DRAFT 

GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

August 20, 2004 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby 

Chairman 

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes 

Ranking 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 

Subject: Job Access and Reverse Commute: Program Status and Potential Effects of 

 Proposed Legislative Changes 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized the Job 

Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to increase the transportation options 

of low-income workers. The act created JARC, in part because, as the act states, twothirds of all new jobs were located in the suburbs, while three-fourths of welfare 

recipients lived in rural areas or central cities, and even in metropolitan areas with 

excellent public transportation systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible by 

transit. Under JARC, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides grants to 

transit agencies, local human service agencies, and others to fill gaps in 

transportation services for welfare recipients and other low-income individuals. Both 

houses of Congress have approved separate legislation to reauthorize surface 

transportation programs including JARC. 

TEA-21 also required us to provide regular updates on the status of JARC. As agreed 

with your offices, this letter addresses (1) changes in program funding since fiscal 

year 1999 and the possible effects of further changes proposed in bills to reauthorize 

JARC, (2) the possible effects of proposed legislative changes to program 

coordination requirements, and (3) FTA’s 2003 evaluation of the program and plans 

for future evaluations. 
Page 2 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

To respond to your request, we obtained and summarized financial data from FTA. 

We also compared current legislation and program requirements with proposed 

requirements in reauthorization bills in both the House (H.R. 3550) and Senate 

(S. 1072). We then analyzed the potential effects of changes in legislation by 

interviewing interest groups and JARC grantees. Finally, we reviewed FTA’s 

evaluation of JARC and interviewed FTA officials about plans for future evaluations. 

We determined that all data used in this report were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. We performed our work from April through July 2004 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Our scope and methodology are 

discussed in more detail near the end of this report. 

Results in Brief 

Since fiscal year 1999, the process for awarding JARC program funds has changed, 

and proposed legislative changes would require further modifications. Initially, FTA 

competitively selected all grant recipients, but over time Congress has increasingly 

designated grantees through appropriations legislation. Whereas FTA selected all 

grantees in fiscal year 1999, Congress designated all grantees in fiscal years 2003 and 

2004 through appropriations legislation. Two proposed legislative changes would 

affect JARC funding. First, the House bill proposes that JARC funds would be 

distributed to states and urban areas through formula grants rather than through 

project-specific appropriations. Second, the House bill also proposes to decrease the 

matching fund requirement for capital expenditures from 50 percent to 20 percent. 

These proposed changes are not in the Senate bill. Both of these changes would 

make JARC similar to other FTA grant programs. Grantees and interest groups with 

whom we spoke had mixed opinions about these changes. 

Proposed legislative changes to JARC coordination requirements would provide 

funding and change the requirements for coordination. Specifically, the House’s 

proposed bill would allow up to 10 percent of JARC funds to be used for 

administrative, planning, and technical assistance activities. Currently, no funds can 

be used for these activities. This proposed change is not in the Senate bill. This 

change will likely facilitate program coordination with transportation and human 

service providers, according to most industry groups and grantees with whom we 

spoke. Another proposed change in both bills would require agencies that receive 

JARC funds to certify that their program is the result of a coordinated plan that 

includes local stakeholders, such as transit providers, human service agencies, and 

the public. Currently, certification is not required. The effect of this change would 

depend on the specific guidance that FTA provides for implementing a certification 

requirement, according to industry groups and grantees with whom we spoke. 

Although FTA’s 2003 evaluation of JARC provides some useful information about 

some JARC projects, it does not provide national, generalizable evidence of the 

program’s performance. FTA’s evaluation is based on several sources of data, most 

of which cannot be generalized to the entire JARC population. The program is 

difficult to evaluate because individual programs have different goals and serve 

different populations, such as those in rural and urban areas. FTA has taken steps to 

improve its evaluation process and plans further improvements. For example, FTA 
Page 3 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

introduced a Web-based reporting system to facilitate grantees’ reporting of program 

data. 

Background 

TEA-21 authorized JARC to provide grants to help low-income individuals and 

welfare recipients access employment opportunities. The program’s two major goals 

are to (1) provide transportation and related services such as childcare and (2) to 

increase collaboration among transportation providers, human service agencies, 

employers, and others. Local JARC projects can include increasing the frequency of 

existing transit along current routes, providing vanpool services, or providing 

information to the public about existing transportation services. 

