Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential	 
Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes (20-AUG-04, GAO-04-934R).
                                                                 
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)	 
authorized the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to  
increase the transportation options of low-income workers. The	 
act created JARC, in part because, as the act states, two-thirds 
of all new jobs were located in the suburbs, while three-fourths 
of welfare recipients lived in rural areas or central cities, and
even in metropolitan areas with excellent public transportation  
systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible by transit.  
Under JARC, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides	 
grants to transit agencies, local human service agencies, and	 
others to fill gaps in transportation services for welfare	 
recipients and other low-income individuals. Both houses of	 
Congress have approved separate legislation to reauthorize	 
surface transportation programs including JARC. TEA-21 also	 
required us to provide regular updates on the status of JARC. As 
agreed with your offices, this letter addresses (1) changes in	 
program funding since fiscal year 1999 and the possible effects  
of further changes proposed in bills to reauthorize JARC, (2) the
possible effects of proposed legislative changes to program	 
coordination requirements, and (3) FTA's 2003 evaluation of the  
program and plans for future evaluations. To respond to your	 
request, we obtained and summarized financial data from FTA. We  
also compared current legislation and program requirements with  
proposed requirements in reauthorization bills in both the House 
(H.R. 3550) and Senate (S. 1072). We then analyzed the potential 
effects of changes in legislation by interviewing interest groups
and JARC grantees. Finally, we reviewed FTA's evaluation of JARC 
and interviewed FTA officials about plans for future evaluations.
We determined that all data used in this report were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We performed our work from April	 
through July 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 	 
government auditing standards.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-934R					        
    ACCNO:   A11877						        
  TITLE:     Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and       
Potential Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes		 
     DATE:   08/20/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Transportation costs				 
	     Transportation legislation 			 
	     Transportation operations				 
	     Welfare benefits					 
	     Welfare recipients 				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Special fund accounts				 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Government grants					 
	     Grant monitoring					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-934R

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

August 20, 2004

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
Chairman
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Ranking 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

Subject: 	Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential
Effects of Proposed Legislative Changes

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized the
Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to increase the
transportation options of low-income workers. The act created JARC, in
part because, as the act states, twothirds of all new jobs were located in
the suburbs, while three-fourths of welfare recipients lived in rural
areas or central cities, and even in metropolitan areas with excellent
public transportation systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible
by transit. Under JARC, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides
grants to transit agencies, local human service agencies, and others to
fill gaps in transportation services for welfare recipients and other
low-income individuals. Both houses of Congress have approved separate
legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs including JARC.

TEA-21 also required us to provide regular updates on the status of JARC.
As agreed with your offices, this letter addresses (1) changes in program
funding since fiscal year 1999 and the possible effects of further changes
proposed in bills to reauthorize JARC, (2) the possible effects of
proposed legislative changes to program coordination requirements, and (3)
FTA's 2003 evaluation of the program and plans for future evaluations.

To respond to your request, we obtained and summarized financial data from
FTA. We also compared current legislation and program requirements with
proposed requirements in reauthorization bills in both the House (H.R.
3550) and Senate (S. 1072). We then analyzed the potential effects of
changes in legislation by interviewing interest groups and JARC grantees.
Finally, we reviewed FTA's evaluation of JARC and interviewed FTA
officials about plans for future evaluations. We determined that all data
used in this report were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We
performed our work from April through July 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Our scope and
methodology are discussed in more detail near the end of this report.

Results in Brief

Since fiscal year 1999, the process for awarding JARC program funds has
changed, and proposed legislative changes would require further
modifications. Initially, FTA competitively selected all grant recipients,
but over time Congress has increasingly designated grantees through
appropriations legislation. Whereas FTA selected all grantees in fiscal
year 1999, Congress designated all grantees in fiscal years 2003 and 2004
through appropriations legislation. Two proposed legislative changes would
affect JARC funding. First, the House bill proposes that JARC funds would
be distributed to states and urban areas through formula grants rather
than through project-specific appropriations. Second, the House bill also
proposes to decrease the matching fund requirement for capital
expenditures from 50 percent to 20 percent. These proposed changes are not
in the Senate bill. Both of these changes would make JARC similar to other
FTA grant programs. Grantees and interest groups with whom we spoke had
mixed opinions about these changes.

