This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-647 
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal 
Coordination Efforts Could Be Further Strengthened' which was 
released on June 20, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. 
Senate: 

June 2012: 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: 

Federal Coordination Efforts Could Be Further Strengthened: 

GAO-12-647: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-647, a report to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Millions of Americans are unable to provide their own transportation 
or have difficulty accessing public transportation. Such 
transportation-disadvantaged individuals may include those who are 
elderly, have disabilities, or have low incomes. The Departments of 
Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL), 
Transportation (DOT), Veterans Affairs (VA), and other federal 
agencies may provide funds to state and local entities to help these 
individuals access human service programs. As requested, GAO examined 
(1) federal programs that may fund transportation services for the 
transportation disadvantaged; (2) federal coordination efforts 
undertaken since 2003; and (3) coordination at the state and local 
levels. GAO analyzed information from the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance; interviewed federal officials; and interviewed state and 
local officials in five states, chosen based on a variety of 
characteristics, including geographic diversity. 

What GAO Found: 

Eighty federal programs are authorized to fund transportation services 
for the transportation disadvantaged, but transportation is not the 
primary mission of most of the programs GAO identified. Of these, the 
Department of Transportation administers 7 programs that support 
public transportation. The remaining 73 programs are administered by 7 
other federal agencies and provide a variety of human services, such 
as job training, education, or medical care, which incorporate 
transportation as an eligible expense in support of program goals. 
Total federal spending on transportation services for the 
transportation disadvantaged remains unknown because, in many cases, 
federal departments do not separately track spending for these 
services. However, total funding for the 28 programs that do track or 
estimate transportation spending, including obligations and 
expenditures, was at least $11.8 billion in fiscal year 2010. 

The interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, which the 
Secretary of Transportation chairs, has led governmentwide 
transportation coordination efforts since 2003. The Coordinating 
Council has undertaken a number of activities through its “United We 
Ride” initiative aimed at improving coordination at the federal level 
and providing assistance for state and local coordination. For 
example, its 2005 Report to the President on Human Service 
Transportation Coordination outlined collective and individual 
department actions and recommendations to decrease duplication, 
enhance efficiencies, and simplify access for consumers. Key 
challenges to federal interagency coordination efforts include a lack 
of activity at the leadership level of the Coordinating Council in 
recent years—-the Coordinating Council leadership has not met since 
2008—-and the absence of key guidance documents for furthering agency 
coordination efforts. For example, the Coordinating Council lacks a 
strategic plan that contains agency roles and responsibilities, 
measurable outcomes, or required follow-up. GAO has previously 
reported that defining and articulating a common outcome and 
reinforcing agency accountability through agency plans and reports are 
important elements for agencies to enhance and sustain collaborative 
efforts. 

State and local officials GAO interviewed use a variety of planning 
and service coordination efforts to serve the transportation 
disadvantaged. Efforts include state coordinating councils, regional 
and local planning, one-call centers, mobility managers, and vehicle 
sharing. For example, state coordinating councils provide a forum for 
federal, state, and local agencies to discuss and resolve problems 
related to the provision of transportation services to the 
transportation disadvantaged. In other examples, one-call centers can 
provide clients with transportation program information and referrals 
for appropriate service providers and mobility managers may serve many 
functions—as policy coordinators, operations service brokers, and 
customer travel navigators. However, state and local governments face 
several challenges in coordinating these services—including 
insufficient federal leadership, changes to state legislation and 
policies that may hamper coordination efforts, and limited financial 
resources in the face of growing disadvantaged populations. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To promote and enhance federal, state, and local coordination 
activities, the Secretary of Transportation and the Coordinating 
Council should meet to (1) complete and publish a strategic plan; and 
(2) report on progress of recommendations made by the Council in its 
2005 Report to the President and develop a plan to address outstanding 
recommendations. Education and VA agreed with GAO’s recommendations. 
HHS, DOL, DOT, and other federal agencies neither agreed nor disagreed 
with the report. Technical comments were incorporated as appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-647]. For more 
information, contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or WiseD@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Eighty Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services for the 
Transportation Disadvantaged and Total Spending Is Unknown: 

Federal Coordination Efforts Are Led by an Interagency Council, but 
Key Challenges Remain: 

State and Local Efforts Include Transportation Planning and Service 
Coordination, but Challenges Continue: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs Providing Transportation 
Services to the Transportation Disadvantaged: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Available Financial Program Information for Fiscal Year 2010: 

Table 2: Examples of Coordinating Council Actions: 

Table 3: Types of State and Local Transportation Coordination Efforts: 

Table 4: State and Local Interviews: 

Figure: 

Figure 1: Number of Federal Programs GAO Identified Authorized to 
Provide Transportation Services to the Transportation Disadvantaged in 
Fiscal Year 2010, by Agency: 

Abbreviations: 

ACCT: Washington's Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation: 

CMS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: 

DOL: U.S. Department of Labor: 

DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation: 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

ICTC: Wisconsin's Interagency Council on Transportation Coordination: 

IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: 

NRC: National Resource Center for Human Service Transportation 
Coordination: 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

VA: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 20, 2012: 

The Honorable Tim Johnson: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

Access to transportation services is essential for millions of 
Americans to participate fully in society and be able to access human 
services, including health, education, and job training programs. 
However, many individuals are unable to provide their own 
transportation or have difficulty accessing public transportation due 
to their age, disability, or income constraints. We have previously 
identified a myriad of federal programs that are authorized to use 
federal funds for transportation services to assist these 
"transportation-disadvantaged" individuals in accessing human service 
programs. 

Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), 
Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD), Interior, Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT), and 
Veterans Affairs (VA), provide funds to state and local agencies that 
can be used for transportation to help individuals access federal 
programs, including education, employment, medical care, or other 
human services.[Footnote 1] In March 2011, we reported that improved 
coordination of these programs and the transportation services they 
provide has the potential to improve the quality and cost-
effectiveness of these services, while also reducing duplication, 
overlap, and fragmentation of services.[Footnote 2] Coordination of 
transportation services can take many forms, including information 
sharing among programs, pooling resources, and consolidating trips 
provided by various agencies. In our 2011 report, we found that 
additional action by federal departments was necessary to better 
coordinate their programs and eliminate the potential for duplication 
and fragmentation.[Footnote 3] 

Given these concerns, you asked us to review (1) which federal 
programs provide funding for transportation services for the 
transportation disadvantaged; (2) what federal coordination efforts 
have been undertaken since 2003 and what challenges remain; and (3) 
what types of coordination have occurred at the state and local levels. 

To identify the universe of federal programs that provide funding for 
transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged, we 
examined our prior work on the topic, conducted a search of the 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, reviewed program information 
provided by federal officials, and reviewed relevant federal laws 
governing the use of federal funds for transportation services. To 
determine what federal coordination efforts have taken place since 
2003 and what challenges remain, we conducted interviews with 
officials from eight federal agencies--USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, 
Interior, DOL, DOT, and VA--and reviewed relevant documentation 
provided by agency officials. We chose these agencies because they 
administered programs that were authorized to provide funding for 
transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in fiscal 
year 2010 and were identified by executive order[Footnote 4] to 
participate in coordination. We also interviewed transportation 
researchers and officials from relevant industry and advocacy groups. 
To identify the types of coordination that have occurred at the state 
and local level, we conducted interviews with state and local 
officials from five states--Florida, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and 
Wisconsin. We chose these states based on a variety of 
characteristics, including target populations who use these services, 
existence of a state coordinating body, and geographic diversity. As 
part of our site visit interviews, we spoke with officials from state 
and local human service and transportation agencies, metropolitan 
planning organizations, transportation providers, and interest and 
advocacy groups. Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of our 
objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Transportation-disadvantaged populations, including those that cannot 
provide their own transportation due to age, disability, or income 
constraints, may face challenges in accessing transportation, such as 
lack of access to public transportation or a private vehicle. For 
example, according to a 2011 report by the National Council on 
Disability, people with disabilities are more likely than people 
without disabilities to report that they have inadequate 
transportation (34 percent versus 16 percent, respectively).[Footnote 
5] We have previously reported that people in need of transportation 
often benefit from greater and higher quality services when 
transportation providers coordinate their operations.[Footnote 6] In 
addition, we have reported that coordination has the potential to 
reduce federal transportation program costs by clustering passengers; 
using fewer one-way trips; and sharing the use of personnel, 
equipment, and facilities. 

Federal agencies, including USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, Interior, DOL, 
DOT, and VA, play an important role in helping transportation-
disadvantaged populations access federal programs by providing funds 
to state and local grantees. Federal programs that provide funding for 
transportation cover a variety of services, including education, job 
training, employment, nutrition, health, medical care, or other human 
services. As we have previously reported, many federally funded 
programs purchase transportation services from existing private or 
public providers.[Footnote 7] This includes contracting for services 
with private transportation providers or providing transit passes, 
taxi vouchers, or mileage reimbursement to program participants, or 
some combination of these methods. Some programs may use federal funds 
to purchase and operate their own vehicles. 

DOT and HHS formed the Coordinating Council on Human Services 
Transportation (Coordinating Council)[Footnote 8] in 1986 to improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of human service transportation 
[Footnote 9] by coordinating related programs at the federal level and 
promoting the maximum feasible coordination at the state and local 
levels.[Footnote 10] In 2003, we reported that coordination efforts at 
the federal, state, and local levels varied greatly, and while some 
coordination efforts showed promising results, obstacles continued to 
impede coordination.[Footnote 11] As a result, we recommended that, 
among other things, the Coordinating Council be expanded to include 
additional federal agencies. The Coordinating Council was expanded to 
11 federal agencies in 2004 by Executive Order 13330 and renamed the 
Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility.[Footnote 12] The expanded Coordinating Council was charged 
with, among other things, promoting interagency cooperation and 
establishing appropriate mechanisms to minimize duplication and 
overlap of federal programs and services so that transportation-
disadvantaged persons have access to improved transportation services. 

More recently, in 2011, we reported that reducing or eliminating 
duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among government programs and 
activities could save tax dollars and help agencies to provide more 
efficient and effective services.[Footnote 13] With regard to 
transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged, we found 
that, while some federal agencies were developing guidance and 
technical assistance for transportation coordination, federal 
departments still had more work to do in identifying and assessing 
their transportation programs, working with other departments to 
identify opportunities for additional coordination, and developing and 
disseminating policies and grantee guidance for coordinating 
transportation services.[Footnote 14] As we have previously reported, 
many federal efforts transcend more than one agency, yet agencies face 
a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work 
collaboratively.[Footnote 15] Both Congress and the executive branch 
have recognized this, and in January 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act 
of 2010 was enacted, updating the almost two-decades-old Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA).[Footnote 16] This act establishes 
a new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated 
approach to focusing on results and improving government performance. 
As we reported in February 2012, effective implementation of this act 
could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes; 
addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations; and 
facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, 
overlap, and fragmentation.[Footnote 17] 

In recent years, Congress has supported increased transportation 
coordination, as reflected in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 
[Footnote 18] Enacted in 2005, SAFETEA-LU amended several human 
services transportation coordination provisions[Footnote 19] 
sharpening the focus on transportation services for persons with 
disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes. 
Currently, the law requires the establishment of a locally developed, 
coordinated, public transit-human services transportation plan for all 
of DOT's human service transportation programs administered by the 
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Further, it requires the plan to 
be developed by a process that includes representatives of public, 
private, and nonprofit transportation and human services communities, 
including the public. Federal law also has promoted coordinated 
funding for non-DOT programs to be used as matching funds for specific 
transportation programs. More recently, FTA's fiscal year 2013 budget 
request proposed consolidating some existing programs to give 
communities more flexibility in designing and coordinating FTA-
sponsored human service programs. 

