Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service	 
Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed (06-DEC-02,	 
GAO-03-204).							 
                                                                 
Pursuant to Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century	 
(TEA-21), GAO periodically reports on the implementation of the  
Job Access and Reverse Commute (Job Access) program. The program 
is designed to assist low-income people in accessing employment  
opportunities. This report examines the Department of		 
Transportation's (DOT) efforts to evaluate the program and report
the results to the Congress. GAO also examined (1) transportation
and related services provided by the program; (2) whether the	 
program fosters collaboration between Job Access grantees and	 
others in the design, financing, and delivery of those services; 
and (3) whether Job Access services would be financially	 
sustainable after the end of Job Access funding.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-204 					        
    ACCNO:   A05685						        
  TITLE:     Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service
Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed		 
     DATE:   12/06/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Employment or training programs			 
	     Urban transportation operations			 
	     Welfare recipients 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Workfare						 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     Federal aid for transportation			 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Disadvantaged persons				 
	     DOT Job Access and Reverse Commute 		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     HHS 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-03-204

                                       A

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2002 WELFARE REFORM Job Access Program Improves Local Service
Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed

GAO- 03- 204

Letter 1 Results in Brief 3 Background 5 DOT*s Evaluation Has Been Delayed
and May Not Address

Significant Aspects of the Job Access Program 7 Varied Services Delivered
and Collaboration Improved, but Projects* Sustainability and Use of
Federal Funds Can Be Improved 12

Conclusions 19 Recommendations 20 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports 22

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26 Review of Selected,
Ongoing Job Access Projects 28 Survey of Job Access Grantees 29
Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts 29

Appendix III: Services of Selected Job Access Grantees 31 Alliance for
Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) * Milwaukee, Wisconsin
33

California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry
Transportation Services * Kings County and Kerns County, California 34
Capital District Transportation Authority * Albany, New York 37 City of
Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services * Albuquerque,

New Mexico 39 City of Santa Rosa Citybus * Santa Rosa, California 41 Fort
Worth Transportation Authority * Fort Worth, Texas 43 Good News Garage,
Commuteshare * Burlington, Vermont 45 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet *
Frankfort, Kentucky 47 Housing Department * Las Vegas, New Mexico 49
Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute

Program * Annapolis, Maryland 51 Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs * New York
City 53 State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job

Access 55 Transit Authority of River City * Louisville, Kentucky 57
Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services 58

Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees 62

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment 72 Tables Table 1:
Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to

Our Survey 10 Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access
Grantees 13

Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited 32 Table 4:
Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access Project 33

Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project 36 Table 6: Funding for
Capital District Transit Authority Job Access Project 37

Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project 40
Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project 42

Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access
Project 44 Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project 46
Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access Project
48

Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job Access
Project 50 Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job

Access Program 51 Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs
Project 54 Table 15: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and

Rural Job Access Project 56 Table 16: Funding for the New Mexico
Transportation Toolkit and

Rural Job Access Project 58 Table 17: Funding for the Washington
Metropolitan Area Job Access

Services 60

Abbreviations

AITS Agriculture Industry Transportation Services CALTRANS California
Department of Transportation CTAA Community Transportation Association of
America DOT Department of Transportation FTA Federal Transit
Administration FWTA Fort Worth Transportation Authority FY fiscal year HHS
Department of Health and Human Services HUD Department of Housing and
Urban Development LIFT Low- Income Flexible Transportation MTA Maryland
Transit Administration MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission PATH
Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition,

and Health Access TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
TARC Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, Kentucky) TDA
Transportation Development Act (California State) TEA- 21 Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century WIA Workforce Investment Act WMATA
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Lett er

December 6, 2002 The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes Chairman The Honorable
Phil Gramm Ranking Minority Member Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young Chairman The Honorable James L. Oberstar Ranking
Democratic Member Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure House of Representatives

The government*s national welfare reform effort seeks to transition
welfare recipients from welfare to work. One important factor in welfare
recipients* finding and keeping work is their access to adequate
transportation. In 1998, the Congress found that while three- fourths of
welfare recipients lived in central cities or rural areas, two- thirds of
new

jobs were located in the suburbs. Public transportation facilities, such
as buses or subways, often offer limited or no access to many of the
places where jobs are located. As a result, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA- 21) authorized up to $750 million for fiscal
years 1999 through 2003 for the Department of Transportation*s (DOT) Job
Access and Reverse Commute (Job Access) Program. The program attempts to
fill gaps in transportation services that constitute barriers to low-
income people 1 accessing job opportunities. The program provides grants
to transit agencies, local human service agencies, and others. DOT*s two
major goals for the program are to (1) provide transportation and related
services to

urban, suburban, and rural areas to assist low- income individuals,
including welfare recipients, with access to employment and related
services, such as child care and training, and (2) increase collaboration

1 The Job Access program serves *low- income* people, who are defined as
having family income at or below 150 percent of the official poverty line
as defined in 42 U. S. C. 9902( 2). People who are low income and are
eligible to use the Job Access Program include welfare recipients who
qualify for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Program as well as beneficiaries of other federal assistance programs.

among such parties as transportation providers, human service agencies,
employers, and others in planning, funding, and delivering those services.
Since TEA- 21 expires at the end of fiscal year 2003, the Congress will
soon be making decisions regarding the possible reauthorization of the Job
Access Program.

TEA- 21 requires that we report on the implementation of the Job Access
Program. To date, we have issued six reports on the Program from May 1998
through December 2001, and we also testified on the Program in April 2002
before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure. (See app. I for a summary of the
results of our previous reports on the Program.) As agreed with your
offices, this report  examines the status of DOT*s efforts to evaluate
the Job Access Program and report to the Congress and

 discusses our findings about the Job Access Program*s efforts to (1)
provide transportation and related services to allow low- income people to
reach employment and related opportunities; (2) increase collaboration in
the design, financing, and delivery of the services of Job Access
projects; and (3) foster the financial sustainability of the services
delivered by Job Access projects after program funding terminates.

To meet these objectives, we examined Program documentation at DOT, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Labor
(Labor); interviewed officials of these agencies; conducted a mail survey
of all 173 fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Job Access grantees with
projects that were still operating at the time we did our study, 2
achieving a response rate of about 88 percent (or 152 grantees); and

interviewed nine experts in welfare reform and/ or transportation. We
selected these experts on the basis of our review of transit and welfare
reform literature and referrals from HHS, Labor, DOT, and national
associations, such as the Community Transportation Association of

2 In 2000, we surveyed organizations responsible for implementing 194
projects selected for award in 1999; the numbers of projects and grantees
have changed since then because some projects were dropped, some grantees
withdrew from the program, and other grants were consolidated.

America (CTAA). 3 We also visited and documented activities at 14
locations where Job Access projects were being implemented. We
judgmentally selected these locations to obtain a nationwide geographic
dispersion of existing projects; different sizes (large urban, medium-
size urban, and small cities/ rural areas) of the areas served by Job
Access projects; and various types of services funded by Job Access
grants. Moreover, to address the first objective of our study, we
monitored DOT*s efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the program and
report to the Congress by June 2000, as required by TEA- 21. Our work was
performed from January

2002 through October 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. For more detailed information about our scope and
methodology, see appendix II.

Results in Brief DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an
evaluation of the Program, as TEA- 21 required; therefore, DOT is missing
an opportunity to

provide timely information that could be useful as the Congress considers
whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. Though required to submit the
report by June 2000, DOT neither submitted the report nor established a
date for doing so. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Program officials
are uncertain of when the report would be submitted to the Congress
because the report must undergo a review and approval process by the

Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and
Budget. In addition, we have serious concerns about FTA*s proposal for the
evaluation because, as we testified in April 2002, 4 the agency*s plan to
focus its evaluation on the number of employment sites 5 served by each
Job Access project does not fully address key aspects of the program. For
example, the employment sites measure addresses only the program goal of
providing transportation- related services and does not address the other

goal of encouraging collaboration in the design, financing, and service
delivery of Job Access projects. According to DOT officials, their report
to 3 The Community Transportation Association of America is an association
with a stated goal of improving the mobility of low- income and other
disadvantaged people. The association

conducts research, provides technical assistance, offers educational
programs, and serves as an advocate for coordinated community
transportation. 4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Has
Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program but Has Not Evaluated
the Impact, GAO- 02- 640T (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 17, 2002). 5 An
employment site, where employers are located, is considered accessible if
it is located within one- quarter mile of Job Access transportation
services provided by the grantee.

the Congress will include additional data that they believe would address
both of the program*s objectives but not the selection criterion that the
services funded by Job Access projects continue after the termination of
program funding. However, we are unable to comment on the evaluation,
because agency officials did not provide us with a draft of the report.
Our analysis shows that, through its grants, the Job Access Program funds

a variety of transportation- related services that are intended to assist
lowincome people in traveling to the workplace and associated support
services, such as child care or job training. In awarding over $355
million in grants in 42 states through fiscal year 2002, the program
funded such

services as extending existing bus routes to serve low- income populations
and informing clients about available transportation service and their
use. In addition, according to grantees and experts we contacted, the
program has increased planning, financial, and service delivery
collaboration among local transportation providers, human service
agencies, employers, and others. For example, over three- quarters of our
survey*s respondents 6 stated that the program increased collaboration
with other transit and

human service agencies. Such collaboration allows transit agencies to
design and provide transportation service that is based on information
from other agencies about where low- income people live and where jobs and
support services are located. However, more collaboration at the federal
level is needed between Labor and DOT to enable grantees to obtain
additional federal funding for Job Access projects. Specifically, some
grantees have not used funds from Labor*s Workforce Investment Act

(WIA) programs 7 as a match for Job Access grants because Labor and DOT
officials have not yet clarified the eligibility of WIA funds for this
purpose. According to the Job Access Program coordinator, federal matching
funds, such as those from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Program and the WIA programs, have an advantage over nonfederal
matching funds because these are formula programs that have a

predictable funding stream to the states and localities so that funding
can be maintained without disruption. However, the ability of many
grantees to financially sustain their Job Access services after the end of
program assistance (a criterion for FTA to consider in the selection of
Job Access projects) is uncertain. Only 12 percent of our survey*s
respondents said 6 For our study, we surveyed all of the 173 grantees that
FTA selected for grants during fiscal years 1999 and 2000; 152 responded,
for a response rate of 88 percent.

7 WIA programs provide individuals with job training and placement
services and transportation to those services.

they would maintain or expand the level of Job Access services after the
end of Job Access funding; 41 percent said they would decrease or
discontinue services; and 47 percent were uncertain about continuing
services. According to one expert we contacted, because many Job Access
services are more costly than the services for the general transit
clientele,

grantees would likely continue operating the Job Access services only as
long as federal funding covered the associated costs. According to FTA
program officials, FTA has recently taken new steps to coordinate with
Labor by forwarding questions to Labor requesting clarification on the use

of WIA funds as Job Access matching funds. FTA program officials said that
Labor*s responses might be published on a government Web site, thereby
informing grantees and other stakeholders of the availability of WIA funds

for Job Access purposes. We are making a recommendation to the Secretary
of Transportation that DOT report to the Congress on the results of its
evaluation of the Job Access Program, as required by law. Another
recommendation is intended to help ensure that in reporting to the
Congress, DOT evaluates the program against both program goals as well as
against the selection criterion that Job Access projects be financially
sustainable after the end of program funding. A third recommendation
addresses barriers to the use of WIA funds as matching funds for Job
Access grants.

We submitted a draft of this report to DOT, including FTA, for review and
comment.

Background The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nati*on*s
system to provide assistance to the poor. The 1996 act replaced the
existing entitlement program for poor families with block grants to the
states to provide temporary assistance for needy families under the TANF
Program. Also, under the TANF Program, states provide cash assistance to
needy families with children and provide parents with job preparation;
work; and support services, including transportation benefits. The 1996
act gave states flexibility in designing their programs to best provide
those benefits

and services. HHS*s Administration for Children and Families manages the
TANF Program and has provided about $16.5 billion annually for states to
use to assist needy families to become self- sufficient, including about
$800 million annually for transportation benefits. In addition, Labor*s
Employment and Training Administration administers programs authorized
under WIA, with about $4 billion in fiscal year 2002 appropriations to

provide individuals with job training and placement services. The
WIAsponsored programs also provide transportation services to take their
clients to program- supported services, such as job training and
placement. 8 The TANF- and WIA- sponsored transportation efforts focus on
their program clients, while the Job Access Program attempts to improve

transportation for low- income people in general. With the enactment of
TEA- 21, DOT became a sponsor of welfare- to- work initiatives. The Job
Access Program is focused on assisting address the transportation aspect
of welfare reform by assisting low- income people travel to work and/ or
employment- related activities. Many low- income people and welfare
recipients do not have access to cars and existing public transportation
systems cannot always bridge the gap between where low- income people live
and where jobs are located. In addition, many entry- level jobs require
shift work in evenings or on weekends, when public transportation services
are either limited or unavailable. When the Job

Access Program was established, $750 million was authorized from fiscal
years 1999 through 2003 for the Program. Appropriations have totaled $375
million through fiscal year 2002, with $75 million appropriated in each of
the fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and $100 million and $125 million
appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, respectively. 9 The Job
Access Program was established to close gaps in transportation

services for low- income people in places where and at times when such
transportation was not available. The program addressed these gaps by
funding, through grants, new transportation and related services and
expanding existing services to help low- income people access employment
opportunities and related support services. TEA- 21 identified a variety
of

factors for DOT to consider in funding Job Access projects, such as the
need for Job Access services as evidenced by the percentage of the
population in the area receiving welfare benefits; the demonstrated
collaboration between the grantee and other stakeholders, such as other

8 The expenditures for WIA- funded transportation services have not been
estimated or determined. 9 Some of the Job Access Program funds are
*guaranteed,* that is, subject to a procedural mechanism designed to
ensure that minimum amounts of funding are made available each year. TEA-
21 provided guaranteed funding of $50 million for fiscal year 1999, $75
million for fiscal year 2000, $100 million for fiscal year 2001, $125
million for fiscal year 2002, and $150 million for fiscal year 2003. In
addition, as of the date of this report, DOT is being funded through a
continuing resolution, and the final funding level for the program for
fiscal year 2003 has not been decided.

transportation and human service agencies; and the extent to which an
applicant identified long- term financing strategies that would support
the Job Access services after the end of the grant. Job Access grantees
are required to provide at least 50 percent matching funds from other
sources, which may include federal sources of funds available for
transportation services, such as the TANF or WIA programs.

