This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-697 
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination 
Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 
Persist' which was released on June 30, 2003.

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

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

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

June 2003:

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:

Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation 
Services, but Obstacles Persist:

Transportation Coordination:

GAO-03-697:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-697, a report to congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

Millions of Americans are unable to provide their own transportation—
or even use public transportation—for Medicaid appointments, Head 
Start classes, job training, or other services. Such “transportation-
disadvantaged” persons are often disabled, elderly, or low income. 
Various federal programs are authorized to provide transportation 
services to them. GAO was asked to (1) identify the federal programs 
that fund such transportation services and the amount spent on them, 
(2) assess the extent of coordination among the various programs, and 
(3) identify any obstacles to coordination and potential ways to 
overcome such obstacles.

What GAO Found:

Sixty-two federal programs—most of which are administered by the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation—fund transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged. The full amount these programs spend on transportation 
is unknown because transportation is not always tracked separately 
from other spending. However, available information (i.e., estimated 
or actual outlays or obligations) on 29 of the programs shows that 
federal agencies spent at least an estimated $2.4 billion on these 
services in fiscal year 2001. Additional spending by states and 
localities is also not fully known but is at least in the hundreds of 
millions of dollars.

Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through 
coordination of transportation activities (through sharing resources 
or information or consolidating services under a single agency) among 
federal agencies vary. The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility—
a body with representation from the Departments of Transportation and 
Health and Human Services—has undertaken some activities to improve 
coordination. However, other agencies that administer a substantial 
number of programs for the transportation-disadvantaged, such as the 
Departments of Labor and Education, are not part of the Council. In 
addition, the Coordinating Council’s strategic plan is not linked to 
its action plan and contains few measurable performance goals. The 
strategic and annual performance plans of the Departments of 
Transportation and Health and Human Services contain few references to 
coordination relating to their subagencies and programs that fund 
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged, and the 
plans of the Departments of Labor and Education do not mention 
coordinating these services.

Obstacles impeding coordination include concern among administrators 
that their own participants might be negatively affected, program 
rules that limit use by others, and limited guidance and information 
on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials and experts 
suggested making federal standards more consistent, creating a 
clearinghouse or better Web site to facilitate interagency 
communication and provide better guidance on coordination, and 
providing financial incentives or instituting mandates to 
coordinate. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Departments of Labor and Education join the 
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. GAO also recommends that 
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation (1) strengthen the Coordinating Council’s strategic 
plan, (2) include long-term goals and measures for coordination in 
their agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans, and (3) 
develop and distribute additional guidance and information to 
encourage coordination.

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation generally concurred with the findings and 
recommendations in this report.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-697.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact. Katherine Siggerud 
at (202) 512-2834.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Sixty-Two Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services to 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:

Extent of Spending on Services for the Transportation-Disadvantaged Is 
Not Fully Known but Is in the Billions of Dollars:

Coordination Efforts Vary, but Some Successful Efforts Show Promising 
Results:

Officials Cited Numerous Obstacles to Successfully Coordinating 
Services and Provided Potential Options to Mitigate Them:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

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

Appendix III: Federal and State Coordination Efforts:

Federal Coordination:

State Coordination:

Appendix IV: Informational Resources on Coordination:

Web Sites:

Reports:

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:

GAO Comments:

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Education:

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: Sixteen Programs Identified by CTAA as Regularly Providing 
Funding for Transportation:

Table 2: Eleven Programs Spending at Least $4 Million in Fiscal Year 
2001:

Table 3: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged by Eight Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year 
2001:

Table 4: Status of Federal Responses to GAO's Recommendations to 
Improve Coordination:

Table 5: Federal Actions Taken in Response to GAO Recommendations for 
Improving Coordination:

Table 6: Examples of State Coordination of Services for the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged:

Figures:

Figure 1: Number of Programs Providing Transportation Services to the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged, by Agency:

Figure 2: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota:

Abbreviations:

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990:  

CTAA: Community Transportation Association of America:  

CTAP: Community Transportation Assistance Project:  

DOL: U.S. Department of Labor:  

DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation:  

FTA: Federal Transit Administration:  

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:  

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

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

JARC: Job Access and Reverse Commute:  

MOE: maintenance of effort:  

P.L.: public law:  

RTAP: Rural Transit Assistance Program:  

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:  

TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:  

TCRP: Transit Cooperative Research Program:  

U.S.C.: U.S. Code:  

VA: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:  

VR: Vocational Rehabilitation:  

WETAP: Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

June 30, 2003:

The Honorable Don Young 
Chairman 
The Honorable James L. Oberstar 
Ranking Democratic Member 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri 
Chairman 
The Honorable William O. Lipinski 
Ranking Democratic Member 
Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipelines 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
House of Representatives:

The ability to access personal or public transportation is fundamental 
for people to connect with employment opportunities, health and medical 
services, educational services, and the community at large. However, 
certain populations in the United States lack the ability to provide 
their own transportation or have difficulty accessing whatever 
conventional public transportation may be available. These 
"transportation-disadvantaged" persons may have an age-related 
condition, a disability, or income constraints. This is potentially a 
sizeable group. For example, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 35.1 
million people were over age 65, 44.5 million people were over age 21 
and disabled, and 33.9 million people were living below the poverty 
line. Many within these populations face significant problems in 
accessing transportation.

Many federal programs authorize use of funds to provide transportation 
for transportation-disadvantaged people so they can access government 
programs. Programs that provide incidental transportation include 
health and medical programs, job-training programs, or programs for the 
aging. The coordination of these transportation services--through 
pooling resources, consolidating trips provided by various agencies 
under a single agency, or sharing information between programs--has 
been found to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of service. At 
the federal level, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility--a 
body consisting of representatives from the Departments of Health and 
Human Services and Transportation--is charged with coordinating 
transportation services provided by federal programs and promoting the 
maximum feasible coordination at the state and local levels. In a 1999 
report,[Footnote 1] we found that these coordination efforts needed 
strengthening. We have also issued other reports raising concerns about 
service coordination.[Footnote 2]

You asked that we study the extent to which government agencies and 
programs are currently providing transportation services to the 
transportation-disadvantaged and coordinating the provision of these 
transportation services and that we update you on actions taken by the 
Coordinating Council since our 1999 report. This report addresses (1) 
the federal programs that provide transportation services for 
transportation-disadvantaged populations and the types of services they 
provide; (2) federal, state, and local government spending for 
transportation services through these federal programs;[Footnote 3] (3) 
the extent of coordination among state, local, and federal agencies in 
delivering transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, including actions taken by the Coordinating Council; and 
(4) any obstacles that may impede effective coordination and potential 
options for overcoming such obstacles.

Our overall approach was to (1) review federal laws and regulations 
governing the use of federal funds for services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations; (2) analyze spending data where available; 
(3) review federal and other governmental activities and the research 
literature related to the coordination of transportation services; and 
(4) obtain the views of more than 100 officials from federal, state, 
and local government agencies, industry and client advocacy groups, and 
other experts involved with or affected by the coordination process on 
the obstacles and options for improving coordination. Many of these 
interviews were part of case studies that we conducted in five states-
-Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin--to understand 
how these various federal programs were implemented and coordinated at 
the state and local level. We chose these states to include a cross 
section of characteristics including urban/rural mix, geographic area 
of the country, and presence or absence of a state council or other 
coordinating body. Appendix I contains more information about our scope 
and methodology.

Results in Brief:

We identified 62 federal programs--most of which are administered by 
the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation--that are used to fund transportation services for 
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Sixteen of these seem 
particularly relevant in that the Community Transportation Association 
of America[Footnote 4] identified them as being regularly used to fund 
transportation services. In addition, based on available information, 
we identified 11 other programs that are notable, in that 
transportation spending under each one was at least $4 million in 
fiscal year 2001. While the remaining programs also fund transportation 
services, they do so minimally, or the extent of transportation 
services funded is unknown, according to program officials. Most 
programs purchase transportation services from existing private or 
public providers. For example, several programs in the Department of 
Labor typically provide bus tokens, and Medicaid providers often 
contract with local transportation providers.[Footnote 5] In contrast, 
Department of Transportation programs and several others such as Head 
Start in the Department of Health and Human Services typically purchase 
and operate vehicles or modify them for use by individuals with 
disabilities. Several of these 62 programs are required to coordinate 
services they provide with other agencies providing similar services, 
which can include transportation.

Federal, state, and local spending for these transportation services is 
in the billions of dollars, although the full extent of spending is 
unknown because transportation spending is not always tracked 
separately from other program spending. In the 29 programs for which we 
could obtain actual spending amounts or estimates from program 
officials, federal spending on transportation services for 
transportation-disadvantaged populations was at least $2.4 billion in 
fiscal year 2001. Department of Health and Human Services programs 
spent about three-quarters of this amount. State and local agencies 
also provide funding for many of these programs, often to fulfill 
matching requirements, which generally range from 5 to 50 percent of 
total program costs for these programs. Estimates of state and local 
spending are generally not available because few agencies track such 
information at the federal or state level. However, based on available 
information, it is evident that state and local contributions for these 
services are significant--at least several hundred million dollars.

Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through 
coordination of transportation activities among agencies at all levels 
of government vary; however, in some areas we visited, close 
coordination among providers has shown promising results. Some local 
agencies have realized substantial benefits by coordinating their 
transportation services through sharing vehicles, consolidating 
services under a single agency, or sharing information about available 
services. For example, a transit agency in South Dakota consolidated 
the transportation services previously provided by both senior and 
medical centers as well as other federal, state, and local programs. 
This consolidation allowed the agency to expand its service hours and 
increase the number of trips provided while reducing the average cost 
of providing each trip by about 20 percent. We found instances, 
however, in which there were overlapping, fragmented, or confusing 
services among programs that did not coordinate. For example, a local 
official said that the vans delivering clients to the local job center 
are owned by many different programs, but because the programs do not 
coordinate, only a few people ride in each van. At the federal level, 
agencies have taken some limited steps to coordinate their 
transportation programs since our 1999 report.[Footnote 6] For example, 
the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility has finalized a 
strategic plan and issued guidelines for coordinating transportation 
services. However, the long-term goals and objectives in its strategic 
plan are generally not measurable, and they are not linked to the 
activities in the Council's action plan. Also, the strategic and annual 
performance plans of the Departments of Transportation and Health and 
Human Services contain few references to coordination of programs for 
the transportation-disadvantaged, and the plans of the Departments of 
Labor, Education, and the other federal agencies contain no such 
references. In addition, the Coordinating Council only includes 
officials from two federal departments (Transportation and Health and 
Human Services), representing less than half of the 62 federal programs 
that can be used to fund services for the transportation-disadvantaged, 
while the Departments of Labor and Education, which administer one-
third of the programs, are not members of the Council. Furthermore, 
while the Coordinating Council is working to improve its Web site, the 
site is not linked to the Web site of the Department of Health and 
Human Services, making it more difficult for human service agencies at 
all government levels to be aware of and access the site.