TEA-21 also required FTA to conduct an evaluation of JARC by June 2000. TEA-21 

did not discuss specific elements to be included in the evaluation. Finally, TEA-21 

required that we report on the implementation of the program, and we have issued 

multiple reports on the program from 1998 through June 2003.1

 These reports found, 

among other things, that JARC has increased coordination among transit and human 

service agencies, but that FTA was slow in evaluating the program. We also 

recommended that FTA’s evaluation address the key goals of the program. 

Process for Awarding Program Funds Has Changed Over Time, and Proposed 

Legislation Would Institute Further Changes 

The process for awarding JARC grants has changed from a competition administered 

by FTA to an annual designation of grant recipients in federal appropriations 

legislation. Two proposed legislative changes would result in further modifications. 

First, in the House bill JARC funds would be distributed to states and urban areas 

through a formula grant instead of through project-specific appropriations. Second, 

the House bill would also reduce the matching fund requirement for capital 

expenditures from 50 percent to 20 percent. These changes are not in the Senate bill. 

These changes would make JARC similar to other FTA grant programs. While these 

changes could provide a reliable source of funds for some projects, the changes could 

adversely affect some JARC projects in states with low population, according to 

grantees and interest groups with whom we spoke. 

 

1

GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, 

D.C.: Dec. 8, 1998). 

GAO, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program in Its First Year, GAO/RCED-00-

14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999). 

GAO, Welfare Reform: DOT is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO-01-

133 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000). 

GAO, Welfare Reform: GAO's Recent and Ongoing Work on DOT's Access to Jobs Program, GAO-01-

996R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001). 

GAO, Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT's Job Access Program Was 

Not Followed, GAO-02-213 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001). 

GAO, Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluations 

Should Be Completed, GAO-03-204 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002). 

GAO, DOT’s Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Briefing to Congressional Staff.

(Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 
Page 4 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

Congress Has Appropriated Almost $600 Million for JARC and Has Designated All 

JARC Grants Since Fiscal Year 2003

In total, JARC has been appropriated approximately $583 million for fiscal years 1999 

through 2004. TEA-21 authorized JARC to receive a maximum of $150 million 

annually since its inception in fiscal year 1999. In addition, some JARC funds are 

“guaranteed,” or subject to a procedural mechanism designed to ensure that 

minimum amounts of funds are made available each year. The guaranteed amount of 

funding for the program has risen from $50 million in fiscal year 1999 to $150 million 

in fiscal year 2003.2 However, in fiscal year 2003, Congress transferred $45 million 

from JARC to the New Starts program.3

 As a result, Congress appropriated about $45 

million less than the guaranteed amount in fiscal year 2003 (see fig. 1). The annual 

appropriations for JARC have ranged from a low of $75 million in fiscal years 1999 

and 2000 to a high of $125 million in fiscal year 2002. 

Figure 1: JARC Funding, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2004 

Notes: Dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation. 

There is no guaranteed funding amount for fiscal year 2004 because JARC was authorized through 

fiscal year 2003 and is currently operating under the latest in a series of short term extension acts. 

 

2

There is no guaranteed funding amount for fiscal year 2004 because the program was authorized 

through fiscal year 2003 and is currently operating under the latest in a series of short term extension 

acts. 

3

FTA’s New Starts program awards full funding grant agreements for fixed-guideway rail, certain bus, 

trolley, and ferry projects. 
Page 5 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

While JARC began as a competitive grant program, the program has become 

congressionally designated through appropriations legislation. The amounts of JARC 

funds available for competitively selected grants have decreased since fiscal year 

1999. In fiscal year 1999, $75 million (representing all of the appropriated JARC 

funds) was awarded through the competitive selection process. This number 

decreased each year until 2003 and 2004, when no JARC grants were awarded 

through the competitive selection process. In contrast, the amount of 

congressionally designated grant money has generally increased over the life of the 

program. In fiscal year 1999, no grantees were congressionally designated; however, 

Congress designated approximately $50 million in fiscal year 2000 and then increased 

the amounts for designated grants until fiscal years 2003 and 2004, when almost all of 

the money appropriated to the program was congressionally designated (see fig. 2).4 

Figure 2: Funds Appropriated for Competitively Selected and 

Congressionally Designated Grants, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2004 

Congress has also transferred money from JARC to FTA’s New Starts program 

through appropriations legislation. Congress transferred $45 million from JARC to 

the New Starts program in fiscal year 2003 and $20 million in fiscal year 2004. In 

addition, Congress has transferred unobligated balances—funds that have not been 

spent by grantees—when the funds have remained unobligated for a period of time. 

