> ![](media/image2.wmf){width="0.625in" height="0.6201388888888889in"}

Connecting People to Employment:

An Evaluation of Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Services Provided
in 2006

**FINAL REPORT**

**October, 2007**

**FTA-VA-5001-2007**

+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| # REPORT DOCU  |     |          |           | * |   |                 |
| MENTATION PAGE |     |          |           | F |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | o |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | r |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | m |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | A |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | p |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | p |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | r |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | o |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | v |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | e |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | d |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | * |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | * |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | O |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | M |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | B |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | N |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | o |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | . |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 0 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 7 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 0 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 4 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | - |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 0 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 1 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 8 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 8 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | * |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| Public         |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| reporting      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| burden for     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| this           |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| collection of  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| information is |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| estimated to   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| average 1 hour |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| per response,  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| including the  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| time for       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| reviewing      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| instructions,  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| searching      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| existing data  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| sources,       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| gathering and  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| maintaining    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| the data       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| needed, and    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| completing and |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| reviewing the  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| collection of  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| information.   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Send comments  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| regarding this |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| burden         |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| estimate or    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| any other      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| aspect of this |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| collection of  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| information,   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| including      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| suggestions    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| for reducing   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| this burden,   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| to Washington  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Headquarters   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Services,      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Directorate    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| for            |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Information    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Operations and |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Reports, 1215  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Jefferson      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Davis Highway, |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Suite 1204,    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Arlington, VA  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| 22202-4302,    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| and to the     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Office of      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Management and |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Budget,        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Paperwork      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Reduction      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Project        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| (0704-0188),   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Washington, DC |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| 20503.         |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 1\. AGENCY USE |     | 2\.      |           | 3 |   |                 |
| ONLY (Leave    |     | REPORT   |           | \ |   |                 |
| blank)         |     | DATE     |           | . |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | R |   |                 |
|                |     | October  |           | E |   |                 |
|                |     | 2007     |           | P |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | O |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | R |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | T |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | T |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | Y |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | P |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | E |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | A |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | N |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | D |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | D |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | A |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | T |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | E |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | S |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | C |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | O |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | V |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | E |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | R |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | E |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | D |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | F |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | i |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | n |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | a |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | l |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | R |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | e |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | p |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | o |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | r |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | t |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | - |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | - |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | - |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | O |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | c |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | t |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | o |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | b |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | e |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | r |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 2 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 0 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 0 |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           | 7 |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 4\. TITLE AND  |     |          |           |   | 5 |                 |
| SUBTITLE       |     |          |           |   | \ |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | . |                 |
| Connecting     |     |          |           |   | F |                 |
| People to      |     |          |           |   | U |                 |
| Employment: An |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| Evaluation of  |     |          |           |   | D |                 |
| Job Access and |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| Reverse        |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| Commute (JARC) |     |          |           |   | G |                 |
| Services       |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| Provided in    |     |          |           |   | U |                 |
| 2006.          |     |          |           |   | M |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | B |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | S |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | F |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | A |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | - |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | V |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | A |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | - |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 3 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 7 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | - |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 5 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 0 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 0 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 1 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | - |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 2 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 0 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 0 |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | 7 |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 6\. AUTHOR(S)  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Susan Bregman, |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Christoph      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Berendes,      |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Rosemary       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Gerty, Stephen |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Falbel,        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Jessica        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Eckhardt, and  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Lauren Miller  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 7\. PERFORMING |     |          |           |   | 8 |                 |
| ORGANIZATION   |     |          |           |   | \ |                 |
| NAME(S) AND    |     |          |           |   | . |                 |
| ADDRESS(ES)    |     |          |           |   | P |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
| Automated      |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
| Communication  |     |          |           |   | F |                 |
| System, Inc.   |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
| (ACSI)         |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | M |                 |
| 1425 25^th^    |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| Street,        |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | G |                 |
| Newport News,  |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
| VA 23607       |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | G |                 |
| Transystems    |     |          |           |   | A |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| 1 Cabot Road   |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | Z |                 |
| Medford, MA    |     |          |           |   | A |                 |
| 02155          |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | P |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | U |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | M |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | B |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 9\.            |     |          |           |   | 1 |                 |
| SPONSOR        |     |          |           |   | 0 |                 |
| ING/MONITORING |     |          |           |   | \ |                 |
| AGENCY NAME(S) |     |          |           |   | . |                 |
| AND            |     |          |           |   | S |                 |
| ADDRESS(ES)    |     |          |           |   | P |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
| Federal        |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| Transit        |     |          |           |   | S |                 |
| Administration |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
| U.S.           |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| Department of  |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| Transportation |     |          |           |   | G |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | / |                 |
| Washington, DC |     |          |           |   | M |                 |
| 20590 Website  |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
| URL            |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| \[www          |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| .fta.dot.gov\] |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | G |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | \ |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | A |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | G |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | C |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | Y |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | P |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | U |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | M |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | B |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 11.            |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|  Supplementary |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|     Notes.     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 12a.           |     |          |           |   | 1 |                 |
| DISTRIBUTIO    |     |          |           |   | 2 |                 |
| N/AVAILABILITY |     |          |           |   | b |                 |
| STATEMENT      |     |          |           |   | . |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | D |                 |
| **Available    |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| From:**        |     |          |           |   | S |                 |
| National       |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
| Technical      |     |          |           |   | R |                 |
| Information    |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| Service/NTIS,  |     |          |           |   | B |                 |
| 5285 Port      |     |          |           |   | U |                 |
| Royal Road,    |     |          |           |   | T |                 |
| Springfield,   |     |          |           |   | I |                 |
| Virginia       |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
| 22161. Phone   |     |          |           |   | N |                 |
| 703.605.6000,  |     |          |           |   | C |                 |
| Fax            |     |          |           |   | O |                 |
| 703.605.6900,  |     |          |           |   | D |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   | E |                 |
| Email          |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| \[orders@ntis. |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| fedworld.gov\] |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| ABSTRACT: The  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Job Access     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Reverse        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Commute (JARC) |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| program was    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| established to |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| address the    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| unique         |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| transportation |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| challenges     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| that welfare   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| recipients and |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| low-income     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| individuals    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| face in        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| finding and    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| keeping jobs.  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| This study     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| analyzed the   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| JARC-funded    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| services       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| provided in FY |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| 2006 and       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| projects that  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| these services |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| provided       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| access to 43.4 |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| million jobs   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| in FY 2006. An |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| estimated 21.2 |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| million jobs   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| were           |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| categorized as |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| low-wage and   |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| that these     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| services       |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| provided 22.9  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| million        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| one-way trips  |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| during the     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| year.          |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 14\. SUBJECT   |     |          |           |   |   | 13. NUMBER OF   |
| TERMS          |     |          |           |   |   |     PAGES       |
|                |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Job Access     |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Reverse        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| Commute        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| (JARC),        |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| employment,    |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| public         |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| t              |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
| ransportation. |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
|                |     |          |           |   |   | 16\. PRICE CODE |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+
| 17\. SECURITY  | 1   |          | 19\.      |   |   | 20\. LIMITATION |
| C              | 8\. |          | SECURITY  |   |   | OF ABSTRACT     |
| LASSIFICATION\ | SE  |          | CLASSI    |   |   |                 |
| OF REPORT      | CUR |          | FICATION\ |   |   |                 |
|                | ITY |          | OF        |   |   |                 |
| Unclassified   | CLA |          | ABSTRACT  |   |   |                 |
|                | SSI |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | FIC |          | Unc       |   |   |                 |
|                | ATI |          | lassified |   |   |                 |
|                | ON\ |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | OF  |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | T   |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | HIS |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | P   |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | AGE |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                |     |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | Unc |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | las |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | sif |          |           |   |   |                 |
|                | ied |          |           |   |   |                 |
+----------------+-----+----------+-----------+---+---+-----------------+

Disclaimer Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States
Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. 
The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or
use thereof.

 

The United States Government does not endorse manufacturers or
products.  Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely because
they are essential to the objective of this report.

Connecting People to Employment: An Evaluation of Job Access and Reverse
Commute (JARC) Services Provided in 2006

October, 2007** **

>  

*Prepared by*

Automated Communication System, Inc

1425 25^th^ Street, Newport News, VA, 23607

And

Transystems

1 Cabot Road

Medford, MA  02155

*Prepared for*

Federal Transit Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, DC  20590

>  

*Available Online \[http://www.fta.dot.gov\]*

Federal Transit Administration

Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, East Building, 4^th^ Floor

Washington, DC  20590

*Report Number*

FTA-VA-37-5001-2007

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659805 .anchor}Acknowledgments

The work in this document was performed by ACSI and TranSystems under
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) contract number DTFT60-06-C-00ll.
The lead author was Susan Bregman; Christoph Berendes and Rosemary Gerty
were authors and reviewers. Stephen Falbel, Jessica Eckhardt, and Lauren
Miller also contributed to the research and the report. Douglas Birnie
was the FTA project manager, and Pamela Brown was the COTR.

The following individuals at FTA provided invaluable guidance and
feedback throughout this project: Douglas Birnie, Henrika
Buchanan-Smith, Ann Cihon, John Giorgis, Yvonne Griffin, Bryna Helfer,
Pamela Johnson, David Schneider, David Simpson, and Maria Wright.

The authors would like to thank the other individuals and organizations
who contributed to this analysis. They included Carolyn Jeskey of the
Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), the CTAA
Joblinks Committee, Jeremy Wu and the program staff at the Longitudinal
Employment-Household Dynamics program, and Oak Square Resources, LLC.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659806 .anchor}Acronyms

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  AFDC               Aid to Families with Dependent Children

  CTAA               Community Transportation Association of America

  DOT                Department of Transportation

  FAQ                Frequently Asked Questions

  FIPS               Federal Information Processing Standards

  FTA                Federal Transit Administration

  FY                 Fiscal Year

  GIS                Geographic Information Systems

  HUD                United States Department of Housing and Urban
                     Development

  JARC               Job Access and Reverse Commute

  LED                Local Employment Dynamics

  LEHD               Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics

  NAICS              North American Industry Classification System

  OES                Occupational Employment Statistics

  PRWORA             Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
                     Reconciliation Act

  QWI                Quarterly Workforce Indicators

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

  TANF               Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

  TEA-21             Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

  U.S.               United States

  UI                 Unemployment Insurance

  USDOT              United States Department of Transportation
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

***Disclaimer Notice [i](#report-documentation-page)***

Acknowledgments [iv](#__RefHeading___Toc178659805)

Acronyms [v](#__RefHeading___Toc178659806)

List of Tables and Figures [vii](#__RefHeading___Toc178659808)

Executive Summary [viii](#__RefHeading___Toc178659809)

1.0 Introduction [1](#introduction)

2.0 What's New for FY 2006 [2](#whats-new-for-fy-2006)

2.1 Evolution of the JARC Program [2](#evolution-of-the-jarc-program)

2.2 Changes in Reporting [4](#changes-in-reporting)

3.0 Data Collection [6](#data-collection)

3.1 Overview [6](#overview)

3.2 Data Responses [6](#data-responses)

3.3 Reporting Period [6](#reporting-period)

3.4 Grantee Support [7](#grantee-support)

3.5 Grantee Follow-Up [7](#grantee-follow-up)

4.0 Job Estimation Methodology [9](#__RefHeading___Toc178659820)

4.1 Define Jobs Accessed [9](#define-jobs-accessed)

4.2 Identify Employment Databases [9](#identify-employment-databases)

4.3 Test Alternative Approaches [10](#test-alternative-approaches)

4.4 Obtain Feedback from Grantees [11](#obtain-feedback-from-grantees)

4.5 Estimate Jobs Accessed [11](#estimate-jobs-accessed)

5.0 Characteristics of JARC Grantees and Services
[15](#characteristics-of-jarc-grantees-and-services)

5.1 Transition to Formula Program [15](#transition-to-formula-program)

5.2 Service Types [15](#service-types)

5.3 Size of Urbanized Area [16](#size-of-urbanized-area)

5.4 Geographic Coverage [17](#geographic-coverage)

6.0 JARC Performance Measures [21](#jarc-performance-measures)

6.1 Matrix Approach [21](#matrix-approach)

6.2 Performance of JARC-Funded Services in FY 2006
[23](#performance-of-jarc-funded-services-in-fy-2006)

Appendix A Information on the\
Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Program
[32](#__RefHeading___Toc178659834)

Appendix B Joblinks Advisory Committee Members
[34](#__RefHeading___Toc178659835)

Appendix C Accessing County-Based Job Data from LEHD
[35](#__RefHeading___Toc178659836)

