GAO-03-204, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed


This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-204 
entitled 'Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service 
Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed' which was released on 
December 06, 2002.



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.



Report to Congressional Committees:



December 2002:



WELFARE REFORM:



Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation 

Should Be Completed:



GAO-03-204:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



DOT’s Evaluation Has Been Delayed and May Not Address Significant 

Aspects of the Job Access Program:



Varied Services Delivered and Collaboration Improved, but Projects’ 

Sustainability and Use of Federal Funds Can Be Improved:



Conclusions:



Recommendations:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Summary of Previous GAO Reports:



Appendix II: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:



Review of Selected, Ongoing Job Access Projects:



Survey of Job Access Grantees:



Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts:



Appendix III: Services of Selected Job Access Grants



Alliance for Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) - 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin:



California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry 

Transportation Services - Kings County and Kerns County, California:



Capital District Transportation Authority - Albany, New York:



City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services - Albuquerque, New 

Mexico:



City of Santa Rosa Citybus - Santa Rosa, California:



Fort Worth Transportation Authority - Fort Worth, Texas:



Good News Garage, Commuteshare - Burlington, Vermont:



Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Frankfort, Kentucky:



Housing Department - Las Vegas, New Mexico:



Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

- Annapolis, Maryland:



Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs - New York City:



State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job 

Access:



Transit Authority of River City - Louisville, Kentucky:



Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services:



Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees



Appendix V: GAO COntact and Staff Acknowledgement:



Tables:



Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to Our 
Survey:



Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees:



Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited:



Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access 

Project:



Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project:



Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access 

Project:



Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project:



Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project:



Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access 

Project:



Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project:



Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access 
Project:



Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job 

Access Project:



Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job Access 

Program:



Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project:



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

Job Access Project:



Table 16: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and Rural 

Job Access Project:



Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access 

Services:



Abbreviations:



AITS: Agriculture Industry Transportation Services:



CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation:



CTAA: Community Transportation Association of America:



DOT: Department of Transportation:



FTA: Federal Transit Administration:



FWTA: Fort Worth Transportation Authority:



FY: fiscal year:



HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:



HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:



LIFT: Low-Income Flexible Transportation:



MTA: Maryland Transit Administration:



MTC: Metropolitan Transportation Commission:



PATH: Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and 

Health Access:



TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program:



TARC: Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, Kentucky):



TDA: Transportation Development Act (California State):



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



WIA: Workforce Investment Act:



WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:



Letter December 6, 2002:



The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes 

Chairman

The Honorable Phil Gramm

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Banking, Housing,

 and Urban Affairs

United States Senate:



The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation

 and Infrastructure

House of Representatives:



The government’s national welfare reform effort seeks to transition 

welfare recipients from welfare to work. One important factor in 

welfare recipients’ finding and keeping work is their access to 

adequate transportation. In 1998, the Congress found that while three-

fourths of welfare recipients lived in central cities or rural areas, 

two-thirds of new jobs were located in the suburbs. Public 

transportation facilities, such as buses or subways, often offer 

limited or no access to many of the places where jobs are located. As a 

result, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 

authorized up to $750 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for 

the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(Job Access) Program. The program attempts to fill gaps in 

transportation services that constitute barriers to low-income 

people[Footnote 1] accessing job opportunities. The program provides 

grants to transit agencies, local human service agencies, and others. 

DOT’s two major goals for the program are to (1) provide transportation 

and related services to urban, suburban, and rural areas to assist low-

income individuals, including welfare recipients, with access to 

employment and related services, such as child care and training, and 

(2) increase collaboration among such parties as transportation 

providers, human service agencies, employers, and others in planning, 

funding, and delivering those services. Since TEA-21 expires at the end 

of fiscal year 2003, the Congress will soon be making decisions 

regarding the possible reauthorization of the Job Access Program.



TEA-21 requires that we report on the implementation of the Job Access 

Program. To date, we have issued six reports on the Program from May 

1998 through December 2001, and we also testified on the Program in 

April 2002 before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (See app. I for a 

summary of the results of our previous reports on the Program.):



As agreed with your offices, this report:



* examines the status of DOT’s efforts to evaluate the Job Access 

Program and report to the Congress and:



* discusses our findings about the Job Access Program’s efforts to (1) 

provide transportation and related services to allow low-income people 

to reach employment and related opportunities; (2) increase 

collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of the services of 

Job Access projects; and (3) foster the financial sustainability of the 

services delivered by Job Access projects after program funding 

terminates.



To meet these objectives, we examined Program documentation at DOT, the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of 

Labor (Labor); interviewed officials of these agencies; conducted a 

mail survey of all 173 fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Job Access 

grantees with projects that were still operating at the time we did our 

study,[Footnote 2] achieving a response rate of about 88 percent (or 

152 grantees); and interviewed nine experts in welfare reform and/or 

transportation. We selected these experts on the basis of our review of 

transit and welfare reform literature and referrals from HHS, Labor, 

DOT, and national associations, such as the Community Transportation 

Association of:



America (CTAA).[Footnote 3] We also visited and documented activities 

at 14 locations where Job Access projects were being implemented. We 

judgmentally selected these locations to obtain a nationwide geographic 

dispersion of existing projects; different sizes (large urban, medium-

size urban, and small cities/rural areas) of the areas served by Job 

Access projects; and various types of services funded by Job Access 

grants. Moreover, to address the first objective of our study, we 

monitored DOT’s efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the program 

and report to the Congress by June 2000, as required by TEA-21. Our 

work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. For more 

detailed information about our scope and methodology, see appendix II.



Results in Brief:



DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of 

the Program, as TEA-21 required; therefore, DOT is missing an 

opportunity to provide timely information that could be useful as the 

Congress considers whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. Though 

required to submit the report by June 2000, DOT neither submitted the 

report nor established a date for doing so. Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) Program officials are uncertain of when the report 

would be submitted to the Congress because the report must undergo a 

review and approval process by the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, we 

have serious concerns about FTA’s proposal for the evaluation because, 

as we testified in April 2002,[Footnote 4] the agency’s plan to focus 

its evaluation on the number of employment sites[Footnote 5] served by 

each Job Access project does not fully address key aspects of the 

program. For example, the employment sites measure addresses only the 

program goal of providing transportation-related services and does not 

address the other goal of encouraging collaboration in the design, 

financing, and service delivery of Job Access projects. According to 

DOT officials, their report to the Congress will include additional 

data that they believe would address both of the program’s objectives 

but not the selection criterion that the services funded by Job Access 

projects continue after the termination of program funding. However, we 

are unable to comment on the evaluation, because agency officials did 

not provide us with a draft of the report.



Our analysis shows that, through its grants, the Job Access Program 

funds a variety of transportation-related services that are intended to 

assist low-income people in traveling to the workplace and associated 

support services, such as child care or job training. In awarding over 

$355 million in grants in 42 states through fiscal year 2002, the 

program funded such services as extending existing bus routes to serve 

low-income populations and informing clients about available 

transportation service and their use. In addition, according to 

grantees and experts we contacted, the program has increased planning, 

financial, and service delivery collaboration among local 

transportation providers, human service agencies, employers, and 

others. For example, over three-quarters of our survey’s 

respondents[Footnote 6] stated that the program increased collaboration 

with other transit and human service agencies. Such collaboration 

allows transit agencies to design and provide transportation service 

that is based on information from other agencies about where low-income 

people live and where jobs and support services are located. However, 

more collaboration at the federal level is needed between Labor and DOT 

to enable grantees to obtain additional federal funding for Job Access 

projects. Specifically, some grantees have not used funds from Labor’s 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs[Footnote 7] as a match for Job 

Access grants because Labor and DOT officials have not yet clarified 

the eligibility of WIA funds for this purpose. According to the Job 

Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, such as those from 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and the WIA 

programs, have an advantage over nonfederal matching funds because 

these are formula programs that have a predictable funding stream to 

the states and localities so that funding can be maintained without 

disruption. However, the ability of many grantees to financially 

sustain their Job Access services after the end of program assistance 

(a criterion for FTA to consider in the selection of Job Access 

projects) is uncertain. Only 12 percent of our survey’s respondents 

said they would maintain or expand the level of Job Access services 

after the end of Job Access funding; 41 percent said they would 

decrease or discontinue services; and 47 percent were uncertain about 

continuing services. According to one expert we contacted, because many 

Job Access services are more costly than the services for the general 

transit clientele, grantees would likely continue operating the Job 

Access services only as long as federal funding covered the associated 

costs. According to FTA program officials, FTA has recently taken new 

steps to coordinate with Labor by forwarding questions to Labor 

requesting clarification on the use of WIA funds as Job Access matching 

funds. FTA program officials said that Labor’s responses might be 

published on a government Web site, thereby informing grantees and 

other stakeholders of the availability of WIA funds for Job Access 

purposes.



We are making a recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation that 

DOT report to the Congress on the results of its evaluation of the Job 

Access Program, as required by law. Another recommendation is intended 

to help ensure that in reporting to the Congress, DOT evaluates the 

program against both program goals as well as against the selection 

criterion that Job Access projects be financially sustainable after the 

end of program funding. A third recommendation addresses barriers to 

the use of WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access grants.



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

and comment.



Background:



The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nati’on’s system to 

provide assistance to the poor. The 1996 act replaced the existing 

entitlement program for poor families with block grants to the states 

to provide temporary assistance for needy families under the TANF 

Program. Also, under the TANF Program, states provide cash assistance 

to needy families with children and provide parents with job 

preparation; work; and support services, including transportation 

benefits. The 1996 act gave states flexibility in designing their 

programs to best provide those benefits and services. HHS’s 

Administration for Children and Families manages the TANF Program and 

has provided about $16.5 billion annually for states to use to assist 

needy families to become self-sufficient, including about $800 million 

annually for transportation benefits. In addition, Labor’s Employment 

and Training Administration administers programs authorized under WIA, 

with about $4 billion in fiscal year 2002 appropriations to provide 

individuals with job training and placement services. The WIA-sponsored 

programs also provide transportation services to take their clients to 

program-supported services, such as job training and 

placement.[Footnote 8] The TANF-and WIA-sponsored transportation 

efforts focus on their program clients, while the Job Access Program 

attempts to improve transportation for low-income people in general.



With the enactment of TEA-21, DOT became a sponsor of welfare-to-work 

initiatives. The Job Access Program is focused on assisting address the 

transportation aspect of welfare reform by assisting low-income people 

travel to work and/or employment-related activities. Many low-income 

people and welfare recipients do not have access to cars and existing 

public transportation systems cannot always bridge the gap between 

where low-income people live and where jobs are located. In addition, 

many entry-level jobs require shift work in evenings or on weekends, 

when public transportation services are either limited or unavailable. 

When the Job Access Program was established, $750 million was 

authorized from fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for the Program. 

Appropriations have totaled $375 million through fiscal year 2002, with 

$75 million appropriated in each of the fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and 

$100 million and $125 million appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and 

2002, respectively.[Footnote 9] The Job Access Program was established 

to close gaps in transportation services for low-income people in 

places where and at times when such transportation was not available. 

The program addressed these gaps by funding, through grants, new 

transportation and related services and expanding existing services to 

help low-income people access employment opportunities and related 

support services. TEA-21 identified a variety of factors for DOT to 

consider in funding Job Access projects, such as the need for Job 

Access services as evidenced by the percentage of the population in the 

area receiving welfare benefits; the demonstrated collaboration between 

the grantee and other stakeholders, such as other transportation and 

human service agencies; and the extent to which an applicant identified 

long-term financing strategies that would support the Job Access 

services after the end of the grant. Job Access grantees are required 

to provide at least 50 percent matching funds from other sources, which 

may include federal sources of funds available for transportation 

services, such as the TANF or WIA programs.



DOT has consistently used two goals that it synthesized from TEA-21 as 

the primary criteria for evaluating, selecting, and funding Job Access 

projects to be funded through program grants. Those goals are that Job 

Access projects and services funded should:



* provide transportation and related services to urban, suburban, and 

rural areas to assist low-income individuals, including welfare 

recipients, with access to employment and related services, such as 

child care and training, and:



* increase collaboration among such parties as transportation 

providers, human service agencies, employers, and others in designing, 

funding, and delivering those transportation services.



In selecting Job Access projects, DOT also considered the extent to 

which the projects would be financially sustainable after the end of 

Job Access Program funding.[Footnote 10]



DOT’s Evaluation Has Been Delayed and May Not Address Significant 

Aspects of the Job Access Program:



DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of 

the Job Access Program, as TEA-21 required. DOT therefore is missing an 

important opportunity to provide information that could be useful as 

the Congress considers whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. FTA 

Program officials are not certain about when the report will be 

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



Evaluation Report Has Been Delayed, and Its Submittal Date Is 

Uncertain:



DOT has delayed completion of its evaluation of the Job Access Program, 

and the date that it will be submitted to the Congress is uncertain. 