 

4

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, all funds were congressionally designated except for approximately 

$300,000 each fiscal year that was designated for FTA’s evaluation. 
Page 6 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

Specifically, Congress transferred through appropriations legislation approximately 

$1 million of fiscal year 1999 unobligated balances to the New Starts program in fiscal 

year 2003, and approximately $4.5 million of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 unobligated 

balances to the New Starts program in fiscal year 2004 (see table 1). 

Table 1: Unobligated Amounts as of April 30, 2004, Fiscal Years 1999 through 

2004 

Amount 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Congressional 

allocations $0 $2,331,545 $2,682,937 $15,257,631 $60,817,204 $103,818,791 

Percentage of 

total 

allocation 

0.0% 4.7% 3.6% 14.0% 58.5% 99.7% 

Competitive 

allocations $1,015,648 $342,217 $825,047 $ 3,396,493 $0 $0 

Percentage of 

total 

allocation 

1.4% 1.3% 3.3% 20.0% 0% 0% 

Transfer to 

New Starts 

program 

 $ 1,015,648 $2,331,545 $2,182,937a

 $0 $0 $0 

Balance 

available for 

obligation 

$0 $342,217 $825,047 $18,654,124 $60,817,204 $104,117,021b

Source: FTA. 

Note: Data are from fiscal year 2004, so a large unobligated balance for fiscal year 2004 is expected. 

a

According to FTA officials, $500,000 of the unobligated funds was not transferred to New Starts 

because that money was about to be obligated when Congress transferred funds. 

b

Includes funds for FTA’s evaluation. 

Stakeholders Identified Advantages and Disadvantages of Formula Funding

Proposed legislation in the House would change JARC to a formula grant program, 

under which JARC funds would be distributed through a formula based on the 

number of low-income individuals and the number of welfare recipients in each area. 

The proposed legislation would also continue the allocation established in TEA-21, in 

which 60 percent of the funds would be distributed to urbanized areas with 

populations equal to or greater than 200,000; 20 percent of the funds would be 

distributed to states for urbanized areas with populations less than 200,000; and 20 

percent of the funds would be distributed to the states for nonurban areas. 

FTA officials generally support the change to a formula program, but expressed 

concern about one aspect of the formula. According to FTA officials, changing JARC 

to a formula program has several benefits. First, the formula provides a known 

annual funding allocation that will result in a steady stream of funds to states and 

localities. Currently, JARC funding is determined each year, and it is therefore 

difficult for states and localities to predict their future funding level. Second, 

according to FTA officials, project sponsors would know how much money they 
Page 7 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

would get in future years under a formula grant program and would be able to plan 

their programs accordingly. Third, FTA officials told us that states would have the 

flexibility to commingle funds for smaller urban and rural areas.5

 In the past, the 

amount of money available for smaller urban areas has exceeded the demand for 

funds; therefore, it would be useful for states to be able to redirect funds to areas 

with more need, according to FTA officials. Fourth, FTA officials told us that 

changing JARC to a formula grant program may help prevent JARC funding from 

being transferred to other programs as it was in fiscal years 2002 through 2004 

because formula program funds have traditionally not been transferred to other 

programs. FTA officials told us that they are concerned about one aspect of the 

current legislative proposal—including the number of welfare recipients as a factor in 

determining the formula. FTA officials told us that JARC is designed to serve all lowincome individuals and not just welfare recipients. According to FTA officials, many 

welfare recipients begin working as a means of transitioning off of welfare and, 

therefore, the number of welfare recipients should not affect the current demand for 

JARC services. In addition, these officials told us that it would be difficult to obtain 

data needed to include welfare recipients in the formula. Specifically, FTA officials 

told us that data on the number of welfare recipients who live in urban and nonurban 

areas is not readily available. As a result, it would be difficult to include the number 

of welfare recipients as a factor in distributing JARC funds.