Eighty Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services for the 
Transportation Disadvantaged and Total Spending Is Unknown: 

Federal Programs: 

We identified 80 federal programs that fund a variety of 
transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged populations 
(see fig. 1). Thirty-one of these programs are administered by HHS. 
The Departments of Education and HUD each administer 12 programs; DOT 
administers 7 programs; and DOL, VA, Interior, and USDA administer 18 
programs combined. Out of the 80 federal programs identified, 4 
programs focus expressly on supporting transportation services for 
transportation-disadvantaged populations, including DOT's Capital 
Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, 
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, Capital and Training 
Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, and the New 
Freedom Program. A full list of programs is in appendix II. 

Figure 1: Number of Federal Programs GAO Identified Authorized to 
Provide Transportation Services to the Transportation Disadvantaged in 
Fiscal Year 2010, by Agency: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Number of programs (80 total): 

Department of Agriculture: 
2 programs - 3% of total (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
Employment and Training program; Community Facilities Loans and 
Grants). 

Department of the Interior: 
3 programs - 4% of total (Indian Child and Family Education; Indian 
Schools - Student Transportation; Indian Education Assistance to 
Schools). 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 
3 programs - 4% of total (Veterans Medical Care Benefits; VA Homeless 
Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; Veterans State Adult Day Health 
Care). 

Department of Transportation: 
7 programs - 9% of total (Capital Investment Grants; Nonurbanized Area 
Formula Program; Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and 
Persons with Disabilities; Job Access and Reverse Commute; Capital and 
Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility; 
Urbanized Area Formula Program; New Freedom Program). 

Department of Labor: 
10 programs - 13% of total (Job Corps; Senior Community Service 
Employment Program; Trade Adjustment Assistance - Workers; Workforce 
Investment Act Adult Services Program; Workforce Investment Act Youth 
Activities; National Farmworker Jobs Program; Native American 
Employment and Training; Youthbuild; Veterans' Employment Program; 
Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project). 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: 
12 programs -15% of total (Supportive Housing for the Elderly; 
Congregate Housing Services program; Community Development Block Grants/
Entitlement Grants; Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose 
Grants/Insular Areas; Community Development Block Grants/State's 
program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii; Emergency Shelter Grants 
Program; Supportive Housing Program; Housing Opportunities for Persons 
with AIDS; Indian Community Development Block Grant; HOPE VI 
Revitalization; Indian Housing Block Grant; Choice Neighborhoods 
Implementation Grants). 

Department of Education: 
12 programs - 15% of total (Special Education Grants to States; State 
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; Centers for Independent 
Living; Independent Living State Grants; Special Education Preschool 
Grants; Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are 
Blind; Special Education-Grants for Infants and Toddlers; Supported 
Employment Services for Individuals with Most Significant 
Disabilities; Education for Homeless Children and Youth; 
Rehabilitation Services American Indians with Disabilities; 21st-
Century Community Learning Centers; Voluntary Public School Choice). 

Department of Health and Human Services: 
31 programs - 39% of total (Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, 
Part B, Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers; Special 
Programs for the Aging, Title VI, Part A, Grants to Indian Tribes, 
Part B, Grants to Native Hawaiians; Comprehensive Community Mental 
Health Services for Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances; 
Urban Indian Health Services; Health Centers; Special Diabetes Program 
for Indians Diabetes Prevention and Treatment Projects; Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services-Access to Recovery; Transitional 
Living for Homeless Youth; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 
Refugee and Entrant Assistance - State Administered Programs 
(Transitional and Medical Services and Social Services Formula Grants 
Only); Refugee and Entrant Assistance - Voluntary Agency Programs 
(Matching Grants Only); Community Services Block Grant; Community 
Services Block Grant Discretionary Awards; Refugee and Entrant 
Assistance - Discretionary Grants (Preventive Health, Targeted 
Assistance and Social Services Discretionary Grants Only); Refugee and 
Entrant Assistance - Targeted Assistance (Formula Grants Only); Native 
Employment Works; Head Start; Native American Programs; State Councils 
on Developmental Disabilities and Protection and Advocacy Systems; 
Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance; Social 
Services Block Grants; Chafee Foster Care Independence Program; 
Children's Health Insurance Program; Medicaid; Rural Health Care 
Services Outreach, Rural Health Network Development, and Small Health 
Care Provider Quality Improvement Program; HIV Emergency Relief
Project Grants; HIV Care Formula Grants; Healthy Start Initiative; 
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; Substance Abuse 
Prevention and Treatment Block Grant; Maternal and Child Health 
Services Block Grant to the States). 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of figure] 

Transportation is not the primary mission for the vast majority of the 
programs we identified. Except for the 7 DOT programs, where all funds 
are used to support public transportation, the remaining 73 programs 
we identified primarily provide a variety of human services, such as 
job training, employment, education, medical care, or other services, 
which incorporate transportation as an eligible program expense to 
ensure participants can access a service. In addition, the types of 
transportation services provided to the transportation-disadvantaged 
population through these federal programs vary, and may include 
capital investments (e.g., purchasing vehicles), reimbursement of 
transportation costs (e.g., transit fares, gas, bus passes), or direct 
provision of transportation service to program clients (e.g., 
operating vehicles). Examples of transportation services authorized 
for funding include the following: 

* HHS's Medicaid program reimburses states that provide Medicaid 
beneficiaries with bus passes to access eligible medical services, 
among other transportation options. 

* DOL's Workforce Investment Act-funded programs can provide funding 
for transportation services so that recipients can access employment 
and participate in required work activities. Types of transportation 
services include bus passes and cab fare. 

* DOT's Job Access and Reverse Commute Program allows for grantee 
agencies to purchase vehicles such as vans to improve access to 
transportation for employment-related services. 

* VA's Beneficiary Travel Program, as part of Veterans Medical Care 
Benefits, can provide mileage reimbursement to low-income or disabled 
veterans for travel to receive medical services at their VA hospital. 
[Footnote 20] 

Federal Spending: 

Total spending on transportation services for the transportation 
disadvantaged remains unknown because, in many cases, federal 
departments do not separately track spending for these services. Of 
the 80 programs we identified, roughly two-thirds of the programs were 
unable to provide spending information for eligible transportation 
services. However, total expenditures and obligations for the 28 
programs that do track or estimate transportation spending were at 
least $11.8 billion in fiscal year 2010 (see table 1).[Footnote 21] 
DOT's 7 programs accounted for about $9.5 billion of this total 
amount. Of the non-DOT programs, HHS's Medicaid program and VA's 
Veterans Medical Care Benefits program each reported spending over 
$700 million in fiscal year 2010. 

Table 1: Available Financial Program Information for Fiscal Year 2010: 

Program name: Urbanized Area Formula Program; 
Agency: Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$4,849,411,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Capital Investment Grants; 
Agency: Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$3,566,690,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Medicaid; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$786,967,000; (partial)[B]. 

Program name: Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 
Agency: Veterans Affairs; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$745,315,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; 
Agency: Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$624,837,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$445,119,000; (expended). 

Program name: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and 
Persons with Disabilities; 
Agency: Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$176,237,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Job Access and Reverse Commute; 
Agency: Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$163,977,000; (obligated). 

Program name: New Freedom Program; 
Agency: Transportation; 
[Empty]; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$90,141,000; (obligated). 

Program name: State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; 
Agency: Education; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$81,000,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, Part B, 
Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$73,586,000; (expended). 

Program name: Indian Schools - Student Transportation; 
Agency: Interior; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$52,638,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Health Centers; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$26,300,000; (expended). 

Program name: Job Corps; 
Agency: Labor; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$24,100,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Social Services Block Grants; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$22,864,000; (estimate). 

Program name: HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$10,750,000; (estimate). 

Program name: HIV Care Formula Grants; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$5,598,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants; 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$4,218,000; (expenditure). 

Program name: Children's Health Insurance Program; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$3,682,000; (partial)[B]. 

Program name: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$1,530,000; (expended). 

Program name: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; 
Agency: Veterans Affairs; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$720,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-
Road Bus Accessibility; 
Agency: Transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$544,000; (obligated). 

Program name: Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention 
and Treatment Projects; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$419,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Indian Child and Family Education; 
Agency: Interior; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$373,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Community Development Block Grants/State's Program and 
Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii; 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$19,000; (expended). 

Program name: Urban Indian Health Services; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$7,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services-Access to 
Recovery; 
Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$4,000; (estimate). 

Program name: Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose 
Grants/Insular Areas; 
Agency: Housing and Urban Development; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$0; (expended)[C]. 

Program name: Total; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for transportation[A]: 
$11,757,046,000[D]. 

Source: GAO analysis of spending data reported by program officials. 

[A] We did not verify the information provided. Obligated refers to a 
definite commitment by the federal government to make payments. 
Partial refers to spending reported by some states, but not all 
states. Expended refers to spending that has been paid. 

[B] Due to differences in the way states report their Medicaid and 
Children's Health Insurance Program expenses, transportation spending 
information for these programs does not include all states, so it is a 
partial accounting of total spending on transportation. 

[C] This program did not expend funds on transportation in fiscal year 
2010. 

[D] Figures do not add to total due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

Most of the programs we identified do not separately track 
transportation spending.[Footnote 22] According to federal officials, 
transportation spending may not be tracked for several reasons, 
including the following: 

* Some programs allow for transportation spending as an optional 
service, but it is not required so they do not ask grantees to provide 
spending information. For example, HHS's Head Start program, which 
provides comprehensive child development services to low-income 
children and their families, reported that many of its grantees may 
provide transportation, but the agency does not collect specific data 
on transportation spending. 

* Some federal programs give states and localities broad flexibility 
to administer program funds, and the program structure may not lend 
itself to tracking transportation expenses. For example, Education 
provides grants to states under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA) for special education and related services to 
children with disabilities.[Footnote 23] State education agencies 
allocate most of these grant funds to local education agencies, 
usually school systems, to provide these services.[Footnote 24] 
Education does not collect data on the amount of funds expended by 
local education agencies for specific services, including 
transportation services. 

* Some agencies may consider transportation services to be an 
administrative expense, and may include transportation spending with 
other eligible administrative expenses. As a result, transportation-
specific spending is not fully known. For example, HHS's Medicaid 
program has two allowable methods for states to report the costs of 
transportation services to the program--as expenditures for 
nonemergency medical transportation benefits or as an administrative 
expense, which is combined with other nontransportation expenses. 
[Footnote 25] As a result, HHS does not fully capture the total 
transportation costs provided under its Medicaid program. 

* Resources necessary to track this information in some federal 
departments may outweigh the potential benefits, according to HUD 
officials who told us that for some HUD programs, requiring grantees 
to report transportation expenses would require a new reporting effort 
and that the resulting information may not be analyzed due to resource 
constraints.[Footnote 26] 

Federal Coordination Efforts Are Led by an Interagency Council, but 
Key Challenges Remain: 

Coordinating Council: 

The interagency Coordinating Council, chaired by DOT, has been charged 
with leading governmentwide transportation coordination efforts since 
2003.[Footnote 27] The Coordinating Council launched the "United We 
Ride" initiative in fall 2003, designed to establish an interagency 
forum for communication and help states and communities overcome 
obstacles to coordination. The Coordinating Council undertook a number 
of activities through its United We Ride initiative, largely between 
2003 and 2007. Coordinating Council actions included issuing 
publications such as policy statements and progress reports on efforts 
taken, providing funding through FTA to help states and localities 
promote coordinated services and planning, and supporting technical 
assistance efforts (see table 2). For example, the Coordinating 
Council's 2005 Report to the President outlined the council's action 
plan for implementing the 2004 executive order, reported on the 
council's accomplishments, and made specific recommendations to 
improve human services transportation coordination. The Coordinating 
Council is structured in several levels, including the Secretary-level 
members, an Executive Council consisting of senior-level appointees 
from each member agency, and interagency working groups (seven in 
fiscal year 2011) that cut across issue areas at the programmatic 
level.[Footnote 28] The Coordinating Council is staffed by officials 
from FTA. The Secretary-level members of the Coordinating Council last 
met in 2008.[Footnote 29] However, according to DOT officials, more 
recent Coordinating Council efforts have taken place at the working 
group level. 

