This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-698T 
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal 
Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination 
Persist' which was released on May 01, 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.

Testimony:

Before the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and 
Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 a.m. EDT:

Thursday, May 1, 2003:

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:

Many Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to 
Coordination Persist:

Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Acting Director
Physical Infrastructure Issues:

GAO-03-698T:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-698T, a testimony before the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Numerous federal government programs provide assistance to 
“transportation-disadvantaged” individuals—those who are unable to 
provide their own transportation as a result of a disability, an 
age-related condition, or an income constraint. The assistance is 
provided to help these populations connect with services such as 
health and medical care, employment and training activities, and 
education programs.  Coordination of this assistance—through such 
steps as pooling resources, consolidating transportation services 
under a single state or local agency, and sharing information about 
available services—has been found to improve the cost-effectiveness 
and quality of service. GAO was asked to identify (1) the federal 
programs that provide these transportation services and the amount 
spent on these programs, (2) the effect of coordination—or lack of 
coordination—on the delivery of transportation services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged; and (3) any obstacles that may impede 
effective coordination and potential ways to overcome such obstacles.

What GAO Found:

GAO found 62 federal programs—most of which are administered by the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation—that fund a variety of transportation services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged. The full amount of spending for these 
programs is unknown, because transportation expenditures are not always 
tracked separately from other program expenditures. However, available 
information (i.e., estimated or actual outlays or obligations) on 28 of 
the programs shows that federal agencies spent at least an estimated 
$2.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 on these services.

Effective coordination can help avoid duplication of effort and 
inefficiency in providing transportation services. GAO’s preliminary 
results indicate that some jurisdictions have realized significant 
benefits, such as lower unit costs and improved customer service, 
through coordination efforts such as sharing vehicles, consolidating 
services under one provider, or sharing information among programs. By 
contrast, GAO found several examples of overlapping, fragmented, or 
confusing services resulting from a lack of coordination.

Overlapping Routes of the Vehicles of Seven Agencies that Separately 
Serve the Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]
 
This graphic illustrates that many of these seven agencies’ routes have 
similar starting and ending points. Many of these routes represent 
trips serving similar populations and occurring within 30 minutes of 
each other.

GAO identified numerous obstacles impeding coordination, including: (1) 
reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination; (2) differences in 
federal program standards and requirements; and (3) limited guidance 
and information on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials 
and experts suggested harmonizing standards among federal programs to 
better share resources and serve additional populations, expanding 
forums to facilitate communication among agencies, providing and 
disseminating additional guidance, and providing financial incentives 
or instituting mandates to coordinate.

What GAO Recommends:

This testimony is based on ongoing work being done for the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. GAO expects to issue a
report in June 2003, at which time there may be recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-698T. To view the full testimony, 
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
siggerudk@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Committees:

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the coordination of 
transportation services for people with limited access to 
transportation. At the request of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, we have been examining transportation assistance that the 
federal government funds to benefit these individuals. Our work focuses 
on a population we call "transportation-disadvantaged"--that is, people 
who are unable to provide their own transportation as a result of a 
disability, an age-related condition, or an income constraint. This is 
a sizeable group. For example, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 35.1 
million people were over age 65, 44.5 million people over age 21 were 
disabled, and 33.9 million people were living below the poverty line. 
We have been studying the assistance available to help such people 
connect with the services provided through government programs, such as 
health and medical care, employment and training activities, and 
education programs. For many people in this group, traditional public 
transportation may not be an option to access such services.

Providing transportation services to these populations and coordinating 
them across program lines are becoming more critical issues as the 
transportation-disadvantaged populations grow and financial 
constraints on the federal government and other government levels 
increase due to budget deficits. With these trends, it will become more 
important to maximize efficiency wherever possible to avoid having to 
reduce services. The coordination of transportation services--through 
pooling resources, consolidating transportation services under a single 
state or local agency, or sharing information about available services-
-has been found to improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of 
service.

My statement today, which is based on the preliminary results of our 
ongoing work for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
addresses (1) the federal programs that provide transportation services 
for transportation-disadvantaged populations; the types of services 
they provide; and federal, state, and local government spending for 
transportation through these federal programs; (2) the effect of 
coordination--or lack of coordination--on the delivery of 
transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged; and (3) 
any obstacles that may impede effective coordination and potential 
options for overcoming such obstacles. We are continuing to examine 
these issues and expect to report on the final results of our work in 
June 2003.

Our work is based on an analysis of pertinent federal laws and 
regulations, available data on federal and state spending, and the 
research literature on coordination of transportation services. We also 
conducted an in-depth study of coordination efforts in five states--
Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. We selected 
these five states to include a cross-section of characteristics 
including the presence or absence of a state-level coordinating body 
and geographic dispersion. Appendix I contains more information about 
our scope and methodology.