Proposed legislative changes to JARC coordination requirements would
provide funding and change the requirements for coordination.
Specifically, the House's proposed bill would allow up to 10 percent of
JARC funds to be used for administrative, planning, and technical
assistance activities. Currently, no funds can be used for these
activities. This proposed change is not in the Senate bill. This change
will likely facilitate program coordination with transportation and human
service providers, according to most industry groups and grantees with
whom we spoke. Another proposed change in both bills would require
agencies that receive JARC funds to certify that their program is the
result of a coordinated plan that includes local stakeholders, such as
transit providers, human service agencies, and the public. Currently,
certification is not required. The effect of this change would depend on
the specific guidance that FTA provides for implementing a certification
requirement, according to industry groups and grantees with whom we spoke.

Although FTA's 2003 evaluation of JARC provides some useful information
about some JARC projects, it does not provide national, generalizable
evidence of the program's performance. FTA's evaluation is based on
several sources of data, most of which cannot be generalized to the entire
JARC population. The program is difficult to evaluate because individual
programs have different goals and serve different populations, such as
those in rural and urban areas. FTA has taken steps to improve its
evaluation process and plans further improvements. For example, FTA

introduced a Web-based reporting system to facilitate grantees' reporting
of program data.

Background

TEA-21 authorized JARC to provide grants to help low-income individuals
and welfare recipients access employment opportunities. The program's two
major goals are to (1) provide transportation and related services such as
childcare and (2) to increase collaboration among transportation
providers, human service agencies, employers, and others. Local JARC
projects can include increasing the frequency of existing transit along
current routes, providing vanpool services, or providing information to
the public about existing transportation services.

TEA-21 also required FTA to conduct an evaluation of JARC by June 2000.
TEA-21 did not discuss specific elements to be included in the evaluation.
Finally, TEA-21 required that we report on the implementation of the
program, and we have issued multiple reports on the program from 1998
through June 2003.1 These reports found, among other things, that JARC has
increased coordination among transit and human service agencies, but that
FTA was slow in evaluating the program. We also recommended that FTA's
evaluation address the key goals of the program.

Process for Awarding Program Funds Has Changed Over Time, and Proposed
Legislation Would Institute Further Changes

The process for awarding JARC grants has changed from a competition
administered by FTA to an annual designation of grant recipients in
federal appropriations legislation. Two proposed legislative changes would
result in further modifications. First, in the House bill JARC funds would
be distributed to states and urban areas through a formula grant instead
of through project-specific appropriations. Second, the House bill would
also reduce the matching fund requirement for capital expenditures from 50
percent to 20 percent. These changes are not in the Senate bill. These
changes would make JARC similar to other FTA grant programs. While these
changes could provide a reliable source of funds for some projects, the
changes could adversely affect some JARC projects in states with low
population, according to grantees and interest groups with whom we spoke.

1GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program,
GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington,
D.C.: Dec. 8, 1998).
GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program in Its
First Year, GAO/RCED-00
14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999).
GAO, Welfare Reform: DOT is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access
Program, GAO-01
133 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000).
GAO, Welfare Reform: GAO's Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT's Access to Jobs
Program, GAO-01
996R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001).
GAO, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT's Job
Access Program Was
Not Followed, GAO-02-213 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001).
GAO, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service
Coordination, but Evaluations
Should Be Completed, GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002).
GAO, DOT's Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Briefing to
Congressional Staff.
(Washington, D.C.: June 2003).

Congress Has Appropriated Almost $600 Million for JARC and Has Designated
All JARC Grants Since Fiscal Year 2003

In total, JARC has been appropriated approximately $583 million for fiscal
years 1999 through 2004. TEA-21 authorized JARC to receive a maximum of
$150 million annually since its inception in fiscal year 1999. In
addition, some JARC funds are "guaranteed," or subject to a procedural
mechanism designed to ensure that minimum amounts of funds are made
available each year. The guaranteed amount of funding for the program has
risen from $50 million in fiscal year 1999 to $150 million in fiscal year
2003.2 However, in fiscal year 2003, Congress transferred $45 million

                                       3

from JARC to the New Starts program. As a result, Congress appropriated
about $45 million less than the guaranteed amount in fiscal year 2003 (see
fig. 1). The annual appropriations for JARC have ranged from a low of $75
million in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to a high of $125 million in fiscal
year 2002.