Although decision makers face numerous obstacles in trying to 
coordinate transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, officials and experts that we consulted also offered 
several potential options to mitigate these obstacles and enhance 
coordination among federal, state, and local agencies. We grouped the 
obstacles into three categories: (1) reluctance to share vehicles and 
fund coordination activities due to concerns about possible adverse 
effects on clients; (2) different eligibility requirements, safety 
standards, and other programmatic requirements that can limit programs' 
ability to share transportation resources; and (3) lack of leadership 
and commitment to coordinate, as evidenced by the limited guidance and 
information provided by federal and state agencies on the possible 
techniques for coordinating services. To mitigate these obstacles, 
officials and experts suggested three potential options. One option is 
to harmonize standards among federal programs--such as safety standards 
related to types of seat belts and driver training requirements--so 
that programs can serve additional populations or better share 
transportation resources. Another option is to expand interagency 
forums that would facilitate communication among agencies involved in 
coordination efforts and to share additional technical guidance and 
information on coordination among federal and state agencies through a 
central clearinghouse or improved Web site. The third option is to 
provide financial incentives or mandates that would give priority in 
federal funding to those grant applicants that show a strong commitment 
to coordinate or require specific coordination efforts among grant 
recipients as a condition of receiving federal funding. We did not 
assess the costs and benefits of these options; however, some would 
require extensive statutory or regulatory changes and could cause 
agencies to incur significant costs.

Given the multiplicity of federal programs that can fund transportation 
services for the transportation-disadvantaged, and the significant 
amounts spent on those services, effective coordination efforts are 
needed to ensure that transportation services reach the greatest number 
of recipients. Accordingly, our report contains several recommendations 
designed to strengthen and enhance coordination activities in the four 
federal departments that administer most of the programs that fund 
transportation services--Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, 
and Transportation. In commenting on the draft of this report, those 
four departments generally concurred with the findings and 
recommendations. In addition, we provided the draft report to two other 
departments that provide services to the transportation-disadvantaged-
-Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs--and those 
departments also agreed with the findings. In some cases, these 
departments also provided technical clarifications, which were 
incorporated as appropriate to ensure accuracy.

Background:

Many elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals face significant 
challenges in accessing transportation. For example, some of these 
challenges are as follows:

* Sixteen percent of respondents over age 75 reported not having a 
driver's license in 2001, and 25 percent of the respondents had not 
driven at least once in the last month according to an AARP 
survey.[Footnote 7] Elderly people are also more likely to have 
difficulty accessing traditional public transportation due to physical 
ailments.

* Thirty percent of respondents with disabilities reported difficulty 
in accessing transportation, compared to 10 percent of respondents 
without a disability, according to a 2000 survey by the National 
Organization on Disabilities.

* Low-income households are less likely to own a car than other 
households due to the prohibitive cost of purchasing, insuring, and 
maintaining a car, and public transportation may not provide sufficient 
options for their needs. Over 90 percent of public assistance 
recipients do not own a car.[Footnote 8]

The importance of coordinating transportation services for 
transportation-disadvantaged populations has been evident since the 
1970s. In 1977, we issued a report on transportation 
coordination,[Footnote 9] which concluded that the most significant 
hindrance to the coordination of transportation services under these 
programs was confusion at all levels of government as to how much 
coordination federally funded projects could engage in. Since 1986, 
responsibility for coordinating transportation programs at the federal 
level has rested in the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, 
which was created under a memorandum of understanding between the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). This body is composed of representatives from 
program offices within these departments, and employees of the two 
departments meet its staffing needs, on a part-time basis.

More recent reviews have continued to identify a need for stronger 
efforts in this area. In a 1999 report on transportation 
coordination,[Footnote 10] we found that coordination efforts of the 
Coordinating Council, DOT, and HHS were ongoing but still needed 
strengthening. This report also noted that the Congress had endorsed 
increased coordination as evidenced by several provisions in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),[Footnote 11] 
and significant financial benefits had been realized through 
coordination. In addition, reports by advocacy groups and 
transportation researchers have raised concerns over continuing 
duplication of effort among federal programs and certain sub-
populations still not being served effectively.[Footnote 12]

Sixty-Two Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services to 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:

We identified 62 federal programs that fund transportation services to 
populations that are transportation-disadvantaged.[Footnote 13] As 
shown in figure 1, the bulk of these programs are administered by four 
federal agencies--23 programs in HHS, 15 programs in the Department of 
Labor (DOL), 8 programs in the Department of Education, and 6 programs 
in DOT.[Footnote 14] The remaining 10 programs are administered by the 
Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs 
(VA), Agriculture, and the Interior. A full listing of programs, their 
authorizing legislation, typical uses, types of trips provided, target 
populations, and spending information is found in appendix II.

Figure 1: Number of Programs Providing Transportation Services to the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged, by Agency:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Many of the 62 programs are significantly involved in providing 
transportation services to their recipients. These include 16 programs 
identified by the Community Transportation Association of America 
(CTAA)[Footnote 15] as being routinely used to provide transportation 
and an additional 11 programs that we identified as spending at least 
$4 million for transportation services to transportation-disadvantaged 
populations in fiscal year 2001 on the basis of funding data or 
estimates that were available. The remaining programs also fund 
transportation services, but do so minimally, or the extent of 
transportation services funded is unknown, according to program 
officials. Table 1 shows the 16 programs identified by CTAA and how 
they provide transportation. These 16 programs are administered by DOT, 
HHS, Education, and DOL. As the table shows, transportation is not the 
primary purpose of most of these programs. For example, Medicaid 
provides payments for medical services, and the Vocational 
Rehabilitation Grants Program provides training and employment services 
to individuals with disabilities.

Table 1: Sixteen Programs Identified by CTAA as Regularly Providing 
Funding for Transportation:

Agency: Department of Education; Program: Vocational Rehabilitation 
Grants; Description: Assists states in operating programs that provide 
vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with disabilities. 
Services include counseling, training, job placement, and other 
supportive services, including transportation. 

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Program: Grants for 
Supportive Services and Senior Centers; Description: Assists states in 
developing a community-based system of services for older individuals. 
Services provided include nutrition services, caregiver support 
services, senior centers, and transportation services. 

Program: Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native 
Hawaiian Elders; Description: Assists tribal organizations in the 
delivery of supportive services to older Native Americans. Services 
provided include nutrition services, caregiver support services, senior 
centers, and transportation services. 

Program: Head Start; Description: Assists local grantees in providing a 
program of comprehensive health, educational, and other services to 
promote school readiness for low-income children. Transportation to and 
from program services is generally provided. 

Program: Medicaid; Description: Assists states in payments for medical 
assistance to populations that meet categorical eligibility (such as 
families with children or persons who are elderly or disabled) as well 
as income and resource requirements. States are required to assure 
transportation to medical services. 

Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Description: Provides 
grants to states or tribes to assist needy families with children. 
Grantees have the flexibility to use funds in any manner that meets the 
purposes of the program, which can include transportation to services. 

Agency: Department of Labor; Program: Senior Community Service 
Employment Program; Description: Assists states and other grantees in 
providing work opportunities in community service activities for low-
income individuals 55 years of age and older. Transportation to 
training and job placements can be provided. 

Program: Workforce Investment Act Adult Services Program; Description: 
Assists states in providing workforce investment activities. 
"Intensive" services provided to low-income participants include 
occupational and basic skills training, and transportation can be 
provided to access such services. 

Program: Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program; 
Description: Assists states in providing workforce investment 
activities. "Intensive" services provided to low-income participants 
include occupational and basic skills training, and transportation can 
be provided to access such services. 

Program: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; Description: 
Assists states in providing workforce investment activities that will 
help low-income youth acquire the skills, training, and support needed 
to achieve employment success. Transportation can be provided to access 
services. 

Agency: Department of Transportation; Program: Capital Investment 
Grants; Description: Assists states in financing facilities for use in 
mass public transportation service. Projects can include those that are 
designed to meet the special needs of elderly or disabled individuals. 

Program: Urbanized Area Formula Program; Description: Assists urbanized 
areas in financing capital projects for use in mass transportation 
service. Ten percent of funds may be used to pay for ADA paratransit 
operating costs.[A].

Program: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; Description: Assists 
nonurbanized areas with capital and operating expenses needed to 
provide public transportation service. Ten percent of funds may be used 
to pay for ADA paratransit operating costs. 

Program: Job Access and Reverse Commute; Description: Provides grants 
to develop transportation services to connect low-income persons to 
employment and support services. Funds can be used for capital and 
operating costs associated with new or expanded service. 

Program: Capital and Training Assistance for Over-the-Road Bus 
Accessibility; Description: Assists private operators of over-the-road 
buses with financing capital and training costs associated with making 
buses accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

Program: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons 
with Disabilities; Description: Provides financial assistance to 
nonprofit organizations in meeting the transportation needs of elderly 
persons and persons with disabilities where public transportation 
services are unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. Funds may be 
used for eligible capital expenses, such as purchasing vehicles, or to 
contract for service. 

Sources: CTAA and Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

[A] The ADA required that all fixed route transportation services and 
facilities be accessible to individuals with disabilities, including 
wheelchair users. While the ADA gave priority to providing such 
transportation in the same vehicles used by the general riding public, 
it also required complimentary paratransit systems as a "safety net" 
for individuals whose disabilities prevent them from using accessible 
fixed-route services.

[End of table]

Table 2 shows the 11 programs we identified as spending at least $4 
million on transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged in 
fiscal year 2001.