In summary:

* Sixty-two federal programs--most of which are administered by the 
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 
Transportation--fund a variety of transportation services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged, and spending for these programs is 
estimated to be in the billions of dollars.[Footnote 1] Most of these 
programs purchase transportation from existing public or private 
sources, such as providing bus tokens or passes, or contracting for 
service from private providers. Also, several programs fund the 
purchase or modification of vehicles for agencies to provide 
transportation for their clients. The full amount of spending for these 
programs is unknown because transportation is not always tracked 
separately from other program spending. Available information on actual 
or estimated spending shows that federal agencies spent at least an 
estimated $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 on various transportation 
services. Department of Health and Human Services programs spent about 
three-quarters of this amount. State and local agencies also provide 
significant 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. However, estimates of state and 
local spending are not available because few agencies track such 
information at the federal or state level.

* We found some agencies that have realized substantial benefits by 
coordinating their transportation services through sharing vehicles, 
consolidating services under a single agency, or sharing information 
about available services, while others that do not coordinate have 
experienced overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services. In 
locations where coordination among programs has occurred, agencies and 
users are realizing significant benefits, such as improved customer 
service and lower unit costs. 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 increase the 
number of trips provided while reducing the average cost of providing 
each trip by more than 20 percent. The agency has also improved its 
services by coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and 
weekend trips. In areas without coordination, local officials reported 
some examples of (1) overlapping services, such as the transportation 
provider who often runs two vehicles on the same route at nearly the 
same time to accommodate different paperwork requirements; (2) 
fragmented services, when transportation services provided by different 
counties or programs do not connect and riders have difficulty 
scheduling complete trips; and (3) confusion, when both providers and 
users are overwhelmed by the sheer number of programs and their 
different requirements.

* Decision makers face numerous obstacles in trying to coordinate 
services for the transportation-disadvantaged; officials and experts 
that we consulted offered several potential options to mitigate these 
obstacles and enhance coordination among federal, state, and local 
agencies. We grouped the obstacles that impede coordination into three 
categories: (1) reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination 
activities; (2) programmatic differences, including fragmented 
administration and distinct reporting requirements among programs; and 
(3) limited guidance and information on coordination, as shown by the 
limited technical assistance provided by federal and state agencies on 
the possible techniques for coordinating services. To mitigate these 
obstacles, some officials and experts have suggested three potential 
options that may be undertaken to improve coordination. 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 they may serve additional populations or better share 
transportation resources. Another option is to expand forums that would 
facilitate communication among agencies involved in coordination 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 
and mandates that would give priority in federal funding to those 
applicants that show a strong commitment to coordinate. Some of these 
options, however, would require extensive statutory or regulatory 
changes and may cause agencies to incur significant costs.

Background:

Concern over coordinating transportation services for transportation-
disadvantaged populations has been evident since the 1970s. In 1977, we 
issued a report on transportation coordination,[Footnote 2] 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. This body is composed of representatives from program offices 
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department 
of Transportation (DOT), and its staffing needs are met, on a part-time 
basis, by employees of these agencies.

In a 1999 report on transportation coordination,[Footnote 3] we found 
that coordination efforts of the Coordinating Council, DOT, and HHS 
were ongoing but 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 4] and significant financial benefits had been realized 
through coordination. More recently, reports and agency officials have 
raised concerns over continuing duplication of effort among federal 
programs and certain sub-populations still not being served 
effectively.[Footnote 5]

Sixty-two Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services for the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged, and Spending on Them Is in the Billions 
of Dollars:

We identified 62 federal programs that fund a variety of transportation 
services to populations that are transportation-
disadvantaged.[Footnote 6] The bulk of these programs are administered 
by 4 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 7] 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 with their authorizing statutes, typical uses, types of trips 
provided, target populations, and available spending information is 
found in appendix II.

According to program officials, most of these 62 programs typically use 
existing public or private transportation services through such methods 
as contracting for services with private transportation providers, or 
through providing bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers, or mileage 
reimbursement to volunteers or program participants. For example, DOL's 
Workforce Investment Act Adult Program typically provides participants 
with bus tokens, while HHS's Grants for Supportive Services and Senior 
Centers program most often contracts with local transportation 
providers to provide client transportation. Several programs, however, 
are typically used to purchase, modify, or operate vehicles. These 
include Head Start and the Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, 
and Native Hawaiian Elders in HHS; the Vocational Rehabilitation Grants 
program in the Department of Education; and the Capital Assistance 
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, the 
Urbanized and Nonurbanized Area Formula Programs, and the Job Access 
and Reverse Commute program in DOT.

Spending by 28 Federal Programs Is Estimated at $2.4 billion in Fiscal 
Year 2001:

Information on federal spending for transportation is available for 28 
of the 62 programs we identified.[Footnote 8] These programs spent an 
estimated $2.4 billion on transportation services in fiscal year 
2001.[Footnote 9] (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 1 shows estimated 
transportation spending by the eight federal agencies that fund 
services for the transportation-disadvantaged.

Table 1: 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 (in millions): $1,771.0; Percent of total estimate: 
72.9%; Number of programs included in estimate: 10; Total number of 
programs that provide transportation: 23.