DOT has consistently used two goals that it synthesized from TEA- 21 as
the primary criteria for evaluating, selecting, and funding Job Access
projects to be funded through program grants. Those goals are that Job
Access projects and services funded should

 provide transportation and related services to urban, suburban, and
rural areas to assist low- income individuals, including welfare
recipients, with access to employment and related services, such as child
care and training, and

 increase collaboration among such parties as transportation providers,
human service agencies, employers, and others in designing, funding, and
delivering those transportation services. In selecting Job Access
projects, DOT also considered the extent to which the projects would be
financially sustainable after the end of Job Access Program funding. 10
DOT*s Evaluation Has

DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of
the Been Delayed and May

Job Access Program, as TEA- 21 required. DOT therefore is missing an
important opportunity to provide information that could be useful as the
Not Address

Congress considers whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. FTA
Significant Aspects of Program officials are not certain about when the
report will be submitted the Job Access

to the Congress and have not established a date for doing so. Program

10 When selecting projects, DOT also has considered such factors as the
geographic dispersion of Job Access projects and the innovative nature of
proposed Job Access services.

Evaluation Report Has Been DOT has delayed completion of its evaluation of
the Job Access Program,

Delayed, and Its Submittal and the date that it will be submitted to the
Congress is uncertain. TEA- 21 Date Is Uncertain

required that DOT evaluate the Job Access Program and submit a report to
the Congress by June 2000. FTA officials stated their intentions to us
several times and to the Congress to complete and submit the required
evaluation report. DOT*s delays in issuing the report have cost it an
important opportunity to provide information to the Congress on the
effectiveness of the Job Access Program as the Congress begins its debate
on the reauthorization of the program. In addition, as shown below, we
have repeatedly reported on and emphasized the need for DOT to evaluate
the effectiveness of the Job Access Program.  In May 1998, before the
program was enacted into law, 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.

 In December 1998, we reported that DOT was in the process of
establishing an evaluation plan for the program. 11  In November 1999, we
noted that DOT had not yet completed a plan for

evaluating the program, although we had recommended that it do so. 12  In
December 2000, we reported that the evaluation plan had been completed and
that for the purposes of reporting under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, DOT had established a goal of serving 4, 050 new
employment sites in fiscal year 2000, and 8, 050 in fiscal year 2001. 13 
On April 17, 2002, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we testified that DOT had
not yet prepared the required evaluation report and had

11 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT*s
Access to Jobs Program, GAO/ RCED- 99- 36 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 8,
1998). 12 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing
DOT*s Access to Jobs Program in Its First Year, GAO/ RCED- 00- 14
(Washington, D. C.: Nov. 26, 1999).

13 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress
in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO- 01- 133 (Washington, D. C.:
Dec. 4, 2000).

no definite date for submitting the study. 14 At that hearing, DOT
officials stated that the report would be completed and sent to the
Congress by June 2002. Throughout our study, FTA program officials
discussed the reasons for the delays in issuing the report to the
Congress. FTA program officials explained that to meet the requirement
that they submit an evaluative report to the Congress by June 2000, they
asked the grantees to submit data regarding the employment sites served by
Job Access projects as well as

the numbers of employers and entry- level jobs at those sites. They
explained that they found that only about two- fifths of the data they
obtained from grantees proved to be useful, because the rest of the data
were inconsistently or inaccurately reported. By the summer of 2001, DOT

officials decided that the data were out- of- date. They decided to wait
for new data to be reported to them and to redraft the report to the
Congress using the new data. As of the end of our review, FTA program
officials continued to be unsure of the date the evaluative report will be
submitted to the Congress. In November 2002, they said that they had
completed their draft report and that the draft was being reviewed by the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation for approval before the report
could be sent to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. FTA
Program officials did not provide us with an estimated date for submitting
the draft report to the Office of Management and Budget and the final
report to the Congress. Reporting Only When we testified on April 17,
2002, DOT had planned to use only

Employment Sites Would employment sites as a measure of program
effectiveness. We testified that Not Comprehensively this measure presents
only a partial picture of program effectiveness in Evaluate the Program,
and

meeting program goals for the following reasons: Contents of Final Report
to

 First, employment sites attempt to measure whether the Job Access the
Congress Are Uncertain

Program establishes effective transportation services that help lowincome
people reach jobs* only one of the program goals. However, employment
sites do not address the other program goal of whether projects were
designed and implemented in a collaborative fashion

involving the grantee and stakeholders. In addition, employment sites 14
GAO- 02- 640T.

do not address the selection criterion of whether Job Access projects can
be financially sustained after the end of program funding.

 Second, the use of employment sites does not fully capture whether the
Job Access Program effectively addresses the program goal of providing
transportation- related services to low- income people. Employment sites
do not capture such information as the number of jobs available at a site
or the number of Job Access beneficiaries using a Job Access service over
a period of time.

Grantees that responded to our survey reported that they are using
additional indicators of and data on the performance of Job Access
services. These grantees reported that, for internal reporting purposes,
they collect a variety of data that can indicate the effectiveness of Job
Access services. These survey results are shown in table 1.

Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to Our Survey
Percentage of grantees that cited Performance measures reported by
grantees the performance measure

Number of passengers that use a new or enhanced transportation service 81
Number of trips made by Job Access service 64 Number of employment sites
accessed through the Job Access service 60

Number of employers made available to lowincome people through a Job
Access service 57

Number of jobs served by a Job Access transportation service 53 Number of
TANF clients who were able to obtain and keep employment as a result of
Job Access service 25

Source: GAO survey of the 173 grantees that were awarded their grants in
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and are still operating their Job Access
projects. One- hundred, fifty- two (152) responded to our survey. See also
appendix IV of this report.

In addition to the measures listed in the table, experts we contacted
suggested that DOT consider such measures as (1) the number of new and
expanded transportation services (including data on service frequency,
hours, and miles); (2) the level of collaboration achieved; and (3) the
beneficiaries* views of the effectiveness of Job Access services. In 1998,

DOT funded a study that also identified many of these same measures for
evaluating prospective Job Access projects.

After we discussed with FTA program officials their plans to use only
employment sites as performance measures, they stated that they planned to
issue an evaluative report to the Congress that would contain information
in addition to employment sites. In September 2002, we requested that FTA
program officials provide a draft of the report for our review or a
description of the evaluative methodology. In response, on October 4,
2002, they provided us with a memorandum that listed the

contents of the report they proposed for the evaluative report to the
Congress, including a list of the performance measures they proposed to
use. According to FTA program officials and this document, the evaluative

report would contain the results of a study by the University of Illinois,
including surveys of passengers who were riding Job Access vehicles and
studies of Job Access grantees. FTA program officials told us that they
hoped to profile the services provided by the Job Access Program,
including data on the geographic distribution of the services, the types
of transportation- related services provided, the costs of the services,
and the

cost per ride. They also proposed an assessment of the program that would
include such indicators as the number of employment sites, the number of
jobs, and the job support services made available by Job Access projects.
Other proposed measures include Job Access project ridership and user

characteristics, such as users* age, income, car ownership, driver*s
license status, and work history, and information about users* assessments
of the importance of the Job Access service. According to the measures
that FTA program officials listed, their report might address the second
objective of the program by conveying information on Job Access planning

partnerships between transportation and human service providers as well as
community representatives and employers. The report also might address the
financial partnerships established to fund Job Access services, such as
the partnerships involving transportation providers, human service
providers, and private and not- for- profit organizations. Notwithstanding
the information given to us by FTA program officials about the proposed
contents for their report to the Congress, for the following reasons we
continue to believe that contents of the final report are uncertain,
including whether the report would evaluate the program

against both program goals and selection criterion:

 First, FTA*s list of the performance indicators that FTA proposed for
its report to the Congress did not specify how FTA would collect these

additional performance data* an important consideration given the results
of FTA*s earlier efforts to collect performance data from the Job Access
grantees.

 Second, the document did not contain sufficient information for us to
comment on the adequacy of the report that FTA program officials propose
to submit to the Congress or the rigor of the proposed evaluative
methodology. For example, the document did not specify how the data would
be used to address the goals and selection criterion of the Job Access
Program.

 Third, as previously stated, FTA program officials must still submit the
draft through a review process. The reviewing parties may not approve the
contents of the report as proposed by FTA program officials.

Varied Services In awarding over $355 million in grants in 42 states
through fiscal year 2002, Delivered and

the Job Access Program funded such services as extending existing bus
routes to serve low- income populations and implementing services that
Collaboration provide information to clients about available
transportation services and Improved, but Projects* their use. Moreover,
the program has increased planning, financial, and

Sustainability and Use service delivery collaboration among local
transportation providers, human service and job placement agencies,
employers, and others in

of Federal Funds Can providing access to employment and employment support
services.

Be Improved However, the ability of many Job Access projects to be
financially sustainable after the end of program assistance (a criterion
FTA considered in the selection of Job Access projects) is uncertain. In
addition, some states have not used WIA funds as Job Access matching
funds, because specific guidance on the use of WIA funds has not been
issued. The Job Access Program

Through Job Access grants, the program served a broad range of Funded a
Variety of Services

geographic areas, including large and medium- size cities as well as small
to Help Low- Income People

towns and rural areas. Most grantees* about two- thirds of them* are
Travel to Work traditional transit providers, such as metropolitan transit
authorities or bus companies. The remaining grantees, such as local human
service agencies,

local housing agencies, and faith- and community- based organizations, do
not provide transit services as a primary activity. As shown in table 2,
Job Access grantees used a variety of approaches to

provide transportation services that assist low- income people to access
job

opportunities. Many Job Access projects involved expanding existing
transit resources, such as bus routes. On the basis of our analysis of
project documentation, about 51 percent of the 181 grantees selected in
fiscal year 1999 modified an existing fixed transit route by adding new
areas served or by enhancing the frequency of the service, while 43
percent added entirely new bus routes to serve the needs of low- income
people. 15 For example, the

Santa Rosa, California, transit agency started a new route that provides
bus service from a low- income neighborhood to employment locations on the
other side of town and training centers en- route. According to transit
officials, this service will eventually be incorporated into the existing
transit network once their Job Access grant is ended.

Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees
Transportation approach Percentage of grantees a

Fixed bus route extension (frequency or location) established b 51

New bus service initiated 43 Demand- responsive service established c 19
Connection to existing service established d 14 a Percentages do not add
to 100 because some grantees provided multiple services. b Fixed bus
routes are traditional bus routes that operate on predetermined streets
and at fixed times.

c Demand- responsive service refers to a transit service, often utilizing
small buses or vans, that take riders to locations they request at times
they request. d Connection to existing service refers to a new transit
service that transports riders to preexisting transit routes* for example,
bus or van connections to a subway system. Source: Analysis of project
data on all 181 grantees that FTA selected in fiscal year 1999 as
presented in report GAO/ RCED- 00- 14. These grantees include over 80
percent of the grantees still participating in the Job Access Program.
According to our analysis, grantees used a variety of transportation

modes* in particular, vans, buses, or rail* to provide those
transportation services for low- income people. Forty- one percent of the
Job Access grantees used vans to serve low- income people. For example,
because some low- income people faced problems getting to and from work
during late hours, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA)

15 The fiscal year 1999 grantees include over 80 percent of the grantees
still participating in the Job Access Program. See GAO/ RCED- 00- 14.

began a demand- responsive 16 shuttle van service that operated 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week for those needing transportation during late evening
and early morning service hours. In addition, 14 percent of the grantees
utilized buses or rail to provide Job Access services, while 9 percent
utilized carpools or ridesharing, and 4 percent utilized taxis. About one-
third of the grantees provided information to assist low- income people to
better utilize existing transportation resources to get to employment and
related support services. Specifically, 31 percent of the

grantees employed an information coordinator or information brokerage
center to provide information on how to use existing transit facilities
and services for travel to work, training, child care, and other support
services. For example, since fiscal year 1999, WMATA has received about
$3.2 million in Job Access funds and, among other things, created the

Washington Regional Call Center that provides a central location where
eligible, low- income people can call to get exact trip information. Under
this same grant, Montgomery County, Maryland, used Job Access funds to
provide transit information by creating a Web page for human service

employment centers to use to help their clients find ways to get to work.
In another example, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet received a $2.5
million grant in fiscal year 2000 and established a centralized brokerage
system to help low- income people utilize demand- responsive service in
rural areas.

Some grantees have provided innovative services for the specialized needs
of low- income people or to serve special populations, as the following
examples demonstrate:  The Good News Garage* a community- based,
nonprofit association,

which is based in Burlington, Vermont* used $277,935 in Job Access funding
in 2000 for a service called CommuteShare. The Good News Garage obtains,
repairs, and provides used vehicles to economically disadvantaged people.
The CommuteShare Program made some repaired vehicles available for
carpools and demand- responsive transportation to take low- income people
to and from work. According to Good News Garage officials, about 75
percent of the TANF recipients who receive cars provided by the project
eventually leave TANF and

16 Demand- responsive service refers to a transit service scheduled in
advance, often utilizing small buses or vans, that take riders to
locations they request at times they request.

become economically self- sufficient. About 190 people have participated
in the project, with about 25 participating at one time.  Project
Renewal, a rehabilitation center for homeless men and women located in New
York City, used Job Access funding of $799,337 to implement its Suburban
Jobs project. 17 Project Renewal identifies and secures job opportunities
in suburban areas around New York City and places formerly homeless New
Yorkers in unsubsidized employment. According to the project*s
administrator, Suburban Jobs directs vans daily to five worksites, where
employers offer at least $6. 50 per hour to each participant. Project
Renewal*s housing facilities as well as other nonprofit employment
programs refer qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. Project Renewal
identifies appropriate employment opportunities,

prepares clients for interviews, supplements public transportation through
its own van service to the suburban jobsites, and provides counseling to
project beneficiaries on their way to and from work. (See app. III for
more information about the projects we visited.) Job Access Program Has

The Job Access Program has met its goal of increasing planning, financial,
Met Its Goal of Improving and service delivery collaboration among local
transportation providers,

Collaboration between human service and job placement agencies, employers,
and others in

Grantees and Stakeholders providing access to employment and employment
support services.