TEA-21 required that DOT evaluate the Job Access Program and submit a 

report to the Congress by June 2000. FTA officials stated their 

intentions to us several times and to the Congress to complete and 

submit the required evaluation report. DOT’s delays in issuing the 

report have cost it an important opportunity to provide information to 

the Congress on the effectiveness of the Job Access Program as the 

Congress begins its debate on the reauthorization of the program. In 

addition, as shown below, we have repeatedly reported on and emphasized 

the need for DOT to evaluate the effectiveness of the Job Access 

Program.



* In May 1998, before the program was enacted into law, we reported 

that DOT lacked specific information for assessing how a Job Access 

Program would improve mobility for low-income workers, and we 

recommended that DOT establish specific objectives.



* In December 1998, we reported that DOT was in the process of 

establishing an evaluation plan for the program.[Footnote 11]



* In November 1999, we noted that DOT had not yet completed a plan for 

evaluating the program, although we had recommended that it do 

so.[Footnote 12]



* In December 2000, we reported that the evaluation plan had been 

completed and that for the purposes of reporting under the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, DOT had established a goal of 

serving 4,050 new employment sites in fiscal year 2000, and 8,050 in 

fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 13]



* On April 17, 2002, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we testified that 

DOT had not yet prepared the required evaluation report and had



no definite date for submitting the study.[Footnote 14] At that 

hearing, DOT officials stated that the report would be completed and 

sent to the Congress by June 2002.



Throughout our study, FTA program officials discussed the reasons for 

the delays in issuing the report to the Congress. FTA program officials 

explained that to meet the requirement that they submit an evaluative 

report to the Congress by June 2000, they asked the grantees to submit 

data regarding the employment sites served by Job Access projects as 

well as the numbers of employers and entry-level jobs at those sites. 

They explained that they found that only about two-fifths of the data 

they obtained from grantees proved to be useful, because the rest of 

the data were inconsistently or inaccurately reported. By the summer of 

2001, DOT officials decided that the data were out-of-date. They 

decided to wait for new data to be reported to them and to redraft the 

report to the Congress using the new data.



As of the end of our review, FTA program officials continued to be 

unsure of the date the evaluative report will be submitted to the 

Congress. In November 2002, they said that they had completed their 

draft report and that the draft was being reviewed by the Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation for approval before the report could be 

sent to the Office of Management and Budget for its approval. FTA 

Program officials did not provide us with an estimated date for 

submitting the draft report to the Office of Management and Budget and 

the final report to the Congress.



Reporting Only Employment Sites Would Not Comprehensively Evaluate the 

Program, and Contents of Final Report to the Congress Are Uncertain:



When we testified on April 17, 2002, DOT had planned to use only 

employment sites as a measure of program effectiveness. We testified 

that this measure presents only a partial picture of program 

effectiveness in meeting program goals for the following reasons:



* First, employment sites attempt to measure whether the Job Access 

Program establishes effective transportation services that help low-

income people reach jobs--only one of the program goals. However, 

employment sites do not address the other program goal of whether 

projects were designed and implemented in a collaborative fashion 

involving the grantee and stakeholders. In addition, employment sites 

do not address the selection criterion of whether Job Access projects 

can be financially sustained after the end of program funding.



* Second, the use of employment sites does not fully capture whether 

the Job Access Program effectively addresses the program goal of 

providing transportation-related services to low-income people. 

Employment sites do not capture such information as the number of jobs 

available at a site or the number of Job Access beneficiaries using a 

Job Access service over a period of time.



Grantees that responded to our survey reported that they are using 

additional indicators of and data on the performance of Job Access 

services. These grantees reported that, for internal reporting 

purposes, they collect a variety of data that can indicate the 

effectiveness of Job Access services. These survey results are shown in 

table 1.



Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to Our 

Survey:



Number of passengers that use a new or enhanced transportation service; 

Percentage of grantees that cited the performance measure: 81.



Number of trips made by Job Access service; Percentage of grantees that 

cited the performance measure: 64.



Number of employment sites accessed through the Job Access service; 

Percentage of grantees that cited the performance measure: 60.



Number of employers made available to low-income people through a Job 

Access service; Percentage of grantees that cited the performance 

measure: 57.



Number of jobs served by a Job Access transportation service; 

Percentage of grantees that cited the performance measure: 53.



Number of TANF clients who were able to obtain and keep employment as a 

result of Job Access service; Percentage of grantees that cited the 

performance measure: 25.



Source: GAO survey of the 173 grantees that were awarded their grants 

in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and are still operating their Job Access 

projects. One-hundred, fifty-two (152) responded to our survey. See 

also appendix IV of this report.



[End of table]



In addition to the measures listed in the table, experts we contacted 

suggested that DOT consider such measures as (1) the number of new and 

expanded transportation services (including data on service frequency, 

hours, and miles); (2) the level of collaboration achieved; and (3) the 

beneficiaries’ views of the effectiveness of Job Access services. In 

1998, DOT funded a study that also identified many of these same 

measures for evaluating prospective Job Access projects.



After we discussed with FTA program officials their plans to use only 

employment sites as performance measures, they stated that they planned 

to issue an evaluative report to the Congress that would contain 

information in addition to employment sites. In September 2002, we 

requested that FTA program officials provide a draft of the report for 

our review or a description of the evaluative methodology. In response, 

on October 4, 2002, they provided us with a memorandum that listed the 

contents of the report they proposed for the evaluative report to the 

Congress, including a list of the performance measures they proposed to 

use. According to FTA program officials and this document, the 

evaluative report would contain the results of a study by the 

University of Illinois, including surveys of passengers who were riding 

Job Access vehicles and studies of Job Access grantees. FTA program 

officials told us that they hoped to profile the services provided by 

the Job Access Program, including data on the geographic distribution 

of the services, the types of transportation-related services provided, 

the costs of the services, and the cost per ride. They also proposed an 

assessment of the program that would include such indicators as the 

number of employment sites, the number of jobs, and the job support 

services made available by Job Access projects. Other proposed measures 

include Job Access project ridership and user characteristics, such as 

users’ age, income, car ownership, driver’s license status, and work 

history, and information about users’ assessments of the importance of 

the Job Access service. According to the measures that FTA program 

officials listed, their report might address the second objective of 

the program by conveying information on Job Access planning 

partnerships between transportation and human service providers as well 

as community representatives and employers. The report also might 

address the financial partnerships established to fund Job Access 

services, such as the partnerships involving transportation providers, 

human service providers, and private and not-for-profit organizations.



Notwithstanding the information given to us by FTA program officials 

about the proposed contents for their report to the Congress, for the 

following reasons we continue to believe that contents of the final 

report are uncertain, including whether the report would evaluate the 

program against both program goals and selection criterion:



* First, FTA’s list of the performance indicators that FTA proposed for 

its report to the Congress did not specify how FTA would collect these 

additional performance data--an important consideration given the 

results of FTA’s earlier efforts to collect performance data from the 

Job Access grantees.



* Second, the document did not contain sufficient information for us to 

comment on the adequacy of the report that FTA program officials 

propose to submit to the Congress or the rigor of the proposed 

evaluative methodology. For example, the document did not specify how 

the data would be used to address the goals and selection criterion of 

the Job Access Program.



* Third, as previously stated, FTA program officials must still submit 

the draft through a review process. The reviewing parties may not 

approve the contents of the report as proposed by FTA program 

officials.



Varied Services Delivered and Collaboration Improved, but Projects’ 

Sustainability and Use of Federal Funds Can Be Improved:



In awarding over $355 million in grants in 42 states through fiscal 

year 2002, the Job Access Program funded such services as extending 

existing bus routes to serve low-income populations and implementing 

services that provide information to clients about available 

transportation services and their use. Moreover, the program has 

increased planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among 

local transportation providers, human service and job placement 

agencies, employers, and others in providing access to employment and 

employment support services. However, the ability of many Job Access 

projects to be financially sustainable after the end of program 

assistance (a criterion FTA considered in the selection of Job Access 

projects) is uncertain. In addition, some states have not used WIA 

funds as Job Access matching funds, because specific guidance on the 

use of WIA funds has not been issued.



The Job Access Program Funded a Variety of Services to Help Low-Income 

People Travel to Work:



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

geographic areas, including large and medium-size cities as well as 

small towns and rural areas. Most grantees--about two-thirds of them--

are traditional transit providers, such as metropolitan transit 

authorities or bus companies. The remaining grantees, such as local 

human service agencies, local housing agencies, and faith-and 

community-based organizations, do not provide transit services as a 

primary activity.



As shown in table 2, Job Access grantees used a variety of approaches 

to provide transportation services that assist low-income people to 

access job opportunities. Many Job Access projects involved expanding 

existing transit resources, such as bus routes. On the basis of our 

analysis of project documentation, about 51 percent of the 181 grantees 

selected in fiscal year 1999 modified an existing fixed transit route 

by adding new areas served or by enhancing the frequency of the 

service, while 43 percent added entirely new bus routes to serve the 

needs of low-income people.[Footnote 15] For example, the Santa Rosa, 

California, transit agency started a new route that provides bus 

service from a low-income neighborhood to employment locations on the 

other side of town and training centers en-route. According to transit 

officials, this service will eventually be incorporated into the 

existing transit network once their Job Access grant is ended.



Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees:



Transportation approach: Fixed bus route extension (frequency or 

location) established[B]; Percentage of grantees[A]: ; 51.



Transportation approach: New bus service initiated; Percentage of 

grantees[A]: 43.



Transportation approach: Demand-responsive service established[C]; 

Percentage of grantees[A]: 19.



Transportation approach: Connection to existing service 

established[D]; Percentage of grantees[A]: 14.



[A] Percentages do not add to 100 because some grantees provided 

multiple services. :



[B] Fixed bus routes are traditional bus routes that operate on 

predetermined streets and at fixed times.



[C] Demand-responsive service refers to a transit service, often 

utilizing small buses or vans, that take riders to locations they 

request at times they request.



[D] Connection to existing service refers to a new transit service that 

transports riders to preexisting transit routes--for example, bus or 

van connections to a subway system.



Source: Analysis of project data on all 181 grantees that FTA selected 

in fiscal year 1999 as presented in report GAO/RCED-00-14. These 

grantees include over 80 percent of the grantees still participating in 

the Job Access Program. :



[End of table]



According to our analysis, grantees used a variety of transportation 

modes--in particular, vans, buses, or rail--to provide those 

transportation services for low-income people. Forty-one percent of the 

Job Access grantees used vans to serve low-income people. For example, 

because some low-income people faced problems getting to and from work 

during late hours, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

(WMATA) began a demand-responsive[Footnote 16] shuttle van service that 

operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for those needing transportation 

during late evening and early morning service hours. In addition, 14 

percent of the grantees utilized buses or rail to provide Job Access 

services, while 9 percent utilized carpools or ridesharing, and 4 

percent utilized taxis.



About one-third of the grantees provided information to assist low-

income people to better utilize existing transportation resources to 

get to employment and related support services. Specifically, 31 

percent of the grantees employed an information coordinator or 

information brokerage center to provide information on how to use 

existing transit facilities and services for travel to work, training, 

child care, and other support services. For example, since fiscal year 

1999, WMATA has received about $3.2 million in Job Access funds and, 

among other things, created the Washington Regional Call Center that 

provides a central location where eligible, low-income people can call 

to get exact trip information. Under this same grant, Montgomery 

County, Maryland, used Job Access funds to provide transit information 

by creating a Web page for human service employment centers to use to 

help their clients find ways to get to work. In another example, the 

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet received a $2.5 million grant in fiscal 

year 2000 and established a centralized brokerage system to help low-

income people utilize demand-responsive service in rural areas.



Some grantees have provided innovative services for the specialized 

needs of low-income people or to serve special populations, as the 

following examples demonstrate:



* The Good News Garage--a community-based, nonprofit association, which 

is based in Burlington, Vermont--used $277,935 in Job Access funding in 

2000 for a service called CommuteShare. The Good News Garage obtains, 

repairs, and provides used vehicles to economically disadvantaged 

people. The CommuteShare Program made some repaired vehicles available 

for carpools and demand-responsive transportation to take low-income 

people to and from work. According to Good News Garage officials, about 

75 percent of the TANF recipients who receive cars provided by the 

project eventually leave TANF and become economically self-sufficient. 

About 190 people have participated in the project, with about 25 

participating at one time.