Table 2: Eleven Programs Spending at Least $4 Million in Fiscal Year 
2001:

Agency: Department of Agriculture; Program: Food Stamp Employment and 
Training Program.

Agency: Department of Education; Program: 21st-Century Community 
Learning Centers.

Agency: Department of Labor; Program: Job Corps.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Program: Community 
Health Centers.

Program: HIV Care Grants.

Program: Social Services Block Grants.

Program: State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Program: Community 
Development Block Grant.

Program: Supportive Housing Program.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Program: Automobiles and 
Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans.

Program: Veterans Medical Care.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

Under most of the federal programs providing transportation services, 
funding recipients typically purchase the services from existing 
sources, according to program officials. This includes contracting for 
services with private transportation providers or providing bus tokens, 
transit passes, taxi vouchers, mileage reimbursement to volunteers or 
program participants, or some combination of these methods. For 
example, recipients of funds from DOL's Workforce Investment Act Adult 
Services Program typically provide bus tokens or mileage reimbursement 
for participants to access training, while recipients of HHS's Grants 
for Supportive Services and Senior Centers most often contract with 
local transportation providers to provide client transportation. The 
funding recipients of several programs, however, typically purchase and 
operate vehicles, or modify existing vehicles for use by individuals 
with disabilities. These programs include Head Start and the Program 
for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Hawaiian Elders in HHS; the 
Vocational Rehabilitation Grants Program in the Department of 
Education; and the six programs within DOT.

Several of these programs have requirements for grantees to coordinate 
their services with other agencies providing similar services, which 
would include transportation, among other services. For example, Head 
Start grantees are required to make every reasonable effort to 
coordinate transportation services they provide with other human 
service transportation in their communities. Similarly, DOT's Capital 
Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, 
Job Access and Reverse Commute, and Nonurbanized Area Formula Program 
have requirements for grantees to coordinate their transportation 
services. In addition, some programs have provisions designed to avoid 
duplication of effort and encourage the use of existing community 
resources. For example, Workforce Investment Act programs may use funds 
to support those who are participating in the program only if those 
individuals are unable to obtain services through other programs, 
according to program officials. Also, the Veterans' Workforce 
Investment Program requires grantees to provide information on the 
linkages this program will have with other providers of services to 
benefit veterans.

Extent of Spending on Services for the Transportation-Disadvantaged Is 
Not Fully Known but Is in the Billions of Dollars:

Available information shows that federal programs spent an estimated 
$2.4 billion on transportation services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations in fiscal year 2001, and additional state and 
local spending for these populations was several hundred million 
dollars more. Complete spending information is not available because 
many federal funding recipients are not required to distinguish 
transportation from other spending when reporting spending information 
to federal agencies.

Spending by 29 Federal Programs Is Estimated at $2.4 billion in Fiscal 
Year 2001:

Information on federal spending for transportation is available for 29 
of the 62 programs we identified.[Footnote 16] These programs spent an 
estimated $2.4 billion on transportation services in fiscal year 2001. 
(Appendix II lists available spending data for each federal program.) 
Based on available information, HHS programs as a whole spent the most 
on transportation for transportation-disadvantaged populations in 
2001--an estimated $1.8 billion. Table 3 shows estimated transportation 
spending by the eight federal agencies that fund services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged.

Table 3: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged by Eight Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year 
2001:

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Amount spent on 
transportation for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): 
$1,771.0; Percent of total estimate: 72.4%; Number of programs included 
in estimate: 10; Total number of programs that provide transportation: 
23.

Agency: Department of Transportation; Amount spent on transportation 
for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $317.3; Percent of 
total estimate: 13.0%; Number of programs included in estimate: 6; 
Total number of programs that provide transportation: 6.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Amount spent on transportation 
for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $160.8; Percent of 
total estimate: 6.6%; Number of programs included in estimate: 3; Total 
number of programs that provide transportation: 3.

Agency: Department of Education; Amount spent on transportation for 
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $135.3; Percent of total 
estimate: 5.5%; Number of programs included in estimate: 2; Total 
number of programs that provide transportation: 8.

Agency: Department of Labor; Amount spent on transportation for 
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $26.4; Percent of total 
estimate: 1.1%; Number of programs included in estimate: 3; Total 
number of programs that provide transportation: 15.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; Amount spent on 
transportation for transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $21.7; 
Percent of total estimate: 0.9%; Number of programs included in 
estimate: 4; Total number of programs that provide transportation: 4.

Agency: Department of Agriculture; Amount spent on transportation for 
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $13.0; Percent of total 
estimate: 0.5%; Number of programs included in estimate: 1; Total 
number of programs that provide transportation: 1.

Agency: Department of the Interior; Amount spent on transportation for 
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): Not available; Percent of 
total estimate: 0.0%; Number of programs included in estimate: 0; Total 
number of programs that provide transportation: 2.

Agency: Total (for 8 agencies); Amount spent on transportation for 
transportation-disadvantaged (in millions): $2,445.5; Percent of total 
estimate: 100.0%; Number of programs included in estimate: 29; Total 
number of programs that provide transportation: 62.

Sources: GAO summary of HHS, DOT, VA, Education, DOL, Agriculture, HUD, 
and Interior data and estimates.

[End of table]

More than three-quarters of our estimate is based on spending for 
transportation in five programs. Of the five, Medicaid and Head Start, 
both in HHS, spent the most on transportation in fiscal year 2001--an 
estimated $976.2 million and $514.5 million, respectively. The three 
other programs, all of which spent more than $100 million on services 
for the transportation-disadvantaged in fiscal year 2001, were DOT's 
Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with 
Disabilities,

HHS's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and VA's Veterans 
Medical Care Benefits.

The amount spent on transportation services by the remaining 33 federal 
programs is unknown, mainly because the majority of programs do not 
require recipients of federal funds to report transportation spending 
information to the federal agency.[Footnote 17]

State and Local Transportation Spending Is Unknown, but Is Likely 
Significant:

Total state and local spending for transportation services, which 
supplements federal spending for such programs, is likely significant-
-at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars--although the total is 
unknown because most programs do not require grantees to report these 
data. Matching requirements, which represent the nonfederal 
contributions to the program's costs that come from state, local, or 
private funds, provide some information on state and local spending on 
transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged. About half of the 
62 programs have matching requirements that generally require states 
and localities to contribute between 5 and 50 percent of total 
costs.[Footnote 18] Additionally, limited information from officials in 
the five states we visited indicates that total state and local 
spending on transportation runs into the hundreds of millions of 
dollars. For example:

* Nonfederal contributions for Medicaid nonemergency transportation 
ranged from 32 to 50 percent of the total spending on this service in 
the five states that we visited.[Footnote 19] In New York, 50 percent, 
or an estimated $139.4 million, of the state's total spending on 
Medicaid funded transportation in 2001 was from nonfederal sources. In 
Florida and Wisconsin approximately 40 percent of the total amount 
spent on nonemergency medical transportation in the state was from 
nonfederal sources; state contributions in those states were $28.6 
million and $13.4 million, respectively, in 2001. In Arizona and South 
Dakota, approximately one-third of the total amount spent on Medicaid 
transportation was from nonfederal sources in those states in 2001, 
approximately $7.0 million and $490,000, respectively.

* In Wisconsin nearly 38 percent, or $922,000, of the funding to 
provide transportation services through DOT's Capital Assistance 
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities in 2001 was 
from nonfederal sources. The program requires grantees to provide 20 
percent of total program funding.

* In New York, about 30 percent of the spending on transportation under 
the Department of Education's Vocational Rehabilitation Program in 
2002, or $2.6 million, was from nonfederal sources.[Footnote 20] 
Similarly, about 27 percent or $673,000 of Florida's funding was from 
nonfederal sources in 2001. The program requires states to contribute 
21.3 percent of total costs.

Although some states and localities currently spend a significant 
amount for transportation through federal programs, many now face 
budget deficits that could diminish their future contribution to these 
programs. In a 2003 survey by the National Conference of State 
Legislatures,[Footnote 21] 36 states reported budget deficits midway 
through their fiscal year. Fifteen of these states reported deficits in 
excess of 5 percent of the state budget, and four states are facing 
deficits greater than 10 percent of the state budget. Because 49 states 
have balanced budget requirements, such large deficits could lead to a 
decrease in the amount of funds available to states for programmatic 
spending, including transportation programs. For example, according to 
the National Conference of State Legislatures report, 29 states have 
imposed across-the-board cuts in response to budget deficits.

State budget deficits have affected state transportation spending 
differently in the five states that we visited. For example:

* Two of the states have cut their state programs that local grantees 
used to fund services for the transportation-disadvantaged, according 
to transportation officials in those states. In one state, the state 
legislature eliminated the state's transportation assistance program to 
help deal with the state's budget deficit; as a result, the state 
official and the director of a senior center in the state said that 
some of the projects funded through the program will likely be 
discontinued because grantees cannot find replacement funds. In the 
other state, the state legislature cut a state fund that grantees used 
to supplement federal transportation funding. According to an official, 
the loss of this fund, combined with the increasing costs of fuel and 
insurance, may lead providers to cut service to transportation-
disadvantaged populations by as much as 40 percent.

* In another state, the Governor's plan for closing the state's budget 
gap includes reducing spending on Medicaid nonemergency medical 
transportation by $5 million, or 7.6 percent; however, the state's fund 
dedicated to providing other services for the transportation-
disadvantaged was not recommended for cuts.

* Transportation officials in two states told us that they had not yet 
experienced cuts in state funding for services for the transportation-
disadvantaged. In one of the states, local grantees rely on a state 
transportation fund and a large set-aside of TANF funds to provide 
services to transportation-disadvantaged populations. Without these 
two funds, local grantees would have difficulty financing services for 
the transportation-disadvantaged, according to an official. The other 
state is not currently anticipating cuts in state funding for services 
for transportation-disadvantaged populations, however, according to an 
official, the full impact of the fiscal situation in that state will 
not be known until local governments develop program budgets for 2004 
because the local governments--which are also facing budget 
constraints--play a key role in determining what services will be 
provided.