Appendix D Estimating Low-Wage Jobs [39](#__RefHeading___Toc178659837)

Appendix E JARC Service Matrix [41](#__RefHeading___Toc178659838)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659808 .anchor}List of Tables and Figures

Table 2-1 JARC Funds Authorized Under SAFETEA-LU
[3](#__RefHeading___Toc178586553)

Table 5-1 Distribution of JARC-Funded Services by Service Type
[16](#__RefHeading___Toc178586556)

Table 5-2 Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size (Row Percent)
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc178586557)

Table 5-3 Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size (Column Percent)
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc178586559)

Table 5-4 Service Type by Geographic Coverage
[20](#__RefHeading___Toc178586561)

Table 6-1 J ARC Service Matrix [22](#__RefHeading___Toc178586563)

Table 6-2 FY 2006 JARC Service Matrix -- Distribution of Services by\
Primary Goal [24](#__RefHeading___Toc178586564)

Table 6-3 One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size\
(Row Percent) [27](#__RefHeading___Toc178586566)

Table 6-4 One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size\
(Column Percent) [28](#__RefHeading___Toc178586569)

Table 6-5 One-Way Trips by Service Type and Primary Goal
[29](#__RefHeading___Toc178586572)

Table 6-6 Estimation of Jobs Accessed for Service Records without\
Geographic Information [31](#__RefHeading___Toc178586574)

Table 6-7 Projection of Jobs Accessed in FY 2006
[31](#__RefHeading___Toc178586575)

Table D-1 Percentage of Low-Wage Jobs by NAICS Category
[40](#__RefHeading___Toc178586576)

Table E-1 JARC Service Matrix [43](#__RefHeading___Toc178586577)

Figure 3-1 Grantee Reporting Status [7](#__RefHeading___Toc178586554)

Figure 4-1 Factors for Developing Jobs per Linear Route Mile
[13](#__RefHeading___Toc178586555)

Figure 5-1 Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc178586558)

Figure 5-2 Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size
[19](#__RefHeading___Toc178586560)

Figure 5-3 Service Type by Geographic Coverage
[20](#__RefHeading___Toc178586562)

Figure 6-1 One-Way Trips by Service Type
[26](#__RefHeading___Toc178586565)

Figure 6-2 One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size
[27](#__RefHeading___Toc178586568)

Figure 6-3 One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size
[28](#__RefHeading___Toc178586571)

Figure 6-4 One-Way Trips by Service Type and Primary Goal
[29](#__RefHeading___Toc178586573)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659809 .anchor}Executive Summary

The Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established as part of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to address
the unique transportation challenges that welfare recipients and
low-income individuals face in finding and keeping jobs. JARC began as a
discretionary grant program, but transitioned to a formula-based program
under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act, A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). FY 2006 marks the first year of
the restructured JARC program, now also known as Section 5316.

In June 2006, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) contracted with
ACSI and TranSystems to manage data collection and analysis for FY 2005
and FY 2006. Because of the transition Section 5316, the consultant team
was also charged with developing a new approach for data collection and
reporting starting with FY 2006.

Grantees with active JARC-funded grants in FY 2006 were required to file
an annual report using an on-line system. JARC data collection focused
on two key performance measures:

-   Jobs accessed

-   One-way trips provided

FTA tasked the consultant team with estimating jobs accessed on behalf
of the grant recipients. Data sources included several public and
proprietary databases, including the Longitudinal Employment-Household
Dynamics program (LEHD) currently under development by the U.S. Bureau
of the Census.

To better represent the accomplishments of nontraditional services, the
JARC Service Matrix was intended to provide a relatively simple way to
categorize JARC-funded services for reporting purposes. The matrix was
organized so that grantees can follow three steps:

-   Choose the service category that most closely matches the service
    provided locally.

-   Select the primary goal that best describes the purpose of the
    service.

-   Based on the combination of service and goal, identify the type of
    information requested for reporting.

The matrix includes three basic categories of service: (I) trip-based
services, (II) information-based services, and (III) capital investment
projects. The five primary goals are:

-   Expanded geographic coverage

-   Extended hours or days of service

-   Improved system capacity

-   Improved access or improved connections

-   Improved customer knowledge

Based on the combination of service type and primary goal, the cells in
the matrix identify the type of service output data to be provided by
the reporting grantee. The output measures typically include then number
of one-way trips for trip-based programs, the number of customer
contacts for information-based services, and the number of units
provided for capital investment projects.

For FY 2006, 155 grant recipients reported on 645 JARC-funded services.
Key findings from these reports include the following:

-   It is estimated that JARC-funded services provided access to
    approximately 43.4 million jobs, including 21.2 million low-wage
    jobs.

-   It is estimated that JARC-funded services provided 22.9 million
    one-way trips in FY 2006.

-   About three out of four JARC-funded services were traditional
    transit services -- either fixed route (44%) or demand response
    (28%). Information-based services accounted for 8% of the programs
    and capital investment programs made up 7%.

-   Fixed route services accounted for 44% of the services and 82% of
    the one-way trips. Demand response programs comprised 28% of the
    services and 11% of the trips.

-   In rural areas, demand response made up 51% of the programs and
    carried 38% of the trips. In large cities, fixed route was
    responsible for 47% of the programs and 88% of the trips.

-   About 31% of JARC-supported services cover counties and 26% operate
    in cities or towns. Some 25% are regional in nature and 12% serve
    multiple jurisdictions.

-   About 40% of trip-based services were intended to expand geographic
    coverage and 29% extended days or hours of service.

-   Most information-based programs were developed to improve customer
    information (58%) or increase system access (32%).

-   Almost all capital investment services (98%) were intended to
    improve access.

In FY 2006 the JARC program continued to provide connections between
people and jobs. The program is characterized by diversity -- in terms
of types of services, operating settings, and partnerships -- as it
provides service for individuals who need access to jobs.

# Introduction

The Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) program was established as part of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to address
the unique transportation challenges that welfare recipients and
low-income individuals face in finding and keeping jobs. With many new
entry-level jobs located in suburban areas, low-income workers and/or
welfare recipients have found it difficult to access these jobs from
their inner city, urban and rural homes on a daily basis. Car ownership
can be prohibitively expensive, and many suburban job sites are not
served by existing public transportation routes. Further, many
entry-level jobs offer only night or weekend hours, when conventional
transit services are limited or non-existent. Finally, for many
individuals, transportation challenges also extend to reaching
employment support services, such as childcare, training and counseling.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has undertaken several
evaluations of the JARC program since its inception. In June 2006, FTA
contracted with ACSI and TranSystems to manage data collection and
analysis for FY 2005 and FY 2006. Because the JARC program transitioned
to a formula-based program in FY 2006 (Section 5316), the consultant
team was also charged with developing a new approach for data collection
and reporting starting with FY 2006.

The analysis of the FY 2005 data was summarized in a technical
memorandum transmitted to FTA in October 2006. This report focuses on
the new approach for data collection and reporting developed for FY 2006
and presents findings from the analysis of FY 2006 data.

***It is projected that JARC-supported services provided access to 43.4
million jobs in FY 2006. An estimated 21.2 million jobs were categorized
as low-wage.***

***These services provided 22.9 million one-way trips during FY 2006.***

# What's New for FY 2006

FY 2006 saw the introduction of several major changes in the JARC
program and the reporting process.

-   JARC began the transition from a discretionary/earmark program to a
    formula-based program.

-   FTA established a new measure of *jobs accessed* for JARC reporting

-   FTA developed a new approach to better capture performance
    information on nontraditional programs.

-   FTA introduced a requirement for grant recipients to provide
    narrative profiles describing their services.

These changes are discussed below.

## Evolution of the JARC Program

In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act (PRWORA) was signed into law. PRWORA ended the entitlement status of
welfare and replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF, which
operates as a state block grant program, required participants to obtain
jobs within two years of receiving welfare, and limited them to five
years of welfare benefits. The connection between transportation and
access to employment and training opportunities was not specifically
addressed in the initial welfare reform legislative process.

In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
established the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. JARC made a
direct link between transportation services and the ability to obtain
and retain a job.

In 2005, Congress reauthorized the transportation funding bill, which
was known as Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act -- A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU. SAFETEA-LU increased
the annual funding for the JARC Program, but also changed it to a
formula-based program.

### JARC Under TEA-21

TEA-21 provided competitive grants to local governments and non-profit
organizations to develop transportation services to connect welfare
recipients and low-income individuals to employment and support
services.

The JARC Program had two parts: (1) Job Access and (2) Reverse Commute.
Reverse Commute grants were targeted at programs serving suburban work
sites, without regard to income status. Job Access grants were targeted
at new transportation services for welfare recipients and other
low-income persons. Eligible low-income individuals included persons
whose family income was at or below 150% of the poverty line, adjusted
to reflect family size. Although initially many individuals were also
TANF beneficiaries, that was not (and still is not) a requirement to be
eligible for JARC-funded services. A coordinated transportation/human
service planning mechanism was required to develop Access to Jobs
programs.

TEA-21 authorized up to \$150 million annually from FY 1999 through FY
2003 for the Access to Jobs program. Total expenditures for Reverse
Commute projects were capped at \$10 million per year. An innovative
funding aspect of JARC was that other federal transportation-eligible
funds could be used to meet the local match for Access to Jobs projects,
including TANF and Welfare to Work funding.

The first two rounds of JARC funding were awarded to projects through a
competitive selection process. However, by 2001 Congress began
earmarking the funds and all JARC project funds were earmarks by FY
2003. In addition, under TEA-21, JARC-funded services were viewed as
"pilot" projects and it was expected that successful projects would and
become self-sustaining and not depend on continued JARC funding.

### SAFETEA-LU JARC Program

In 2005, after several continuing funding resolutions, SAFETEA-LU was
enacted and continued funding for the JARC Program. JARC, which was an
uncodified provision of TEA-21, is now codified in Section 5316 of Title
49, United States Code. Table 2.1 shows total JARC funds authorized
under SAFETEA-LU.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586553 .anchor}Table 2-1\
JARC Funds Authorized Under SAFETEA-LU

  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------
  **Year**        **2005**   **2006**   **2007**   **2008**   **2009**   **Total**

  **JARC Mass     \$108 M    \$138 M    \$144 M    \$156 M    \$165 M    \$711 M
  Transit                                                                
  Account**                                                              

  **General       \$16 M     \$0        \$0        \$0        \$0        \$16 M
  Funds**                                                                

  **Total**       \$124 M    \$138 M    \$144 M    \$156 M    \$165 M    \$727 M

  Source: FTA                                                            
  Authorization                                                          
  Fact Sheet: Job                                                        
  Access and                                                             
  Reverse                                                                
  Commute.                                                               
  --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -----------

The biggest change under SAFETEA-LU was to shift the JARC Program from a
discretionary program to a formula-based program. The formula is based
on the number of eligible low-income and welfare recipients in urbanized
and rural areas. The distribution of allocations is as follows:

-   60% of funds go to designated recipients in areas with populations
    with 200,000 or more

-   20% of funds go to states for areas under 200,000

-   20% of funds go to states for non-urbanized areas

In addition, states may transfer funds between urbanized and
non-urbanized area programs.

According to FTA, JARC projects are no longer viewed as "pilot
projects," but instead are considered a "stable and reliable" source of
funds:[^1] SAFETEA-LU includes the following provisions:

-   States and designated recipients must select projects competitively.

-   Projects must be included in a locally developed human service
    transportation coordinated plan beginning in FY 2007.

-   10% percent of funds may be used for planning, administration, and
    technical assistance.

-   Sources for matching funds are expanded (non-DOT Federal funds can
    be used as match) to encourage coordination with other programs such
    as those funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Although JARC funds increased overall under SAFETEA-LU, they are now
spread over a larger number of potential recipients.

## Changes in Reporting

Starting with FY 2006, FTA also introduced several changes in the JARC
reporting system.

-   Transition from employment sites/employers to jobs

-   Better reflect the performance of nontraditional programs

-   Require profiles of JARC-funded services

These changes and their implications for the data collection and
analysis are discussed below.

### Report on jobs accessed

Until and including the FY 2005 data reporting process, FTA required
JARC recipients to estimate the number of employment sites reached as a
result of JARC-funded services. FTA used the term *employment site* to
measure new connections to employers based on geography or time of day.
An employment site was defined as access to an employer not previously
reached by public transportation or access to an employer during a time
period not previously served by the public transportation system.
Grantees were asked to estimate new employment sites reached via
JARC-funded service using one of the several approaches. For fixed route
services, employment sites were defined as service stops (usually
equivalent to bus stops) that reached employers within one-quarter mile.
For demand response, employment sites were defined as the number of
addresses accessed or, alternatively, the number of employers within the
service area.