* Project Renewal, a rehabilitation center for homeless men and women 

located in New York City, used Job Access funding of $799,337 to 

implement its Suburban Jobs project.[Footnote 17] Project Renewal 

identifies and secures job opportunities in suburban areas around New 

York City and places formerly homeless New Yorkers in unsubsidized 

employment. According to the project’s administrator, Suburban Jobs 

directs vans daily to five worksites, where employers offer at least 

$6.50 per hour to each participant. Project Renewal’s housing 

facilities as well as other nonprofit employment programs refer 

qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. Project Renewal identifies 

appropriate employment opportunities, prepares clients for interviews, 

supplements public transportation through its own van service to the 

suburban jobsites, and provides counseling to project beneficiaries on 

their way to and from work. (See app. III for more information about 

the projects we visited.):



Job Access Program Has Met Its Goal of Improving Collaboration between 

Grantees and Stakeholders:



The Job Access Program has met its goal of increasing planning, 

financial, and service delivery collaboration among local 

transportation providers, human service and job placement agencies, 

employers, and others in providing access to employment and employment 

support services. Individual Job Access grantees and welfare reform and 

transportation experts we contacted stated that the Job Access Program 

brought together transit and human service agencies that have not 

widely collaborated in the past. According to our survey of grantees 

selected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, almost 80 percent of the 152 

grantees that responded indicated that the Job Access Program increased 

cooperation with other transit agencies, and 88 percent indicated that 

the program increased cooperation with human service agencies. In 

addition, all but one of the nine transportation and welfare reform 

experts we contacted stated that this significant increase in 

collaboration at the grantee level was the most successful result of 

the Job Access Program. One expert noted that the Job Access 

requirement for matching funds further encouraged grantees to approach 

state and local agencies that administer TANF funds to use those funds 

as part of a project’s matching funds. About 58 percent of the grantees 

that responded to our survey indicated they used TANF funds as part of 

their required matching funds.



On the basis of our survey and visits to Job Access grantees, 

coordination between grantees and state and local stakeholders to plan 

and implement Job Access services occurred in varied forms. In some 

cases, transit agencies consulted with human service agencies to design 

new transportation services for low-income people. In other cases, 

coordination included simple referrals of low-income clients from human 

service agencies to the Job Access grantee for information about 

transportation services, such as vanpools, bus routes, and demand-

responsive van services. Housing authorities also collaborated with 

transit agency grantees to transport low-income people from public 

housing to jobs, training, and/or child care. In addition, transit 

agency grantees often partnered with local human service agencies and 

local workforce investment boards by sending representatives to job 

fairs and one-stop job placement and training facilities to train low-

income people to use the transit system to commute to work.



Each of the 14 grantees we visited cited increased cooperation as a 

program benefit, although they ascribed varying degrees of difficulty 

in achieving such cooperation. Officials of state transportation and 

human service agencies we contacted said that applying for the Job 

Access grant made transit agencies aware of the need to tailor 

transportation services to low-income persons. Human service agency 

officials also said their involvement with the Job Access grant 

increased their awareness of the need to consider low-income persons’ 

transportation needs when implementing human service programs. The 

Capital District Transit Authority in Albany, New York, credited its 

Job Access project with encouraging it to develop new working 

relationships. Transit Authority officials stated that information from 

those agencies helped it redesign its bus routes to provide service 

that was more responsive to the needs of low-income people. WMATA 

officials also credited the Job Access Program with enabling them to 

take the lead, as the region’s largest transit agency, in coordinating 

the Job Access services with smaller, regional, transit service 

providers. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Transit Authority of River City 

coordinated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit agencies 

in developing its Job Access project. The Job Access project received 

its matching funds from the City of Jeffersontown, Kentucky; United 

Parcel Service; and Kentuckiana Works--the Workforce Investment Board 

sponsored by Labor. The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation 

Department and the University of New Mexico developed several databases 

of publicly funded vehicles, TANF households by zip code, and jobsites 

to help local agencies plan transportation services for low-income 

people. On the other hand, Ft. Worth Transit Authority officials cited 

the administrative burden related to obtaining funds from other federal 

programs as their reason for being reluctant to seek out matching funds 

from other partners.



Collaboration at the Federal Level Is Needed to Clarify That WIA Funds 

Can Be Used to Match Job Access Grants:



DOT agreed that the use of WIA funds as a match for Job Access grants 

needs to be clarified, and it plans to continue its efforts to 

collaborate with Labor to issue new guidance to states. Currently, it 

is not clear to grantees or to the state agencies that administer Labor 

programs that WIA funds can be used as matching funds for Job Access 

grants, in part because Labor, which administers WIA programs, and DOT 

have not issued written guidance indicating that WIA funds can be used 

for this purpose. Labor, DOT, and trade association officials we 

contacted agreed that existing guidelines on the use of WIA funds 

indicate that those funds can be used for a variety of purposes, but 

are ambiguous on whether those funds can be used to pay for 

transportation services. As previously mentioned, applicants for Job 

Access grants must obtain at least 50 percent matching funds from other 

sources.[Footnote 18] Some grantees used WIA funds as Job Access 

project matching funds, while others did not.



DOT and Labor officials are in the process of trying to issue 

guidelines about using WIA funds for Job Access purposes. Labor issued 

an internal E-mail stating that WIA funds could be used as matching 

funds for Job Access projects; however, Labor did not disseminate this 

knowledge outside of the department to the state and local agencies 

that provide the WIA-funded services. FTA program officials told us 

that they are currently working with Labor to issue clarification about 

the use of WIA funds and have has sponsored an effort by a CTAA working 

group for this purpose. FTA officials said that the working group 

queried Labor’s Employment and Training Administration about the use of 

WIA funds. Once answers are received, they may be published over the 

Internet on a federal Web site, according to FTA program officials.



According to experts we contacted, as well as CTAA, DOT, and Labor 

officials, clarification of federal guidelines could help states 

understand that federal funds, such as WIA funds, can be used as part 

of the match. According to these officials, some states, such as New 

York, have interpreted federal guidelines to reach a conclusion that it 

is not permissible to use WIA funds as Job Access project matching 

funds. The interpretation has precluded grantees in those states from 

using WIA funds as a source for obtaining the necessary match for a Job 

Access grant.



Using federal funds as matching funds--such as WIA and TANF funds--can 

be advantageous for Job Access grantees because federal funds may be 

more predictable and stable than nonfederal matching funds. According 

to the Job Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, such as 

TANF and WIA, have an advantage over nonfederal matching funds because 

these are formula programs that have a predictable funding stream to 

the states and localities so that funding can be maintained without 

disruption. Also, more sources of funds available as a match for Job 

Access grants would provide additional options to grantees and improve 

their ability to sustain their projects. One of our previous surveys of 

Job Access grantees indicated that soliciting, finding, and maintaining 

matching funds was difficult for many grantees. For example, 34 percent 

of the grantees selected in fiscal year 1999 that responded to our 2000 

survey reported that FTA’s lengthy grant approval process caused 

problems with the availability of their project’s matching funds, and 

seven projects were withdrawn (about 4 percent of the Job Access 

projects) after losing their matching funds.[Footnote 19]



Financial Sustainability of Many Job Access Projects Is in Doubt:



The ability of many Job Access projects to be financially sustainable 

after the end of Job Access assistance is questionable. DOT selected 

Job Access projects by considering, among other factors, the ability of 

projects to achieve financial sustainability after the end of Job 

Access Program funding. More specifically, in evaluating applications 

for Job Access projects, FTA program officials assessed the extent to 

which a prospective grantee identified long-term financing strategies 

to support the Job Access services after the end of Job Access funding. 

However, FTA program officials consider financial sustainability to be 

secondary to other program goals.



The results of our survey of grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and 

2000 indicate that many Job Access projects would probably be 

discontinued after the end of DOT funding, and many other projects 

would face uncertain prospects for continuation. Specifically, about 41 

percent of the respondents to our survey reported that after the end of 

Job Access funding, they would have to decrease the scope of services 

or discontinue services altogether once their Job Access funding 

ends.[Footnote 20] Another 47 percent of the grantees responded that 

they were uncertain about their ability to continue their services. The 

remaining 12 percent reported that they would continue their projects 

at the same or expanded levels after the end of their Job Access 

funding. One expert explained that many Job Access services are more 

costly than the services for the general transit clientele; grantees 

would likely continue operating the Job Access services only as long as 

federal funding covered the associated costs.



Conclusions:



Because DOT has not evaluated the Job Access Program and reported the 

findings to the Congress as required by law, the department is missing 

an opportunity to provide important information on a timely basis to 

the Congress on the effectiveness of the program. FTA program officials 

have not provided us with a specific date for issuing the report 

because the draft must still be reviewed and approved by the Office of 

the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget 

before release to the Congress. In addition, the usefulness of the 

report is also in doubt: If the report contains information only on 

employment sites, then it would address only the first program goal of 

providing transportation services to low-income people while ignoring 

the other goal of promoting collaboration in the design, financing, and 

delivery of those services and the criterion of ensuring that Job 

Access projects are financially sustainable after the end of program 

funding. Finally, while the law and guidelines allow the use of other 

federal funds to match Job Access grants, neither DOT nor Labor have 

provided written guidance clarifying the eligibility of funds from 

Labor’s WIA programs for those purposes. As a result, some states will 

not allow grantees to use WIA funds to match Job Access grants.



Recommendations:



We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following 

actions:



* Report to the Congress, as required by TEA-21, on the results of the 

evaluation of the Job Access Program.



* Include in the report to the Congress, an evaluative methodology that 

examines the Job Access Program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals of 

(1) establishing transportation-related services that help low-income 

individuals, including welfare recipients, reach jobs and employment 

support services, such as child care and training, and (2) increasing 

planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among local 

transportation providers, human services agencies, and others in 

providing access to employment and employment support services. The 

report also should examine the financial sustainability of Job Access 

projects after the end of Job Access Program funding.



* In conjunction with the Department of Labor, issue guidance to states 

providing clarification on the use of Workforce Investment Act funds as 

matching funds for Job Access projects.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. We 

met with DOT and FTA program officials who provided us with comments on 

our draft report. The officials generally agreed with most aspects of 

our report. They stated that our survey of Job Access grantees provides 

interesting, unique, and useful data, worthy of greater emphasis in our 

report. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that it is important to 

emphasize both our survey and DOT’s progress in its evaluation report 

because DOT risks not having the report available to the Congress in 

time to assist in making decisions about reauthorizing the program. 

With regard to our first recommendation, agency officials stated that 

the Job Access Program evaluation, required by TEA-21, has been drafted 

and is being processed through the Department; however, the officials 

were not sure when the report would be issued. With regard to our 

second recommendation, the officials said that the evaluation report 

would fulfill the department’s statutory requirement and address most 

of the elements specified in the recommendation. With regard to our 

third recommendation, the officials indicated that DOT has been working 

closely with Labor to clarify issues and provide guidance related to 

using Labor’s WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access projects. As 

appropriate, we revised our report to, among other things, provide 

updated information on the status of DOT’s evaluative report to the 

Congress and DOT’s efforts to coordinate with the Labor to clarify the 

use of WIA funds as Job Access matching funds.



We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal 

Transit Administration; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services; and other interested parties. We will make copies 

available to others on request, and the report will be available on 

GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov for no charge. If you have any questions 

about this report, please call me at (202) 512-2834 or e-mail me at 

siggerudk@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix V.



Katherine A. Siggerud

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:

Signed by Katherine A. Siggurd:



[End of section]



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports:



The Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21) requires 

that we report on the implementation of the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (Job Access) Program. To date, we have issued a report on 

transportation and welfare reform efforts in May 1998, before the 

program was established,[Footnote 21] and five other reports on the 

program: in December 1998,November 1999, December 2000, August 2001, 

and December 2001.[Footnote 22]



In May 1998, we reported that the proposed Job Access Program would aid 

the national welfare reform effort by, among other things, providing 

additional resources to transport welfare recipients to work.We 

recommended that the Department of Transportation (DOT) (1) establish 

specific objectives, performance criteria, and goals for measuring the 

program’s progress; (2) require grantees to coordinate transportation 

strategies with local job placement and other social service agencies; 

and (3) work with other federal agencies to coordinate welfare-to-work 

activities. TEA-21 reflected these recommendations and required 

appropriate action by DOT.