While some states are not currently experiencing reductions in their 
transportation programs, many states are anticipating that budget 
deficits will continue into 2004. According to the National Conference 
of State Legislatures report, 36 states are anticipating budget gaps 
for 2004; nearly all of these states anticipate gaps greater than 5 
percent of their state budget and half of these states expect gaps 
greater than 10 percent.[Footnote 22]

Coordination Efforts Vary, but Some Successful Efforts Show Promising 
Results:

Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through 
coordination of transportation activities among agencies at all levels 
of government vary. At the state and local levels, the extent and the 
type of coordination activities differ, ranging from one state body 
providing guidance and overseeing coordination efforts for most of its 
programs to two local agencies sharing vehicles. In some areas within 
the five states we visited, coordination among providers has resulted 
in significant benefits, such as improved customer service and lower 
unit costs. However, we also found some examples of overlapping, 
fragmented, or confusing services resulting from a lack of 
coordination. At the federal level, DOT, HHS, and--to some extent--DOL 
have undertaken some activities aimed at improving coordination among 
their programs. DOT and HHS implement many of their activities through 
the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. However, DOT and HHS 
make only a few mentions of coordinating services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged in their strategic and annual performance 
plans, and other agencies do not mention such activities at all. Also, 
several federal agencies that provide services to the transportation-
disadvantaged are not involved in coordination efforts at the national 
level.

Extent of State and Local Transportation Coordination Varies:

While agencies within each state we visited were involved in some form 
of coordination, the extent of coordination of transportation services 
varies widely. For example, Florida has a state organization that 
oversees the coordination of most of the transportation services for 
the transportation-disadvantaged, while some other states we visited 
had no statewide coordination body. Even in states without such a 
coordinating body, however, some state and local agencies are engaged 
in coordination efforts. This variation also occurred in the nation as 
a whole, according to data from a preliminary report by the National 
Academy of Sciences' Transportation Research Board, which found that 
roughly half of U.S. states have a state transportation coordinating 
body. [Footnote 23] (See appendix III for information on the type of 
coordination in the five states we visited and the state agencies 
involved.) 
Within each state, local efforts also varied. Examples of coordination 
activities include the following:

Coordinated planning: In this type of coordination, some combination of 
human service and transportation agencies and providers work together 
to plan transportation services for their clients. For example, in 
northwestern Wisconsin, at the initiative of staff from a center for 
independent living, the Area Consortium on Transportation was formed in 
2001 to improve the planning and provision of transportation for the 
disabled and others who are transit-dependent. The council--which 
consists of consumers, transit providers, county and city officials, 
disability organizations, and aging groups--is instituting several 
pilot programs to test various methods of coordination.

Brokerage: [Footnote 24] In this type of coordination, one agency or 
provider serves as the central point of contact for providing ride and 
eligibility information or actually arranging transportation services 
for clients of multiple programs. For example, officials in several New 
York counties wanted to maximize residents' mobility by coordinating 
transportation services offered by various federal and state programs, 
but lacked the expertise or start-up costs to do so. With a grant from 
the state Departments of Transportation and Health, the counties 
instituted a coordination demonstration project whereby one agency 
arranges an average of 2,500 daily trips for clients from a number of 
populations--such as the disabled, senior citizens, former welfare 
recipients, and others--served by different federal and state programs.

Shared use of vehicles among multiple programs: In this type of 
coordination, 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 Arizona, vans from 
one county's vocational rehabilitation center travel to a neighboring 
county to pick up program clients. While there, they also transport 
clients of Jobs Administration programs. The two programs split the 
cost of transportation equally.

Appendix IV contains a list of some informational resources available 
for agencies interested in coordinating.

Coordination Has Led to Improvements, While Lack of Coordination Can 
Result in Overlap:

In some areas we visited, coordination among providers--through sharing 
vehicles, consolidating services under a single agency, or sharing 
information about available services--has resulted in significant 
benefits, such as improved customer service and lower unit costs. State 
and local agencies providing transportation under the 62 federal 
programs often serve similar client groups, provide similar services, 
and operate in similar geographic areas, so there can be duplication of 
effort and inefficiency in providing transportation when those agencies 
do not coordinate. In our site visits, we found several examples of 
overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services in places where agencies 
were not coordinating.

Benefits of Coordination:

Through coordination, some local agencies have realized both improved 
levels of service and financial benefits, such as reduced costs of 
providing each trip, as follows:

Improved customer service:

* A coordinated system in central Florida provides transportation for 
Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation, and other programs. According to 
local officials, vans used to show up late, if at all, and clients had 
difficulty finding out the status of their ride. Since consolidating 
services under a single provider and bringing scheduling and dispatch 
services in-house, officials report service improvement.

* Through collaboration, information-sharing, and cost-sharing among 
county agencies, the Clinton County transit system in New York serves 
both Medicaid and elderly populations, making it easier for those 
populations to access medical and community services because they only 
have to be familiar with one system.

* A federal regional official said that coordination could remove the 
stigma of specialized transportation because all recipients use the 
same service and are treated equally.

Financial benefits:

* Three New York counties joined in a transportation brokering service 
that saved an estimated $92,000 in 2001 by identifying a lower-cost 
alternative means of transportation, that is, moving groups of clients 
in buses rather than transporting individual clients in taxis. This 
brokerage service provides transportation to Medicaid patients, the 
disabled, veterans, and other client groups.

* In Aberdeen, South Dakota, the local transit agency consolidated the 
transportation services previously provided by both senior and medical 
centers as well as other federal, state, and local programs. This 
consolidation allowed the agency to increase the number of trips 
provided while reducing the average cost of providing each trip by 
about 20 percent--from about $5 to $4. The agency has also improved its 
services by coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and 
weekend trips.

Effects of a Lack of Coordination:

Although the various programs we reviewed target specific populations, 
some populations are eligible to receive transportation services from 
multiple programs, resulting in duplication and inefficiency in some 
cases. In our visits with state and local transportation and human 
service agencies and providers, officials we interviewed identified 
several examples of overlapping services in areas or programs that were 
not coordinating. A for-profit transportation provider in one state 
told us that he often has two vehicles overlap on the same route at the 
same time, one for medical trips and one for paratransit,[Footnote 25] 
because it is too difficult to mix clients due to complicated fee 
structures and paperwork requirements imposed by the state for the two 
programs. An official from a workforce development program in another 
state told us that many programs in his county use their own vans to 
deliver clients to the job center, but because the programs do not 
coordinate, only a few people ride in each van. In another locality 
that state and local officials said has had difficulty coordinating, 
several human service providers hired a consultant to study the extent 
to which various agencies provide similar transportation services 
within a geographic region. This research showed substantial overlap in 
local services for the transportation-disadvantaged, as shown in figure 
2. The consultant identified ways in which the number of routes could 
be substantially reduced through better coordination, which are being 
considered by the agencies involved.

Figure 2: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota:

[See PDF for image]

Note: This picture shows the daily routes of vehicles operated by seven 
different agencies in the same region of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 
Overlap occurs when routes have the same or nearby starting and ending 
points and are transporting similar clients at similar times. This 
graphic illustrates that many of these agencies have similar starting 
and ending points. Among the agencies shown in this graphic are two 
vocational rehabilitation agencies (serving the same general 
population) as well as agencies that serve low-income clients or 
clients with disabilities. While the graphic cannot show the time 
element, many of these routes represent trips occurring within 30 
minutes of each other in the morning and afternoon.

[End of figure]

State and local officials also provided examples of fragmented services 
and confusion in localities without coordinated programs. One official 
in an uncoordinated area said that a lack of coordination results in 
fragmented services, placing a burden on people who receive 
transportation through many different programs, depending on trip 
purpose, because they must be familiar with multiple systems, rules, 
and requirements. Fragmentation also occurs when adjoining counties do 
not coordinate their public transportation routes, leaving riders 
stranded due to unconnected transit systems. In one state, local 
officials told us that paratransit services do not extend beyond county 
lines, so people have to schedule two separate trips to get from their 
homes in one county to medical services in an adjoining county. When 
the first paratransit ride is behind schedule, a passenger sometimes 
has to wait for hours for the connecting ride. A provider in another 
state has contracts to provide transportation services for clients in 
multiple human service programs. Because of a lack of coordination 
among those programs, the transportation provider said that his company 
has to maintain two separate dispatching and reservation systems for 
its vehicles to comply with differing reporting and eligibility 
requirements. Vehicles can only operate under one dispatching system at 
a time, so the drivers cannot provide rides to more than one type of 
client at a time. The provider also said that clients who call for 
rides are confused by the sheer number of programs, and the agents who 
make their reservations do not know for which programs the clients are 
eligible.

Federal Progress toward Improved Coordination Varies:

Although the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility and various 
federal agencies have taken a number of steps to improve coordination, 
these efforts have had mixed results.

Some Prior Recommendations to the Coordinating Council Have Been 
Implemented:

As shown in table 4, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility--
a body consisting of representatives from DOT and HHS--has responded to 
three of the recommendations we made in our 1999 report[Footnote 26] by 
adopting a strategic plan, developing an action plan, and helping to 
ensure that planned coordination efforts reinforce one another by 
issuing guidelines for coordinating transportation services. Goals and 
objectives in the strategic plan include such things as promoting 
interdepartmental collaboration at the federal level through the 
development of a joint agenda for transportation research that is of 
common use to multiple federal departments. According to the most 
recent action plan, the Council has completed some activities, such as 
producing a series of "how to" publications on using intelligent 
transportation systems to assist in the coordination of HHS programs 
with local transit agencies.

Table 4: Status of Federal Responses to GAO's Recommendations to 
Improve Coordination:

Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The DOT/ HHS Coordinating Council 
on Access and Mobility should adopt a prioritized strategic plan.; 
Completed: Yes; Under way: No.

Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should 
develop an action plan with specific responsibilities.; Completed: Yes; 
Under way: No.

Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should 
issue an annual report on its major initiatives and accomplishments to 
the Secretaries of DOT and HHS.; Completed: No; Under way: Yes.

Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: DOT and HHS should ensure that 
planned coordination efforts reinforce one another.; Completed: Yes; 
Under way: No.

Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: DOT and HHS should direct their 
regional working groups to assess obstacles to transportation 
coordination.; Completed: No; Under way: Yes.