Table 2: Examples of Coordinating Council Actions: 

Actions: Reports and policy statements; 
Description: 
* 2003 Framework for Action: The 2003 planning and assessment tool 
provides a step-by-step guide for states and communities to assess 
their transportation delivery systems and develop a plan for a fully 
coordinated human services transportation system; 
* 2005 Report to the President on Human Service Transportation 
Coordination: The 2005 report outlined collective and individual 
department actions and recommendations to decrease duplication, 
enhance efficiencies, and simplify access for consumers, as required 
by Executive Order 13330. Recommendations included: (1) Coordinated 
Transportation Planning: seek mechanisms to require human service 
transportation programs to participate in coordinated planning; 
(2) Vehicle Sharing: promote vehicle sharing between federal programs; 
and (3) Cost Sharing: develop standard transportation cost allocation 
principles for federal human service and transportation agencies[A]; 
* 2006 Policy Statement on Coordinated Human Service Transportation 
Planning: The 2006 policy statement encouraged member agencies to 
ensure that grantees participate in local coordinated planning. Each 
agency took a pledge to implement the coordination plan within 6 
months of Coordinating Council adoption; 
* 2006 Policy Statement on Vehicle Sharing: The 2006 policy statement 
clarified that federal grantees are allowed to share the use of their 
own vehicles so long as costs are also shared; 
* 2007 Progress Report on Implementation of Executive Order 13330: The 
2007 Progress Report described actions taken since the 2005 Report to 
the President, including recommendation follow-up. Actions taken on 
2005 recommendations included: (1) Coordinated Transportation 
Planning: the Coordinating Council adopted the 2006 policy statement; 
(2) Vehicle Sharing: the Coordinating Council adopted the 2006 policy 
statement; and (3) Cost Sharing: the Coordinating Council reported it 
was working on cost-sharing principles that would be adopted by the 
Council and implemented by member agencies.[B] 

Actions: Funding opportunities; 
Description: 
* United We Ride State Grants: FTA awarded three cycles of state 
grants in 2004, 2006, and 2009. These grants are intended to (1) 
support the development of state-level coordinated plans, (2) 
implement target elements of state action plans, and (3) help develop 
mobility management efforts, respectively; 
* Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative Grant 
Program: This federal initiative supports one-call transportation 
resource centers, developed and supported by the Coordinating 
Council's veterans' affairs working group in partnership with the 
Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, 
Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. Over $34 million in federal 
funding was awarded in 2011 for the first round and $30 million in 
federal funding is to be awarded in 2012.[C] 

Actions: Technical assistance; 
Description: 
* National Resource Center for Human Service Transportation 
Coordination (NRC): Through a cooperative agreement with FTA, the NRC 
was formed in 2007 to provide states and communities with the support 
they need to better integrate public transportation services with the 
services and demands of their human services networks. The NRC also 
provides technical assistance to the Coordinating Council and its 
member agencies; 
* United We Ride Regional Ambassadors: NRC employs transportation 
professionals, called regional ambassadors, who provide technical 
assistance to state and local agencies on coordination efforts, 
including assisting states in developing and implementing coordinated 
human services transportation plans; 
* National Partnerships: NRC convenes several partnerships including a 
national Partnership for Mobility Management, largely funded by FTA, 
consisting of seven national organizations, formed to promote and 
support mobility management in states and localities by providing 
technical assistance, training, and a national communication network 
for mobility managers.[D] 

Source: GAO analysis of information from the Interagency 
Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility and the 
National Resource Center for Human Service Transportation Coordination. 

[A] Other Coordinating Council recommendations included: (4) Reporting 
and Evaluation: develop methods to analyze coordination effectiveness; 
and (5) Consolidated Access Transportation Demonstration Program: seek 
statutory authority for a pilot project to consolidate federal funding 
for a single transportation system to meet the mobility needs of 
transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

[B] Additional recommendation follow-up included: (4) Reporting and 
Evaluation: the Coordinating Council developed a logic model to 
measure progress towards goals; and (5) Consolidated Access 
Transportation Demonstration Program: DOT launched eight demonstration 
projects in 2007. 

[C] Largely funded by FTA. VA and DOL are also contributing funds to 
help support this initiative. According to DOT officials, $3 million 
in VA funds have been allocated for hiring and training mobility 
managers and $400,000 in DOL funds have been allocated to purchase 
open government technologies for grantees. DOT officials stated that 
the Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative Grant 
Program will provide valuable lessons on which to model subsequent 
program collaborations among members of the Coordinating Council. 

[D] According to FTA, mobility management consists of short-range 
planning and management activities and projects for improving 
coordination among public transportation and other transportation 
service providers. 

[End of table] 

FTA also funds a variety of technical assistance efforts for states 
and localities to help foster state leadership in human services 
transportation coordination. In addition to funding the NRC and its 
efforts, FTA supports Easter Seals Project ACTION,[Footnote 30] the 
National Center on Senior Transportation,[Footnote 31] the National 
Rural Transit Assistance Program,[Footnote 32] and the Joblinks 
Program[Footnote 33] (in cooperation with DOL), among other efforts, 
to support coordinated transportation and mobility management at the 
state and local levels. FTA and DOL also provided funding to the 
National Council of State Legislatures to study and report on state 
transportation coordination strategies.[Footnote 34] 

Some agency programs we reviewed require or encourage their grantees 
to coordinate transportation services through regulations, guidance, 
or agency initiatives. For example, DOT's Job Access and Reverse 
Commute, New Freedom, and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities programs require grantees to coordinate their 
transportation services and establish locally developed, coordinated 
public transit-human services transportation plans.[Footnote 35] 
Similarly, HHS's Head Start program issued regulations in 2001 
requiring its grantees to participate in coordinated planning 
processes, when possible.[Footnote 36] In addition, some programs have 
provided guidance to their grantees to encourage transportation 
coordination. For example, in 2012, DOL's Employment and Training 
Administration developed and disseminated a Training and Employment 
Notice encouraging state workforce agencies and One-Stop Career 
Centers to participate in local human services transportation 
coordination planning.[Footnote 37] In addition, the Veterans Health 
Administration has a new initiative under way, the Veterans 
Transportation Service, to help veterans access transportation 
resources to obtain care by improving resource coordination with other 
community transportation service providers.[Footnote 38] 

Key Challenges in Coordination Efforts: 

Although some agencies have coordination efforts under way, there are 
still several challenges to federal interagency coordination efforts 
including a recent lack of activity at the leadership level of the 
Coordinating Council and the absence of key guidance documents for 
furthering agency coordination efforts. The Secretary-level leaders of 
the 11 Coordinating Council members have not met since 2008, and the 
Executive Council designees have not met since 2007. According to some 
agency officials, this lack of direction and visible activity on 
coordination from agency leaders contributes to a lack of buy-in from 
federal program officials, which may affect how program coordination 
is treated at the state and local levels. For example, some agency 
officials told us that direction and formal buy-in at the executive 
level is needed for improvements in coordination to occur. While 
presidential executive orders remain in effect from one administration 
to the next unless they are revised or rescinded, some agency 
officials said it was unclear whether the 2004 executive order 
outlining federal coordination efforts effectively translated from one 
administration to the next. Some officials attributed this uncertainty 
to explain why the Coordinating Council's activity level has decreased 
since 2008. 

Key guidance documents, including those discussed below, for 
furthering agency coordination are absent or incomplete, hindering 
federal coordination efforts.[Footnote 39] 

* Strategic plan: The Coordinating Council lacks a strategic plan that 
identifies agency roles and responsibilities, measurable outcomes, or 
required follow-up. According to agency officials, the Coordinating 
Council is drafting a strategic plan, but officials were unable to 
provide an estimate for when the plan might be finalized.[Footnote 40] 
As previously discussed, the executive order contained reporting and 
recommendation requirements, resulting in the 2005 Report to the 
President and the 2007 Progress Report. However, since those reports, 
no other guidance document has been created, or is required, to report 
on actions taken or to plan additional actions. We have previously 
reported that defining and articulating a common outcome, agreeing on 
agency roles and responsibilities, and reinforcing agency 
accountability through agency plans and reports are important elements 
for agencies to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts.[Footnote 
41] Further, we have reported that federal agencies engaged in 
collaborative efforts need to create the means to monitor, evaluate, 
and report on their efforts to enable them to identify areas for 
improvement. There are several practices involved in strategic 
planning that could be useful to help the Council determine and 
communicate its long-term goals and objectives.[Footnote 42] However, 
without a plan to help reinforce agency goals and responsibilities, 
the Coordinating Council may be hampered in articulating a strategy to 
help strengthen interagency collaboration and lack the elements needed 
to remain a viable interagency effort. 

* Cost-sharing policy: A joint cost-sharing policy has not been 
endorsed by all Coordinating Council members, even though development 
of a cost allocation policy was one of the recommendations of the 
Coordinating Council in its 2005 Report to the President.[Footnote 43] 
According to the 2005 report, a major obstacle to sharing 
transportation resources has been the difficulty of reaching 
agreements at the local level about the appropriate allocation of 
costs to each agency. Federal, state, and local agency officials that 
we spoke with noted that this continues to be a significant 
impediment. Further, as part of a discussion hosted by the National 
Academy of Public Administration in 2009, which brought together key 
stakeholders to discuss ways to improve access to reliable 
transportation for the transportation disadvantaged, explicit and 
clear guidance for cost sharing was said to be needed in order to 
address significant federal policy barriers to coordination.[Footnote 
44] 

* Coordinated transportation planning: Coordinating Council members 
pledged to take actions to accomplish federal program grantee 
participation in locally developed, coordinated planning processes as 
part of their 2006 Coordinated Human Service Transportation Planning 
Policy Statement, but it is unclear if the Coordinating Council's 
members have consistently followed through on their 2006 pledge. 
According to the Coordinating Council's 2006 policy statement, federal 
grantees' participation in their local human services transportation 
planning process is necessary to reduce duplication of services, 
increase service efficiency, and expand access for transportation-
disadvantaged populations. However, the discussion hosted by the 
National Academy of Public Administration in 2009 indicated that the 
process for creating coordinated transportation plans continues to 
need improvement and recommended that Coordinating Council members 
with grant programs create incentives for their grantees to 
participate in coordinated planning at the state and local levels. 
[Footnote 45] According to participants, while the Coordinating 
Council has issued a joint policy on coordinated planning, challenges 
remain to fully engage agencies that are not funded by DOT in the 
planning process at the local levels. DOT's FTA is the only agency 
that has adopted a coordinated human services transportation planning 
requirement, which has resulted in broadened participation in the 
transportation planning processes. 

Coordination of services is also challenging due to differences in 
federal program requirements and perceived regulatory or statutory 
barriers, according to officials. For example, coordinated planning is 
generally only a requirement for FTA-funded human service 
transportation programs, and while a handful of programs may encourage 
coordination, other federal program rules are unclear about 
coordination of transportation services between programs. Also, 
programs may have perceived or actual statutory or regulatory barriers 
related to sharing costs, or have differences in service requirements 
and eligibility. For example, HHS's Medicaid program is the largest 
source of federal funds for nonemergency medical transportation for 
qualified low-income beneficiaries;[Footnote 46] however, the Centers 
for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) officials expressed concern 
about coordinating transportation services due to concerns about 
commingling federal program funds[Footnote 47] and the potential for 
fraud.[Footnote 48] CMS has issued rules that allow states to contract 
with one or more transportation brokers to manage their Medicaid 
transportation to, among other things, reduce costs.[Footnote 49] 
However, these rules could result in fragmented transportation 
services at the state and local levels because some brokers transport 
only Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries, and may not coordinate their 
transportation services with other programs. In another example, VA 
officials explained that VA only has the authority to provide 
transportation at the agency's expense to certain qualifying veterans 
and nonveterans in relation to VA health care, but has no legal 
authority to transport nonbeneficiaries. 