This approach was intended to capture information about jobs accessed
via JARC-supported services using measures that were familiar to
grantees, like addresses, bus stops, or employers. However, feedback
from grantees indicated that the estimates were not easy to develop and
the data analysis confirmed that reported numbers were inconsistent.

In order to use a measure that better reflected the goals of the JARC
program, FTA replaced *employment sites* with *jobs accessed* as a
measure of JARC performance starting with FY 2006.

### Better reflect the performance of nontraditional services

The majority of JARC grant recipients have used the funds to support
fixed route or demand response services. The number of annual one-way
trips is a standard performance measure for such services, and FTA has
collected this information for the past several years of JARC reporting.

However, a hallmark of the JARC program is its support of a wide range
of programs, including services that provide grantees with information
and those that provide access to support services. Examples include
programs that allow individuals to acquire personal vehicles, services
that provide one-on-one travel training, and brokerage services that
arrange transportation for individuals. While programs like these meet
the overall goals of the JARC program, they cannot be measured in the
same way as the demand response and fixed route programs.

Starting in FY 2006, FTA asked grantees to characterize their
JARC-supported services in one of three ways:

-   Trip-based

-   Information-based

-   Capital investments

Depending on the type of program, grantees could report performance
measures that were directly relevant to the type of program. For
example, grantees with programs that made information available on the
Internet were asked to report on web hits. Grantees with programs that
made cars available to individuals were asked to indicate the number of
cars delivered or the number of loans subsidized. In this way, FTA will
better capture the breadth of the JARC program and allow grant
recipients to report on program performance in meaningful terms.

### Collect service profiles 

Starting in FY 2004, FTA asked JARC grantees to provide descriptive
information about their programs. This request, which was optional in FY
2004-2005, allowed grant recipients to describe their programs in detail
and to describe program successes and lessons learned. Originally
intended as a way for grantees to share information with one another,
the program profiles also allowed FTA to better communicate the success
and diversity of the JARC program. As a result, FTA required grantees to
provide profile information starting in FY 2006.

# Data Collection

Grantees used an on-line system to file a series of reports on their
JARC grants for FY 2006.[^2] This section provides an overview of the FY
2006 data collection process.

## Overview

Grantees with active JARC-funded grants in FY 2006 were required to file
an annual report using an on-line system. The on-line system was
originally developed for FY 2003 and refined in subsequent years.

FTA continued its ongoing efforts to streamline the data collection
process. For FY 2006, JARC data collection focused on two key
performance measures:

-   One-way trips provided

-   Jobs accessed

Significantly, FTA did not require grantees to estimate the number of
jobs accessed. Instead grantees were asked to provide information about
services characteristics and geographic coverage that would enable the
analysis team to develop the jobs estimate.

Grantees were also asked to provide descriptive information about their
programs for FY 2006. Similar information was collected on an optional
basis for FY 2004-2005, but the questions were made mandatory for FY
2006.

## Data Responses

Starting in the spring of 2007, the JARC Evaluation Team worked with FTA
to identify grantees with active programs during FY 2006. These grantees
were contacted via email to confirm contact information. Based on this
outreach effort, the JARC Evaluation Team invited 205 grantees to submit
FY 2006 data reports. Of the 205 grantees contacted:

-   33 grantees indicated that they did not provide service in FY 2006

-   155 grantees indicated that they did provide service in FY 2006 and
    filed reports

-   17 grantees did not respond within the reporting period, although
    several contacted the team after the reporting deadline had passed.

This yielded a response rate of 91.7%.

The final database includes 645 services from the 155 grantees that
reported active JARC-funded service during FY 2006.

## Reporting Period

A small number of grantees were asked to test the reporting system
during the week of June 11, 2007, and all grantees were invited to
report on June 19. The official end of reporting was July 24. However,
in an effort to maximize the response rate, the reporting system was
kept online through the end of July. Figure 3-1 shows the reporting
rate.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586554
.anchor}![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.833333333333333in"
height="3.861111111111111in"}Figure 3-1\
Grantee Reporting Status

## Grantee Support

The JARC support team handled approximately 600 email messages from
grantees during the reporting period. We also made or received
approximately 80 telephone calls (in addition to the follow-up noted
below) to assist grantees more directly.

The support website, consisting of 25 pages of instructions,
definitions, and answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs), was
entirely revised for FY 2006.[^3]

## Grantee Follow-Up

The consultant team spent a significant amount of effort, with FTA help,
to ensure that grantees received notice and reported.

Major email efforts during the spring and summer of 2007 included:

-   May 15 -- Email to all points of contact for grantees in the
    candidate list asking each recipient to confirm online that they
    were the correct contact, or to provide better contact information,
    if not.

-   June 19 -- Email to all points of contact, announcing the formal
    start of JARC FY 2006 data collection.

-   June 25 -- Email to grantees whose points of contact had not yet
    logged into the reporting system

-   July 16 -- Reminder to all points of contact for grantees who had
    not yet completed reporting, asking them to provide a date on which
    they would complete their reports.

Between July 23 and August 1, the contractor team also contacted 18
non-reporting grantees by telephone, making at least two efforts per
non-reporting grantee to determine whether the grantee was required to
report and, if so, to assist with reporting as needed.

In May and then again in July, we also worked with FTA headquarters and
regional staff to ensure that we had up to date contact information for
non-reporting grantees. In selected cases, FTA staff contacted grantees
directly to encourage them to respond.

# Job Estimation Methodology

Because most transportation organizations do not have ready access to
employment data, FTA undertook the effort of estimating jobs accessed
for JARC-supported services. The methodology for estimating jobs
accessed had several steps.

-   Develop a consistent definition for jobs accessed

-   Identify sources of employment data that could be linked to
    geographical units

-   Test alternative approaches

-   Seek feedback from grantees

-   Estimate jobs accessed

These steps are described below.

## Define Jobs Accessed

The consultant team reviewed available sources of employment data to
determine the best approach for estimating jobs accessed through the
JARC program. Based on this review, two key issues were researched and
resolved.

First, the issue of how to distinguish between full-time and part-time
employment was reviewed. Although the definitions can vary across
datasets, the distinctions were not considered relevant for the purposes
of the JARC evaluation. Therefore, for this evaluation, we counted every
job -- whether full-time or part-time -- as one job.

Second, we considered the issue of whether and how to distinguish
between all jobs and those jobs that might be more appropriately
targeted at JARC beneficiaries. We found that there is no standard
definition of a low-wage job or low-income individual. Part of the issue
has to do with family/household size and its effect on how much income
is required to meet or exceed federal poverty guidelines established by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For 2006, the federal
poverty guideline for the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia was set at \$20,000 a year for a family/household of four.[^4]
As described earlier, the JARC program was developed to provide
transportation targeted for persons at or below 150% of the Federal
poverty guidelines, which would translate to \$30,000 a year or \$14.42
an hour. Therefore, for the JARC analysis, we classified jobs as
"low-wage" if they pay \$14.42 an hour or less.

## Identify Employment Databases

Several government and proprietary databases were explored as possible
sources for employment data that could be linked to appropriate units of
geography. Two promising resources were identified, one private and one
public:

-   Dun & Bradstreet employer database

-   Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics research program

Dun & Bradstreet maintains an employer database that contains detailed
information on the number, type, and location of jobs. The firm uses
multiple data sources and direct contact with employers to keep the
information up to date. While no database of employers is perfect, Dun &
Bradstreet is recognized as the best available data on the detailed
location of employment sites (establishments) and the number of
employees at each. Information is considered proprietary and is
available for purchase. Although the cost per record drops with
increased volume, total data costs can run into the thousands of
dollars, which would be prohibitive for a project of JARC's national
scale.

The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program combines
federal and state administrative data on employers and employees with
core Census Bureau censuses and surveys while protecting the
confidentiality of people and firms that provide the data. The LEHD
program began in 1997 as an initiative to merge available data on
households and employment using advanced statistical techniques. Its
broad purpose is to integrate data from administrative records, the
Census, and surveys to create new information on U.S. society and the
economy.

The LEHD's primary data sources on the employment side are the
Unemployment Insurance database, ES-202 reports (on covered employment
and wages) and the Business Register (to cover self-employed people and
other firms with no paid employees). On the household side, the primary
source is the Census Statistical Administrative Records System which
includes data from the Social Security administration, the Internal
Revenue Service, the American Community Survey, and similar sources.
Information about federal employment is not included; however, the LEHD
staff is working to add this information.

States supply employment data to the Census on the number of employees
at establishments (individual worksites). The locations of these
establishments are geocoded and mapped according to census geography.
The figures are updated quarterly as part of an existing and ongoing
reporting relationship between employers and the states.

To date, 43 states have joined the LEHD program and are supplying data
to the Census Bureau. The database will ultimately have historical data
as well as current data. As part of the LEHD program, a powerful mapping
tool was developed, known as *On the Map*. While still in development,
it is expected to be enhanced and deployed in a more final form by the
fall of 2007. Ultimately, On the Map may allow FTA or grantees to define
a geographical area on a map and then extract the number of jobs located
in that area. Areas may be defined by and drawing a line on a map and
choosing a buffer (appropriate for JARC fixed route services), via
standard geography (such as ZIP codes) or by drawing a freeform shape on
a map (appropriate for JARC demand response services), or by choosing a
center point with a buffer. (More information about the LEHD can be
found in Appendix A.)

## Test Alternative Approaches

Based on this preliminary assessment, the most promising long-term
approach was to define each service area and use the LEHD program to
retrieve low-wage job information reported by establishments located
within the defined service area. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, the
LEHD program was still in development and would not cover the entire
country in time for the FY 2006 JARC analysis.

Nevertheless, it was possible to field test the LEHD program in
localities where the data were available in anticipation of full rollout
in time for future analysis efforts. While no database of employers is
perfect, Dun & Bradstreet is recognized as the best available data on
the detailed location of employment sites (establishments) and the
number of employees at each. Therefore, to supplement the available LEHD
data, the team used data purchased from Dun & Bradstreet.

Pilot studies were conducted to compare these approaches to data
collection and analysis. A pretest was conducted using data already
available to the consultant team from the Chittenden County (VT)
Transportation Authority in Burlington, Vermont. In addition, on-site
case studies were conducted at the following agencies:

-   Connecticut Department of Transportation

-   Jacksonville (FL) Transportation Authority

-   Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (Syracuse)

These agencies funded a mix of JARC-supported services, including fixed
route, demand response, mobility manager, and childcare transportation.
In addition, the team conducted a telephone-based study with King County
Metro Transit, in Seattle (WA) to better understand the challenges of
evaluating nontraditional services.

The case studies followed three basic steps: (1) identify service area,
(2) identify employers, and (3) estimate number of jobs (and low-wage
jobs) accessed. From the results the team developed strategies for
estimating the number of jobs (and low-wage jobs) accessed by
JARC-funded services.

## Obtain Feedback from Grantees

The consultant team worked with the Joblinks Committee of the Community
Transportation Association of America (CTAA). The committee included 10
JARC grantees along with several outside experts with detailed knowledge
of the JARC program. The group helped the team identify and resolve
data-related issues as we worked through the pilot tests and developed
the final evaluation strategy. They provided particularly valuable
feedback related to interaction with grantees. The committee membership
list can be found in Appendix B.

## Estimate Jobs Accessed

Based on the findings from the pilot tests, in combination with feedback
from the project advisory committee, a methodology was developed to
estimate jobs accessed.

As noted earlier, grantees were not asked to estimate jobs accessed.
Instead, FTA asked grantees to provide information about service
coverage and then used external data sources to develop estimates of
jobs accessed. The only exception was for grantees with specialized
services that targeted specific employers; services in this category
included routes serving a factory or airport or night-owl services that
accessed overnight work shifts. Grantees with services like these were
asked to estimate the number of jobs reached for such services.

Because of the different characteristics of demand response and fixed
route transportation, several approaches were used. These are described
below.

### Demand response services

To measure jobs accessed by demand response services, a policy decision
was made to include every job in the service area. This calculation
allowed FTA to identify the theoretical maximum number of jobs made
accessible by JARC-supported services.

Grantees were asked to indicate the type of service area (e.g., state,
county, city/town, region) and to select the county or counties served
from a drop-down list. To the extent possible, the analysis used LEHD
data to estimate the number of jobs accessed by demand response
services. The consultant team developed an automated process to access
this information efficiently. (Appendix C has more detailed information
about this approach.)