Recommendations from 1999 GAO report: The Coordinating Council should 
strengthen its Web site and make information available on obstacles to 
coordination and strategies to overcome them.; Completed: No; 
Under way: Yes.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

The Council's responses to the other three recommendations are still 
ongoing. For example, Council representatives told us that they plan to 
issue their first annual report on coordination achievements in June 
2003, although this report was originally due to be issued in October 
2000, according to the Council's strategic plan. With regard to the 
recommendation on regional working groups, the 10 DOT and HHS regional 
offices have been convening workshops with state transportation 
officials during 2003 to discuss obstacles to coordination and other 
issues.

Finally, the Council's efforts to strengthen its Web site have had 
mixed results. One of the tasks listed in the Council's strategic plan 
is to develop and maintain a Web site that would, among other things, 
enhance the exchange of coordination ideas, issues, and concerns. The 
Council has developed a Web site[Footnote 27]--operated by DOT in 
conjunction with CTAA--that is reachable through a link on the Federal 
Transit Administration's section of DOT's Web site. However, there is 
no similar link from HHS's Web site (or the Web sites of other federal 
agencies that fund transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged), possibly making it more difficult for human service and 
other agencies to be aware of and access the site. In addition, the 
site does not yet contain specific information on obstacles to 
coordination or strategies for overcoming them, which we recommended in 
1999, though it does contain links to some reports on the subject. 
There is also a page from which viewers can E-mail the Council with 
questions or suggestions. The Council is working with CTAA to further 
strengthen the site.

DOT and HHS Have Sponsored Other Coordination Activities:

Through the Council, DOT and HHS have sponsored a number of other 
efforts to enhance coordination. For example, as part of an item in the 
Council's action plan, DOT and HHS helped initiate a consortium of 
national professional organizations and interest groups[Footnote 28] to 
conduct research and provide educational activities related to 
coordinating services for the transportation-disadvantaged. Among 
other tasks, the consortium has been asked to pursue several items from 
the Council's action plan, such as identifying promising practices and 
obstacles in transportation coordination and developing strategies for 
addressing the obstacles. Officials from the Council said that working 
with the consortium provides a depth of knowledge and experience 
because consortium members represent local as well as national 
interests so that issues are pursued "from both ends.":

As part of the upcoming regional workshops sponsored by the DOT and HHS 
regional offices, participants will discuss expanded opportunities for 
achieving more coordinated delivery of transportation services in 
medical, aging, and other assistance programs, and technical assistance 
resources will be shared with participants. Intended audiences include 
state transportation coordinating councils; state agencies that 
administer medical, aging, and other assistance programs; and agencies 
serving individuals with disabilities. According to DOT and HHS, 
participants will be asked to develop state transportation coordination 
action plans for their home state, and resources will be made available 
to assist states in implementing their plans following the workshop. 
(See appendix III for more information on federal coordination 
activities.):

Coordination Remains Largely Unaddressed in Strategic Planning Efforts:

Because it is not a federal executive branch agency, the Coordinating 
Council is not subject to the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993[Footnote 29] and, therefore, 
does not have to follow the act's guidance for producing strategic 
plans, annual performance plans, and annual reports. However, there are 
several best practices in strategic planning that could be useful 
guides for improving the Council's strategic plan when it is updated at 
the end of 2003 and the action plan when it is next updated. For 
example, the current strategic plan does not contain an overall mission 
statement for the Council or performance measures that clearly relate 
to its long-term goals and objectives, both of which are considered 
best practices in strategic planning.[Footnote 30] In addition, there 
are no explicit links between the stated goals and objectives in the 
strategic plan and the activities in the action plan. For example, the 
current action plan includes seven tasks related to the use of 
information technology systems, but those tasks are not clearly linked 
to any of the Council's long-term goals or objectives.

Because the Council has no funding or full-time staff of its own, it is 
dependent on support from HHS and DOT. However, neither department 
currently highlights the coordination of services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged as a priority in its long-term strategic 
plan or annual performance plan. According to GPRA guidance, agencies 
are encouraged to identify programs with common purposes or 
crosscutting issues in their strategic plans. In addition, the 
agencies' annual performance plans should identify performance goals 
that reflect activities being undertaken to support programs of a 
crosscutting nature, and show evidence of coordination among 
crosscutting programs.[Footnote 31] DOT's most recent strategic plan 
and performance plan do not explicitly mention the Coordinating 
Council, although both briefly discuss coordinating special-needs 
transportation with other federal agencies under DOT's Job Access and 
Reverse Commute (JARC) program. However, there is no mention of 
coordination of DOT's Transit Capital Assistance Program for Elderly 
Persons and Persons with Disabilities with other programs for elderly 
or disabled populations.[Footnote 32] At the subagency level, the 
Federal Transit Administration's strategic plan includes the 
Coordinating Council in an appendix on coordination of crosscutting 
functions, under the strategic goal of promoting economic growth and 
trade, and its performance plan mentions working with the Council under 
a different goal--that of promoting mobility and 
accessibility.[Footnote 33]

HHS's current strategic plan does not discuss coordination of 
transportation services with other agencies, but its draft plan for 
2003-2008 specifically lists DOT and state and local transportation and 
human service agencies as important partners in providing 
transportation to access services in distressed communities and for 
health care and employment and training programs elsewhere. Education, 
DOL, HUD, and VA are not listed, however.[Footnote 34] The performance 
plans of individual HHS components vary widely in their treatment of 
transportation coordination. For example, the performance plan of the 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid does not mention transportation at all, 
while the Administration on Aging's performance plan states that the 
agency works closely with HHS and DOT officials on the Coordinating 
Council in pursuit of improved transportation services.

The strategic and annual performance plans of the other federal 
agencies that fund transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged generally do not mention coordination of such services.

Other Federal Agencies Are Involved in Some Coordination Efforts:

Other federal agencies are also involved in some coordination efforts 
outside the scope of the Council. For example, DOL is working with CTAA 
and DOT to implement several rounds of pilot projects testing various 
transportation strategies in support of local one-stop employment and 
training centers.[Footnote 35] Officials from DOT and DOL are also in 
the process of developing guidelines for using Workforce Investment Act 
funds (a DOL program) for Job Access purposes (a DOT program). In 
addition, some of DOL's research studies and technical assistance 
materials provide examples of transportation coordination 
efforts.[Footnote 36] However, we did not find examples of involvement 
in transportation coordination efforts at the national level at the 
Departments of Education, HUD, and VA, although some of these agencies 
are involved in transportation working groups in some of the federal 
regional offices. The membership of the Coordinating Council only 
consists of DOT and HHS officials, representing less than half of the 
62 federal programs that can be used to fund services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged. Although these two agencies comprise the 
majority of funding for transportation that we were able to identify, 
the Departments of Labor and Education also have a significant number 
of programs--more than one-third of the total--that provide services to 
the transportation-disadvantaged. Officials from the Council said that 
other agencies had expressed interest in coordination activities and 
had been invited to observe Council meetings in the past, but only DOL 
sent a representative for a short time period.[Footnote 37] Council 
officials said it would be very beneficial to have other agencies 
formally involved in their coordination efforts, which would require a 
renewal of the Council's charter and memorandums of understanding among 
all agencies involved as well as other formal mechanisms to ensure that 
the proper people are engaged in the effort.

Officials Cited Numerous Obstacles to Successfully Coordinating 
Services and Provided Potential Options to Mitigate Them:

Although some federal, state, and local agencies encourage the 
coordination of services for the transportation-disadvantaged and some 
coordination efforts have been established, federal, state, and local 
officials, as well as representatives of national advocacy and industry 
organizations with whom we spoke, identified numerous obstacles that 
impede effective coordination. We clustered the wide range of 
identified obstacles into three categories related to (1) sharing 
vehicles and the low priority given to funding coordination activities; 
(2) programmatic differences; and (3) limited federal, state, and local 
leadership and commitment to undertake and sustain coordination 
efforts. To mitigate these obstacles, these officials and other experts 
suggested three potential options: harmonizing standards and 
requirements among federal programs with a transportation component, 
providing and disseminating additional guidance and information on 
coordination, and providing financial incentives or mandates to 
coordinate.

Officials May Be Reluctant to Share Vehicles and Provide Financial 
Resources for Coordination:

One set of obstacles was related to officials' reluctance to share 
vehicles or their tendency to give low priority to funding coordination 
activities. In addition, some areas have limited transportation 
services available, thus limiting any opportunities to benefit from 
coordination.

Apprehension about Sharing Vehicles:

In interviews in every state we visited, as well as with national 
advocacy and industry organizations, the unwillingness or inability to 
share vehicles was identified as a major obstacle. Administrators of 
some federal programs may be apprehensive about sharing vehicles for 
coordination due, in part, to their belief that only they understand 
their clients' needs and can provide the necessary personalized 
services. For example, program administrators reported being concerned 
about a loss of control over the quality and convenience of 
transportation services for their clients and wanted to maintain their 
discretion over how to serve their clients and which transportation 
resources to purchase. Program administrators also expressed concern 
over mixing vulnerable populations, such as the developmentally 
disabled and children, or frail, sick, and healthy populations, in one 
coordinated system. According to a report on coordinated transportation 
systems, this reluctance among providers to cooperate can lead to an 
underutilization of vehicles.[Footnote 38] Likewise, some human service 
clients may be apprehensive about using coordinated transportation 
because they may be uncomfortable mixing with members of other 
populations with whom they are unfamiliar or they may fear a loss of 
accommodation or convenience, such as having to switch from door-to-
door service to curb-to-curb service or public transit.

Low Priority Given to Funding Coordination Activities:

The overall costs of coordination, which can include additional staff 
members and staff time needed for maintaining and overseeing 
coordination efforts, can be significant. For example, a transportation 
brokerage firm in one state faced substantial added costs when it began 
coordinating transportation for human services programs due to 
requirements to meet more stringent state and federal safety standards. 
However, some officials stated that the low priority given to funding 
coordination activities could impede coordination efforts. For example, 
according to officials in one state, although recipients of funds from 
DOT's Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with 
Disabilities are required to coordinate with other local transportation 
services provided from federal sources, the program's current allotment 
for administrative expenses would not support any staff to work on 
coordination activities. In addition, some states invest in 
coordination, while others do not allocate funds specifically for 
coordination, and efforts to coordinate often become ancillary 
activities for those involved.