Individual Job Access grantees and welfare reform and transportation
experts we contacted stated that the Job Access Program brought together
transit and human service agencies that have not widely collaborated in
the

past. According to our survey of grantees selected in fiscal years 1999
and 2000, almost 80 percent of the 152 grantees that responded indicated
that the Job Access Program increased cooperation with other transit
agencies, and 88 percent indicated that the program increased cooperation
with

human service agencies. In addition, all but one of the nine
transportation and welfare reform experts we contacted stated that this
significant increase in collaboration at the grantee level was the most
successful result of the Job Access Program. One expert noted that the Job
Access requirement for matching funds further encouraged grantees to
approach

state and local agencies that administer TANF funds to use those funds as
part of a project*s matching funds. About 58 percent of the grantees that
17 FTA provided the Job Access grants for Project Renewal for fiscal years
1999 and 2001.

responded to our survey indicated they used TANF funds as part of their
required matching funds.

On the basis of our survey and visits to Job Access grantees, coordination
between grantees and state and local stakeholders to plan and implement
Job Access services occurred in varied forms. In some cases, transit
agencies consulted with human service agencies to design new

transportation services for low- income people. In other cases,
coordination included simple referrals of low- income clients from human
service agencies to the Job Access grantee for information about
transportation services, such as vanpools, bus routes, and demand-
responsive van services. Housing authorities also collaborated with
transit agency grantees to transport low- income people from public
housing to jobs,

training, and/ or child care. In addition, transit agency grantees often
partnered with local human service agencies and local workforce investment
boards by sending representatives to job fairs and one- stop job placement
and training facilities to train low- income people to use the transit
system to commute to work. Each of the 14 grantees we visited cited
increased cooperation as a

program benefit, although they ascribed varying degrees of difficulty in
achieving such cooperation. Officials of state transportation and human
service agencies we contacted said that applying for the Job Access grant
made transit agencies aware of the need to tailor transportation services
to

low- income persons. Human service agency officials also said their
involvement with the Job Access grant increased their awareness of the
need to consider low- income persons* transportation needs when
implementing human service programs. The Capital District Transit
Authority in Albany, New York, credited its Job Access project with
encouraging it to develop new working relationships. Transit Authority
officials stated that information from those agencies helped it redesign
its bus routes to provide service that was more responsive to the needs of
lowincome

people. WMATA officials also credited the Job Access Program with enabling
them to take the lead, as the region*s largest transit agency, in
coordinating the Job Access services with smaller, regional, transit
service providers. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Transit Authority of River
City coordinated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit agencies
in developing its Job Access project. The Job Access project received its
matching funds from the City of Jeffersontown, Kentucky; United Parcel
Service; and Kentuckiana Works* the Workforce Investment Board

sponsored by Labor. The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department and the University of New Mexico developed several

databases of publicly funded vehicles, TANF households by zip code, and
jobsites to help local agencies plan transportation services for low-
income people. On the other hand, Ft. Worth Transit Authority officials
cited the administrative burden related to obtaining funds from other
federal programs as their reason for being reluctant to seek out matching
funds from other partners.

Collaboration at the Federal DOT agreed that the use of WIA funds as a
match for Job Access grants Level Is Needed to Clarify needs to be
clarified, and it plans to continue its efforts to collaborate with

That WIA Funds Can Be Labor to issue new guidance to states. Currently, it
is not clear to grantees Used to Match Job Access or to the state agencies
that administer Labor programs that WIA funds can

be used as matching funds for Job Access grants, in part because Labor,
Grants

which administers WIA programs, and DOT have not issued written guidance
indicating that WIA funds can be used for this purpose. Labor, DOT, and
trade association officials we contacted agreed that existing guidelines
on the use of WIA funds indicate that those funds can be used

for a variety of purposes, but are ambiguous on whether those funds can be
used to pay for transportation services. As previously mentioned,
applicants for Job Access grants must obtain at least 50 percent matching
funds from other sources. 18 Some grantees used WIA funds as Job Access

project matching funds, while others did not. DOT and Labor officials are
in the process of trying to issue guidelines about using WIA funds for Job
Access purposes. Labor issued an internal Email stating that WIA funds
could be used as matching funds for Job Access projects; however, Labor
did not disseminate this knowledge outside of the department to the state
and local agencies that provide the WIA- funded

services. FTA program officials told us that they are currently working
with Labor to issue clarification about the use of WIA funds and have has
sponsored an effort by a CTAA working group for this purpose. FTA
officials said that the working group queried Labor*s Employment and

Training Administration about the use of WIA funds. Once answers are
received, they may be published over the Internet on a federal Web site,
according to FTA program officials.

According to experts we contacted, as well as CTAA, DOT, and Labor
officials, clarification of federal guidelines could help states
understand

18 DOT and HHS have issued joint guidance to the states and grantees that
TANF funds could be used to match Job Access grants.

that federal funds, such as WIA funds, can be used as part of the match.
According to these officials, some states, such as New York, have
interpreted federal guidelines to reach a conclusion that it is not

permissible to use WIA funds as Job Access project matching funds. The
interpretation has precluded grantees in those states from using WIA funds
as a source for obtaining the necessary match for a Job Access grant.
Using federal funds as matching funds* such as WIA and TANF funds* can be
advantageous for Job Access grantees because federal funds may be

more predictable and stable than nonfederal matching funds. According to
the Job Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, such as TANF
and WIA, have an advantage over nonfederal matching funds because these
are formula programs that have a predictable funding stream to the states
and localities so that funding can be maintained without disruption. Also,
more sources of funds available as a match for Job Access grants would
provide additional options to grantees and improve their ability to
sustain their projects. One of our previous surveys of Job Access grantees
indicated that soliciting, finding, and maintaining matching funds was
difficult for many grantees. For example, 34 percent of the grantees
selected in fiscal year 1999 that responded to our 2000 survey reported
that FTA*s lengthy grant approval process caused problems with the
availability of their project*s matching funds, and seven projects were
withdrawn

(about 4 percent of the Job Access projects) after losing their matching
funds. 19 Financial Sustainability of The ability of many Job Access
projects to be financially sustainable after

Many Job Access Projects Is the end of Job Access assistance is
questionable. DOT selected Job Access in Doubt projects by considering,
among other factors, the ability of projects to

achieve financial sustainability after the end of Job Access Program
funding. More specifically, in evaluating applications for Job Access
projects, FTA program officials assessed the extent to which a prospective
grantee identified long- term financing strategies to support the Job
Access services after the end of Job Access funding. However, FTA program
officials consider financial sustainability to be secondary to other
program

goals. 19 GAO- 01- 133.

The results of our survey of grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and
2000 indicate that many Job Access projects would probably be discontinued
after the end of DOT funding, and many other projects would face uncertain
prospects for continuation. Specifically, about 41 percent of the
respondents to our survey reported that after the end of Job Access

funding, they would have to decrease the scope of services or discontinue
services altogether once their Job Access funding ends. 20 Another 47
percent of the grantees responded that they were uncertain about their
ability to continue their services. The remaining 12 percent reported that
they would continue their projects at the same or expanded levels after
the

end of their Job Access funding. One expert explained that many Job Access
services are more costly than the services for the general transit
clientele; grantees would likely continue operating the Job Access
services only as long as federal funding covered the associated costs.
Conclusions Because DOT has not evaluated the Job Access Program and
reported the

findings to the Congress as required by law, the department is missing an
opportunity to provide important information on a timely basis to the
Congress on the effectiveness of the program. FTA program officials have
not provided us with a specific date for issuing the report because the
draft must still be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget before release
to the Congress. In addition, the usefulness of the report is also in
doubt: If the report contains information only on employment sites, then
it would

address only the first program goal of providing transportation services
to low- income people while ignoring the other goal of promoting
collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of those services and
the criterion of ensuring that Job Access projects are financially
sustainable after the end of program funding. Finally, while the law and
guidelines allow the use of other federal funds to match Job Access
grants, neither DOT nor Labor have provided written guidance clarifying
the eligibility of funds from Labor*s WIA programs for those purposes. As
a result, some states will not allow grantees to use WIA funds to match
Job Access grants.

20 Of the 152 grantees that responded to our survey, 142 grantees answered
this question.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the
following actions:

 Report to the Congress, as required by TEA- 21, on the results of the
evaluation of the Job Access Program.

 Include in the report to the Congress, an evaluative methodology that
examines the Job Access Program*s effectiveness in meeting its goals of
(1) establishing transportation- related services that help low- income
individuals, including welfare recipients, reach jobs and employment
support services, such as child care and training, and (2) increasing
planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among local
transportation providers, human services agencies, and others in

providing access to employment and employment support services. The report
also should examine the financial sustainability of Job Access projects
after the end of Job Access Program funding.

 In conjunction with the Department of Labor, issue guidance to states
providing clarification on the use of Workforce Investment Act funds as
matching funds for Job Access projects. Agency Comments and

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. We Our
Evaluation met with DOT and FTA program officials who provided us with
comments on our draft report. The officials generally agreed with most
aspects of our report. They stated that our survey of Job Access grantees
provides interesting, unique, and useful data, worthy of greater emphasis
in our report. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that it is important
to emphasize both our survey and DOT*s progress in its evaluation report
because DOT risks not having the report available to the Congress in time
to assist in making decisions about reauthorizing the program. With regard

to our first recommendation, agency officials stated that the Job Access
Program evaluation, required by TEA- 21, has been drafted and is being
processed through the Department; however, the officials were not sure
when the report would be issued. With regard to our second recommendation,
the officials said that the evaluation report would fulfill the
department*s statutory requirement and address most of the elements
specified in the recommendation. With regard to our third

recommendation, the officials indicated that DOT has been working closely
with Labor to clarify issues and provide guidance related to using Labor*s
WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access projects. As appropriate, we

revised our report to, among other things, provide updated information on
the status of DOT*s evaluative report to the Congress and DOT*s efforts to
coordinate with the Labor to clarify the use of WIA funds as Job Access
matching funds.

We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional
committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal
Transit Administration; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health
and Human Services; and other interested parties. We will make copies
available to others on request, and the report will be available on GAO*s

Web si te at www. gao. gov for no charge. If you have any questions about
this report, please call me at (202) 512- 2834 or e- mail me at siggerudk@
gao. gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in

appendix V. Katherine A. Siggerud Acting Director, Physical

Infrastructure Issues

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports The Transportation Equity Act
for the 21 st Century (TEA- 21) requires that we report on the
implementation of the Job Access and Reverse Commute (Job Access) Program.
To date, we have issued a report on transportation and welfare reform
efforts in May 1998, before the program was established, 21 and five other
reports on the program: in December 1998, November 1999, December 2000,
August 2001, and December 2001. 22 In May 1998, we reported that the
proposed Job Access Program would aid

the national welfare reform effort by, among other things, providing
additional resources to transport welfare recipients to work. We
recommended that the Department of Transportation (DOT) (1) establish

specific objectives, performance criteria, and goals for measuring the
program*s progress; (2) require grantees to coordinate transportation
strategies with local job placement and other social service agencies; and
(3) work with other federal agencies to coordinate welfare- to- work
activities. TEA- 21 reflected these recommendations and required
appropriate action by DOT.

Our December 1998 report was the first to be completed in response to the
TEA- 21 mandate that we periodically review and report on the
implementation of the Job Access Program. We reported on DOT*s preliminary
steps and strategy for implementing the Job Access Program, noting that
DOT*s overall plan for implementing the program included distributing
grant funds to as many areas throughout the United States as possible,
subject to grant funding limits of $1 million for large urban areas

and $150, 000 for rural areas. DOT announced that it would use several
criteria for selecting projects to fund, including a project*s
effectiveness in serving a demonstrated regional need; the degree of local
coordination with other regional stakeholders demonstrated by the
prospective grantee in designing and identifying funding for a project;
and the project*s financial plans and sustainability after the end of Job
Access funding. An

21 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Transportation*s Role
in Moving from Welfare to Work, GAO/ RCED- 98- 161 (Washington, D. C.: May
29, 1998). 22 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform:
Implementing DOT*s Access to Jobs Program, GAO/ RCED- 99- 36 (Washington,
D. C.: Dec., 8, 1998); Implementing DOT*s Access to Jobs Program in Its
First Year, GAO/ RCED- 00- 14 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 26, 1999); Welfare
Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program,
GAO01-

133 (Washington, D. C.: Dec. 4, 2000); Welfare Reform: GAO*s Recent and
Ongoing Work on DOT*s Access to Jobs Program, GAO- 01- 996R (Washington,
D. C.: Aug. 17, 2001); and, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection
Requirement for DOT*s Job Access Program Was Not Followed, GAO- 02- 213
(Washington, D. C.: Dec. 7, 2001).

application*s compliance with these factors would be weighted for each
factor, and DOT said that it would also award bonus points for innovative
approaches to providing Job Access services. DOT also considered the
geographic dispersion of projects in making award decisions. We noted that
DOT made important efforts in attempting to establish communication
channels with various federal welfare reform agencies through its role in
a policy council that involved the White House and other agencies in

formulating interagency policy decisions about the Job Access Program. DOT
also formulated *Joint Guidance* with the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (Labor) on how the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and Welfare- toWork

Program funds 23 could be used as matching funds to help pay for Job
Access projects. Regarding evaluation of the Job Access Program, DOT
initially established four types of data it would collect from grantees in
assessing the performance of Job Access grants and the Job Access Program:
(1) the number of new and expanded transportation services (including data
on service frequency, hours, and miles); (2) the number of

jobs made accessible by the Job Access project; (3) the number of people
using the new service; and (4) the level of collaboration achieved. We
agreed that these were good measures for monitoring Job Access projects,

but DOT still needed to measure the program*s overall success by
establishing programwide goals or benchmarks against which the cumulative
data on new routes, new system users, and newly accessible jobs could be
compared. In November 1999, we reported on the implementation of the
pProgram in fiscal year 1999, its first year. We found that DOT had
implemented our second and third recommendations in carrying out TEA- 21.
Specifically,

DOT had required grantees to coordinate transportation strategies with
local job placement and other social service agencies and had worked with
other federal agencies to coordinate welfare- to- work activities. DOT
also had taken preliminary steps to implement our first recommendation
that it establish specific objectives, performance criteria, and goals for
measuring

the program*s progress. However, we also found that DOT*s process for
selecting Job Access grant proposals was not consistent in fiscal year
1999, and the basis for some selections was unclear. 23 Labor*s Welfare-
to- Work Program provided $3 billion to states to help persons who are

difficult to employ find work. The program was initially authorized for 2
years, then was extended for an additional 2 years, and was terminated at
the end of fiscal year 2002.