Figure 1: JARC Funding, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2004

Notes: Dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation.
There is no guaranteed funding amount for fiscal year 2004 because JARC
was authorized through
fiscal year 2003 and is currently operating under the latest in a series
of short term extension acts.

2There is no guaranteed funding amount for fiscal year 2004 because the
program was authorized
through fiscal year 2003 and is currently operating under the latest in a
series of short term extension
acts.

3FTA's New Starts program awards full funding grant agreements for
fixed-guideway rail, certain bus,
trolley, and ferry projects.

While JARC began as a competitive grant program, the program has become
congressionally designated through appropriations legislation. The amounts
of JARC funds available for competitively selected grants have decreased
since fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 1999, $75 million (representing all
of the appropriated JARC funds) was awarded through the competitive
selection process. This number decreased each year until 2003 and 2004,
when no JARC grants were awarded through the competitive selection
process. In contrast, the amount of congressionally designated grant money
has generally increased over the life of the program. In fiscal year 1999,
no grantees were congressionally designated; however, Congress designated
approximately $50 million in fiscal year 2000 and then increased the
amounts for designated grants until fiscal years 2003 and 2004, when
almost all of the money appropriated to the program was congressionally
designated (see fig. 2).4

Figure 2: Funds Appropriated for Competitively Selected and
Congressionally Designated Grants, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2004

Congress has also transferred money from JARC to FTA's New Starts program
through appropriations legislation. Congress transferred $45 million from
JARC to the New Starts program in fiscal year 2003 and $20 million in
fiscal year 2004. In addition, Congress has transferred unobligated
balances-funds that have not been spent by grantees-when the funds have
remained unobligated for a period of time.

4In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, all funds were congressionally designated
except for approximately $300,000 each fiscal year that was designated for
FTA's evaluation.

Specifically, Congress transferred through appropriations legislation
approximately $1 million of fiscal year 1999 unobligated balances to the
New Starts program in fiscal year 2003, and approximately $4.5 million of
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 unobligated balances to the New Starts program
in fiscal year 2004 (see table 1).

Table 1: Unobligated Amounts as of April 30, 2004, Fiscal Years 1999
through 2004

       Amount       1999       2000        2001        2002        2003          2004 
Congressional         $0 $2,331,545 $2,682,937  $15,257,631 $60,817,204 $103,818,791  
allocations                                                             
Percentage of                                                                         
total               0.0%       4.7%        3.6%       14.0%       58.5%         99.7%
allocation                                                              
  Competitive $1,015,648  $342,217     $825,047 $ 3,396,493          $0            $0 
  allocations                                                           
Percentage of                                                                         
total               1.4%       1.3%        3.3%       20.0%          0%            0%
allocation                                                              
  Transfer to $                                                                       
New Starts 1,015,648  $2,331,545 $2,182,937a          $0          $0            $0
      program                                                           
      Balance                                                                         
available for         $0  $342,217     $825,047 $18,654,124 $60,817,204 $104,117,021b
obligation                                                           

Source: FTA.

Note: Data are from fiscal year 2004, so a large unobligated balance for
fiscal year 2004 is expected.

aAccording to FTA officials, $500,000 of the unobligated funds was not
transferred to New Starts because that money was about to be obligated
when Congress transferred funds.

bIncludes funds for FTA's evaluation.

Stakeholders Identified Advantages and Disadvantages of Formula Funding

Proposed legislation in the House would change JARC to a formula grant
program, under which JARC funds would be distributed through a formula
based on the number of low-income individuals and the number of welfare
recipients in each area. The proposed legislation would also continue the
allocation established in TEA-21, in which 60 percent of the funds would
be distributed to urbanized areas with populations equal to or greater
than 200,000; 20 percent of the funds would be distributed to states for
urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000; and 20 percent of the
funds would be distributed to the states for nonurban areas.