Limited Transportation Services Available to Realize Benefits from 
Coordination:

Guidelines issued by the Coordinating Council state that coordination 
will not solve all transportation problems in all communities.[Footnote 
39] Coordination may not be an effective strategy in those communities 
that have limited transportation services available, particularly in 
those communities that are not served by public transportation. For 
example, in some remote areas--such as the northwestern part of South 
Dakota where services available to many communities are 40 to 60 miles 
away--there are few transportation services available to transport 
individuals to hospitals or other services. In these areas, 
coordination may not be a workable or cost-effective option.

Differing Program Requirements Can Impede Coordination:

Coordinating multiple programs administered at various levels of 
government is complicated because the programs have different 
requirements with respect to eligibility, funding, reporting, and 
safety; and they differ in their programmatic goals and missions.

Different Eligibility Requirements:

Federal program rules that specify the eligible populations that each 
program can serve may limit opportunities for collaboration. For 
example, DOT officials in one region stated that they were unable to 
combine DOL and DOT funds for a DOT transportation program for migrant 
farm workers because DOL funds are designated for U.S. citizens, while 
there is no such restriction on the use of DOT funds. In addition, some 
liability insurance policies specify that a program's vehicles may 
serve only a certain population, thus those programs face additional 
insurance costs to transport individuals other than program clients. 
Such restrictions may lead to inefficient transportation services 
within a community. For example, an official in one state we visited 
commented that one agency's vehicle provided medically related trips 
three times per week to that agency's clients, but would not transport 
other individuals seeking similar medical services provided under other 
federal programs due, in part, to liability insurance restrictions. 
Safety requirements may also vary by program and jurisdiction, thus 
complicating efforts to transport multiple client groups. Some 
programs, such as Head Start, have specific vehicle standards that are 
often more stringent than those of other programs, making it difficult 
to share vehicles. For instance, different standards for roof strength, 
types of seat belts, and driver qualifications pose problems for 
schools, human service agencies, and public transit providers 
interested in sharing vehicles. Some areas have been able to overcome 
specific program rules to share vehicles. For example, a Head Start 
grantee in one state we visited was able to transport students using 
vehicles supplied by the local public transit provider because these 
vehicles met the same safety standards as school buses.

Varying Funding Streams and Cycles:

Funding streams and cycles vary across federal programs, making 
coordination more difficult. For example, DOT funds generally flow from 
the state to counties or cities, while DOL funds flow through the state 
to local designees. In addition, funding for programs such as Head 
Start flow directly to grantees rather than through states, making it 
more difficult for the states to directly manage the coordination 
activities of local grantees, according to an official in one state. 
There is also complexity in working with different funding time frames 
and cycles under multiple federal programs. For example, although DOT's 
JARC program allows grantees to use other federal funds to provide the 
local "match" required to obtain JARC funds, the funding time frames 
and cycles of these other funding sources are different, complicating 
efforts to combine financial resources.

Lack of Uniform Data Collection and Reporting Requirements among 
Programs:

Different reporting requirements among programs can create excessive 
paperwork in a coordinated system and may make it difficult for 
agencies to determine their true transportation costs and the benefits 
that may be realized from coordination. For example, one report 
commented that a transit provider was required to give each of several 
human service agencies a separate bill for services provided, which 
reflected the unique requirements imposed by each of those 
agencies.[Footnote 40] Furthermore, according to officials, Medicaid 
requires the state Medicaid agency to demonstrate that individuals 
receiving transportation under Medicaid are not receiving 
transportation from any other source and that the transportation is 
medically necessary, complicating the determination of how to fund 
transportation services for each Medicaid recipient in a coordinated 
system in which costs are shared among agencies. In addition, human 
service agencies and providers may not be required or accustomed to 
collecting complete and uniform transportation data for their programs. 
A recent report concluded that such information was beneficial because 
it enabled administrators to re-evaluate how best to provide 
transportation services and the savings they could achieve through 
coordination.[Footnote 41] For example, when Florida's statewide 
coordination program was established, state and local agencies in 
Florida reported their total estimated annual transportation-related 
expenditures at $8 million. However, once reporting requirements were 
in place for all agencies providing services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, actual expenditures were estimated to total $224.9 
million statewide--much higher than the initial estimate. Such 
information has helped agencies in Florida understand the true costs of 
providing transportation and has encouraged some agencies to become 
more interested in coordination as they realize the potential for cost 
savings.

Distinct Purposes and Goals among Agencies:

Unlike transportation agencies, human service agencies provide 
transportation as a secondary service so that their clients may access 
primary human services. Therefore, while DOT-funded transportation 
agencies have specific and relatively uniform federal requirements for 
transportation planning, human service agencies do not typically 
conduct transportation planning or collect transportation-related data 
for their programs, making the planning of coordinated transportation 
between transit and human service agencies challenging.[Footnote 42] In 
addition, human service, transportation, medical, and workforce 
agencies all have distinct technical languages and cultures, which may 
inhibit collaboration among these agencies. In one state we visited, 
the labor and transportation departments experienced difficulty 
collaborating because some common terms have completely different 
meanings within each agency. For example, transportation officials 
interpreted the term "cost-allocation" as an accounting methodology to 
estimate the overall cost of operating transportation services in order 
to determine the appropriate rate to charge for these services, while 
state labor officials interpreted the term as a way to determine what 
proportion of overall costs will be funded by each agency.

Program Officials May Not Know How to Coordinate Effectively:

Although some federal and state agencies have recognized the potential 
offered by coordination and provided some assistance toward this end, 
officials we interviewed expressed concerns about the amount and 
effectiveness of the guidance they have received on coordination. In 
addition, the absence of interagency forums or other mechanisms to 
develop and share information about coordination initiatives limits the 
support that local providers receive to effectively coordinate.

Limited Federal Guidance and Information on Coordination:

Officials in some states we visited said that they receive little 
federal guidance on potential strategies to coordinate services. As a 
result, they develop their own approaches without the benefit of 
guidance on the most effective way to coordinate services. We found the 
following examples of this in our work:

* Officials in one state said that the guidance on how to share costs 
among programs for projects funded jointly by DOT's JARC grants, HHS's 
TANF Program, and DOL's Welfare-to-Work Program funds did not indicate 
how such sharing could or should be done. Instead, the officials had to 
seek advice from other states.

* While FTA disseminated coordination guidelines for FTA and HHS 
programs to transportation officials, some HHS and transportation 
officials said these guidelines were not widely disseminated to human 
services officials or programs.

* According to state Medicaid offices and a national organization of 
individuals and agencies concerned with human services, the Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services have not provided sufficient guidance on 
how to coordinate Medicaid transportation with existing public transit 
or other transportation resources.

* The Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility has limited 
visibility for agencies actually involved in implementing coordination 
efforts. In several states, human service program administrators with 
whom we spoke were not aware of the Council or its Web site.

Limited State Guidance and Leadership on Coordination:

In the five states we visited--even in those states with a coordinating 
body--there was limited state guidance to help local areas implement 
coordination, and some officials stated that the lack of leadership and 
commitment at the state level was a major obstacle to local 
coordination. In addition, while some states have established 
coordinating councils or bodies or have designated a lead agency for 
coordination, nearly half of the states have no coordinating body, 
according to one report.[Footnote 43] Officials in one state explained 
that the lack of a coordinating body that requires various agencies to 
discuss and resolve transportation issues is the main obstacle toward a 
more coordinated system.

Limited Local Leadership and Commitment to Coordinate:

Even in states with a coordinating council or a lead state agency, 
there may be a lack of local leadership or commitment to coordination 
efforts. For example, one city we visited was unsuccessful in achieving 
a coordinated system despite state encouragement to coordinate and some 
state-provided technical assistance. Stakeholders there described a 
lack of local commitment and leadership in maintaining lines of 
communication among those involved in coordination efforts as a factor 
leading to the failure. In addition, program administrators may not 
have data on the extent of existing transportation services that may be 
available to their clients within a geographic region and, therefore, 
may fail to realize the extent of overlapping and complementary 
services within their local area. Such data can produce improvements. 
For example, in response to a lack of data on local services, an agency 
in one state we visited took the lead in conducting a study that showed 
the extent to which various agencies provide similar transportation 
services within a geographic region. An agency official was hopeful 
that once other agencies saw the extent of overlap, they would be more 
willing to coordinate.

Potential Options to Improve Coordination:

Federal, state, and local officials, as well as experts in the area, 
have suggested three potential options to improve coordination of 
transportation services among federal programs: (1) harmonizing 
standards and requirements among federal programs, (2) expanding 
interagency forums and providing and disseminating additional guidance 
and information on coordination, and (3) providing financial incentives 
or coordination mandates.

Harmonizing Program Standards and Requirements:

Officials and experts expressed a need to harmonize requirements among 
federal programs, such as providing more flexible regulatory language 
that would allow providers to serve additional client groups, creating 
consistent cost accounting methods, and adopting common safety 
standards. For example, one official commented that federal program 
regulations could include language permitting other client groups to 
make use of available transportation options. Also, some officials 
believed that adopting standard accounting procedures among all federal 
human service programs could provide a consistent measure for comparing 
services, allowing administrators to evaluate how best to provide 
transportation services and determine the savings they could achieve 
through coordination. Likewise, making standards for safety (e.g., 
types of seat belts), driver training, and liability insurance 
provisions uniform among federal human service programs, as 
appropriate, may facilitate the shared use of vehicles and drivers in 
one coordinated system, according to some officials. Finally, some 
officials suggested that federal grant programs that allow the use of 
funds from multiple sources should be under the same funding cycle or 
time frame so that these funds may be combined more easily. These 
officials also commented that harmonizing the time frames under which 
federal funding is allocated could possibly aid collaborative planning. 
However, differing program standards exist to ensure that the distinct 
needs of specific target populations are adequately served and that 
agencies maintain accountability for providing these services. Thus, 
the benefits from any change in standards or requirements would need to 
be balanced against continuing to properly meet client needs and 
sufficiently control funds distributed to grantees. In addition, 
harmonizing program standards and requirements among 62 federal 
programs authorized by more than 20 pieces of legislation would 
necessitate extensive legislative changes and could impose additional 
costs for agencies to meet new requirements.