Our December 1998 report was the first to be completed in response to 

the TEA-21 mandate that we periodically review and report on the 

implementation of the Job Access Program. We reported on DOT’s 

preliminary steps and strategy for implementing the Job Access Program, 

noting that DOT’s overall plan for implementing the program included 

distributing grant funds to as many areas throughout the United States 

as possible, subject to grant funding limits of $1 million for large 

urban areas and $150,000 for rural areas. DOT announced that it would 

use several criteria for selecting projects to fund, including a 

project’s effectiveness in serving a demonstrated regional need; the 

degree of local coordination with other regional stakeholders 

demonstrated by the prospective grantee in designing and identifying 

funding for a project; and the project’s financial plans and 

sustainability after the end of Job Access funding. An application’s 

compliance with these factors would be weighted for each factor, and 

DOT said that it would also award bonus points for innovative 

approaches to providing Job Access services. DOT also considered the 

geographic dispersion of projects in making award decisions. We noted 

that DOT made important efforts in attempting to establish 

communication channels with various federal welfare reform agencies 

through its role in a policy council that involved the White House and 

other agencies in formulating interagency policy decisions about the 

Job Access Program. DOT also formulated “Joint Guidance” with the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of 

Labor (Labor) on how the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

Program and Welfare-to-Work Program funds[Footnote 23] could be used as 

matching funds to help pay for Job Access projects. Regarding 

evaluation of the Job Access Program, DOT initially established four 

types of data it would collect from grantees in assessing the 

performance of Job Access grants and the Job Access Program: (1) the 

number of new and expanded transportation services (including data on 

service frequency, hours, and miles); (2) the number of jobs made 

accessible by the Job Access project; (3) the number of people using 

the new service; and (4) the level of collaboration achieved. We agreed 

that these were good measures for monitoring Job Access projects, but 

DOT still needed to measure the program’s overall success by 

establishing programwide goals or benchmarks against which the 

cumulative data on new routes, new system users, and newly accessible 

jobs could be compared.



In November 1999, we reported on the implementation of the pProgram in 

fiscal year 1999, its first year. We found that DOT had implemented our 

second and third recommendations in carrying out TEA-21. Specifically, 

DOT had required grantees to coordinate transportation strategies with 

local job placement and other social service agencies and had worked 

with other federal agencies to coordinate welfare-to-work activities. 

DOT also had taken preliminary steps to implement our first 

recommendation that it establish specific objectives, performance 

criteria, and goals for measuring the program’s progress. However, we 

also found that DOT’s process for selecting Job Access grant proposals 

was not consistent in fiscal year 1999, and the basis for some 

selections was unclear.



Our December 2000 report examined DOT’s implementation of the Program 

in fiscal year 2000. We found that DOT had taken steps to improve its 

process for selecting Job Access proposals. For example, to promote 

greater consistency in the evaluation and selection of grantees, DOT 

developed a standard format for reviewing Job Access proposals and 

provided more detailed guidance to its reviewers. Almost 90 percent of 

the fiscal year 1999 Job Access grantees that responded to our survey 

were satisfied with the goals and intent of the program.[Footnote 24] 

However, 51 percent said that satisfying various standard FTA grant 

requirements took too long--about 9 months, on average. As a result, 

about one-third of respondents reported experiencing problems in 

obtaining matching funds. In addition, seven projects were withdrawn 

(about 4 percent of Job Access projects) for various reasons, 

including, in one case, the loss of matching funds. In this report, we 

note that DOT had implemented our recommendation that it develop 

specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals for its 

Job Access Program evaluation. DOT developed a goal to increase new 

employment sites by 4,050 in fiscal year 2000, and 8,050 in fiscal year 

2001, and it had requested specific data from the grantees.



Our August 2001 report provided our preliminary observations on (1) 

DOT’s proposal to use a formula for allocating grant funds to the 

states, (2) the status of obligations for the Job Access Program, and 

(3) DOT’s plans for reporting on the program to the Congress. First, 

DOT had proposed a change to the Job Access Program beginning in fiscal 

year 2002, under which it would allocate funding to the states via a 

formula, instead of to individual grantees. DOT proposed this change in 

response to language in the conference reports accompanying DOT’s 

appropriations acts for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 that designated Job 

Access funding for specific states, localities, and organizations. 

Second, as of August 7, 2001, DOT had obligated 94 percent of the funds 

for fiscal year 1999, 67 percent of the funds for fiscal year 2000, and 

20 percent of the funds for fiscal year 2001. Third, DOT officials had 

missed the June 2000 deadline for a status report to the Congress but 

expected to report instead in September 2001.



Our December 2001 report primarily addressed DOT’s response to language 

in conference reports that accompanied its fiscal year 2000 and fiscal 

year 2001 appropriations statutes. The conference reports designated 

specific grantees that were to receive Job Access funding; these grants 

involved up to three-quarters of the appropriated funding for the Job 

Access Program in a fiscal year. DOT elected to award grants to the 

designated parties in a noncompetitive fashion; however, in doing so, 

it was not in compliance with the provisions of the authorizing 

legislation--TEA-21--because the act called for a competitive grant 

selection process. To address this finding, we recommended that DOT 

implement a competitive selection process for all prospective grantees, 

including those that were designated by language in conference reports. 

As a result of our recommendation, DOT announced that it would 

implement a competitive selection process for all grantees--

congressional designated and otherwise.



On April 17, 2002, we testified on the Job Access Program before the 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure. We emphasized the need for DOT to evaluate the 

program as directed by TEA-21. We noted that, at the time of our 

testimony, DOT had no estimated date for issuing the required report. 

Further, we stated that DOT’s use of employment sites as the sole 

measure of program success does not address key aspects of the program 

nor specifically relate to DOT’s criteria for selecting Job Access 

grantees.



[End of section]



Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



For its first objective, this report examines the status of DOT’s 

efforts to evaluate the Job Access Program and report to the Congress. 

For its second objective, the report discusses our findings about the 

Job Access Program’s efforts to (1) provide transportation and related 

services to allow low-income people to reach employment and related 

opportunities; (2) increase collaboration in the design, financing, and 

delivery of the services of Job Access projects; and (3) foster the 

financial sustainability of the services delivered by Job Access 

projects after program funding terminates.



In responding to our first objective, we contacted FTA Program 

officials to discuss and document their efforts to evaluate the Program 

and to issue a report to the Congress. We monitored FTA’s plans to 

evaluate the Program, including their proposal to utilize employment 

sites, and we queried Program officials about reasons for their delay 

in issuing the report to the Congress and plans for expediting 

completion of the evaluation. In addition, through our discussions with 

program officials, transportation and welfare reform experts, and 

national associations, we identified prospective measurements of 

program success and discussed the availability and appropriateness of 

those measurements for an evaluation of the Job Access Program.



In responding to our second objective, we examined the services 

delivered by Job Access projects in assisting low-income people access 

jobs and job-related services. Specifically, we followed up on our 

previous findings, observations, and recommendations from our reports; 

reviewed the agency’s ongoing efforts to solicit, evaluate, and select 

Job Access grantees in fiscal year 2002; and examined DOT’s ongoing 

implementation of existing grants and projects. Our November 1999 

report contained an analysis of project data regarding the 

transportation-related services delivered by all 181 projects selected 

in fiscal year 1999. Those projects constitute over 80 percent of the 

projects that are still operating today. We used this information to 

supplement our discussion of the types of services funded through Job 

Access grants.



As part of the work for our second objective, we assessed whether the 

Job Access Program was increasing collaboration in the design, 

financing, and delivery of the services of Job Access projects--a 

program goal. We addressed the issue of collaborative project design, 

financing, and delivery in our survey of 173 Job Access grantees 

selected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 that are still implementing Job 

Access projects. We also examined how the implementation of individual 

Job Access projects has been integrated into the transportation and 

human service efforts of states and local communities by observing the 

interactions between grantees, metropolitan planning organizations, 

transit agencies, and human service agencies, such as those in the 

Albany, New York, area; the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; the 

Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, area; the San Francisco Bay area; and the 

Louisville, Kentucky, area.



Meeting our second objective also required that we assess whether the 

Job Access Program was meeting a criterion for FTA’s selection of Job 

Access projects--whether the projects could achieve financial 

sustainability of their services after program funding terminates. Our 

previous work on the Job Access Program showed that many projects might 

not be sustained if their Job Access funding terminated; therefore, our 

survey of Job Access grantees included questions about the likelihood 

of Job Access projects retaining their matching funds and continuing to 

operate. We also inquired about the prospects for projects’ financial 

sustainability with the grantees we selected for site visits and 

discussed financial sustainability with Job Access Program officials, 

national associations, and welfare reform and transportation experts.



Finally, as part of our second objective, we examined the use of 

federal funds from other programs as matching funds for Job Access 

projects. Job Access Program regulations require that grantees obtain 

at least 50 percent of their project funding from non-DOT sources, 

which may include funding from federal sources such as the TANF Program 

and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)-sponsored programs of Labor. We 

therefore reviewed policies affecting coordination and cost-sharing in 

federal programs, which included Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-87, and we contacted DOT, HHS, and Labor officials about 

their efforts to refine the interagency “Joint Guidance” regarding 

matching funds for Job Access Program grants.



In addition, we selected and utilized three broad methodologies that 

addressed both objectives of our study. These methodologies included:



* performing a detailed review of selected, ongoing Job Access projects 

at different locations;



* surveying all Job Access grantees selected during fiscal years 1999 

and 2000; and:



* consulting with nine welfare reform and transportation experts.



Review of Selected, Ongoing Job Access Projects:



We performed detailed reviews of selected, ongoing Job Access projects 

at different locations. We selected these projects to represent the 

geographic dispersion of Job Access projects across the United States. 

In addition, we selected projects that served the different sizes of 

areas prescribed by the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Job 

Access administrative requirements: large urban areas, medium-size 

urban areas, and rural areas/small cities. These grantees provided 

different types of Job Access service delivery methods (e.g., carpools, 

fixed bus and van routes, demand-responsive transportation, and trip 

information and assistance). We visited the following:



* Grantees serving large cities:



1. Project Renewal (not-for-profit, community-based, organization,

 New York City).

2. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (transit agency,

 Washington, D.C.). 

3. Maryland Transit Administration (statewide transit agency, 

Baltimore,

 Maryland).

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



* Grantees serving medium-size cities:



1. Capital District Transit Authority (transit agency, Albany, New 

York).

2. Santa Rosa City Department of Transit and Parking (transit agency,

 Santa Rosa, California).

3. Transit Authority of River City (transit agency, Louisville, 

Kentucky). 

 City of Albuquerque Transit (transit agency, Albuquerque, New

 Mexico).



* Small cities and rural areas:



1. Good News Garage (community-based, not-for-profit, organization,

 Burlington, Vermont). 

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

 Albuquerque, New Mexico).

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

 Mexico).

4. California DOT (CALTRANS, state DOT, Sacramento, California).

5. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (state transportation agency,

 Frankfort, Kentucky).



6. Alliance for Children and Families (not-for-profit organization, 

based in

 Milwaukee, Wisconsin).



At each location, we examined how Job Access services were delivered, 

how the design and delivery of Job Access services were coordinated 

with those of other transportation services and human service agencies 

in the area, and whether the grantees could financially sustain their 

services if Job Access funding terminated. The grant recipients that we 

visited included state and regional agencies that distributed Job 

Access funds to subgrantees and that made substantial efforts to 

coordinate those services to avoid duplicating ongoing transportation 

services that serve low-income people, including welfare recipients.



Survey of Job Access Grantees:



We conducted a mail survey of all 173 Job Access grantees that were 

funded in fiscal years 1999 or 2000. (See app. IV for the survey 

results.) We did not survey the grantees selected in fiscal year 2001 

because they did not have enough time to begin implementing their Job 

Access projects. Our survey addressed issues pertaining to the 

grantees’ implementation of their projects, including costs, ridership, 

collaboration with other agencies, their financial ability to sustain 

services in the absence of Job Access funding, and their views on the 

usefulness of the program in addressing the transportation needs of 

low-income individuals. Our response rate, about 88 percent (152 

respondents), can be generalized to the universe of all grantees funded 

in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.



Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts:



We consulted nine experts from academia, federal and state 

transportation and welfare programs, and national associations with 

backgrounds in the fields of welfare reform and transportation. They 

provided information and views on such matters as the strategy DOT used 

to implement the Job Access Program, the role of the Job Access Program 

in the national welfare reform effort, the overall effectiveness of the 

Program in serving low-income people, ways that the program could be 

improved, the sustainability of Job Access projects, and ways in which 

DOT could evaluate the program as required by TEA-21. We selected these 

experts on the basis of our review of transit and welfare reform 

literature and referrals from DOT, HHS, Labor, and national 

associations, such as the American Public Transportation Association.



Our work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Services of Selected Job Access Grantees:



To address the objectives of our review, we visited ongoing Job Access 

projects at different locations. At each location, we examined how Job 

Access services were delivered, how the design and delivery of Job 

Access services were coordinated with those of other transportation 

services and human service agencies in the area, and whether these 

projects could financially sustain their services if Job Access funding 

terminated. We selected these projects to represent the geographic 

dispersion of Job Access projects across the United States as well as 

the different sizes of areas prescribed by FTA’s Job Access 

administrative requirements: large urban areas, medium-size urban 

areas, and rural areas/small cities.



The projects we visited, as well as their locations, the services they 

delivered, and the kinds of matching funds used, are summarized in 

table 3. Following table 3, we provide more detailed information on 

each project. The information contained in this text is based on 

interviews with project officials as well as project-specific 

documentation, including program and budget information.



Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited:



Organization: Alliance for Children and Families; Project: Ways to 

Work; Location: Milwaukee, WI; Type of service: Car purchase/finance 

program with carpool requirement; Job access funding: FY 2000 - 

$1,000,000.