State and Local Efforts Include Transportation Planning and Service 
Coordination, but Challenges Continue: 

State and Local Transportation Coordination Efforts: 

State and local officials in the five states we selected used a 
variety of coordinated planning and service efforts to serve the 
transportation disadvantaged. One way that states facilitate 
coordination efforts is through statewide coordinating bodies--some 
created by legislative actions and others by executive order or 
initiative--to oversee the implementation of coordinated 
transportation for transportation-disadvantaged populations in their 
states. State coordinating bodies can help to facilitate collaboration 
between federal, state, and local agencies by providing a venue for 
agencies to discuss and resolve transportation issues to better 
coordinate transportation activities related to the provision of human 
services and enhance services for transportation-disadvantaged 
populations. Three of the five states we selected had state 
coordinating bodies in 2010.[Footnote 50] In addition to state 
coordinating councils, efforts include regional and local planning, 
one-call centers, mobility managers, and vehicle sharing (see table 3). 

Table 3: Types of State and Local Transportation Coordination Efforts: 

Coordination activity: State coordinating council; 
Description: Several states have created statewide coordinating bodies 
to oversee the implementation of coordinated transportation for the 
transportation disadvantaged in their states. For example, Florida has 
created a Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged that 
partners with a number of state, local, and private transportation and 
human services entities to coordinate transportation services for the 
state's transportation disadvantaged. According to a 2008 Florida 
State University study, each dollar invested in transportation-
disadvantaged program trips throughout the state in 2007 generated 
benefits of $8.35.[A] Based on these figures, the study concluded that 
the estimated benefits of providing coordinated trips for 
transportation-disadvantaged programs outweighed their costs. 

Coordination activity: Regional and local planning; 
Description: With regional and local planning, some combination of 
human service and transportation agencies and providers work together 
to plan transportation services for their clients. For example, Texas 
encourages its 24 regions, each with a lead agency, to develop 
regional plans for transportation coordination, in an effort to ensure 
that the state's public transportation resources benefits are 
maximized. Representation on the regional planning councils includes 
regional transportation planners, public transportation and health and 
human services agencies, transportation providers, and local 
government officials. 

Coordination activity: One-call center; 
Description: One-call centers support human service and other 
specialized transportation services by providing program information 
such as service characteristics, eligibility criteria, and referrals 
for appropriate service providers. For example, a regional planning 
commission in Virginia operates a one-call center that provides 
clients with information on the public, private, and volunteer 
transportation options available in the region. According to 
officials, in addition to providing information on transportation 
options, the one-call center also provides referral services for 
transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Coordination activity: Mobility manager; 
Description: Mobility managers can serve as policy coordinators, 
operations service brokers, and customer travel navigators.[B] For 
example, Wisconsin currently has about 52 mobility managers serving 
its counties and tribes. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation 
developed a mobility manager training program and pilot using United 
We Ride/New Freedom grant funding. While funding for this effort has 
been discontinued, mobility managers in Wisconsin have formed a 
Wisconsin Association of Mobility Managers, which now holds monthly 
meetings to discuss their work. According to officials, mobility 
managers in Wisconsin have made a positive impact on transportation 
coordination in the state. 

Coordination activity: Vehicle sharing; 
Description: With vehicle sharing, one agency may provide 
transportation for clients of multiple programs, or each program may 
own its own vehicles but allow them to be used by other programs. For 
example, in Washington, Mason County Transit and the Superintendent of 
Schools coordinated so that school buses could be used as transit 
buses after school hours. According to an official with whom we spoke, 
this coordination began with a transportation need--and the transit 
agency and education system worked together to address that need. 

Coordination activity: Other; 
Description: Other coordination activities include outreach efforts 
and continued improvement in communications. For example, in 
Washington, local outreach efforts serve pockets of unmet 
transportation needs among minority and Native American populations 
and also help different programs work together. In rural communities 
in particular, special outreach is used to help make people aware of 
the program services for which they qualify. Similarly, communities 
and service providers are invited to discussions about available 
services, eligibility, and how to apply for services. 

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with officials from selected states. 

[A] The Marketing Institute, Florida State University College of 
Business, Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Programs: Return on 
Investment Study (Mar. 2008). 

[B] As policy coordinators, mobility managers may help communities 
develop coordination plans, programs, and policies, and build local 
partnerships. As brokers, they coordinate transportation services 
among all customer groups, service providers, and funding agencies. As 
travel navigators, mobility managers work with human services agencies 
and workforce centers that coordinate clients' travel and trip 
planning needs. 

[End of table] 

Several state and local agency officials said that federal 
requirements for the establishment of locally developed, coordinated 
public transit-human services transportation plans for FTA's human 
service transportation programs have had a positive impact on 
transportation coordination in their state. According to officials, 
these planning efforts help to bring relevant stakeholders to the 
table to discuss needs for the transportation disadvantaged and to 
resolve problems. For example, in Virginia, the Department of Rail and 
Public Transportation has taken the lead in implementing this 
requirement, assisting 21 planning district commissions to formulate 
human services transportation coordination plans for their districts, 
and formulating a statewide plan which draws from these local plans. 
According to officials of a regional planning commission in Virginia, 
transportation coordination in the state would not be at the same 
point it is currently without these requirements. These officials said 
that the federal requirements created one place for people to come 
together to learn what programs are available, raise awareness, and 
avoid duplication. Also, a Virginia Regional Transit official told us 
that the increased communication among agencies due to coordinated 
planning efforts made it possible for providers to transport more 
people, including those who were not currently being served, thus 
opening access to larger and broader groups of people. 

Challenges to State and Local Efforts: 

State and local entities' efforts to coordinate services for the 
transportation disadvantaged are not without challenges. According to 
officials, challenges include insufficient federal leadership, changes 
to state legislation and policies, and limited financial resources in 
the face of growing unmet needs. 

Insufficient federal leadership: 

Several state and local officials told us that there is not sufficient 
federal leadership and guidance on how to coordinate transportation 
services for the transportation disadvantaged and that varying federal 
program requirements may hinder coordination of transportation 
services. State and local officials in four out of the five states we 
selected said that with the exception of DOT, other federal agencies 
were not actively encouraging transportation coordination. For 
example, Texas Department of Transportation officials told us there is 
a disconnect between human services and transportation agencies and 
that the general perception is that other human services programs, 
such as some of those funded by HHS, are exempt from coordination. 
These officials also said that federal leadership is needed to promote 
buy-in for transportation coordination among human services agencies 
and transportation agencies at the state level. 

Officials in each of the five states that we selected said that the 
federal government could provide state and local entities with 
improved guidance on transportation coordination--especially as it 
relates to instructions on how to share costs across programs (i.e., 
determining what portion of a trip should be paid by whom). State and 
local officials in Virginia, Texas, and Washington identified a fear 
of losing federal funding if they improperly shared funding with other 
federal programs. These officials said that federal cost-sharing 
guidance would help facilitate transportation coordination between 
programs. Further, state Medicaid officials said that their main 
priority is to make sure they are following Medicaid requirements, and 
some officials expressed concerns about their ability to ensure 
Medicaid funds are being appropriately spent and properly accounted 
for if they coordinated with other programs. For example, Medicaid 
officials in one state said that they would need to obtain approval 
from CMS before adopting any cost-sharing strategies with other 
programs to ensure the appropriateness of their state program's 
expenditures. When we spoke with CMS officials, they told us that CMS 
is not opposed to coordinating transportation services; however, the 
agency does have concerns that coordination would result in Medicaid 
funds being improperly commingled with other federal program funds. 

Several state and local officials said that varying federal government 
program requirements may hinder the provision of transportation 
services and act as barriers to coordination. A regional planning 
official in Washington told us that varying program requirements may 
discourage transportation coordination as one program's requirements 
may not be suitable for another program's clients. For example, if two 
different program clients were to share school vehicles for special 
needs populations, each program might have a separate set of rules and 
requirements. Determining whether drivers meet drug and alcohol 
testing requirements for both programs could be a challenge, according 
to this official.[Footnote 51] Similarly, an official from the Florida 
Department of Transportation told us that the federal government could 
do more to identify standards and requirements that act as barriers to 
coordination. In Wisconsin, a Department of Transportation study found 
that key challenges to coordinating transportation services in the 
state include program regulations or requirements that impede 
coordination, including different guidance and restrictions on how 
federal funding could be spent.[Footnote 52] 

Changes to state legislation and policies: 

Officials we interviewed in four states identified recent changes in 
state legislation or state policies as potential challenges to 
coordinating services for the transportation disadvantaged in their 
states. According to these officials, such changes have caused some 
uncertainty in their efforts to coordinate human services 
transportation in the future. For example, some state coordinating 
bodies' authority has not been renewed or is about to expire: 

* Executive order not renewed: In Wisconsin, the governor charged a 
group of individuals from a number of state agencies to form a state 
coordinating council in 2005--the Interagency Council on 
Transportation Coordination (ICTC).[Footnote 53] In addition to 
sponsoring a statewide coordination conference in 2007, ICTC 
contracted with a national consultant to develop a Wisconsin Model of 
Coordination with implementation strategies. Intended outcomes of this 
model included increasing the quantity and quality of existing 
transportation resources, supporting and encouraging local 
coordination efforts, and improving transportation service for users. 
However, due to a downturn in the economy and a change in the state's 
administration after the model's completion, its findings were not 
implemented. Because the new administration did not renew the 
executive order establishing ICTC's authority, ICTC has been inactive 
since January 2011. 

* Enabling legislation to expire: In Washington, the state legislature 
created the Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT) in 
1998 to coordinate with state and local agencies and organizations to 
provide affordable and accessible transportation choices for the 
transportation disadvantaged.[Footnote 54] Over the years, ACCT has 
facilitated coordination by helping to form transportation coalitions 
that include human services representatives, transit services, and 
community transportation providers. These coalitions plan regional 
public transportation, evaluate and prioritize project proposals, and 
implement local coordination strategies. However, enabling legislation 
for ACCT expires in June 2012 and officials do not expect the 
legislation to be renewed. 

In some states, officials were uncertain about how recent developments 
may affect their state Medicaid program's participation in state and 
local efforts to coordinate transportation services for the 
transportation disadvantaged. For example, in an effort to control 
program costs, state legislation was signed into law in Florida in 
June 2011 that moves the responsibility for Medicaid nonemergency 
medical transportation from the coordinated transportation system run 
by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged to a 
private managed care system. An official with the Florida Commission 
for the Transportation Disadvantaged said that it is not known whether 
the managed care system will choose to operate within the state's 
coordinated transportation system or contract with private 
transportation brokers outside of the coordinated system, which could 
result in duplication of transportation services. Similarly, officials 
in Texas and Wisconsin told us that, in an effort to control costs, 
their state Medicaid program is moving to a transportation brokerage 
system.[Footnote 55] According to some state and local officials, 
these brokers typically only transport Medicaid-eligible clients and 
do not often coordinate their transportation services with other 
federally funded programs. CMS maintains that their brokerage rule 
does not preclude state Medicaid agencies from coordinating 
transportation services, as long as they comply with all applicable 
Medicaid policies and rules and ensure that Medicaid funds are only 
used for Medicaid services provided to eligible beneficiaries. 

Limited financial resources and growing unmet needs: 

A number of state and local officials in our five selected states told 
us that limited financial resources and growing unmet needs were 
challenges for them. In Texas, state and local officials told us that 
although it is believed that coordination will save costs in the mid-
to long-term, state budgets are being reduced in transit and social 
services agencies, as well as in municipal programs and nonprofit 
organizations. According to these officials, some agencies and their 
potential partners find it difficult to come up with funding, even 
when it is a modest local match for grants. Similarly, state and local 
officials in Virginia told us that state and local match requirements 
may preclude some entities from applying for federal funds. State and 
local officials also mentioned that limited financial resources often 
promote turf battles--or a mistrust and unwillingness to share 
resources for fear of losing control of them. Conversely, some 
officials told us that limited resources were an incentive to 
coordinate because coordination made the best use of limited resources. 