FTA officials generally support the change to a formula program, but
expressed concern about one aspect of the formula. According to FTA
officials, changing JARC to a formula program has several benefits. First,
the formula provides a known annual funding allocation that will result in
a steady stream of funds to states and localities. Currently, JARC funding
is determined each year, and it is therefore difficult for states and
localities to predict their future funding level. Second, according to FTA
officials, project sponsors would know how much money they

would get in future years under a formula grant program and would be able
to plan their programs accordingly. Third, FTA officials told us that
states would have the

5

flexibility to commingle funds for smaller urban and rural areas. In the
past, the amount of money available for smaller urban areas has exceeded
the demand for funds; therefore, it would be useful for states to be able
to redirect funds to areas with more need, according to FTA officials.
Fourth, FTA officials told us that changing JARC to a formula grant
program may help prevent JARC funding from being transferred to other
programs as it was in fiscal years 2002 through 2004 because formula
program funds have traditionally not been transferred to other programs.
FTA officials told us that they are concerned about one aspect of the
current legislative proposal-including the number of welfare recipients as
a factor in determining the formula. FTA officials told us that JARC is
designed to serve all lowincome individuals and not just welfare
recipients. According to FTA officials, many welfare recipients begin
working as a means of transitioning off of welfare and, therefore, the
number of welfare recipients should not affect the current demand for JARC
services. In addition, these officials told us that it would be difficult
to obtain data needed to include welfare recipients in the formula.
Specifically, FTA officials told us that data on the number of welfare
recipients who live in urban and nonurban areas is not readily available.
As a result, it would be difficult to include the number of welfare
recipients as a factor in distributing JARC funds.

Interest groups that represent state and community transportation
employees had some concerns about formula funding if the program continues
to be authorized at the current level. Specifically, interest groups we
spoke with expressed concern that, under a formula, states that are
largely rural or have low populations may not get the level of support
necessary to continue all of the JARC services currently funded within
their states. This is because some rural projects have benefited from
congressional designation, and their state could receive less money under
a formula grant. One interest group characterized the formula funding
mechanism as spreading around the available JARC funds across the country,
rather than concentrating the limited funds on individual projects.
Interest groups also told us that formula funding could be more beneficial
to JARC if the program received more funds and could, therefore, continue
to fund projects throughout the country. However, within a constrained
transit budget, increases in JARC funding could come at the expense of
other federal transit programs.

              5See H.R. 3550, S: 5316 (c) (3), 108th Cong. (2004).

Grantees we spoke with expressed mixed opinions about formula funding as
follows:6

o  	Seven of 18 grantees told us that they do not support formula funding.
Some grantees said they are concerned that they may receive less funding
under a formula grant mechanism. For example, one grantee we interviewed
said that if formula funding was used, it would receive less funding, and
another grantee told us that formula funding could cause JARC projects
within its rural state to shut down.

o  	In contrast, 4 of 18 grantees told us that they support formula grant
funding because they believe that they will be able to plan their projects
if they have a reliable source of funds for several years. One grantee
that supports formula funding for this reason added that the worst thing a
transportation provider can do is to start, stop, and restart service
because the provider loses credibility with riders. Another grantee that
supports this change had counted on funding for fiscal year 2005 but did
not receive funds through the appropriations process.

o  	In addition, 3 of 18 grantees told us that they would prefer to
receive JARC money directly from FTA and not have to work through their
state governments. Under a formula grant, nonurban areas would receive
funds through the state. Grantees told us that JARC might not receive the
attention it deserves from their states.

o  	In contrast, one grantee told us that state involvement would be
beneficial, particularly in fostering coordination, because human service
agencies already have established relationships with the state and know
how to work with the state, so they may be more likely to participate in
JARC.

Decrease in Matching Fund Requirement Would Make JARC Similar to Other FTA
Programs

Another proposed legislative change in the House bill would make the
matching fund requirement for JARC consistent with the matching
requirements for other FTA programs. Specifically, grantees could receive
a grant for up to 80 percent of the project's capital expenses, which are
used to purchase capital equipment such as buses. Currently, projects can
receive a grant for up to 50 percent of the project's capital expenses.
Projects would continue to be eligible for grants of up to 50 percent of
their operating expenses-that is, the costs of their day-to-day
operations. FTA officials told us that this change would lessen any
confusion about matching requirements among grant recipients who
participate in multiple FTA programs.

Some interest groups echoed what FTA told us-that this change would make
the requirements for JARC consistent with those for other FTA programs. We
spoke to some members of one interest group who are employees in state
departments of

6The number of grantee opinions does not add up to 18 (100 percent of
those we spoke to) because some grantees had more than one opinion on a
subject matter while others had no opinion. In addition, these numbers are
not generalizable to all JARC grantees.

transportation. One of those members expressed concern that the decrease
in the matching fund requirement could lead to greater capital investment
at the expense of program operations. This member is concerned that JARC
may become like other FTA programs, which, according to this member,
stress capital investment over service delivery.

