Another respondent expanded transportation to employees on
the second and third work shifts. Respondents also noted that the Job Access
program improved coordination among different
organizations involved in getting people to work- another program objective.
TEA- 21 required that DOT evaluate the program and issue a report to
congressional authorizing committees by June 2000. DOT has yet to complete
the required evaluation. However, according to a DOT official, the
department is updating data that would enable it to complete the study. At
this time, DOT has no estimated date for issuing the report.
We have previously reported on and emphasized the need for evaluating the
effectiveness of the Job Access program. In May 1998, before the program was
authorized, we reported that DOT lacked specific information for assessing
how a Job Access program would improve mobility for low- income workers and
contribute to national welfare reform objectives. We recommended that DOT
establish specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals if
such a program
were authorized. 12 As we reported in December 2000, DOT has developed
specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals, which are
12 GAO/ RCED- 98- 161, May 29, 1998. DOT Has Not Evaluated the Job Access
Program
Page 10 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs reflected in part in its fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2001 performance plans, prepared under the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993. 13 These plans establish the specific
goal of increasing the number of
new employment sites that are made accessible by the Job Access program by
4,050 in fiscal year 2000 and 8,050 in fiscal year 2001.
Preliminary results of our ongoing work- which includes monitoring DOT?s
efforts to evaluate the Job Access program- indicate that DOT?s use of
employment sites that are accessible as the only measure for determining
program success does not fully address all key aspects of the program,
including all four of DOT?s criteria used for selecting Job Access grantees.
Other meaningful measures of the success of the program or an individual
project are implicit in the criteria that DOT applies in selecting
projects for Job Access grants, including the program?s overall, potential
effectiveness, an area?s need for the services, the degree of local
coordination, and a project?s sustainability after the end of Job Access
funding. For purposes of managing the Job Access program and for allocating
dollars to the most effective projects, program managers need to know more
than just how many employment sites are being made accessible. Knowing how
many relevant jobs are available at each site and how many project
beneficiaries were transported to each employment site would also be useful
program management measures. According to a
study that DOT sponsored, there are several different ways of measuring the
success of a Job Access project, such as the number of bus passes issued,
passengers per revenue- hour, or average travel time for work trips. In our
next report, to be issued in December 2002, we plan to address the
general effectiveness of the Job Access program in facilitating welfare 13
GAO- 01- 133, Dec. 4, 2000.
Page 11 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs recipients? transition to the
workplace. Our work is identifying criteria that would be appropriate for
use in evaluating the Job Access program. We are also examining how the Job
Access program relates to other
federal, state, and local programs in enabling welfare recipients to reach
the workplace. This includes examining the extent to which the program?s
projects have been integrated into existing transportation systems, and how
some state and local governments that have not received Job Access funds
have addressed the transportation problems of low- income individuals. In
examining the Job Access program?s effectiveness, we are
reviewing the strategy DOT has adopted to select and fund Job Access
projects, and how the department can leverage its Job Access funds to more
effectively help low- income people get to work Mr. Chairman, this concludes
my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other
members of the subcommittee may
have. For questions regarding this testimony please contact JayEtta Z.
Hecker on (202) 512- 2834 or at heckerj@ gao. gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Helen Desaulniers, Susan Fleming,
Ernie Hazera, Ron Stouffer, and Frank Taliaferro. Contact and
Acknowledgements
Page 12 GAO- 02- 640T Access to Jobs GAO Reports on the Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program: Welfare Reform: Transportation?s Role in Moving
from Welfare to Work (GAO/ RCED- 98- 161, May 29, 1998). Welfare Reform:
Implementing DOT?s Access to Jobs Program in Its First
Year (GAO/ RCED- 00- 14, Nov. 26, 1999). Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making
Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program (GAO- 01- 133, Dec. 4,
2000).
Welfare Reform: GAO?s Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT?s Access to Jobs
Program (GAO- 01- 996R, Aug. 17, 2001). Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant
Selection Requirement for DOT?s Job Access Program Was Not Followed (GAO-
02- 218, Dec. 7, 2001).
GAO Reports on New Starts: Mass Transit: FTA?s Progress in Developing and
Implementing a New Starts Evaluation Process (GAO/ RCED- 99- 113, Apr. 26,
1999). Mass Transit: Implementation of FTA?s New Starts Evaluation Process
and FY 2001 Funding Proposals (GAO/ RCED- 00- 149, Apr. 28, 2000).
Mass Transit: FTA Could Relieve New Starts Funding Constraints (GAO01- 987,
Aug. 15, 2001).
Other GAO Transit- Related Reports: Transit Grants: Need for Improved
Predictability, Data, and Monitoring in Application Processing (GAO/ RCED-
00- 260, Aug. 30, 2000). Mass Transit: Many Management Successes at WMATA,
but Capital Planning Could Be Enhanced (GAO- 01- 744, July 3, 2001).
Transit Labor Arrangements: Most Transit Agencies Report Impacts Are Minimal
(GAO- 02- 78, Nov. 19, 2001). Appendix I: GAO Transit- Related Reports
(544041)
*** End of document. ***