In the face of limited financial resources, state and local officials 
are also concerned about growing disadvantaged populations and unmet 
needs--both now and in the future. As part of the discussion hosted by 
the National Academy of Public Administration in 2009, participants 
identified continuing transportation gaps in programs across the 
federal government.[Footnote 56] Several state and local officials 
that we spoke with also expressed concern about their ability to 
adequately address expected growth in elderly, disabled, low-income, 
and rural populations. A local transit agency official in Virginia, 
for example, told us that there is a great need for transportation 
services for the elderly and disabled and that the need is increasing. 
This agency official questioned whether transportation providers will 
have adequate funding and resources to meet this growing demand. In a 
presentation before the state Senate in 2011, Florida's Commission for 
the Transportation Disadvantaged reported that, statewide, 3.75 
million trips had been denied to passengers in the coordinated 
transportation system during the past 5 years due to a lack of funding 
or for other reasons. Nevertheless, the commission expects the state's 
transportation-disadvantaged population to undergo steady growth over 
the next decade. In addition, a number of state and local entities 
were concerned about populations in rural areas--primarily because 
public transportation availability was limited in these areas. 

Conclusions: 

The Coordinating Council was created to, among other things, promote 
interagency cooperation and minimize duplication and overlap of 
federal programs providing transportation services to transportation-
disadvantaged populations. While some member agencies, including DOT, 
have remained active in pursuing these goals, sustained interagency 
activity through the Coordinating Council has lost momentum in recent 
years. The 11 Coordinating Council members have not met since 2008 and 
the Executive Council designees have not met since 2007. According to 
some federal officials, this lack of leadership at the Coordinating 
Council poses challenges to federal-, state-, and local-level 
coordination efforts. 

Further, the Coordinating Council has been operating without a 
strategic plan to help determine and communicate its long-term goals 
and objectives. While Executive Order 13330 spurred Coordinating 
Council activity beginning in 2004, sustained agency commitment has 
proved challenging. We have previously reported that articulating a 
common outcome, agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities, and 
reinforcing agency accountability through agency plans and reports are 
important elements for agencies to sustain and improve collaborative 
efforts. A collaborative interagency strategic planning effort could 
help to provide the direction and momentum the Coordinating Council 
needs at this time. 

Finally, we have previously reported that federal agencies engaged in 
collaborative efforts need to create the means to monitor, evaluate, 
and report on their efforts to enable them to identify areas for 
improvement. It is difficult to fully assess activities of the 
Coordinating Council, in part, because the council has not reported on 
its activities or reported on progress implementing its own 
recommendations since 2007. At that time, the Coordinating Council 
reported that it was working to establish cost-sharing principles for 
transportation coordination that federal human service and 
transportation agencies could endorse; however, we found that the 
council had not accomplished this goal as of June 2012. Also in 2007, 
the council reported it had issued a policy statement encouraging 
federally assisted grantees involved in human services transportation 
to participate in local coordination planning processes. As part of 
that policy statement, members of the Coordinating Council agreed to 
take action to implement the policy within 6 months of council 
adoption; however, it is unclear what implementation actions agencies 
have taken to date. Despite recent actions that some agencies have 
taken to encourage coordination and provide technical assistance, 
without any means to monitor, evaluate, or report on interagency 
efforts, the Coordinating Council may face barriers to identifying 
areas for improvement and pursuing its goal of improving 
transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To promote and enhance federal, state, and local coordination 
activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation, as the 
chair of the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and the 
Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and 
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and 
Veterans Affairs, as member agencies of the Coordinating Council, 
should meet and take the following actions: 

* Complete and publish a strategic plan for the Coordinating Council, 
which should, among other things, clearly outline agency roles and 
responsibilities and articulate a strategy to help strengthen 
interagency collaboration and communication. 

* Report on the progress of Coordinating Council recommendations made 
as part of its 2005 Report to the President on Implementation of 
Executive Order 13330 and develop a plan to address any outstanding 
recommendations, including the development of a cost-sharing policy 
endorsed by the Coordinating Council and the actions taken by member 
agencies to increase federal program grantee participation in locally 
developed, coordinated planning processes. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, Interior, DOL, DOT, and VA with 
a draft of this report for their review and comment. In commenting on 
a draft of this report, Education and VA generally agreed with our 
conclusions and recommendations. Education also provided technical and 
written comments, which appear in appendix III. HHS, HUD, and DOT 
neither agreed nor disagreed with the report and provided technical 
comments. In their technical comments, DOT officials stated that, as 
chair of the Coordinating Council, they have been working with the 
council to refocus its efforts away from policy discussions to the 
coordination of on-the-ground services, such as through the Veterans 
Transportation and Community Living Initiative Grant Program, which is 
discussed in this report. USDA, Interior, and DOL did not comment on 
our report. We incorporated the technical and clarifying comments that 
we received from the agencies, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Health and 
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, 
Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. We also will make copies 
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be 
available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact David Wise at 202-512-2834 or WiseD@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

David J. Wise: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To identify federal programs that provide funding for transportation 
services for the transportation disadvantaged, we examined prior GAO 
work on the topic, conducted an online search of the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance, and requested program information from 
federal agency officials for the programs identified. We included only 
federal programs that provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface 
transportation services of any kind, targeted to transportation-
disadvantaged populations. We then asked program administrators to 
review and verify the programs identified and the program information 
collected, including the general target population, types of 
transportation services and trips typically provided, and program 
spending on transportation services in fiscal year 2010. We 
supplemented and modified the inventory based on this information. In 
addition, we reviewed the relevant federal laws governing these 
programs including their popular title or original source of program 
legislation and U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing 
transportation. 

To determine what federal coordination efforts have taken place since 
we last fully reported on this issue in 2003[Footnote 57] and what 
challenges remain, we conducted interviews with program officials from 
eight federal agencies--the Departments of Agriculture, Education, 
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, 
Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs--and reviewed relevant 
documentation provided by agency officials. We chose these agencies 
because they administered programs that were authorized to provide 
funding for transportation services for the transportation 
disadvantaged in fiscal year 2010 and were identified by executive 
order[Footnote 58] to participate in coordination. We also interviewed 
officials from the National Resource Center for Human Service 
Transportation Coordination and interviewed or corresponded with 
transportation researchers and representatives from relevant industry 
and advocacy groups, including the following: 

* American Public Transportation Association: 

* Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: 

* Easter Seals Project ACTION: 

* National Conference of State Legislatures: 

* Westat: 

To identify the types of coordination that have occurred at the state 
and local levels, we conducted interviews with state and local 
officials from five states--Florida, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and 
Wisconsin. We based our selection of these states on a variety of 
characteristics, including size of target populations per state, 
geographic diversity, existence of a state coordinating body, and 
states deemed notable for their transportation coordination efforts. 
As part of our state and local interviews, we spoke with officials 
from state and local human services and transportation agencies, 
metropolitan planning organizations, transportation providers, 
interest and advocacy groups, and others and reviewed relevant 
documentation. Because we used a nongeneralizable sample of states, 
our findings cannot be used to make inferences about other states. 
However, we determined that the selection of these states was 
appropriate for our design and objectives and that the selection would 
generate valid and reliable evidence to support our work. Table 4 
provides more detailed information about the state and local entities 
we interviewed. 

Table 4: State and Local Interviews: 

State: Florida; 

Organization: Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency; 
Description: Metropolitan planning organization. 

Organization: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged; 
Description: State coordinating council. 

Organization: Florida Agency for Health Care Administration; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Florida Department of Children and Families; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Florida Department of Elder Affairs; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation; 
Description: State transportation agency. 

Organization: StarMetro; 
Description: Transportation provider. 

State: Texas; 

Organization: Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization; 
Description: Metropolitan planning organization. 

Organization: Dallas Area Rapid Transit; 
Description: Transportation provider. 

Organization: North Central Texas Council of Governments; 
Description: Metropolitan planning organization. 

Organization: Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative 
Services; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Texas Health and Human Services Commission; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Texas Department of Transportation; 
Description: State transportation agency. 

Organization: Texas Veterans Commission; 
Description: State human services agency. 

State: Virginia; 

Organization: Virginia Regional Transit; 
Description: Transportation provider. 

Organization: Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation; 
Description: State transportation agency. 

Organization: Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission; 
Description: Regional planning organization. 

State: Washington; 

Organization: Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation, Washington 
Department of Transportation; 
Description: State coordinating council. 

Organization: Alliance of People with Disabilities; 
Description: Advocates for the needs of clients. 

Organization: Hopelink; 
Description: Transportation provider. 

Organization: Thurston Regional Planning Council; 
Description: Regional planning organization. 

Organization: Washington Department of Veterans Affairs; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Washington Health Care Authority; 
Description: State human services agency. 

State: Wisconsin; 

Organization: Dane County, Department of Human Services; 
Description: Local human services agency. 

Organization: Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging Resources; 
Description: Advocates for the needs of its clients. 

Organization: Madison Area Transportation Planning Board; 
Description: Metropolitan planning organization. 

Organization: Wisconsin Association of Mobility Managers; 
Description: Advocates for the needs of its members. 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Medicaid; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Office on Aging; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Transportation; 
Description: State transportation agency. 

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development; 
Description: State human services agency. 

Organization: Wisconsin Urban and Rural Transit Association; 
Description: Advocates for the needs of its members. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We also interviewed the appropriate United We Ride Regional 
Ambassadors for each state. In addition, we reviewed relevant 
literature and prior GAO and Congressional Research Service reports, 
as appropriate. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs Providing Transportation 
Services to the Transportation Disadvantaged: 