Organization: California Department of Transportation; Project: 

Agriculture Industry Transportation Services Pilot Project; Location: 

Kings and Kern Counties, CA; Type of service: Bus/Vanpool service; Job 

access funding: FY 2000 - $1,500,000; FY 2001 - $3,000,000.



Organization: Capital District Transportation Authority; Project: 

Transit to Jobs; Location: Albany, NY; Type of service: Van service on 

fixed routes; Job access funding: FY 2000 - $497,500; FY 2001 - 

$497,500.



Organization: City of Albuquerque Transit; Project: Albuquerque Transit 

Job Access Program; Location: Albuquerque, NM; Type of service: Demand-

responsive van, rides for employment and transportation, training, 

vanpool, and reduced bus pass; Job access funding: FY 1999 - $325,000; 

FY 2000 - $1,000,000.



Organization: City of Santa Rosa; Project: Santa Rosa CityBus Route 15-

Stony Point Route Extension Project; Location: Santa Rosa, CA; Type of 

service: Fixed route bus service; Job access funding: FY 1999 - 

$200,000; FY 2000 - $250,000.



Organization: Fort Worth Transportation Authority; Project: Fort Worth 

Transit; Location: Fort Worth, TX; Type of service: Demand-responsive 

vans and taxi service and fixed route bus service; Job access funding: 

FY 1999 - $175,0000.



Organization: Good News Garage; Project: CommuteShare; Location: 

Burlington, VT; Type of service: Demand-responsive rides and carpooling 

program; Job access funding: FY 2000 - $277,935.



Organization: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; Project: Human Service 

Transportation Delivery System; Location: Frankfort, KY; Type of 

service: Demand-responsive trip brokerage system and fixed bus route; 

Job access funding: FY 2000 - $2,500,000.



Organization: Las Vegas Housing Department; Project: Las Vegas Housing 

Department Welfare-to-Work Program; Location: Las Vegas, NM; Type of 

service: Demand-responsive van service; Job access funding: FY 2000 - 

$40,798; FY 2001 - $54,386.



Organization: Maryland Transit Administration; Project: Maryland Job 

Access and Reverse Commute Program; Location: Maryland (statewide); 

Type of service: Fixed route bus service, demand-responsive van 

service, and computer project to connect human service employment 

centers to a county transit internet site; Job access funding: FY 1999 

- $2,119,880; FY 2000 - $3,000,000; FY 2001 - $2,394,720.



Organization: Project Renewal; Project: Suburban Jobs; Location: New 

York, NY; Type of service: Van service from city to suburb and return 

for clients transitioning to work; Job access funding: FY 1999 - 

$398,760; FY 2001 - $400,577.



Organization: State of New Mexico; Project: Transportation Toolkit; 

Location: New Mexico (statewide); Type of service: Demand-responsive 

van service and extended fixed route; Job access funding: FY 1999 - 

$1,198,000

FY 2000 - $601,190; FY 2001 - $1,995,600.



Organization: Transit Authority of River City; Project: Access to Jobs 

Program; Location: Louisville, KY; Type of service: Fixed bus route and 

demand-responsive van service; Job access funding: FY 1999 - 

$1,032,938; FY 2001 - $1,097,400.



Organization: Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority; 

Project: Washington Region Access to Jobs Program; Location: 

Washington, DC; Type of service: Fixed route bus service, demand-

responsive vanpools, and trip information brokering; Job access 

funding: FY 1999 - $1,350,000; FY 2000 - $650,000; FY 2001 - $998,000.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantees.



[End of table]



Alliance for Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) - 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin:



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

provides low-income people with loans of various sizes, ranging from 

$750 for car repairs up to $3,000 for the purchase of a used car. For 

its Job Access project, Ways to Work implemented a carpool project.



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

carpool project with other participants. Ways to Work then coordinates 

the pool on the basis of home location and jobsite. While approximately 

three-fourths of borrowers received government aid at the time of their 

loan application, their use of public assistance dropped by 40 percent 

within 2 years, and less than 1 percent of borrowers became “new” users 

of public assistance since receiving their loans. Ways to Work 

officials stated that internal studies show that borrowers can average 

a 20 percent increase in household income. Currently, the Job Access 

project in Alabama is the only ongoing effort under this grant. These 

officials told us that Ways to Work is also applying for Job Access 

grants in other locations, such as New Philadelphia, Canton, and Akron, 

Ohio.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access 

Project:



[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]



[End of table]



Coordination:



Ways to Work has had different results with state DOTs. According to 

the president of Ways to Work, the relationship with the Alabama DOT 

was positive but slow. The Alabama DOT assisted Ways to Work by 

coordinating on behalf of Ways to Work with other state and local 

resources, such as human service agencies. However, according to Ways 

to Work’s president, this coordination process was too slow because 

Ways to Work confronted Alabama’s slow budget process. As a result, the 

Program experienced delays in being implemented. Local participants in 

the Job Access project did not have the cash flow to advance the 

project, but the funding was obtained from the Alabama DOT.



Sustainability:



Ways to Work would reduce its carpool project if Job Access funds were 

no longer available, according to its president. Job Access funding 

expanded and strengthened the carpool project and Ways to Work overall. 

Ways to Work, however, has been in operation since 1984 and received 

most of its funding from foundations, banks, and other private funding 

resources; thus, it could find alternative funding sources to maintain 

the project. Moreover, as people repay the loans, Ways to Work can 

reuse the money, so that successful lending would help stretch funding 

out over many years. However, the carpool budget would be reduced, 

thereby reducing the scope of the project.



California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry 

Transportation Services - Kings County and Kerns County, California:



In May 2001, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) 

established the Agriculture Industry Transportation Services (AITS) 

pilot project in response to a series of accidents involving farm labor 

vehicles in the San Joaquin Valley--specifically, the death of 14 farm 

workers. Many workers had been using unlicensed and uninsured van 

service that charged passengers about $6 to $10 per day. The AITS pilot 

project was designed to improve access to safe public transportation 

for farm workers and their communities by providing expanded or new 

transit service in Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties. There are 

two components of the project--first, the Kings County component, which 

encompasses the Fresno and Tulare Counties, and second, the Kerns 

County component. Service started in May 2002.



The Kings County component involves purchasing 134, 15-passenger vans. 

Residents in each of the targeted communities are trained to safely 

operate the vanpool vehicles. The operators of these vehicles both 

drive the vans and work at the agricultural fields and nearby packing 

facilities. Vanpool fare for the pilot project is $50 per person, per 

month. In addition, the Kings County component involves purchasing 12, 

28-passenger buses. Residents of the community operate the buses 

between the communities and nearby agricultural employment centers. Bus 

fare is $3 per person, per day, and service frequency varies (from 4 to 

7 days a week), depending upon seasonal demand for labor. An average of 

26 people per day are currently riding the first bus in operation in 

Kings County. The combined van and bus service costs each person about 

$5 per day.



The Kerns County component of the AITS Job Access project is an 

expansion of a fixed route bus service. Kern Regional Transit provided 

expansion of existing portions of the transit system. Previously, 

service consisted of one fixed route bus serving the Lamont/Weedpatch 

communities, one demand-responsive bus for those, and an intercity 

commuter bus linking Lamont with the Bakersfield area. Expansion of 

service under this Job Access project consists of a second intercity 

bus operating in the communities of Arvin, Weedpatch, and Lamont 6 days 

a week, with limited service provided on Sundays. An additional bus was 

placed into service for the Lamont/Weedpatch communities providing 

improved service for residents in the communities that required transit 

services to jobsites. Because the pilot project began operating in May 

2002, data compilation and reporting of the project’s success has not 

been completed. CALTRANS officials plan in the future to collect data 

on the number of agricultural workers who use the service to measure 

the success of the program.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project and the sources of matching funds and amounts.



Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project:



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: $1,500,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: State Public Transportation Account; 

Matching funds: Amount: $1,500,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 3,000,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: State Public Transportation Account; 

Matching funds: Amount: 2,500,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $4,500,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 

$4,000,000.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.



[End of table]



CALTRANS was awarded $4.5 million for the AITS pilot project. According 

to CALTRANS officials, the $4.5 million was to be matched by funds from 

the State Public Transportation Account, derived from fuel tax revenue. 

However, the state did not fund the request for the additional $500,000 

from the State Public Transportation Account to match the funding 

awarded in January 2001. Therefore, CALTRANS will only use $4 million 

of the total $4.5 million of Job Access funds.



Coordination:



CALTRANS officials fostered collaboration with other agencies by 

conducting statewide workshops to explain the Job Access effort. They 

invited the regional transportation agencies, metropolitan planning 

organizations, and associated agencies to these workshops. According to 

CALTRANS officials, coordination efforts have faced some challenges, 

especially because of incompatible tracking systems. CALTRANS has only 

been able to track the total number of passengers, whereas the 

California Office of Health and Human Services is required to track the 

ridership of each individual TANF client. As a result, the Office of 

Health and Human Services has had difficulties providing TANF funds for 

the required Job Access match because they could not account for the 

number of TANF clients who specifically used the mass transit system.



Sustainability:



CALTRANS officials said that the vans would continue to operate without 

Job Access funds. The fares paid by the passengers of the Kings County 

services are used for insurance, maintenance, fuel, vehicle 

replacement, overhead, and drivers’ salaries. However, the bus service 

in Kern County would need to be funded with contributions from local 

governments or other organizations to continue operation in the absence 

of Job Access funding.



Capital District Transportation Authority - Albany, New York:



The Capital District Transportation Authority provides fixed route bus 

and van transit service as well as individualized trip planning and 

information brokering. The transit authority’s Job Access funds are 

used to expand the hours of operation for their suburban services, 

primarily in Albany, Rensselaer, and Schenectady Counties. The 

extension allowed the transit authority to operate late night service 

as well as service during the weekend. As a result of its Job Access 

project, transit authority officials said they identified and filled 

gaps in its service by developing a system that provides a 

transportation solution for TANF clients who had difficulties getting 

to and from work. According to transit authority officials, specific 

projects being funded by Job Access are not for traditional fixed route 

bus services, so services are contracted to companies that use vans in 

all three counties. These services are paid for on a cost-per-trip 

basis. Taxis are also utilized to take some of the grantee’s Job Access 

clients to and from work.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access 

Project:



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $497,500; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: New York State Department of Labor; Matching 

funds: $900,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 497,500; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: New York State Department of Labor; Matching 

funds: 3,400,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $995,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: [Empty]; Matching funds: $4,300,000.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.



[End of table]



Coordination:



Transit authority officials said that the Job Access Program has helped 

improve the coordination between transit and human service agencies. 

According to grantee officials, as part of the Job Access grant 

process, the transit authority established a relationship with the New 

York State Department of Labor, which created a link to local human 

service agencies and made transportation more accessible for TANF 

clients while broadening their client focus.



However, coordinating the implementation of the Job Access project 

between the grantee and various stakeholders has been complicated by 

differences in reporting requirements between these parties and by the 

volume of data that has to be collected. To conform with TANF reporting 

requirements, the grantee has had to collect data it does not normally 

collect for the numbers of TANF recipients that use the Job Access 

service. Grantee officials explained that they had difficulties 

accounting for their ridership along with determining if their 

passengers are TANF clients. In addition, according to these officials, 

private and nonprofit organizations operate their own transportation 

vans and have services that overlap with Capital District 

Transportation Authority services in some areas. Some of these other 

agencies operating in the community include the following: the 

Department of Aging Markets, the Association of Retarded Citizens, the 

Veterans Administration, and the Office of Mental Retardation and 

Developmental Disabilities. Transit authority officials stated that 

better coordination among these services could result in a more 

efficient transportation network.



Sustainability:



Capital District Transportation Authority officials said that their 

agency’s sources of revenue are limited, and that without Job Access 

funding, they would be unable to continue the services started under 

the Program. The officials stated that the need to provide 

transportation during weekends and second and third shifts has produced 

a greater need for heavier subsidies. However, many counties are 

feeling a budget squeeze, resulting in less funding being available to 

contribute to the match necessary to obtain FTA Job Access funding. 



City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services - Albuquerque, New 

Mexico:



The Albuquerque Transit Department has seven Job Access projects that 

include demand-responsive rides for work, job training, or 

transportation emergencies; subsidized vanpools; reduced price bus 

passes; a free 1-day bus pass available for job-training trips; a free 

6-month bus pass for social service agency staff who volunteer to be 

travel trainers for their clients; and a mobility manager service that 

teaches people how to utilize bus schedules, ride buses, and use other 

transit services. The demand-responsive services are available to 

anyone at or below 150 percent of the poverty level. Participants are 

offered 120 round-trips within 2 years to their jobs, job-related 

training, and child care required for their jobs and/or job-related 

training. Participants can only utilize the services to these 

designated trips if they lack (1) a local bus stop within a quarter-

mile of their home or destination, (2) a local bus service that 

duplicates the route in less than 90 minutes, and (3) a local bus 

service that is available to their destination. Albuquerque Transit 

officials estimate that on-demand van services cost about $17.50 per 

ride; eligible participants pay 75 cents per trip.