Expanding Interagency Forums and Providing and Disseminating Additional 
Guidance and Information on Coordination:

Some officials advocated expanding the number of agencies involved in 
coordination, establishing interagency forums, and improving central 
clearinghouses as ways to better develop and disseminate guidance on 
coordination. To enhance coordination efforts at the federal level, 
some officials suggested expanding the membership of the Coordinating 
Council on Access and Mobility to include additional federal agencies, 
so that a broader array of agencies that serve the transportation-
disadvantaged are represented. This could include agencies such as DOL 
and the Department of Education that we identified as being significant 
because a large number of their programs authorize funding of 
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged. In 
addition, establishing state-level forums may also facilitate 
communication among agencies involved in coordination and can lead to 
benefits. For example, one state has established an interagency task 
force on transportation coordination, which has resulted in a number of 
benefits--including the pooling of vehicles and the expansion of 
services--in some areas of the state. Some officials and experts 
suggested that federal agencies provide additional guidance and other 
information that result from forums or other sources to clearly define 
the allowable uses of funds, assist agencies in developing cost-sharing 
arrangements for transporting common clientele, and encourage the 
establishment and participation in interagency forums. This additional 
guidance and information could be better disseminated through a central 
clearinghouse, such as the Coordinating Council's Web site.

Providing Financial Incentives or Mandates:

Some officials and experts believed that incentives or mandates could 
help improve coordination, although others expressed concerns that such 
actions would have negative effects on the ability of local agencies to 
respond to community needs. Officials provided several examples, 
including the following:

* Federal grant applications could contain provisions giving priority 
in funding to those grantees committed to coordination efforts.

* With legislative changes, current funds allotted by multiple federal 
sources could be combined into one federal, state, or local fund for 
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged.

* Funding opportunities could be tied to federal or state coordination 
mandates so that there are financial consequences for a failure to 
coordinate.

However, officials pointed out that these options also had some 
potential downsides that would need to be carefully considered. For 
example, combining funds into a single source could result in some 
populations being unfairly overlooked because smaller agencies at the 
state or local level would be at a disadvantage in competing for 
funding with larger agencies serving more clients. Several officials 
also raised concerns about mandates to coordinate. For example, some 
officials said that mandates might reduce the flexibility of agencies 
to design and deliver transportation services that specifically address 
their communities' needs. In addition, some officials noted that state 
efforts or mandates might not guarantee successful local coordination. 
For example, a city in one state we visited was unsuccessful in 
coordinating its multiple transportation services despite state 
encouragement to do so and despite losing some federal funding as a 
result.

Conclusions:

Successful coordination among programs for the transportation-
disadvantaged is not a simple matter. One clear need, given the sheer 
number of programs involved, is active and sustained leadership at the 
federal level. While the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility is 
positioned to supply that leadership, its efforts are constrained in 
two main ways. The first is limited membership: only two departments--
DOT and HHS--are members. While these departments administer nearly 30 
programs that can be used for transportation, the Departments of 
Education and Labor administer almost as many. The absence of Education 
and Labor lessens the ability to muster a collective effort for greater 
coordination. The second constraint is a limited ability to translate a 
strategic vision into a set of actions. At present, there are no clear 
links between the long-term goals in the Council's strategic plan and 
the individual tasks in its action plan. Without such links, the 
Council risks judging its progress on the basis of activities 
undertaken rather than on the outcomes of those activities and their 
contribution toward achieving long-term goals. Linking these goals and 
actions to the strategic and annual performance plans of participating 
departments--because the Council relies heavily on support from its 
member agencies--would provide an additional incentive to pursue 
coordination activities in the departments' activities.

There is great diversity in the specific suggestions we received about 
how to overcome obstacles to greater coordination. Two of the three 
main options raised by various officials we interviewed--making federal 
program standards more uniform and creating some type of requirement or 
financial incentive for coordination--would require substantial 
statutory or regulatory changes and include potential costs. The third 
option, expanding forums and disseminating guidance, can be done in the 
context of existing laws, regulations, and procedures, and may, 
therefore, be the most expeditious starting point. In this regard, 
clarification from federal agencies about how funds can be used for 
coordination could help state and local agencies overcome some of the 
obstacles identified. Similarly, state and local agencies may be in a 
better position to coordinate efforts if they have more knowledge about 
what has worked elsewhere. Although the Council has a Web site with 
information about coordinating transportation services, some state and 
local officials were unaware of it. State and local officials' point of 
contact is more likely to be the Web site of the department 
administering the program at the federal level. Establishing better 
links between the Council's Web site and the sites of the departments 
could help connect grantees with information that may help them 
coordinate with other programs, better serve clients, and use funds 
more efficiently.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

* To increase communication and collaboration among the major agencies 
involved in providing transportation services for the transportation-
disadvantaged, we recommend that the Secretaries of the Departments of 
Labor and Education join the Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility.

* To promote and enhance federal, state, and local transportation 
coordination activities, we recommend that the Secretaries of the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation take the following actions:

* As member agencies of the Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility, ensure that the long-term goals in the Council's strategic 
plan have clear links to the individual tasks in its action plan and 
that these actions are tied to measurable annual performance goals.

* Ensure that strategic and annual performance plans discuss their 
departments' transportation coordination efforts and incorporate long-
term goals and performance measures that address the need for 
coordination among programs for the transportation-disadvantaged.

* Develop and distribute additional guidance to states and other 
grantees that encourages coordinated transportation by clearly defining 
the allowable uses of funds, explaining how to develop cost-sharing 
arrangements for transporting common clientele, and clarifying whether 
funds can be used to serve individuals other than the program's target 
population.

* Link the Web sites of their agencies involved in providing services 
for the transportation-disadvantaged to the Coordinating Council's Web 
site and advertise the site in agency correspondence and during 
conferences or other outreach opportunities.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, 
Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans 
Affairs with draft copies of this report for their review and comment. 
We requested verification of key facts from the Departments of 
Agriculture and the Interior, but we did not seek comments from these 
departments because they did not administer significant numbers of 
programs that benefit the transportation-disadvantaged.

All six departments generally agreed with the findings and conclusions 
in the report and provided technical clarifications, which were 
incorporated as appropriate. The four departments to whom we made 
recommendations--Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation--also generally concurred with those recommendations. 
In particular:

* The Department of Health and Human Services provided written comments 
on the draft of this report which are presented and evaluated in 
appendix V. The department noted that it has initiated actions to 
implement our recommendations, including (1) strengthening the linkage 
between the Coordinating Council's strategic and action plans, (2) 
reviewing the department-wide strategic plan for opportunities to 
reflect its transportation coordination efforts, (3) developing 
coordination guidance, and (4) linking the Coordinating Council's Web 
site to the Department of Health and Human Services' Web site. The 
department also suggested that we consider incorporating other 
researchers' estimates of transportation spending by health and human 
service programs. However, we estimated program expenditures only for 
those programs where there was sufficient evidence to support an 
estimate.

* Department of Labor officials stated that the department looks 
forward to joining the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility to 
improve the transportation services provided by federal human service 
programs. In addition, department officials commented that the 
reauthorization of some human service and surface transportation 
legislation was forthcoming during the preparation of this report and 
that these legislative changes may impact the future directions of the 
federal programs included in this report.

* The Department of Education provided written comments on the draft of 
this report, which are presented in appendix VI. The department said 
that it would look favorably on an opportunity to join the Coordinating 
Council on Access and Mobility and it would consider developing 
coordination guidance for state and other grantees and instituting 
methods of linking Web-based information resources about 
transportation.

* Department of Transportation officials said that the Federal Transit 
Administration is committed to accomplishing effective transportation 
coordination and noted that the list of the agency's activities and 
accomplishments in appendix III of this report demonstrate its 
commitment and support for coordination. It also stated that the 
administration's proposal for the reauthorization of surface 
transportation legislation, introduced in May 2003, includes provisions 
that would encourage further coordination efforts.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and to the Secretaries and other appropriate officials of 
the Departments of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Labor, 
Education, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, 
Agriculture, and the Interior. We also will make copies available to 
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at 
siggerudk@gao.gov or at (202) 512-2834. Additional GAO contacts and 
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.

Katherine Siggerud 
Acting Director 
Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Katherine Siggerud: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Our scope of work included federal programs that provide transportation 
services to the transportation-disadvantaged. To provide information on 
the purposes and types of such federal programs, we first determined 
the universe of programs by reviewing an existing inventory produced by 
the Community Transportation Association of America[Footnote 44] and a 
report prepared for the Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility.[Footnote 45] We then supplemented and modified this inventory 
of programs on the basis of interviews with agency officials and 
searches of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. We included 
only those programs that provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface 
transportation services of any kind, targeted to transportation-
disadvantaged populations. We interviewed program administrators to 
identify the general target population and the types of transportation 
services and trips that are typically provided under each program.

To address the issues related to program funding, effects of 
coordination, and coordination obstacles and options, we (1) conducted 
interviews and document reviews in the pertinent eight federal agencies 
that administer the 62 federal programs that fund transportation 
services for the transportation-disadvantaged; (2) conducted five case 
studies in Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; (3) 
reviewed the literature on the challenges encountered in coordinating 
services for the transportation-disadvantaged; and (4) interviewed 
industry representatives and advocacy groups representing elderly and 
disabled populations. We did not verify spending data or estimates 
received from federal agencies for accuracy.

At the federal level, we interviewed officials from the headquarters of 
the Federal Transit Administration in the Department of Transportation; 
the Administration on Aging, the Administration for Children and 
Families, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Health 
Resources Services Administration, the Office of Intergovernmental 
Affairs, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services; the 
Employment and Training Administration in the Department of Labor; the 
Department of Agriculture; the Department of Education; the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of the Interior; and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs. We also interviewed federal 
officials from the 10 regional offices of the Federal Transit 
Administration and some regional officials in the Departments of Health 
and Human Services and Labor. The federal officials we met with 
included representatives of the Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility from the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of 
Health and Human Services.