Department of Agriculture: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 10.551; 
Program name: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, Employment 
and Training program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Food Stamp 
Act of 1977; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 7 
U.S.C.; § 2015(d)(4)(I)(i) (I); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Reimbursement or advanced payment for gasoline expenses or bus fare; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access education-
and employment-related services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income persons 
between the ages of 16 and 59; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 10.766; 
Program name: Community Facilities Loans and Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Consolidated 
Farm and Rural Development Act of 1972; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 7 
U.S.C. § 1926; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Purchase of vehicles; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Routine medical 
appointments, shopping, entertainment, etc.; 
Target population as defined by program officials: People who are 
disabled, senior citizens, and low-income persons; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Department of Education: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.027; 
Program name: Special Education Grants to States; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 20 
U.S.C.; §§ 1411(a)(1) and 1401(26); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
School district bus expenditures and other modes of transportation, 
including wheelchair-accessible vans; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access school 
and special education and related services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Children with 
disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.126; 
Program name: State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; § 723(a)(8); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation, training in 
the use of public transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
vocational rehabilitation services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: People with 
disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$81,000,000[B](estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.132; 
Program name: Centers for Independent Living; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; §§ 796f-4(b)(2) and 705(18)(xi); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation, training in 
the use of public transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Individuals with 
significant disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.169; 
Program name: Independent Living State Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; §§ 796e-2(1) and 705(18)(xi); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation, training in 
the use of public transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Individuals with 
significant disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.173; 
Program name: Special Education Preschool Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 20 
U.S.C. §§1419(a) and 1401(26); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
School district bus expenditures and other modes of transportation, 
including wheelchair accessible vans; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access programs 
and special education services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Children with 
disabilities ages 3-5; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.177; 
Program name: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who 
Are Blind; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; § 796k(e)(5); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation, training in 
the use of public transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Individuals who are 
blind and age 55 or older; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.181; 
Program name: Special Education-Grants for Infants and Toddlers; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 20 
U.S.C. §§1433 and 1432(4)(E)(xiv); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Various modes of transportation, including wheelchair accessible vans; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services such as screening and early intervention services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Infants and 
toddlers with disabilities or at risk, in need of early intervention 
services; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.187; 
Program name: Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Most 
Significant Disabilities; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; §§ 795g and 705(36); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation, training in 
the use of public transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access work, 
training, and vocational rehabilitation services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: People with the 
most significant disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.196; 
Program name: Education for Homeless Children and Youth; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 11433(d)(5); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Student transportation to school of origin; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
educational services and programs; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Homeless students; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.250; 
Program name: Rehabilitation Services American Indians with 
Disabilities; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; §§ 741(a) and (b)(1)(B) and 723(a)(8); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Vouchers for transportation services (e.g. fuel and taxi vouchers) and 
training in the use of transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
vocational rehabilitation services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: American Indians 
with disabilities who live on or near reservations served by the 
projects; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.287; 
Program name: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 20 
U.S.C.; § 7173(a)(10); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Student transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
educational services and programs; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Students in 
underserved communities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 84.361; 
Program name: Voluntary Public School Choice; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 20 
U.S.C.; § 7225a(a); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Lease and operate vehicles, hire bus drivers, and reimburse partnering 
school districts for transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
educational services and programs; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Students from 
underperforming schools; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.044; 
Program name: Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, Part B, 
Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Older 
Americans Act of 1965; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 3030d(a)(2); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Contract for services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
supportive services, such as nutrition services and aging services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Adults age 60 and 
older; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$73,585,717[C](expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.047; 
Program name: Special Programs for the Aging, Title VI, Part A, Grants 
to Indian Tribes, Part B, Grants to Native Hawaiians; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Older 
Americans Act of 1965; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 3057, 3030d(a)(2); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Purchase and operate vehicles; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
supportive services, including nutrition services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: American Indian, 
Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian elders; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.104; 
Program name: Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for 
Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Public Health 
Service Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 290ff-1; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Any transportation-related use; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Children and 
families with serious emotional disturbance; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.193; 
Program name: Urban Indian Health Services; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Snyder Act: 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: Act 
of Nov. 2, 1921, ch, 115, 42 Stat. 208, as amended, and Pub. L. No. 94-
437, as amended; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Public transportation, mileage reimbursement, GSA lease, etc.; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Transportation 
costs for clients/patients; 
Target population as defined by program officials: American 
Indian/Alaska Natives; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $7,318 
(estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.224; 
Program name: Health Centers; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Public Health 
Service Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 254b; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus tokens, vouchers, transportation coordinators, and drivers; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access health 
care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Medically 
underserved populations; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$26,300,000[D](expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.237; 
Program name: Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention 
and Treatment Projects; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Indian Health 
Care Improvement Act: Balanced Budget Act of 1997; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 254c-3; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Public transportation, mileage reimbursement, etc.; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access diabetes 
prevention and cardiovascular disease services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: American 
Indian/Alaska Natives; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $419,247 
(estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.275; 
Program name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services-Access to 
Recovery; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Public Health 
Service Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C §§ 290aa(d)(5), 290bb-2; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus tokens, cab fare, or van purchase by provider; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access substance 
abuse treatment or recovery support services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Persons with 
substance use or mental disorders; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $3,800 
(estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.550; 
Program name: Transitional Living for Homeless Youth; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Runaway and 
Homeless Youth Act of 1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. §§ 5701, 5712; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not collected; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Education, 
employment, training, and health care; 
Target population as defined by program officials: 16 to 21 year olds; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.558; 
Program name: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 604(a), (k); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
States have wide flexibility in what they may fund; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access work, 
employment training, and child care providers; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income families; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $445,118,725 
(expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.566; 
Program name: Refugee and Entrant Assistance - State Administered 
Programs (Transitional and Medical Services and Social Services 
Formula Grants Only); 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Refugee Act 
of 1980; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 8 
U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 1522(c); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus or transit passes; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Refugees and 
asylees; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.567; 
Program name: Refugee and Entrant Assistance - Voluntary Agency 
Programs (Matching Grants Only); 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Refugee Act 
of 1980; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 8 
U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 1522(c); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus or transit passes, vehicle donations, van pools, or volunteer 
rides; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Employment and 
training purposes; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Refugees and 
asylees; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.569; 
Program name: Community Services Block Grant; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Community 
Opportunities, Accountability, Training, and Educational Services Act 
of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 9904; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Access to reliable transportation or a driver's license, public 
transportation routes, rides, carpool arrangements, car purchase and 
maintenance; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To receive 
community services, including program services, educational 
opportunities, and jobs; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income 
populations; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.570; 
Program name: Community Services Block Grant Discretionary Awards; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Community 
Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services 
Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 9921; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Grantees have wide flexibility in what they may fund; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Information not 
collected; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income 
populations; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.576; 
Program name: Refugee and Entrant Assistance - Discretionary Grants 
(Preventive Health, Targeted Assistance and Social Services 
Discretionary Grants Only); 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Refugee Act 
of 1980; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 8 
U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 1522(c); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus or transit passes; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Refugees and 
asylees; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.584; 
Program name: Refugee and Entrant Assistance - Targeted Assistance 
(Formula Grants Only); 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Refugee Act 
of 1980; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 8 
U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 1522(c); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus or transit passes; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Refugees and 
asylees; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.594; 
Program name: Native Employment Works; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Social 
Security Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 612; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Grantees have broad flexibility in what they may fund; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
and employment activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Members of 
federally recognized Indian tribes; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.600; 
Program name: Head Start; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Head Start 
Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
USCA; § 9835(a)(5)(B); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not provided; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Transporting 
children to Head Start and Early Head Start centers; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income children; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.612; 
Program name: Native American Programs; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Native 
American Programs Act of 1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 2991-2991c; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus passenger; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Community meetings 
and activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Native American 
communities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.630; 
Program name: State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and 
Protection and Advocacy Systems; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Developmental 
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 15002, 15082; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
General travel expenses; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Limited travel 
expenses to participate in grant activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: People with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities, their families, and other 
grant participants; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.631; 
Program name: Developmental Disabilities Projects of National 
Significance; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Developmental 
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 15002, 15082; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
General travel expenses; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Limited travel 
expenses to participate in grant activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: People with 
intellectual and developmental disabilities, their families, and other 
grant participants; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.667; 
Program name: Social Services Block Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Social 
Security Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 1397a(a)(2)(A); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Provide or arrange for travel, such as accessible vans; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Access services, or 
obtain medical care or employment; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Adults and children; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$22,863,512[E](estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.674; 
Program name: Chafee Foster Care Independence Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Foster Care 
Independence Act of 1999; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 677; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not provided; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Information not 
provided; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Foster youths who 
are transitioning to independence; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.767; 
Program name: Children's Health Insurance Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Social 
Security Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 1397jj(a)(26), (27); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not collected; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Information not 
collected; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Eligible children; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$3,681,903[F](partial). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.778; 
Program name: Medicaid; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Social 
Security Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 1396a, 1396n(e)(1)(A); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Fixed route transportation, demand response transportation, mileage 
reimbursement, air transport and nonemergency medical transportation 
brokerage; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access covered 
medical services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Medicaid-eligible 
beneficiaries who do not have any other means of transportation; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$786,966,682[G](partial). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.912; 
Program name: Rural Health Care Services Outreach, Rural Health 
Network Development, and Small Health Care Provider Quality 
Improvement Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Health 
Centers Consolidation Act of 1996; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 254c; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Volunteer drivers, private vehicles, vouchers, vanpools; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access health 
care services, oral health care, elder day care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Elderly, migrant 
workers, and general population; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.914; 
Program name: HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Ryan White 
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 300ff-11-300ff-20; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus passes, tokens, taxis, vanpools, vehicle purchase/lease by 
providers, and mileage reimbursement; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access health 
care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Persons with HIV or 
AIDS; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $10,750,025[H] 
(estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.917; 
Program name: HIV Care Formula Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Ryan White 
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; §§ 300ff-21, 300ff-23(a)(2)(B); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus passes, tokens, taxis, vanpools, vehicle purchase/lease by 
providers, and mileage reimbursement; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access health 
care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Persons with HIV or 
AIDS; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$5,598,234[H](estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.926; 
Program name: Healthy Start Initiative; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Public Health 
Service Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 254c-8; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, reimbursement for use of own vehicle; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access health 
care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Residents of areas 
with significant perinatal health disparities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.958; 
Program name: Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: ADAMHA 
Reorganization Act of 1992; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 300x-1(b)(1); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Any transportation-related use; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Adults with mental 
illness and children with emotional disturbance; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.959; 
Program name: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: ADAMHA 
Reorganization Act of 1992; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 300x-21; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Any transportation-related use; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Persons with a 
substance-related disorder; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 93.994; 
Program name: Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant to the 
States; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Social 
Security Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 701(a); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
States have broad discretion in implementing program; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access prenatal 
care visits, medical appointments, and other health care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Maternal and child 
health population; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.157; 
Program name: Supportive Housing for the Elderly; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing Act 
of 1959; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 12 
U.S.C. 1701g(g)(1); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
supportive services, such as medical treatment, employment, or job 
training, etc.; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Very low-income 
persons aged 62 and older; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.170; 
Program name: Congregate Housing Services Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Congregate 
Housing Services Act of 1978; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
USCA § 8004; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Accessible taxis, local transportation programs, buses, etc.; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access medical 
appointments, work, shopping, and other services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Elderly and people 
with disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.218; 
Program name: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 5305(a)(8); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access social 
services, medical services, jobs, etc.; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-and moderate-
income persons, mobility-impaired persons, and jobseekers; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$4,218,209[I](expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.225; 
Program name: Community Development Block Grants/Special Purpose 
Grants/Insular Areas; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 5305(a)(8); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access social 
services, medical services, jobs, etc.; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-and moderate-
income persons, mobility-impaired persons, and jobseekers; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $0; 
(expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.228; 
Program name: Community Development Block Grants/State's program and 
Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 5305(a)(8); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access social 
services, medical services, jobs, etc.; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-and moderate-
income persons, mobility-impaired persons, and jobseekers; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $19,211; 
(expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.231; 
Program name: Emergency Shelter Grants Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 11374; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus or transit tokens, taxi fares, and any related organizational 
transportation expenses; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access training 
programs and other services to enhance independence; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Homeless; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.235; 
Program name: Supportive Housing Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1992; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 11385; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus or transit tokens, taxi fares, and any related organizational 
transportation expenses; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access training 
programs and other services to enhance independence; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Homeless; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.241; 
Program name: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: AIDS Housing 
Opportunity Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 12907(a)(3); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus tokens, taxi fares, and any related organizational transportation 
expenses; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
supportive services, such as medical treatment, employment, job 
training, etc.; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low to extremely 
low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $1,530,187 
(expended). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.862; 
Program name: Indian Community Development Block Grant; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 5305(a)(8), 17; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not collected; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access public 
services, which are directed toward improving the community's public 
services and facilities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Indian and Alaska 
Native communities, primarily for persons with low-and moderate-
incomes; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.866; 
Program name: HOPE VI Revitalization; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing Act 
of 1937; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 1437v(d)(1)(L), (i)(3); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transportation services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment, education, and other supportive services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Public housing 
residents; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.867; 
Program name: Indian Housing Block Grant; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Native 
American Housing Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 25 
U.S.C.; § 4132(3); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not collected; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access self-
sufficiency services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income Native 
Americans; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 14.889; 
Program name: Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Housing Act 
of 1937; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C. § 1437v(d)(1)(L), (i)(3); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transportation services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment, education, and other supportive services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Public housing 
residents and HUD-assisted multifamily housing residents; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Department of the Interior: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 15.043; 
Program name: Indian Child and Family Education; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 25 
U.S.C.; § 2001(b)(8)(C)(v); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
School bus, off-road, and other vehicle leases; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access school 
and educational activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Preschool through 
adult students; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $373,368 
(estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 15.044; 
Program name: Indian Schools - Student Transportation; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: No Child Left 
Behind Act of 2001; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 25 
U.S.C.; § 2001(b)(8)(C)(v); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
School bus, off-road, and other vehicle leases; 
use of commercial vehicles; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access school, 
educational activities, and for use in emergency situations; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Day and residential 
students; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $52,637,635 
(obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 15.130; 
Program name: Indian Education Assistance to Schools; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Johnson-
O'Malley Act of April 16, 1934; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 25 
U.S.C.; ch. 14, subchapter II; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transporting students; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Trips could be to 
and from the project site or an educational field trip; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Eligible students 
are aged 3 through grade 12; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Department of Labor: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.211; 
Program name: Job Corps; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C. § 2864(d)(2); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Travel for program enrollees between the center and their home of 
record by bus, train, or plane; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Enrollment and 
separation from the program; 
Target population as defined by program officials: At-risk youth, ages 
16-24, who meet low-income criteria; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $24,100,000 
(estimate). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.235; 
Program name: Senior Community Service Employment Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Older 
Americans Act of 1965; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 42 
U.S.C.; § 3056(c)(6)(A) (iv); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services and jobs; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Unemployed 
Americans 55 years of age or older, earning no more than 125% of the 
poverty level; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.245; 
Program name: Trade Adjustment Assistance - Workers; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Trade Act of 
1974; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 19 
U.S.C.; § 2296(b); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access job 
training programs, job searches outside the normal commuting area, and 
relocation expenses; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Program 
participants and workers who seek employment outside the normal 
commuting area; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.258; 
Program name: Workforce Investment Act Adult Services Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; § 2864(d)(2); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Supportive services 
to enable program participation; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Adults, with 
priority to veterans and covered spouses, and individuals receiving 
public assistance; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.259; 
Program name: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; § 2854(a)(4); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access job 
training and related activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low income youth, 
ages 14-21 years old with barriers to employment; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.264; 
Program name: National Farmworker Jobs Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C. § 774 (3)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 2912 (d); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
supportive services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Disadvantaged 
migrant and seasonal farm workers; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.265; 
Program name: Native American Employment and Training; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; § 2911(d)(2); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Bus passes, vehicle mileage, gas for program vehicles, and reasonable 
car repairs; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Indian tribes, 
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.274; 
Program name: Youthbuild; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C. §§ 2801(46); 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Information not known; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Youth, including 
those from low-income families or those with a disability; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.802; 
Program name: Veterans' Employment Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 29 
U.S.C.; § 2913; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit tickets, bus fare, or cab fare; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Veterans; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 17.805; 
Program name: Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Homeless 
Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 38 
USCA; §§ 2011, 2021; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Transit tickets, bus fare, or cab fare; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment activities; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Homeless veterans; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Department of Transportation: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.500; 
Program name: Capital Investment Grants; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Mass 
Transportation Act of 1964; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C.; § 5309; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Funding for bus and bus facilities, new fixed guideway and 
modernization, and other capital expenses; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: General 
transportation; 
Target population as defined by program officials: General public; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$3,566,689,946[J](obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.507; 
Program name: Urbanized Area Formula Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Mass 
Transportation Act of 1964; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C.; § 5307; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Funding for transportation service for transportation projects in 
cities; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Support transit 
service in cities over 50,000 population; 
Target population as defined by program officials: General public in 
urbanized areas; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $4,849,410,834 
(obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.509; 
Program name: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Federal 
Public Transportation Act of 1978; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C.; § 5311; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Funding for transportation service for public transit and intercity 
bus transportation projects in nonurbanized areas; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To increase and 
enhance public transportation service in nonurbanized areas and for 
tribes; 
Target population as defined by program officials: General public and 
federally recognized tribes; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$624,837,418[K[(OBLIGATED)] ed). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.513; 
Program name: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and 
Persons with Disabilities; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Urban Mass 
Transportation Act of 1970; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C.; § 5310; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Purchase of capital expenses to support transportation services; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: General 
transportation services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Elderly individuals 
and persons with disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $176,237,261 
(obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.516; 
Program name: Job Access and Reverse Commute; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C.; § 5316; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Purchase of small buses and vans; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
employment and related services; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income 
individuals and reverse commuters; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $163,976,876 
(obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.518; 
Program name: Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-
Road Bus Accessibility; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Urban Mass 
Transportation Act of 1970; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C.; § 5310; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Purchase of capital expenses that will result in vehicles being 
accessible; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Intercity fixed-
route, charter, commuter, and tour bus transportation; 
Target population as defined by program officials: General public and 
individuals with disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $544,261 
(obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 20.521; 
Program name: New Freedom Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 49 
U.S.C § 5317; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Provide expanded service in both geographic coverage and hours or days 
of service; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To enhance 
transportation systems and access to those systems; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Individuals with 
disabilities; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: $90,140,813 
(obligated). 

