TRANSPORTATIONDISADVANTAGED 

POPULATIONS

Federal Coordination 

Efforts Could Be 

Further 

Strengthened

Report to the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

June 2012

GAO-12-647

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-647, a report to the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

June 2012

TRANSPORTATION-DISADVANTAGED 

POPULATIONS 

Federal Coordination Efforts Could Be Further 

Strengthened 

Why GAO Did This Study

Millions of Americans are unable to 

provide their own transportation or 

have difficulty accessing public 

transportation. Such transportationdisadvantaged individuals may include 

those who are elderly, have disabilities, 

or have low incomes. The Departments 

of Education, Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Labor (DOL), 

Transportation (DOT), Veterans Affairs 

(VA), and other federal agencies may 

provide funds to state and local entities 

to help these individuals access human 

service programs. As requested, GAO 

examined (1) federal programs that 

may fund transportation services for 

the transportation disadvantaged; (2) 

federal coordination efforts undertaken 

since 2003; and (3) coordination at the 

state and local levels. GAO analyzed 

information from the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance; interviewed

federal officials; and interviewed state 

and local officials in five states, chosen 

based on a variety of characteristics, 

including geographic diversity. 

What GAO Recommends

To promote and enhance federal, 

state, and local coordination activities,

the Secretary of Transportation and the

Coordinating Council should meet to

(1) complete and publish a strategic

plan; and (2) report on progress of 

recommendations made by the Council

in its 2005 Report to the President and 

develop a plan to address outstanding 

recommendations. Education and VA 

agreed with GAO’s recommendations. 

HHS, DOL, DOT, and other federal 

agencies neither agreed nor disagreed 

with the report. Technical comments 

were incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Eighty federal programs are authorized to fund transportation services for the 

transportation disadvantaged, but transportation is not the primary mission of 

most of the programs GAO identified. Of these, the Department of Transportation 

administers 7 programs that support public transportation. The remaining 73 

programs are administered by 7 other federal agencies and provide a variety of 

human services, such as job training, education, or medical care, which

incorporate transportation as an eligible expense in support of program goals. 

Total federal spending on transportation services for the transportation 

disadvantaged remains unknown because, in many cases, federal departments 

do not separately track spending for these services. However, total funding for 

the 28 programs that do track or estimate transportation spending, including

obligations and expenditures, was at least $11.8 billion in fiscal year 2010. 

The interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, which the 

Secretary of Transportation chairs, has led governmentwide transportation 

coordination efforts since 2003. The Coordinating Council has undertaken a 

number of activities through its “United We Ride” initiative aimed at improving 

coordination at the federal level and providing assistance for state and local 

coordination. For example, its 2005 Report to the President on Human Service 

Transportation Coordination outlined collective and individual department actions 

and recommendations to decrease duplication, enhance efficiencies, and simplify 

access for consumers. Key challenges to federal interagency coordination efforts 

include a lack of activity at the leadership level of the Coordinating Council in 

recent years—the Coordinating Council leadership has not met since 2008—and 

the absence of key guidance documents for furthering agency coordination 

efforts. For example, the Coordinating Council lacks a strategic plan that contains 

agency roles and responsibilities, measurable outcomes, or required follow-up. 

GAO has previously reported that defining and articulating a common outcome

and reinforcing agency accountability through agency plans and reports are 

important elements for agencies to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts. 

State and local officials GAO interviewed use a variety of planning and service

coordination efforts to serve the transportation disadvantaged. Efforts include 

state coordinating councils, regional and local planning, one-call centers, mobility 

managers, and vehicle sharing. For example, state coordinating councils provide 

a forum for federal, state, and local agencies to discuss and resolve problems 

related to the provision of transportation services to the transportation 

disadvantaged. In other examples, one-call centers can provide clients with 

transportation program information and referrals for appropriate service providers

and mobility managers may serve many functions—as policy coordinators, 

operations service brokers, and customer travel navigators. However, state and 

local governments face several challenges in coordinating these services—

including insufficient federal leadership, changes to state legislation and policies

that may hamper coordination efforts, and limited financial resources in the face 

of growing disadvantaged populations. 