Our December 2000 report examined DOT*s implementation of the Program in
fiscal year 2000. We found that DOT had taken steps to improve its process
for selecting Job Access proposals. For example, to promote greater
consistency in the evaluation and selection of grantees, DOT developed a
standard format for reviewing Job Access proposals and

provided more detailed guidance to its reviewers. Almost 90 percent of the
fiscal year 1999 Job Access grantees that responded to our survey were
satisfied with the goals and intent of the program. 24 However, 51 percent
said that satisfying various standard FTA grant requirements took too
long* about 9 months, on average. As a result, about one- third of
respondents reported experiencing problems in obtaining matching funds.

In addition, seven projects were withdrawn (about 4 percent of Job Access
projects) for various reasons, including, in one case, the loss of
matching funds. In this report, we note that DOT had implemented our
recommendation that it develop specific objectives, performance criteria,
and measurable goals for its Job Access Program evaluation. DOT developed
a goal to increase new employment sites by 4,050 in fiscal year 2000, and
8,050 in fiscal year 2001, and it had requested specific data from the
grantees.

Our August 2001 report provided our preliminary observations on (1) DOT*s
proposal to use a formula for allocating grant funds to the states, (2)
the status of obligations for the Job Access Program, and (3) DOT*s plans
for reporting on the program to the Congress. First, DOT had proposed a

change to the Job Access Program beginning in fiscal year 2002, under
which it would allocate funding to the states via a formula, instead of to
individual grantees. DOT proposed this change in response to language in
the conference reports accompanying DOT*s appropriations acts for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 that designated Job Access funding for specific
states,

localities, and organizations. Second, as of August 7, 2001, DOT had
obligated 94 percent of the funds for fiscal year 1999, 67 percent of the
funds for fiscal year 2000, and 20 percent of the funds for fiscal year
2001. Third, DOT officials had missed the June 2000 deadline for a status
report to the Congress but expected to report instead in September 2001.

Our December 2001 report primarily addressed DOT*s response to language in
conference reports that accompanied its fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001 appropriations statutes. The conference reports designated specific

24 We surveyed grantees that were responsible for 194 Job Access projects
and attained a response rate of 82 percent.

grantees that were to receive Job Access funding; these grants involved up
to three- quarters of the appropriated funding for the Job Access Program
in a fiscal year. DOT elected to award grants to the designated parties in
a noncompetitive fashion; however, in doing so, it was not in compliance
with the provisions of the authorizing legislation* TEA- 21* because the

act called for a competitive grant selection process. To address this
finding, we recommended that DOT implement a competitive selection process
for all prospective grantees, including those that were designated by
language

in conference reports. As a result of our recommendation, DOT announced
that it would implement a competitive selection process for all grantees*
congressional designated and otherwise.

On April 17, 2002, we testified on the Job Access Program before the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure. We emphasized the need for DOT to evaluate the program
as directed by TEA- 21. We noted that, at the time of our testimony, DOT
had no estimated date for issuing the required report. Further, we stated
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.

Appendi x II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology For its first objective, this report
examines the status of DOT*s efforts to evaluate the Job Access Program
and report to the Congress. For its second objective, the report discusses
our findings about the Job Access Program*s efforts to (1) provide
transportation and related services to allow low- income people to reach
employment and related opportunities; (2) increase collaboration in the
design, financing, and delivery of the services of Job Access projects;
and (3) foster the financial sustainability of the services delivered by
Job Access projects after program funding

terminates. In responding to our first objective, we contacted FTA Program
officials to discuss and document their efforts to evaluate the Program
and to issue a report to the Congress. We monitored FTA*s plans to
evaluate the Program, including their proposal to utilize employment
sites, and we queried Program officials about reasons for their delay in
issuing the report to the Congress and plans for expediting completion of
the evaluation. In addition, through our discussions with program
officials, transportation and welfare reform experts, and national
associations, we identified prospective measurements of program success
and discussed the

availability and appropriateness of those measurements for an evaluation
of the Job Access Program.

In responding to our second objective, we examined the services delivered
by Job Access projects in assisting low- income people access jobs and
jobrelated services. Specifically, we followed up on our previous
findings, observations, and recommendations from our reports; reviewed the
agency*s ongoing efforts to solicit, evaluate, and select Job Access
grantees in fiscal year 2002; and examined DOT*s ongoing implementation of
existing grants and projects. Our November 1999 report contained an
analysis of project data regarding the transportation- related services
delivered by all 181 projects selected in fiscal year 1999. Those projects

constitute over 80 percent of the projects that are still operating today.
We used this information to supplement our discussion of the types of
services funded through Job Access grants. As part of the work for our
second objective, we assessed whether the Job Access Program was
increasing collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of the
services of Job Access projects* a program goal. We addressed the issue of
collaborative project design, financing, and delivery

in our survey of 173 Job Access grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and
2000 that are still implementing Job Access projects. We also examined how
the implementation of individual Job Access projects has been

integrated into the transportation and human service efforts of states and
local communities by observing the interactions between grantees,
metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, and human service
agencies, such as those in the Albany, New York, area; the Washington, D.
C., metropolitan area; the Dallas- Fort Worth, Texas, area; the San
Francisco Bay area; and the Louisville, Kentucky, area.

Meeting our second objective also required that we assess whether the Job
Access Program was meeting a criterion for FTA*s selection of Job Access
projects* whether the projects could achieve financial sustainability of
their services after program funding terminates. Our previous work on the

Job Access Program showed that many projects might not be sustained if
their Job Access funding terminated; therefore, our survey of Job Access
grantees included questions about the likelihood of Job Access projects
retaining their matching funds and continuing to operate. We also inquired
about the prospects for projects* financial sustainability with the
grantees we selected for site visits and discussed financial
sustainability with Job

Access Program officials, national associations, and welfare reform and
transportation experts.

Finally, as part of our second objective, we examined the use of federal
funds from other programs as matching funds for Job Access projects. Job
Access Program regulations require that grantees obtain at least 50
percent of their project funding from non- DOT sources, which may include
funding from federal sources such as the TANF Program and the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA)- sponsored programs of Labor. We therefore reviewed
policies affecting coordination and cost- sharing in federal programs,
which included Office of Management and Budget Circular A- 87, and we
contacted DOT, HHS, and Labor officials about their efforts to refine the
interagency *Joint Guidance* regarding matching funds for Job Access
Program grants.

In addition, we selected and utilized three broad methodologies that
addressed both objectives of our study. These methodologies included

 performing a detailed review of selected, ongoing Job Access projects at
different locations;

 surveying all Job Access grantees selected during fiscal years 1999 and
2000; and

 consulting with nine welfare reform and transportation experts.

Review of Selected, We performed detailed reviews of selected, ongoing Job
Access projects at

Ongoing Job Access different locations. We selected these projects to
represent the geographic

dispersion of Job Access projects across the United States. In addition,
we Projects selected projects that served the different sizes of areas
prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration*s (FTA) Job Access
administrative

requirements: large urban areas, medium- size urban areas, and rural
areas/ small cities. These grantees provided different types of Job Access
service delivery methods (e. g., carpools, fixed bus and van routes,
demandresponsive transportation, and trip information and assistance). We
visited the following:  Grantees serving large cities:

1. Project Renewal (not- for- profit, community- based, organization, New
York City). 2. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (transit
agency,

Washington, D. C.). 3. Maryland Transit Administration (statewide transit
agency, Baltimore,

Maryland). 4. Fort Worth Transit Authority (transit agency, Fort Worth,
Texas).

 Grantees serving medium- size cities: 1. Capital District Transit
Authority (transit agency, Albany, New York). 2. Santa Rosa City
Department of Transit and Parking (transit agency,

Santa Rosa, California). 3. Transit Authority of River City (transit
agency, Louisville, Kentucky). City of Albuquerque Transit (transit
agency, Albuquerque, New

Mexico).

 Small cities and rural areas: 1. Good News Garage (community- based,
not- for- profit, organization,

Burlington, Vermont). 2. New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department (state DOT,

Albuquerque, New Mexico). 3. Las Vegas Housing Department (public housing
agency, Las Vegas, New

Mexico). 4. California DOT (CALTRANS, state DOT, Sacramento, California).
5. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (state transportation agency,

Frankfort, Kentucky).

6. Alliance for Children and Families (not- for- profit organization,
based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

At each location, we examined how Job Access services were delivered, how
the design and delivery of Job Access services were coordinated with those
of other transportation services and human service agencies in the

area, and whether the grantees could financially sustain their services if
Job Access funding terminated. The grant recipients that we visited
included state and regional agencies that distributed Job Access funds to
subgrantees and that made substantial efforts to coordinate those services
to avoid duplicating ongoing transportation services that serve low-
income

people, including welfare recipients. Survey of Job Access We conducted a
mail survey of all 173 Job Access grantees that were Grantees

funded in fiscal years 1999 or 2000. (See app. IV for the survey results.)
We did not survey the grantees selected in fiscal year 2001 because they
did not have enough time to begin implementing their Job Access projects.
Our survey addressed issues pertaining to the grantees* implementation of
their projects, including costs, ridership, collaboration with other
agencies, their financial ability to sustain services in the absence of
Job Access funding, and their views on the usefulness of the program in
addressing the transportation needs of low- income individuals. Our
response rate, about 88 percent (152 respondents), can be generalized to
the universe of all

grantees funded in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Consultation with

We consulted nine experts from academia, federal and state transportation
Welfare Reform and

and welfare programs, and national associations with backgrounds in the
fields of welfare reform and transportation. They provided information and
Transportation Experts views on such matters as the strategy DOT used to
implement the Job Access Program, the role of the Job Access Program in
the national welfare reform effort, the overall effectiveness of the
Program in serving lowincome people, ways that the program could be
improved, the sustainability of Job Access projects, and ways in which DOT
could evaluate the program as required by TEA- 21. We selected these
experts on the basis of our review of transit and welfare reform
literature and referrals from DOT, HHS, Labor, and national associations,
such as the American Public Transportation Association.

Our work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendi x II I Services of Selected Job Access Grantees To address the
objectives of our review, we visited ongoing Job Access projects at
different locations. At each location, we examined how Job Access services
were delivered, how the design and delivery of Job Access services were
coordinated with those of other transportation services and

human service agencies in the area, and whether these projects could
financially sustain their services if Job Access funding terminated. We
selected these projects to represent the geographic dispersion of Job
Access projects across the United States as well as the different sizes of
areas prescribed by FTA*s Job Access administrative requirements: large

urban areas, medium- size urban areas, and rural areas/ small cities. The
projects we visited, as well as their locations, the services they
delivered, and the kinds of matching funds used, are summarized in table
3. Following table 3, we provide more detailed information on each
project. The information contained in this text is based on interviews
with project officials as well as project- specific documentation,
including program and budget information.

Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited Organization
Project Location Type of service Job access funding

Alliance for Children and Ways to Work Milwaukee, WI Car purchase/ finance
program FY 2000 - $1, 000,000 Families with carpool requirement California
Department of Agriculture Industry

Kings and Kern Bus/ Vanpool service FY 2000 - $1, 500,000 Transportation
Transportation Services Pilot Counties, CA FY 2001 - $3, 000,000 Project

Capital District Transit to Jobs Albany, NY Van service on fixed routes FY
2000 - $497, 500 Transportation Authority FY 2001 - $497, 500

City of Albuquerque Albuquerque Transit Job Albuquerque, NM Demand-
responsive van, rides FY 1999 - $325, 000 Transit Access Program for
employment and

FY 2000 - $1, 000,000 transportation, training, vanpool, and reduced bus
pass

City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa CityBus Route Santa Rosa, CA Fixed route bus
service FY 1999 - $200, 000 15- Stony Point Route FY 2000 - $250, 000
Extension Project Fort Worth Fort Worth Transit Fort Worth, TX Demand-
responsive vans and FY 1999 - $175, 0000 Transportation Authority taxi
service and fixed route bus service

Good News Garage CommuteShare Burlington, VT Demand- responsive rides and
FY 2000 - $277, 935 carpooling program Kentucky Transportation Human
Service Frankfort, KY Demand- responsive trip FY 2000 - $2, 500,000

Cabinet Transportation Delivery brokerage system and fixed bus System

route Las Vegas Housing Las Vegas Housing Las Vegas, NM Demand- responsive
van service FY 2000 - $40,798 Department Department FY 2001 - $54,386

Welfare- to- Work Program Maryland Transit Maryland Job Access and

Maryland Fixed route bus service, FY 1999 - $2, 119,880 Administration
Reverse Commute Program (statewide) demand- responsive van service, FY
2000 - $3, 000,000

and computer project to connect FY 2001 - $2, 394,720

human service employment centers to a county transit internet site

Project Renewal Suburban Jobs New York, NY Van service from city to suburb
FY 1999 - $398, 760 and return for clients FY 2001 - $400, 577
transitioning to work

State of New Mexico Transportation Toolkit New Mexico Demand- responsive
van service FY 1999 - $1, 198,000

(statewide) and extended fixed route FY 2000 - $601, 190 FY 2001 - $1,
995,600 Transit Authority of River

Access to Jobs Program Louisville, KY Fixed bus route and FY 1999 - $1,
032,938 City demand- responsive van service FY 2001 - $1, 097,400

WashingtonMetropolitan Washington Region Access Washington, DC Fixed route
bus service, FY 1999 - $1, 350,000

Area Transportation to Jobs Program demand- responsive vanpools, FY 2000 -
$650, 000 Authority and trip information brokering

FY 2001 - $998, 000 Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantees.