Albuquerque Transit officials stated that, on the basis of qualitative 

measures, their project is successful. The agency has tried to measure 

the success of the Program by obtaining community feedback. This 

feedback has indicated that the communities like the projects and feel 

that the services were long overdue, according to transit officials. 

Although it does not have exact numbers, the grantee claims that the 

project is helping to reduce the welfare rolls, and that overall 

ridership is increasing. In the first 3 months of 2002, the Job Access 

project had 120 riders, according to Albuquerque Transit officials.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project:



[See PDF for Image]

[End of Figure]



Coordination:



Albuquerque Transit has had mixed results coordinating with other 

agencies. The project successfully involved about 95 organizations in 

the Job Access project. The project has obtained matching funds from 

the City of Albuquerque, the New Mexico Human Service Department, and 

the University of New Mexico Career Works. Coordination efforts, 

however, have faced some challenges. The biggest barriers to 

coordinating human service activities with transit services stemmed 

from different agency cultures for complying with services standards 

for clients, according to transit officials. They said transportation 

providers do not speak the same language as human service providers 

because the two have different missions and philosophies. The officials 

said that compliance with all of the requirements to acquire matching 

funds is also a barrier because human service agencies usually only 

provide funds under certain conditions, such as are not paying for 

nonclients. Consequently, the transit agency has spent considerable 

financial resources tracking the number of TANF clients using Job 

Access project services.



Sustainability:



According to transit officials, Albuquerque’s project requires some 

sort of public assistance and support to exist. Without Job Access 

funding, they would no longer be able to provide the services created 

under the project. The grantee officials are unsure of what they would 

do if the funds stopped or the Job Access Program was not reauthorized. 

Furthermore, they do not expect the state to fill the funding void--New 

Mexico is one of four states that provide no state funds for public 

transit.



City of Santa Rosa Citybus - Santa Rosa, California:



Santa Rosa, California, is a rapidly growing metropolitan area that is 

approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco, in Sonoma County. Santa 

Rosa’s City Department of Transit and Parking (Santa Rosa CityBus) 

operates 16 bus routes, most emanating from the transit center in the 

downtown area. Santa Rosa CityBus’s Job Access project established a 

new public transit route, Route 15-Stony Point Road, in August 1999. 

This new transit route serves the highest concentration of TANF 

recipients in Santa Rosa, and it links job seekers with multiple job 

opportunity worksites (e.g., light industry and telecommunications) and 

human service agencies. According to Santa Rosa CityBus officials, 

Route 15 has decreased the travel time of route users because it 

eliminates unnecessary transfers through the downtown area. The cross-

town route, extending over 15 miles, requires about 1 hour to make a 

round-trip and uses two buses. The service is available to the general 

public and all passengers pay the same fare. However, the local health 

and human services agency (SonomaWorks) purchases monthly bus passes at 

the regular price and provides them at no cost to TANF participants. 

Transit officials estimate that the route will service about 132,000 

people in fiscal year 2002.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $200,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: MTC, State TDA; Matching funds; 
Amount: 

$300,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: 250,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: MTC, State TDA; Matching funds; 
Amount: 

250,000.



Matching funds: Source: : : : MTC, State LIFT[A]; Matching funds; 
Amount:

250,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 0; [Empty]; 

Matching funds: Source: MTC, State LIFT; Matching funds; Amount: 
250,000.



Matching funds: Source: : : : State TDA; Matching funds; Amount: 
250,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2002; Job Access Program funding: 0; [Empty]; 

Matching funds: Source: MTC, State LIFT; Matching funds; Amount: 
250,000.



Matching funds: Source: : : : MTC, State TDA; Matching funds; Amount: 

250,000.



Job Access Program funding: Total: $450,000; Total: [Empty]; Matching 

funds: Source: Total: [Empty]; Matching funds: Total: $1,800,000.



Legend:



LIFT	 Low-Income Flexible Transportation

MTC	 Metropolitan Transportation Commission

TDA	 Transportation Development Act:



[A] LIFT funds include 50 percent Job Access funding through a state 

grant.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



Santa Rosa CityBus officials worked closely with the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC), the area’s metropolitan planning 

organization, to develop and acquire funding for Route 15. MTC worked 

on a plan that identified the regional shortfalls of existing 

transportation services in terms of areas covered and times served. MTC 

also helped gather the background information and produced Geographic 

Information Systems maps, which plotted the TANF population that needed 

to be served in the City of Santa Rosa. This allowed Santa Rosa and 

transportation commission officials to identify the service gaps in 

Santa Rosa and the areas where the highest concentration of TANF 

recipients lived. Because of this collaboration, Santa Rosa CityBus was 

able to provide a route linking low-income people to the resources they 

need, such as jobs, child care, and health care.



The Job Access Program has also improved collaboration between Santa 

Rosa CityBus and the local health and human service agency officials. 

SonomaWorks officials, with the assistance of Santa Rosa CityBus staff, 

trained local health and human services’ caseworkers to better inform 

their clients about all services being provided by Santa Rosa CityBus-

-specifically, Route 15. However, Santa Rosa officials did not discuss 

using TANF funds as a match with SonomaWorks. Santa Rosa officials 

stated that they were aware that the Job Access Program allowed for a 

federal-to-federal funds match, but they chose not to pursue the 

possibility of using TANF funds because they did not face any 

difficulties in raising the matching funds.



Sustainability:



Currently there is no plan to discontinue service in the absence of Job 

Access funding. Santa Rosa CityBus officials stated that even if the 

Job Access Program were discontinued, Route 15 would continue to 

operate. They added that it would be virtually impossible to 

discontinue any established transit line because the transit users in 

the community depend on these services. The goal of the Santa Rosa 

CityBus was to use Job Access funding to assist in the establishment of 

the route. They expect the route to be self-sustaining without Job 

Access funds.



Fort Worth Transportation Authority - Fort Worth, Texas:



Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) is the primary public 

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

of the Job Access grant, FWTA employed a vanpool for the city’s 

outlying areas and contracted with a taxi company to provide demand-

responsive service to its clients within the Fort Worth area. Officials 

at FWTA identified their target population as TANF recipients and 

people with incomes at or below 150 percent of the poverty level. They 

stated that their project has resulted in individuals finding jobs and 

maintaining employment. They said that they provided transportation 

services for 6 months, in the belief that if a person is employed for 

that period of time, the person has increased his or her chances of 

being hired again. As a result of the Job Access project, FWTA 

officials said they have been able to help some people transition from 

welfare to work by providing them with transportation to and from work, 

daycare, and other services.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access 

Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $175,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Fort Worth Transportation Authority[A]; 

Matching funds: Amount: $50,000.



Matching funds: Workforce Investment Board; Matching funds: 

Amount: 50,000.



Matching funds: City of Fort Worth; Matching funds: Amount: 

50,000.



Matching funds: Fort Worth Housing Authority; Matching funds: 

Amount: 25,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $175,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: $175,000.



[A] FWTA also received a Job Access grant for $240,000 for fiscal year 

2001. According to an FWTA official, the project would consist of 

expanding fixed-route bus service on two major routes through the city. 

However, budgetary constraints prevented the authority from providing 

the 50 percent match at this time. According to the official, the 

project may yet be implemented as the FTWA’s financial condition 

changes.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



FWTA officials have been reluctant to consult and coordinate with other 

stakeholders, such as other transit agencies and human service 

agencies, to receive assistance in operating their Job Access project 

because of their negative experience in obtaining matching funds from 

other stakeholders. They explained that they experienced a significant 

administrative burden in complying with the data collection and 

reporting requirements imposed by those stakeholders. Specifically, in 

the early days of the project when seeking financial contributions from 

other partners, they encountered problems in receiving TANF and other 

matching funds, because of the significant reporting requirements 

imposed by those funding sources. Although FWTA officials received the 

required matching funds, they concluded that they would rather have its 

partners provide noncash contributions since those contributions would 

not result in any administrative requirements. FWTA officials are now 

reluctant to request any operating assistance from other stakeholders.



Sustainability:



FWTA officials said that their project could not be continued without 

Job Access funds and would require additional assistance and support 

for it to continue. FWTA spends about $11.50 on its demand-responsive 

taxi service. The cost per trip averages about $17.50 because of the 

shared ride nature of each family trip. These costs are comparable to 

taxi rides provided on a zone basis. For rides on its fixed route 

services, FWTA assumes almost all of the $20 per ride costs of 

providing the transit services, charging an average of only 50 cents 

per trip. According to FWTA officials, their agency has no dedicated 

funding stream for the Job Access services and the fares they collect 

are not enough to continue their Job Access project in the absence of 

FTA funding.



Good News Garage, Commuteshare - Burlington, Vermont:



CommuteShare is the Job Access project component of the Good News 

Garage--a nonprofit association that repairs used vehicles and provides 

them to economically disadvantaged applicants. The Good News Garage 

donates some of its vehicles to CommuteShare for one carpool service 

and four demand-responsive services. Under the carpool service, a 

driver keeps the vehicle and provides rides to three other 

participants. The demand-responsive service has an assigned volunteer-

driver take people to work upon request. CommuteShare services are free 

and available to any person whose household income is less than 225 

percent of the federal poverty level. Individuals receiving case-

managed services have free access to the vehicle for 6 months. After 

that, there is a sliding fee scale fee that is based on income. Carpool 

group members split the cost of fuel and parking, while demand-

responsive passengers each pay a $1 fuel contribution. One-way rides 

cost CommuteShare roughly $16--this includes all operating expenses, 

such as fuel, insurance, and repairs. About 190 people have 

participated in the program, with 25 people participating at any given 

time.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the source of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Job Access Program funding: 2000: $277,935; 2000: [Empty]; Matching 

funds: Source: 2000: PATH; Matching funds: 2000: $277,935.



Total: $277,935: [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Total: $277,935: 

[Empty].



Legend: 	

PATH 	Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, 

and Health Access (state funds):



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



Good News Garage and CommuteShare have enjoyed strong coordination with 

other agencies, according to project administrators. Lutheran Social 

Services, the nonprofit association that is based in New England that 

created the Good News Garage, aligned the Garage with the Vermont 

Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and Health Access 

(PATH)--the state TANF clearinghouse--and the Vermont Department of 

Employment and Training. Most Good News Garage and CommuteShare 

referrals come from PATH. The Good News Garage also receives referrals 

from local battered women’s shelters. It used PATH state funds to 

satisfy its matching funds requirements.



According to a PATH official, CommuteShare and PATH have coordinated 

effectively in the overall welfare-to-work effort. PATH helps the Good 

News Garage and CommuteShare clients pay for repairs or get them to 

work if their car is not working. The support lasts 1 year and 

thereafter, is no longer continued. The PATH official added that 

positive experiences with demand-responsive service have resulted in 

plans to expand such projects. PATH wants to have at least one car in 

each of Vermont’s 12 districts for demand-responsive service.



Sustainability:



CommuteShare officials are not sure if the project can maintain 

operations in the absence of Job Access funding. Because of a tight 

budget cycle, Vermont may not be able to supplement the required match-

-making a loss of Job Access funding critical to the projects 

sustainability. According to project administrators, the project has 

some support from the private sector but needs strong public funding to 

maintain services. Grantee officials said that CommuteShare appears to 

be a successful and innovative Job Access project but may have problems 

sustaining itself after the end of Job Access funding.



Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Frankfort, Kentucky:



The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Human Service Transportation 

Delivery project involved consolidating transportation services 

previously provided by various state governmental agencies to transport 

Medicaid and low-income people to job interviews, job training, 

employment, and child care facilities. According to cabinet officials, 

services were consolidated because the previous transportation delivery 

process was fragmented, increasingly costly, and vulnerable to fraud 

and abuse. Kentucky’s welfare reform initiative was expected to double 

transportation needs for TANF recipients. In addition, transportation 

services were not easily accessible in some rural areas. For example, 

in an 11-county region in Southeast Kentucky, an average of 32.5 

percent of the households were living in poverty, while an estimated 

46,977 people over the age of 60 and 13,570 households did not have 

access to an automobile. As a result, the cabinet began a statewide 

demand-responsive service program. Seniors and low-income passengers 

needing transportation could contact 1 of the 14 regional 

transportation brokers within 72 hours of their trip.[Footnote 25]



Although the cabinet targets low-income people, the project is open to 

the public. The service costs 50 cents to $1 for low-income individuals 

and the general public. The Kentucky Cabinet for Family and Children 

Services pays for TANF recipients’ fares. According to cabinet 

officials, the Job Access project is efficient and a major improvement 

from past welfare reform efforts. The brokerage system resulted in more 

people taking more trips at less cost. As of June 2002, the project has 

provided 549,914 trips for TANF recipients and 330,596 trips for those 

participating in Medicaid. Under the Job Access project, revenue 

projections indicate that reductions in expenditures will result in a 

Medicaid savings of $3 million annually.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access 

Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: $2,500,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Kentucky Department of Children and 

Family Services; Matching funds: Amount: $1,000,000.