View GAO-12-647. For more information, 

contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or

wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Letter 1 

Background 3

Eighty Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services for the 

Transportation Disadvantaged and Total Spending Is Unknown 6

Federal Coordination Efforts Are Led by an Interagency Council, 

but Key Challenges Remain 12

State and Local Efforts Include Transportation Planning and 

Service Coordination, but Challenges Continue 21

Conclusions 28

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Inventory of Federal Programs Providing Transportation Services 

to the Transportation Disadvantaged 35

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Education 49

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 51

Tables

Table 1: Available Financial Program Information for Fiscal Year 

2010 9

Table 2: Examples of Coordinating Council Actions 14

Table 3: Types of State and Local Transportation Coordination 

Efforts 22

Table 4: State and Local Interviews 32

Figure

Figure 1: Number of Federal Programs GAO Identified Authorized 

to Provide Transportation Services to the Transportation 

Disadvantaged in Fiscal Year 2010, by Agency 7

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Abbreviations

ACCT Washington’s Agency Council on Coordinated 

 Transportation

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

 Development

ICTC Wisconsin’s Interagency Council on Transportation

 Coordination

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

NRC National Resource Center for Human Service 

 Transportation Coordination

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

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

United States. The published product 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-12-647 Transportation Coordination

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 20, 2012

The Honorable Tim Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Ranking Member

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

Access to transportation services is essential for millions of Americans to 

participate fully in society and be able to access human services, 

including health, education, and job training programs. However, many 

individuals are unable to provide their own transportation or have difficulty 

accessing public transportation due to their age, disability, or income 

constraints. We have previously identified a myriad of federal programs 

that are authorized to use federal funds for transportation services to 

assist these “transportation-disadvantaged” individuals in accessing 

human service programs.

Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), 

Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Interior, Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT), and 

Veterans Affairs (VA), provide funds to state and local agencies that can 

be used for transportation to help individuals access federal programs, 

including education, employment, medical care, or other human 

services.1 In March 2011, we reported that improved coordination of 

these programs and the transportation services they provide has the 

potential to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of these services, 

while also reducing duplication, overlap, and fragmentation of services.2

 

1

Some federal programs, such as those administered by VA, may provide direct 

transportation services to beneficiaries, as opposed to funds to state and local agencies to 

provide these services.

Coordination of transportation services can take many forms, including 

information sharing among programs, pooling resources, and 

2

See GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save 

Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011) 

and List of Selected Federal Programs That Have Similar or Overlapping Objectives, 

Provide Similar Services, or Are Fragmented Across Government Missions, 

GAO-11-474R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2011).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

consolidating trips provided by various agencies. In our 2011 report, we 

found that additional action by federal departments was necessary to 

better coordinate their programs and eliminate the potential for duplication 

and fragmentation.3

Given these concerns, you asked us to review (1) which federal programs 

provide funding for transportation services for the transportation 

disadvantaged; (2) what federal coordination efforts have been 

undertaken since 2003 and what challenges remain; and (3) what types 

of coordination have occurred at the state and local levels.

To identify the universe of federal programs that provide funding for 

transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged, we 

examined our prior work on the topic, conducted a search of the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance, reviewed program information provided 

by federal officials, and reviewed relevant federal laws governing the use 

of federal funds for transportation services. To determine what federal 

coordination efforts have taken place since 2003 and what challenges 

remain, we conducted interviews with officials from eight federal 

agencies—USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, Interior, DOL, DOT, and VA—

and reviewed relevant documentation provided by agency officials. We 

chose these agencies because they administered programs that were 

authorized to provide funding for transportation services for the 

transportation disadvantaged in fiscal year 2010 and were identified by 

executive order4

 

3

to participate in coordination. We also interviewed 

transportation researchers and officials from relevant industry and 

advocacy groups. To identify the types of coordination that have occurred 

at the state and local level, we conducted interviews with state and local 

officials from five states—Florida, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. We chose these states based on a variety of characteristics, 

including target populations who use these services, existence of a state 

coordinating body, and geographic diversity. As part of our site visit 

interviews, we spoke with officials from state and local human service and 

transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, 

transportation providers, and interest and advocacy groups. Appendix I 

contains a more detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and 

methodology.