When LEHD was not available, either because the county was not yet
included in the dataset or the demand response service area did not
correspond with county boundaries, data was used from the annual County
Business Patterns dataset from the U.S. Census. About 25% of the demand
response services did not correspond to county, municipal, or state
boundaries. These were not analyzed further for this phase of the
analysis; however a factor was developed to expand the data findings to
include these records. (See Section 6.0.)

### Fixed route services

A different approach was used for estimating jobs accessed by fixed
route services. An assumption was made that fixed route services
provided access to jobs located within one-quarter mile of the route in
each direction.

The goal of the fixed route analysis was to find a way to estimate the
number of JARC-funded jobs reached by fixed route bus services without
imposing a large burden on grantees and without creating a very
expensive and time-consuming analysis task that must be performed
annually. The most efficient way to accomplish this goal was to develop
a relationship between easily available information and the number of
jobs accessed. A piece of easily available information from the grantees
is the number of unique route miles traversed by a JARC-funded route.

Ideally, we would be able to calculate directly how many jobs are within
reach (one quarter mile) of those route miles, but such calculations
require detailed information on the locations of jobs and analysis with
a geographic information system (GIS). Given the large number of fixed
route services, this approach would be prohibitively expensive.
Therefore, instead of trying to calculate this figure directly for each
JARC-funded route, the estimation technique used was to calculate the
average number of JARC jobs per route mile for a sample of routes, and
then apply that figure to the number of route miles for other JARC
routes.

As part of the pilot studies conducted for this study, the team
purchased Dun & Bradstreet data to support analysis of JARC-funded
services in the selected areas. Records were purchases for the State of
Connecticut and the counties comprising the service areas for transit
authorities in Jacksonville (FL) and Syracuse (NY). Records for
Chittenden County (VT) were already available to the team. We were also
able to obtain GIS representations of bus routes in these areas so that
we could calculate directly how many jobs were reached by each route.
Dividing the total number of jobs within the service area of the route
(a half-mile buffer centered on the route) by the land area in that
service buffer yields the number of jobs per square mile served by that
route. Dividing that figure by two converts that figure from jobs per
square mile to jobs per linear route mile (since there is a half square
mile of service area per route mile). Figure 4-1 summarizes this
approach. The final calculation is to transform total jobs to low-wage
jobs. The team used information on median wages to estimate the
percentage of low-wage jobs by industry group. The methodology is
described in Appendix D.

As we approached the task of calculating the overall average number of
JARC jobs per route mile, we assumed that there would be some salient
differences in this figure correlated with some characteristic of the
route. One relevant characteristic might be the type of development
served by the route -- whether it is in an urban area, runs along a
strip development corridor, or serves a regional shopping mall. Another
possibly relevant characteristic may be the state or the region of the
country where the route is located. Another might be whether the route
operates within a large metropolitan area or in a rural community.

The reason that such differences are important is that "variability is
the enemy of a statistical estimate." The more variable the figures in a
sample are, the less confident one can be in the sample average and the
more observations one needs to gain confidence. On the other hand, if
all of the observations in a sample are relatively similar, then one can
have a high degree of confidence that the sample average is close to the
true population average, and it becomes easy to extrapolate to calculate
population figures.

If there is known diversity in a sample, it is possible to stratify that
sample, or divide it into layers, grouping elements that are similar to
each other together, but keeping elements that are different from each
other apart. This method allows us to calculate sample averages for
subsets of the population in which we can have a high degree of
confidence, even if the population as a whole is diverse. As long as one
can then put new members into one of the existing categories, it becomes
straightforward to apply the sample averages from the appropriate subset
to the new members with confidence.

For example, if all routes classified as serving urban areas hovered
around X jobs per route mile, while all routes classified as serving
regional shopping malls hovered around Y jobs per square mile, but that
X was significantly different from Y, then we would establish urban
routes and regional shopping mall routes as separate strata and apply
those separate averages to other routes belonging to those categories.

As it turned out, the number of jobs per route mile did not vary
significantly by development style. There was variation in the figures
by route, but the routes in one category were not different from the
routes in another category in a significant way. Thus, for this stage of
the analysis, all of the routes were combined into a single sample, and
the overall sample average was calculated as 4,300 jobs per linear route
mile and 1,850 low-wage jobs per route mile.

In order to give statistical measures about the possible error
associated with this average, it would have to be the case that the
routes in the sample were randomly selected from the full population of
routes. That is not the case, as these routes were selected because
there was readily available data for them. They are not geographically
representative of the whole country, but they do represent the various
types of development styles served by JARC-funded routes. A separate
analysis found that percentage of population below the poverty level
among the areas represented in this sample was 12.2%, which is very
close to the national average of 12.4%.

# Characteristics of JARC Grantees and Services

This section reports on the characteristics of JARC grantees and their
services for FY 2006. The information is based on data collected from
the 155 grantees that submitted complete reports. The collected data
presents a snapshot of activity for JARC-funded services as of September
30, 2006, which was the last day of FY 2006.

## Transition to Formula Program

As discussed earlier, starting in FY 2006, the JARC program began to
transition from a discretionary/earmark program to a formula-based
program. Accordingly, it was expected that the grantees reporting in FY
2006 would include a mix of those using discretionary/earmark funds
authorized under TEA-21 and those using Section 5316 funds authorized
under SAFETEA-LU.

FTA provided information about fund disbursements to JARC grantees.
Almost all of the grantees receiving disbursements during FY 2006 were
receiving funds through TEA-21. Only eight grantees reported accessing
funds through the Section 5316 formula program during FY 2006, of which
five grantees also received disbursements authorized through TEA-21 as
well. Because disbursement information was available at the grantee
level, rather than the service level, we cannot determine with certainty
how many *services* were funded with Section 5316 funds in FY 2006.
However, we can say that the three grantees new to the JARC program
under Section 5316 each reported on one service, for a total of three
new services funded exclusively under Section 5316 in FY 2006. This
number is expected to increase as more transportation organizations
prepare locally developed human service transportation coordinated
plans, per program requirements, and apply for grant funds through the
new program. Because of the small representation of grantees accessing
Section 5316 funds during FY 2006, no separate analysis was conducted
for these grantees.

## Service Types

Grantees reported a total of 645 active JARC-funded services for FY
2006. Starting in FY 2006, grantees were asked to classify services in
one of three ways:

-   **Trip-based services**, which provide transportation directly to
    individuals. These include fixed routes, flexible routes, shuttles,
    demand response, and user-side subsidy programs (e.g., vouchers,
    ridesharing, and guaranteed ride home).

-   **Information-based services,** which provide information about
    transportation services to individuals but do not provide direct
    transportation services. These include mobility managers/brokerages,
    trip or itinerary planning, Internet-based travel information,
    informational materials, and one-on-one training.

-   **Capital investment programs,** including facilities and
    infrastructure to support transportation services. These included
    vehicle based programs (such as those making automobiles available
    to individuals or organizations), facility or amenity improvements,
    and technology to support transportation services.

Out of the 645 active services, the vast majority (85%) were trip-based.
As Table 5-1 shows, the most commonly reported programs were fixed route
(44%) and demand response (28%). Together, these traditional transit
services accounted for nearly three out of four JARC-funded programs.
About 8% of services were information-based and 7% were capital
investment programs. Information-based services included mobility
managers/brokerages, itinerary planning, marketing materials,
individualized training, and one-stop centers. Most of the capital
investment programs were vehicle-related, but it should be noted that
one grantee (Ways to Work) reported on 30 separate subrecipients with
vehicle loan services, accounting for most of the capital programs.
However, because the information-based and capital investment categories
each comprised fewer than 50 services each, the distribution by service
type is not broken down for more detailed statistical analysis.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586556 .anchor}Table 5-1\
Distribution of JARC-Funded Services by Service Type

  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------
  **Service Type**                                   **Services**

  **Trip-based**                                     

  *Fixed route*                                      *44%*

  *Flexible route*                                   *6%*

  *Shuttle*                                          *5%*

  *Demand response*                                  *28%*

  *User-side subsidy*                                *2%*

  **Trip-based**                                     **85%**

  **Information-based**                              **8%**

  **Capital investment**                             **7%**

  ***All programs***                                 ***100%***
  -------------------------------------------------- --------------------

## Size of Urbanized Area

Just under half (47%) of all JARC-supported services operated in large
urbanized areas (population over 200,000). The rest were evenly split
between medium-size localities (population 50,000-200,000) and
non-urbanized areas (population less than 50,000).[^5] As might be
expected, half (50%) of fixed route programs were located in large
cities but only 17% were in rural areas. In contrast, almost half (49%)
of demand response programs operated in small communities and about a
third (31%) in large urbanized areas. About 55% of information-based
services were based in large urban service areas, 26% in medium size
areas, and 19% in small urban/rural service areas. For capital
investments, 88% were located in large urban service areas, 7% in medium
size areas, and 5% in small urban/rural service areas. (This
distribution is summarized in Table 5-2 and illustrated in Figure 5-1.)

Fixed route services made up the greatest share of programs in the
larger geographic settings, comprising 47% of the services in large
areas and 55% in medium-size settings. In rural localities, about 28% of
services were fixed route. Here again demand response was the major
service type, accounting for 51% of JARC-supported services. The demand
response share fell to 21% in medium-size communities and 19% in large
cities. In large urbanized areas, information-based programs made up 10%
of all JARC services and capital investment programs accounted for 13%.
In medium-size communities, information-based programs made up 8% of the
total and capital programs were 2%. In rural localities,
information-based services dropped to 6% and capital investment programs
were 1%. (See Table 5-3 and Figure 5-2.)

## Geographic Coverage

JARC grant recipients were asked to indicate the geographical boundaries
of their service area. Overall, just under one third (31%) of programs
provided county-wide service, with 26% serving municipalities and 25%
offering regional service. About 12% of services were
multi-jurisdictional, and only 2% were statewide. The "other" category
included services covering neighborhoods and tribal areas, along with
areas that the grantees did not define further. (See Table 5-4 and
Figure 5-3.)

Trip-based services were fairly evenly distributed among counties (30%)
and cities or towns (29%). Most information-based services were
operating at the regional (38%) or county (36%) level. The rest were
distributed among multi-jurisdictional settings (11%), municipalities
(9%), or states (6%). Capital investment programs had a similar
distribution, with 45% serving regions and 33% in counties. Far fewer
programs were located in cities (12%), multi-jurisdictional settings
(7%), or other locations (2%).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586557 .anchor}Table 5-2 \
Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size\
(Row Percent)

  ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- -----------
  ** **                    **Size of                                   
                           Urbanized                                   
                           Area **                                     

  **Service**              **Large**    **Medium**   **Small/Rural**   **Total**

  **Fixed route**          50%          33%          17%               100%

  **Flexible route**       42%          16%          42%               100%

  **Shuttle**              53%          41%          6%                100%

  **Demand response**      31%          20%          49%               100%

  **User-side subsidy**    23%          31%          46%               100%

  **Information-based**    55%          26%          19%               100%

  **Capital investment**   88%          7%           5%                100%

  **All programs**         47%          27%          27%               100%
  ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- -----------

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.770833333333333in"
height="3.6666666666666665in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586558 .anchor}Figure 5-1\
Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586559 .anchor}Table 5-3\
Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size\
(Column Percent)

  ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- -----------
  ** **                    **Size of                                   
                           Urbanized                                   
                           Area**                                      

  **Service**              **Large**    **Medium**   **Small/Rural**   **Total**

  **Fixed route**          47%          55%          28%               44%

  **Flexible route**       5%           4%           9%                6%

  **Shuttle**              6%           8%           1%                5%

  **Demand response**      19%          21%          51%               28%

  **User-side subsidy**    1%           2%           4%                2%

  **Information-based**    10%          8%           6%                8%

  **Capital investment**   13%          2%           1%                7%

  **All programs**         100%         100%         100%              100%
  ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ----------------- -----------

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.01875in" height="3.045138888888889in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586560 .anchor}Figure 5-2\
Services by Type and Urbanized Area Size

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586561 .anchor}Table 5-4\
Service Type by Geographic Coverage

  ---------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **Service        **City/\   **County**   **Region**   **Multiple**   **State**   **Other**   **Total**
  Category**       Town**                                                                      

  **Trip-based**   29%        30%          22%          12%            1%          5%          100%

  **Info-based**   9%         36%          38%          11%            6%          0%          100%

  **Capital        12%        33%          45%          7%             0%          2%          100%
  investment**                                                                                 

  **Total**        26%        31%          25%          12%            2%          4%          100%
  ---------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586562
.anchor}![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.017361111111111in"
height="3.6243055555555554in"}Figure 5-3\
Service Type by Geographic Coverage

# JARC Performance Measures

This section summarizes the new approach to measuring JARC performance
implemented as part of the FY 2006 data collection effort.