Agency: Department of Transportation; Amount spent on transportation 
(in millions): $317.3; Percent of total estimate: 13.1%; Number of 
programs included in estimate: 6; Total number of programs that provide 
transportation: 6.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Amount spent on transportation 
(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 (in 
millions): $133.8; 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 (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 Agriculture; Amount spent on transportation (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 Housing and Urban Development; Amount spent on 
transportation (in millions): $7.5; Percent of total estimate: 0.3%; 
Number of programs included in estimate: 3; Total number of programs 
that provide transportation: 4.

Agency: Department of the Interior; Amount spent on transportation (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 (in 
millions): $2,429.8; Percent of total estimate: 100.0%; Number of 
programs included in estimate: 28; Total number of programs that 
provide transportation: 62.

Source: GAO analysis of HHS, DOT, VA, Education, DOL, Agriculture, HUD, 
and Interior data.

[End of table]

The amount spent on transportation services by the remaining 34 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.

Total State and Local Transportation Spending Is Unknown, but May Be 
Significant:

Total state and local spending for transportation services, which 
supplements federal spending for such programs, is likely significant-
-reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars at least--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. For 
example, according to state officials, state and local spending for one 
program--Medicaid--made up between 32 and 50 percent of the total 
spending on nonemergency medical transportation in the five states that 
we visited, totaling $188.9 million in 2001 in those five 
states.[Footnote 10] Thirty-two of the programs that we identified have 
matching requirements that generally require states and localities to 
contribute between 5 and 50 percent of total program costs.

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

Coordination Has Financial Benefits and Can Lead to Improved Service:

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 can 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[Footnote 11] 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 more 
than 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.

Lack of Coordination Can Lead to Overlapping Services and Confusion:

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, we found examples of areas or programs 
that were not coordinating, resulting in overlapping services. 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 12] 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 area that 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 1. The consultant identified ways in 
which the number of routes could be substantially reduced through 
better coordination.

Figure 1: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the 
Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota:

[See PDF for image]

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]

We also found examples of fragmented services and confusion among users 
as a result of uncoordinated programs. One official 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. For example, a 
local transit administrator said that a 62-year old woman regularly 
walks 1.5 miles from the northern border of the county to her job in 
the next county, along roads with no sidewalks, because the counties do 
not coordinate and the bus service does not connect across county 
lines. Another provider in the same 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 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. In addition, the provider 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 program the clients are eligible.

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, officials representing 
these agencies and experts in the area cited numerous obstacles that 
impede more effective coordination of transportation services among 
agencies, as well as potential ways for overcoming these obstacles.

Obstacles Related to Sharing Vehicles and Providing Financial Resources 
for Coordination:

Officials pointed out that agencies may be reluctant to share vehicles 
or may 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 Available Financial Resources and Vehicles:

Administrators of federal programs may be apprehensive about sharing 
vehicles for coordination due, in part, to their concerns about a loss 
of control over the quality of client services or their concerns about 
mixing 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 13] 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 adjust from door-to-door service to curb-to-curb 
service or public transit.

Low Priority Given to Funding Coordination Activities:

Despite the per unit cost-savings that some agencies have experienced 
through coordinating, the overall cost of coordination can be 
significant. For example, a transportation brokerage firm in one state 
faced substantial added costs when it began providing transportation to 
human service 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, DOT does not currently encourage the use of these 
funds for administration of the program and, thus, the current 
allotment for administrative expenses would not support any staff to 
work on coordination activities.

Limited Availability of Transportation Services:

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.

Obstacles Related to Programmatic Differences:

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 Rules:

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 can lead to inefficient transportation services 
within a community. For example, an official in one state we visited 
commented that one federal 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 also vary by program and 
jurisdiction, thus complicating efforts to transport multiple client 
groups. 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 
states to local workforce investment boards. In addition, funding for 
programs such as Head Start flows directly to grantees rather than 
going 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 Job Access and Reverse 
Commute (JARC) program encourages 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 type of bill for services provided, 
which reflected the unique requirements imposed by each of those 
agencies.[Footnote 14] In addition, human service agencies and 
providers may not be required or accustomed to collecting complete and 
uniform transportation data for their programs, even though such 
information may enable administrators to estimate their transportation-
related costs and re-evaluate how best to provide transportation. 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 to the transportation-disadvantaged, actual expenditures were 
estimated to total $224.9 million--much higher than the initial 
estimate. Such information has helped human service agencies in Florida 
understand their true transportation costs, which has encouraged some 
of these agencies to be 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 
services between transportation and human service agencies 
challenging.[Footnote 15] 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.