GAO-11-318SP. 

4

Human Service Transportation Coordination, Exec. Order No. 13330 (Feb. 24, 2004). 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Transportation-disadvantaged populations, including those that cannot 

provide their own transportation due to age, disability, or income 

constraints, may face challenges in accessing transportation, such as 

lack of access to public transportation or a private vehicle. For example, 

according to a 2011 report by the National Council on Disability, people 

with disabilities are more likely than people without disabilities to report 

that they have inadequate transportation (34 percent versus 16 percent, 

respectively).5 We have previously reported that people in need of 

transportation often benefit from greater and higher quality services when 

transportation providers coordinate their operations.6

Federal agencies, including USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, Interior, DOL, 

DOT, and VA, play an important role in helping transportationdisadvantaged populations access federal programs by providing funds to 

state and local grantees. Federal programs that provide funding for 

transportation cover a variety of services, including education, job 

training, employment, nutrition, health, medical care, or other human 

services. As we have previously reported, many federally funded 

programs purchase transportation services from existing private or public 

providers.

In addition, we have 

reported that coordination has the potential to reduce federal 

transportation program costs by clustering passengers; using fewer oneway trips; and sharing the use of personnel, equipment, and facilities.

7

 

5

National Council on Disability, National Disability Policy: A Progress Report (Washington, 

D.C.: October 2011).

This includes contracting for services with private 

6

GAO, Transportation Coordination: Benefits and Barriers Exist, and Planning Efforts 

Progress Slowly, GAO/RCED-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 1999). 

7

GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among 

Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist, GAO-03-697 

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003).

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

transportation providers or providing transit passes, taxi vouchers, or 

mileage reimbursement to program participants, or some combination of 

these methods. Some programs may use federal funds to purchase and 

operate their own vehicles.

DOT and HHS formed the Coordinating Council on Human Services 

Transportation (Coordinating Council)8 in 1986 to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of human service transportation9 by coordinating 

related programs at the federal level and promoting the maximum feasible 

coordination at the state and local levels.10 In 2003, we reported that 

coordination efforts at the federal, state, and local levels varied greatly, 

and while some coordination efforts showed promising results, obstacles 

continued to impede coordination.11 As a result, we recommended that, 

among other things, the Coordinating Council be expanded to include 

additional federal agencies. The Coordinating Council was expanded to 

11 federal agencies in 2004 by Executive Order 13330 and renamed the 

Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and 

Mobility.12

 

8

The Coordinating Council underwent several name changes, notably in 1998 and 2004, 

but for the purposes of this report, we will refer to it as the Coordinating Council 

throughout its existence.

The expanded Coordinating Council was charged with, among 

other things, promoting interagency cooperation and establishing 

9

According to the Federal Transit Administration, human service transportation is 

transportation services provided by or on behalf of a human services agency to provide 

access to agency services and to meet the basic, day-to-day mobility needs of 

transportation-disadvantaged populations, especially individuals with disabilities, older 

adults, and people with low incomes.

10In a 1999 report on transportation coordination, we found that coordination efforts of 

DOT and HHS, as members of the Coordinating Council, were ongoing but needed 

strengthening. See GAO/RCED-00-1. 