## Matrix Approach

As described in the previous section, most JARC expenditures were used
to support trip-based services. While conventional fixed route and
demand response services were the most commonly reported, the variety of
trip-based services appeared to be growing and in FY 2006 included route
deviation, shuttles, guaranteed ride home programs, and trip vouchers.
In addition, about 15% of services funded through JARC were
information-based services and capital investment projects. These trends
in the JARC program suggested the need for a more comprehensive data
collection tool to better reflect the diversity of services provided and
more accurately portray the breadth and depth of the JARC program.

To address these concerns, the FTA JARC evaluation team worked with the
CTAA Joblinks Advisory Committee to develop an improved and
user-friendly tool for capturing information about JARC-funded services.
This effort involved several conference calls from October 2006 through
February 2007 and culminated in a two-day working session in Washington,
D.C., held at the beginning of March 2007.

The result was development of a JARC Service Matrix, which was designed
to make it easier for grantees to report on the services they provide
(see Table 6-1). The JARC matrix was modeled after a performance
measurement and evaluation method developed by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The HUD approach was undertaken to
address concerns about how to measure and evaluate the success of a
diverse set of HUD-funded programs, each with different goals and
output/outcome measures. Although the types of activities supported by
the HUD programs are very different from JARC, in many cases they serve
the same target populations as JARC, i.e., low-income and unemployed
individuals. A more detailed description of the matrix development
process was included in the Task 2 JARC Summary Report, submitted by the
JARC evaluation team to FTA on April 23, 2007.

The JARC Service Matrix was intended to provide a relatively simple way
to categorize JARC-funded services for reporting purposes. The matrix is
organized so that grantees can follow three steps:

1.  Choose the service category that most closely matches the service
    provided locally.

2.  Select the primary goal that best describes the purpose of the
    service.

3.  Based on the combination of service and goal, identify the type of
    information requested for reporting.

As shown in Table 6-1, the JARC Service Matrix includes three basic
categories of service: (I) trip-based services, (II) information-based
services, and (III) capital investment projects. Five primary goals are
listed across Columns A - E:

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586563 .anchor}Table 6-1\
JARC Service Matrix

+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **PRIMARY       |          |         |        |          |         |
| SERVICE GOAL    |          |         |        |          |         |
| AND OUTPUT      |          |         |        |          |         |
| MEASURE**       |          |         |        |          |         |
|                 |          |         |        |          |         |
| **(select one   |          |         |        |          |         |
| per JARC-funded |          |         |        |          |         |
| service)**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+=================+==========+=========+========+==========+=========+
| **JARC-FUNDED   | **(A)**  | **(B)** | *      | **(D)**  | **(E)** |
| SERVICE**       |          |         | *(C)** |          |         |
|                 | **       | **E     |        | **       | **I     |
|                 | Expanded | xtended | **Im   | Improved | mproved |
|                 | Ge       | Hou     | proved | Access / | C       |
|                 | ographic | rs/Days | System | Conne    | ustomer |
|                 | Co       | of      | Capa   | ctions** | Know    |
|                 | verage** | Se      | city** |          | ledge** |
|                 |          | rvice** |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **I. Trip-Based |          |         |        |          |         |
| Services**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **1. Fixed      | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| route**         | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **2. Flexible   | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| routing**       | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **3. Shuttle    | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| service**       | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **4. Demand     | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| response**      | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **5. User-side  | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| subsidy**       | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **II.           |          |         |        |          |         |
| In              |          |         |        |          |         |
| formation-Based |          |         |        |          |         |
| Services**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **1. Mobility   |          |         |        | \#       |         |
| manager\*^+^**  |          |         |        | customer |         |
|                 |          |         |        | contacts |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **2. One Stop   |          |         |        | \#       | \#      |
| Ce              |          |         |        | customer | c       |
| nter/referral** |          |         |        | contacts | ustomer |
|                 |          |         |        |          | c       |
|                 |          |         |        |          | ontacts |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **3.            |          |         |        | \#       | \#      |
| Trip/itinerary  |          |         |        | customer | c       |
| planning**      |          |         |        | contacts | ustomer |
|                 |          |         |        |          | c       |
|                 |          |         |        |          | ontacts |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **4. On-on-one  |          |         |        | \#       | \#      |
| training**      |          |         |        | persons  | persons |
|                 |          |         |        | trained  | trained |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **5.            |          |         |        |          | \#      |
| Internet-based  |          |         |        |          | c       |
| information**   |          |         |        |          | ustomer |
|                 |          |         |        |          | c       |
|                 |          |         |        |          | ontacts |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **6.            |          |         |        |          | desc    |
| Information     |          |         |        |          | riptive |
| materials/      |          |         |        |          |         |
| marketing**     |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **III. Capital  |          |         |        |          |         |
| Investment      |          |         |        |          |         |
| Projects**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **1. Vehicle    | \# loans | \#      | \#     |          |         |
| for             |          | loans   | loans  |          |         |
| individual\***  |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **2. Vehicle    | \#       | \#      | \#     |          |         |
| for agency\***  | vehicles | v       | ve     |          |         |
|                 | added    | ehicles | hicles |          |         |
|                 |          | added   | added  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **3.            | \#       |         | \#     |          |         |
| Vanpool\***     | vehicles |         | ve     |          |         |
|                 | added    |         | hicles |          |         |
|                 |          |         | added  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **4.            | \#       |         | #ve    |          |         |
| Car-sharing\*** | vehicles |         | hicles |          |         |
|                 | added    |         | added  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **5. Other      | des      | desc    | descr  | des      | desc    |
| capital         | criptive | riptive | iptive | criptive | riptive |
| projects**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| \* For these    |          |         |        |          |         |
| categories,     |          |         |        |          |         |
| grantees also   |          |         |        |          |         |
| will be asked   |          |         |        |          |         |
| to report the   |          |         |        |          |         |
| number of       |          |         |        |          |         |
| one-way trips   |          |         |        |          |         |
| provided, if    |          |         |        |          |         |
| applicable.     |          |         |        |          |         |
|                 |          |         |        |          |         |
| ^+^ Although    |          |         |        |          |         |
| FTA funds       |          |         |        |          |         |
| "mobility       |          |         |        |          |         |
| managers" as an |          |         |        |          |         |
| eligible        |          |         |        |          |         |
| capital         |          |         |        |          |         |
| expense, with   |          |         |        |          |         |
| an 80/20        |          |         |        |          |         |
| federal to      |          |         |        |          |         |
| local match,    |          |         |        |          |         |
| they are        |          |         |        |          |         |
| categorized     |          |         |        |          |         |
| here as         |          |         |        |          |         |
| "in             |          |         |        |          |         |
| formation-based |          |         |        |          |         |
| services" for   |          |         |        |          |         |
| reporting       |          |         |        |          |         |
| purposes.       |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+

-   Expanded geographic coverage

-   Extended hours or days of service

-   Improved system capacity

-   Improved access or improved connections

-   Improved customer knowledge

Based on the combination of service type and primary goal, the cells in
the matrix identify the type of service output data to be provided by
the reporting grantee. The output measures typically include then number
of one-way trips for trip-based programs, the number of customer
contacts for information-based services, and the number of units
provided for capital investment projects.

For example, a grantee funding a shuttle service with a primary goal of
expanded geographic coverage would be asked to report the number of
one-way trips provided during the year. A mobility manager with a
primary goal of improved access/connections would be asked to report the
number of customer contacts. If the mobility manager was also
responsible for overseeing or providing trips, a second measure of the
number of one-way trips would also be reported. As another example, a
vehicle loan program for individuals would be asked to report the number
of units provided (in this case, vehicles).

Because of the potential variability of actual project output for
certain project types -- such as providing marketing materials or
funding facility/amenity improvements -- a descriptive answer would be
requested for reporting rather than a quantitative measure. An example
would be a JARC project that provided marketing materials about local
options for work transportation.

As noted, grantees were not asked to use the matrix when completing
their reporting requirements for FY 2006. Instead, grantees answered
questions about program characteristics, goals, and outputs. The FTA
team then used this information to complete the matrix. This approach
allowed the team to refine the matrix categories and measures before
incorporating it into the online reporting instrument for the FY 2007
reporting year. A more detailed description of the matrix appears in
Appendix E.

In addition, to better understand the range of JARC projects, and to
assist with development of the matrix, grantees were also required to
complete brief service profiles for FY 2006. During FY 2004 and FY 2005
reporting periods, similar profiles were requested on a voluntary basis.
The profiles were used to document and describe how particular services
were provided and to capture additional qualitative information about
JARC services.

## Performance of JARC-Funded Services in FY 2006

As described in the previous section, the JARC Service Matrix was
developed to provide a user-friendly way to categorize JARC-funded
services for reporting purposes. Earlier in this report, Table 5-1
showed the overall distribution of FY 2006 JARC-funded services by
category. As the table showed, 85% of the services were trip-based, 8%
were information-based, and 7% were capital investments. Table 6-2
illustrates the distribution of JARC projects provided during FY 2006
using the service matrix.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586564 .anchor}Table 6-2\
FY 2006 JARC Service Matrix -- Distribution of Services by Primary Goal

+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **PRIMARY   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| SERVICE     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| GOAL AND    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| OUTPUT      |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| MEASURE**   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+=============+==========+=======+=========+========+=========+=====+
| JARC-FUNDED | **(A)**  | **    | **(C)** | *      | **(E)** | **T |
| SERVICE     |          | (B)** |         | *(D)** |         | ota |
|             | **       |       | **I     |        | **I     | l** |
|             | Expanded | **Ext | mproved | **Im   | mproved |     |
|             | Ge       | ended | System  | proved | C       |     |
|             | ographic | Se    | Cap     | Access | ustomer |     |
|             | Co       | rvice | acity** | /      | Know    |     |
|             | verage** | Ho    |         | C      | ledge** |     |
|             |          | urs/D |         | onnect |         |     |
|             |          | ays** |         | ions** |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| I.          | 40%      | 29%   | 11%     | 19%    | 1%      | 1   |
| Trip-Based  |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| Services    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **1. Fixed  | 37%      | 40%   | 5%      | 18%    | 0%      | 1   |
| route**     |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **2.        | 37%      | 8%    | 32%     | 21%    | 3%      | 1   |
| Flexible    |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| routing**   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **3.        | 56%      | 9%    | 16%     | 19%    | 0%      | 1   |
| Shuttle     |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| service**   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **4. Demand | 42%      | 22%   | 16%     | 18%    | 2%      | 1   |
| response**  |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **5.        | 54%      | 15%   | 0%      | 23%    | 8%      | 1   |
| User-side   |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| subsidy**   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **II.       | 3%       | 3%    | 5%      | 32%    | 58%     | 1   |
| Inform      |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| ation-Based |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| Services**  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **1.        | 0%       | 0%    | 33%     | 33%    | 33%     | 1   |
| Mobility    |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| man         |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| ager\*^+^** |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **2. One    | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 75%    | 25%     | 1   |
| Stop        |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| Center      |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| /referral** |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **3.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 20%    | 80%     | 1   |
| Tri         |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| p/itinerary |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| planning**  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **4.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 40%    | 60%     | 1   |
| On-on-one   |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| training**  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **5.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 0%     | 0%      | 1   |
| Int         |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| ernet-based |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| in          |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| formation** |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **6.        | 11%      | 11%   | 0%      | 22%    | 56%     | 1   |
| Information |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| materials/  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| marketing** |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **III.      | 0%       | 0%    | 2%      | 98%    | 0%      | 1   |
| Capital     |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| Investment  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| Projects**  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **1.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 100%   | 0%      | 1   |
| Vehicle for |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| ind         |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| ividual\*** |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **2.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 0%     | 0%      | 1   |
| Vehicle for |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| agency\***  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **3.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 0%     | 0%      | 1   |
| Vanpool\*** |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **4.        | 0%       | 0%    | 0%      | 0%     | 0%      | 1   |
| Car-        |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| sharing\*** |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **5. Other  | 0%       | 0%    | 33%     | 67%    | 0%      | 1   |
| capital     |          |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| projects**  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| Note: in    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| some cases  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| the JARC    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| evaluation  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| team        |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| reassigned  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| primary     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| goals       |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| originally  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| reported as |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| "other"     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| based the   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| profiles or |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| responses   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| in the      |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| comments    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| section.    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
|             |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| \* For      |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| these       |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| categories, |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| grantees    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| also will   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| be asked to |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| report the  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| number of   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| one-way     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| trips       |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| provided,   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| if          |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| applicable. |          |       |         |        |         |     |
|             |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| ^+^Although |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| FTA funds   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| "mobility   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| managers"   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| as an       |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| eligible    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| capital     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| expense,    |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| with an     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| 80/20       |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| federal to  |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| local       |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| match, they |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| are         |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| categorized |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| here as     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| "inform     |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| ation-based |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| services"   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| for         |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| reporting   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
| purposes.   |          |       |         |        |         |     |
+-------------+----------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+

The table shows the percentage distribution of JARC-funded services by
goal for each major section. For example, 40% of trip-based services
reported a primary goal of providing expanded geographic coverage, 29%
reported a primary goal of providing expanded days and hours of service,
and so on.[^6] Within the category of trip-based services, the breakdown
by service type shows the percentage of service represented by each
goal. For example, 56% of those providing shuttle services had a primary
goal of providing expanded geographic coverage, 54% of those providing
trip subsidies also had a primary goal of providing expanded geographic
coverage. Not surprisingly, for information-based services, 58% of
services had a primary goal of improved customer knowledge, while for
capital investment projects, 98% had a primary goal of improved system
access/connections. (Note that some categories were added to the matrix
based on the results of the FY 2006 analysis. In future years it would
be likely that additional responses will be found in the
information-based and capital-investment sections.)