Alliance for Children Ways to Work, a subsidiary of the Alliance for
Children and Families, and Families

provides low- income people with loans of various sizes, ranging from $750
for car repairs up to $3,000 for the purchase of a used car. For its Job
(Subsidiary of Ways to Access project, Ways to Work implemented a carpool
project. Work) * Milwaukee,

Low- income people that participate in Ways to Work volunteer to be in a
Wisconsin

carpool project with other participants. Ways to Work then coordinates the
pool on the basis of home location and jobsite. While approximately three-
fourths of borrowers received government aid at the time of their

loan application, their use of public assistance dropped by 40 percent
within 2 years, and less than 1 percent of borrowers became "new" users of
public assistance since receiving their loans. Ways to Work officials
stated that internal studies show that borrowers can average a 20 percent
increase in household income. Currently, the Job Access project in Alabama
is the only ongoing effort under this grant. These officials told us that
Ways to Work is also applying for Job Access grants in other locations,
such as New

Philadelphia, Canton, and Akron, Ohio. Funding The following table
describes the Job Access Program funding for this project as well as the
sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access Project
Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source
Amount

2000 $1, 000, 000 Alabama Department $540, 000

of Human Resources Alabama bank 338, 800 partnerships Ways to Work, Inc.
79, 576 Alabama Alliance for

41, 624 Children and Family Member Organization

Total $1, 000, 000 $1, 000, 000

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

Coordination Ways to Work has had different results with state DOTs.
According to the president of Ways to Work, the relationship with the
Alabama DOT was positive but slow. The Alabama DOT assisted Ways to Work
by coordinating

on behalf of Ways to Work with other state and local resources, such as
human service agencies. However, according to Ways to Work*s president,
this coordination process was too slow because Ways to Work confronted
Alabama*s slow budget process. As a result, the Program experienced delays
in being implemented. Local participants in the Job Access project did not
have the cash flow to advance the project, but the funding was obtained
from the Alabama DOT.

Sustainability Ways to Work would reduce its carpool project if Job Access
funds were no longer available, according to its president. Job Access
funding expanded

and strengthened the carpool project and Ways to Work overall. Ways to
Work, however, has been in operation since 1984 and received most of its
funding from foundations, banks, and other private funding resources;

thus, it could find alternative funding sources to maintain the project.
Moreover, as people repay the loans, Ways to Work can reuse the money, so
that successful lending would help stretch funding out over many years.
However, the carpool budget would be reduced, thereby reducing the scope
of the project.

California Department In May 2001, the California Department of
Transportation (CALTRANS) of Transportation, established the Agriculture
Industry Transportation Services (AITS) pilot project in response to a
series of accidents involving farm labor vehicles in

Agriculture Industry the San Joaquin Valley* specifically, the death of 14
farm workers. Many Transportation

workers had been using unlicensed and uninsured van service that charged
Services * Kings

passengers about $6 to $10 per day. The AITS pilot project was designed to
improve access to safe public transportation for farm workers and their

County and Kerns communities by providing expanded or new transit service
in Fresno, Kern,

County, California Kings, and Tulare Counties. There are two components of
the

project* first, the Kings County component, which encompasses the Fresno
and Tulare Counties, and second, the Kerns County component. Service
started in May 2002. The Kings County component involves purchasing 134,
15- passenger vans. Residents in each of the targeted communities are
trained to safely operate the vanpool vehicles. The operators of these
vehicles both drive the vans and work at the agricultural fields and
nearby packing facilities. Vanpool

fare for the pilot project is $50 per person, per month. In addition, the
Kings County component involves purchasing 12, 28- passenger buses.
Residents of the community operate the buses between the communities and
nearby agricultural employment centers. Bus fare is $3 per person, per
day, and service frequency varies (from 4 to 7 days a week), depending
upon seasonal demand for labor. An average of 26 people per day are
currently riding the first bus in operation in Kings County. The combined
van and bus service costs each person about $5 per day.

The Kerns County component of the AITS Job Access project is an expansion
of a fixed route bus service. Kern Regional Transit provided expansion of
existing portions of the transit system. Previously, service consisted of
one fixed route bus serving the Lamont/ Weedpatch

communities, one demand- responsive bus for those, and an intercity
commuter bus linking Lamont with the Bakersfield area. Expansion of
service under this Job Access project consists of a second intercity bus

operating in the communities of Arvin, Weedpatch, and Lamont 6 days a
week, with limited service provided on Sundays. An additional bus was
placed into service for the Lamont/ Weedpatch communities providing
improved service for residents in the communities that required transit

services to jobsites. Because the pilot project began operating in May
2002, data compilation and reporting of the project*s success has not been
completed. CALTRANS officials plan in the future to collect data on the
number of agricultural workers who use the service to measure the success
of the program.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project and the sources of matching funds and amounts.

Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project Matching funds Fiscal
year of

Job Access funding Program funding Source Amount

2000 $1, 500, 000 State Public $1, 500, 000 Transportation Account 2001
3,000,000 State Public 2,500, 000

Transportation Account Total $4, 500, 000 $4, 000, 000

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

CALTRANS was awarded $4.5 million for the AITS pilot project. According to
CALTRANS officials, the $4.5 million was to be matched by funds from the
State Public Transportation Account, derived from fuel tax revenue.
However, the state did not fund the request for the additional $500,000
from the State Public Transportation Account to match the funding awarded
in January 2001. Therefore, CALTRANS will only use $4 million of the total

$4. 5 million of Job Access funds. Coordination CALTRANS officials
fostered collaboration with other agencies by

conducting statewide workshops to explain the Job Access effort. They
invited the regional transportation agencies, metropolitan planning
organizations, and associated agencies to these workshops. According to

CALTRANS officials, coordination efforts have faced some challenges,
especially because of incompatible tracking systems. CALTRANS has only
been able to track the total number of passengers, whereas the California
Office of Health and Human Services is required to track the ridership of

each individual TANF client. As a result, the Office of Health and Human
Services has had difficulties providing TANF funds for the required Job
Access match because they could not account for the number of TANF clients
who specifically used the mass transit system.

Sustainability CALTRANS officials said that the vans would continue to
operate without Job Access funds. The fares paid by the passengers of the
Kings County services are used for insurance, maintenance, fuel, vehicle
replacement, overhead, and drivers* salaries. However, the bus service in
Kern County

would need to be funded with contributions from local governments or

other organizations to continue operation in the absence of Job Access
funding.

Capital District The Capital District Transportation Authority provides
fixed route bus and

Transportation van transit service as well as individualized trip planning
and information

brokering. The transit authority*s Job Access funds are used to expand the
Authority * Albany,

hours of operation for their suburban services, primarily in Albany, New
York

Rensselaer, and Schenectady Counties. The extension allowed the transit
authority to operate late night service as well as service during the
weekend. As a result of its Job Access project, transit authority
officials said they identified and filled gaps in its service by
developing a system that provides a transportation solution for TANF
clients who had difficulties

getting to and from work. According to transit authority officials,
specific projects being funded by Job Access are not for traditional fixed
route bus services, so services are contracted to companies that use vans
in all three counties. These services are paid for on a cost- per- trip
basis. Taxis are also utilized to take some of the grantee*s Job Access
clients to and from work.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access Project
Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source
Amount

1999 $497,500 New York State $900, 000

Department of Labor 2001 497,500 New York State 3,400, 000 Department of
Labor Total $995, 000 $4,300, 000

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

Coordination Transit authority officials said that the Job Access Program
has helped improve the coordination between transit and human service
agencies. According to grantee officials, as part of the Job Access grant
process, the

transit authority established a relationship with the New York State
Department of Labor, which created a link to local human service agencies
and made transportation more accessible for TANF clients while broadening
their client focus. However, coordinating the implementation of the Job
Access project

between the grantee and various stakeholders has been complicated by
differences in reporting requirements between these parties and by the
volume of data that has to be collected. To conform with TANF reporting
requirements, the grantee has had to collect data it does not normally
collect for the numbers of TANF recipients that use the Job Access
service.

Grantee officials explained that they had difficulties accounting for
their ridership along with determining if their passengers are TANF
clients. In addition, according to these officials, private and nonprofit
organizations operate their own transportation vans and have services that
overlap with

Capital District Transportation Authority services in some areas. Some of
these other agencies operating in the community include the following: the
Department of Aging Markets, the Association of Retarded Citizens, the
Veterans Administration, and the Office of Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities. Transit authority officials stated that better
coordination among these services could result in a more efficient

transportation network. Sustainability Capital District Transportation
Authority officials said that their agency*s

sources of revenue are limited, and that without Job Access funding, they
would be unable to continue the services started under the Program. The
officials stated that the need to provide transportation during weekends
and second and third shifts has produced a greater need for heavier
subsidies. However, many counties are feeling a budget squeeze, resulting
in less funding being available to contribute to the match necessary to
obtain FTA Job Access funding.

City of Albuquerque The Albuquerque Transit Department has seven Job
Access projects that Transit Job Access

include demand- responsive rides for work, job training, or transportation
emergencies; subsidized vanpools; reduced price bus passes; a free 1- day
Services * bus pass available for job- training trips; a free 6- month bus
pass for social Albuquerque, New

service agency staff who volunteer to be travel trainers for their
clients; Mexico

and a mobility manager service that teaches people how to utilize bus
schedules, ride buses, and use other transit services. The demand-
responsive services are available to anyone at or below 150 percent of the
poverty level. Participants are offered 120 round- trips within 2 years to

their jobs, job- related training, and child care required for their jobs
and/ or job- related training. Participants can only utilize the services
to these designated trips if they lack (1) a local bus stop within a
quarter- mile of their home or destination, (2) a local bus service that
duplicates the route

in less than 90 minutes, and (3) a local bus service that is available to
their destination. Albuquerque Transit officials estimate that on- demand
van services cost about $17.50 per ride; eligible participants pay 75
cents per trip. Albuquerque Transit officials stated that, on the basis of
qualitative

measures, their project is successful. The agency has tried to measure the
success of the Program by obtaining community feedback. This feedback has
indicated that the communities like the projects and feel that the
services were long overdue, according to transit officials. Although it
does not have exact numbers, the grantee claims that the project is
helping to reduce the welfare rolls, and that overall ridership is
increasing. In the first 3 months of 2002, the Job Access project had 120
riders, according to Albuquerque Transit officials.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project
Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source
Amount

1999 $325,000 New Mexico Human $250, 000

Service Department Bernalillo County, 50, 000 New Mexico Commission on the

25, 000 Status of Women 2000 1, 000,000 City of Albuquerque 450, 000

New Mexico Human 450, 000 Service Department University of New

100, 000 Mexico Total $1,325, 000 $1,325, 000

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

Coordination Albuquerque Transit has had mixed results coordinating with
other agencies. The project successfully involved about 95 organizations
in the Job Access project. The project has obtained matching funds from
the City of Albuquerque, the New Mexico Human Service Department, and the

University of New Mexico Career Works. Coordination efforts, however, have
faced some challenges. The biggest barriers to coordinating human service
activities with transit services stemmed from different agency cultures
for complying with services standards for clients, according to transit
officials. They said transportation providers do not speak the same
language as human service providers because the two have different
missions and philosophies. The officials said that compliance with all of
the

requirements to acquire matching funds is also a barrier because human
service agencies usually only provide funds under certain conditions, such
as are not paying for nonclients. Consequently, the transit agency has
spent considerable financial resources tracking the number of TANF clients
using

Job Access project services. Sustainability According to transit
officials, Albuquerque*s project requires some sort of public assistance
and support to exist. Without Job Access funding, they

would no longer be able to provide the services created under the project.

The grantee officials are unsure of what they would do if the funds
stopped or the Job Access Program was not reauthorized. Furthermore, they
do not expect the state to fill the funding void* New Mexico is one of
four states that provide no state funds for public transit. City of Santa
Rosa

Santa Rosa, California, is a rapidly growing metropolitan area that is
Citybus * Santa Rosa, approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco, in
Sonoma County. Santa Rosa*s City Department of Transit and Parking (Santa
Rosa CityBus) California

operates 16 bus routes, most emanating from the transit center in the
downtown area. Santa Rosa CityBus*s Job Access project established a new
public transit route, Route 15* Stony Point Road, in August 1999. This new
transit route serves the highest concentration of TANF recipients in Santa
Rosa, and it links job seekers with multiple job opportunity worksites (e.
g.,

light industry and telecommunications) and human service agencies.
According to Santa Rosa CityBus officials, Route 15 has decreased the
travel time of route users because it eliminates unnecessary transfers
through the downtown area. The cross- town route, extending over 15 miles,
requires about 1 hour to make a round- trip and uses two buses. The

service is available to the general public and all passengers pay the same
fare. However, the local health and human services agency (SonomaWorks)
purchases monthly bus passes at the regular price and provides them at no
cost to TANF participants. Transit officials estimate that the route will
service about 132,000 people in fiscal year 2002.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project
Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source
Amount

1999 $200, 000 MTC, State TDA $300, 000 2000 250, 000 MTC, State TDA 250,
000

MTC, State LIFT a 250, 000 2001 0 MTC, State LIFT 250, 000

State TDA 250, 000 2002 0 MTC, State LIFT 250, 000

MTC, State TDA 250, 000

Tot al $450, 000 $1, 800, 000

Legend: LIFT Low- Income Flexible Transportation MTC Metropolitan
Transportation Commission TDA Transportation Development Act a LIFT funds
include 50 percent Job Access funding through a state grant.

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. Coordination Santa
Rosa CityBus officials worked closely with the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), the area*s metropolitan planning organization, to
develop and acquire funding for Route 15. MTC worked on a plan that
identified the regional shortfalls of existing transportation services in
terms of areas covered and times served. MTC also helped gather the
background information and produced Geographic Information

Systems maps, which plotted the TANF population that needed to be served
in the City of Santa Rosa. This allowed Santa Rosa and transportation
commission officials to identify the service gaps in Santa Rosa and the
areas where the highest concentration of TANF recipients lived. Because of
this collaboration, Santa Rosa CityBus was able to provide a route linking
low- income people to the resources they need, such as jobs, child care,
and health care. The Job Access Program has also improved collaboration
between Santa Rosa CityBus and the local health and human service agency
officials. SonomaWorks officials, with the assistance of Santa Rosa
CityBus staff, trained local health and human services* caseworkers to
better inform their

clients about all services being provided by Santa Rosa CityBus*
specifically, Route 15. However, Santa Rosa officials did not discuss
using TANF funds as a match with SonomaWorks. Santa Rosa officials stated
that they were aware that the Job Access Program allowed for a federal-
to- federal funds match, but they chose not to pursue the possibility

of using TANF funds because they did not face any difficulties in raising
the matching funds.