11In 2003, we also reported that state and local agencies that provide transportation 

services under a myriad of federally funded programs run the risk of duplication of effort 

and inefficiencies in providing transportation when those agencies do not coordinate. See 

GAO-03-697. In 2004, we issued a report on agencies’ progress in implementing our 2003 

recommendations. See GAO, Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal 

Agencies Are Taking Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating 

Transportation Services, GAO-04-420R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2004).

12Membership of the Coordinating Council was expanded to include the Secretaries of 

Transportation, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs, 

Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior, the Attorney General, the 

Commissioner of Social Security, and an eleventh member designated by the Chairman of 

the Coordinating Council, the Chairman of the National Council on Disability.
 

Page 5 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

appropriate mechanisms to minimize duplication and overlap of federal 

programs and services so that transportation-disadvantaged persons 

have access to improved transportation services.

More recently, in 2011, we reported that reducing or eliminating 

duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among government programs and 

activities could save tax dollars and help agencies to provide more 

efficient and effective services.13 With regard to transportation services for 

the transportation disadvantaged, we found that, while some federal 

agencies were developing guidance and technical assistance for 

transportation coordination, federal departments still had more work to do 

in identifying and assessing their transportation programs, working with 

other departments to identify opportunities for additional coordination, and 

developing and disseminating policies and grantee guidance for 

coordinating transportation services.14 As we have previously reported, 

many federal efforts transcend more than one agency, yet agencies face 

a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work 

collaboratively.15 Both Congress and the executive branch have 

recognized this, and in January 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 was enacted, updating the almost two-decades-old Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA).16 This act establishes a new 

framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach 

to focusing on results and improving government performance. As we 

reported in February 2012, effective implementation of this act could play 

an important role in clarifying desired outcomes; addressing program 

performance spanning multiple organizations; and facilitating future 

actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.17

 

13See GAO-11-318SP and GAO-11-474R. 

14In February 2012, we reported that federal departments had not yet fully addressed 

these actions. See GAO, Follow-up on 2011 Report: Status of Actions Taken to Reduce 

Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 

GAO-12-453SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

15See GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

16Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011), amending 5 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 306 and 31 

U.S.C. §§ 1115, 1116, and adding 31 U.S.C. §§ 1120-1125 (GPRA). 

17GAO-12-342SP. 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

In recent years, Congress has supported increased transportation 

coordination, as reflected in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

18 Enacted 

in 2005, SAFETEA-LU amended several human services transportation 

coordination provisions19 sharpening the focus on transportation services 

for persons with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower 

incomes. Currently, the law requires the establishment of a locally 

developed, coordinated, public transit-human services transportation plan 

for all of DOT’s human service transportation programs administered by 

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Further, it requires the plan to 

be developed by a process that includes representatives of public, 

private, and nonprofit transportation and human services communities, 

including the public. Federal law also has promoted coordinated funding 

for non-DOT programs to be used as matching funds for specific 

transportation programs. More recently, FTA’s fiscal year 2013 budget 

request proposed consolidating some existing programs to give 

communities more flexibility in designing and coordinating FTA-sponsored 

human service programs.

We identified 80 federal programs that fund a variety of transportation 

services for transportation-disadvantaged populations (see fig. 1). Thirtyone of these programs are administered by HHS. The Departments of 

Education and HUD each administer 12 programs; DOT administers 7 

 

18Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).

1949 U.S.C. ch. 53; SAFETEA-LU, § 3046 (49 U.S.C. § 5338 Note).

Eighty Federal 

Programs Fund 

Transportation 

Services for the 

Transportation 

Disadvantaged and 

Total Spending Is 

Unknown 

Federal Programs
 

Page 7 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

programs; and DOL, VA, Interior, and USDA administer 18 programs 

combined. Out of the 80 federal programs identified, 4 programs focus 

expressly on supporting transportation services for transportationdisadvantaged populations, including DOT’s Capital Assistance Program 

for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Job Access and 

Reverse Commute Program, Capital and Training Assistance Program for 

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, and the New Freedom Program. A full

list of programs is in appendix II. 