Grantees with whom we spoke told us that this change would either be
positive or not affect their programs. Six of 18 grantees told us that
changing the matching fund requirement for capital costs would allow them
to increase the services they provide and the numbers of vehicles they use
to provide services. Four of 18 grantees told us that this change would be
positive because it would make the requirements for matching funds in JARC
similar to the matching requirements for other FTA programs. In contrast,
4 of 18 grantees told us that this change would not affect them because
they do not use any capital funds in their project. FTA officials told us
that approximately 15 percent of JARC funds are currently spent on capital
costs. Therefore, this change may increase the proportion of JARC funds
used for this purpose.

Allowing Program Funds to Be Used for Administration Could Enhance
Coordination, but Some Stakeholders Expressed Concern about Certification
Requirements

Two proposed legislative changes would affect program coordination. The
first change is only in the House bill and would allow 10 percent of JARC
funds to be used for technical assistance activities, including planning
projects and coordinating with local stakeholders. Currently, no JARC
funds may be used for these activities. This change would likely
facilitate program coordination, according to the interest groups and
grantees that we interviewed. The second change is in the House and Senate
bills and would require agencies to certify that their JARC project is the
result of a coordinated plan. The effect of this change on program
coordination would depend on the guidance that FTA provides.

Groups Generally Support Use of Grant Funds for Administrative Activities

A change proposed in the House bill would allow up to 10 percent of JARC
grants to be used for administrative, planning, and technical assistance
activities. These activities include planning new JARC projects and
coordinating with stakeholders. According to FTA officials, interagency
and stakeholder coordination may be strengthened because JARC funds could
be applied to collaborative activities.

Interest groups told us that allowing funds to be used for administrative,
planning, and technical assistance activities is a good idea, because it
would provide funds for coordination. However, one interest group
questioned why funds for these activities are capped at 10 percent; this
group believes that there should be no restriction on how funds are spent.

Twelve of 18 grantees we spoke with said that this change would increase
coordination because they could bring these funds to the planning table
and show

potential partners that there is money to cover collaborative activities.
Four of 18 grantees said that there would be no discernable effect because
agencies will perform administrative, planning, and technical assistance
activities regardless of whether funds are authorized for this purpose.
According to these grantees, they would perform collaborative and
administrative activities even if they were not reimbursed for them.
Nevertheless, 3 of 18 grantees said that this change would be helpful
because, in the past, they had to use other sources to fund their
collaborative activities.

Some Stakeholders Are Concerned about Proposed Certification Requirements

Both the Senate and the House bills propose that JARC grantees certify
that their projects were developed from a locally coordinated plan that
resulted from a process that included key stakeholders. Under this
proposal, states would review locally coordinated plans and FTA would
periodically evaluate the review process in each state and urban area. FTA
supports this certification requirement as a means of ensuring that
coordination continues if the program transitions to a formula grant. FTA
officials told us that the success of the certification requirement would
depend largely on the implementation guidance that they would develop
after reauthorization legislation passes.

Interest groups we interviewed expressed the following variety of opinions
about the proposed certification requirement:

o  	Some interest groups that we spoke with stressed the importance of
FTA's role as well as that of Congress in setting clear guidelines in
developing and instituting coordination certification. Some members from
one interest group stressed that they already participate in complex,
organized planning processes, and they are concerned about how the new
requirement would fit into their current activities. They suggested that
FTA delay enforcing this requirement until states have had an opportunity
to fully incorporate the guidelines into their planning process.

o  	One interest group is concerned that a formal certification process
may detract from the importance of developing a genuinely coordinated
plan. This group also believes that certification may be overly
prescriptive and administratively burdensome and could discourage
potential grantees from participating in JARC.

o  	However, one interest group told us that it supports the certification
requirement and does not believe that the requirement will be difficult or
burdensome.

Eleven of 18 grantees that we interviewed said certification would have no
impact on their programs because agencies already coordinate and will
continue to do so. Two of 18 grantees said they understand the need for
this requirement to ensure that collaboration is occurring, and grantees
are hopeful that future certification requirements will clarify the
requirements for coordination. Six of 18 grantees are

concerned that the process of certifying coordination may be
administratively burdensome.