Sustainability Currently there is no plan to discontinue service in the
absence of Job Access funding. Santa Rosa CityBus officials stated that
even if the Job Access Program were discontinued, Route 15 would continue
to operate. They added that it would be virtually impossible to
discontinue any established transit line because the transit users in the
community depend on these services. The goal of the Santa Rosa CityBus was
to use Job Access funding to assist in the establishment of the route.
They expect the route to be self- sustaining without Job Access funds.

Fort Worth Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) is the primary
public

Transportation transportation system for the city of Fort Worth, Texas.
With the use of the

Job Access grant, FWTA employed a vanpool for the city*s outlying areas
Authority * Fort Worth, and contracted with a taxi company to provide
demand- responsive service Texas

to its clients within the Fort Worth area. Officials at FWTA identified
their target population as TANF recipients and people with incomes at or
below 150 percent of the poverty level. They stated that their project has
resulted in individuals finding jobs and maintaining employment. They said
that they provided transportation services for 6 months, in the belief
that if a person is employed for that period of time, the person has
increased his or her chances of being hired again. As a result of the Job
Access project, FWTA officials said they have been able to help some
people transition from welfare to work by providing them with
transportation to and from work, daycare, and other services.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access
Project Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding
Source Amount

1999 $175, 000 Fort Worth $50, 000

Transportation Authority a

Workforce Investment 50, 000 Board City of Fort Worth 50, 000

Fort Worth Housing 25, 000 Authority Total $175, 000 $175, 000

a FWTA also received a Job Access grant for $240,000 for fiscal year 2001.
According to an FWTA official, the project would consist of expanding
fixed- route bus service on two major routes through the city. However,
budgetary constraints prevented the authority from providing the 50
percent match at this time. According to the official, the project may yet
be implemented as the FTWA*s financial condition changes. Source: Federal
Transit Administration and grantee. Coordination FWTA officials have been
reluctant to consult and coordinate with other

stakeholders, such as other transit agencies and human service agencies,
to receive assistance in operating their Job Access project because of
their negative experience in obtaining matching funds from other
stakeholders. They explained that they experienced a significant
administrative burden in complying with the data collection and reporting
requirements imposed by those stakeholders. Specifically, in the early
days of the project when

seeking financial contributions from other partners, they encountered
problems in receiving TANF and other matching funds, because of the
significant reporting requirements imposed by those funding sources.
Although FWTA officials received the required matching funds, they

concluded that they would rather have its partners provide noncash
contributions since those contributions would not result in any
administrative requirements. FWTA officials are now reluctant to request
any operating assistance from other stakeholders.

Sustainability FWTA officials said that their project could not be
continued without Job Access funds and would require additional assistance
and support for it to continue. FWTA spends about $11.50 on its demand-
responsive taxi

service. The cost per trip averages about $17.50 because of the shared
ride nature of each family trip. These costs are comparable to taxi rides
provided on a zone basis. For rides on its fixed route services, FWTA
assumes almost all of the $20 per ride costs of providing the transit
services, charging an average of only 50 cents per trip. According to FWTA
officials, their agency has no dedicated funding stream for the Job Access
services and the fares they collect are not enough to continue their Job
Access project in the absence of FTA funding.

Good News Garage, CommuteShare is the Job Access project component of the
Good News Commuteshare * Garage-- a nonprofit association that repairs
used vehicles and provides

them to economically disadvantaged applicants. The Good News Garage
Burlington, Vermont

donates some of its vehicles to CommuteShare for one carpool service and
four demand- responsive services. Under the carpool service, a driver
keeps the vehicle and provides rides to three other participants. The

demand- responsive service has an assigned volunteer- driver take people
to work upon request. CommuteShare services are free and available to any
person whose household income is less than 225 percent of the federal

poverty level. Individuals receiving case- managed services have free
access to the vehicle for 6 months. After that, there is a sliding fee
scale fee that is based on income. Carpool group members split the cost of
fuel and parking, while demand- responsive passengers each pay a $1 fuel
contribution. One- way rides cost CommuteShare roughly $16* this includes
all operating expenses, such as fuel, insurance, and repairs. About

190 people have participated in the program, with 25 people participating
at any given time. Funding The following table describes the Job Access
Program funding for this project as well as the source of matching funds
and the amounts.

Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project Matching funds
Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source Amount

2000 $277,935 PATH $277, 935

Total $277,935 $277, 935

Legend: PATH Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and
Health Access (state funds) Source: Federal Transit Administration and
grantee. Coordination Good News Garage and CommuteShare have enjoyed
strong coordination

with other agencies, according to project administrators. Lutheran Social
Services, the nonprofit association that is based in New England that
created the Good News Garage, aligned the Garage with the Vermont
Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and Health Access (PATH)*
the state TANF clearinghouse* and the Vermont Department of Employment and
Training. Most Good News Garage and CommuteShare referrals come from PATH.
The Good News Garage also receives referrals

from local battered women*s shelters. It used PATH state funds to satisfy
its matching funds requirements. According to a PATH official,
CommuteShare and PATH have coordinated effectively in the overall welfare-
to- work effort. PATH helps the Good News Garage and CommuteShare clients
pay for repairs or get them to work if their car is not working. The
support lasts 1 year and thereafter, is no

longer continued. The PATH official added that positive experiences with
demand- responsive service have resulted in plans to expand such projects.
PATH wants to have at least one car in each of Vermont*s 12 districts for
demand- responsive service.

Sustainability CommuteShare officials are not sure if the project can
maintain operations in the absence of Job Access funding. Because of a
tight budget cycle, Vermont may not be able to supplement the required
match* making a loss of Job Access funding critical to the projects
sustainability. According to project administrators, the project has some
support from the private

sector but needs strong public funding to maintain services. Grantee
officials said that CommuteShare appears to be a successful and innovative

Job Access project but may have problems sustaining itself after the end
of Job Access funding.

Kentucky The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet*s Human Service
Transportation Transportation Cabinet Delivery project involved
consolidating transportation services previously

provided by various state governmental agencies to transport Medicaid and

* Frankfort, Kentucky low- income people to job interviews, job training,
employment, and child care facilities. According to cabinet officials,
services were consolidated because the previous transportation delivery
process was fragmented,

increasingly costly, and vulnerable to fraud and abuse. Kentucky*s welfare
reform initiative was expected to double transportation needs for TANF
recipients. In addition, transportation services were not easily
accessible in some rural areas. For example, in an 11- county region in
Southeast

Kentucky, an average of 32.5 percent of the households were living in
poverty, while an estimated 46, 977 people over the age of 60 and 13, 570
households did not have access to an automobile. As a result, the cabinet
began a statewide demand- responsive service program. Seniors and low-
income passengers needing transportation could contact 1 of the 14
regional transportation brokers within 72 hours of their trip. 25 Although
the cabinet targets low- income people, the project is open to the

public. The service costs 50 cents to $1 for low- income individuals and
the general public. The Kentucky Cabinet for Family and Children Services
pays for TANF recipients* fares. According to cabinet officials, the Job
Access project is efficient and a major improvement from past welfare
reform efforts. The brokerage system resulted in more people taking more
trips at less cost. As of June 2002, the project has provided 549,914
trips for

TANF recipients and 330,596 trips for those participating in Medicaid.
Under the Job Access project, revenue projections indicate that reductions
in expenditures will result in a Medicaid savings of $3 million annually.
Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

25 Brokers are a combination of human service agencies, transit
departments, and private contractors such as taxis.

Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access Project
Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source
Amount

2000 $2, 500,000 Kentucky Department $1, 000, 000 of Children and Family
Services

Combined contribution 1,000, 000 of local communities Kentucky State

500, 000 Transportation Funds Total $2,500,000 $2, 500, 000

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. Coordination The
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet coordinated with the Cabinet for Family
and Children Services, 26 local communities, human service agencies,
transit departments, and private transportation operators to implement its
Job Access project. According to grantee officials, the

Transportation Cabinet also relied heavily on local community support.
Local areas provided 40 percent of the necessary match and were excited
that the needed services were to start, according to the cabinet official.
The project also required coordination from the 14 different
transportation brokers. One such broker, the Kentucky River Foothills,
estimates that 95 percent of the clients it transports have incomes that
are less than or equal to 150 percent of the official federal poverty
income threshold, and 65

percent to 70 percent earn less income than the official federal poverty
level. According to Kentucky River Foothills officials, the biggest
obstacle to coordination is convincing localities to invest in public
transportation.

Sustainability Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials estimate that
about half its services can be sustained in the absence of Job Access
funding. The services most likely to survive would be those that have the
strongest community and employment ties. For example, in one region, a
chicken

26 The Department of Family and Children Services, however, discontinued
their funding of this project as of July 1, 2002, because their state
budget for transportation services decreased from $8 million to $3
million.

factory depends on low- income labor. The factory would most likely
support the Job Access service to keep its workers. Housing Department *
The Las Vegas Housing Department*s Job Access project* a subgrantee of Las
Vegas, New Mexico

the New Mexico State Highway Transportation Department* is a continuation
of a welfare- to- work project run by Highlands University. According to
the housing director, the university*s project was not working very well
because it lacked an effective transportation component. When the Job
Access project began, the Las Vegas housing director took on the
responsibilities of transportation coordinator and organized a new

welfare- to- work project. The new project leveraged funds from a variety
of sources, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and DOT, and had an existing clientele. The city*s Housing
Department also provided the city Transportation Department with a
facility to enhance their coordination. The Las Vegas project is open to
the public and provides demand- responsive van service during the
traditional

workweek. Although the project is targeted to those who are low- income,
anyone can utilize the service. Las Vegas has a sliding scale for the
service costs; the general public pays a general cost (about $1.50), those
who are below 30 percent of the county median- income level* 60 percent of
their

participants meet this criteria* pay 75 cents (after applying through the
local TANF office at Highlands University), and residents of the housing
department can access the service for free. The van service requires 24-
hour notice to schedule rides and can be used to travel to work, child
care, and retail locations as well as other purposes. According to the Las
Vegas housing director, the Las Vegas Housing Department*s project is a
success; ridership has doubled in 3 years and housing participants have
improved their lives.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job Access
Project Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding
Source Amount

2000 $40,798. 00 New Mexico $20,399.00 Department of Labor New Mexico
Human 20, 399. 00

Service Department 2001 54,386. 00 New Mexico 27, 193. 50 Department of
Labor New Mexico Human 27, 193. 50 Service Department Total $95,184. 00
$95,185.00

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. The housing director
was also able to use HUD*s Drug Elimination grant funds to help fund the
project because the services included taking teens to after- school
activities. The grantee did not use DOT funds for rural transportation as
matching funds for the project, but it did use them to purchase vans for
the service.

Coordination According to the housing director, the project is an
excellent example of coordination between local, state, and federal
agencies. Highlands University is the human service provider and is
receiving welfare- to- work

money from Labor*s Welfare- to- Work Program. The state*s Department of
Labor runs the TANF Program and also is providing matching funds. The
state Department of Labor has increased its number of vans from three to
five, and the department*s director said he is starting to receive
interest from other rural communities looking to replicate the project.

Sustainability According to project officials, the project cannot exist
without public support, particularly Job Access funds. The housing
director argued for the need to have continued federal funding of the Job
Access project. The

housing director stated that clients need to have flexible and free or
cheap service, or else they will purchase a car. However, buying an old
car makes it harder for clients to develop financial independence, because
the costs of maintaining such a car are burdensome. The director added
that Job

Access and other welfare- to- work services fail because people who
purchase a car do not have enough remaining funds to pay for non- work-
related automobile trips and to pay for such necessities as child care,
food, and clothing. Maryland Transit

The Maryland Transit Administration*s (MTA) project serves as a broker for
Administration Job transportation funds throughout the state. Much of its
Job Access funding is applied toward demand- responsive services, but
several subprojects Access and Reverse serve existing public service
routes. MTA solicits subprojects for its Jobs

Commute Program * Access project by mailing applications, advertisements,
and guidelines to Annapolis, Maryland Maryland localities. MTA uses
performance indicators and standards to grant both awards and award
amounts.

Funding The following table describes Job Access subprojects funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job Access
Program Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access program funding funding
Source Amount

1999 $2, 119, 880 Maryland (state) $391, 250 Maryland DOT for 200, 000
Montgomery County Maryland Department of 667, 375

Human Resources/ Local D epar tment of Social Services Upper Shore Private
15, 000

Industry Council Baltimore Enterprise 285, 880 Zone/ Abell Foundation
Housing Authority of 200, 000 Baltimore City Local governments 165, 375
Historical East Baltimore 150, 000 Community Action Coalition

(Continued From Previous Page)

Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access program funding funding Source
Amount

Anne Arundel Econ. 45, 000

Development Corp 2000 3, 000,000 Maryland (state) 854, 679 Maryland DOT
for 405, 000 Montgomery County Maryland Department of 2,767, 688

Human Resources/ Local D epar tment of Social Services Upper Shore Private
20, 000

Industry Council Baltimore Enterprise 109, 844 Zone/ Abell Foundation
Housing Authority of 100, 000 Baltimore City Local governments 515, 476
Historical East Baltimore 75, 000 Community Action Coalition

Anne Arundel Econ. 151, 242

Development Corp Frederick County 33, 000 One- Stop Mills Corporation 109,
615

2001 2, 394,720 Maryland (state) 997, 179 Maryland Department of 2,551,
469 Human Resources/ Local D epar tment of Social Services Baltimore
Enterprise 300, 063

Zone/ Abell Foundation Local governments 347, 389 Anne Arundel Econ.

228, 990 Development Corp Mills Corporation 149, 004

Chesapeake College 15, 000

Total $7, 514,600 $11, 850, 518 Source: Federal Transit Administration and
grantee.