Interest groups that represent state and community transportation employees had 

some concerns about formula funding if the program continues to be authorized at 

the current level. Specifically, interest groups we spoke with expressed concern that, 

under a formula, states that are largely rural or have low populations may not get the 

level of support necessary to continue all of the JARC services currently funded 

within their states. This is because some rural projects have benefited from 

congressional designation, and their state could receive less money under a formula 

grant. One interest group characterized the formula funding mechanism as spreading 

around the available JARC funds across the country, rather than concentrating the 

limited funds on individual projects. Interest groups also told us that formula funding 

could be more beneficial to JARC if the program received more funds and could, 

therefore, continue to fund projects throughout the country. However, within a 

constrained transit budget, increases in JARC funding could come at the expense of 

other federal transit programs. 

 

5

See H.R. 3550, § 5316 (c) (3), 108th Cong. (2004). 
Page 8 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

Grantees we spoke with expressed mixed opinions about formula funding as follows:6

• Seven of 18 grantees told us that they do not support formula funding. Some 

grantees said they are concerned that they may receive less funding under a 

formula grant mechanism. For example, one grantee we interviewed said that 

if formula funding was used, it would receive less funding, and another grantee 

told us that formula funding could cause JARC projects within its rural state to 

shut down. 

• In contrast, 4 of 18 grantees told us that they support formula grant funding 

because they believe that they will be able to plan their projects if they have a 

reliable source of funds for several years. One grantee that supports formula 

funding for this reason added that the worst thing a transportation provider 

can do is to start, stop, and restart service because the provider loses 

credibility with riders. Another grantee that supports this change had counted 

on funding for fiscal year 2005 but did not receive funds through the 

appropriations process. 

• In addition, 3 of 18 grantees told us that they would prefer to receive JARC 

money directly from FTA and not have to work through their state 

governments. Under a formula grant, nonurban areas would receive funds 

through the state. Grantees told us that JARC might not receive the attention 

it deserves from their states. 

• In contrast, one grantee told us that state involvement would be beneficial, 

particularly in fostering coordination, because human service agencies already 

have established relationships with the state and know how to work with the 

state, so they may be more likely to participate in JARC. 

Decrease in Matching Fund Requirement Would Make JARC Similar to Other FTA 

Programs

Another proposed legislative change in the House bill would make the matching fund 

requirement for JARC consistent with the matching requirements for other FTA 

programs. Specifically, grantees could receive a grant for up to 80 percent of the 

project’s capital expenses, which are used to purchase capital equipment such as 

buses. Currently, projects can receive a grant for up to 50 percent of the project’s 

capital expenses. Projects would continue to be eligible for grants of up to 50 

percent of their operating expenses—that is, the costs of their day-to-day operations. 

FTA officials told us that this change would lessen any confusion about matching 

requirements among grant recipients who participate in multiple FTA programs. 

Some interest groups echoed what FTA told us—that this change would make the 

requirements for JARC consistent with those for other FTA programs. We spoke to 

some members of one interest group who are employees in state departments of 

 

6

The number of grantee opinions does not add up to 18 (100 percent of those we spoke to) because 

some grantees had more than one opinion on a subject matter while others had no opinion. In 

addition, these numbers are not generalizable to all JARC grantees. 
Page 9 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

transportation. One of those members expressed concern that the decrease in the 

matching fund requirement could lead to greater capital investment at the expense of 

program operations. This member is concerned that JARC may become like other 

FTA programs, which, according to this member, stress capital investment over 

service delivery. 

Grantees with whom we spoke told us that this change would either be positive or 

not affect their programs. Six of 18 grantees told us that changing the matching fund 

requirement for capital costs would allow them to increase the services they provide 

and the numbers of vehicles they use to provide services. Four of 18 grantees told us 

that this change would be positive because it would make the requirements for 

matching funds in JARC similar to the matching requirements for other FTA 

programs. In contrast, 4 of 18 grantees told us that this change would not affect them 

because they do not use any capital funds in their project. FTA officials told us that 

approximately 15 percent of JARC funds are currently spent on capital costs. 

Therefore, this change may increase the proportion of JARC funds used for this 

purpose. 