FTA's Evaluation Provides Useful Information, but It Does Not Constitute a
National Assessment of JARC

Although FTA's evaluative report to Congress provides some useful
information about some JARC projects, it does not provide national,
generalizable evidence of the program's performance. The program is
difficult to evaluate, and FTA plans to continue to improve its evaluation
process.

TEA-21 Required FTA to Evaluate JARC

As previously stated, TEA-21 required FTA to report once to Congress by
June 2000 on the results of its evaluation of JARC. Although TEA-21 did
not describe specific elements that should be included in the evaluation,
we recommended in December 2002 that the report should address JARC's
effectiveness in meeting its goals of providing transportation-related
services and enhancing collaboration among

7

stakeholders. FTA issued its report in May 2003 that addressed JARC's key
goals.8 According to FTA's evaluation, JARC has made thousands of
entry-level jobs and employers accessible for the program's target
populations; increased access to employment support sites; created
significant low-income ridership; and established collaborative
partnerships among transportation and human service agencies and local,
state, and national government.

FTA's Evaluation Is Limited

FTA told us that it faced several obstacles in evaluating JARC, primarily
because grantees had difficulty collecting and submitting information. For
example, in 2001 FTA required grantees to report quarterly data using a
database that many grantees found to be burdensome. Some grantees even had
to acquire the database software and learn the program, according to FTA
officials. In addition, grantees were required to submit data on a
quarterly basis and were required to submit some data that were difficult
to obtain, such as the number of potential employers reached by JARC
services and the number of jobs accessible within a quarter mile of a new
fixed

9

route stop. Finally, some transportation providers were not accustomed to
reporting the socioeconomic data FTA wanted, while some human service
organizations were not used to maintaining the transportation statistics
that FTA requested.

7GAO-03-204.

8Federal Transit Administration, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
Report to Congress. (Washington, D.C.: May 2003).

9At a fixed-route stop, vehicles stop to pick up and deliver passengers
along a specific route.

FTA used data from five sources in its 2003 JARC evaluation: (1) annual
grantee reports as of January 1, 2000; (2) fourth quarter 2001 grantee
reports; (3) a University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) report based on a
survey of riders at 23 sites; (4) 16 case studies that FTA conducted; and
(5) GAO's 2000 survey of JARC grantees. The evaluation uses these data
sources to present a descriptive analysis of some JARC projects; however,
the mix of data sources does not provide a consistent evaluation of the
program over time and among grantees. In addition, specific information in
FTA's evaluation may not be consistent because some grantees did not
always follow a standardized reporting system. Specifically, grantees that
completed an annual grantee report in 2000 did not follow a standardized
reporting system-in these reports, grantees only described the
effectiveness of individual projects-and so information taken from these
reports may not be consistent.

The data FTA used in its 2003 evaluation are limited because four of the
five sources FTA used provided data and descriptions of benefits for
specific project locations, but these results could not be generalized to
all JARC grantees. Specifically, the results of the 2000 annual grantee
reports, 2001 quarterly grantee reports, UIC report, and FTA's case
studies are not generalizable to all JARC grantees for at least three
reasons. First, the response rates of the annual and quarterly grantee
reports were low, 24 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Second, there
is no assurance that the grant recipients who submitted these reports were
similar to those recipients who did not submit reports. For example, we do
not know if the grantees that submitted reports had more effective
programs than those who did not submit reports. Though FTA recognizes that
generalizing the findings of the quarterly grantee reports to the entire
grantee population could be misleading, FTA relies on these data sets to
provide much of the key information used to assess the program. For
example, FTA reported on the number of new employment sites accessed with
JARC funds-a level of precision not justified by the number of responses
obtained. Third and finally, the UIC study data are not generalizable
because they are based on a small number of sites (23) that were not
randomly selected.

The fifth source, GAO's 2000 survey of JARC grantees, had an 89 percent
response rate, so the information from the survey reliably reflected the
views of the grantees

10

surveyed, and the results could be generalized to the entire grantee
population. The survey addressed JARC grantees' opinions about FTA's
implementation of JARC, the program's effect on coordination among the
variety of organizations involved in getting people to work, and the
usefulness of JARC.