Department of Veterans Affairs[L]: 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 64.009; 
Program name: Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Veterans 
Benefits Act of 1957; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 38 
U.S.C. § 111; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Mileage reimbursement; 
special mode (ambulance, wheelchair van); 
common carrier (air, bus, train, boat, taxi); 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: To access VA or VA-
authorized non-VA health care; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Low-income and 
special-group veterans; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$745,315,000[M](obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 64.024; 
Program name: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Homeless 
Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act of 1992; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 38 
U.S.C. §§ 2011(b)(1)(B), 7721 Note; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Purchase vans; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Outreach to and 
transportation of homeless veterans by community-based providers; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Homeless veterans; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: 
$720,167[N](obligated). 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance no.: 64.026; 
Program name: Veterans State Adult Day Health Care; 
Popular title or original source of program legislation: Veterans 
Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act; 
U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing transportation: 38 
U.S.C.; § 1720; 38 U.S.C. § 111; 
Typical use of transportation funds as reported by program officials: 
Any expenses for transportation; 
Purpose of trips as reported by program officials: Adult day health 
care; 
Target population as defined by program officials: Veterans; 
Fiscal year 2010 federal spending on transportation[A]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from the Departments of 
Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 
Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; 
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, the U.S. Code; and the 
Code of Federal Regulations. 

[A] Spending was reported by program officials, and we did not verify 
the information. Amounts obligated or expended on transportation are 
given, depending upon the information available. When actual 
information was not available, agency officials provided estimates. 

[B] According to program officials, figure is expenditure data 
reported by state vocational rehabilitation agencies to the Department 
of Education on the Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program Cost 
Report (RSA-2) form. 

[C] According to program officials, figure includes $69,133,539 for 
transportation and $4,452,178 for assisted transportation (assistance 
and transportation for a person who has difficulties using regular 
transportation). 

[D] Health center grantees reported spending $26.3 million on 
transportation services in calendar year 2010, according to program 
officials. 

[E] Fiscal year 2010 data was not yet available, and fiscal year 2009 
spending ($22,863,512) can be used as an estimate, according to 
program officials. 

[F] According to program officials, $3,681,903 is the federal share 
for states that recorded transportation expenses under Line 23 - 
Medical Transportation on the CMS 21. There is no dedicated line item 
for Administrative Transportation expenses. If there are any 
Transportation Administration expenditures, they may be reported in 
the Other line item category, however there is no separation to break 
it out. 

[G] According to program officials, $786,966,682 is the federal share 
for states that recorded transportation expenses under Line 29 - 
Nonemergency Transportation Services on the CMS 64. This information 
does not include expenditures for nonemergency medical transportation 
claimed as an Administrative Transportation expense, as there is no 
dedicated line item for such expenses. 

[H] According to program officials, 2010 Part A and Part B 
expenditures for transportation are not available. As an estimate, 
officials used 2009 Part A - $10,750,025 and Part B expenditures - 
$5,598,234 from the Ryan White 2009 Part B Expenditure Report. 

[I] In fiscal year 2009, $4.0 million was expended nationally among 
all CDBG grantees for transportation services, according to program 
officials. 

[J] According to program officials, figure includes: 5309 Bus and Bus 
Facilities $516,224,661; 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization 
$1,383,358,415; and 5309 New Starts $1,667,106,870. 

[K] Figure does not include Tribal Transit, according to program 
officials. 

[L] According to program officials, Pub. L. No. 111-163, § 307, 124 
Stat. 1154 (38 U.S.C. § 1710 Note) will provide grants for 
transportation of veterans in highly rural areas, however the program 
has not yet become operational and funds had not been spent as of 
January 2012. 

[M] Figure includes Special Mode/Common Carrier ($313,797,000) and 
Mileage ($431,518,000), according to program officials. 

[N] Figure was amount obligated in fiscal year 2010 for 32 van grants, 
and grantees have 5 years to spend these funds, according to program 
officials. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department of Education: 
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: 
The Assistant Secretary: 
400 Maryland Ave., SW: 
Washington, DC 20202-3500 

May 31, 2012: 

Mr. David Wise: 
Director: 
Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Wise: 

I am writing to provide the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) with comments from the U.S. Department of Education (Department) 
on the draft report. "Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations -- 
Federal Coordination Efforts Could be Further Strengthened (GA0-12-
647). The Department appreciates the work that went into this study.
The draft report contains the following two recommendations. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To promote and enhance federal, state and local coordination 
activities, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation, as the 
chair of the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and the 
Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and 
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and 
Veterans Affairs, as member agencies of the Coordinating Council, 
should meet and take the following actions: 

* Complete and publish a strategic plan for the Coordinating Council, 
which should. among other things, clearly outline agency roles and 
responsibilities and articulate a strategy to help strengthen 
interagency collaboration and communication. 

* Report on the progress of Coordinating Council recommendations made 
as part of its 2005 Report to the President on Implementation of 
Executive Order 13330 and develop a plan to address any outstanding 
recommendations. including the development of a cost-sharing policy 
endorsed by the Coordinating Council and the actions taken by member 
agencies to increase federal program grantee participation in locally-
developed, coordinated planning processes. 

The Department would he pleased to participate in the strategic 
planning and progress reporting activities described in GAO's 
recommendations, if the Secretary of Transportation reconvenes the 
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. The Department's Office 
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has participated in 
previous Council activities under the general rubric "United We Ride." 
Transportation planning activities have continued among multiple 
agencies at the staff level, even though the Coordinating Council has 
not met recently. 

Several working groups have been active and the Department has 
participated in some of their activities, including work on a draft 
strategic plan. We look forward to continued engagement on this issue.  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. We also 
are including technical comments with this response.  

Sincerely,  

Signed by: 

Alexa Posny, Ph.D.  

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834, WiseD@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to 
this report were Heather MacLeod, Assistant Director; Rebekah Boone; 
Brian Chung; Jennifer Clayborne; Jean Cook; Bert Japikse; Delwen 
Jones; and Sara Ann Moessbauer. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Some federal programs, such as those administered by VA, may 
provide direct transportation services to beneficiaries, as opposed to 
funds to state and local agencies to provide these services. 

[2] See GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in 
Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011) and List of Selected Federal Programs That Have 
Similar or Overlapping Objectives, Provide Similar Services, or Are 
Fragmented Across Government Missions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 
2011). 

[3] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. 

[4] Human Service Transportation Coordination, Exec. Order No. 13330 
(Feb. 24, 2004). 

[5] National Council on Disability, National Disability Policy: A 
Progress Report (Washington, D.C.: October 2011). 

[6] GAO, Transportation Coordination: Benefits and Barriers Exist, and 
Planning Efforts Progress Slowly, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-1] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 
1999). 

[7] GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination 
Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but 
Obstacles Persist, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-697] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003). 

[8] The Coordinating Council underwent several name changes, notably 
in 1998 and 2004, but for the purposes of this report, we will refer 
to it as the Coordinating Council throughout its existence. 

[9] According to the Federal Transit Administration, human service 
transportation is transportation services provided by or on behalf of 
a human services agency to provide access to agency services and to 
meet the basic, day-to-day mobility needs of transportation-
disadvantaged populations, especially individuals with disabilities, 
older adults, and people with low incomes. 