Obstacles Related to Limited Federal and State Guidance and Information 
on Coordination:

Although some federal and state agencies have recognized the potential 
offered by coordination and provided some assistance toward this end, 
some state 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 initiatives to coordinate services 
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. For example, 
officials in one state said that there was insufficient guidance on how 
to share costs among programs for projects funded jointly by DOT's JARC 
grants, HHS's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and DOL's 
Welfare-to-Work program funds. Instead, they had to seek advice from 
other states. In addition, the Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility is not directly funded and has limited visibility for agencies 
actually involved in implementing coordination efforts. For example, 
although the Council has developed a Web site[Footnote 16] that is 
accessible through a link on the Federal Transit Administration's 
section of DOT's Web site, there is no similar link from HHS's Web 
site, possibly limiting human service agencies' awareness of and 
ability to access the site. 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 Information 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 one-half of the states have no coordinating body, 
according to one report.[Footnote 17] 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.

Potential Options to Improve Coordination:

Federal, state, and local officials, as well as experts in the area, 
have suggested a number of potential ways to improve coordination of 
transportation services among federal programs. We are still in the 
process of collecting additional information and reviewing it with 
stakeholders, but three key options have emerged thus far.

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 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) and driver training 
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. 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 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 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 the 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.

* Current funds allotted by multiple federal sources could be combined 
into one 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 would be 
at a disadvantage in competing for funding with larger agencies serving 
larger numbers of clients. In addition, 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.

Messrs. Chairmen, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 
happy to respond to any questions you or Members of the Committees may 
have at this time.

Contact and Acknowledgments:

For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine 
Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key 
contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Rita Grieco, 
Bradley Hunt, Susan Irving, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Sara Ann Moessbauer, 
Hilary Murrish, Ryan Petitte, Stanley Stenersen, Andrew Von Ah, and 
Randall Williamson.

[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 18] and a 
report prepared for the Coordinating Council on Access and 
Mobility.[Footnote 19] We then supplemented and modified this inventory 
of programs based on 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 strategies, we: (1) 
conducted interviews and document reviews in the pertinent federal 
agencies; (2) conducted five case studies in Arizona, Florida, New 
York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; (3) reviewed the literature on the 
challenges encountered in providing and coordinating services to 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 and Medicaid Services, the Health 
Resources Services Administration, 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 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.

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 April 2003 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs:

Table 2: :

Program: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Program: Food Stamp Employment and Training Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 7 U.S.C. § 2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(I); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Reimbursement or advanced payment for gasoline 
expenses or bus fare; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access 
education, training, employment services, and employment placements; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income persons between the 
ages of 16 and 59; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $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: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 20 U.S.C. § 7173(a)(10); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Contract for service; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access educational services; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Students from low-income families; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $84,600,000 (estimate)[D].

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

Program: Voluntary Public School Choice; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: No 
Child Left Behind Act of 2001; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds 
for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: 20 U.S.C. § 7225a(a); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Contract for services, purchase and operate vehicles, hire bus drivers 
& 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: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To 
access educational services and programs; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Students from under-performing schools who choose to transfer 
to higher performing schools; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: 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: Department of Agriculture, 
Food and Nutrition Service: Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 20 U.S.C. §§ 
1401(a)(22), 1411(a)(1); Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase and 
operate vehicles, contract for service; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access educational services; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Children with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Centers for Independent Living; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 796f-4(b)(3) and 705(18)(xi); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Referral, assistance, and training in the use of 
public transportation; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access 
program services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with a 
significant disability; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: 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, Food and Nutrition Service: Workforce Investment Act of 
1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. § 
796k(e)(5); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Referral, assistance, and 
training in the use of public transportation; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: To access program services, for general trips; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons aged 55 or older who 
have significant visual impairment; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

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

Program: Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe 
Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Workforce Investment Act of 
1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 
795g and 705(36); Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Vehicle 
modifications, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To 
access employment placements, employment services, and vocational 
rehabilitation services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Persons with a significant disability; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency[E].

Program: Vocational Rehabilitation Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. § 723(a)(8); Typical uses as reported 
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Vehicle modifications, bus tokens; Types of trips as reported 
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access employment placements, employment services, and 
vocational rehabilitation services; Target population as defined by 
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Persons with physical or mental impairments; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $49,200,000 (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: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended; U.S. 
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 9858c; Typical 
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: States rarely use CCDF funds for transportation 
and only under very
restricted circumstances; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To 
access child care services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Children from low-income families; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $0 (estimate)[F].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program: State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and Protection 
and Advocacy Systems; Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Developmental 
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. §§ 15002, 15025; 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: States are encouraged to 
provide transportation services instead of vehicles; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Attendance at meetings, conferences, trainings; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with developmental 
disabilities and family members; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $786,605 (partial outlay)[I].

Program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 
Act of 1996, as amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
42 U.S.C. §§ 604(a), (k); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any 
transportation-related use, matching portion of JARC grants; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by 
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: No assistance is provided to families without a minor child, 
but states determine specific eligibility; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $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: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 3030d (a)(2); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Contract for services; Types 
of trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, 
Food and Nutrition Service: To access program services, medical, and 
for general trips; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Program is targeted to persons aged 60 or over; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $72,496,003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program: Maternal and Child Services Grants; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Social Security Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1)(A); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Mothers, infants and children, particularly from 
low-income families; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: 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, Food and Nutrition Service: Health Centers 
Consolidation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
42 U.S.C. § 254c; Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase 
vehicles, bus passes; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access health 
care services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Medically 
underserved populations in rural areas; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: 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: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 300x-1(b)(1); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related use; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: To access program services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Adults with mental illness and children with 
emotional disturbance; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: ADAMHA Reorganization Act, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 300x-32(b); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related 
use; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access program services; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with a substance 
related disorder and/or recovering from substance related disorder; FY 
2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: 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: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 5305(a)(8); 
Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Purchase and operate vehicles; 
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Program must serve a majority 
of low-income persons; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $6,761,486 
(partial outlay)[N].

Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: AIDS Housing Opportunity Act; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 12907(a)(3); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access health 
care and other services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Low-income persons with HIV or AIDS and their families; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $73,000 
(estimate)[O].

Program: Supportive Housing Program; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 11385; Typical 
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, purchase and operate 
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access supportive 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Homeless persons 
and families with children; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency[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: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as 
amended; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 
1437v(l)(3); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens, taxi vouchers, 
contract for services; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Trips related to 
employment or obtaining necessary supportive services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Residents of the severely 
distressed housing and residents of the revitalized units; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $700,000 (estimate)[Q].

Program: Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

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

Program: Indian Employment, Training and Related Services[R]; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Indian Employment, Training and Related Services 
Demonstration Act of 1992; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
25 U.S.C. § 3401; Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Gas vouchers; 
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Employment-related; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income Native American 
persons; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

Program: Job Corps; Popular title of authorizing legislation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
29 U.S.C. §§ 2888(a)(1), 2890; Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Bus 
tickets; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access Job Corps sites and 
employment services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Low-income youth; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $21,612,000.

Program: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2912(d); Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Mileage reimbursement; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To 
access employment placements or intensive and training services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income persons and their 
dependents who are primarily employed in agricultural labor that is 
seasonal or migratory; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Native American Employment and Training; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. § 2911(d)(2); Typical uses as reported 
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Bus tokens, transit passes; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access employment placements, employment services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Unemployed American Indians 
and other persons of Native American descent; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Senior Community Service Employment Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Older Americans Act of 1965; U.S. Code provisions authorizing 
funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: 42 U.S.C. § 3056(c)(6)(A)(iv); Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Mileage reimbursement, reimbursement for travel costs, and 
payment for cost of transportation; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access employment placements; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Low-income persons aged 55 or over; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $4,400,000 (estimate)[S].

Program: Trade Adjustment Assistance - Workers; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Trade Act of 1974, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 19 U.S.C. § 2296(b); Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Mileage reimbursement, transit fares; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: To access training; Target population as defined by 
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Persons found to be impacted by foreign trade, increased 
imports, or shift in production; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Welfare-to-Work Grants to Federally Recognized Tribes and 
Alaska Natives[T]; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 42 U.S.C. § 612(a)(3)(C); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Any transportation-related use, though purchasing 
vehicles for individuals is not allowable; Types of trips as reported 
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access employment placements, employment services; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: American Indians and other 
persons of Native American descent who are long-term welfare recipients 
or are low-income; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Welfare-to-Work Grants to States and Localities[T]; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
42 U.S.C. § 603(a)(5)(C); Typical uses as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Any 
transportation-related use, though purchasing vehicles for individuals 
is not allowable; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access 
employment placements, employment services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Long-term welfare recipients or low-income 
individuals; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Work Incentive Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2864(d)(2); Typical uses 
as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Encourage collaboration with transportation 
providers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access one-stop 
services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Persons with 
disabilities who are eligible for employment and training services 
under WIA; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Workforce Investment Act Adult Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 
2864(e)(2); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Mileage reimbursement, bus 
tokens, vouchers; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access 
training; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Priority must be 
given to people on public assistance and low-income individuals; FY 
2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. 
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 
2864(e)(2); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Transportation allowance or 
reimbursement, bus/subway tokens; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To 
access transition assistance in order to find or qualify for new 
employment; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Includes workers 
who have been laid off, or have received an individual notice of 
termination, or notice that a facility will close; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code 
provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 
2854(a)(4); Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Public transportation; 
Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access training and other 
support services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Youth with low 
individual or family income; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Youth Opportunity Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2914(b); Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by program 
officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To 
access program services; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Youth from high poverty areas, empowerment zones, or enterprise 
communities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $415,000 (estimate)[U].

Program: Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration.

Program: Black Lung Benefits Program; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 30 U.S.C. § 923; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Mileage reimbursement, transit fares, taxi vouchers; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: To access health services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Disabled coal miners; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency[V].

Program: Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service.

Program: Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001; U.S. 
Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 38 USCA §§ 2011, 2021; Typical 
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: Bus tokens; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To access employment services; Target population as defined by 
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Homeless veterans; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Veterans' Employment Program; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801(46), 2913; Typical uses as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Bus tokens, minor repairs to vehicles; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: To access employment services; Target population 
as defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Veterans; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: No actual data or estimate available from the 
federal agency.