Additional findings for JARC-supported services are presented below.

### Trip-based services

As already indicated, trip-based services accounted for the vast
majority of JARC-supported services in FY 2006. For trip-based services,
FTA selected two performance indicators:

-   One-way trips

-   Jobs accessed

One way trips are discussed below; estimates of jobs accessed can be
found at the end of the chapter.

As in previous years, JARC grant recipients were asked to report annual
one-way trips. Most transit organizations collect this information and
almost all grantees were able to provide this information for trip-based
services.

***For FY 2006, it is estimated that JARC-supported services provided
22.9 million one-way trips***

As might be expected, most one-way trips were recorded on fixed route
services (82%). Demand response carried 11%, followed by route deviation
(4%). Shuttles accounted for 2% of trips and user-based subsidies 1%.
Grantees funding information-based services or capital investment
programs were not asked to report one-way trips and are not included
here. (See Figure 6-1.)

Clear differences were apparent among geographic settings. For one-way
trips on fixed route services, two thirds (66%) were reported in large
urbanized areas, 25% in medium urbanized areas, and 10% in rural
communities. In contrast, more than half of the demand response trips
were in rural areas (53%), 12% in medium-size cities, and 36% in large
cities. (See Table 6-3 and Figure 6-2.)

![](media/image7.wmf){width="3.7527777777777778in"
height="2.5416666666666665in"}In large urbanized areas, fixed route
services captured 88% of one-way trips while demand response served 6%.
The breakdown was similar in medium-sized cities. In contrast, demand
response served 38% of the trips in rural areas while the fixed route
share was 55%. (See Table 6-4 and Figure 6-3.)

Finally, using the JARC service matrix, the distribution of one-way
trips was assessed by primary goal and service category. Table 6-5 and
Figure 6-4 present that information. As the table shows, most of the
riders on fixed route services were using services designed to expand
geographic coverage (39%) or to extend service days or hours (32%).
Based on ridership, flexible services were generally focused on
improving system capacity (47%) or improving access or connections
(33%). The goals of demand response services were distributed among
increased geographic coverage (44%), expanded capacity (23%), and
extended service span (20%).

### Information-based services

As reported in Section 5.0, information-based services accounted for
about 8% of JARC services provided during FY 2006 (see Table 5-1).
Grantees reported on about 50 information-based services, and included
data for about two-thirds of the programs. For these services, grantees
reported about 66,000 customer contacts (including over 50,000 customer
contacts for one brokerage/mobility manager) and one program with 30,000
customer mailings. Some projects also provided one-on-one training
either on how to use public transit services or how to maintain and
repair vehicles.

### Capital investment programs

As reported in Section 5.0, capital investment programs accounted for
about 7% of JARC-funded services provided during FY 2006 (see Table
5-1).

Most of the programs in this category provided low-interest loans for
individuals to repair or purchase automobiles to access employment.
Collectively, over 900 loans were made available to participants in 40
programs. Three programs reported providing funds for amenities such as
bus shelters to improve access or increase capacity for fixed routes
that serve low-income employment centers.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586566 .anchor}Table 6-3\
One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size\
(Row Percent)

  ---------------------- ------------- ------------ ----------------- -----------
  ** **                  **Size of                                    
                         Urbanized                                    
                         Area**                                       

  **Trip-Based Service   **Large**     **Medium**   **Small/Rural**   **Total**
  Type**                                                              

  **Fixed route**        66%           25%          10%               100%

  **Flexible route**     48%           28%          23%               100%

  **Shuttle**            74%           25%          1%                100%

  **Demand response**    36%           12%          53%               100%

  **User-side subsidy**  31%           56%          14%               100%

  **All trip-based       61%           24%          15%               100%
  services**                                                          
  ---------------------- ------------- ------------ ----------------- -----------

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.020833333333333in"
height="3.696527777777778in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586568 .anchor}Figure 6-2\
One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586569 .anchor}Table 6-4\
One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size\
(Column Percent)

  ----------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------------- -----------
  ** **                   **Size of                                  
                          Urbanized                                  
                          Area**                                     

  **Trip-Based Service    **Large**   **Medium**   **Small/Rural**   **Total**
  Type**                                                             

  **Fixed route**         88%         85%          55%               82%

  **Flexible route**      3%          5%           6%                4%

  **Shuttle**             2%          3%           0%                2%

  **Demand response**     6%          6%           38%               11%

  **User-side subsidy**   0%          2%           1%                1%

  **All trip-based        100%        100%         100%              100%
  services**                                                         
  ----------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------------- -----------

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.017361111111111in"
height="2.6173611111111112in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586571 .anchor}Figure 6-3\
One-Way Trips by Service Type and Urbanized Area Size

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586572 .anchor}Table 6-5\
One-Way Trips by Service Type and Primary Goal

+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| *            | **      |       |         |        |         |     |
| *Trip-Based\ | Primary |       |         |        |         |     |
| Service      | Service |       |         |        |         |     |
| Type**       | Goal**  |       |         |        |         |     |
+==============+=========+=======+=========+========+=========+=====+
|              | **(A)** | **    | **(C)** | *      | **(E)** | **T |
|              |         | (B)** |         | *(D)** |         | ota |
|              | **E     |       | **I     |        | **I     | l** |
|              | xpanded | **Ext | mproved | **Im   | mproved |     |
|              | Geo     | ended | System  | proved | C       |     |
|              | graphic | Se    | Cap     | Access | ustomer |     |
|              | Cov     | rvice | acity** | /      | Know    |     |
|              | erage** | Ho    |         | C      | ledge** |     |
|              |         | urs/D |         | onnect |         |     |
|              |         | ays** |         | ions** |         |     |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **Fixed      | 39%     | 32%   | 5%      | 18%    | 1%      | 1   |
| route**      |         |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **Flexible   | 17%     | 2%    | 47%     | 33%    | 0%      | 1   |
| route**      |         |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **Shuttle**  | 63%     | 2%    | 20%     | 15%    | 0%      | 1   |
|              |         |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **Demand     | 44%     | 20%   | 23%     | 13%    | 0%      | 1   |
| response**   |         |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **User-side  | 37%     | 8%    | 0%      | 55%    | 0%      | 1   |
| subsidy**    |         |       |         |        |         | 00% |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+
| **All        | 39%     | 29%   | 9%      | 22%    | 1%      | 1   |
| trip-based   |         |       |         |        |         | 00% |
| services**   |         |       |         |        |         |     |
+--------------+---------+-------+---------+--------+---------+-----+

[]{.mark}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586573
.anchor}![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.017361111111111in"
height="2.9270833333333335in"}Figure 6-4\
One-Way Trips by Service Type and Primary Goal

[]{.mark}

### Low-wage jobs accessed

As discussed in previous sections, JARC grantees were not asked to
report jobs accessed directly. Instead, the JARC analysis team used
external data sources to estimate this measure. Several approaches were
used to develop an estimate of jobs accessed:

-   For demand response, jobs in the overall service area were estimated
    using data from LEHD or other Census sources.

-   For fixed route, a factor was developed to estimate jobs per linear
    route mile.

-   For trip-based services that targeted a specific employer or focused
    on a particular time of day, grantees were asked to indicate the
    number of jobs accessed.

-   For all other trip-based services, grantees were asked to indicate
    the number of jobs accessed.

Using these multiple approaches, the FTA team developed estimates of
jobs accessed. Although the team made the final calculations, all
approaches depended on information supplied by JARC grantees. While the
majority of grantees provided the required information, key data
elements were not available for a subset of services.

About 25% of the reported demand response service reports did not
include sufficient information to estimate jobs reached using the
methodology described earlier. In some cases the service areas did not
correspond to state, county, or municipal boundaries. Examples included
demand response services in neighborhoods or commercial corridors. In
other cases, the grant recipient did not define the service area.

Almost half (48%) of the reported fixed route service reports did not
include sufficient information to estimate jobs reached. Grantees did
not report the route length or estimate the number of jobs accessed.

To reflect the overall JARC program, the consultant team expanded the
reported data to represent the universe of reporting JARC grantees. This
approach was intended to replace the methodology used in previous years,
which used data on JARC disbursements to estimate the number of jobs
accessed and one-way trips made by grantees that did not report into the
JARC system. Because nearly all the grantees reported in FY 2006, the
expansion methodology was revised to use available information on
one-way trips as reported by grantees. Because we were using data
reported by grantees as a baseline for expansion, we considered this
approach more reliable than previous efforts.

A simplified two-step methodology was used to expand the data.

First, a ratio was developed between jobs accessed and one-way trips. As
indicated above, about 75% of demand response service records and 52% of
fixed route service records included usable information on one-way trips
and potential jobs accessed. Based on these records, factors were
developed to represent jobs per one-way trip. Based on these services,
we calculated that, ***per one-way trip reported***:

-   Each demand response service reached 7.23 total jobs and 3.98
    low-wage jobs.

-   Each fixed route service reached 1.21 total jobs and .55 low-wage
    jobs

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586574 .anchor}Table 6-6\
Estimation of Jobs Accessed for Service Records without Geographic
Information

  ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------- ------------- -------------
                            **All Jobs**                 **Low-Wage    
                                                         Jobs**        

               **One-way    **Factor**   **Projected     **Expansion   **Projected
               trips                     jobs reached**  factor**      jobs
               reported**                                              reached**

  **Demand     380,985      7.23         2,755,334       3.98          1,517,969
  response**                                                           

  **Fixed      9,267,732    1.21         11,207,917      0.55          5,076,351
  route**                                                              

  **Total**    9,648,717                 13,963,251                    6,594,320
  ------------ ------------ ------------ --------------- ------------- -------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586575 .anchor}Table 6-7\
Projection of Jobs Accessed in FY 2006

  ------------------------------ ------------ --------- ------------ --------
                                 **Jobs                              
                                 Accessed**                          

                                 **All Jobs**           **Low-Wage   
                                                        Jobs**       

                                 **\#**       **%**     **\#**       **%**

  **Calculated from geographic   29.4 million 68%       14.6 million 69%
  information provided by                                            
  grantees**                                                         

  **Projected based on trip      14.0 million 32%       6.6 million  31%
  information provided by                                            
  grantees**                                                         

  **Total jobs accessed**        43.4 million 100%      21.2 million 100%
  ------------------------------ ------------ --------- ------------ --------

Note that the demand response expansion factor was significantly larger
than the fixed route factor because of the different assumptions
regarding service area. For demand response services, the analysis
included all jobs in the service area. For fixed route services, the
analysis included only jobs within a one-quarter mile on either side of
the route.

Second, we used these factors to project jobs reached for fixed route
and demand response services when we were not able to calculate
performance measures directly from LEHD or other Census sources. Table
6-6 summarizes these calculations for fixed route and demand response
services that did not include enough information to estimate jobs
accessed directly.

Table 6-7 shows the combined estimates of jobs accessed, including the
calculations based on grantee information and the expanded information
when grantees did not provide sufficient information to the analysis
team.