In conducting our case studies in the five states, we reviewed 
documentation and interviewed more than 100 officials from state and 
local transportation and human service agencies and service providers, 
as well as consumers of transportation services. We judgmentally chose 
the states to include three states without a state mandate or state 
coordinating body and two states with such conditions. We also chose 
states on the basis of relative concentrations of elderly, disabled, 
and low-income populations, and for some, geographic dispersion. Within 
each state, we spoke with state officials responsible for coordinating 
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged and/or 
overseeing funds from the 62 federal programs we identified. We also 
asked some of these state officials for recommendations of local 
officials and transportation providers to interview in a range of 
urban, suburban, and rural areas and coordinated and uncoordinated 
programs within the state.

Finally, we interviewed representatives of professional, industry, and 
advocacy organizations that are part of the National Consortium on the 
Coordination of Human Services Transportation, a group that represents 
a broad spectrum of stakeholders involved with coordination of 
transportation for the disadvantaged. We conducted our work from July 
2002 through June 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards.

[End of section]

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

Program: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service:

Program: Food Stamp Employment and Training Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Service: Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended; 
U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
7 U.S.C. § 2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(I); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Reimbursement or advanced payment for gasoline 
expenses or bus fare; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
To access education, training, employment services, and employment 
placements; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Low-income persons between the ages of 16 and 59; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: $12,952,956[C]. 

Program: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education:

Program: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 20 U.S.C. § 7173(a)
(10); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Contract for 
service; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
educational services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Students from low-income families; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: $84,600,000 (estimate)[D].

Program: Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement: 

Program: Voluntary Public School Choice; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: 20 U.S.C. § 7225a(a); Typical 
uses as reported by program officials: Contract for services, purchase 
and operate vehicles, hire bus drivers 
and transportation directors, purchase bus passes, redesign 
transportation plans including new routing systems, offer professional 
development for bus drivers; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: To access educational services and programs; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Students from under-
performing schools who choose to transfer to higher performing schools; 
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: New program, no 
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Department of Education, Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services:

Program: Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities; 
Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(22), 
1411(a)(1); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Purchase and 
operate vehicles, contract for service; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: To access educational services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Children with disabilities; Fiscal 
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or 
estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Centers for Independent Living; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: 29 U.S.C. §§ 796f-4(b)(3) and 
705(18)(xi); Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Referral, assistance, and training in the use of 
public transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
To access program services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Persons with a significant disability; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate 
available from the federal agency.

Program: Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are 
Blind; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of 
Agriculture, Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: 29 U.S.C. § 796k(e)(5); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Referral, assistance, and 
training in the use of public transportation; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access program services, for general 
trips; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons 
aged 55 or older who have significant visual impairment; Fiscal year 
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate 
available from the federal agency.

Program: Independent Living State Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: 
29 U.S.C. §§ 796e-2(1) and 705(18)(xi); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Referral, assistance, and training in 
the use of public transportation; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: To access program services, employment 
opportunities; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Persons with a significant disability; Fiscal year 2001 federal 
spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available 
from the federal agency.

Program: Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Most 
Significant Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: 
29 U.S.C. §§ 795g and 705(36); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation (e.g. bus, 
taxi, and paratransit), training in the use of public transportation; 
Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access employment 
placements, employment services, and vocational rehabilitation 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons 
with most significant disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending 
on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency[E].

Program: Vocational Rehabilitation Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation
29 U.S.C. § 723(a)(8); Typical uses as reported 
by program officials: 
Transit subsidies for public and private transportation (e.g. 
bus, taxi, and paratransit), training in the use of public 
transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To 
access employment placements, employment services, and vocational 
rehabilitation services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Persons with physical or mental impairments; Fiscal year 
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $50,700,000 (estimate)[E].

Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 
Children and Families:

Program: Child Care and Development Fund; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended; U.S. 
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 9858c; Typical 
uses as reported by program officials
States rarely use CCDF funds for transportation 
and only under very restricted circumstances; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access child care services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Children from low-income 
families; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $0 
(estimate)[F].

Program: Community Services Block Grant Programs; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
Community Opportunities, Accountability, Training, and 
Educational Services Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 9904; Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Taxi 
vouchers, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
General trips; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Low-income persons; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Developmental Disabilities Projects of National Significance; 
Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and 
Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: 
42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15081(2)(D); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: 
Transportation information, feasibility studies, planning; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons with 
developmental disabilities; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency[G].

Program: Head Start; Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Augustus F. 
Hawkins Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 USCA § 9835(a)(3)(C) (ii); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Purchase and operate vehicles, 
contract with transportation providers, coordinate with local education 
agencies; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
educational services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Children from low-income families; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: $514,500,000 (estimate)[H].

Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: 
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No 
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance State Administered Programs; 
Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No 
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Targeted Assistance; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: 
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No 
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Refugee and Entrant Assistance Voluntary Agency Programs; 
Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Refugee Act of 1980, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1522(b)(7)(D), 
1522(c); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Bus passes; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access employment and educational 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Refugees; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No 
actual data or estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Social Services Block Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds 
for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 1397a(a)(2)(A); Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: 
Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: To access medical or social services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: States determine what 
categories of families and children; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending 
on transportation[B]: $18,459,393.

Program: State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and Protection 
and Advocacy Systems; Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Developmental 
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15025; 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, State Councils provide small 
grants and contracts to local organizations to establish transportation 
projects or collaborate in improving transportation for people with 
disabilities; Protection and Advocacy Systems ensure that people with 
disabilities have access to public transportation as required by law; 
Types of trips as reported by program officials: All or general trips; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons with 
developmental disabilities and family members; Fiscal year 2001 federal 
spending on transportation[B]: $786,605 (partial outlay)[I].

Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: 
42 U.S.C. §§ 604(a), (k); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Any 
use that is reasonably calculated to accomplish a purpose of the TANF 
program and the allowable matching portion of JARC grants; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: No assistance is 
provided to families without a minor child, but states determine 
specific eligibility; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: $160,462,214 (partial outlay)[J].

Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on 
Aging:

Program: Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: 
Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 3030d (a)(2); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Contract for services; Types 
of trips as reported by program officials: To access program services, 
medical, and for general trips; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Program is targeted to persons aged 60 or over; Fiscal 
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $72,496,003.

Program: Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native 
Hawaiian Elders; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department 
of Agriculture, Older Americans Act of 
1965, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: 
42 U.S.C. §§ 3057, 3030d(a)(2); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: 
Purchase and operate vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: To access program services, medical, and for general trips; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Program is for 
American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian elders; Fiscal 
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or 
estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Services:

Program: Medicaid; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department 
of Agriculture, Social Security Act, as 
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. §§ 
1396a, 1396n(e)(1)(A); Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Bus tokens, 
subway passes, brokerage services; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: To access health care services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Recipients are generally low-income 
persons, but states determine specific eligibility; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: $976,200,000 (estimate)[K].

Program: State Children's Health Insurance Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and 
Protection Act of 2000; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: 
42 U.S.C. §§ 1397jj(a)(26), (27); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Any 
transportation-related use; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: To access health care services; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Beneficiaries are primarily children from low-
income families, but states determine eligibility; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: $4,398,089.

Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and 
Services Administration:

Program: Community Health Centers; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 254b(b)(1)(A) (iv); Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: 
Bus tokens, vouchers, transportation coordinators, and 
drivers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
health care services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Medically underserved populations; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: $4,200,000 (estimate)[L].

Program: Healthy Communities Access Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 256(e)(1)(B)(iii); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: 
Improve coordination of transportation; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: To access health care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Uninsured or 
underinsured populations; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Healthy Start Initiative; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Public Health Service Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 254c-8(e)(1); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Bus 
tokens, taxi vouchers, reimbursement for use of own vehicle; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: To access health care services; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Residents of 
areas with significant perinatal health disparities; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate 
available from the federal agency.

Program: HIV Care Formula Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990; U.S. 
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300ff-21(a), 
23(a)(2)(B); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Bus passes, tokens, taxis, 
vanpools, vehicle purchase by providers, mileage reimbursement; Types 
of trips as reported by program officials: To access health care 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons 
with HIV or AIDS; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: $19,500,000 (estimate)[M].

Program: Maternal and Child Services Grants; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1)(A); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: 
Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access health care services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Mothers, infants and 
children, particularly from low-income families; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate 
available from the federal agency.

Program: Rural Health Care, Rural Health Network, and Small Health Care 
Provider Programs; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department 
of Agriculture, Health Centers 
Consolidation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 254c; Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Purchase 
vehicles, bus passes; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
To access health care services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Medically underserved populations in rural areas; Fiscal 
year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or 
estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration:

Program: Community Mental Health Services Block Grant; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation
42 U.S.C. § 300x-1(b)(1); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: 
Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: To access program services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Adults with mental 
illness and children with emotional disturbance; Fiscal year 2001 
federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate 
available from the federal agency.

Program: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: 
ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 300x-32(b); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Any transportation-related 
use; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access program 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Persons 
with a substance related disorder and/or recovering from substance 
related disorder; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 
Community Planning and Development:

Program: Community Development Block Grant; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 5305(a)(8); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Purchase and operate vehicles; 
Types of trips as reported by program officials: General trips; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Program must serve a 
majority of low-income persons; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on 
transportation[B]: $6,761,486 (partial outlay)[N].

Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: 
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 12907(a)(3); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: 
Contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
To access health care and other services; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Low-income persons with HIV or AIDS and their 
families; Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: 
$190,252 (partial outlay)[O].

Program: Supportive Housing Program; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, 42 U.S.C. § 11385; Typical 
uses as reported by program officials
Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, purchase and operate 
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: To access 
supportive services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Homeless persons and families with children; Fiscal year 
2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $14,000,000; 
(estimate)[P].

Program: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public 
and Indian Housing:

Program: Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as 
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
42 U.S.C. § 
1437v(l)(3); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, 
contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Trips related to employment or obtaining necessary supportive services; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Residents of the 
severely distressed housing and residents of the revitalized units; 
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: $700,000 
(estimate)[Q].

Program: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs:

Program: Indian Employment Assistance; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: 
Adult Indian Vocational Training Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation
25 U.S.C. § 309; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: 
Gas vouchers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
To access training; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Native American persons between the ages of 18 and 35; 
Fiscal year 2001 federal spending on transportation[B]: No actual data 
or estimate available from the federal agency.

Program: Indian Employment, Training and Related Services[R]; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: 
Indian Employment, Training and Related Services 
Demonstration A