Coordination According to MTA officials, the Job Access Program has
encouraged greater collaboration and coordination between the
transportation agency and human service organizations at the state and
local level. MTA officials said that through an executive order, the
Governor established the State

Coordinating Committee for Human Services Transportation to encourage
state agencies to identify needs and develop strategies to ensure the
coordination of human services transportation. This committee facilitated
MTA*s ability to market the Job Access project to other state agencies. In
addition, MTA mapped out all transportation projects across the state and
extended its outreach efforts to the local level. MTA officials credited
the Jobs Access Program with helping to formulate and standardize
coordination between transit and social service agencies in providing

transportation services to low- income people. Sustainability Officials at
MTA stressed the importance of having the state*s

administration support public transit that has facilitated other state and
local agencies supporting the Job Access Program. According to MTA
officials, several factors contributed to their success. These officials
said

that Maryland*s existing transportation services (1) do not serve areas
that are too rural, remote, or small; (2) are supported by the state
legislature; and (3) are supported by the public. Moreover, MTA created
its own set of guidelines that would help the sustainability of its
programs. MTA officials added that state legislation required that at
least 25 percent of the required match toward FTA transportation funds*
including Job Access grants* would be paid by the state. These officials
said that this legislation

also requires that a portion of the matching funding be automatically
included in the state*s transportation budget and provided a total of $503
million over a 6- year period. They said that were not sure if they would
be able to maintain all of the services they have started without
continued Job Access funding.

Project Renewal, Under its Job Access grant, Project Renewal* a
rehabilitation center for Suburban Jobs * New homeless men and women*
operates a Suburban Jobs Program that places formerly homeless New Yorkers
in unsubsidized employment by

York Ci t y identifying and securing job opportunities in suburban areas
around New

York City. Suburban Jobs vans travel daily to five worksites, carrying an
average of about 150 people daily, and has an average employment retention
rate of 81 percent. At Montclair State University* one of the project*s
five worksites* participants account for up to 75 percent of the

university*s nonfaculty staffing, according to University personnel. Each
position at the University has a training element and promotional
opportunity. Project Renewal*s housing facilities as well as other
nonprofit employment

programs refer qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. All candidates are
screened to ensure that they have undergone vocational education and job
readiness training. Project Renewal then identifies appropriate employment
opportunities, prepares clients for interviews, and

supplements public transportation through its own van service to the
suburban jobsites. Vans are necessary since public transportation, even in
a transit- rich city like New York, was not designed for reverse commutes
during nontraditional work shifts, according to project officials.
Personal counseling is provided to Suburban Jobs beneficiaries while they
are being

transferred to and from the jobsite. Including capital and operating
expenditures, the rides cost Project Renewal about $15 per person. Funding
The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this
project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project Matching
funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source Amount

1999 $398, 760 Department of Housing $398, 760 and Urban Development 2002
400, 577 Department of Housing 400, 577

and Urban Development Total $799,337 $799, 337

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. Coordination Project
Renewal has worked closely with its metropolitan planning organization
*the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council* and has coordinated
with other agencies. The Metropolitan Transportation Council supports
Project Renewal by providing guidance for improving and starting new
routes. For its required Job Access matching funds, Project Renewal
utilized HUD funds. Project Renewal also partners with dozens of

agencies and does not ask them to help pay for the transportation costs of
Suburban Jobs beneficiaries. Sustainability According to project
officials, Suburban Jobs would likely not exist without Job Access
funding. However, in the absence of DOT funding, the managers of the
project would attempt to continue the services currently

funded by DOT by soliciting greater contributions from employers. For
example, Montclair State University currently contributes about $300
monthly for the service, and other employers might be persuaded to
contribute also.

State of New Mexico, The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation
Department developed Transportation Toolkit

a statewide *Transportation Toolkit* to coordinate welfare- to- work
resources and to administer rural Job Access services. The Toolkit
contains and Rural Job Access

several databases of the inventory of vehicles that were purchased through
publicly funded programs and TANF households by zip code. The Toolkit
helps agencies prepare TANF adults for employment: A TANF adult will be
referred, as needed, to appropriate resources, which may be in different

geographic locations. These resources include counseling for substance
abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence; classes in parenting, life
skills, and job preparation; and programs to improve literacy and/ or to
obtain a general equivalency diploma. The State Highway and Transportation
Department also solicits and awards Job Access grants to rural areas. New
Mexico has 22 state Job Access

projects, 18 of which combine resources from DOT*s funds for rural
transportation. Most of the Job Access projects are demand- responsive,
which makes tracking the number of rides easier. Participants call 24
hours in advance to request a trip. These services are available to the
general public as well as low- income and TANF recipients. New Mexico
promotes the services to the general public through local advertisements
and to

targeted clients through referrals from local human service agencies.
Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 15: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job
Access Project

Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding Source
Amount

1999 $1,198, 000 New Mexico $1, 700, 000 Department of Labor 2000 601,190
New Mexico Human

2,700, 000 Service Department (FY 2000 and 2001)

2001 1,995, 600 0

Total $3,794, 790 $4, 400, 000

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. Coordination According
to the Highway and Transportation*s Chief of Programs, the Toolkit has
resulted in remarkable coordination of transportation resources.
Responsible state and local agencies, such as the highway, labor, and
social development offices, use the Toolkit to determine the most
effective transportation mode to transport low- income and TANF people to

employment. The Toolkit helps localities determine (1) where TANF
recipients reside, (2) the inventory of vehicles that were purchased
through publicly funded programs, and (3) where jobs are located for the
entire

state. The chief of highway programs stated that the Toolkit is intended
to avoid duplication of services and helps localities determine if the
vehicles that were purchased through publicly funded programs were
available for welfare to work. In addition, the Job Access projects
utilized matching funds from the New Mexico Department of Labor and Human
Service Department. Sustainability The State Highway and Transportation
Department believes the projects can exist without Job Access funding. New
Mexico uses self- sustainability as a selection criterion in determining
grantees; the state Highway and Transportation department has been in
constant discussion with

subgrantees about finding a way to fund their projects without Job Access
money. Highway and Transportation Department officials said they believe
that the Human Service Department will continue to fund the Job Access
service even if the federal Job Access Program is not reauthorized by the
Congress.

Transit Authority of Through its Job Access project, the Transit Authority
of River City (TARC) River City * Louisville, offers a variety of services
to low- income people: Kentucky

 The Night Owl bus offers demand- responsive transportation for $1. 50
each way to those who live and work in Louisville*s Jefferson County.  A
Flex- Route deviates from a fixed- path bus route whenever a person

living near the route needs to access the bus service.

 The Job Hunter bus provides free, demand- responsive service for
transporting potential employees to interviews and career development
opportunities. The Job Hunter Bus has transported over 3,500 people

since 1999.

 In coordination with the United Parcel Service, two bus routes transport
students and low- income workers to the United Parcel Service*s worldwide
hub in Louisville.

 A demand- responsive rideshare service to disabled workers.

 Three fixed route bus services* one for teenagers seeking jobs and two
for taking employees to Blue Grass Industrial Park* a large employment
site.

 A Bikes on Board project placed bike racks on 208 buses. This allows
people to travel from the end of the bus route to their place of
employment and back.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 16: Funding for the Transit Authority of River City Job Access
Project Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding
Source Amount

1999 to 2001 a $2,130, 338 City of Jeffersontown $180, 000 United Parcel
Service 153, 000 Kentuckiana Works 435, 000 Others 2, 000 TARC 1,360, 338

Total $2,130, 338 $2, 130, 338

a Grantee received $1,032,938 in fiscal year 1999 and $1,097,400 in fiscal
year 2001. Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.
Coordination TARC collaborated with 43 different private, public, and
nonprofit agencies in developing its Job Access project. TARC also has a
kiosk located in the Workforce Investment Board One- Stop Center, which
provides unemployed persons with job placement and training services.

Sustainability TARC has integrated the Job Access services into its
general services. TARC officials said they would evaluate the efficiency
of all their routes and cut the least efficient if the agency lost its Job
Access funding. Currently, however, 80 percent of their ridership is in
their top five routes* none of which are Job Access services. Thus,
services funded

through the Job Access project may be among those that could be
eliminated.

Washington The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
provides Metropolitan Area Job

fixed route bus and rail service for Washington, D. C., and surrounding
areas. In its Job Access grant, WMATA provides three types of services:
(1) Access Services a trip brokerage service, (2) improved access to fixed
bus routes, and (3) a demand- responsive van service.

WMATA found that some clients faced problems in getting to and from work
during nontraditional work hours* for example, late- night or early

morning hours. Due to a lack of transportation, these employees face a
difficult time maintaining employment. As a result, under its Job Access
grant, WMATA began in 1999 a trip brokerage system that allows its clients
to reserve transportation services for odd hours and in areas that are
underserved by traditional public transit services. According to WMATA

officials, their program has been able to serve thousands of individuals
every month. WMATA*s demand- responsive component incurs a cost of about
$46 per trip, with no costs to the client. In addition to the trip
brokerage system, WMATA implements a fixed- route component of its Job
Access Program. While the fixed route service costs an average of $41.68
per ride, passengers pay a fare of roughly $1. 75 (both the Job Access
client and general public pay this amount). With just over 330 trips per
month on fixed bus routes, WMATA*s Job Access project has

been able to provide service to about 9,500 individuals. WMATA also
established a one- stop information center* the Washington Regional Call
Center* that allows people to access exact trip information to various
locations.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for
this project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.

Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services
Matching funds Fiscal year of Job Access Program funding funding a Source
Amount

1999 $1, 350,000 United People*s $200, 000

Organization Washington,DC,Dept.of 300, 000 Employment Services Virginia
Department of

195, 000 Human Services Fairfax County

180, 000 Department of Family Services

Potomac Rappahannock 140, 000 Transportation Commission

Fairfax County (Gen. 350, 000

Govt.) 2000 650,000 Washington,DC,Dept.of 300, 000 Employment Services
Fairfax County

180, 000 Department of Family Services

Potomac Rappahannock 127, 000 Transportation Commission

Virginia Department of 195, 000

Human Services 2001 998,000 Washington,DC,Dept.of 300, 000 Employment
Services People*s Involvement 267, 000 Corporation Fairfax County

225, 000 Department of Family Services

Potomac Rappahannock 200, 000 Transportation Commission

Total $2,998,000 $3, 159, 000 Source: Federal Transit Administration and
grantee.

Coordination According to WMATA officials, the Job Access Program
increased their coordination with human service agencies and others in
their service area because it was designed to address problems related to
low- income people getting transportation services. As the most prevalent
transit provider for

the Washington metropolitan area, WMATA and the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Government*s Transportation Planning were the regional
catalysts for getting transportation and social services together to
provide Job Access services. According to WMATA officials, WMATA has

been able to leverage its status as the region*s primary transit provider
to encourage the involvement of other regional transit systems as well as
human service agencies across two states, Washington, D. C., and multiple
local jurisdictions. In addition, WMATA has been able to use the

information and outreach component of its Job Access project to promote
the use of transit programs throughout the region. WMATA has been able to
direct welfare clients to utilize more timely and efficient public transit

routes to and from work, thereby enabling individuals to get to work on
time and keep their jobs. Consequently, WMATA officials noted that
employers have begun to take notice of the WMATA Job Access project
because it has produced a dependable form of transportation for their

employees. WMATA is currently working with the Washington, D. C., Board of
Trade and Chamber of Commerce to encourage more public and private
collaborations in serving low- income populations.

Sustainability WMATA officials said they would not be able to sustain
services started with Job Access funding if they did not continue to
receive grants. They believe that theirs is a model program, but they have
not been able to encourage sufficient private sector involvement in the
program to replace Job Access funds.

Appendi x I V

Survey of Job Access Grantees Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees
U. S. General Accounting Office Survey of Job Access Grantees

____________________________________________________________________________________
In addition, when responding to these questions, please coordinate with
the members of your staff as well as any sub- recipients or sub- grantees,
as appropriate.

Introduction Please complete the questionnaire and return it to the
address below within 10 working days of receipt. We

have provided a postage- paid business reply envelope to The General
Accounting Office ( GAO) is an agency of facilitate the return of your
questionnaire. If the return the Congress that performs studies of federal
programs.

envelope is misplaced, please send or fax your The Transportation Equity
Act has mandated the GAO completed q estionnaire to: for the 21st Century
( TEA- 21) to periodically examine

how the Department of Transportation s Federal Transit U. S. General
Accounting Office Administration ( FTA) is implementing the Access to

Attn: Frank Taliaferro Jobs Program ( Job Access/ Reverse Commute Program)
.

200 W. Adams Street, Suite 700 Chicago, Illinois 60606- 5219 To obtain
perspectives on this program, we are asking organizations that were
selected to receive project grants

FAX # : ( 312) 220- 7726 from the Access to Jobs Program to complete this

questionnaire. It covers a variety of topics including the If you have any
questions, please call Frank Taliaferro funding grantees have received
under this program.

on ( 312) 220- 7715 ( e- mail: taliaferrof@ gao. gov) or Josephine Perez
on ( 312) 220- 7626 ( e- mail:

Instructions perezj@ gao. gov. ) Your response, along with the others
Please review the label above and respond to the we receive, will be used
in our report to the Congress on this program. questions in this
questionnaire as they relate to the project named. If you have a question
about the

information on the label or it is incorrect, please call one of the GAO
contact persons listed below.

Thank you for your he p.

Please provide the following information for the person we should contact
if we have any questions.