Program: Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

Program: Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus 
Accessibility; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 
103-272; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 
5310; Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To make vehicles wheelchair 
accessible and training required by ADA; Types of trips as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: General trips; Target population as defined by program 
officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Persons with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $2,877,818.

Program: Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons 
with Disabilities; Popular title of authorizing legislation: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Title 49 Recodification, 
P.L. 103-272; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for 
transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
49 U.S.C. § 5310; Typical uses as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Assistance in 
purchasing vehicles, contract for services; Types of trips as reported 
by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: To serve the needs of the elderly and persons with 
disabilities; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Elderly persons 
and persons with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $174,982,628.

Program: Capital Investment Grants; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5309; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Assistance for bus and bus-related capital projects; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by 
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: General public, although some projects are for the special 
needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $17,500,000 (estimate)[W].

Program: Job Access and Reverse Commute; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5309; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Expand exisiting public transportation or initiate new 
service; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: To access employment and 
related services; Target population as defined by program officials[A]: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Low-income 
persons, including persons with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $85,009,627.

Program: Nonurbanized Area Formula Program; Popular title of 
authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 103-272; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5311; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Capital and operating assistance for public transportation 
service, including paratransit services, in nonurbanized areas; Types 
of trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, 
Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined 
by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: General public, although paratransit services are for the 
special needs of persons with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $0; (partial obligation)[X].

Program: Urbanized Area Formula Program; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Title 49 Recodification, P.L. 103-272, as amended; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 49 U.S.C. § 5307; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Capital assistance, and some operating assistance for public 
transit, including paratransit services, in urbanized areas; Types of 
trips as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target population as defined by 
program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: General public, although paratransit services are for the 
special needs of persons with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $36,949,680 (partial obligation)[Y].

Program: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits 
Administration.

Program: Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled 
Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Disabled Veterans and Servicemen's Automobile Assistance Act of 1970; 
U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 38 U.S.C. § 3902; Typical 
uses as reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: Purchase of personal vehicles, modifications of 
vehicles; Types of trips as reported by program officials: Department 
of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; Target 
population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Veterans and service members 
with disabilities; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $33,639,000.

Program: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health 
Administration.

Program: VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; Popular 
title of authorizing legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act 
of 1992; U.S. Code provisions authorizing funds for transportation: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 38 U.S.C. § 7721 
note; Typical uses as reported by program officials: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 20 vans were purchased under 
this program; Types of trips as reported by program officials: 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: General trips; 
Target population as defined by program officials[A]: Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Homeless veterans; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $565,797.

Program: Veterans Medical Care Benefits; Popular title of authorizing 
legislation: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: 
Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994; U.S. Code provisions 
authorizing funds for transportation: Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Nutrition Service: 38 U.S.C. § 111; Typical uses as reported by 
program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 
Service: Mileage reimbursement, contract for service; Types of trips as 
reported by program officials: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: To access health care services; Target population as 
defined by program officials[A]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: Veterans with disabilities or low-incomes; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $126,594,591.

Program: Total spending on transportation services for the 
transportation-disadvantaged; FY 2001 
spending on transportation[B]: Department of Agriculture, Food and 
Nutrition Service: $2,429,835,887.

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

[A] A supplemental source for the target populations was the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

[B] Actual outlays or obligations on transportation are given for 
programs that track this information. All data are outlays, except for 
the following programs, which are obligations: Capital Investment 
Grants, Urbanized Area Formula Program, Nonurbanized Area Formula 
Program, Job Access and Reverse Commute, Capital and Training 
Assistance for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, Capital Assistance 
Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Automobiles 
and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the 
Armed Forces, and Veterans Medical Care Benefits. Actual data and 
estimates are the total for the program, unless otherwise noted as 
partial outlays or obligations in the table. When actual information 
was not available, estimates are given based on information provided by 
program officials or the officials agreed with an estimate made by 
another source.

[C] According to a program official, outlays for the Food Stamp 
Employment and Training Program have increased due to changes in the 
program from the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill eliminates the $25 
per month cap that the Department of Agriculture will reimburse the 
states for transportation and other work costs incurred by 
participants. In fiscal year 2002, federal outlays for transportation 
were $18,523,535.

[D] A program official said that 10 percent of total program outlays 
would be a conservative estimate of transportation outlays.

[E] According to a program official, grantees report total 
transportation outlays for Vocational Rehabilitation Grants, Supported 
Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Disabilities, and other 
rehabilitation sources together. The program official reports that 
transportation outlays for Vocational Rehabilitation Grants are 
approximately 90 percent of the total amount reported, but did not 
provide a similar estimate for Supported Employment Services for 
Individuals with Severe Disabilities.

[F] A program official said that, while transportation is an allowable 
use of funds, using funds for transportation is not encouraged. Program 
officials estimate that transportation expenditures are zero or close 
to zero for this program.

[G] Fiscal year 2001 data are not available because transportation was 
not an area of emphasis until fiscal year 2002. The preliminary fiscal 
year 2002 outlays for transportation projects totaled $1,084,798.

[H] A program official estimated that transportation outlays were 8.3 
percent of total outlays.