***It is therefore projected that JARC-supported services provided
access to 43.4 million jobs in FY 2006. An estimated 21.2 million jobs
were categorized as low-wage.***

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659834 .anchor}Appendix A\
Information on the Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics (LEHD)
Program

**Source: <http://lehd.dsd.census.gov/led/about-us/FAQ.html#lehd>**

**What is LEHD?**

Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) is an innovative program
within the U.S. Census Bureau. We use modern statistical and computing
techniques to combine federal and state administrative data on employers
and employees with core Census Bureau censuses and surveys while
protecting the confidentiality of people and firms that provide the
data.\
\
**What is LED?**

Local Employment Dynamics (LED) is a voluntary partnership between state
labor market information agencies and the U.S. Census Bureau to develop
new information about local labor market conditions at low cost, with no
added respondent burden, and with the same confidentiality protections
afforded census and survey data.\
\
**What is the difference between LEHD and LED?**

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="5.063888888888889in"
height="3.2604166666666665in"}

**What are the QWI?**

The Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI) are a set of economic
indicators \-- including employment, job creation, wages, and worker
turnover \-- that can be queried by different levels of geography \--
state, county, metro, and workforce investment area \-- as well as by
detailed industry, gender, and age of workers. You can query the data
directly by using the QWI Online tool on this site.

**Why aren\'t QWI data available for all states?**

QWI data are available for all states that are LED-state partners;
however, not every state is currently a LED-state partner. A list of LED
state partners can be found
[here](http://lehd.dsd.census.gov/led/led/statepartners.html). New
partner states with data currently in production will have data
available on the website as soon as production is complete.

**What types of employment are included in the QWI?**

The QWI are built upon wage records in the Unemployment Insurance (UI)
system and information from state ES-202 data. The universe of QWI data
is UI-covered earnings. UI coverage is broad, covering over 90% of total
wage and salary civilian jobs.

When QWI private industry employment numbers are compared with other
employment data, exclusions to UI coverage should be taken into account.
Federal government employment is not generally included. Exempted
employment varies slightly from state to state due to variations in
state unemployment laws, but generally also excludes many farmers and
agricultural employees, domestic workers, self-employed non-agricultural
workers, members of the Armed Services, some state and local government
employees as well as certain types of nonprofit employers and religious
organizations (which are given a choice of coverage or noncoverage in a
number of states).

A more in-depth discussion of UI-coverage issues is available in the
technical paper \"[Employment that is not covered by state
unemployment](http://lehd.dsd.census.gov/led/library/techpapers/tp-2002-16.pdf)\"

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659835 .anchor}Appendix B\
Joblinks Advisory Committee Members

  ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **JARC Grantees**                        **Email**

  Susan Ames, Prairie Hills Transit        <susanames@4-evergreen.net>
  (Spearfish, SD)                          

  Bob Flor, King County Metro (Seattle,    <Bob.flor@metrokc.gov>
  WA)                                      

  Peter Hallock, Iowa DOT                  <Peter.hallock@dot.iowa.gov>

  Mary Keating, DuPage County (IL)         <Mary.Keating@dupageco.org>

  Joe Melvin, North Carolina DOT           <JMelvin@dot.state.nc.us>

  Liz Peak JTA (Jacksonville, FL)          <lpeak@jtafla.com>

  Betty Petrie, CENTRO (Syracuse, NY)      <bpetrie@centro.org>

  Maureen Ring, SRTD (Sacramento, CA)      <mring@sacrt.com>

  Lisa Rivers, Connecticut DOT             <Lisa.Rivers@po.state.ct.us>

  Sandy Stutey, Mason County Transit       <Sstutey@masontransit.org>
  (Shelton, WA)                            

                                           

  **Technical Experts**                    

  Larry Harman, Bridgewater State College  <lharman@bridgew.edu>
  (MA)                                     

  Vonu Thakuriah, University of Illinois   <vonu-pt@uic.edu>
  at Chicago                               

  Carolyn Jeskey, CTAA                     <Jeskey@ctaa.com>

  Jeremy Wu, LEHD                          <jeremy.s.wu@census.gov>

                                           

  **JARC Evaluation Team**                 

  Christoph Berendes, ACSI                 <christoph.berendes@2acsi.com>

  Susan Bregman, Oak Square Resources LLC  <susan.bregman@2acsi.com>

  Rosemary Gerty, TranSystems              <rbgerty@transystems.com>

  Stephen Falbel, TranSystems              <smfalbel@transystems.com>

  Jessica Eckhardt, TranSystems            <jmeckhardt@transystems.com>

  Lauren Miller, ACSI                      lauren.miller@2acsi.com
  ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659836 .anchor}Appendix C\
Accessing County-Based Job Data from LEHD

In our initial explorations, TranSystems staff determined that we should
use LEHD county-level Total Employment by industry data for our
analysis. These data are available from a US Census website:
<http://lehd.did.census.gov/led/datatools/qwiapp.html>

LEHD provides total employment data by calendar quarter and industry for
each covered county. TranSystems analysts developed a series of weights
to use in estimating what proportion of total employment for each
industry could be counted as low-wage jobs. Weights are shown below.

  -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  **NAICS Industry**                                             **Weight**

  11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting                 0.70

  21 Mining                                                      0.20

  22 Utilities                                                   0.05

  23 Construction                                                0.45

  31-33 Manufacturing                                            0.40

  42 Wholesale Trade                                             0.30

  44-45 Retail Trade                                             0.80

  48-49 Transportation and Warehousing                           0.55

  51 Information                                                 0.20

  52 Finance and Insurance                                       0.10

  53 Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing                            0.55

  54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services            0.20

  55 Management of Companies and Enterprises                     0.02

  56 Admin Support, Waste Management, Remediation Services       0.75

  61 Educational Services                                        0.75

  62 Health Care and Social Assistance                           0.55

  71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation                         0.75

  72 Accommodation and Food Services                             0.95

  81 Other Services (except Public Administration)               0.80

  92 Public Administration                                       0.40
  -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

TranSystems developed and documented a manual procedure for accessing
the LEHD website, retrieving the data for each relevant county, and
calculating Total Employment and JARC employment for the county. This
procedure provided the basis for the following steps.

#### Automated Census data retrieval overview {#automated-census-data-retrieval-overview .unnumbered}

To meet our goal of including all demand response services that covered
LEHD counties in our analysis, we built a system that to retrieve LEHD
data automatically.

We determined that the URL to retrieve a particular county and year of
LEHD data could be generated programmatically. For instance: the
following URL provides access to *Total Employment* data for Calhoun
County (FIPS code *013*) in the state of Florida (abbreviated *fl*) for
the year of *2005*.

[http://lehd.did.census.gov/cgi-bin/lehdpivot/lehd/pvt/pivot_county.hsql?xpivot=Industry&xdata=**Total_Employment**&xyear=**2005**&head=ZZZZ&xstate=**fl**&xstyle=lehd&xfixed=Year&xgeofx=xcounty&xcounty=%3D&xsicdiv=%3C%3E&xsex=%3D&xagegroup=%3D&xowner=%3D&xsort=Year%2CQuarter%2CSic_Division&Xvalue=**013**](http://lehd.did.census.gov/cgi-bin/lehdpivot/lehd/pvt/pivot_county.hsql?xpivot=Industry&xdata=Total_Employment&xyear=2005&head=ZZZZ&xstate=fl&xstyle=lehd&xfixed=Year&xgeofx=xcounty&xcounty=%3D&xsicdiv=<>&xsex=%3D&xagegroup=%3D&xowner=%3D&xsort=Year%2CQ)

A portion of the web page retrieved is shown below:
![](media/image12.png){width="5.989583333333333in" height="2.74375in"}

Each of these Quarterly Workforce Indicator (QWI) County Pivot report
pages contains a link, labeled "Download Dataset", that provides access
to the data in spreadsheet format. A sample URL:
http://lehd.did.census.gov/lehd/cache/lehd/pvt/pivot_county/fl-c/1e-ae-cn-dt-fy-llehd-pi-v013-xe-y2005-xownere.xls.

#### Auxiliary data {#auxiliary-data .unnumbered}

#### County FIPS codes {#county-fips-codes .unnumbered}

County FIPS codes were retrieved from the Census website:
<http://www.census.gov/geo/www/fips/fips65/data/national.txt> Excerpts
of this table are shown below:

  ----------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------------
  **State**         **FIPS**       **Code**        **County**

  AL                01             001             Autauga

  AL                01             003             Baldwin

  AL                01             005             Barbour

  AL                01             007             Bibb

  AL                01             009             Blount

  AL                01             011             Bullock

  AL                01             013             Butler
  ----------------- -------------- --------------- ----------------------

This table can be used to determine, for instance, that the FIPS code
for Bullock County in Alabama is 011.

#### NA handling in LEHD data {#na-handling-in-lehd-data .unnumbered}

  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
  QWI Quickfacts                                          Total
                                                          Employment

  **11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting**       **135**

  **21 Mining**                                           **0**

  **22 Utilities**                                        **N/A**

  **23 Construction**                                     **212**

  **31-33 Manufacturing**                                 **797**

  **42 Wholesale Trade**                                  **657**

  **44-45 Retail Trade**                                  **1,092**

  **48-49 Transportation and Warehousing**                **157**

  **51 Information**                                      **104**

  **52 Finance and Insurance**                            **298**

  **53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing**               **41**

  **54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services** **128**

  **55 Management of Companies and Enterprises**          **N/A**
  ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

We discovered that in some cases LEHD contained NAs for particular
industries and counties for 2005:02, for instance as shown below for
Utilities and Management for Vernon County in Wisconsin.

NAs were treated as 0 for calculated Total Employment and JARC
Employment for each county.

#### Excluded states {#excluded-states .unnumbered}

LEHD did not provide county level total employment data for nine states
and the District of Columbia, as of 7/20/2007, as shown.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  States not included in LEHD as of July 20, 2007

  Arizona

  Connecticut

  District of Columbia

  Massachusetts

  Michigan

  Nebraska

  New Hampshire

  New York

  Ohio

  South Dakota
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

#### Calculation steps {#calculation-steps .unnumbered}

ACSI software performed seven steps:

1.  Identified, based on Grantee inputs, counties that were served by
    Demand Response services;

2.  Filtered out states not included in LEHD, as provided in Census
    documentation (see table);

3.  Converted county names, as provided by Grantees, to 3 digit FIPS
    codes, based on the FIPS code table provided by Census;

4.  Generated a URL based on the year and quarter required (2005), the
    state, the FIPS code for the county, and the Total Employment
    variable;

5.  Extracted the cached spreadsheet URL, and used it to retrieve the
    data and integrate it into an LEHD county data table;

6.  Summed the raw total employment figures for 2005:02 by industry to
    generate an overall "Total Employment" for the county, and summed
    the weighted industry figures to generate a low-wage employment
    figure

7.  Integrated these totals into spreadsheets provided to the analysts.

#### Verification and quality control {#verification-and-quality-control .unnumbered}

We reviewed each county name provided by Grantees to ensure that it
could be mapped to a valid FIPS code. We performed edits as appropriate
on these data. Generally, edits involved either fixing typographical
errors (e.g. "Carroll" for "Carol", or "Prince George's" for "Prince
Georges") , eliding "County" or "Parish" at the end of the term, or
separating multiple counties across multiple lines (e.g. one field
containing "Wayne, Oakland" into two rows, one for "Oakland" county and
one for "Wayne" county).

ACSI analysts also reviewed the notes provided by Grantees to ensure
that Service Regions were specified as accurately as possible.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659837 .anchor}Appendix D\
Estimating Low-Wage Jobs

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is developing an approach to
measure jobs accessed as part of the evaluation process for the Job
Access and Reverse Commute grant program (Section 5316). The proposed
approach uses geographic information systems (GIS) software to measure
jobs based on information available in several existing databases.

Two databases were compared for the pilot testing. Dun & Bradstreet is a
private database developed primarily for business-to-business marketing.
Information is available about individual employers at the corporate and
local (i.e., street) level. The Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics
(LEHD) is a program within the U.S. Census Bureau that combines federal
and state employment data with basic census statistics. LEHD was
designed to show employment information at the corporate level and is
especially valuable for tracking commuting patterns.

Using GIS, the research team identified the number of jobs within a
specific geographic area, base on existing (e.g., county) or
user-defined (e.g., buffer around a bus route) geography.

Next the number of low-wage jobs was estimated. For the purposes of this
analysis, low-wage was defined as 150% of the federal poverty level for
a family of four, or \$30,000 per year.

Because salary information was not readily available in the Dun &
Bradstreet or LEHD datasets, the research team developed a factor to
estimate the number of low-wage jobs accessed based on industry
classifications.

Both datasets classified jobs by NAICS code. NAICS, or the North
American Industry Classification System, assigns a six-digit code to
each industry. This analysis reviewed codes at the two- and three-digit
summary level, and determined that the two-digit level provided an
acceptable level of detail for this effort.