Figure 1: Number of Federal Programs GAO Identified Authorized to Provide Transportation Services to the Transportation 

Disadvantaged in Fiscal Year 2010, by Agency
 

Page 8 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Transportation is not the primary mission for the vast majority of the 

programs we identified. Except for the 7 DOT programs, where all funds 

are used to support public transportation, the remaining 73 programs we 

identified primarily provide a variety of human services, such as job 

training, employment, education, medical care, or other services, which 

incorporate transportation as an eligible program expense to ensure 

participants can access a service. In addition, the types of transportation 

services provided to the transportation-disadvantaged population through 

these federal programs vary, and may include capital investments (e.g., 

purchasing vehicles), reimbursement of transportation costs (e.g., transit 

fares, gas, bus passes), or direct provision of transportation service to 

program clients (e.g., operating vehicles). Examples of transportation 

services authorized for funding include the following:

• HHS’s Medicaid program reimburses states that provide Medicaid 

beneficiaries with bus passes to access eligible medical services, 

among other transportation options.

• DOL’s Workforce Investment Act-funded programs can provide 

funding for transportation services so that recipients can access 

employment and participate in required work activities. Types of 

transportation services include bus passes and cab fare. 

• DOT’s Job Access and Reverse Commute Program allows for grantee 

agencies to purchase vehicles such as vans to improve access to 

transportation for employment-related services.

• VA’s Beneficiary Travel Program, as part of Veterans Medical Care 

Benefits, can provide mileage reimbursement to low-income or 

disabled veterans for travel to receive medical services at their VA 

hospital.20

Total spending on transportation services for the transportation 

disadvantaged remains unknown because, in many cases, federal 

departments do not separately track spending for these services. Of the 

 

20According to VA officials, VA’s Beneficiary Travel Program, as part of Veterans Medical 

Care Benefits, provides mileage reimbursement, common carrier transportation (e.g., 

plane, boat, taxi, bus), and, when medically indicated, special mode transport (ambulance, 

wheelchair van, etc.) to low-income or disabled veterans for travel to receive treatment, 

care, or services at VA or VA-authorized medical facilities. 

Federal Spending
 

Page 9 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

80 programs we identified, roughly two-thirds of the programs were 

unable to provide spending information for eligible transportation services.

However, total expenditures and obligations for the 28 programs that do 

track or estimate transportation spending were at least $11.8 billion in 

fiscal year 2010 (see table 1).21

Table 1: Available Financial Program Information for Fiscal Year 2010

DOT’s 7 programs accounted for about 

$9.5 billion of this total amount. Of the non-DOT programs, HHS’s 

Medicaid program and VA’s Veterans Medical Care Benefits program 

each reported spending over $700 million in fiscal year 2010.

Dollars in thousands

Program name Agency

Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for 

transportation

Urbanized Area Formula Program 

a

Transportation $4,849,411 (obligated)

Capital Investment Grants Transportation $3,566,690 (obligated)

Medicaid Health and Human Services $786,967 (partial)

Veterans Medical Care Benefits

b

Veterans Affairs $745,315 (obligated)

Nonurbanized Area Formula Program Transportation $624,837 (obligated)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Health and Human Services $445,119 (expended)

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons 

and Persons with Disabilities 

Transportation $176,237 (obligated)

Job Access and Reverse Commute Transportation $163,977 (obligated)

New Freedom Program Transportation $90,141 (obligated)

State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program Education $81,000 (estimate)

Special Programs for the Aging, Title III, Part B, 

Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers

Health and Human Services $73,586 (expended)

Indian Schools - Student Transportation Interior $52,638 (obligated)

Health Centers Health and Human Services $26,300 (expended)

Job Corps Labor $24,100 (estimate)

Social Services Block Grants Health and Human Services $22,864 (estimate)

HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants Health and Human Services $10,750 (estimate)

HIV Care Formula Grants Health and Human Services $5,598 (estimate)

 

21Spending was reported by program officials, and we did not verify the information.