Allowing Program Funds to Be Used for Administration Could Enhance 

Coordination, but Some Stakeholders Expressed Concern about 

Certification Requirements 

Two proposed legislative changes would affect program coordination. The first 

change is only in the House bill and would allow 10 percent of JARC funds to be used 

for technical assistance activities, including planning projects and coordinating with 

local stakeholders. Currently, no JARC funds may be used for these activities. This 

change would likely facilitate program coordination, according to the interest groups 

and grantees that we interviewed. The second change is in the House and Senate 

bills and would require agencies to certify that their JARC project is the result of a 

coordinated plan. The effect of this change on program coordination would depend 

on the guidance that FTA provides. 

Groups Generally Support Use of Grant Funds for Administrative Activities

A change proposed in the House bill would allow up to 10 percent of JARC grants to 

be used for administrative, planning, and technical assistance activities. These 

activities include planning new JARC projects and coordinating with stakeholders. 

According to FTA officials, interagency and stakeholder coordination may be 

strengthened because JARC funds could be applied to collaborative activities. 

Interest groups told us that allowing funds to be used for administrative, planning, 

and technical assistance activities is a good idea, because it would provide funds for 

coordination. However, one interest group questioned why funds for these activities 

are capped at 10 percent; this group believes that there should be no restriction on 

how funds are spent. 

Twelve of 18 grantees we spoke with said that this change would increase 

coordination because they could bring these funds to the planning table and show 
Page 10 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

potential partners that there is money to cover collaborative activities. Four of 18 

grantees said that there would be no discernable effect because agencies will perform 

administrative, planning, and technical assistance activities regardless of whether 

funds are authorized for this purpose. According to these grantees, they would 

perform collaborative and administrative activities even if they were not reimbursed 

for them. Nevertheless, 3 of 18 grantees said that this change would be helpful 

because, in the past, they had to use other sources to fund their collaborative 

activities. 

Some Stakeholders Are Concerned about Proposed Certification Requirements 

Both the Senate and the House bills propose that JARC grantees certify that their 

projects were developed from a locally coordinated plan that resulted from a process 

that included key stakeholders. Under this proposal, states would review locally 

coordinated plans and FTA would periodically evaluate the review process in each 

state and urban area. FTA supports this certification requirement as a means of 

ensuring that coordination continues if the program transitions to a formula grant. 

FTA officials told us that the success of the certification requirement would depend 

largely on the implementation guidance that they would develop after reauthorization 

legislation passes. 

Interest groups we interviewed expressed the following variety of opinions about the 

proposed certification requirement: 

• Some interest groups that we spoke with stressed the importance of FTA’s 

role as well as that of Congress in setting clear guidelines in developing and 

instituting coordination certification. Some members from one interest group 

stressed that they already participate in complex, organized planning 

processes, and they are concerned about how the new requirement would fit 

into their current activities. They suggested that FTA delay enforcing this 

requirement until states have had an opportunity to fully incorporate the 

guidelines into their planning process. 

• One interest group is concerned that a formal certification process may 

detract from the importance of developing a genuinely coordinated plan. This 

group also believes that certification may be overly prescriptive and 

administratively burdensome and could discourage potential grantees from 

participating in JARC. 

• However, one interest group told us that it supports the certification 

requirement and does not believe that the requirement will be difficult or 

burdensome. 

Eleven of 18 grantees that we interviewed said certification would have no impact on 

their programs because agencies already coordinate and will continue to do so. Two 

of 18 grantees said they understand the need for this requirement to ensure that 

collaboration is occurring, and grantees are hopeful that future certification 

requirements will clarify the requirements for coordination. Six of 18 grantees are 
Page 11 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

concerned that the process of certifying coordination may be administratively 

burdensome. 

FTA’s Evaluation Provides Useful Information, but It Does Not Constitute a 

National Assessment of JARC 

Although FTA’s evaluative report to Congress provides some useful information 

about some JARC projects, it does not provide national, generalizable evidence of the 

program’s performance. The program is difficult to evaluate, and FTA plans to 

continue to improve its evaluation process. 