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles the Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) survey. This survey presents average wage
information by NAICS code. Using May 2005 data (the most recent
available online) of median wages, the researchers estimated the
percentage of jobs in each NAICS category that fell below the \$30,000
target. Estimates were based on national quartile data for each
two-digit NAICS code and assumed a straight-line distribution of wages
within each quartile.

For example, for NAICS Code 72, Accommodation and Food Services, the QWI
data indicated that 90% of the workers in the Food Services and Drinking
Places category earned less than \$27,230 per year and 75% in the
Accommodation category earned less than \$26,290. Therefore, it was
estimated that 93% of all the workers in the overall Accommodation and
Food Services category would be defined as low-wage for this analysis.

Table D-1 shows the estimated percentage of low-wage jobs in each NAICS
category at the two-digit summary level.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586576 .anchor}Table D-1\
Percentage of Low-Wage Jobs by NAICS Category

  ---------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------
  **NAICS    **\                                 **Percentage of\
  Code**     Industry Category**                 Low-Wage Jobs**

  11         Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and 79%
             Hunting                             

  21         Mining                              33%

  22         Utilities                           15%

  23         Construction                        40%

  31         Manufacturing                       70%

  32         Manufacturing                       47%

  33         Manufacturing                       40%

  42         Wholesale trade                     36%

  44         Retail trade                        77%

  45         Retail trade                        84%

  48         Transportation and warehousing      43%

  49         Transportation and warehousing      38%

  51         Information                         29%

  52         Finance and insurance               35%

  53         Real estate, rental, and leasing    65%

  54         Professional, scientific, and       25%
             technical services                  

  55         Management of companies and         25%
             enterprises                         

  56         Administrative and support, waste   69%
             management and remediation          

  61         Educational services                35%

  62         Health care and social assistance   52%

  71         Arts, entertainment, and            74%
             recreations                         

  72         Accommodation and food services     93%

  81         Other services (except public       67%
             administration)                     

  92         Federal, state, and local           40%
             government                          

  99         Non-classifiable                    35%
  ---------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178659838 .anchor}Appendix E\
JARC Service Matrix

The following information describes in more detail how the JARC Service
Matrix was developed and how it is expected to be used by JARC grantees
and the Federal Transit Administration for annual reporting purposes.

As described in this report and in the technical memorandum for Task 2
of this study, the JARC Service Matrix was developed through a
collaborative effort between the JARC evaluation team and the CTAA
Joblinks Advisory Committee. The intent was to make it easier for JARC
grantees to identify service priorities and report on services provided
through the annual JARC reporting process. At the same time, by
organizing JARC-funded projects according to their primary goal as
either trip-based service, information-based service or capital
investment programs, the JARC evaluation team would be better able to
calculate the number of low-wage jobs made accessible by JARC-funded
services and to more accurately describe the information-based and
capital-investment projects undertaken by JARC grantees. Table E-1
presents the JARC Service Matrix.

The matrix includes the five goals (columns A-E) that were identified to
be core elements of JARC-funded services. The rows are grouped by the
three categories of projects -- trip-based, information-based, and
capital investment. Each category includes a list of services or
projects that are commonly provided in each category and supported by
the JARC program. The cells within the table indicate the primary
reporting information to be provided by each type of service, according
to the primary goal related to the service.

For reporting purposes, the matrix will be used to identify the primary
goal for each JARC-funded service operated during the reporting year and
to report output and outcome information related to the services
provided.

In addition to the measures shown in the table (i.e., \# one-way trips,
\# customer contacts, \# units, \# vehicles added, and so on) as in the
past grantees also will be asked to provide additional descriptive
information about the service, such as the geographic boundary of the
service area, length of the route segment added, and other measures
related to each goal. Grantees also will be asked to indicate whether
the trips provided were primarily for employment, childcare, training or
other support services related to employment transportation. For those
services that are offered during specific times or day (e.g., "Night
Owl" service) or limited to a particular destination (e.g., a remote job
locations), grantees will be asked to estimate the number of low-wage
jobs accessed by that service. For services that are more general in
nature (e.g., a route extension that serves employment sites along a
corridor or demand response service offered through a county), the JARC
evaluation team will use national Census data to develop estimates of
low-wage jobs accessed. Taken together, this information will enable the
JARC evaluation team to calculate the number of low-wage jobs accessed
and to summarize other important impacts of the JARC program.

In the final rollout of the JARC Service Matrix, grantees will be
provided specific information and training on how to use the reporting
tools. Definitions will be provided to help guide grantees in their
choice of service. For example, by definition, trip-based services that
are categorized as "flexible routing" include route deviation, point
deviation, and other community circulators that may go off route to pick
up individuals on a request basis. A "user-side subsidy" refers to
individuals whose trip costs are subsidized by JARC funds including taxi
vouchers, mileage reimbursements, underwriting the cost of vanpool
seats, and so on. In contrast, trips provided through a "demand
response" service would involve payment to an agency to subsidize the
cost of running the vehicle, and not provide a direct subsidy to the
individual user.

"Mobility managers" are an emerging service approach and may require
additional information. For example, in some cases, a mobility manager
is a clearinghouse of information about transportation services provided
locally. Other "mobility managers" may also schedule trips, but have
nothing to do with the responsibility of providing (or paying for a
trip). In these two cases, it would be appropriate to report the number
of customer contacts as a performance measure. However, some "mobility
managers" also oversee the actual provision of service either by
contracting with a provider or directly operating service themselves. In
the latter case, it would be appropriate for the mobility manager to
report both the number of customer contacts enabled by the JARC program,
as well as the number of one-way trips provided. Note that a "brokerage"
that is primarily responsible for allocating trips among demand response
providers would be directed to report only the number of JARC-related
trips provided under the demand response category in the trip-based
services, not as a mobility manager. It also should be noted that
although FTA allows for "mobility managers" to be funded as a capital
program, given the nature of the service for JARC reporting purposes
they are considered information-based services.

Another example that may need additional explanation is "one-on-one
training," included under the category of information-based services.
"One-on-one training" could include teaching an individual on how to use
fixed route bus service or providing instruction on how to care for and
maintain a vehicle. "Trip/itinerary planning" is another specific form
of providing assistance that is very individualized and me be the
primary focus of a JARC-funded service.

Finally, capital investment projects could range from providing vehicles
to individuals through low-interest loan programs, providing a vehicle
for an agency to provide transportation for its customers, or vanpool
vehicles if the cost of the vehicle lease is underwritten. In these
cases, grantees would be asked to report the number of units (vehicles)
provided and if available the number of one-way trips taken by
JARC-supported participants. Other capital investments could include
providing amenities to make services more usable for low-wage
individuals, such as adding bus shelters to waiting areas, bicycle racks
on buses to allow access to a transit system, and so on. These types of
programs may not lend themselves to traditional reporting on a unit
basis and reports may be more descriptive in nature.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc178586577 .anchor}Table E-1\
JARC Service Matrix

+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **PRIMARY       |          |         |        |          |         |
| SERVICE GOAL    |          |         |        |          |         |
| AND OUTPUT      |          |         |        |          |         |
| MEASURE**       |          |         |        |          |         |
|                 |          |         |        |          |         |
| **(select one   |          |         |        |          |         |
| per JARC-funded |          |         |        |          |         |
| service)**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+=================+==========+=========+========+==========+=========+
| **JARC-FUNDED   | **(A)**  | **(B)** | *      | **(D)**  | **(E)** |
| SERVICE**       |          |         | *(C)** |          |         |
|                 | **       | **E     |        | **       | **I     |
|                 | Expanded | xtended | **Im   | Improved | mproved |
|                 | Ge       | Hou     | proved | Access / | C       |
|                 | ographic | rs/Days | System | Conne    | ustomer |
|                 | Co       | of      | Capa   | ctions** | Know    |
|                 | verage** | Se      | city** |          | ledge** |
|                 |          | rvice** |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **I. Trip-Based |          |         |        |          |         |
| Services**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **1. Fixed      | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| route**         | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **2. Flexible   | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| routing**       | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **3. Shuttle    | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| service**       | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **4. Demand     | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| response**      | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **5. User-side  | \#       | \#      | \#     | \#       |         |
| subsidy**       | one-way  | one-way | o      | one-way  |         |
|                 | trips    | trips   | ne-way | trips    |         |
|                 |          |         | trips  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **II.           |          |         |        |          |         |
| In              |          |         |        |          |         |
| formation-Based |          |         |        |          |         |
| Services**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **1. Mobility   |          |         |        | \#       |         |
| manager\*^+^**  |          |         |        | customer |         |
|                 |          |         |        | contacts |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **2. One Stop   |          |         |        | \#       | \#      |
| Ce              |          |         |        | customer | c       |
| nter/referral** |          |         |        | contacts | ustomer |
|                 |          |         |        |          | c       |
|                 |          |         |        |          | ontacts |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **3.            |          |         |        | \#       | \#      |
| Trip/itinerary  |          |         |        | customer | c       |
| planning**      |          |         |        | contacts | ustomer |
|                 |          |         |        |          | c       |
|                 |          |         |        |          | ontacts |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **4. On-on-one  |          |         |        | \#       | \#      |
| training**      |          |         |        | persons  | persons |
|                 |          |         |        | trained  | trained |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **5.            |          |         |        |          | \#      |
| Internet-based  |          |         |        |          | c       |
| information**   |          |         |        |          | ustomer |
|                 |          |         |        |          | c       |
|                 |          |         |        |          | ontacts |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **6.            |          |         |        |          | desc    |
| Information     |          |         |        |          | riptive |
| materials/      |          |         |        |          |         |
| marketing**     |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **III. Capital  |          |         |        |          |         |
| Investment      |          |         |        |          |         |
| Projects**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **1. Vehicle    | \# loans | \#      | \#     |          |         |
| for             |          | loans   | loans  |          |         |
| individual\***  |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **2. Vehicle    | \#       | \#      | \#     |          |         |
| for agency\***  | vehicles | v       | ve     |          |         |
|                 | added    | ehicles | hicles |          |         |
|                 |          | added   | added  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **3.            | \#       |         | \#     |          |         |
| Vanpool\***     | vehicles |         | ve     |          |         |
|                 | added    |         | hicles |          |         |
|                 |          |         | added  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **4.            | \#       |         | #ve    |          |         |
| Car-sharing\*** | vehicles |         | hicles |          |         |
|                 | added    |         | added  |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| **5. Other      | des      | desc    | descr  | des      | desc    |
| capital         | criptive | riptive | iptive | criptive | riptive |
| projects**      |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+
| \* For these    |          |         |        |          |         |
| categories,     |          |         |        |          |         |
| grantees also   |          |         |        |          |         |
| will be asked   |          |         |        |          |         |
| to report the   |          |         |        |          |         |
| number of       |          |         |        |          |         |
| one-way trips   |          |         |        |          |         |
| provided, if    |          |         |        |          |         |
| applicable.     |          |         |        |          |         |
|                 |          |         |        |          |         |
| ^+^Although FTA |          |         |        |          |         |
| funds "mobility |          |         |        |          |         |
| managers" as an |          |         |        |          |         |
| eligible        |          |         |        |          |         |
| capital         |          |         |        |          |         |
| expense, with   |          |         |        |          |         |
| an 80/20        |          |         |        |          |         |
| federal to      |          |         |        |          |         |
| local match,    |          |         |        |          |         |
| they are        |          |         |        |          |         |
| categorized     |          |         |        |          |         |
| here as         |          |         |        |          |         |
| "in             |          |         |        |          |         |
| formation-based |          |         |        |          |         |
| services" for   |          |         |        |          |         |
| reporting       |          |         |        |          |         |
| purposes.       |          |         |        |          |         |
+-----------------+----------+---------+--------+----------+---------+

[^1]: FTA Circular 9050.1, March 29, 2007, p. I-5.

[^2]: FY 2006 refers to Federal Fiscal Year 2006, which was October 1,
    2005, through September 30, 2006.

[^3]: Note that the project support website is posted on the Internet
    during the reporting period only.

[^4]: For Alaska, the poverty guideline was set at \$25,000 and for
    Hawaii that figure was set at \$23,000.

[^5]: Grantees reported on the size of the service area for each
    individual program, not for the grantee agency itself. For example,
    a statewide agency like the Connecticut Department of Transportation
    submitted reports for services operating in large, medium, and small
    settings.

[^6]: Although it was not anticipated that trip-based services would
    provide customer information, several services indicated that this
    was their primary goal.