Matching funds: Source: Combined contribution of local 

communities; Matching funds: Amount: 1,000,000.



Matching funds: Source: Kentucky State Transportation Funds; 

Matching funds: Amount: 500,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $2,500,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 

$2,500,000.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet coordinated with the Cabinet for 

Family and Children Services,[Footnote 26] local communities, human 

service agencies, transit departments, and private transportation 

operators to implement its Job Access project. According to grantee 

officials, the Transportation Cabinet also relied heavily on local 

community support. Local areas provided 40 percent of the necessary 

match and were excited that the needed services were to start, 

according to the cabinet official. The project also required 

coordination from the 14 different transportation brokers. One such 

broker, the Kentucky River Foothills, estimates that 95 percent of the 

clients it transports have incomes that are less than or equal to 150 

percent of the official federal poverty income threshold, and 65 

percent to 70 percent earn less income than the official federal 

poverty level. According to Kentucky River Foothills officials, the 

biggest obstacle to coordination is convincing localities to invest in 

public transportation.



Sustainability:



Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials estimate that about half its 

services can be sustained in the absence of Job Access funding. The 

services most likely to survive would be those that have the strongest 

community and employment ties. For example, in one region, a chicken 

factory depends on low-income labor. The factory would most likely 

support the Job Access service to keep its workers.



Housing Department - Las Vegas, New Mexico:



The Las Vegas Housing Department’s Job Access project--a subgrantee of 

the New Mexico State Highway Transportation Department--is a 

continuation of a welfare-to-work project run by Highlands University. 

According to the housing director, the university’s project was not 

working very well because it lacked an effective transportation 

component. When the Job Access project began, the Las Vegas housing 

director took on the responsibilities of transportation coordinator and 

organized a new welfare-to-work project. The new project leveraged 

funds from a variety of sources, including the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) and DOT, and had an existing clientele. The 

city’s Housing Department also provided the city Transportation 

Department with a facility to enhance their coordination. The Las Vegas 

project is open to the public and provides demand-responsive van 

service during the traditional workweek. Although the project is 

targeted to those who are low-income, anyone can utilize the service. 

Las Vegas has a sliding scale for the service costs; the general public 

pays a general cost (about $1.50), those who are below 30 percent of 

the county median-income level--60 percent of their participants meet 

this criteria--pay 75 cents (after applying through the local TANF 

office at Highlands University), and residents of the housing 

department can access the service for free. The van service requires 

24-hour notice to schedule rides and can be used to travel to work, 

child care, and retail locations as well as other purposes. According 

to the Las Vegas housing director, the Las Vegas Housing Department’s 

project is a success; ridership has doubled in 3 years and housing 

participants have improved their lives.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job 

Access Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: $40,798.00; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Department of Labor; 

Matching funds: Amount: $20,399.00.



Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Human Service Department; 

Matching funds: Amount: 20,399.00.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 54,386.00; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Department of Labor; 

Matching funds: Amount: 27,193.50.



Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Human Service Department; 

Matching funds: Amount: 27,193.50.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $95,184.00; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 

$95,185.00.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



The housing director was also able to use HUD’s Drug Elimination grant 

funds to help fund the project because the services included taking 

teens to after-school activities. The grantee did not use DOT funds for 

rural transportation as matching funds for the project, but it did use 

them to purchase vans for the service.



Coordination:



According to the housing director, the project is an excellent example 

of coordination between local, state, and federal agencies. Highlands 

University is the human service provider and is receiving welfare-to-

work money from Labor’s Welfare-to-Work Program. The state’s Department 

of Labor runs the TANF Program and also is providing matching funds. 

The state Department of Labor has increased its number of vans from 

three to five, and the department’s director said he is starting to 

receive interest from other rural communities looking to replicate the 

project.



Sustainability:



According to project officials, the project cannot exist without public 

support, particularly Job Access funds. The housing director argued for 

the need to have continued federal funding of the Job Access project. 

The housing director stated that clients need to have flexible and free 

or cheap service, or else they will purchase a car. However, buying an 

old car makes it harder for clients to develop financial independence, 

because the costs of maintaining such a car are burdensome. The 

director added that Job Access and other welfare-to-work services fail 

because people who purchase a car do not have enough remaining funds to 

pay for non-work-related automobile trips and to pay for such 

necessities as child care, food, and clothing.



Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

- Annapolis, Maryland:



The Maryland Transit Administration’s (MTA) project serves as a broker 

for transportation funds throughout the state. Much of its Job Access 

funding is applied toward demand-responsive services, but several 

subprojects serve existing public service routes. MTA solicits 

subprojects for its Jobs Access project by mailing applications, 

advertisements, and guidelines to Maryland localities. MTA uses 

performance indicators and standards to grant both awards and award 

amounts.



Funding:



The following table describes Job Access subprojects funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job Access 

Program:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access program funding: $2,119,880; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Maryland (state); Matching funds: 

Amount: $391,250.



Matching funds: Source: Maryland DOT for Montgomery County; 

Matching funds: Amount: 200,000.



Matching funds: Source: Maryland Department of Human Resources/

Local Department of Social Services; Matching funds: Amount:

667,375.



Matching funds: Source: Upper Shore Private Industry Council; 

Matching funds: Amount: 15,000.



Matching funds: Source: Baltimore Enterprise Zone/Abell 

Foundation; Matching funds: Amount: 285,880.



Matching funds: Source: Housing Authority of Baltimore City; 

Matching funds: Amount: 200,000.



Matching funds: Source: Local governments; Matching funds: 

Amount: 165,375.



Matching funds: Source: Historical East Baltimore Community 

Action Coalition; Matching funds: Amount: 150,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access program funding: [Empty].



Matching funds: Source: Anne Arundel Econ. Development Corp; 

Matching funds: Amount: 45,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access program funding: 3,000,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Maryland (state); Matching funds: 

Amount: 854,679.



Matching funds: Source: Maryland DOT for Montgomery County; 

Matching funds: Amount: 405,000.



Matching funds: Source: Maryland Department of Human Resources/

Local Department of Social Services; Matching funds: Amount: 

2,767,688.



Matching funds: Source: Upper Shore Private Industry Council; 

Matching funds: Amount: 20,000.



Matching funds: Source: Baltimore Enterprise Zone/Abell 

Foundation; Matching funds: Amount: 109,844.



Matching funds: Source: Housing Authority of Baltimore City; 

Matching funds: Amount: 100,000.



Matching funds: Source: Local governments; Matching funds: 

Amount: 515,476.



Matching funds: Source: Historical East Baltimore Community 

Action Coalition; Matching funds: Amount: 75,000.



Matching funds: Source: Anne Arundel Econ. Development Corp; 

Matching funds: Amount: 151,242.



Matching funds: Source: Frederick County One-Stop; Matching 

funds: Amount: 33,000.



Matching funds: Source: Mills Corporation; Matching funds: 

Amount: 109,615.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access program funding: 2,394,720; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Maryland (state); Matching funds: 

Amount: 997,179.



Matching funds: Source: Maryland Department of Human Resources/

Local Department of Social Services; Matching funds: Amount:

2,551,469.



Matching funds: Source: Baltimore Enterprise Zone/Abell 

Foundation; Matching funds: Amount: 300,063.



Matching funds: Source: Local governments; Matching funds: 

Amount: 347,389.



Matching funds: Source: Anne Arundel Econ. Development Corp; 

Matching funds: Amount: 228,990.



Matching funds: Source: Mills Corporation; Matching funds: 

Amount: 149,004.



Matching funds: Source: Chesapeake College; Matching funds: 

Amount: 15,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access program funding: $7,514,600; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 

$11,850,518.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



According to MTA officials, the Job Access Program has encouraged 

greater collaboration and coordination between the transportation 

agency and human service organizations at the state and local level. 

MTA officials said that through an executive order, the Governor 

established the State Coordinating Committee for Human Services 

Transportation to encourage state agencies to identify needs and 

develop strategies to ensure the coordination of human services 

transportation. This committee facilitated MTA’s ability to market the 

Job Access project to other state agencies. In addition, MTA mapped out 

all transportation projects across the state and extended its outreach 

efforts to the local level. MTA officials credited the Jobs Access 

Program with helping to formulate and standardize coordination between 

transit and social service agencies in providing transportation 

services to low-income people.



Sustainability:



Officials at MTA stressed the importance of having the state’s 

administration support public transit that has facilitated other state 

and local agencies supporting the Job Access Program. According to MTA 

officials, several factors contributed to their success. These 

officials said that Maryland’s existing transportation services (1) do 

not serve areas that are too rural, remote, or small; (2) are supported 

by the state legislature; and (3) are supported by the public. 

Moreover, MTA created its own set of guidelines that would help the 

sustainability of its programs. MTA officials added that state 

legislation required that at least 25 percent of the required match 

toward FTA transportation funds--including Job Access grants--would be 

paid by the state. These officials said that this legislation also 

requires that a portion of the matching funding be automatically 

included in the state’s transportation budget and provided a total of 

$503 million over a 6-year period. They said that were not sure if they 

would be able to maintain all of the services they have started without 

continued Job Access funding.



Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs - New York City:



Under its Job Access grant, Project Renewal--a rehabilitation center 

for homeless men and women--operates a Suburban Jobs Program that 

places formerly homeless New Yorkers in unsubsidized employment by 

identifying and securing job opportunities in suburban areas around New 

York City. Suburban Jobs vans travel daily to five worksites, carrying 

an average of about 150 people daily, and has an average employment 

retention rate of 81 percent. At Montclair State University--one of the 

project’s five worksites--participants account for up to 75 percent of 

the university’s nonfaculty staffing, according to University 

personnel. Each position at the University has a training element and 

promotional opportunity.



Project Renewal’s housing facilities as well as other nonprofit 

employment programs refer qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. All 

candidates are screened to ensure that they have undergone vocational 

education and job readiness training. Project Renewal then identifies 

appropriate employment opportunities, prepares clients for interviews, 

and supplements public transportation through its own van service to 

the suburban jobsites. Vans are necessary since public transportation, 

even in a transit-rich city like New York, was not designed for reverse 

commutes during nontraditional work shifts, according to project 

officials. Personal counseling is provided to Suburban Jobs 

beneficiaries while they are being transferred to and from the jobsite. 

Including capital and operating expenditures, the rides cost Project 

Renewal about $15 per person.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $398,760; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Department of Housing and Urban 

Development; Matching funds: Amount: $398,760.



Fiscal year of funding: 2002; Job Access Program funding: 400,577; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Department of Housing and Urban 

Development; Matching funds: Amount: 400, 577.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $799,337; 

Matching funds: Amount: $799,337.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.:



[End of table]



Coordination:



Project Renewal has worked closely with its metropolitan planning 

organization --the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council--and 

has coordinated with other agencies. The Metropolitan Transportation 

Council supports Project Renewal by providing guidance for improving 

and starting new routes. For its required Job Access matching funds, 

Project Renewal utilized HUD funds. Project Renewal also partners with 

dozens of agencies and does not ask them to help pay for the 

transportation costs of Suburban Jobs beneficiaries.



Sustainability:



According to project officials, Suburban Jobs would likely not exist 

without Job Access funding. However, in the absence of DOT funding, the 

managers of the project would attempt to continue the services 

currently funded by DOT by soliciting greater contributions from 

employers. For example, Montclair State University currently 

contributes about $300 monthly for the service, and other employers 

might be persuaded to contribute also.



State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job Access:



The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department developed a 

statewide “Transportation Toolkit” to coordinate welfare-to-work 

resources and to administer rural Job Access services. The Toolkit 

contains several databases of the inventory of vehicles that were 

purchased through publicly funded programs and TANF households by zip 

code. The Toolkit helps agencies prepare TANF adults for employment: A 

TANF adult will be referred, as needed, to appropriate resources, which 

may be in different geographic locations. These resources include 

counseling for substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence; 

classes in parenting, life skills, and job preparation; and programs to 

improve literacy and/or to obtain a general equivalency diploma.



The State Highway and Transportation Department also solicits and 

awards Job Access grants to rural areas. New Mexico has 22 state Job 

Access projects, 18 of which combine resources from DOT’s funds for 

rural transportation. Most of the Job Access projects are demand-

responsive, which makes tracking the number of rides easier. 