TEA-21 Required FTA to Evaluate JARC

As previously stated, TEA-21 required FTA to report once to Congress by June 2000 

on the results of its evaluation of JARC. Although TEA-21 did not describe specific 

elements that should be included in the evaluation, we recommended in December 

2002 that the report should address JARC’s effectiveness in meeting its goals of 

providing transportation-related services and enhancing collaboration among 

stakeholders.7

 FTA issued its report in May 2003 that addressed JARC’s key goals.8 

According to FTA’s evaluation, JARC has made thousands of entry-level jobs and 

employers accessible for the program’s target populations; increased access to 

employment support sites; created significant low-income ridership; and established 

collaborative partnerships among transportation and human service agencies and 

local, state, and national government. 

FTA’s Evaluation Is Limited

FTA told us that it faced several obstacles in evaluating JARC, primarily because 

grantees had difficulty collecting and submitting information. For example, in 2001 

FTA required grantees to report quarterly data using a database that many grantees 

found to be burdensome. Some grantees even had to acquire the database software 

and learn the program, according to FTA officials. In addition, grantees were 

required to submit data on a quarterly basis and were required to submit some data 

that were difficult to obtain, such as the number of potential employers reached by 

JARC services and the number of jobs accessible within a quarter mile of a new fixedroute stop.9

 Finally, some transportation providers were not accustomed to reporting 

the socioeconomic data FTA wanted, while some human service organizations were 

not used to maintaining the transportation statistics that FTA requested. 

 

7

GAO-03-204. 

8

Federal Transit Administration, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program Report to Congress. 

(Washington, D.C.: May 2003). 

9

At a fixed-route stop, vehicles stop to pick up and deliver passengers along a specific route. 
Page 12 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

FTA used data from five sources in its 2003 JARC evaluation: (1) annual grantee 

reports as of January 1, 2000; (2) fourth quarter 2001 grantee reports; (3) a University 

of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) report based on a survey of riders at 23 sites; (4) 16 case 

studies that FTA conducted; and (5) GAO’s 2000 survey of JARC grantees. The 

evaluation uses these data sources to present a descriptive analysis of some JARC 

projects; however, the mix of data sources does not provide a consistent evaluation 

of the program over time and among grantees. In addition, specific information in 

FTA’s evaluation may not be consistent because some grantees did not always follow 

a standardized reporting system. Specifically, grantees that completed an annual 

grantee report in 2000 did not follow a standardized reporting system—in these 

reports, grantees only described the effectiveness of individual projects—and so 

information taken from these reports may not be consistent. 

The data FTA used in its 2003 evaluation are limited because four of the five sources 

FTA used provided data and descriptions of benefits for specific project locations, 

but these results could not be generalized to all JARC grantees. Specifically, the 

results of the 2000 annual grantee reports, 2001 quarterly grantee reports, UIC report, 

and FTA’s case studies are not generalizable to all JARC grantees for at least three 

reasons. First, the response rates of the annual and quarterly grantee reports were 

low, 24 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Second, there is no assurance that the 

grant recipients who submitted these reports were similar to those recipients who did 

not submit reports. For example, we do not know if the grantees that submitted 

reports had more effective programs than those who did not submit reports. Though 

FTA recognizes that generalizing the findings of the quarterly grantee reports to the 

entire grantee population could be misleading, FTA relies on these data sets to 

provide much of the key information used to assess the program. For example, FTA 

reported on the number of new employment sites accessed with JARC funds—a level 

of precision not justified by the number of responses obtained. Third and finally, the 

UIC study data are not generalizable because they are based on a small number of 

sites (23) that were not randomly selected. 

The fifth source, GAO’s 2000 survey of JARC grantees, had an 89 percent response 

rate, so the information from the survey reliably reflected the views of the grantees 

surveyed, and the results could be generalized to the entire grantee population.10 The 

survey addressed JARC grantees’ opinions about FTA’s implementation of JARC, the 

program’s effect on coordination among the variety of organizations involved in 

getting people to work, and the usefulness of JARC. 

Finally, the 2000 and 2001 grantee reports do not indicate the completeness or the 

accuracy of the data that were reported by grant recipients. The grantee reports 

contain self-reported information, which FTA does not verify. In addition, JARC 

grantees generally had difficulty submitting complete information on a timely basis. 

FTA acknowledges that it could be misleading to use the data from these reports to 

determine JARC’s performance nationwide. However, FTA uses these data to 

provide key information, such as the number of new employment sites made 

accessible by JARC services. 