Finally, the 2000 and 2001 grantee reports do not indicate the
completeness or the accuracy of the data that were reported by grant
recipients. The grantee reports contain self-reported information, which
FTA does not verify. In addition, JARC grantees generally had difficulty
submitting complete information on a timely basis. FTA acknowledges that
it could be misleading to use the data from these reports to determine
JARC's performance nationwide. However, FTA uses these data to provide key
information, such as the number of new employment sites made accessible by
JARC services.

10GAO-01-133.

Because FTA's evaluation of JARC lacks consistent, generalizable, and
complete information, the data cannot be used to draw any definitive
conclusions about the program as a whole. The evaluation only provides
information about some JARC projects and does not represent an overall
evaluation of the program.

FTA Plans to Improve the Evaluation Process

FTA has plans in place for improving its next program evaluation and the
grantee reporting process. However, it has been and continues to be a
struggle for FTA to develop comprehensive performance measures that assess
a national program when individual grantee programs, operations, and
features vary. For example, it would be difficult to use one set of
measures to assess a program that provides fixed-route transportation
services and then use the same set of measures to assess a program that
provides information and coordination services. FTA is working with a
consultant and UIC to improve program evaluation and reporting and plans
to fully implement a new reporting system by fiscal year 2005.

To make reporting less burdensome for grantees, FTA has replaced its
initial reporting system with a Web-based system and now requires reports
on an annual rather than a quarterly basis. FTA officials report that they
have seen improvement in the number of grantees who submit reports.
Specifically, according to FTA officials, almost 80 percent of grantees
submitted reports for fiscal year 2003. Once the reported data is
verified, it should allow FTA to make national performance projections for
JARC, according to FTA officials. In addition, FTA is considering revising
performance measures for the program. For example, FTA officials said that
they are considering the feasibility of measuring the actual number of
employers reached rather than the number of new employment site stops
created by JARC services.

FTA is just beginning to acquire new data and update their performance
measures for evaluating JARC. Therefore, it is too early for us to
determine if these changes to the evaluation process will improve the
quality of information FTA obtains. As a result, we do not know if FTA
will be able to issue a better evaluation of JARC if Congress requires FTA
to evaluate the program when it reauthorizes JARC.

Scope and Methodology

To summarize financial information for JARC for fiscal years 1999 through
2004, we gathered and analyzed data from FTA's Web site and agency
officials on dollar amounts authorized, guaranteed, appropriated,
congressionally designated, competitively allocated, obligated, and
unobligated. To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed agency
officials knowledgeable about the data and checked for obvious errors in
completeness and accuracy. We determined the information was sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. We also researched TEA-21 and appropriations
acts to determine the amount of funds authorized, guaranteed,
appropriated, rescinded, and transferred under JARC.

To analyze the potential effects of proposed legislative changes on JARC,
we reviewed current legislative and program requirements and compared them
with proposed legislative requirements. We designed and conducted
semistructured telephone interviews with 18 of the 185 JARC grantees that
were active last fiscal year-2003-to gain their perspectives on proposed
legislative changes. We classified the grantees into six categories (state
departments of transportation, cities, metropolitan planning
organizations, transportation agencies, nonprofit organizations, and
others) and randomly selected three grantees from each category to obtain
the views of a variety of grantees. However, these surveys cannot be
generalized to the entire JARC grantee population because of the small
survey population. We also interviewed FTA officials and officials from
interest groups, including the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the American Public Transportation Association,
the Community Transportation Association of America, and the National
Association of Regional Councils, to obtain their views on the possible
effects of proposed changes.

To assess the extent to which FTA has evaluated JARC, we reviewed FTA's
program evaluation, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Report to
Congress (May 2003) and focused on the performance measures and indicators
used; the existence of relevant, reliable, and timely information; the
methodology used; the extent of effective monitoring of the program; and
reported results. We also interviewed agency officials about FTA's plans
for future evaluations.

Agency Comments

We provided DOT a draft of this report for their review and obtained
comments from
agency officials in FTA and the Office of the Secretary. These officials
provided some
clarifying comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.

_________________________________________________________________________

We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional
committees, the
Secretary of Transportation, and the FTA Administrator. The report will
also be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at
[email protected] or Catherine Colwell at [email protected]. Alternatively,
I can be
reached at (202) 512-2834. Major contributors to this report were
Elizabeth
Eisenstadt, Denise C. McCabe, Susan Michal-Smith, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and
John W. Shumann.

Katherine A. Siggerud
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

(542034)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

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

                           To Report Fraud, Contact:
        Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***