[10] In a 1999 report on transportation coordination, we found that 
coordination efforts of DOT and HHS, as members of the Coordinating 
Council, were ongoing but needed strengthening. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-1]. 

[11] In 2003, we also reported that state and local agencies that 
provide transportation services under a myriad of federally funded 
programs run the risk of duplication of effort and inefficiencies in 
providing transportation when those agencies do not coordinate. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-697]. In 2004, we 
issued a report on agencies' progress in implementing our 2003 
recommendations. See GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: 
Federal Agencies Are Taking Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies 
in Coordinating Transportation Services, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-420R] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 
2004). 

[12] Membership of the Coordinating Council was expanded to include 
the Secretaries of Transportation, Health and Human Services, 
Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Interior, the Attorney General, the Commissioner of 
Social Security, and an eleventh member designated by the Chairman of 
the Coordinating Council, the Chairman of the National Council on 
Disability. 

[13] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-474R]. 

[14] In February 2012, we reported that federal departments had not 
yet fully addressed these actions. See GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: 
Status of Actions Taken to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and 
Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-453SP] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 
2012). 

[15] See GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 

[16] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011), amending 5 U.S.C. §§ 
301 and 306 and 31 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 1116, and adding 31 U.S.C. §§ 1120-
1125 (GPRA). 

[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP]. 

[18] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005). 

[19] 49 U.S.C. ch. 53; SAFETEA-LU, § 3046 (49 U.S.C. § 5338 Note). 

[20] According to VA officials, VA's Beneficiary Travel Program, as 
part of Veterans Medical Care Benefits, provides mileage 
reimbursement, common carrier transportation (e.g., plane, boat, taxi, 
bus), and, when medically indicated, special mode transport 
(ambulance, wheelchair van, etc.) to low-income or disabled veterans 
for travel to receive treatment, care, or services at VA or VA-
authorized medical facilities. 

[21] Spending was reported by program officials, and we did not verify 
the information. Amounts obligated or expended on transportation are 
given, depending upon the information available. When actual 
information was not available, agency officials provided estimates. 

[22] In March 2011, we identified actions that federal departments on 
the Coordinating Council should undertake, including identifying and 
assessing their transportation programs and related expenditures, in 
order to promote federal coordination and reduce the potential for 
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. In February 2012, we 
reported that federal departments had not yet fully addressed these 
actions and that most federal departments on the Coordinating Council 
do not have an inventory of existing programs or related expenditure 
information for transportation services. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-453SP]. 

[23] Including Special Education Grants to States, Special Education 
Preschool Grants, and Special Education-Grants for Infants and 
Toddlers. 

[24] In order for a local education agency to use IDEA funds to 
purchase vehicles, the local education agency would need to obtain 
approval from the state educational agency and demonstrate that the 
vehicle purchase was necessary for proper administration of the IDEA 
program. 

[25] Each state has an individual agreement with Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Services, called a state plan. 

[26] Some other HUD programs, such as the Community Development Block 
Grant programs, track federal transportation spending, as shown in 
table 1. 

[27] In 2003, the Coordinating Council, consisting of HHS and DOT, 
invited DOL and Education to join, as they had been actively working 
under the council. The Coordinating Council was expanded by executive 
order in February 2004 to include 10 federal agencies--one more agency 
was added by the chair to bring its membership to 11 federal entities. 

[28] Working groups cover such areas as coordination infrastructure, 
emergency preparedness, and current administration priorities such as 
veterans' transportation. 

[29] According to DOT, the Secretary-level members of the Coordinating 
Council, or their designees, met annually in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 
2008. The Executive Council met from 2004 through 2007--quarterly in 
2004 and biannually from 2005 through 2007. 

[30] Easter Seals Project ACTION's mission is to promote universal 
access to transportation for people with disabilities under federal 
law and beyond by partnering with transportation providers, the 
disability community, and others through the provision of training, 
technical assistance, applied research, outreach, and communication. 
Project ACTION is funded through a cooperative agreement with FTA. 
According to FTA, Easter Seals Project ACTION is instrumental in 
fostering mobility management techniques. 

[31] The National Center on Senior Transportation's mission is to 
increase transportation options for older adults and enhance their 
ability to live more independently within their communities throughout 
the United States. The center is funded through a cooperative 
agreement with FTA. 

[32] The National Rural Transit Assistance Program's mission is to 
address the needs of rural, small urban, and tribal transit operators 
across the nation. The program is funded through a cooperative 
agreement with FTA. 

[33] Joblinks focuses on the mobility needs of low-wage job seekers 
and earners, as well as workers with disabilities, youth, veterans, 
and older workers and works to connect workforce development agencies, 
transportation providers, and other stakeholders with transportation-
to-work solutions that are affordable, reliable, and accessible. 
Joblinks activities are funded by FTA and DOL. According to FTA, the 
Joblinks Employment Resource Center developed a One Call-One Click 
toolkit with resources for communities and states interested in 
developing a One Call-One Click Transportation Center, which has 
helped to support coordinated transportation for transit-dependent 
populations. 

[34] National Conference of State Legislatures, State Human Service 
Transportation Coordinating Councils: An Overview and State Profiles 
(Denver, Colo., April 2010). 

[35] DOT issued guidance requiring the establishment of a locally 
developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation 
plan for all FTA human service transportation program grants, 
effective in 2007.See Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: FTA C 
9050.1, New Freedom Program: FTA C 9045.1, Elderly Individuals and 
Individuals with Disabilities Program: FTA C 9070.1. FTA verifies the 
existence of a coordinated plan but does not evaluate the plans. In 
addition, DOT issued guidance that defined and made mobility 
management activities eligible as a capital expense under all FTA 
formula programs, while permitting other non-DOT federal funds to be 
used as matches for FTA human service transportation grant programs. 
TA's planning programs (5305(e) and (f)) can also be used to support 
the coordinated planning effort. According to FTA, this adds 
significant resources for data collection, forecasting, and transit 
market analysis of the mobility needs of transportation-disadvantaged 
individuals. Planning is an eligible activity under Section 5307. 

[36] 66 Fed. Reg. 5296 (Jan. 18, 2001). 

[37] Training and Employment Notice No. 21-11 (Jan. 3, 2012). DOL also 
developed and disseminated a Training and Employment Notice to the 
public workforce system on human services transportation coordination 
in 2007. See Training and Employment Notice No. 36-06 (June 21, 2007). 

[38] The Veterans Health Administration also issued an information 
letter in 2007 to VA medical centers to coordinate transportation 
services with their local community and other federal agencies, 
including allowing excess capacity VA transportation services to be 
used by other federal agencies provided there are agreements in place 
for reimbursement. See IL 10-2007-006 (Mar. 2, 2007). 

[39] In March 2011, we identified several actions that federal 
departments on the Coordinating Council should undertake to promote 
federal coordination and reduce the potential for fragmentation, 
overlap, and duplication, which include developing and disseminating 
additional policies and grantee guidance for coordinating 
transportation services, such as a cost-sharing policy. See 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. In February 
2012, we reported that most of the federal departments on the 
Coordinating Council that we reviewed had not yet addressed these 
actions. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-453SP]. 

[40] The 2010 United We Ride National Dialogue was held to help shape 
future policy direction and provide input into the strategic plan. See 
National Academy of Public Administration, A Report by a Panel of the 
National Academy of Public Administration for the Federal Interagency 
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility: The United We Ride 
National Dialogue (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2010). 

[41] See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help 
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[42] See GAO, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to 
Facilitate Congressional Review, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-10.1.16] (Washington, D.C.: 1997) 
and GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: 1996). 

[43] According to FTA, while a final federal cost-sharing policy has 
not been issued, FTA funded a Transit Cooperative Research Program 
study which aims to provide guidance for state and local agencies to 
begin sharing costs with partners. However, this report has not been 
endorsed by all member agencies of the Coordinating Council. See 
Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program, 
Sharing the Costs of Human Services Transportation (Washington, D.C.: 
2011). 

[44] National Academy of Public Administration, The United We Ride 
National Dialogue. 

[45] National Academy of Public Administration, The United We Ride 
National Dialogue. 

[46] Under 42 C.F.R. § 431.53, states are required in their state 
plans to ensure necessary transportation of Medicaid beneficiaries to 
and from medical providers. Expenditures for transportation may be 
claimed as administrative costs, or a state may elect to include 
transportation as a medical benefit under its state Medicaid plan. 

[47] CMS officials trace their concern to restrictions against the use 
of Medicaid funds for purposes other than to deliver medical services 
to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries, which they argue is implemented by 
CMS's regulations and policy. Further, according to CMS officials, 
federal Medicaid funding must be matched by nonfederal funding unless 
there is express authority under federal law for other federal funds 
to be used for purposes of the nonfederal Medicaid matching share. 

[48] The Medicaid program is on GAO's High-Risk List, in part because 
of improper payments submitted by providers for ineligible claims. See 
GAO, High-Risk Series, an Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2011). 

[49] HHS issued regulations (42 C.F.R. § 440.170(a)(4)) that permit 
states to establish, under the state plan, a nonemergency medical 
transportation brokerage program. Under such a program, the state 
contracts with one or more brokers to manage the provision of 
nonemergency medical transportation services for beneficiaries who 
need transportation to or from medical providers. 

[50] In 2010, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported 
that about half of the states in the United States have created state 
coordinating councils. We did not verify the accuracy of this number 
but verified that three of our five selected states--Florida, 
Washington, and Wisconsin--did have a coordinating council in 2010; 
Texas and Virginia did not. See National Conference of State 
Legislatures, State Human Service Transportation Coordinating 
Councils: An Overview and State Profiles (Denver, Colo.: Apr. 2010). 
According to this report, many state coordinating councils were 
created as a result of the United We Ride initiative to improve 
coordination of human services transportation activities. 

[51] A 2011 report prepared for the Washington state legislature found 
that some of the most significant barriers to coordinating or sharing 
trips between programs providing transportation stem from differences 
in federal regulations, especially as they relate to sharing costs 
between programs. See Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation, 
Final Report of the Federal Opportunities Workgroup (Olympia, Wash.: 
2011). 

[52] Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Human Service 
Transportation Coordination Model (July 2008). 

[53] ICTC's membership consists of the Wisconsin Departments of 
Transportation, Health Services, Veterans Affairs, Workforce 
Development, and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. In 
addition, ICTC has a multimember Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) 
which consists of transportation consumers, advocates, providers, and 
partners who advise ICTC on statewide transportation needs and 
coordination opportunities. 

[54] ACCT's membership consists of 14 voting members and four 
nonvoting members. Voting members include representatives from four 
state agencies--including the Departments of Public Instruction, 
Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and the Washington Health Care 
Authority. Ten governor-appointed members serve 2-year terms and 
include a representative from the Office of the Governor, a 
representative appointed by the Governor's Committee on Disability 
Issues and Employment, a representative appointed by the Developmental 
Disabilities Council, an at-large consumer of special needs 
transportation, and representatives from the Washington Association of 
Pupil Transportation, the Washington State Transit Association, the 
Community Transportation Association of the Northwest or the Community 
Action Council Association, regional transportation planning 
organizations/metropolitan planning organizations, nonemergency 
medical transportation brokers, and the Washington State Association 
of Counties. The ACCT Council also consists of four nonvoting 
legislative members. 

[55] As previously mentioned, CMS has provided states with the 
authority to establish nonemergency medical transportation brokerage 
programs in which the state contracts with one or more brokers to 
manage the provision of transportation services for eligible 
beneficiaries. 

[56] National Academy of Public Administration, United We Ride 
National Dialogue. 

[57] See GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some 
Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, 
but Obstacles Persist, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-697] (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 
2003). 

[58] Human Service Transportation Coordination, Exec. Order No. 13330 
(February 24, 2004). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.