 

10GAO-01-133. 
Page 13 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

Because FTA’s evaluation of JARC lacks consistent, generalizable, and complete 

information, the data cannot be used to draw any definitive conclusions about the 

program as a whole. The evaluation only provides information about some JARC 

projects and does not represent an overall evaluation of the program. 

FTA Plans to Improve the Evaluation Process

FTA has plans in place for improving its next program evaluation and the grantee 

reporting process. However, it has been and continues to be a struggle for FTA to 

develop comprehensive performance measures that assess a national program when 

individual grantee programs, operations, and features vary. For example, it would be 

difficult to use one set of measures to assess a program that provides fixed-route 

transportation services and then use the same set of measures to assess a program 

that provides information and coordination services. FTA is working with a 

consultant and UIC to improve program evaluation and reporting and plans to fully 

implement a new reporting system by fiscal year 2005. 

To make reporting less burdensome for grantees, FTA has replaced its initial 

reporting system with a Web-based system and now requires reports on an annual 

rather than a quarterly basis. FTA officials report that they have seen improvement in 

the number of grantees who submit reports. Specifically, according to FTA officials, 

almost 80 percent of grantees submitted reports for fiscal year 2003. Once the 

reported data is verified, it should allow FTA to make national performance 

projections for JARC, according to FTA officials. In addition, FTA is considering 

revising performance measures for the program. For example, FTA officials said that 

they are considering the feasibility of measuring the actual number of employers 

reached rather than the number of new employment site stops created by JARC 

services. 

FTA is just beginning to acquire new data and update their performance measures for 

evaluating JARC. Therefore, it is too early for us to determine if these changes to the 

evaluation process will improve the quality of information FTA obtains. As a result, 

we do not know if FTA will be able to issue a better evaluation of JARC if Congress 

requires FTA to evaluate the program when it reauthorizes JARC. 

Scope and Methodology 

To summarize financial information for JARC for fiscal years 1999 through 2004, we 

gathered and analyzed data from FTA’s Web site and agency officials on dollar 

amounts authorized, guaranteed, appropriated, congressionally designated, 

competitively allocated, obligated, and unobligated. To assess the reliability of the 

data, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and checked for 

obvious errors in completeness and accuracy. We determined the information was 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also researched TEA-21 and appropriations 

acts to determine the amount of funds authorized, guaranteed, appropriated, 

rescinded, and transferred under JARC. 
Page 14 GAO-04-934R Job Access and Reverse Commute

To analyze the potential effects of proposed legislative changes on JARC, we 

reviewed current legislative and program requirements and compared them with 

proposed legislative requirements. We designed and conducted semistructured 

telephone interviews with 18 of the 185 JARC grantees that were active last fiscal 

year—2003—to gain their perspectives on proposed legislative changes. We 

classified the grantees into six categories (state departments of transportation, cities, 

metropolitan planning organizations, transportation agencies, nonprofit 

organizations, and others) and randomly selected three grantees from each category 

to obtain the views of a variety of grantees. However, these surveys cannot be 

generalized to the entire JARC grantee population because of the small survey 

population. We also interviewed FTA officials and officials from interest groups, 

including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

the American Public Transportation Association, the Community Transportation 

Association of America, and the National Association of Regional Councils, to obtain 

their views on the possible effects of proposed changes. 

To assess the extent to which FTA has evaluated JARC, we reviewed FTA’s program 

evaluation, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: Report to Congress (May 

2003) and focused on the performance measures and indicators used; the existence of 

relevant, reliable, and timely information; the methodology used; the extent of 

effective monitoring of the program; and reported results. We also interviewed 

agency officials about FTA’s plans for future evaluations. 

Agency Comments 

We provided DOT a draft of this report for their review and obtained comments from 

agency officials in FTA and the Office of the Secretary. These officials provided some 

clarifying comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate. 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional committees, the 

Secretary of Transportation, and the FTA Administrator. The report will also be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at 

siggerudk@gao.gov or Catherine Colwell at colwellc@gao.gov. Alternatively, I can be 

reached at (202) 512-2834. Major contributors to this report were Elizabeth 

Eisenstadt, Denise C. McCabe, Susan Michal-Smith, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and 

John W. Shumann. 

Katherine A. Siggerud 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

(542034) 
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. 
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 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548