[ I] This is a partial outlay based on voluntary reporting by grantees. 
Full outlays are not available because, according to a program 
official, grantees were not required to report transportation outlays 
prior to fiscal year 2002. Fiscal year 2002 data are incomplete, 
however preliminary data on transportation outlays from 46 of the 51 
grantees totaled $2,215,498.

[J] This is a partial outlay based on the amount grantees reported as 
non-assistance outlays in a category exclusively for transportation. 
States reported an additional $356.5 million as outlays on assistance 
in a category that includes transportation and supportive services, 
however program officials were unable to determine what percentage of 
the outlays on assistance were spent on transportation.

[K] Program officials indicate that federal data on nonemergency 
medical transportation are not available. Estimate assumes that 
transportation outlays are 0.73 percent of total program outlays, based 
on previous research, including a survey of state Medicaid programs.

[L] According to a program official, grantees report total outlays for 
transportation and it is not possible to distinguish between federal 
and nonfederal funds. The official said 22 percent of total 
transportation outlays would be a good estimate of the federal portion 
of fiscal year 2001 transportation outlays.

[M] Estimate of transportation outlays is based on data from grantee's 
budget allocations, as suggested by an agency official.

[N] This is a partial outlay for transportation through the Community 
Development Block Grant program. This figure includes transportation 
outlays for the Entitlement program, but excludes the State 
Administered program.

[O] This is a partial estimate because, according to a program 
official, data on transportation outlays are only available from 
competitive grantees; formula grantees are not required to report 
outlays for transportation. The program official could not provide an 
estimate of outlays for transportation through the formula grant 
program. The program official said that fiscal year 2001 data for the 
competitive grant program are incomplete and the agency is still 
collecting fiscal year 2001 data from approximately one-third of its 
competitive grantees, due to differing reporting schedules. As of March 
2003, competitive grantees reported outlays of approximately $60,000 on 
transportation, and the program official expects total outlays for 
transportation to reach the level of outlays on transportation in 
fiscal year 1999 (approximately $73,000) or more after all competitive 
grantees report data.

[P] Data on outlays for transportation are not available. The agency 
does collect data on the amount that grantees request for various 
supportive services, including transportation. These requests may cover 
1, 2, or 3 years; a program official said that they could not easily 
determine for how many years grantees are requesting money. In fiscal 
year 2001, grantees requested $12,973,992 for transportation.

[Q] Estimate of outlays for transportation is based on a program 
official's review of the budgets from 15 grantees who renewed their 
grants in fiscal year 2001. The official projected total transportation 
outlays for the program based on these 15 grantees.

[R] Public Law 102-477 allows tribal governments to consolidate funding 
from several federal programs. These include: the Department of Health 
and Human Services's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Child 
Care and Development Fund programs; the Department of Labor's Native 
American Employment and Training, and Welfare-to-Work Grants for 
Federally Recognized Tribes programs; and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs's Employment Assistance, Indian Social Service and Welfare 
Assistance, Adult Basic Education, and Higher Education programs. The 
Indian Social Services and Welfare Assistance Program is not used for 
transportation outside 102-477. The Adult Basic Education and Higher 
Education programs do not target transportation-disadvantaged 
populations as defined in this study outside of 102-477. The Employment 
Assistance program and the HHS and DOL programs can provide 
transportation assistance separately from 102-477.

[S] A program official estimated that transportation outlays were 
approximately 1 percent of total program outlays.

[T] Program funding from FY 1998 and 1999 may still be spent, but the 
program no longer receives funding.

[U] Estimate of transportation outlays is based on a program official's 
review of grantee obligations.

[V] According to a program official, fiscal year 2001 data are not 
available due to changes in the program's reporting system. The 
official reported that transportation outlays for fiscal year 2002 
totaled $478,408.

[W] According to a program official, there are three distinct 
allocations of funds under the Capital Investment Grants: the New 
Starts allocation, which funds new rail projects; the fixed-guideway 
modernization allocation, which provides funding to maintain and update 
aging rail systems; and the bus allocation, which provides funding for 
the purchase of buses, bus-related equipment and paratransit vehicles, 
and for the construction of bus-related facilities. Because the Capital 
Investment Grants fund projects that provide services for the general 
public, the transportation-disadvantaged likely benefit from many 
projects funded through each of the three allocations, but information 
was not available to estimate what portion of these funds for the 
general public benefit the transportation-disadvantaged. However, the 
program official said that the bus allocation would likely provide the 
most direct benefit for the transportation-disadvantaged and the 
obligation level could be estimated by totaling allocations to purchase 
vans, buses for the elderly or disabled, or paratransit vehicles and 
equipment.

[X] The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program funds projects that provide 
services for the general public, however grantees can use up to 10 
percent of their funds to provide complementary ADA paratransit 
services. Although grantees did not report obligations for 
complementary ADA paratransit, a program official said that 
transportation-disadvantaged populations might benefit from other 
services provided through this grant, such as demand-responsive 
services. However, the program official could not identify the amount 
of spending that directly benefits the transportation-disadvantaged.

[ Y] According to a program official, the Urbanized Area Formula 
Program funds projects that provide services for the general public, 
however grantees can use up to 10 percent of their funds to provide 
complementary ADA paratransit services. The figure listed in the table 
is the total obligations that grantees reported for providing 
complementary ADA paratransit services. Although grantees may benefit 
from other services provided through this grant, such as demand-
responsive services, the amount spent on complementary ADA paratransit 
is the only portion that program officials could identify as directly 
benefiting the transportation-disadvantaged.

[End of table]

FOOTNOTES

[1] In this testimony, spending refers to actual or estimated outlays 
or obligations, depending on what information was available from the 
agency.

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Hindrances to Coordinating 
Transportation of People Participating in Federally Funded Grant 
Programs: Volume I, GAO/RCED-77-119 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 1977).

[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Coordination: 
Benefits and Barriers Exist, and Planning Efforts Progress Slowly, GAO/
RCED-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 1999).

[4] P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998).

[5] For example, a report prepared for the AARP found that 
transportation resources for the elderly, disabled, and other groups 
were often not coordinated and led to duplication of services. The 
services were also found to vary in quality and to fail to address the 
needs of individuals who did not meet specific agency or program 
eligibility requirements. See Jon E. Burkhardt, Coordinated 
Transportation Systems (AARP, Washington, D.C.: September 2000).

[6] In addition to these 62 programs, it is likely that there are other 
federal programs that could be used to fund transportation improvements 
or other transportation services. Our scope included programs that 
provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface transportation services, 
targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations. We excluded most 
programs that were strictly for research or demonstration activities or 
provided strictly cash assistance with no restrictions on use, as well 
as some economic development programs that benefit the general public 
and are not targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations. 
Efforts by other researchers to inventory all federal programs that 
could conceivably provide transportation yielded additional programs 
not found in our inventory due to differing selection criteria. 
Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility 
Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.: 
March 2002).

[7] Two DOT programs that are included here, the Urbanized Area and 
Nonurbanized Area Formula Programs, are used to support mass transit 
intended for the general public, many of whom could conceivably provide 
their own transportation. We include them because the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 126) requires that transit 
operators provide accessible paratransit service that is comparable to 
their regular service for disabled individuals who are unable to 
provide their own transportation or access the regular transit system, 
and TEA-21 allows a portion of these transit formula grants to be used 
to offset paratransit operating costs. Because it is impossible to 
determine the amount these programs spend to provide transportation to 
transportation-disadvantaged populations, who are among the general 
population that is served by these programs, we only report on the 
portion of these funds used for ADA paratransit. 

[8] Of these 28 programs, 16 provided actual spending data for fiscal 
year 2001. Program officials for the remaining 12 programs provided an 
estimate of transportation spending for 2001.

[9] There was no spending information available on four programs viewed 
as important providers of transportation services. These programs 
included HHS's Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native 
Hawaiian Elders and DOL's Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, 
Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program, and Workforce 
Investment Act Youth Activities. The Community Transportation 
Association of America, a national, professional membership association 
that conducts research and provides technical assistance for community 
transportation providers, identified the four programs, whose total 
obligations were $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2001, as routinely used to 
provide transportation. While information was not available on the 
portion of the $3.7 billion devoted to providing transportation 
services, we were able to analyze data on other human services programs 
which indicates that, on average, about 3 percent of total spending on 
those programs was devoted to transportation.

[10] The amount that states are required to contribute depends on how 
states claim transportation under Medicaid. If states claim 
transportation as an optional medical expense, the state or local 
portion ranges from 17 to 50 percent of total costs, based on a measure 
known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. If states claim 
transportation as an administrative expense, the state or local portion 
is 50 percent of total costs.

[11] The Community Transportation Association of America defines 
brokerage as a method of providing transportation where riders are 
matched with appropriate transportation providers through a central 
trip-request and administration facility. The transportation broker may 
centralize vehicle dispatch, record keeping, vehicle maintenance, and 
other functions under contractual arrangements with agencies, 
municipalities, and other organizations. Actual trips are provided by a 
number of different vendors.

[12] Paratransit most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-
response van service, according to the Community Transportation 
Association of America, and is more flexible than fixed route transit 
but more structured than the use of a private automobile.

[13] Moss Adams LLP, Community Transportation Association of America, 
The Coordination Challenge (Seattle, WA: June 2000).

[14] Ecosometrics, Inc., Recommended Framework for Developing State and 
Local Human Services Transportation Planning Guidance (Bethesda, MD: 
Sept. 22, 1998).

[15] Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Innovative State and 
Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation (Washington, D.C.: 
February 2002).

[16] www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/www.index.html

[17] Westat, Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation 
Services, Transit Cooperative Research Project of the Transportation 
Research Board, Project B-24, Interim Report (Rockville, MD: March 
2002). 

[18] Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility 
Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.: 
March 2002).

[19] Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines 
for State and Local Coordination (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2000).