Name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Title: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Organization: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone
# : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E- mail: _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding) . GAO Control # : (
N= 152)

General Information About Your Pr ject 3. How does this Job Access project
( your organization or sub- grantee) primarily provide transportation

1. What is the name and address of the grant recipient services (
including mobility manager services) to for this Job Access project?
program participants? ( Please check one. ) ( N= 145)

_ ( N= 152) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1. [ 34% ] Uses a
combination of direct

transportation service, contractors, or _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

vouchers. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

2. [ 41% ] Provides transportation services directly to program
participants 3. [ 14% ] Hires companies to provide services 2. Which of
the following would best characterize your

such as bus, van, or taxi organization? ( Please check one. ) ( N= 151)

4. [ 1% % ] Provides vouchers to participants to 1. [ 15% ] State
Department of Transportation

obtain transportation to work 2. [ 1% % ] State Human Service Department
5. [ 10% ] Other ( Please s ecify) 3. [ 20% ] Regional transit agency _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

4. [ 34% ] Local transit agency 4. Currently, about how many passengers
per month 5. [ 1% % ] Local government human service office does your Job
Access project serve? ( Enter number;

if none, enter 0 ) ( N= 135) 6. [ 7% % ] Other local government ( city/
county)

( Range: 0 257,856 passengers) 7. [ 5% % ] Nonprofit human service
organization

( Median: 1,880 passengers) ( Mean: 11,079 passengers) 8. [ 0% % ] Private
organization _ _ _ _ _ _ _ passengers per month 9. [ 0% % ] Public housing
authority 10. [ 17% ] Other ( Please specify )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1. 2. 5. 6. rail) 5. What types of service does your Jobs Access project
provide? If this type of service is provided, currently, what are the
average costs per trip, the typical fares that Job Access passengers and
the general public pay for

this service, the n mber of trips provided, and passengers served per
month? ( Note: values may be rounded) Type of Service Fixed route service
( regular van, b s or light ( N= 135) Variable or flexible route service,
that is,

b s or vanpool service that follows a route that changes to meet needs (
N= 117)

3. Demand- response service, that is,

passengers call ahead for service ( N= 124)

4. Carpool service ( carpools

created by the project) ( N= 111) Mobility or trip manager, or broker
service that

provides information on how to use transportation services ( N= 114) Other
( Please specify ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( N= 90) statistics. ) ( A) Does your

project provide this service?

( Please check one for each. ) No Yes

4. 6. 1. [ 16% ] 2. [ 51% ] 3. [ 32% ] 4. [ 2% % ] 5. [ 25% ] 6. Of the
passengers that your Job Access transportation project serves, about what
percent

could be described as the following? ( Enter percent, if none, enter 0 . )
1. TANF recipients 2. Non- TANF Welfare- to- Work program 3. Other low
income ( below 150% of poverty) no income restrictions 5. General public
Other project participants ( for example, Medicaid

recipients, senior citizens, etc. ) ( Please specify program) _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( Please check all that apply. ) grant Access
project revenue fund Other ( Please s ecify. )

receipts ( Range: 0 - 100% )

participants ( Department of Labor) ( Median: 16% ) ( N= 110) %

( Range: 0 60% % ) ( Median: 4% )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( N= 93) %

( Range: 0 - 100% ) ( Median: 30% ) N= 107 %

Reverse comm ters, with ( Range: 0 90% % ) ( Median: 0% )

( N= 91) % ( Range: 0 100% % )

( Median: 19% ) ( N= 107) %

( Range: 0 100% % ) ( Median: 0% )

( N= 89) % 7. How are Job Access project fare box receipts used? ( N= 142)
Included as part of match for Job Access

Used to support operating costs of Jobs Returned to organization s general

Not applicable do not have fare box 8. About what percent of your project
s Job Access

funding is used for a mobility or trip manager, or broker services? (
Enter percentage; if none, enter 0 . ) ( Range: 0 100% )

( Median: 0% ) 1. [ 16% ] 2. [ 7% % ] 3. [ 2% % ] 4. [ 17% ] 5. [ 9% % ]
6. [ 31% ] 7. [ 4% % ] 8. [ 25% ] 9. [ 48% ] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ % grant( s) ,
for how many months have these

number of months) ( Range: 0 58 months) ( Median: 24 months) ( Mean: 23
months)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ months

( Please check all that apply. ) matching funds for the service funding- -
for services vehicles, or fuel

emergencies) Employers have adj sted work limitations of the Job Access
transportation service

transit service to the workplace Other ( Please identify) Question 13)

( N= 137) 9. As of J ne 30, 2002, under your Job Access

transportation services been provided? ( Please enter ( N= 135) 10. How
are employers involved with either the funding or implementation of this
Job Access project?

( N= 139) Employers provide some or all of the

Employers provide additional funding- - beyond the Job Access project
match Employers make in- kind contributions s ch as vehicles, maintenance
for Employers pay fares for employees who

are passengers receiving services Employers supplement the service by
providing emergency rides for special circumstances ( for example, when
employees m st leave early for family schedules to accommodate the
operating Employers provide vans or shuttle buses

to take workers from the end of the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No employers are involved with the implementation
of this project

0 . ) 1. [ 10% ] 2. [ 60% ] 3. [ 20% ] 4. [ 38% ] 5. [ 39% ] 6. [ 33% ] 7.
[ 57% ] 8. [ 68% ] 9. [ 20% ] 11. About how many employers are involved
with either the funding or implementation of this Job Access

transportation project? ( Enter number; if none, enter ( Range: 0 3,000
employers) ( Median: 3 employers) ( Mean: 54 employers)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ employers recipients or low- income people get to work?

if necessary. ) [ 34% ] Don t know

check all that apply. ) None

16. Overall, how satisfied or not are you with how your 19. How has your
participation in the Job Access

Job Access project has enabled your organization to program affected
coordination and collaboration help people get to work? ( Please check
one. )

with other transportation or transit organizations in ( N= 138)

your service area? ( Please check one. ) ( N= 142) 1. [ 49% ] Very
satisfied

The level of coordination and collaboration has 2. [ 39% ] Generally
satisfied

1. [ 20% ] Greatly increased 3. [ 9% % ] Neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied

2. [ 28% ] Generally increased 4. [ 2% % ] Generally dissatisfied 3. [ 17%
] Slightly increased 5. [ 1% % ] Very dissatisfied 4. [ 15% ] No change
17. How has your participation in the Job Access

5. [ 1% % ] Slightly decreased program affected coordination and
collaboration with social service organizations in your service

6. [ 1% % ] Generally decreased area? ( Please check one. ) ( N= 143)

7. [ 0% % ] Greatly decreased The level of coordination and collaboration
has

8. [ 20% ] Not applicable we are the only transit 1. [ 36% ] Greatly
increased

organization in service area 2. [ 37% ] Generally increased 20. Please
briefly explain below the reason for your 3. [ 15% ] Slightly increased
response in question 19. ( Please use additional

sheets if necessary. ) 4. [ 12% ] No change ( N= 100 comments) 5. [ 0% % ]
Slightly decreased

6. [ 0% % ] Generally decreased 7. [ 0% % ] Greatly decreased

18. Please briefly explain below the reason for your response in question
17. ( Please use additional sheets if necessary. ) 21. Please describe any
difficulties your project

experienced, if any, in coordinating and ( N= 126 comments)

collaborating with transportation, transit or social service
organizations. ( Please use additional sheets if necessary. ) [ 57% ] No
difficulties- - - > ( Go to Question 23)

( N= 87 checked the no difficulties box) ( N= 43 comments)

apply. ) 1. [ 58% ] 2. [ 35% ] 3. [ 25% ] 4. [ 43% ] 5. [ 34% ] 6. [ 20% ]
7. [ 13% ] 8. [ 47% ] 9. [ 19% ] 22. Please describe how difficulties with
coordination and collaboration with transportation, transit or

social service were overcome, if at all. ( Please use additional sheets if
necessary. ) [ 13% ] Difficulties identified in question 21 were not
overcome

( N= 19 checked the no difficulties box) ( N= 28 comments)

Funding f r the Job Access Pr ject

23. In addition to the FTA s f nding for this project s Job Access grant,
what other sources of funds were used to fund your organization s Job
Access transportation services? ( Please check all that

$ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ State TANF funds State transportation funds

Other State funds Local government funds Local transit operator funds
Fare- box revenue

Other ( Please specify )

total dollar amount. ) ( Range: $ 1,275 $ $ 68,586, 800) ( Median: $ 1,
022,509) ( Mean: $ 2,821,652)

( N= 144) Private nonprofit organization donations Employer donations or
contributions

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 24. What was the total
funding for all years and from all

sources for this Job Access project? ( Please enter ( N= 132) 25. Consider
all of the sources of funding for this Job

Access project. About what percent of your total project funding came from
this Job Access grant?

( Please enter percent) ( Range: 3 100% ) ( Median: 50% )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ %

check one. ) 1. [ 29% ] 2. [ 71% ] 1. [ 78% ] 2. [ 22% ] Yes

1. [ 1% % ] 2. [ 11% ] 3. [ 28% ] 4. [ 47% ] 5. [ 13% ] 29. If your Job
Access project funding should end, will your organization continue to
provide transportation

services that were previously provided through the Job Access grant? (
Please check one. ) 1. [ 37% ] 2. [ 33% ] 3. [ 44% ] 4. [ 18% ] 5. [ 52% ]
6. [ 37% ] 7. [ 22% ] 8. [ 57% ] 9. [ 27% ] 10. [ 14% ] Yes, with expanded
services

Yes, at same level of services obtained No, will discontinue services

33. Overall, based on the above measures used by this Job Access project,
how s ccessful has/ have this project been? ( Please check one. ) ( N=
130)

1. [ 19% ] Extremely successful 2. [ 48% ] Very successful 3. [ 22% ]
Moderately successful 4. [ 9% % ] Somewhat successful 5. [ 2% % ] Slightly
or not successful C mments

34. The Congress is currently considering the reauthorization of many
transportation programs, including the Job Access program. Consider the
individual services that are funded through your Job Access project when
answering the questions below.

a. If federal funding for the Job Access program were no longer available
for your project, how and to what extent would these individual services
be sustained, if at all. ( Please use the back of this sheet or additional
sheets if needed. ) ( N= 129 comments)

b. If federal funding for the Job Access program were no longer available
for your project, how and to what extent wo ld these individual projects
resources, clients, and services be affected, if at all. ( Please use the
back of this sheet or additional sheets if needed. ) ( N= 124 comments)

35. Please provide below any additional comments that you have about the
implementation of the Job Access program, your project, the transportation
needs of low- income people and people moving from welfare- to- work, or
any issues raised by questions contained in this questionnaire. ( Please
use the back of this sheet or additional sheets if needed. ) ( N= 72
comments) Thank you for your help.

Appendi x V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment GAO Contact Katherine A. Siggerud
(202) 512- 2834 Staff Acknowledgment In addition, Sam Abbas, Ernie Hazera,
JayEtta Hecker, Landis Lindsey, Susan Michal- Smith, LuAnn Moy, Josephine
Perez, and Frank Taliaferro

made key contributions to this report.

(544024)

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to
help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
GAO*s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao.
gov) contains abstracts and fulltext GAO Reports and

files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov
and select *Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products*
under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Contact: Waste, and Abuse in

Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@ gao.
gov

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512-
7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D. C. 20548

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Since 1999, DOT has awarded over $355 million for 352 Job Access grants in
42 states to help low- income people get to job opportunities and job
support services, such as training and child care. Job Access grantees
used various approaches to provide transportation for this purpose, such
as expanding existing bus service, adding new areas to be served by an
existing fixed transit route, or enhancing the frequency of the service.

Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees Transportation
approach Percentage of grantees

Fixed bus route extension (frequency or location) established 51 New bus
service initiated 43 Demand- responsive service established a 19
Connection to existing service established 14 Note: Percentages do not add
to 100 because some grantees provided multiple services.

a Demand- responsive service takes riders at times they request to places
that are not on a fixed route.

Source: GAO analysis of 1999 grantees* services.

The program has met its goal of encouraging collaboration among
transportation, human service, and other community- based agencies in Job
Access service design, implementation, and financing. However, most of the
program*s services are not financially sustainable. For example, 12
percent of Job Access grantees indicated that they could continue their
services after the end of program funding, while 41 percent reported they
would likely terminate or decrease services, and 47 percent were uncertain
about their ability to continue those services.

DOT has not evaluated the Job Access program or reported to the Congress,
as TEA- 21 requires. The department therefore is missing an opportunity to
provide timely information to the Congress that could assist it in
deciding whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. GAO has several
concerns about DOT*s plans to evaluate the Job Access program. For its
evaluation, DOT initially planned to use one performance measure*
employment sites served. However, using a methodology that is based on
this measure would yield limited information because it only partially
addresses the program*s goal of providing transportation to low- income
people and does not address other program goals and criteria. Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) program officials informed GAO that they also
plan to use other performance measures, but they did not provide
sufficient detail for GAO to comment on the quality of their evaluation.
Moreover, the final report*s date of issuance and its contents are
uncertain because the report has yet to be reviewed and approved by the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and the Office of Management
and Budget. DOT officials did not provide GAO with an estimated date for
submitting the report to the Congress.

WELFARE REFORM

Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation
Should Be Completed

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 204. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512- 2834 or siggerudk@
gao. gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 204, a report to the

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

December 2002

Pursuant to Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA- 21), GAO
periodically reports on the implementation of the Job Access and Reverse
Commute (Job Access) program. The program is designed to assist low-
income people in accessing employment opportunities. This report examines
the Department of Transportation*s (DOT) efforts to evaluate the program
and report the results to the Congress. GAO also examined (1)
transportation and related services provided by the program; (2) whether
the program fosters collaboration between Job Access grantees and others
in the design, financing, and delivery of those services; and (3) whether
Job Access services would be financially sustainable after the end of Job
Access funding.

GAO recommends that DOT:  Report to the Congress on the

results of the Job Access program, as required by law.

 Base the report on data that fully measures the effectiveness of the Job
Access program, including financial sustainability of Job Access projects.

Page i GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Contents

Contents Page ii GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Contents Page iii GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 1 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 3 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 4 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 5 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 6 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 7 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 8 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 9 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 10 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 11 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 12 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 13 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 14 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 15 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 16 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 17 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 18 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 19 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 20 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 21 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 22 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix I

Appendix I Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports

Page 23 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix I Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports

Page 24 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix I Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports

Page 25 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 26 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix II

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 27 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 31 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 32 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 33 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 34 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 35 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 36 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 37 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 38 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 39 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 40 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 41 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 42 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 43 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 44 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 45 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 46 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 47 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 48 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 49 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 50 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 51 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 52 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 53 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 54 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 55 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 56 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 57 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 58 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 59 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 60 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 61 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 62 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 63 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 64 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 65 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 66 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 67 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 68 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 69 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 70 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 71 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Page 72 GAO- 03- 204 Welfare Reform

Appendix V

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***