Participants call 24 hours in advance to request a trip. These services 

are available to the general public as well as low-income and TANF 

recipients. New Mexico promotes the services to the general public 

through local advertisements and to targeted clients through referrals 

from local human service agencies.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



:



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

Job Access Project:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding: $1,198,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Department of Labor; 

Matching funds: Amount: $1,700,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding: 601,190; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: New Mexico Human Service Department 

(FY 2000 and 2001); Matching funds: Amount: 2,700,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding: 1,995,600; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 0.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $3,794,790; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 

$4,400,000.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.:



[End of table]



Coordination:



According to the Highway and Transportation’s Chief of Programs, the 

Toolkit has resulted in remarkable coordination of transportation 

resources. Responsible state and local agencies, such as the highway, 

labor, and social development offices, use the Toolkit to determine the 

most effective transportation mode to transport low-income and TANF 

people to employment. The Toolkit helps localities determine (1) where 

TANF recipients reside, (2) the inventory of vehicles that were 

purchased through publicly funded programs, and (3) where jobs are 

located for the entire state. The chief of highway programs stated that 

the Toolkit is intended to avoid duplication of services and helps 

localities determine if the vehicles that were purchased through 

publicly funded programs were available for welfare to work. In 

addition, the Job Access projects utilized matching funds from the New 

Mexico Department of Labor and Human Service Department.



Sustainability:



The State Highway and Transportation Department believes the projects 

can exist without Job Access funding. New Mexico uses self-

sustainability as a selection criterion in determining grantees; the 

state Highway and Transportation department has been in constant 

discussion with subgrantees about finding a way to fund their projects 

without Job Access money. Highway and Transportation Department 

officials said they believe that the Human Service Department will 

continue to fund the Job Access service even if the federal Job Access 

Program is not reauthorized by the Congress.



Transit Authority of River City - Louisville, Kentucky:



Through its Job Access project, the Transit Authority of River City 

(TARC) offers a variety of services to low-income people:



* The Night Owl bus offers demand-responsive transportation for $1.50 

each way to those who live and work in Louisville’s Jefferson County.



* A Flex-Route deviates from a fixed-path bus route whenever a person 

living near the route needs to access the bus service.



* The Job Hunter bus provides free, demand-responsive service for 

transporting potential employees to interviews and career development 

opportunities. The Job Hunter Bus has transported over 3,500 people 

since 1999.



* In coordination with the United Parcel Service, two bus routes 

transport students and low-income workers to the United Parcel 

Service’s worldwide hub in Louisville.



* A demand-responsive rideshare service to disabled workers.



* Three fixed route bus services--one for teenagers seeking jobs and 

two for taking employees to Blue Grass Industrial Park--a large 

employment site.



* A Bikes on Board project placed bike racks on 208 buses. This allows 

people to travel from the end of the bus route to their place of 

employment and back.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 16: Funding for the Transit Authority of River City Job Access 

Project:



Fiscal year of funding: 1999 to 2001[A]; Job Access Program funding: 

$2,130,338; [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: City of Jeffersontown; 

Matching funds: Amount: $180,000.



Matching funds: Source: United Parcel Service; Matching funds: 

Amount: 153,000.



Matching funds: Source: Kentuckiana Works; Matching funds: 

Amount: 435,000.



Matching funds: Source: Others; Matching funds: Amount:

2,000.



Matching funds: Source: TARC; Matching funds: Amount: 

1,360,338.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding: $2,130,338; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: Amount: 

$2,130,338.



[A] Grantee received $1,032,938 in fiscal year 1999 and $1,097,400 in 

fiscal year 2001. :



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



TARC collaborated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit 

agencies in developing its Job Access project. TARC also has a kiosk 

located in the Workforce Investment Board One-Stop Center, which 

provides unemployed persons with job placement and training services.



Sustainability:



TARC has integrated the Job Access services into its general services. 

TARC officials said they would evaluate the efficiency of all their 

routes and cut the least efficient if the agency lost its Job Access 

funding. Currently, however, 80 percent of their ridership is in their 

top five routes--none of which are Job Access services. Thus, services 

funded through the Job Access project may be among those that could be 

eliminated.



Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services:



The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) provides 

fixed route bus and rail service for Washington, D.C., and surrounding 

areas. In its Job Access grant, WMATA provides three types of services: 

(1) a trip brokerage service, (2) improved access to fixed bus routes, 

and (3) a demand-responsive van service.



WMATA found that some clients faced problems in getting to and from 

work during nontraditional work hours--for example, late-night or early 

morning hours. Due to a lack of transportation, these employees face a 

difficult time maintaining employment. As a result, under its Job 

Access grant, WMATA began in 1999 a trip brokerage system that allows 

its clients to reserve transportation services for odd hours and in 

areas that are underserved by traditional public transit services. 

According to WMATA officials, their program has been able to serve 

thousands of individuals every month. WMATA’s demand-responsive 

component incurs a cost of about $46 per trip, with no costs to the 

client.



In addition to the trip brokerage system, WMATA implements a fixed-

route component of its Job Access Program. While the fixed route 

service costs an average of $41.68 per ride, passengers pay a fare of 

roughly $1.75 (both the Job Access client and general public pay this 

amount). With just over 330 trips per month on fixed bus routes, 

WMATA’s Job Access project has been able to provide service to about 

9,500 individuals.



WMATA also established a one-stop information center--the Washington 

Regional Call Center--that allows people to access exact trip 

information to various locations.



Funding:



The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.



Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access 

Services:



Fiscal year of funding: Job Access Program funding[A]: [Empty].



Fiscal year of funding: 1999; Job Access Program funding[A]: 

$1,350,000; [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: United People’s 

Organization; Matching funds: Amount: $200,000.



Matching funds: Source: Washington, DC, Dept. of Employment 

Services; Matching funds: Amount: 300,000.



Matching funds: Source: Virginia Department of Human Services; 

Matching funds: Amount: 195,000.



Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County Department of; Family 

Services; Matching funds: Amount: 180,000.



Matching funds: Source: Potomac Rappahannock; Transportation 

Commission; Matching funds: Amount: 140,000.



Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County (Gen. Govt.); Matching 

funds: Amount: 350,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2000; Job Access Program funding[A]: 650,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Washington, DC, Dept. of Employment 

Services; Matching funds: Amount: 300,000.



Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County Department of; Family 

Services; Matching funds: Amount: 180,000.



Matching funds: Source: Potomac Rappahannock; Transportation 

Commission; Matching funds: Amount: 127,000.



Matching funds: Source: Virginia Department of Human Services; 

Matching funds: Amount: 195,000.



Fiscal year of funding: 2001; Job Access Program funding[A]: 998,000; 

[Empty]; Matching funds: Source: Washington, DC, Dept. of Employment 

Services; Matching funds: Amount: 300,000.



Matching funds: Source: People’s Involvement Corporation; 

Matching funds: Amount: 267,000.



Matching funds: Source: Fairfax County Department of; Family 

Services; Matching funds: Amount: 225,000.



Matching funds: Source: Potomac Rappahannock; Transportation 

Commission; Matching funds: Amount: 200,000.



Fiscal year of funding: Total; Job Access Program funding[A]: 

$2,998,000; [Empty]; Matching funds: Source: [Empty]; Matching funds: 

Amount: $3,159,000.



Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. :



[End of table]



Coordination:



According to WMATA officials, the Job Access Program increased their 

coordination with human service agencies and others in their service 

area because it was designed to address problems related to low-income 

people getting transportation services. As the most prevalent transit 

provider for the Washington metropolitan area, WMATA and the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s Transportation 

Planning were the regional catalysts for getting transportation and 

social services together to provide Job Access services. According to 

WMATA officials, WMATA has been able to leverage its status as the 

region’s primary transit provider to encourage the involvement of other 

regional transit systems as well as human service agencies across two 

states, Washington, D.C., and multiple local jurisdictions. In 

addition, WMATA has been able to use the information and outreach 

component of its Job Access project to promote the use of transit 

programs throughout the region. WMATA has been able to direct welfare 

clients to utilize more timely and efficient public transit routes to 

and from work, thereby enabling individuals to get to work on time and 

keep their jobs. Consequently, WMATA officials noted that employers 

have begun to take notice of the WMATA Job Access project because it 

has produced a dependable form of transportation for their employees. 

WMATA is currently working with the Washington, D.C., Board of Trade 

and Chamber of Commerce to encourage more public and private 

collaborations in serving low-income populations.



Sustainability:



WMATA officials said they would not be able to sustain services started 

with Job Access funding if they did not continue to receive grants. 

They believe that theirs is a model program, but they have not been 

able to encourage sufficient private sector involvement in the program 

to replace Job Access funds.



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



[End of section]



Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment:



GAO Contact:



Katherine A. Siggerud (202) 512-2834:



Staff Acknowledgment:



In addition, Sam Abbas, Ernie Hazera, JayEtta Hecker, Landis Lindsey, 

Susan Michal-Smith, LuAnn Moy, Josephine Perez, and Frank Taliaferro 

made key contributions to this report.



FOOTNOTES



[1] The Job Access program serves “low-income” people, who are defined 

as having family income at or below 150 percent of the official poverty 

line as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). People who are low income and are 

eligible to use the Job Access Program include welfare recipients who 

qualify for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families Program as well as beneficiaries of other federal assistance 

programs.



[2] In 2000, we surveyed organizations responsible for implementing 194 

projects selected for award in 1999; the numbers of projects and 

grantees have changed since then because some projects were dropped, 

some grantees withdrew from the program, and other grants were 

consolidated.



[3] The Community Transportation Association of America is an 

association with a stated goal of improving the mobility of low-income 

and other disadvantaged people. The association conducts research, 

provides technical assistance, offers educational programs, and serves 

as an advocate for coordinated community transportation.



[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made 

Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program but Has Not Evaluated 

the Impact, GAO-02-640T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2002).



[5] An employment site, where employers are located, is considered 

accessible if it is located within one-quarter mile of Job Access 

transportation services provided by the grantee.



[6] For our study, we surveyed all of the 173 grantees that FTA 

selected for grants during fiscal years 1999 and 2000; 152 responded, 

for a response rate of 88 percent.



[7] WIA programs provide individuals with job training and placement 

services and transportation to those services.



[8] The expenditures for WIA-funded transportation services have not 

been estimated or determined.



[9] Some of the Job Access Program funds are “guaranteed,” that is, 

subject to a procedural mechanism designed to ensure that minimum 

amounts of funding are made available each year. TEA-21 provided 

guaranteed funding of $50 million for fiscal year 1999, $75 million for 

fiscal year 2000, $100 million for fiscal year 2001, $125 million for 

fiscal year 2002, and $150 million for fiscal year 2003. In addition, 

as of the date of this report, DOT is being funded through a continuing 

resolution, and the final funding level for the program for fiscal year 

2003 has not been decided.



[10] When selecting projects, DOT also has considered such factors as 

the geographic dispersion of Job Access projects and the innovative 

nature of proposed Job Access services.



[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s 

Access to Jobs Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 

1998).



[12] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s 

Access to Jobs Program in Its First Year, GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999).



[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making 

Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO-01-133 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000).



[14] GAO-02-640T.



[15] The fiscal year 1999 grantees include over 80 percent of the 

grantees still participating in the Job Access Program. See GAO/RCED-

00-14.



[16] Demand-responsive service refers to a transit service scheduled in 

advance, often utilizing small buses or vans, that take riders to 

locations they request at times they request.



[17] FTA provided the Job Access grants for Project Renewal for fiscal 

years 1999 and 2001.



[18] DOT and HHS have issued joint guidance to the states and grantees 

that TANF funds could be used to match Job Access grants.



[19] GAO-01-133.



[20] Of the 152 grantees that responded to our survey, 142 grantees 

answered this question.



[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Transportation’s 

Role in Moving from Welfare to Work, GAO/RCED-98-161 (Washington, D.C.: 

May 29, 1998).



[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s 

Access to Jobs Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec., 8, 

1998); Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program in Its First Year, 

GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999); Welfare Reform: DOT 

Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO-01-133 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000); Welfare Reform: GAO’s Recent and 

Ongoing Work on DOT’s Access to Jobs Program, GAO-01-996R (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001); and, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection 

Requirement for DOT’s Job Access Program Was Not Followed, GAO-02-213 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2001).



[23] Labor’s Welfare-to-Work Program provided $3 billion to states to 

help persons who are difficult to employ find work. The program was 

initially authorized for 2 years, then was extended for an additional 2 

years, and was terminated at the end of fiscal year 2002.



[24] We surveyed grantees that were responsible for 194 Job Access 

projects and attained a response rate of 82 percent.



[25] Brokers are a combination of human service agencies, transit 

departments, and private contractors such as taxis.



[26] The Department of Family and Children Services, however, 

discontinued their funding of this project as of July 1, 2002, because 

their state budget for transportation services decreased from $8 

million to $3 million.



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



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

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



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



Contact:



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



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



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: