a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2006 FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION

Progress Made in 

Implementing 

Changes to the Job 

Access Program, but 

Evaluation and 

Oversight Processes 

Need Improvement

GAO-07-43
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2006

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Progress Made in Implementing Changes 

to the Job Access Program, but 

Evaluation and Oversight Processes 

Need Improvement 

Highlights of GAO-07-43, a report to 

congressional committees 

Begun in 1998, the Job Access and 

Reverse Commute (JARC) program 

provides grants to states and 

localities for improving the 

mobility of low-income persons 

seeking work. The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) administers

this program. In 2005, the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act – A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

authorized $727 million for JARC 

for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 

changed how these funds were to

be awarded after fiscal year 2005, 

and required FTA to evaluate the 

program by August 2008.

GAO examined (1) SAFETEA-LU’s 

changes to JARC, (2) FTA’s

progress in implementing these 

changes, (3) states’ and localities’ 

efforts to respond and challenges 

they have encountered, and

(4) FTA’s proposed strategy for 

evaluation and oversight. GAO’s 

work included analyzing program 

guidance as well as interviewing

officials from FTA, industry groups, 

and more than 30 state and local

agencies. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FTA update 

its existing oversight processes to 

include the JARC program and 

specify how often it will monitor 

recipients that are not subject to its 

existing oversight processes, to 

help FTA more adequately evaluate

and oversee the JARC program. 

FTA agreed to consider the report’s 

recommendations. 

SAFETEA-LU created a formula for distributing JARC funds starting in fiscal 

year 2006, substantially altering funding allocations provided under earlier 

grants. Funding in some states increased, with 2 states receiving increases of 

more than 1,200 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Funding in 

other states decreased as much as 80 percent, while 18 other states received

funds that had not received them in fiscal year 2005. To receive funds, 

SAFETEA-LU required that states and localities designate a recipient agency

to administer JARC funds, award grants on a competitive basis, and certify 

that projects were derived from a coordinated public transit-human services

transportation plan. 

In March 2006, FTA issued interim guidance and proposed strategies for 

implementing these new requirements, but delays in issuing final guidance 

have reduced the window of opportunity for states and localities to obligate 

fiscal year 2006 funding. As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA requested public 

comment on its interim guidance and proposed strategies, and responding to 

the more than 200 comments took more time than FTA had initially planned. 

FTA has specified in its guidance that states and localities have until the end 

of fiscal year 2008 to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds, so their ability to use 

the funds is not imminently jeopardized. FTA also encouraged states and 

localities to implement their programs on the basis of the interim guidance. 

However, given that officials in a number of areas we interviewed planned to 

wait for final guidance before moving forward, these areas will have less 

time available to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds. 

Most states and localities are in the process of trying to meet these new 

requirements, and although they have encountered challenges in doing so, 

FTA is taking steps to alleviate most of these challenges. As of the end of 

fiscal year 2006, about 4 percent of fiscal year 2006 funding apportioned to 

states and localities had been obligated. States and localities have raised a 

number of questions or concerns about the new requirements, such as 

whether an agency serving as the designated recipient would also be eligible 

to receive funds. In response, FTA proposed several actions that localities 

could take to reduce the potential conflict of interest in such situations. 

FTA is continuing to develop and refine its strategies for evaluation and 

oversight of JARC. FTA, which has had difficulty assessing this program in 

the past, proposed a new approach, but states and localities found problems 

with it. FTA is revising its approach and gathering baseline data for its 

required evaluation of the JARC program. Even if FTA resolves the concerns

that have been raised, gaps in monitoring may still limit its ability to evaluate 

and oversee the program. FTA plans to use existing oversight processes for 

monitoring JARC recipients; however, FTA officials noted that SAFETEA-LU 

did not provide specific program management oversight funds for the JARC 

program and said that they are looking for alternate sources of funding. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-43.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

SAFETEA-LU Created a Formula for Distributing JARC Funds and 

Amended Other Aspects of the Program 10

FTA Has Developed Proposed Final Guidance for JARC, but Delays 

in Issuing the Final Guidance May Reduce the Time Available to 

Obligate JARC Funding 20

States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Begun to Implement JARC 

Requirements, and FTA Has Taken Steps to Alleviate 

Implementation Challenges 24

FTA Changed Its Evaluation and Oversight Strategies but Still Needs 

to Address Monitoring Issues 35

Conclusions 48

Recommendations for Executive Action 48

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 49

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 50

Appendix II: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Funding 56

Appendix III: Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA’s Interim 

Guidance and Proposed Strategies for Job Access and 

Reverse Commute Program 67

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 71

Related GAO Products 72

Tables Table 1: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU’s and TEA-21’s JARC 

Provisions 11

Table 2: Stakeholders’ Key Implementation Challenges and 

Concerns and FTA’s Response 27

Table 3: Summary of Program Stakeholders’ Challenges and 

Concerns and FTA’s Response to the Proposed JARC 

Performance Measures and Reporting Mechanism 40

Table 4: State Agencies Interviewed for Our Review 53

Table 5: Large Urbanized Area Agencies Interviewed for Our 

Review 55
Contents

Page ii GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 6: Total JARC Apportionments for States and Large 

Urbanized Areas, Fiscal Years 2004-2006 56

Table 7: Job Access and Reverse Commute Apportionments for 

Fiscal Year 2006 58

Table 8: Amounts Apportioned to Large Urbanized Areas 200,000 or 

More in Population 58

Table 9: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Small 

Urbanized Areas 50,000 to 199,999 in Population 63

Table 10: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for 

Nonurbanized Areas Fewer Than 50,000 in Population 65

Table 11: Changes to the JARC Program Proposed in FTA’s March 

2006 Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies and 

Program Stakeholder Responses 68

Figures Figure 1: Percentage Change in Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Funds Apportioned to States and Large Urbanized Areas 

from Fiscal Years 2005 to 2006 15

Figure 2: Key Requirements under SAFETEA-LU for Receiving 

JARC Funding 18

Figure 3: Timeline for FTA’s Implementation of SAFETEA-LU 

Changes to the JARC Program 22
Contents

Page iii GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Abbreviations

DOT Department of Transportation

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute program

MPO metropolitan planning organization

NTD National Transit Database

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

 Equity Act – A Legacy for Users

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

TEAM Transportation Electronic Award and Management 

 system

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 17, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Chairman

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Access to adequate transportation is an important factor in the ability of 

low-income individuals—including those who receive government help to 

become self-sufficient—to find and retain employment. However, existing 

public transportation systems—originally established to allow city 

residents to travel within the city and bring suburban residents to centralcity work locations—cannot always bridge the gap between where these 

individuals live and where many jobs for which they would qualify are 

located. Our previous work has noted that a majority of the entry-level jobs 

that low-income individuals would be likely to fill are located in suburbs 

that have limited or no accessibility through existing public transportation 

systems.1

 Furthermore, many entry-level jobs require shift work in the 

evenings or on weekends, when public transit services are either 

unavailable or limited. 

To increase collaboration among transit agencies, local human service 

agencies, nonprofit organizations, and others, and thereby improve the 

mobility of low-income individuals seeking work, the Job Access and 

Reverse Commute (JARC)2

 program was first authorized under the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. 

1

GAO, Welfare Reform: Transportation’s Role in Moving From Welfare to Work, 

GAO/RCED-98-161 (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 1998).

2

“Reverse commute” projects are projects related to the development of transportation 

services designed to transport residents of urban areas and other areas to suburban 

employment opportunities. 
Page 2 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), this program 

provides grants for such purposes as expanding public transit routes, 

lengthening service hours, or providing other transportation options. 

However, our previous reviews of the JARC program found a number of 

challenges that arose in the program, such as difficulties in awarding grants 

competitively and inconsistencies with statutory requirements of other FTA 

grant programs, making implementation difficult. FTA also experienced 

difficulties in evaluating the program, as TEA-21 required.3

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $727 million for the 

JARC program from fiscal years 2005 through 2009. SAFETEA-LU also 

made a number of changes that, beginning with fiscal year 2006 funding, 

will affect FTA, states, and urbanized areas as they administer the program. 

For example, FTA will now provide grant monies through a formula to 

states—for distribution to small urbanized and rural areas—and to large 

urbanized areas.4

 In addition, SAFETEA-LU requires the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the JARC program 

and report the results to Congress by August 2008. 

SAFETEA-LU also requires us to study the JARC program, beginning 1 year 

after the legislation takes effect and every 2 years thereafter. This report, 

our first in compliance with this mandate, analyzes what has happened to 

date in implementing program changes and installing a framework for FTA’s 

evaluation of program results in 2008. Our specific reporting objectives 

were as follows: 

• identify changes made to the JARC program as a result of SAFETEA-LU; 

• assess the progress FTA has made in implementing these changes; 

3

GAO, Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects of 

Proposed Legislative Changes, GAO-04-934R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2004); Welfare 

Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation Should 

Be Completed, GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002); and Welfare Reform: DOT Has 

Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program but Has Not Evaluated the 

Impact, GAO-02-640T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2002). 

4

In information on the JARC program, the term “states” includes American Samoa, Guam, 

the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. FTA also refers to 

urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more as “large urbanized areas,” urbanized 

areas with a population between 50,000 and 200,000 as “small urbanized areas,” and rural 

and small urbanized areas with populations of fewer than 50,000 as “other than urbanized 

areas.”
Page 3 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

• describe the extent to which states and urbanized areas have 

implemented changes to the JARC program, and challenges they have 

encountered; and 

• determine the extent to which FTA’s proposed strategy for evaluation 

and oversight of the JARC program will allow the agency to assess 

whether the program is meeting its stated goals. 

Our work was based in part on our analysis of program documentation, 

relevant legislation, Office of Management and Budget circulars, previous 

GAO reports and guidance on the JARC program and on program 

evaluation and performance measurement, and over 200 comments posted 

to the DOT’s online docket in response to FTA’s March 2006 interim 

guidance and proposed strategies for the JARC program.5

 We determined 

that the data that FTA provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 

of this report. We also interviewed officials from FTA and industry 

associations as well as representatives from 12 state departments of 

transportation, 8 metropolitan planning organizations, and 9 local 

transportation agencies in 12 large urbanized areas; a transportation 

agency in 1 small urbanized area; and 1 nonprofit organization that works 

with rural transit providers.6

 These agencies were selected on the basis of 

several factors, including changes in JARC funding from fiscal years 2005 

to 2006, whether the areas had formally designated a recipient for JARC 

funds, and whether the agency was recommended to us by FTA or an 

industry association. The agencies were selected to provide a distribution 

of the various factors; however, we did not select them in such a way that 

we may project the results as representative of the entire country. 

Appendix I contains a detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology, including more information on how we selected the state and 

local agencies we contacted. We conducted our work between May and 

October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.

5

71 Fed. Reg. 13456 (Mar. 15, 2006). In this FTA document, the agency provided interim 

guidance for fiscal year 2006 JARC program implementation and notice and request for 

comment on proposed strategies for fiscal year 2007.

6

See appendix I for a complete list of the states and areas we selected.
Page 4 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Results in Brief SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the JARC program, the most 

significant of which was to modify JARC from a discretionary program to a 

formula-based program. Whereas in recent years, JARC projects were 

competitively selected by FTA or congressionally designated for funding, 

SAFETEA-LU’s formula distributes funds to states and large urbanized 

areas on the basis of the relative number of low-income individuals and 

welfare recipients in each area. This change will significantly alter the 

allocation of JARC funds, because some states and large urbanized areas 

that did not formerly receive funds will now receive them, and others will 

receive a different amount than they received in the past. For example, 

total funds available in Florida and Virginia increased by more than 1,200 

percent from fiscal years 2005 to 2006 (from $594,708 to $8.3 million and 

from $84,249 to $2.5 million, respectively), while total funds available in 

Alaska and Vermont decreased by more than 80 percent (from $1.7 million 

to $207,503 and from $991,182 to $186,885, respectively). In addition, 18 

states were apportioned JARC funds for fiscal year 2006 that did not 

receive funds in fiscal year 2005. Another change is that states and large 

urbanized areas have to fulfill the following three key requirements before 

receiving JARC funding: (1) identify a designated recipient for JARC funds, 

(2) conduct a competitive process to select projects for funding, and 

(3) certify that JARC projects were selected from a coordinated public 

transit-human services transportation plan. Other key changes resulting 

from SAFETEA-LU include allowing JARC recipients to use a portion of 

these funds for planning activities and increasing the federal government’s 

share of project capital costs. 

As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA has used an extensive public comment 

process that has helped the agency develop and refine the guidance for 

implementing changes to the JARC program, but that also has lengthened 

the time needed to issue the guidance, which will likely reduce the time 

states and large urbanized areas have to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds 

under FTA’s guidance. Beginning in late-2005, FTA solicited comments and 

input from JARC stakeholders through program notices and listening 

sessions. Using feedback from these initial efforts, in March 2006 FTA 

released interim guidance for fiscal year 2006 JARC projects and proposed 

strategies for fiscal year 2007. The agency received more than 200 

comments on the March interim guidance and proposed strategies from 

state and local departments of transportation, metropolitan planning 

organizations, and other JARC stakeholders. FTA officials have 

incorporated this feedback into the formulation of proposed final guidance 
Page 5 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

for JARC, which was issued on September 6, 2006.7 However, due to the 60-

day public comment period following issuance of the September proposed 

final guidance, FTA was unable to finalize its JARC program guidance 

before fiscal year 2007 began in October. FTA’s March interim guidance and 

proposed strategies also included a “hold harmless” provision stating that 

the final guidance requirements would not apply retroactively to grants 

awarded prior to the issuance of the final guidance. FTA has recognized in 

its guidance that JARC funds are available for 2 years after the year of 

apportionment, meaning that fiscal year 2006 funds are available through 

fiscal year 2008 (Sept. 30, 2008). The time available is further reduced, 

however, by the time needed to fulfill SAFETEA-LU requirements, such as 

the requirement to develop coordinated plans. However, given that a 

number of states and large urbanized areas we interviewed planned to wait 

for final program guidance before moving forward to program 

implementation, these areas will have less time available to obligate fiscal 

year 2006 funds. 

States and large urbanized areas have initiated actions to fulfill 

requirements to receive JARC funding, and although they have 

encountered challenges in moving forward, FTA has taken steps to alleviate 

most of these challenges in its September proposed final guidance. 

Nationwide, few states and large urbanized areas have formally fulfilled the 

three SAFETEA-LU requirements to receive JARC funding, as less than 4 

percent of fiscal year 2006 funding had been obligated by states and 

localities by the end of fiscal year 2006. Actions to fulfill these requirements 

were under way, however, in most of the 12 states and 12 large urbanized 

areas we contacted. For example, all 12 of the states and 9 of the large 

urbanized areas we contacted had determined which agency would serve 

as the designated recipient for JARC funding, although not all of these 

states and urbanized areas had formally notified FTA of this determination. 

Officials we interviewed as well as other program stakeholders had 

encountered a number of challenges in program implementation, including 

questions regarding the selection of the designated recipient in large 

urbanized areas and a lack of resources for development of coordinated 

public transit-human services transportation plans. FTA’s proposed final 

guidance responds to most of these issues. For example, FTA clarified 

information on the process for selecting designated recipients in large 

urbanized areas and on whether designated recipients could allow other 

organizations to conduct the competitive selection process to avoid 

7

71 Fed. Reg. 52610 (Sept. 6, 2006).
Page 6 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

potential conflict-of-interest concerns if the designated recipient competes 

for funding. In addition, FTA will allow a phased-in approach for 

development of coordinated public transit-human services transportation 

plans, in response to program stakeholders’ concerns about the time 

needed to develop these plans.

FTA is continuing to develop and refine its strategies for evaluation and 

oversight of the JARC program in response to comments received on its 

March interim guidance and proposed strategies, but a revised approach 

may still be limited in its ability to assess whether the program is meeting 

its goals. In response to previous concerns about FTA’s measurement of 

JARC program outcomes, FTA sought public comment on four new 

proposed performance measures, including one measure specifically for 

JARC (cumulative number of jobs accessed) and three crosscutting 

measures (efficiency of operations, program effectiveness, and customer 

satisfaction) that reflect SAFETEA-LU’s emphasis on the coordination of 

human services transportation. In addition, FTA proposed to use the 

National Transit Database (NTD)8

 for tracking JARC performance data. 

However, program stakeholders that we contacted reported that FTA’s 

proposed cumulative number of jobs accessed measure called for data that 

would be difficult to collect, and noted that the crosscutting measures may 

not be useful to assess JARC performance nationwide due to differences in 

program operation at the local level. On the basis of these comments, FTA 

eliminated the proposed broader coordination measures and clarified that 

the jobs accessed measure will assess whether JARC programs are 

increasing transportation system coverage for low-income people to access 

jobs. FTA also proposed to add a measure on ridership, which will count 

the number of rides provided for low-income individuals. FTA officials 

reported that they are currently testing the JARC performance measure and 

intend to obtain baseline data for use in FTA’s required evaluation of the 

JARC program, which will be submitted to Congress in August 2008. In 

addition, FTA revised its proposal to use the NTD for collecting 

performance data after some grantees reported that it may be challenging 

for smaller organizations to use the system. Finally, to address grantees’ 

concerns about the lack of feedback on their performance, FTA officials 

told us that the agency would be more explicit about how it used the JARC 

8

The NTD is the system through which FTA collects uniform data needed by the Secretary of 

Transportation to administer department programs, including FTA’s Urbanized Area 

Formula Program (which is known as the Section 5307 program) and Nonurbanized Area 

Formula Program (which is known as the Section 5311 program). These data consist of 

selected financial and operating data that describe public transportation characteristics. 
Page 7 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

performance data grantees submitted and would explore posting this 

information on its Web site in the future. Even if FTA resolves its 

performance measurement and reporting issues, however, we identified 

gaps in FTA’s processes for monitoring JARC that may affect its ability to 

evaluate and oversee the program. Although FTA has proposed to use 

existing oversight processes to monitor JARC recipients, these oversight 

processes do not explicitly include provisions for oversight of the JARC 

program. Furthermore, FTA’s proposed process for oversight of agencies 

that do not fall under existing processes could lead to inconsistent 

oversight of JARC recipients. FTA officials said that SAFETEA-LU does not 

provide project management oversight funds for the JARC program, and 

that they are currently looking for alternate sources of funding for this 

purpose. 

To establish adequate and consistent evaluation and oversight processes 

for JARC recipients, and thereby enable FTA to determine whether projects 

are meeting JARC program goals, we are recommending that the Secretary 

of Transportation direct FTA to develop a plan for including the JARC 

program in its established review mechanisms and to clarify how often 

recipients that are not covered by those review mechanisms will be 

monitored. DOT, including FTA, reviewed a draft of this report. FTA 

officials generally agreed with the report’s findings and said that they 

would consider the recommendations as they move forward with 

implementing the program. FTA officials also provided technical comments 

that were incorporated in the report as appropriate to ensure accuracy.

Background The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nation’s system to 

provide assistance to low-income families with children. The act replaced 

the existing entitlement program with fixed block grants to the states to 

provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).9

 TANF provides 

about $16.5 billion annually for the states to use for families to become selfsufficient, imposes work requirements for adults, and establishes time 

limits on the receipt of federal assistance. Without adequate transportation, 

however, TANF recipients and other low-income individuals face 

significant barriers in finding and keeping jobs. Evidence from 

9

TANF is a federal block grant to states that provides cash and noncash assistance to lowincome families, such as employment services and training, work and other supports, and 

aid for the at-risk.
Page 8 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Boston, and Cleveland, shows that 

TANF recipients disproportionately live in inner-city neighborhoods, far 

from entry-level employment opportunities located in the suburbs. 

Although poverty has declined in central cities, urban poverty rates were 

still twice as high as suburban poverty rates in 1999 (approximately 16 

percent versus 8 percent).10 In addition, available jobs may not be located 

near central cities. For instance, one study in 2001 found that in Atlanta, 

Chicago, Detroit, and a number of other metropolitan areas, more than 60 

percent of the regional employment was located more than 10 miles from 

the city center.11 Similarly, the TEA-21 legislation noted that even in 

metropolitan areas with excellent public transportation systems, less than 

one-half of the jobs were accessible by transit. This spatial mismatch 

between low-income individuals and the locations of jobs or other 

employment-related services may hinder those individuals’ ability to both 

find and keep jobs. 

These challenges are especially acute for low-income individuals who do 

not own cars and for those who generally drive long distances in poorly 

maintained cars. Data from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey 

indicated that 26.5 percent of households that earn less than $20,000 do not 

own a car, as compared with 1.2 percent of households with incomes over 

$75,000.12 Lack of adequate modes of transportation makes it difficult to 

make multiple trips each day to accommodate child care and other 

domestic responsibilities and employment-related services. As we reported 

in 2004, many rural TANF recipients also cannot afford to own and operate 

a reliable private vehicle, and public transportation to get to and from 

training, services, and work is often not available. In addition, several 

caseworkers and service providers in rural areas identified the lack of valid 

driver’s licenses as a problem for many of their clients.13 A study from the 

Journal of the Transportation Research Board has shown that access to 

10Bruce Katz, “Smart Growth: The Future of the American Metropolis?” Centre for Analysis 

of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, CASEpaper 58 (July 2002).

11Edward Glaeser and Matthew Kahn, Job Sprawl: Employment Location in U.S. 

Metropolitan Areas (Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 

Washington, D.C.: 2001).

12John Pucher and John L. Renne, “Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 

NHTS,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3, Summer 2003, 49–77. 

13GAO, Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to 

Address Rural Challenges, GAO-04-921 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2004). 
Page 9 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

jobs and job-related opportunities, on the other hand, increases the 

employment and earnings of TANF recipients and reduces TANF-use 

rates.14

The JARC program was created in 1998 to support the nation’s welfare 

reform goals by filling gaps in transportation services. JARC funds can be 

used to expand existing public transit routes or service hours, among other 

things (see sidebars). However, JARC projects are not limited to mass 

transit services; some JARC projects include ridesharing activities and the 

promotion of transit voucher programs. DOT’s two major goals for the 

JARC program are to (1) provide transportation and related services to 

urban, suburban, and rural areas to assist low-income individuals, 

including welfare recipients, with access to employment and related 

services, such as child care and training, and (2) increase collaboration 

among transportation providers, human service agencies, employers, and 

others in planning, funding, and delivering those services. 

FTA experienced a number of challenges in implementing JARC under 

TEA-21. For instance, we have reported that DOT had previously awarded 

grants to designated parties in a noncompetitive fashion; however, in doing 

so, DOT was not in compliance with the provisions of the authorizing 

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

process.15 Another challenge some grantees noted was that JARC funds 

could not be used for planning and coordination activities, which required 

grantees to find alternative sources to fund the administrative activities 

14Evelyn Blumenberg and Paul Ong, “Cars, Buses, and Jobs: Welfare Participants and 

Employment Access in Los Angeles,” Journal of the Transportation Research Board

(Washington, D.C.: 2001), 1756.

15Although JARC began as a competitive grant program, under TEA-21 the program became 

congressionally designated through appropriations legislation. Whereas FTA selected all 

grantees in fiscal year 1999 through a competitive selection process, the amount of funding 

awarded to congressionally designated projects increased over time. In fiscal years 2003, 

2004, and 2005, Congress designated all grantees through appropriations legislation. In 2001, 

we reported that FTA had instituted a two-track process for selecting JARC grantees, with a 

noncompetitive process for those projects identified in Congress’ conference reports. The 

exclusion of significant JARC funds from the competitive selection process decreased FTA’s 

ability to fund projects that might have emerged from this process as the most promising in 

meeting the JARC program’s objectives. (See GAO, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant 

Selection Requirement for DOT’s Job Access Program Was Not Followed, GAO-02-213

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2001).) While FTA subsequently instituted a competitive process 

for awarding funds to all JARC grantees, including congressionally designated projects, we 

later reported that the annual determination of JARC funding made it difficult for states and 

localities to predict their future funding levels (see GAO-04-934R). 

ABQ RIDE Job Access Services – 

Albuquerque, New Mexico

ABQ RIDE, the transit department for the 

city of Albuquerque, reported that it uses

JARC funding it received in previous years

for seven JARC projects that include 

demand-response rides for work, job

training, or transportation emergencies

($.75 per trip); subsidized vanpools ($25 

per month); reduced-price bus passes ($12 

per month); a free 1-day bus pass available 

for job-training trips; a free 6-month bus

pass for social services agency staff who 

volunteer to be travel trainers for their 

clients; and a mobility manager service that 

teaches people how to use bus schedules, 

ride buses, and use other transit services. 

The demand-response services are 

available to anyone at or below 150 percent 

of the poverty level. Over a 2-year period, 

participants are offered 120 round-trips (and 

4 emergency trips) to their jobs, job-related 

training, and child care required for their 

jobs and/or job-related training. 

Source: GAO.
Page 10 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

done for JARC. Also, the statutory matching requirement for JARC was 

inconsistent with other FTA programs because JARC projects could 

receive grants for up to 50 percent of the project’s capital expenses, rather 

than 80 percent. While we have reported that FTA had met its JARC 

program goal of improving collaboration between grantees and 

stakeholders, we also have reported that more collaboration is needed at 

the federal level to enable grantees to obtain federal funding for JARC 

projects. TEA-21 required FTA to report to Congress on the results of an 

evaluation of JARC; however, FTA has struggled to develop comprehensive 

performance measures that assess a national program when individual 

programs, operations, and features vary.

SAFETEA-LU Created 

a Formula for 

Distributing JARC 

Funds and Amended 

Other Aspects of the 

Program

SAFETEA-LU made a number of changes to the JARC program, the most 

notable of which was the creation of a formula to distribute JARC funds 

beginning with fiscal year 2006. Whereas in recent years, JARC projects 

were competitively selected by FTA or congressionally designated for 

funding, SAFETEA-LU created a formula to distribute funds to states and 

large urbanized areas. This change is significant because some states and 

large urbanized areas will receive substantially more funds than under the 

discretionary program, while others will receive substantially less. In 

addition, the formula program will result in some areas receiving JARC 

funds that had not received them in the past. Other JARC changes resulting 

from SAFETEA-LU include (1) the need for states and large urbanized 

areas to designate a recipient for JARC funds, competitively select projects 

for funding, and certify that selected projects came from a locally 

developed coordinated plan and (2) the ability to use a portion of JARC 

funds for planning activities. Table 1 compares key JARC provisions under 

SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21.

Citibus – Lubbock, Texas

Citibus uses JARC funds to subsidize its

fixed-route bus service and evening service 

in the city of Lubbock. According to Citibus, 

the evening service is a demand-response, 

shared ride, curb-to-curb service for the 

general public between 6:40 p.m. and

10:20 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The 

fare is $4 per trip or $75 for a 25-ride pass. 

The evening service is designed to meet the 

needs of passengers who are transit 

dependent and who would have no other 

means of transportation in the evenings if 

the evening service were not provided. 

Citibus also notes that a majority of evening 

service passengers work at night and use 

the service for transportation to and from job

sites. 

Source: GAO.
Page 11 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 1: Comparison of SAFETEA-LU’s and TEA-21’s JARC Provisions

Provision

Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since 

August 2005)

Program as previously administered under 

TEA-21 (1999-August 2005) 

Distribute JARC funds by formula • Requires the Secretary of Transportation to 

apportion funds among states and designated 

recipients of large urbanized areas through a 

formula that considers the number of eligible lowincome individualsa

 and welfare recipients in 

each state or large urbanized area relative to 

other states or large urbanized areas. 

• Sixty percent of JARC funds is apportioned to 

designated recipients of urbanized areas with a 

population of 200,000 or more, 20 percent is 

apportioned to states for projects in urbanized 

areas with a population of fewer than 200,000, 

and 20 percent is apportioned to states for 

projects in other-than-urbanized areas.

• The Secretary of Transportation was required 

to conduct a national solicitation for 

applications for grants and to select grantees 

on a competitive basis. In practice, however, 

projects were congressionally designated in 

recent years.

• The same percentage of JARC funds were 

allocated among large urbanized areas, small 

urbanized areas, and other-than-urbanized 

areas as provided under SAFETEA-LU.

Designate JARC recipient The governor must designate a recipient at the 

state level to competitively select and award funds 

for projects in small urban and other-thanurbanized areas, and within each large urbanized 

area to competitively select and award funds in 

that area.

Not required under TEA-21. Rather, FTA 

competitively selected JARC projects and more 

recently awarded funds for projects that were 

congressionally designated.

Use coordinated public transithuman services transportation plan 

to select projects for funding

• JARC projects selected for funding must be 

derived from a locally developed coordinated 

public transit-human services transportation plan. 

Designated recipients must certify that selected 

projects were derived from this plan.

• Additional FTA programs that provide funding for 

services for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations are also subject to this requirement 

beginning in fiscal year 2007.b

JARC projects were required to be part of a 

coordinated public transit-human services 

transportation planning process, but there was 

no requirement to certify that selected projects 

were derived from this plan. 

Use competitive selection process Designated recipients in urbanized areas are 

required to conduct a solicitation for applications 

for grants in cooperation with the appropriate 

metropolitan planning organization;c

 designated 

recipients in states are required to conduct a 

statewide solicitation for applications for grants. 

Grants are to be awarded on a competitive basis.

The Secretary of Transportation was required 

to conduct a national solicitation for 

applications for grants and to select grantees 

on a competitive basis. In practice, however, 

projects were congressionally designated in 

recent years.

Allow the use of funds for 

administration, planning, and 

technical assistance

• A recipient may use up to 10 percent of its 

apportionment to administer, plan, and provide 

technical assistance for JARC projects.

• Planning is also included as an eligible expense, 

along with capital and operating expenses.

No statutory provision for administration and 

technical assistance under TEA-21.d

 Planning 

and coordination activities were prohibited 

expenses.
Page 12 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: GAO analysis of SAFETEA-LU and TEA-21.

a

Eligible low-income individuals are those whose family income is at or below 150 percent of the 

poverty line.

b

FTA programs in addition to JARC that serve these populations are the Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals with Disabilities program and the New Freedom program.

c

Metropolitan planning organizations are federally mandated regional organizations responsible for 

comprehensive transportation planning and programming in urbanized areas.

d

FTA allowed JARC grantees to use up to 10 percent of funds for administration and technical 

assistance activities.

e

FTA officials explained that this transfer allows for administrative ease of processing using a simplified 

single application.

JARC Became a Formula 

Program

A key SAFETEA-LU change to the JARC program was the creation of a 

formula to distribute JARC funds. Under TEA-21, JARC was a discretionary 

grant program for which FTA competitively selected JARC projects and, 

more recently, awarded funds for congressionally designated projects. 

Under SAFETEA-LU, states and large urbanized areas have been 

apportioned funding for JARC projects through a formula that is based on 

the relative number of low-income individuals and welfare recipients in

Provide for transfers of JARC funds States may transfer funds among the small 

urbanized area and other-than-urbanized area 

apportionments if the governor certifies that JARC 

objectives are being met in the specified area. 

States may also transfer funds from the small 

urbanized area and other-than-urbanized area 

apportionments to projects in any area in the state 

if it has a statewide program for meeting JARC 

objectives. States may also transfer funds to FTA’s 

Urbanized Area or Nonurbanized Area Formula 

programs if the funds are used for eligible JARC 

projects.e

No provision under TEA-21.

Increase federal government’s 

share of capital costs

JARC grants for capital projects may not exceed 

80 percent of the net capital costs of the project. 

Grants for operating assistance may not exceed 50 

percent of the net operating costs of the project. 

Grants for projects could not exceed 50 percent 

of the total project cost. No differentiation 

between capital and operating projects.

Remove limit on reverse commute 

project funding

No limit on the amount that can be used for reverse 

commute projects.

No more than $10 million could be used each 

fiscal year for reverse commute project grants.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Provision

Current program under SAFETEA-LU (since 

August 2005)

Program as previously administered under 

TEA-21 (1999-August 2005) 
Page 13 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

each area.16 Forty percent of JARC funds each year is required to be 

apportioned among states for projects in small urbanized and other-thanurbanized areas, and the remaining 60 percent is required to be 

apportioned among urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more. 

For fiscal year 2006, the allocation was as follows:

• nonurbanized areas - $27.3 million,

• small urbanized areas - $27.3 million, and

• large urbanized areas - $82.0 million.

The change to a formula program is significant because some states and 

urbanized areas will receive substantially more funds than they received 

under the discretionary program, while others will receive substantially 

less (see fig. 1). In 22 states, the total amount of JARC funding available 

decreased from fiscal years 2005 to 2006, when the formula-based program 

began. The percentage decrease in funding for these 22 states ranged from 

33 percent to 88 percent. For example:

• Alaska’s funding decreased approximately 88 percent, from $1.7 million 

in fiscal year 2005 to $207,503 in fiscal year 2006. 

• Vermont also saw its JARC apportionments decrease more than 80 

percent, from $991,182 to $186,885.17 

The total amount of JARC funding available for 2 states (Michigan and West 

Virginia) remained approximately the same over the 2 fiscal years, while in 

13 states, the total funding increased. The percentage increase for these 13 

states ranged from 17 percent to 2,931 percent. 

• Florida, for instance, had its JARC funds increased by more than 1,200 

percent, from $594,708 in fiscal year 2005 to $8.3 million in fiscal year 

2006. 

16The SAFETEA-LU formula apportions JARC funds on the basis of “eligible” low-income 

individuals in an area. Eligible low-income individuals are defined in SAFETEA-LU as 

individuals whose family income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty line.

17The dollar amounts in this paragraph include funds that were congressionally designated 

for specific projects in fiscal year 2005 or apportioned to states and to large urbanized areas 

within each state for fiscal year 2006.
Page 14 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

• Virginia experienced the greatest percentage increase—more than 2,900 

percent—from $84,249 in fiscal year 2005 to $2.5 million in fiscal year 

2006.

Eighteen states were allocated fiscal year 2006 JARC funds that had not 

received JARC funds for fiscal year 2005. These states represent 

approximately 16 percent of the total JARC funding for fiscal year 2006. 

(App. II lists the dollar amount of the fiscal year 2006 apportionments for 

all of the states and large urbanized areas.) 
Page 15 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Figure 1: Percentage Change in Job Access and Reverse Commute Funds Apportioned to States and Large Urbanized Areas

from Fiscal Years 2005 to 2006

Source: FTA.

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1,250

1,300

2,900

2,950

Virginia

Florida

Texas

New York

Illinois

Massachusetts

Ohio

California

Georgia

Indiana

Kentucky

North Dakota

Louisiana

West Virginia

Michigan

Kansas

Maryland

Oregon

New Jersey

Iowa

Colorado

Washington

Wisconsin

Connecticut

Minnesota

New Mexico

Nevada

Miss

Delaware

Alabama

ouri

Tennessee

Pennsylvania

Maine

Rhode Island

Oklahoma

Vermont

Alaska

Percentage change

State
Page 16 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Note: This figure includes funds congressionally designated for specific projects in fiscal year 2005 or 

apportioned to states and large urbanized areas within each state for fiscal year 2006. This figure does 

not include the following 18 states that were not allocated fiscal year 2005 JARC funds: American 

Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

North Carolina, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virgin 

Islands, and Wyoming. 

Large urbanized areas also saw substantial changes to their JARC funding 

as a result of formularization. Of the 11 large urbanized areas we 

interviewed that had received prior JARC grants, 1 saw its JARC funding 

increase 64 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 5 had their funds 

decrease from 3 percent to 88 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 

and 5 had received JARC grants in the past but not in fiscal year 2005. 

• For example, Tampa/St. Petersburg was apportioned $978,029 in fiscal 

year 2006, a 64 percent increase from its two fiscal year 2005 grants that 

totaled $594,708. 

• By contrast, Jefferson County in the Birmingham, Alabama, area had 

received a JARC grant for almost $3 million in fiscal year 2005, whereas 

the urbanized area was apportioned $356,107 for fiscal year 2006, a 

decrease of 88 percent.18

In addition, the formula program will result in some states and areas 

receiving JARC funds that had not received them in the past. Eighteen 

states received JARC funds in fiscal year 2006 that did not receive them in 

fiscal year 2005.19 For example, Wyoming, which has not received JARC 

funds before, was apportioned $202,360 for fiscal year 2006 as a result of 

the formula. An official from the Wyoming Department of Transportation 

told us that the state will be able to use the funding to provide vanpool and 

bus services to the new employment opportunities created by the state’s 

natural gas and mining operations, many of which are located in areas 

without public transportation. Puerto Rico, also new to JARC, was 

18We were unable to determine the change in funding for all large urbanized areas that had 

received fiscal year 2005 JARC funds because some previous grants were awarded to 

agencies that serve more than one metropolitan area, or to local agencies for use statewide. 

As such, it was not practical to isolate the fiscal year 2005 amount for each large urbanized 

area.

19Some of the states and large urbanized areas that did not receive JARC funds in fiscal year 

2005 had received them in previous years. We were unable to determine the total number of 

states and large urbanized areas that had never before received JARC funds because, as we 

previously noted, some previous grants were awarded to agencies that serve more than one 

state or metropolitan area or to local agencies for use statewide.
Page 17 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

apportioned $6.6 million under the formula. Many large urbanized areas, 

such as Fresno, California, will also be receiving JARC apportionments for 

the first time. 

Officials from the industry associations and the 29 state and local agencies 

that we interviewed had mixed reactions to this change. Some of these 

state and local agencies said the change from a discretionary to a formula 

program would result in a more equitable distribution of funds or that 

formula funding would provide a more consistent source of funding than 

congressional designation. Some of the 29 agencies said that they would 

likely add or expand transportation services in their area, and a few 

thought that formularization would result in improved coordination among 

transportation and human service agencies. By contrast, some of the state 

and local agencies we interviewed said that the change to a formula 

program and the associated program requirements they would need to 

fulfill would increase the administrative burden on their agency, with 3 of 

these agencies noting that the additional burden might outweigh the 

benefits of the program. Other agencies said that the change to a formula 

program would result in a loss of funds to their state or area, while 1 

agency and 1 industry association said the change would spread an already 

small amount of money even thinner. Several agencies also said that they 

might have to reduce or eliminate services as a result. Still other agencies 

said that the change to a formula program would have little or no impact on 

transportation services in their area. Some indicated that the impact would 

vary by location, while a few other agencies and 1 industry association 

noted that it is too soon to know the impact.

SAFETEA-LU Introduced 

Three Key Requirements for 

Receiving JARC Funding 

and Made Other Changes

In addition to creating a formula for distributing JARC funds, SAFETEA-LU 

also requires states and large urbanized areas to fulfill the following three 

key requirements before applying to FTA to receive their apportioned JARC 

funding: (1) identify a designated recipient for JARC funds, (2) conduct a 

competitive process to select projects for funding, and (3) certify that 

JARC projects were derived from a coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan (see fig. 2). 
Page 18 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Figure 2: Key Requirements under SAFETEA-LU for Receiving JARC Funding

Under SAFETEA-LU, the governor of each state must designate a recipient 

for JARC funds at the state level to competitively select and award funds 

for projects in small urban and other-than-urbanized areas within the state. 

In large urbanized areas, the recipient must be jointly designated by the 

governor, local officials, and publicly owned operators of public 

transportation. These designated recipients will then solicit applications 

and develop and conduct a competitive process for selecting projects for 

funding. SAFETEA-LU also extended a JARC coordinated planning 

requirement to additional FTA programs. In the past, JARC projects were 

required to be part of a coordinated public transit-human services 

transportation plan; a similar requirement is included in SAFETEA-LU. 

However, this requirement will apply in fiscal year 2007 to two other FTA 

programs that provide funding for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations.20 In addition, recipients in states and urbanized areas that 

select JARC projects must now certify that their selections were based on 

this plan. 

20“Transportation-disadvantaged populations” refers to populations that lack the ability to 

provide their own transportation or have difficulty accessing whatever conventional public 

transportation may be available. FTA programs in addition to JARC that serve these 

populations are the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities program, which 

provides formula funding for capital projects to assist in meeting the transportation needs of 

the elderly and persons with disabilities, and the New Freedom program, which provides 

formula funding for new public transportation services and public transportation 

alternatives that assist individuals with disabilities with transportation, including 

transportation to and from jobs and employment support services. We reported in 2003 that 

some federal and state officials believed that providing financial incentives or mandates for 

coordination was one way to improve the coordination of transportation services among 

federal programs. (See GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some 

Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 

Persist, GAO-03-697 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003).)

Identify designated

recipient

Conduct competitive

selection 

Certify that selections

were based on a

coordinated plan

FTA review and

approval of projects

Source: GAO.
Page 19 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

SAFETEA-LU made a number of other changes to the JARC program, 

several of which address issues that we have raised in past reports on JARC 

and the coordination of transportation services for transportationdisadvantaged populations. One such change is the ability of a recipient to 

use up to 10 percent of its JARC allocation for administration, planning, 

and technical assistance.21 SAFETEA-LU also expanded the definition of 

eligible activities to include planning as well as capital and operating 

activities. In 2004, we reported that a majority of the JARC grantees we 

interviewed supported this proposed change because planning activities 

could increase coordination with potential partners.22 We also reported in 

2003 that the overall costs of coordination, which can include additional 

staff members and staff time needed for maintaining and overseeing 

coordination efforts, can be significant.23 According to FTA, the 10 percent 

of JARC funds that will now be available for administration, planning, and 

technical assistance can be used for coordination activities, which can help 

state and local agencies improve services and achieve cost savings.

SAFETEA-LU also increased the federal government’s share of capital 

costs and removed a restriction on the amount of funding available for 

reverse commute projects to help individuals gain access to suburban 

employment opportunities. In 2004, we reported that the change in the 

matching fund requirement for JARC would make that program consistent 

with the matching requirements for other FTA programs.24 Under TEA-21, 

projects could receive a grant for up to 50 percent of the project’s capital 

expenses, which are used to purchase capital equipment such as buses. 

Grantees will now be able to receive a grant for up to 80 percent of the 

project’s capital expenses.25 FTA officials had told us that this change 

would lessen any confusion about matching requirements among grant 

recipients who participate in multiple FTA programs. 

21While TEA-21 had not included a statutory provision regarding a percentage that could be 

used for administration and technical assistance, FTA allowed JARC grantees to use up to 10 

percent for these activities.

22GAO-04-934R. 

23GAO-03-697.

24GAO-04-934R.

25Under both TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, projects are eligible for grants of up to 50 percent of 

their operating expenses—that is, the costs of their day-to-day operations.
Page 20 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

FTA Has Developed 

Proposed Final 

Guidance for JARC, 

but Delays in Issuing 

the Final Guidance 

May Reduce the Time 

Available to Obligate 

JARC Funding

FTA has been developing guidance to help JARC recipients implement 

changes to the program resulting from the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, but 

delays in releasing final guidance will reduce the window of availability of 

fiscal year 2006 funding. To formulate JARC guidance, FTA has been using 

an extensive public participation process, including notices, commenting 

periods, listening sessions, and focus groups. This strategy has provided 

FTA with an abundance of feedback, and the agency has incorporated these 

comments into its September proposed final guidance.26 However, an 

extension of the public comment period and the volume of public input 

have also contributed to delays in issuing guidance, which meant that FTA 

was not able to release final program guidance prior to the beginning of 

fiscal year 2007. Given that FTA allows 3 years to obligate fiscal year 2006 

funds, this delay results in 1 less year for states and urbanized areas to 

obligate JARC funding.

FTA Has Engaged in 

Extensive Public Outreach 

to Formulate JARC 

Guidance 

As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA has used an extensive notice and 

comment process to gain public input to formulate guidance for the JARC 

program. In November 2005, FTA published a notice of changes to JARC 

and other relevant programs.27 This notice provided information on 

changes to the JARC program and solicited public comment on aspects of 

the program, such as technical assistance needs and the coordinated 

planning requirements. In addition, FTA held five public listening sessions 

across the country on a number of programs, including JARC, to obtain 

comments and input on the issues that should be addressed in future 

guidance. The agency also convened a focus group to discuss possible 

changes to the implementation of JARC. In March 2006, drawing on 

information received in comments and the listening sessions, FTA released 

interim JARC guidance for fiscal year 2006 and requested comments on its 

proposed implementation strategies. 

When the interim guidance and proposed strategies was released, it 

generated many questions and concerns among stakeholders. FTA received 

more than 200 comments on its March interim guidance and proposed 

strategies from state and local departments of transportation, metropolitan 

26FTA refers to guidance for grantees and stakeholders as a “circular.” In this report, we 

refer to FTA’s draft and final circulars for JARC as “proposed final guidance” and “final 

guidance.”

2770 Fed. Reg. 71950 (Nov. 30, 2005).
Page 21 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

planning organizations, private transportation service providers, interest 

groups, and other JARC stakeholders. FTA officials reviewed this feedback 

and addressed many of the stakeholders’ issues in the proposed final 

guidance for JARC, which was released in September. We will discuss these 

comments in more detail later in this report, and appendix III provides a 

summary of these comments.

FTA’s Formulation of 

Guidance Has Been Delayed 

Due to Extensive Public 

Comments on JARC 

Changes

FTA has been incorporating stakeholder concerns into its formulation of 

guidance, but the volume of this input has contributed to delays. FTA 

officials originally stated that they planned to issue proposed final guidance 

in the early summer of 2006. However, FTA extended the comment period 

for the March 2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies from April 21 

to May 22 to accommodate additional comments, and more than 100 

comments were submitted on or after the last day of the comment period. 

Because of these additional comments, FTA officials later told us that they 

expected to issue the proposed final guidance in late July or early August. 

FTA ultimately issued the proposed final guidance on September 6, 2006 

(see fig. 3). Public comments were accepted for 60 days following the 

release of the September proposed final guidance, after which FTA began 

reviewing the comments to inform its final guidance. Consequently, FTA 

was not able to release its final guidance prior to the start of the 2007 fiscal 

year in October. FTA officials said that they currently plan to release final 

program guidance in March 2007.
Page 22 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Figure 3: Timeline for FTA’s Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes to the JARC 

Program

Source: GAO.

2006

2005

August 2005: SAFETEA-LU, which reauthorized the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) program and changed the program from a discretionary 

program to a formula-based program, is signed into law.

November 2005: FTA issued a notice of changes in programs, including the JARC 

program, in accordance with SAFETEA-LU, and provided preliminary instructions

and guidance for public comment.

December 2005: FTA issued a notice of apportionments and allocations for fiscal year 

2006 programs, including the JARC program.

FTA conducted informal 2-day listening sessions with stakeholders in five cities to 

discuss transit-related issues, including the JARC program.

FTA’s docket for public comment on the preliminary instructions and guidance for 

programs, including the JARC program, closed in late December.

February 2006: FTA issued amended apportionments and allocations for fiscal year 

2006 programs, including the JARC program. 

March 2006: FTA issued interim guidance for the fiscal year 2006 implementation 

of the JARC program and solicited public comment on proposed strategies for the 

fiscal year 2007 implementation of three programs, including the JARC program.

FTA met with stakeholders to discuss program requirements, crosscutting issues, 

and program implementation. 

May 2006: FTA’s docket for public comment on guidance for the fiscal year 2007 

implementation of programs closed in late May.

Early summer 2006: Date FTA previously planned to issue proposed final guidance 

for the JARC program.

Fall 2006: Date FTA previously planned to issue final guidance for the JARC program. 

November 2006: FTA’s docket for public comment on the proposed final guidance 

closed in early November. 

March 2007: FTA plans to issue final guidance for the JARC program after 

reviewing comments.

September 2006: FTA issued proposed final guidance for the fiscal year 2006 

implementation of the JARC program, and solicited public comment on this

guidance.

2007
Page 23 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Delays in Issuing Final 

Guidance May Reduce the 

Time Available to Obligate 

Fiscal Year 2006 JARC 

Funding 

FTA’s issuance of final guidance for JARC has been delayed, and this may 

reduce the time available to projects to access fiscal year 2006 funding. FTA 

officials noted that although the notice and comment process has affected 

the timeliness of the program guidance, they feel that it has enriched the 

development of guidance. However, the delays associated with taking this 

approach have reduced the time between issuing the final guidance on how 

to apply for fiscal year 2006 funds and the deadline for obligating these 

funds by the end of fiscal year 2008.

A number of states and large urbanized areas have proceeded to implement 

JARC’s requirements using the interim guidance and proposed strategies. 

Nineteen of the 29 state and local agencies we interviewed in the summer 

of 2006 were proceeding with the implementation of JARC in the absence 

of proposed final guidance. Many of these agencies are required to comply 

with local and state planning and budget schedules, which have compelled 

them to move ahead with JARC implementation. FTA officials told us that 

they encouraged states and urbanized areas to begin implementing changes 

to the JARC program on the basis of the March interim guidance and 

proposed strategies, and that FTA is accepting applications for funding 

prior to issuance of final guidance. In addition, FTA’s March 2006 interim 

guidance and proposed strategies included a “hold harmless” provision 

stating that the final guidance requirements would not apply retroactively 

to grants awarded prior to the issuance of the final guidance. FTA later 

extended this “hold harmless” provision to grant applications submitted in 

fiscal year 2007 on the basis of coordinated planning or competitive 

selection processes that were substantially complete before the issuance of 

final guidance.28

Even if the delay in issuing the final guidance does not affect the efforts 

already under way, states and large urbanized areas will need to keep the 

remaining window of time in mind, or their ability to secure fiscal year 2006 

funding allocated to them could be affected. Through the guidance, FTA 

implemented a 3-year period to obligate JARC funds for a given fiscal year 

(the fiscal year of apportionment plus an additional 2 years). Under this 

view, the availability of fiscal year 2006 funding would expire at the end of 

fiscal year 2008, and those agencies that chose to wait for the final 

guidance to be released before applying for fiscal year 2006 JARC funds

2871 Fed. Reg. 63838 (Oct. 31, 2006).
Page 24 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

would have only 2 years in which to obligate those funds. A number of state 

and local agencies we interviewed indicated that they are waiting on FTA’s 

final program guidance before moving forward to program implementation. 

While these areas will benefit from having the final guidance before they 

submit their JARC applications, given that the guidance was not available 

by the beginning of fiscal year 2007, they will have less time available to 

obligate fiscal year 2006 funds.

States and Large 

Urbanized Areas Have 

Begun to Implement 

JARC Requirements, 

and FTA Has Taken 

Steps to Alleviate 

Implementation 

Challenges

States and large urbanized areas that were apportioned JARC funds have 

generally begun to implement requirements to receive this funding. As they 

have done so, they have encountered challenges, most of which FTA has 

taken steps to alleviate. To date, few states and large urbanized areas have 

fulfilled the necessary SAFETEA-LU requirements to receive fiscal year 

2006 JARC funds, but most states and large urbanized areas we contacted 

reported that they are in the process of fulfilling these requirements. 

Officials we interviewed as well as other program stakeholders have 

encountered several challenges in program implementation, such as 

questions regarding the selection of the designated recipient in large 

urbanized areas. FTA responded to most of these issues in its September 

2006 proposed final guidance. 

Few States and Large 

Urbanized Areas Have 

Received Fiscal Year 2006 

JARC Funds, Although Most 

We Interviewed Are in the 

Process of Fulfilling 

Funding Requirements 

As we previously noted, states and large urbanized areas must fulfill three 

SAFETEA-LU requirements prior to applying to FTA to receive JARC funds 

to award for projects: identify a designated recipient for JARC funds, 

conduct a competitive selection process, and certify that JARC projects 

were derived from a coordinated public transit-human services 

transportation plan. To date, few states and urbanized areas have fulfilled 

these requirements and received fiscal year 2006 JARC funding. 

Nationwide, 3 states and 9 of the 152 large urbanized areas that were 

apportioned JARC funding had received fiscal year 2006 funds as of the end
Page 25 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

of fiscal year 2006.29,30 These obligated funds constitute less than 4 percent 

of the total fiscal year 2006 JARC funding apportioned to states and large 

urbanized areas.

While few states and large urbanized areas have fulfilled the requirements 

to receive JARC funds, officials in most of the 12 states and 12 large 

urbanized areas we contacted in June, July, and August 2006 reported that 

they have begun to implement these requirements to receive funding. 

Specifically:

• Identifying the JARC designated recipient. Officials in each of the 12 

states we contacted reported that the state had determined its 

designated recipient for JARC. In 7 of these states, officials reported 

that the governor had signed a letter to formally designate the recipient, 

as required by SAFETEA-LU, although not all of these states had 

submitted the letter to FTA. The other 5 states reported that their formal 

designation was in-progress. Officials in 9 of the 12 large urbanized 

areas we contacted also reported that the area had determined which 

agency would serve as the designated recipient for JARC funds, 

although none had submitted a designation letter to FTA at the time of 

our interviews. There is some variety in the agencies that will serve as 

the designated recipient in the large urbanized areas we contacted. A 

metropolitan planning organization will be the designated recipient in 4 

of the areas we contacted, while a transit agency will be the designated 

recipient in the other 5 areas. The other 3 areas had not yet decided on 

the likely designated recipient.

• Developing coordinated plans. Almost all of the states and large 

urbanized areas we contacted had taken actions related to the 

establishment of locally developed coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plans. SAFETEA-LU requires states and 

29None of the large urbanized areas that have received fiscal year 2006 grant awards have 

submitted a letter to notify FTA of the designated recipient for JARC funds. FTA officials 

noted that to allow areas to move forward in implementation for fiscal year 2006, they 

awarded grants to agencies that would be the JARC designated recipient, if the recipient 

was in the process of receiving its formal designation for the JARC program. To receive 

funding for fiscal year 2007, FTA states that all recipients must submit an official letter 

designating the JARC recipient.

30FTA officials reported that FTA has also awarded JARC funds to a small urbanized area in 

an additional state that applied directly to FTA for funding after it was awarded funds 

through its state’s competitive selection process. 
Page 26 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

urbanized areas to certify that they derived JARC projects from these 

plans. In 11 of the 12 large urbanized areas we contacted, officials 

reported that they either had determined their strategy for meeting the 

coordinated plan requirement or had initiated a coordinated planning 

process. In addition, officials in all 12 states we contacted reported that 

the state will be involved in coordinated planning for the JARC program, 

although the extent of their participation varied. For example, one state 

official we interviewed reported that his agency will lead the 

coordinated planning process for small urbanized and rural areas within 

the state, while another state official reported that rural areas will be 

responsible for developing plans while the state provides assistance on 

a case-by-case basis. In a majority of the states and large urbanized 

areas we contacted, officials anticipated completing these plans in earlyto mid-2007. While FTA has allowed states and large urbanized areas to 

apply for up to 10 percent of their apportionment for administration, 

planning, and technical assistance prior to applying for funding for 

project implementation, only 1 of the states and 1 large urbanized area 

we contacted had received this funding, and another large urbanized 

area we contacted was in the process of applying for the funding. 

Reasons that officials we interviewed cited for not applying for this 

funding included the intention to wait until fiscal year 2007 to use the 

funding, and the use of other funding sources for these activities.

• Conducting a competitive selection process. Few states and large 

urbanized areas we contacted had conducted a competitive selection 

process to award fiscal year 2006 JARC funds. Officials in 2 large 

urbanized areas reported that they had conducted a competitive 

selection process to award fiscal year 2006 funds. In addition, 3 states 

we contacted had competitively selected JARC projects, but at the time 

of our interviews, none had yet applied to FTA for the state’s fiscal year 

2006 funding to award for project implementation. Officials in a majority 

of the remaining states and large urbanized areas anticipated 

competitively selecting projects in early- to mid-2007. More than half of 

the states and large urbanized areas we contacted reported that they 

considered or may consider a project’s prior receipt of JARC funding to 

some extent in selecting projects for funding. For example, officials 

from 2 metropolitan planning organizations we interviewed noted that 

they would consider a project’s prior receipt of JARC funds to continue 

successful projects. Other criteria that officials anticipated they would 

consider in selecting projects included the capacity of the organization 

to administer the funds, whether the project had matching funds, and 

how the project would address the needs of the community.
Page 27 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

States and Large Urbanized 

Areas Have Encountered 

Several Implementation 

Challenges, Most of Which 

FTA Has Responded to in Its 

Proposed Final Guidance

In comments submitted on FTA’s March interim guidance and proposed 

strategies and in interviews with selected state and local officials, program 

stakeholders expressed several implementation challenges they had 

encountered or concerns they had as the program moves forward. These 

issues included questions regarding the designated recipient in large 

urbanized areas, and challenges in ensuring stakeholder participation and 

adequate resources for the development of coordinated public transithuman services transportation plans. FTA responded to many of these 

issues in its proposed final guidance, which it issued in September 2006. 

Table 2 below summarizes stakeholders’ key implementation challenges 

and concerns and FTA’s actions to respond to these issues.

Table 2: Stakeholders’ Key Implementation Challenges and Concerns and FTA’s Response

Implementation information in FTA’s notice of 

program changes (November 2005) and interim 

JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 

2006)

Challenges and concerns expressed 

by program stakeholders

FTA’s response in proposed final 

JARC guidance (September 2006)

Designated recipients in large urbanized areas

Large urbanized areas are to designate the JARC 

recipient under the same process that governs the 

designation of recipients for FTA’s Urbanized Area 

Formula program, known as the Section 5307 

program.a

• Confusion regarding the need for a 

designation of a recipient separate from 

the FTA Section 5307 program.

• Stakeholder comments that SAFETEALU identified existing Section 5307 

designated recipients as the intended 

JARC designated recipients.

• Clarifies that a designation of the 

JARC recipient is needed separate 

from the Section 5307 program. 

Notes stakeholders’ concerns that a potential conflict 

of interest could exist in large urbanized areas when 

the designated recipient both conducts the 

competitive selection process and is eligible to 

receive funds. Interim guidance describes strategies 

and policies to ensure that projects are selected 

through a fair and equitable process.

• Different opinions among program 

stakeholders regarding the potential for 

a conflict of interest.

• Claims that there was inconsistent 

information from FTA staff regarding the 

designated recipient’s ability to allow 

another organization to conduct the 

competitive selection process, to avoid 

potential conflict-of-interest issues.

• Clarifies that designated recipients 

may establish partnerships with 

other organizations to competitively 

select projects to address potential 

conflict-of-interest concerns. 

• States that the designated recipient 

may be an existing Section 5307 

program designated recipient or that 

another agency may be a preferred 

choice that is based on local 

circumstances.
Page 28 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Development of coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans

Recommended that the lead agency developing the 

coordinated plan include a number of groups in the 

process, including nonprofit transportation providers, 

private transportation providers, and human service 

agencies.

• Challenges in getting other 

organizations, such as human service 

agencies, to participate in the planning 

process.

• Notes that FTA is working with other 

federal agencies on the Federal 

Interagency Coordinating Council on 

Access and Mobility to encourage 

organizations that receive other 

sources of human service 

transportation funding to participate 

in coordinated transportation 

planning.

• Notes that the extent of outreach 

and participation in the planning 

process will be based on local 

circumstances.

Areas must derive JARC projects receiving fiscal 

year 2006 funding from a coordinated public transithuman services plan. This requirement applies to the 

New Freedom program and the Elderly Individuals 

and Individuals with Disabilities program, known as 

the Section 5310 program, in fiscal year 2007.b

• Difficulties in developing plans within 

established time frames.

• Allows a phased-in approach to the 

development of coordinated plans. 

Program funding

Up to 10 percent of a state or large urbanized area’s 

apportionment is available for administration, 

planning, and technical assistance. Recipients may 

apply for this funding prior to applying for project 

implementation.

• The cost of developing coordinated 

plans exceeds available resources.

• Areas will incur higher initial costs to 

implement new program requirements.

• Identifies other sources of FTA 

funding that states and urbanized 

areas can use for administration and 

to develop coordinated plans.

• Proposes that recipients can 

combine the administrative funding 

available under the Section 5310, 

JARC, and New Freedom programs 

to develop a single coordinated 

public transit-human services 

transportation plan.

• Notes that administrative funds are 

not specific to one year, and that 

recipients may roll over 

administrative funding into a 

subsequent year for the anticipated 

future costs of current projects.

• Notes that planning activities are an 

eligible expense for the JARC 

program.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Implementation information in FTA’s notice of 

program changes (November 2005) and interim 

JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 

2006)

Challenges and concerns expressed 

by program stakeholders

FTA’s response in proposed final 

JARC guidance (September 2006)
Page 29 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: GAO analysis of FTA information.

a

The Section 5307 program makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for 

transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. For 

urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more, funds are apportioned and flow directly to a 

designated recipient selected locally to apply for and receive federal funds.

b

The Section 5310 program provides formula funding to states for capital projects to assist in meeting 

the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities. 

Designated Recipient in Large 

Urbanized Areas

Selected urbanized area officials we interviewed and stakeholder 

comments on FTA’s interim JARC guidance raised several questions and 

issues regarding the designated recipient in large urbanized areas. For 

example, transit agency officials we interviewed in 2 large urbanized areas 

were under the impression that their agency’s status as the designated 

recipient for FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula program (Section 5307 

program) automatically made the agency the JARC designated recipient. In 

addition, two comments on FTA’s March 2006 interim guidance and 

proposed strategies noted the stakeholders’ belief that SAFETEA-LU 

identified existing Section 5307 designated recipients as the intended JARC 

designated recipients. FTA officials acknowledged that on the basis of the 

interim guidance and proposed strategies, there was some confusion about 

the process to designate the JARC recipient. To clarify this issue, the 

preamble of the September proposed final guidance notes that in large 

urbanized areas, a new designation letter shall be issued for the JARC 

program, regardless of whether the designated recipient is the same or 

different than the Section 5307 designated recipient.

Officials we interviewed in large urbanized areas and several stakeholder 

comments on FTA’s interim guidance and proposed strategies also raised 

the issue of a potential conflict of interest with respect to the designated 

recipient in large urbanized areas, and noted uncertainty about the ability 

of designated recipients to allow other organizations to conduct the 

competitive selection process. In its March interim guidance and proposed 

strategies, FTA noted that many comments on its November 2005 Notice of 

Program Changes expressed concern that a conflict of interest could exist 

in large urbanized areas when the designated recipient, specifically a 

provider of transportation services, conducts the competitive selection 

Grantees may use federal JARC funding for 80 

percent of capital expenses and 50 percent of 

operating expenses.

• Difficulties in securing matching funds 

for JARC projects.

• Lists potential sources of matching 

funds, including other federal 

programs that provide funding for 

transportation.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Implementation information in FTA’s notice of 

program changes (November 2005) and interim 

JARC guidance and proposed strategies (March 

2006)

Challenges and concerns expressed 

by program stakeholders

FTA’s response in proposed final 

JARC guidance (September 2006)
Page 30 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

process and is eligible for funding. In addition, officials at 12 of the 17 

agencies we contacted in large urbanized areas and 18 stakeholder 

comments on FTA’s March 2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies 

believed there would be a potential conflict of interest or the appearance of 

a conflict of interest in this arrangement. Eight other stakeholder 

comments stated that a transparent competitive selection process or the 

involvement of metropolitan planning organizations in the selection 

process would ameliorate any conflict-of-interest concerns. While officials 

we interviewed in 2 large urbanized areas raised the possibility of the 

designated recipients allowing another organization to conduct the 

competitive selection process to avoid potential conflict-of-interest issues, 

officials in 1 of these areas said that prior to the release of FTA’s proposed 

final guidance, they received inconsistent information from FTA staff 

regarding this issue. 

The ability of designated recipients to both conduct the competitive 

selection process and compete for funds through this process does present 

potential conflict-of-interest concerns. However, FTA outlined a number of 

strategies and controls in its JARC guidance that, if adhered to by 

designated recipients, should address many of these potential conflict-ofinterest concerns and minimize perceptions of unfairness in the 

competitive selection process. These controls relate to GAO’s internal 

control standards for the federal government, one of which addresses the 

policies and procedures in place within an agency to ensure proper 

stewardship and accountability for government resources.31 These 

strategies and controls were as follows:

• Selection of the designated recipient. To address stakeholders’ 

concerns of a potential conflict of interest, FTA recommended in its 

March interim guidance and proposed strategies that the designated 

recipient not be a provider of transportation services. FTA noted that it 

received a wide range of comments on this proposal, and, in response, 

the September proposed final guidance stated that the designated 

recipient may be the same as the area’s existing Section 5307 program 

designated recipient or that another agency may be a preferred choice 

that is based on local circumstances. 

31GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Page 31 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

• Strategies for a transparent competitive selection process. FTA’s 

interim guidance and proposed strategies and proposed final guidance 

advised that the designated recipient follow a simple and 

straightforward selection process that is transparent, and provided 

several potential strategies for areas to consider when implementing a 

competitive selection process. These strategies include ensuring greater 

inclusion at the onset of the coordinated planning process to alleviate 

concerns about a level playing field, and ranking projects using methods 

such as third-party review, peer review, or review by a panel of planning 

partners. 

• Allowing other organizations to conduct the competitive selection 

process. While officials we interviewed in 1 large urbanized area said 

that FTA officials had previously provided conflicting information about 

the ability of designated recipients to allow other organizations to 

conduct the competitive selection process, FTA’s September proposed 

final guidance affirms that designated recipients can work with other 

organizations to conduct the competitive selection process to alleviate 

conflict-of-interest concerns. FTA’s proposed final guidance also notes 

that the SAFETEA-LU requirement for designated recipients to conduct 

the competitive selection process in cooperation with the metropolitan 

planning organization in large urbanized areas should mitigate this 

potential conflict-of-interest concern. 

• FTA oversight of the competitive selection process. Once designated 

recipients select projects and submit applications to FTA for funding for 

project implementation, FTA officials reported that they will review the 

applications to ensure that areas used a competitive process to select 

projects. In addition, at the time of submitting an application for 

funding, designated recipients are required to certify that they 

distributed funds on a fair and equitable basis, and FTA has advised that 

a transparent and inclusive competitive selection process should serve 

as the basis for this certification. 

Development of Coordinated 

Public Transit-Human Services 

Transportation Plans

State and local officials we interviewed and stakeholder comments on 

FTA’s interim guidance and proposed strategies also cited several 

challenges and concerns related to the development of the coordinated 

public transit-human services transportation plans. These issues included 

participation in the planning process and the amount of time needed to 

develop coordinated plans. For example, officials in 3 large urbanized areas 

and 5 states we contacted noted challenges in getting other organizations, 

such as human service agencies, to participate in the planning process. One 
Page 32 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

of these officials noted her concern that organizations that do not want to 

receive FTA funding will have no reason to participate in the planning 

process. In addition, five comments on FTA’s interim guidance and 

proposed strategies suggested that federal agencies that provide other 

sources of federal funds for transportation services should require their 

grantees to participate in coordinated planning efforts. FTA officials 

reported that they have been working with members of the Federal

Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility to encourage 

federal grantees that receive other sources of human service transportation 

funding to participate in coordinated transportation planning.32 Although it 

will take time to put coordination provisions in place within each agency, 

FTA officials said they were encouraged by this progress.

Program stakeholders also expressed concern about their ability to 

develop coordinated plans within FTA’s time frames. For JARC, the 

requirement to derive projects from a coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan was in place for fiscal year 2006 and applied to 

the New Freedom program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 

Disabilities program beginning in fiscal year 2007. Seven stakeholder 

comments on FTA’s interim guidance and proposed strategies noted that it 

would be difficult to develop a plan within this time frame. Officials in 2 

large urbanized areas we contacted shared similar concerns. In its 

proposed final guidance, FTA focuses on a phased-in approach to the 

development of coordinated plans through fiscal year 2007, with full 

implementation of the coordinated planning requirements for projects 

funded in fiscal year 2008. FTA officials also said they are encouraging 

areas to build on existing planning efforts to fulfill SAFETEA-LU 

requirements. 

Competitive Selection of JARC 

Projects

State and local officials we interviewed cited fewer challenges related to 

the competitive selection of JARC projects. The reason could be because 

few state and local agencies we contacted had completed a competitive 

selection process, and many did not anticipate selecting projects until 

early- to mid-2007. However, officials in 1 large urbanized area and 1 state 

32Executive Order 13330 established the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council 

on Access and Mobility in February 2004, currently known as the Federal Interagency 

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. The council comprises senior leadership from 

11 federal departments and agencies—including the Departments of Transportation, Health 

and Human Services, and Labor—and the National Council on Disability. The council is 

tasked with seeking ways to simplify access to transportation services for persons with 

disabilities, persons with lower incomes, and older adults. 
Page 33 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

we contacted noted the difficulty in initiating a competitive selection 

process without additional FTA guidance. One of these officials said that 

they did not want to have to begin a new process if their actions contradict 

any future FTA guidance. Another state official with whom we spoke said 

that he would like FTA to clarify questions his agency had about the 

competitive selection process, such as what it means to certify that the 

state derived projects that were based on a coordinated plan. FTA’s 

proposed final guidance provided recipients with additional information on 

how to certify that they selected projects that were based on a coordinated 

plan.

Other Implementation 

Challenges

In addition to challenges related to the designated recipient, coordinated 

planning, and competitive selection of JARC projects, state and local 

officials we interviewed also cited implementation challenges related to 

funding and their communication with FTA. Officials in nearly half of the 

states and large urbanized areas we contacted did not believe that the 10 

percent of an area’s JARC apportionment available for administration, 

planning, and technical assistance would be sufficient for these activities, 

although the reasons for these beliefs varied. For example, officials in 1 

state and in 1 large urbanized area did not believe these funds would be 

sufficient because they will incur higher initial costs to meet the new 

program requirements, while officials in 2 other states and 1 large 

urbanized area did not believe this funding would be sufficient due to the 

costs of developing coordinated plans. FTA received a number of 

comments about funding for administration, planning, and technical 

assistance, and the September proposed final guidance informs recipients 

of other sources of FTA funding that are available for planning activities. 

These sources include funding from FTA’s Urbanized and Non-urbanized 

Area Formula programs as well as its Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 

programs. The proposed final guidance also proposes that recipients may 

combine the administrative funding available under the Elderly Individuals 

and Individuals with Disabilities (known as Section 5310), JARC, and New 

Freedom programs to develop a single coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plan.33 In addition, the proposed final guidance 

33As we previously mentioned, the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities 

program, also known as the Section 5310 program, provides formula funding for capital 

projects to assist in meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with 

disabilities. The New Freedom program provides formula funding for new public 

transportation services and public transportation alternatives that assist individuals with 

disabilities with transportation, including transportation to and from jobs and employment 

support services. 
Page 34 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

notes that the 10 percent of an apportionment available for these activities 

is not specific to one year, and that recipients may roll over administrative 

funding into a subsequent year for the anticipated future costs of projects. 

Lastly, the proposed final guidance notes that planning activities are an 

eligible expense for the JARC program, beyond the 10 percent of an 

apportionment available for administration, planning, and technical 

assistance.

Several officials we interviewed also cited challenges in meeting the JARC 

program matching requirements. Under SAFETEA-LU, grantees may use 

federal JARC funding for 80 percent of capital expenses and 50 percent of 

operating expenses. Matching funds may come from other federal 

programs that are not administered by DOT, such as the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, as well as from noncash 

sources, such as in-kind contributions and volunteer services. One state 

official we interviewed, whose agency previously received JARC funding, 

noted that the agency had struggled in the past to secure matching funds 

and, as a result, has yet to spend all of its past federal JARC funding. A 

metropolitan planning organization official we interviewed noted that the 

ability of smaller nonprofit organizations in her area to secure the required 

matching funds was an issue, because these organizations have limited 

resources to use for matching funds. In addition, 1 state official and 

officials in 1 large urbanized area said that their areas anticipated or had 

seen cutbacks in matching funding they had received in the past from 

agencies that provided funding from programs such as TANF.34 As a result, 

these officials said they will have less state and local matching funding 

available for projects. Although the JARC matching requirements are set in 

the SAFETEA-LU legislation, FTA’s proposed final guidance provides 

information on potential sources of matching funds for JARC projects.

While several officials we interviewed had positive comments about FTA’s 

efforts to solicit public input as it implements changes to JARC and other 

programs, some officials also noted challenges they had encountered in 

communicating with FTA regarding JARC implementation. Receiving 

consistent information from FTA was one challenge cited by officials we 

34While the overall amount of TANF funding has remained relatively stable, states have 

discretion over the types of services and activities to fund. We previously have reported that 

spending for noncash assistance, including transportation supports, varies by state. For 

more information, see GAO, Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand 

Trends in States’ Uses of the TANF Block Grant, GAO-06-414 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 

2006).
Page 35 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

interviewed. As we previously noted, officials from one metropolitan 

planning organization reported that they received inconsistent information 

from different FTA staff in response to a question about the responsibilities 

of the designated recipient. In addition, officials we interviewed in 1 state 

said they received different answers regarding the timeline for completing 

a coordinated plan. Other officials we interviewed cited challenges in 

receiving information to answer implementation questions. Officials in 2 

states we contacted noted difficulties in getting specific answers to their 

implementation questions, with 1 state official noting that with new 

programs, FTA should be prepared to answer specific questions about 

program implementation instead of providing general information.

FTA Changed Its 

Evaluation and 

Oversight Strategies 

but Still Needs to 

Address Monitoring 

Issues

Although FTA revised its original JARC evaluation and oversight proposals 

to respond to current and past concerns raised by program stakeholders, 

gaps in monitoring may limit FTA’s ability to assess whether the program is 

meeting its goals. In previous work, we and others have reported that FTA 

could better measure and communicate the outcomes of the JARC program 

to program stakeholders, including Congress and JARC grantees. To 

address these issues, FTA sought public comment on four new 

performance measures—one specifically for JARC and three crosscutting 

measures—and an existing data collection mechanism to track JARC 

performance data, the National Transit Database (NTD). However, several 

program stakeholders noted various obstacles to collecting reliable data on 

FTA’s proposed measures, and some state and local officials we 

interviewed reported that it would be challenging to use the NTD system. 

In addition, state and local officials expressed ongoing concerns about the 

lack of feedback on their performance after submitting their data to FTA. In 

response to these concerns, FTA clarified the performance measures, 

introduced a plan to use its existing grant management system for 

collecting performance data, and proposed to be more explicit with 

grantees about how reported JARC performance data were being used. FTA 

officials also reported that they are testing the JARC performance measure 

and obtaining baseline data for use in the required evaluation of the JARC 

program, which will be submitted to Congress in August 2008. Even if FTA 

resolves its performance measurement and reporting issues, gaps in 

monitoring may continue to limit FTA’s ability to evaluate and oversee the 

JARC program. FTA plans to use existing oversight processes for 

monitoring JARC recipients; however, FTA officials also noted that 

SAFETEA-LU did not specifically provide project management oversight 

funds for the JARC program. As a result, FTA officials are looking for 
Page 36 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

alternate sources of funding—such as the agency’s administrative 

funding—to provide program oversight for JARC. 

Past Concerns about the 

JARC Program Have 

Included Performance 

Measurement, Reporting, 

and Evaluation 

The need for agencies to measure performance is based upon the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),35which was 

intended to improve federal program effectiveness, accountability, and 

service delivery. GPRA helped create a governmentwide focus on results by 

establishing a statutory framework for performance management and 

accountability, with the necessary infrastructure to generate meaningful 

performance information. This act required federal agencies to develop 

strategic plans and annual performance plans, link them with outcomeoriented goals, and measure agency performance in achieving these goals. 

The Office of Management and Budget also plays a role in GPRA 

implementation and reviews agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance 

plans, and annual performance reports. Overall, GPRA’s requirements have 

laid a solid foundation for results-oriented agency planning, measurement, 

and reporting by providing more objective information on achieving goals 

and on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and 

spending. 

Past GAO reports on performance measurement and performance 

budgeting have noted the importance of using outcome-oriented measures 

to assess the extent to which a program achieves its objectives on an 

ongoing basis and the importance of linking resources to results.36 

However, our previous reviews of the JARC program have found that FTA 

lacked the data needed to evaluate and report on the program as required 

by Congress. For example, in May 1998, we recommended that FTA 

establish specific objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals to 

assess how the JARC program would improve mobility for low-income 

workers.37 In response, FTA instituted an evaluation plan and selected 

access to employment sites as the sole measure of program success. 

However, we later found that this measure did not address key aspects of 

35Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

36GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Performance Budgeting Could Help Promote Necessary 

Reexamination, GAO-05-709T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005); and Performance 

Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-05-739SP

(Washington, D.C.: May 2005). 

37GAO/RCED-98-161.
Page 37 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

the program, such as increasing collaboration between grantees and 

stakeholders and establishing transportation-related services that help lowincome individuals.38 We also reported in August 2004 that grantees found it 

difficult to obtain the data requested by FTA, such as the number of 

potential employers reached by JARC services. Furthermore, the grantee 

reports used to evaluate the JARC program contained self-reported 

information, which FTA did not verify. As a result, we stated that FTA’s 2003 

evaluation of JARC was limited because it lacked consistent, generalizable, 

and complete information, thereby making it difficult to use these data to 

draw any definitive conclusions about the program as a whole.39 In 

recognition of these concerns, FTA began taking steps to consider ways to 

improve its evaluation process, such as revising the JARC performance 

measures. 

In previous reports on the JARC program, we and others have also 

highlighted issues with FTA’s reporting mechanism and lack of 

communication with grantees about their performance. Performance 

reporting is a critical element for establishing accountability and evaluating 

whether and to what extent program managers are meeting the goals 

contained within agency strategic and performance plans. In 2004, we 

reported that JARC grantees were required to report quarterly data using a 

database that many found to be burdensome. We also noted that specific 

information in FTA’s JARC evaluation may not have been consistent 

because grantees did not follow a standardized reporting system.40 Our past 

work on data quality has highlighted the importance of ensuring that 

reported performance data are sufficiently credible for decision making.41 

In a 2003 FTA-contracted study of JARC evaluation efforts, some grantees 

recommended that FTA allow agencies to report performance data using 

existing systems, such as the NTD, and that the reporting structure be 

flexible enough to enter qualitative or narrative information to reflect the

38GAO-03-204. 

39GAO-04-934R. 

40GAO-04-934R. 

41GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency 

Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999).
Page 38 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

different types of services provided by JARC programs.42 Grantees also 

stated that they would be interested in receiving feedback from FTA on the 

JARC evaluation process and stressed the importance of communicating 

program findings to help them assess and improve their performance.43 We 

previously have identified the distribution of information in a form and 

time frame that allows managers, staff, and external stakeholders to 

perform their duties and to provide them with a basis for focusing their 

efforts and improving performance as a critical practice for managing 

program results.44

FTA Clarified Its Proposed 

JARC Performance 

Measures and Introduced a 

Different Reporting 

Mechanism in Response to 

Concerns Expressed by 

Program Stakeholders 

FTA’s extensive public participation process helped to inform changes 

made to the proposed final guidance issued in September, including the 

introduction of new performance measures to evaluate the JARC program 

as well as a different reporting mechanism for collecting data. In its March 

2006 interim guidance and proposed strategies, FTA had proposed using 

one JARC-specific measure and three crosscutting measures to assess the 

JARC program’s outcomes and impacts: 

• Cumulative number of jobs accessed (JARC-specific): Cumulative 

number of jobs reached through the provision of JARC-related services 

for low-income individuals and welfare recipients.

• Efficiency of operations (crosscutting measure): Number of 

communities and states reporting the use of shared resources between 

different agencies and organizations so they can provide more rides for 

people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower 

incomes at the same or lower cost.

• Program effectiveness (crosscutting measure): Number of 

communities that have a simple point of entry-coordinated human 

service transportation system for people with disabilities, older adults, 

42Federal Transit Administration, JARC Reporting Issues: An Examination of Current Job 

Access Reverse Commute (JARC) Program Evaluation Efforts (Washington, D.C.: 

February 2003).

43JARC Reporting Issues. 

44GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
Page 39 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

and individuals with lower incomes so they have easier access to 

transportation services.

• Customer satisfaction (crosscutting measure): Level of customer 

satisfaction reported in areas related to the availability, affordability, 

acceptability, and accessibility of transportation services for people 

with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes.

According to FTA, the JARC-specific measure was intended to reduce the 

numerous JARC data requirements, while the three crosscutting measures 

reflected SAFETEA-LU’s emphasis on the coordination of human services 

transportation and would apply to the JARC, New Freedom, and Elderly 

Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) programs. In 

addition, FTA proposed to address past concerns regarding the burden of 

collecting program data on JARC by using existing mechanisms, including 

the NTD, which is used to track operational, service, and financial data on 

other transit formula programs. 

In both the docket comments and in our interviews, program stakeholders 

cited potential obstacles to collecting accurate data on the number of jobs 

accessed measure, such as a lack of guidance from FTA and limited 

resources (see table 3 for a summary of stakeholder concerns regarding the 

proposed measures). For example, 7 state and local officials we 

interviewed reported that FTA’s definition for the number of jobs accessed 

was unclear, or that they did not know how to determine this measure. 

Specifically, one metropolitan planning organization official wanted FTA to 

clarify whether the jobs accessed measure referred to the number of lowincome people using a JARC-funded service to travel to their jobs or to the 

total number of jobs available in the area being served by a JARC-funded 

service. Three state transportation officials that we contacted were also 

concerned that they did not have sufficient staff to conduct the required 

data collection. Program stakeholders expressed similar concerns in their 

docket comments. For example, 2 stakeholders noted in their written 

comments to FTA that collecting data on the proposed performance 

measures may be overly burdensome for small agencies.
Page 40 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 3: Summary of Program Stakeholders’ Challenges and Concerns and FTA’s Response to the Proposed JARC Performance 

Measures and Reporting Mechanism

Implementation information in FTA’s interim 

guidance and proposed strategies

(March 2006)

Challenges and concerns expressed by 

program stakeholders

FTA’s response in proposed final 

guidance (September 2006)

JARC-Specific Performance Measure:

Cumulative number of jobs accessed

Cumulative number of jobs reached through the 

provision of JARC-related services for low-income 

individuals and welfare recipients. 

• Collecting data on the number of jobs 

accessed is hard because it is difficult to 

isolate JARC riders from other transit 

customers.

• Tracking whether JARC riders are using 

fixed-route systemsa

 to access jobs or for 

other purposes is challenging.

• Factors outside of agencies’ control may 

make it difficult to measure the number of 

jobs accessed.

• FTA’s definition of “number of jobs 

accessed” is unclear, and it is difficult to 

know how this measure will be determined.

• Administrative burden of collecting data on 

measures (e.g., number of jobs accessed) 

is high for the amount of JARC funds 

available. 

• Data collection will be burdensome for 

some agencies (e.g., rural or small 

organizations) with limited staff capacity or 

resources.

FTA clarified that the proposed 

cumulative number of jobs accessed 

measure in its proposed final 

guidance will measure the following: 

(1) the increase in access to jobs 

related to geographic coverage 

and/or service times that impact the 

availability of transportation services 

for low-income individuals as a result 

of the JARC projects implemented in 

the current reporting year and (2) the 

number of rides provided for lowincome individuals as a result of the 

JARC projects implemented in the 

current reporting year. 

FTA has also hired a contractor to 

test the feasibility of implementing the 

new increase in access to jobs 

measure.

Crosscutting Performance Measure 1: 

Efficiency of Operations

Number of communities and states reporting the 

use of shared resources between different 

agencies and organizations so they can provide 

more rides for people with disabilities, older adults, 

and individuals with lower incomes at the same or 

lower cost.

• Proposed measure does not translate well 

for measuring performance in some areas 

(e.g., rural areas) and for providing service 

to underserved populations.

• Concerned that operational efficiency is 

viewed as a “more service for lower dollars” 

approach.

• Proposed measure reflects the number of 

coordination relationships between 

communities and states reporting the use 

of shared resources, rather than the 

increase in the total number of rides 

provided to the different populations.

• Local areas need flexibility to develop 

performance measures that meet and 

reflect the unique needs and conditions of 

their communities.

FTA officials did not include this 

measure in the proposed final 

guidance on the basis of comments 

received. However, FTA officials 

reported that they are developing a 

tool and plan to provide technical 

assistance through the United We 

Ride Initiative to help states and local 

areas measure their own 

performance. 
Page 41 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance, comments submitted to FTA’s docket, and interviews with state and local officials.

a

Fixed-route systems refer to a system providing designated public transportation on which a vehicle is 

operated along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule.

b

FTA currently uses the NTD to collect uniform operational, service, and financial data on existing 

department programs, including the Urbanized Area and Nonurbanized Area Formula programs.

Crosscutting Performance Measure 2: Program 

Effectiveness

Number of communities that have a simple point of 

entry-coordinated human service transportation 

system for people with disabilities, older adults, 

and individuals with lower incomes so they have 

easier access to transportation services.

• Proposed measure appears to give 

preference to projects with a “simple point 

of entry coordinated human service 

transportation system,” which may not be 

the only way to achieve coordination in 

different local areas.

• FTA’s definition of “communities” is vague.

• Local areas need flexibility to develop 

performance measures that meet and 

reflect the unique needs and conditions of 

their communities. 

FTA officials did not include this 

measure in the proposed final 

guidance on the basis of comments 

received. However, FTA officials 

reported that they are developing a 

tool and plan to provide technical 

assistance through the United We 

Ride Initiative to help states and local 

areas measure their own 

performance.

Crosscutting Performance Measure 3: 

Customer Satisfaction

Level of customer satisfaction reported in areas 

related to the availability, affordability, acceptability, 

and accessibility of transportation services for 

people with disabilities, older adults, and 

individuals with lower incomes.

• Proposed customer satisfaction measure is 

very subjective and amorphous.

• Some agencies do not have the staff or 

resources to survey riders to measure 

customer satisfaction.

• On-board transit surveys for some 

measures, such as customer service, are 

expensive and labor-intensive to conduct. 

• Local areas need flexibility to develop 

performance measures that meet and 

reflect the unique needs and conditions of 

their communities.

FTA officials did not include this 

measure in the proposed final 

guidance on the basis of comments 

received. However, FTA officials 

reported that they are developing a 

tool and plan to provide technical 

assistance through the United We 

Ride Initiative to help states and local 

areas measure their own 

performance.

JARC Reporting Mechanism:

National Transit Databaseb

JARC grantees would use the existing NTD system 

to collect and report JARC performance data. 

• Some providers, including rural and 

nontraditional recipients, may find the NTD 

difficult to use for collecting and managing 

data.

• Smaller agencies may need staff training to 

use the NTD.

• Not all JARC information can be easily 

translated into the data elements contained 

in the NTD.

FTA will not require grantees to use 

the NTD for data collection and 

reporting. Instead, FTA proposes that 

grantees use their existing 

Transportation Electronic Award and 

Management system for JARC 

reporting. This system can be used 

to record qualitative information. 

(Continued From Previous Page)

Implementation information in FTA’s interim 

guidance and proposed strategies

(March 2006)

Challenges and concerns expressed by 

program stakeholders

FTA’s response in proposed final 

guidance (September 2006)
Page 42 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

c

United We Ride is an interagency federal national initiative that supports states and their localities in 

developing coordinated human service delivery systems. In addition to state coordination grants, 

United We Ride provides state and local agencies with a transportation-coordination and planning selfassessment tool, help along the way, technical assistance, and other resources to help their 

communities with these efforts.

FTA officials acknowledged that there was confusion among program 

stakeholders about the JARC-specific measure and how it should be 

measured, and they subsequently clarified the original proposal on the 

basis of the comments received. FTA’s proposed final guidance stated that 

the JARC-specific measure would assess the following:

• Job access: The increase in access to jobs related to geographic 

coverage and/or service times that impact the availability of 

transportation services for low-income individuals as a result of the 

JARC projects implemented in the current reporting year.

• Rides provided: The number of rides provided for low-income 

individuals as a result of the JARC projects implemented in the current 

reporting year.

According to FTA, the jobs accessed measure is a measure of “system 

coverage,” describing the number of jobs reachable by JARC-funded 

services. FTA also clarified that the new measure is not a determination of 

an actual number of riders who are getting and going to jobs, which was a 

concern raised by some program stakeholders in their docket comments 

and in our interviews. FTA also intends to monitor JARC service use by 

measuring the number of rides actually provided by the JARC service 

annually. 

In addition to clarifying the JARC measure, FTA is also taking steps to test 

its JARC performance measure and to collect baseline data for its 

upcoming evaluation of the program. For example, FTA has hired a 

contractor to examine the feasibility of collecting data for the increase in 

the jobs accessed measure and is currently analyzing the strategies for 

capturing this more precise measure and testing its implementation. FTA 

also is soliciting public comments on the revised JARC performance 

measures, which will be used to formulate the final JARC guidance. Once 

the measures are finalized, FTA will test the JARC-specific performance 

measure and plans to obtain baseline data for fiscal year 2006 and beyond
Page 43 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

using JARC grants active during fiscal year 2005.45 FTA officials plan to use 

these data to conduct the required evaluation of the JARC program, which 

must be submitted to Congress in August 2008.46 FTA’s proposed final 

guidance states that it will conduct independent evaluations of the JARC 

program focused on specific data elements to better understand the 

implementation strategies and related outcomes associated with the 

program. This approach is supported by our recent report on grants 

management, in which we recommended that performance data should be 

tested to make sure they are credible, reliable, and valid.47 An FTA official 

we spoke with told us that FTA hopes to have a formal reporting 

methodology targeted to be in place by spring 2007. 

Program stakeholders also reported potential difficulties with FTA’s 

proposed crosscutting national coordination measures to assess program 

performance. (See table 3 for a summary of stakeholder concerns 

regarding the proposed performance measures.) For example, some 

program stakeholders stated in their docket comments that the 

performance measures would be too prescriptive and would stifle local 

creativity, while 13 stakeholders recommended that performance measures 

should be developed locally to address local conditions and needs. 

Specifically, two commenters noted that FTA’s proposed crosscutting 

performance measures did not necessarily acknowledge the differences in 

providing JARC services in urbanized areas compared with rural areas, 

where the number of transit providers may be limited and the routes 

typically serve fewer people at a higher cost. In addition, two local officials 

and one state department of transportation official that we interviewed 

reported that measuring customer satisfaction would likely require 

administering a survey, which could be expensive or labor-intensive. 

45Fiscal year 2005 is the last year that JARC funds were distributed through congressionally 

designated earmarks. FTA officials that we spoke to indicated that they may have to 

rebaseline the data next year because few grants have been made under the new formula 

program in fiscal year 2006, and they anticipate that there will be increased JARC activity in 

fiscal year 2007.

46SAFETEA-LU requires in § 3018, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 5316(i)(2), that DOT conduct a 

study to evaluate the effectiveness of the JARC program no later than 3 years after the 

legislation was passed.

47GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could 

Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2006). 
Page 44 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

In recognition of these concerns, FTA did not include the three crosscutting 

coordination measures in its proposed final guidance, noting instead that 

individual communities will have the option to include evaluation 

strategies for their own activities. We have previously observed that 

designing results-oriented performance measures for intergovernmental 

programs, such as JARC, is complicated by the broad range of objectives 

identified for some programs and the discretion states and localities have 

in achieving those objectives. According to FTA, the crosscutting measures 

were created in response to recommendations stemming from the 

Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility’s United We Ride 

initiative to develop a national performance measure for coordination. 

After reviewing the comments, however, FTA officials that we interviewed 

told us that they realized the difficulty of devising national measures and 

determined that measuring coordination should be done at the local level. 

FTA also clarified that the intent of the crosscutting measures was to 

capture a national picture of JARC-funded services, rather than compare 

individual communities or service systems. However, FTA officials 

reported that they will encourage grantees to develop additional measures 

for evaluating whether their programs are meeting their intended state or 

local goals. This proposal is supported by our past work, in which we 

reported that performance measures should tell each organizational level 

how well it is achieving its goals.48 In addition, the United We Ride initiative 

is developing a tool and plans to provide technical assistance to assist with 

these efforts in the future. 

Program stakeholders expressed mixed opinions about FTA’s proposal to 

use the NTD to streamline data collection. For example, 5 state and local 

agencies that we interviewed were generally positive about FTA’s proposal 

to use the NTD for JARC reporting, in part because they were familiar with 

using this system to collect and report data on other FTA programs. 

However, 5 agencies that we interviewed told us that small and rural 

agencies may find it difficult to use the NTD for collecting and managing 

data. In addition, two agency officials we interviewed reported that NTD 

can be cumbersome to use, while two program stakeholders noted in their 

docket comments that smaller agencies may need staff training to use the 

NTD. 

48GAO, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An Assessment Guide 

to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18 (Washington, D.C.: 

February 1998). 
Page 45 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Due in part to the comments received, FTA decided not to use the NTD for 

JARC reporting.49 FTA told us that while the NTD is in place, it is currently 

not set up or designed to collect the qualitative measures that are important 

for understanding the trends related to human service transportation. FTA 

proposed that JARC grantees report their data as an attachment to their 

annual report submissions in the Transportation Electronic Award and 

Management (TEAM) system, which the agency uses to manage and track 

its grants. One FTA official told us that TEAM would be better suited for 

collecting JARC data because it can track qualitative information, and that 

JARC grantees that receive funding through other FTA programs would be 

familiar with how to collect and report data using TEAM.

Finally, state and local officials that we interviewed also expressed ongoing 

concerns about the lack of feedback on their JARC performance after they 

report data to FTA, which may limit their ability to manage program 

performance. For example, 19 of the 23 states and large urbanized areas 

that had received JARC grants in the past commented that FTA had not 

provided them with any feedback on their performance data after it was 

submitted. Three state and local officials also told us that they would like 

to know how the performance data they report is being used by FTA. 

Meanwhile, two state transportation officials and two local officials said 

that receiving feedback from FTA would be helpful to know how they are 

performing and to make improvements or corrections. Previous reports by 

GAO and others50 have found that providing frequent and effective 

feedback on performance information can enhance its use for decision 

making.51 According to FTA, the JARC data collected to date have not been 

intended to be used to evaluate individual projects, but rather were geared 

toward assessing how the program was achieving goals nationally, as 

required by GPRA and the Office of Management and Budget. However, 

during a recent interview with FTA officials, they said that they would be 

more explicit with grantees about how they are using JARC performance 

data, and that they are open to exploring the possibility of posting this 

information on the FTA Web site in the future.

49FTA officials that we interviewed also noted that the agency does not have the statutory 

authority to use the NTD for JARC reporting.

50Harry P. Hatry et al., How Federal Programs Use Outcome Information: Opportunities for 

Federal Managers (IBM Endowment for The Business of Government and the National 

Academy of Public Administration, May 2003), available online at 

http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/HatryReport.pdf.

51GAO-05-927. 
Page 46 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Gaps in Monitoring May 

Limit FTA’s Ability to 

Evaluate and Oversee the 

JARC Program 

Even if FTA resolves its performance measurement and reporting issues, 

gaps in its plan for monitoring JARC recipients may continue to limit FTA’s 

ability to evaluate and oversee the program. While FTA has proposed using 

existing oversight processes to monitor JARC recipients, these oversight 

processes do not explicitly include provisions for oversight of the JARC 

program. Furthermore, FTA’s proposed process for oversight of agencies 

that do not fall under existing processes could lead to inconsistent 

oversight of JARC recipients.

FTA does not have a complete plan for oversight of the JARC program. 

Monitoring of policies and procedures to ensure proper stewardship of 

government resources is an important aspect of internal control. FTA is 

responsible for ensuring that grantees follow federal mandates along with 

statutory and administrative requirements. In its March interim guidance 

and proposed strategies, FTA stated that it would monitor implementation 

of JARC and other programs using pre- and post-award review processes 

used for grant applications and grant management, including selfcertifications, progress reports, and site visits. FTA’s proposed final 

guidance states that FTA will also use existing oversight processes for 

other FTA programs to conduct JARC oversight. These processes are as 

follows:

• State Management Reviews: These reviews assess states’ 

implementation and management of the Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals with Disabilities program (Section 5310) and the 

Nonurbanized Area Formula program (Section 5311).

• Triennial Reviews: These reviews assess grantees receiving Urbanized 

Area Formula program (Section 5307) grants. These grantees are 

primarily transit agencies and some metropolitan planning 

organizations.

FTA has proposed using these processes—which FTA uses for oversight of 

programs that award funding to states, transit agencies, and metropolitan 

planning organizations—to oversee the JARC program because they should 

cover most JARC designated recipients. FTA’s proposed final guidance also 

notes that JARC designated recipients that are not a state or a Section 5307 

recipient may be subjected to periodic spot reviews of their administration 

of the program. However, two issues with FTA’s monitoring proposal may 

result in gaps in its oversight of the JARC program. 
Page 47 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

First, the use of periodic spot reviews of designated recipients that are not 

states or Section 5307 recipients may result in inconsistent monitoring of 

JARC recipients. For example, while some metropolitan planning 

organizations that serve as JARC designated recipients also receive Section 

5307 funding and will be subject to FTA oversight through its triennial 

review process, other metropolitan planning organizations serving as JARC 

designated recipients do not receive Section 5307 funding, and will be 

subject to FTA oversight through its proposed periodic spot reviews. It is 

not clear from FTA’s proposed final guidance if these periodic reviews will 

be more or less frequent than the 3-year cycle of FTA’s triennial reviews and 

state management reviews. As a result, JARC designated recipients may be 

held to different oversight standards on the basis of what other types of 

FTA funding they receive.

Second, FTA’s existing oversight processes currently do not include 

provisions for JARC program oversight. For example, FTA’s State 

Management Review guidance, which contains information on the Section 

5311 program and the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities 

program, does not include JARC program requirements and information, 

such as the requirement to distribute funds on a fair and equitable basis. We 

previously noted that this requirement would be important for recipients to 

adhere to in order to address potential conflict-of-interest concerns. While 

FTA officials said that they have begun to work to incorporate JARC into 

their existing oversight processes, they noted that SAFETEA-LU omitted 

JARC from the list of programs for which FTA may specifically use 

appropriated funds to obtain contractual support for project management 

oversight and review of major capital projects.52 They are presently 

researching other sources of funding—such as the agency’s general 

administrative funding—that can be used to ask detailed programmatic 

questions of JARC recipients and to conduct site visits and project reviews. 

FTA officials also said that they currently do not know how much of a 

problem this will pose, because they do not yet know which entities will be 

the designated recipients for most of the areas receiving JARC funds. As a 

result, they are uncertain of how many JARC designated recipients will 

already be covered by existing oversight processes because they receive 

funds for other FTA programs, such as Section 5307. Given this issue, FTA 

52See the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act -- A Legacy for 

Users, Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 3026, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 5327(c). This provision authorizes 

the use of certain appropriated funds for contractual support for management and oversight 

functions for major construction projects. The Job Access and Reverse Commute program 

is not included in this list of programs. 
Page 48 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

officials said that they were still determining the frequency and level of 

JARC oversight that could be supported with their current resources. Until 

it develops a complete plan for implementing and funding JARC oversight, 

FTA’s key oversight processes will not provide assurance that recipients are 

meeting program requirements.

Conclusions FTA has made progress in implementing changes to the JARC program, 

gathering extensive public input to develop program guidance for states 

and large urbanized areas. However, FTA lacks an important element of 

program accountability and performance measurement for the JARC 

program, specifically related to monitoring. FTA officials have proposed to 

use the agency’s oversight mechanisms for other FTA programs for JARC 

monitoring, but acknowledged that they have not finalized how this will 

work. Without the inclusion of JARC program requirements—such as the 

fair and equitable distribution of funding—in these existing oversight 

processes, FTA will have limited assurances that JARC recipients are 

administering the program in accordance with FTA’s requirements and are 

meeting program objectives. In addition, FTA has proposed an alternative 

oversight process for recipients that are not covered by its existing 

Triennial Reviews and State Management Reviews, but FTA has not 

specified how often these recipients will be subject to its oversight, which 

may result in inconsistent or infrequent oversight of JARC recipients. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To establish adequate and consistent oversight processes that will enable 

FTA to evaluate and oversee JARC projects and determine whether they are 

meeting JARC program goals, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation direct the Administrator, FTA, to take the following two 

actions: 

• Develop a plan for including the JARC program in Triennial Reviews and 

State Management Reviews, and update monitoring guidance and 

information accordingly.

• Specify in the JARC final guidance how frequently FTA will perform spot 

reviews of designated recipients that are not subject to FTA’s Triennial 

Reviews and State Management Reviews, and make the interval for 

conducting spot reviews consistent with the 3-year cycles for Triennial 

Reviews and State Management Reviews, or more frequently if FTA 

determines it necessary. 
Page 49 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

review and comment. Officials from the department and FTA generally 

agreed with the report’s findings and said that they would consider the 

recommendations as they move forward in implementing the JARC 

program. Although FTA officials recognized the need for program oversight 

and indicated that they are already taking steps to incorporate the JARC 

program into their existing review processes, they reiterated their concerns 

that SAFETEA-LU did not provide them with a specific source of oversight 

funding for the JARC program. As a result, they are seeking other sources 

of funding—such as the agency’s general administrative funds—to carry 

out this activity. Finally, FTA officials provided technical clarifications, 

which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees with 

responsibility for transit issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the 

Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; and the Director, Office of 

Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 

GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me on

(202) 512-2834 or at siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.

Katherine Siggerud

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 50 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

This report addresses the following four objectives: (1) changes that were 

made to the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program as a result 

of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); (2) progress that the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) has made in implementing these changes; (3) the 

extent to which states and large urbanized areas have implemented 

changes to the JARC program, and challenges they have encountered; and 

(4) whether FTA’s proposed strategy for evaluating and overseeing the 

JARC program will allow the agency to assess the extent to which the 

program is meeting its stated goals.

To identify the changes that SAFETEA-LU made to the JARC program, we 

reviewed the provisions of SAFETEA-LU and of its predecessor, the 

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

JARC program. We also reviewed previous GAO reports on JARC and 

interviewed officials from FTA’s headquarters and one regional office. To 

summarize financial information for JARC for fiscal years 1999 through 

2009, we gathered and analyzed data from FTA’s Web site and agency 

officials on dollar amounts authorized, appropriated, rescinded, obligated, 

and unobligated. To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed FTA 

officials about FTA’s policies and procedures for data collection and 

verification. Specifically, we asked them whether their policies and 

procedures had changed significantly since we reviewed them for our 2004 

report on JARC.1

 FTA officials told us that there were no significant 

changes in their data collection and verification procedures for JARC 

information. We also compared these data with data published in the 

Federal Register and data on FTA’s Web site for obvious errors in 

completeness and accuracy. Therefore, we determined that the FTA 

information presented was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. 

To describe the progress FTA has made in implementing changes to JARC, 

we interviewed FTA officials and officials from industry associations, 

including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, the American Public Transportation Association, the Association 

of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Community Transportation 

Association of America, and the National Association of Regional Councils, 

to obtain their views on FTA’s progress in implementing the program 

1

GAO, Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects of 

Proposed Legislative Changes, GAO-04-934R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2004).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

changes. We also reviewed FTA’s JARC interim program guidance for fiscal 

year 2006 and proposed strategies for fiscal year 2007 (issued in March 

2006), and its proposed final guidance for fiscal year 2007 (issued in 

September 2006).2

To describe the extent to which states and large urbanized areas have 

implemented changes to the JARC program and any challenges they have 

encountered in doing so, we obtained data from FTA officials on the 

number of states and large urbanized areas that had officially designated a 

recipient for JARC funds, selected projects and applied for funding, and 

obligated funds. 

To determine whether FTA’s proposed strategy for evaluating and 

overseeing the JARC program will allow the agency to assess whether the 

program is meeting its stated goals, we interviewed FTA officials about 

their performance measurement and evaluation plans. We reviewed FTA’s 

earlier JARC program evaluation, Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program: Report to Congress (May 2003). We also reviewed relevant 

legislation, FTA program guidance, Office of Management and Budget 

circulars and guidance on performance measurement, prior GAO JARC 

reports, and GAO reports and guidance on performance measurement and 

program evaluation. We did not evaluate FTA’s proposed performance 

measures, because those measures were too preliminary at the time of our 

review to allow meaningful comparison with our criteria for successful 

performance measures. In addition, FTA had recently hired a contractor to 

evaluate the feasibility of collecting data for one of the proposed measures.

To address the third and fourth objectives, we also designed and conducted 

semistructured telephone interviews with officials from 24 of the 209 states 

and large urbanized areas that were apportioned fiscal year 2006 JARC 

funds. The interviews were designed to gain state and local officials’ 

perspectives on a number of topics, including the effect of changing from a 

discretionary program to a formula-based program on JARC services in 

their area; the process of selecting a designated recipient, developing a 

coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan, and 

conducting a competitive selection process for JARC projects; FTA’s 

proposed performance measures and program oversight mechanisms for 

JARC; and any challenges they may have encountered in implementing 

2

This guidance also addressed two related FTA programs—the Elderly Individuals and 

Individuals with Disabilities (also known as Section 5310) and the New Freedom programs.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 52 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

changes to the JARC program. After conducting the interviews with all 24 

states and large urbanized areas, we used a content analysis to 

systematically determine the state and local officials’ views on key 

interview questions and identify common themes in their responses. Two 

analysts reached consensus on the coding of the responses, and a third 

reviewer was consulted in case of disagreements, to ensure that the codes 

were reliable. The interviews included officials from the departments of 

transportation of 12 states and from 8 metropolitan planning organizations 

and 9 transportation agencies from 12 large urbanized areas. We conducted 

the interviews in June, July, and August 2006.

We selected the 12 states to obtain diversity in a range of criteria, as 

follows:

• Change in JARC funding: Analyzed the percentage change and 

selected 4 states that received an increase in their federal JARC funds 

from fiscal years 2005 to 2006, 5 states whose JARC funds decreased 

from 2005 to 2006, 1 state that received approximately the same amount 

of funding in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and 2 states that did not receive 

JARC funds in 2005.

• Comments: Whether a state department of transportation had 

submitted comments to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

online docket on FTA’s interim JARC program guidance for fiscal year 

2006 and proposed strategies for fiscal year 2007.

• Statewide program: Whether a state was identified in FTA’s fiscal year 

2005 grant apportionment notice as having a statewide JARC program, 

which meant that the state likely had previous experience in 

administering JARC funds.

• Designated recipient: Whether a state had notified FTA of its 

designated recipient (as of June 2006) for the JARC funds, from which 

we inferred that a state had taken some action to implement the JARC 

program.

• Planning funds: Whether a state had applied to FTA for 10 percent of 

its apportionment for planning/administration/technical assistance, as 

allowed by statute, from which we inferred that a state had taken some 

action to implement the JARC program.

• Recommendations: Referral by FTA or industry associations.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 53 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 4 lists the 12 states that we selected on the basis of these criteria.

Table 4: State Agencies Interviewed for Our Review

Source: GAO.

To obtain the perspectives of small urbanized areas and rural areas that had 

previously received JARC grants directly and would now have to apply to 

the state designated recipient for funding, we supplemented the state 

interviews with interviews with officials from a transportation agency in 

Galveston, Texas—a small urbanized area—and from a nonprofit agency in 

Stigler, Oklahoma, that provides transportation in rural areas of the state.

We selected 12 large urbanized areas to obtain diversity in a range of 

criteria, as follows:

• Prior receipt of JARC funding: Whether a large urbanized area had 

received a JARC grant prior to fiscal year 2006.3

State Agency

Alabama Alabama Department of Transportation

Alaska Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Arkansas Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

California California Department of Transportation

Maryland Maryland Transit Administration

New Mexico New Mexico Department of Transportation

Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Transportation

Texas Texas Department of Transportation

Virginia Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

Washington Washington State Department of Transportation

West Virginia West Virginia Department of Transportation

Wyoming Wyoming Department of Transportation

3

We initially selected 11 large urbanized areas on the basis of information on JARC grants 

for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Specifically, we selected large urbanized areas that would 

receive more funding as a result of formularization, areas that would receive less funding, 

and areas that did not receive funding in fiscal year 2005. However, it became apparent after 

conducting the interviews that all 11 of the large urbanized areas had received JARC grants 

at some point in the program’s history. We subsequently selected a 12th large urbanized area 

that had no prior experience with JARC.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 54 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

• Receipt of fiscal year 2006 funding: Whether a large urbanized area 

had successfully applied to FTA for its fiscal year 2006 JARC funding (as 

of July 2006).

• Comments: Whether a metropolitan planning organization or local 

transportation agency in a large urbanized area had submitted 

comments to the DOT’s online docket on FTA’s interim JARC program 

guidance for fiscal year 2006 and proposed strategies for fiscal year 

2007.

• Designated recipient: Whether a large urbanized area had notified FTA 

of its designated recipient (as of July 2006) for the JARC funds, from 

which we inferred that the area had taken some action to implement the 

JARC program.

• Recommendations: Referral by FTA or industry associations.

• Population: Whether a large urbanized area had a population over 1 

million.

• Multistate area: Whether the large urbanized area covers multiple 

states, which we assumed could present unique issues for an area in 

implementing the JARC program.

• Location: Whether the large urbanized area was in a state that we had 

already selected for interviews.

Table 5 lists the 12 large urbanized areas we selected on the basis of these 

criteria, and the agencies that we interviewed.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 55 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 5: Large Urbanized Area Agencies Interviewed for Our Review

Source: GAO.

It is important to note that these interviews cannot be generalized to the 

entire JARC recipient population because they were selected from a 

nonprobability sample. 

We supplemented the information obtained from these semistructured 

interviews by analyzing the more than 200 public comments submitted to 

DOT’s online docket regarding FTA’s interim program guidance for fiscal 

year 2006 and proposed guidance for fiscal year 2007. We used a content 

analysis to systematically identify common themes in the comments 

submitted. Two analysts reached consensus on the coding of the responses, 

and a third reviewer was consulted in case of disagreements, to ensure that 

the codes were reliable. In summarizing the comments for appendix III, we 

only included comments that were made by more than one entity. 

We conducted our work from May through October 2006 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Location Agency

Albuquerque, New Mexico Mid-Region Council of Governments

ABQ Ride

Birmingham, Alabama Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority

Denver, Colorado Denver Regional Council of Governments

Denver Regional Transportation District

Fresno, California Fresno Council of Governments

City of Fresno Department of Transportation

Kansas City, Missouri Mid-America Regional Council

Los Angeles, California Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

Lubbock, Texas Citibus

Memphis, Tennessee Memphis Area Transit Authority

Riverside/San Bernardino, 

California

Southern California Association of Governments

Seattle, Washington Puget Sound Regional Council

Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Page 56 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding ApendxiI

Table 6: Total JARC Apportionments for States and Large Urbanized Areas, Fiscal Years 2004-2006

Fiscal year

State 2004 2005 2006

Alabama $4,460,669 $6,046,205 $2,391,281

Alaska 1,610,797 1,709,786 207,503

American Samoa 0 0 82,198

Arizona 1,734,705 0 2,646,131

Arkansas 446,067 0 1,406,220

California 5,515,370 10,010,929 19,573,127

Colorado 0 3,221,339 1,670,641

Connecticut 3,221,594 2,477,954 1,126,113

Delaware 743,445 743,386 263,929

District of Columbia 1,982,520 3,716,930 379,168

Florida 3,469,409 594,708 8,292,479

Georgia 991,260 2,180,598 3,726,294

Guam 0 0 82,308

Hawaii 0 0 456,441

Idaho 0 0 629,153

Illinois 817,789 1,120,034 5,042,471

Indiana 743,445 1,377,741 2,303,911

Iowa 991,260 1,982,362 1,034,427

Kansas 2,914,304 1,387,653 927,663

Kentucky 297,378 1,139,859 1,844,076

Louisiana 0 2,477,954 2,888,701

Maine 489,682 1,486,772 505,003

Maryland 5,253,677 2,676,190 1,774,151

Massachusetts 674,056 991,182 2,325,356

Michigan 3,667,662 4,162,961 3,979,218

Minnesota 495,630 3,147,001 1,414,253

Mississippi 0 0 1,457,627

Missouri 4,460,669 6,393,119 2,233,393

Montana 0 0 456,288

Nebraska 0 0 561,622

Nevada 495,630 1,982,362 857,434

New Hampshire 0 0 352,447

New Jersey 5,005,862 5,203,702 2,838,709

New Mexico 594,756 2,527,513 1,094,686
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 57 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: FTA. 

New York 8,846,994 1,833,685 9,760,182

North Carolina 0 0 3,355,608

North Dakota 0 198,236 291,404

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0 125,962

Ohio 2,081,646 2,131,039 4,425,095

Oklahoma 5,947,550 7,929,461 1,625,985

Oregon 1,090,386 2,676,189 1,467,897

Pennsylvania 8,072,819 14,553,514 5,022,975

Puerto Rico 0 0 6,632,323

Rhode Island 1,399,659 1,635,449 466,849

South Carolina 0 0 1,872,308

South Dakota 247,815 0 312,746

Tennessee 7,112,288 7,681,654 2,670,486

Texas 5,457,846 2,329,275 12,423,907

Utah 0 0 890,393

Vermont 247,815 991,182 186,885

Virgin Islands 0 0 82,637

Virginia 1,645,492 84,249 2,553,291

Washington 4,708,484 4,782,450 2,479,628

West Virginia 991,260 991,182 1,059,097

Wisconsin 2,577,275 3,855,696 1,887,559

Wyoming 0 0 202,360

Community Transportation Association of America's 

national Joblinks program 2,478,149 3,270,899 0

Technical assistance support and performance 

reviews of the JARC grants program (DC) 298,230 297,600 0

Total $104,380,500 $124,000,000 $136,620,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fiscal year

State 2004 2005 2006
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 58 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 7: Job Access and Reverse Commute Apportionments for Fiscal Year 2006

Source: FTA.

Table 8: Amounts Apportioned to Large Urbanized Areas 200,000 or More in 

Population

Urbanized area/state Apportionment

200,000 or more in population (large 

urbanized areas)

$81,972,000

50,000-199,999 in population (small 

urbanized areas)

27,324,000

Nonurbanized areas 27,324,000

National Total $136,620,000

Urbanized area/state Apportionment

Aguadilla—Isabela—San Sebastian, PR $530,843

Akron, OH 248,837

Albany, NY 230,802

Albuquerque, NM 326,277

Allentown—Bethlehem, PA—NJ 216,401

Anchorage, AK 83,959

Ann Arbor, MI 121,240

Antioch, CA 84,732

Asheville, NC 114,045

Atlanta, GA 1,343,016

Atlantic City, NJ 97,112

Augusta-Richmond County, GA—SC 191,466

Austin, TX 406,084

Bakersfield, CA 318,265

Baltimore, MD 871,013

Barnstable Town, MA 75,115

Baton Rouge, LA 294,683

Birmingham, AL 356,107

Boise City, ID 97,255

Bonita Springs—Naples, FL 73,314

Boston, MA—NH—RI 1,373,901

Bridgeport—Stamford, CT—NY 260,506

Buffalo, NY 484,616
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 59 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Canton, OH 112,893

Cape Coral, FL 147,513

Charleston—North Charleston, SC 219,710

Charlotte, NC—SC 277,956

Chattanooga, TN—GA 168,882

Chicago, IL—IN 3,537,943

Cincinnati, OH—KY—IN 579,180

Cleveland, OH 777,417

Colorado Springs, CO 169,456

Columbia, SC 191,671

Columbus, GA—AL 149,168

Columbus, OH 487,856

Concord, CA 100,625

Corpus Christi, TX 200,511

Dallas—Fort Worth—Arlington, TX 1,987,478

Davenport, IA—IL 125,901

Dayton, OH 303,522

Daytona Beach—Port Orange, FL 136,539

Denton—Lewisville, TX 83,301

Denver—Aurora, CO 698,475

Des Moines, IA 127,421

Detroit, MI 1,684,895

Durham, NC 152,453

El Paso, TX—NM 640,747

Eugene, OR 133,005

Evansville, IN—KY 99,338

Fayetteville, NC 152,079

Flint, MI 207,202

Fort Collins, CO 85,767

Fort Wayne, IN 120,203

Fresno, CA 479,768

Grand Rapids, MI 207,260

Greensboro, NC 115,730

Greenville, SC 154,803

Gulfport—Biloxi, MS 116,718

Harrisburg, PA 118,352

Hartford, CT 314,651

(Continued From Previous Page)

Urbanized area/state Apportionment
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 60 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Honolulu, HI 296,056

Houston, TX 2,225,913

Huntsville, AL 91,103

Indianapolis, IN 462,916

Indio—Cathedral City—Palm Springs, CA 167,671

Jackson, MS 188,181

Jacksonville, FL 395,633

Kansas City, MO—KS 520,534

Knoxville, TN 210,450

Lancaster, PA 109,172

Lancaster—Palmdale, CA 163,748

Lansing, MI 150,738

Las Vegas, NV 611,063

Lexington-Fayette, KY 125,080

Lincoln, NE 93,940

Little Rock, AR 193,589

Los Angeles—Long Beach—Santa Ana, 

CA 8,008,861

Louisville, KY—IN 402,958

Lubbock, TX 143,142

Madison, WI 141,053

McAllen, TX 667,460

Memphis, TN—MS—AR 582,443

Miami, FL 2,798,658

Milwaukee, WI 586,353

Minneapolis—St. Paul, MN 713,835

Mission Viejo, CA 110,760

Mobile, AL 230,386

Modesto, CA 206,464

Nashville-Davidson, TN 333,424

New Haven, CT 200,291

New Orleans, LA 747,095

New York—Newark, NY—NJ—CT 9,052,591

Ogden—Layton, UT 140,657

Oklahoma City, OK 425,034

Omaha, NE—IA 258,026

Orlando, FL 549,368

(Continued From Previous Page)

Urbanized area/state Apportionment
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 61 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Oxnard, CA 186,082

Palm Bay—Melbourne, FL 162,591

Pensacola, FL—AL 178,078

Peoria, IL 118,652

Philadelphia, PA—NJ—DE—MD 2,177,282

Phoenix—Mesa, AZ 1,437,345

Pittsburgh, PA 755,115

Port St. Lucie, FL 134,102

Portland, OR—WA 651,875

Poughkeepsie—Newburgh, NY 138,244

Providence, RI—MA 550,347

Provo—Orem, UT 165,680

Raleigh, NC 167,695

Reading, PA 108,520

Reno, NV 135,396

Richmond, VA 325,063

Riverside—San Bernardino, CA 1,025,531

Rochester, NY 302,343

Rockford, IL 111,425

Round Lake Beach—McHenry—

Grayslake, IL—WI 46,165

Sacramento, CA 735,658

Salem, OR 204,737

Salt Lake City, UT 323,584

San Antonio, TX 860,804

San Diego, CA 1,401,052

San Francisco—Oakland, CA 1,250,507

San Jose, CA 461,635

San Juan, PR 3,175,710

Santa Rosa, CA 105,190

Sarasota—Bradenton, FL 224,190

Savannah, GA 134,548

Scranton, PA 192,821

Seattle, WA 961,747

Shreveport, LA 199,860

South Bend, IN—MI 122,001

Spokane, WA—ID 178,704

(Continued From Previous Page)

Urbanized area/state Apportionment
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 62 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: FTA.

Springfield, MA—CT 276,090

Springfield, MO 118,633

St. Louis, MO—IL 853,416

Stockton, CA 263,196

Syracuse, NY 204,341

Tallahassee, FL 132,584

Tampa—St. Petersburg, FL 978,029

Temecula—Murrieta, CA 87,126

Thousand Oaks, CA 47,093

Toledo, OH—MI 252,191

Trenton, NJ 99,038

Tucson, AZ 441,408

Tulsa, OK 285,281

Victorville—Hesperia—Apple Valley, CA 130,784

Virginia Beach, VA 617,451

Washington, DC—VA—MD 1,192,035

Wichita, KS 181,906

Winston-Salem, NC 132,231

Worcester, MA—CT 179,318

Youngstown, OH—PA 218,946

Total $81,972,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Urbanized area/state Apportionment
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 63 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 9: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Small Urbanized Areas 50,000 

to 199,999 in Population

State Apportionment

Alabama $764,603

Alaska 34,455

Arizona 275,606

Arkansas 491,466

California 2,846,331

Colorado 458,275

Connecticut 279,431

Delaware 47,028

Florida 1,592,836

Georgia 872,603

Hawaii 51,652

Idaho 295,735

Illinois 628,307

Indiana 672,488

Iowa 404,283

Kansas 184,930

Kentucky 251,401

Louisiana 793,743

Maine 241,388

Maryland 300,190

Massachusetts 256,565

Michigan 851,344

Minnesota 231,017

Mississippi 142,431

Missouri 284,808

Montana 218,262

Nebraska 14,563

Nevada 37,708

New Hampshire 218,838

New Jersey 140,132

New Mexico 270,568

New York 513,343

North Carolina 871,922

North Dakota 165,554
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 64 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: FTA.

Northern Mariana Islands 79,198

Ohio 640,802

Oklahoma 173,538

Oregon 221,712

Pennsylvania 839,555

Puerto Rico 2,571,505

South Carolina 490,363

South Dakota 123,942

Tennessee 569,892

Texas 3,065,349

Utah 126,160

Vermont 65,427

Virginia 582,583

Washington 758,209

West Virginia 519,275

Wisconsin 695,169

Wyoming 97,515

Total $27,324,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Apportionment
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 65 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 10: Amounts Apportioned to State Governors for Nonurbanized Areas Fewer 

Than 50,000 in Population

State Apportionment

Alabama $914,681

Alaska 89,089

American Samoa 82,198

Arizona 491,772

Arkansas 689,681

California 1,392,047

Colorado 258,668

Connecticut 66,653

Delaware 60,739

Florida 789,522

Georgia 1,083,301

Guam 82,309

Hawaii 108,733

Idaho 236,073

Illinois 615,969

Indiana 547,252

Iowa 393,228

Kansas 391,699

Kentucky 996,767

Louisiana 853,320

Maine 263,615

Maryland 170,073

Massachusetts 106,263

Michigan 733,405

Minnesota 469,403

Mississippi 988,678

Missouri 804,275

Montana 238,026

Nebraska 244,224

Nevada 73,267

New Hampshire 114,174

New Jersey 90,750

New Mexico 460,625

New York 876,414
Appendix II

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 

Funding

Page 66 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: FTA.

North Carolina 1,377,832

North Dakota 125,851

Northern Mariana Islands 46,764

Ohio 937,886

Oklahoma 742,132

Oregon 375,739

Pennsylvania 996,074

Puerto Rico 354,265

Rhode Island 15,592

South Carolina 763,722

South Dakota 188,804

Tennessee 890,321

Texas 2,180,328

Utah 134,311

Vermont 121,458

Virgin Islands 82,637

Virginia 640,772

Washington 461,887

West Virginia 539,821

Wisconsin 466,065

Wyoming 104,846

Total $27,324,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Apportionment
Page 67 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Appendix III

Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA’s 

Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies for 

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program ApendxiI

In its March 15, 2006, interim guidance and proposed strategies, FTA 

proposed several changes that would affect the operation of the JARC 

program. FTA allowed for a 30-day comment period, and after a request for 

an extension, the agency allowed approximately 1 month for comments. 

FTA received over 200 comments, and program stakeholders that 

commented included the following: state transportation agencies, trade 

associations, metropolitan planning organizations, public transit providers, 

private transit providers, individuals, and advocates. Table 11 summarizes 

FTA’s proposed changes to the coordinated planning process, the 

designated recipient and competitive selection process, and the 

performance measurement and reporting requirements. 
Appendix III

Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA’s 

Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies 

for Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program

Page 68 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Table 11: Changes to the JARC Program Proposed in FTA’s March 2006 Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies and Program 

Stakeholder Responses

Proposed change

Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of 

similar comments

Coordinated plan

Elements: FTA identified five key elements of a 

coordinated plan: (1) an assessment of transportation 

needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, 

and persons with limited incomes; (2) an inventory of 

available services that identifies areas of redundant 

service and gaps in service; (3) strategies to address 

the identified gaps in service; (4) identification of 

coordination actions to eliminate or reduce duplication 

in services and strategies for more efficient utilization 

of resources; and (5) prioritization of implementation 

strategies. FTA proposed that choosing a lead agency 

be a local decision and defining “local” is a decision to 

be made at the state, regional, and local levels. 

• Agree that local communities should have flexibility in developing the 

coordinated plan (12) 

• Agree with the key elements of the coordinated plan (9) 

• Suggest that minimization of duplication of services should be a key element 

(10) 

• Suggest that an evaluation plan should be another key element (2)

• It is unrealistic to expect that coordinated plans will be completed by the fiscal 

year 2007 funding cycle (7) 

• Satisfying FTA’s requirements is a time-consuming process for coordinated 

plans (2) 

• Agencies may not have available staff resources to develop coordinated plans 

(2) 

• FTA requirements may cost more to produce than the available resources will 

allow (2) 

• Any planning requirements should be commensurate with the level of funding 

provided (3)

• Agree that designation of a “lead agency” should be a local decision (2) 

• Appreciate the flexibility of defining “local” (2) 

• States should be involved in determining the definition of “local” (2) 

Elements – Framework for Action: FTA suggested 

states and communities utilize the United We Ride 

Framework for Action when developing a coordinated 

plan. 

• Framework for Action is a useful and helpful tool (3)

• Concern that local coordinating entities may be at a disadvantage if they do not 

use the Framework for Action tool (2) 

• The guidance should continue to indicate use of the Framework for Action tool 

as a suggestion, not a requirement (2) 
Appendix III

Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA’s 

Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies 

for Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program

Page 69 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Participation: FTA provided examples of groups and 

organizations that may be included in the planning 

process, recognizing that this proposed list would not 

limit or require participation. FTA also suggested 

allowing many ways to participate and making goodfaith efforts for inclusion as well as documenting the 

efforts. FTA also proposed that it would coordinate 

with other federal agencies to facilitate other funding 

sources. 

• Support local communities having flexibility to coordinate participation (3) 

• Suggest other federal agencies should require their grantees to fully participate 

in the coordinated planning effort (5) 

• Encourage FTA to work with its partners on the Federal Interagency 

Coordinating Council (5) 

• FTA should make it clear that private operators must be represented (14) 

• FTA should affirm that the private sector may participate in the planning process 

and also propose on projects (12) 

• Agree that lead agencies should document their outreach efforts (3) 

• FTA should require rather than suggest more proactive outreach (23) 

Designated recipient 

In urbanized areas with populations fewer than 

200,000 and other than urbanized areas, FTA 

proposed that the state be the designated recipient. In 

urbanized areas of over 200,000 in population, FTA 

proposed that a recipient of JARC funds must be 

officially designated through a process consistent with 

the provision in Section 5307. FTA also proposed that 

the designated recipient for JARC does not have to be 

the same as the designated recipient for Section 5307 

funds. 

• The designated recipient for JARC should be the same as for FTA’s other 

formula programs (e.g., Sections 5307, 5310, or 5311), and FTA should not 

create separate designated recipients for JARC (8) 

• Having a JARC designated recipient separate from the Section 5307 

designated recipient is counterproductive because it will not encourage 

coordination and cooperation (3) 

• The JARC designated recipient should not be the same entity as the designated 

recipient for 5307 funds due to potential conflict of interest (2) 

• The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) should be the designated 

recipient (6) 

• The MPO is ill-equipped to function as the designated recipient (2) 

• FTA should clarify the roles and responsibilities of the designated recipient (6) 

Competitive Selection: A recipient charged in 

administering the JARC programs should be 

designated by the chief executive officer of a state, 

responsible local officials, and publicly owned 

operators of public transportation. To address 

concerns that a “conflict of interest” could exist, FTA 

recommended that the designated recipient of funds 

not be a provider of transportation services. FTA also 

proposed that when the MPO is the designated 

recipient of these funds, the MPO be responsible for 

the competitive selection process. FTA also provided 

a list of potential strategies for the competitive 

selection process. 

• The competitive selection process should not be managed by a transportation 

provider in large urbanized areas (2) 

• There could be a conflict of interest if a transportation provider is the designated 

recipient, so the MPO should conduct the competitive selection process (18) 

• Concerns about a conflict of interest would be ameliorated by a transparent 

competitive selection process or by the MPO’s oversight (8) 

• When the designated recipient is also a provider of transportation, the 

designated recipient should document how it selected projects and avoided 

conflicts of interest, and should demonstrate that all projects were given equal 

opportunity (23) 

• The competitive selection process and criteria should be derived at the local 

level (7) 

Proposed change

Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of 

similar comments
Appendix III

Summary of Stakeholder Comments on FTA’s 

Interim Guidance and Proposed Strategies 

for Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program

Page 70 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Source: GAO analysis of FTA guidance and public comments posted on FTA’s docket. 

Performance measures 

To evaluate all three programs, Sections 5310, 5316, 

and 5317, FTA recommended three crosscutting 

performance measures: (1) Efficiency of Operations, 

(2) Program Effectiveness, and (3) Customer 

Satisfaction. FTA also recommended one JARCspecific performance measure, Cumulative Number 

of Jobs Accessed. 

• The specific definitions proposed for the performance measures seem to have a 

tenuous connection to the goals they are designed to address (2) 

• Proposing performance measures that are too narrow and prescriptive will stifle 

local ability and creativity (4) 

• Establishing specific performance measures is premature (4) 

• Performance measures should be developed locally to address local conditions 

and needs (13) 

• Cost-effectiveness should be taken into consideration (16) 

• The proposed strategies for evaluation and performance measurement are 

burdensome, especially for small operators and systems (2) 

• It is difficult and sensitive to identify income and other personal information 

among passengers (3) 

• Regarding performance measure one: It may be more costly to provide 

transportation for difficult-to-serve populations, especially in small and rural 

areas (2) 

• The proposed measures are sensitive to external factors, such as local 

economic circumstances (2) 

• Regarding performance measure two: The definition of “communities” is too 

vague and difficult to understand (2) 

• Regarding performance measure three: “Customer satisfaction” is very 

subjective and amorphous, and the performance measure should be more 

objective or technical (4) 

• FTA should consider administration costs; funding should be commensurate 

with performance measurement strategies, such as surveys (3) 

Reporting requirements

FTA proposed reporting requirements to focus on the 

minimum data needed to meet the requirements of 

various performance initiatives set forth by Congress 

and the Office of Management and Budget, such as 

the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993. FTA also proposed building on existing 

infrastructure and data collection mechanisms, 

including the use of the National Transit Database. 

• Compliance with burdensome reporting requirements could easily cost more 

than the grant amounts in many communities (2) 

• Suggest grantees should only report simplified or basic information (3) 

• Reporting requirements should focus on readily available or existing information 

mechanisms (2) 

• Many smaller agencies and areas may need staff training to use the National 

Transit Database (2) 

Proposed change

Comments submitted by JARC program stakeholders and number of 

similar comments
Page 71 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov

Staff 

Acknowledgments

Other key contributors to this report were John Finedore (Assistant 

Director), Vidhya Ananthakrishnan, Lauren Heft, Foster Kerrison, Jessica 

Lucas-Judy, Nancy Lueke, Kimanh Nguyen, and Stan Stenersen.
Page 72 GAO-07-43 Job Access and Reverse Commute

Related GAO Products

Public Transportation: Preliminary Information on FTA’s 

Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Changes. GAO-06-910T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 27, 2006. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior 

Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and 

Information. GAO-04-971. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004.

Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects 

of Proposed Legislative Changes. GAO-04-934R. Washington, D.C.: August 

20, 2004.

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Agencies Are 

Taking Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating 

Transportation Services. GAO-04-420R. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 

2004.

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts 

Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 

Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003.

Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service 

Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed.

GAO-03-204. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002. 

Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in Implementing the Job Access 

Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact. GAO-02-640T. Washington, 

D.C.: April 17, 2002. 

Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT’s Job 

Access Program Was Not Followed. GAO-02-213. Washington, D.C.:

December 7, 2001.

Welfare Reform: GAO’s Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT’s Access to Jobs 

Program. GAO-01-996R. Washington, D.C.: August 17, 2001. 

Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access 

Program. GAO-01-133. Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2000. 

Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program in Its First 

Year. GAO/RCED-00-14. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 1999. 

(542092)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548