Amounts obligated or expended on transportation are given, depending upon the 

information available. When actual information was not available, agency officials provided 

estimates.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Dollars in thousands

Program name Agency

Fiscal year 2010 federal spending for 

transportation

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement 

Grants

a

Housing and Urban 

Development

$4,218 (expenditure)

Children’s Health Insurance Program Health and Human Services $3,682 (partial)

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

b

Housing and Urban 

Development

$1,530 (expended)

VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem 

Program 

Veterans Affairs $720 (obligated)

Capital and Training Assistance Program for Overthe-Road Bus Accessibility Transportation $544 (obligated)

Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes 

Prevention and Treatment Projects

Health and Human Services $419 (estimate)

Indian Child and Family Education Interior $373 (estimate)

Community Development Block Grants/State’s 

Program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii

Housing and Urban 

Development

$19 (expended)

Urban Indian Health Services Health and Human Services $7 (estimate)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAccess to RecoveryHealth and Human Services $4 (estimate)

Community Development Block Grants/Special 

Purpose Grants/Insular Areas

Housing and Urban 

Development

$0 (expended)

Total

c

$11,757,046d 

Source: GAO analysis of spending data reported by program officials.

a

We did not verify the information provided. Obligated refers to a definite commitment by the federal 

government to make payments. Partial refers to spending reported by some states, but not all states. 

Expended refers to spending that has been paid.

b

Due to differences in the way states report their Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program 

expenses, transportation spending information for these programs does not include all states, so it is 

a partial accounting of total spending on transportation.

c

This program did not expend funds on transportation in fiscal year 2010.

d

Figures do not add to total due to rounding.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Most of the programs we identified do not separately track transportation 

spending.22

• Some programs allow for transportation spending as an optional 

service, but it is not required so they do not ask grantees to provide 

spending information. For example, HHS’s Head Start program, which 

provides comprehensive child development services to low-income 

children and their families, reported that many of its grantees may 

provide transportation, but the agency does not collect specific data 

on transportation spending.

According to federal officials, transportation spending may not 

be tracked for several reasons, including the following:

• Some federal programs give states and localities broad flexibility to 

administer program funds, and the program structure may not lend 

itself to tracking transportation expenses. For example, Education 

provides grants to states under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) for special education and related services to 

children with disabilities.23 State education agencies allocate most of 

these grant funds to local education agencies, usually school 

systems, to provide these services.24

• Some agencies may consider transportation services to be an 

administrative expense, and may include transportation spending with 

other eligible administrative expenses. As a result, transportationspecific spending is not fully known. For example, HHS’s Medicaid 

Education does not collect data 

on the amount of funds expended by local education agencies for 

specific services, including transportation services.

 

22In March 2011, we identified actions that federal departments on the Coordinating 

Council should undertake, including identifying and assessing their transportation 

programs and related expenditures, in order to promote federal coordination and reduce 

the potential for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. See GAO-11-318SP. In February 

2012, we reported that federal departments had not yet fully addressed these actions and 

that most federal departments on the Coordinating Council do not have an inventory of 

existing programs or related expenditure information for transportation services. See 

GAO-12-453SP. 

23Including Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, and 

Special Education-Grants for Infants and Toddlers.

24In order for a local education agency to use IDEA funds to purchase vehicles, the local 

education agency would need to obtain approval from the state educational agency and 

demonstrate that the vehicle purchase was necessary for proper administration of the 

IDEA program.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

program has two allowable methods for states to report the costs of 

transportation services to the program—as expenditures for 

nonemergency medical transportation benefits or as an administrative 

expense, which is combined with other nontransportation expenses.25

• Resources necessary to track this information in some federal 

departments may outweigh the potential benefits, according to HUD 

officials who told us that for some HUD programs, requiring grantees 

to report transportation expenses would require a new reporting effort 

and that the resulting information may not be analyzed due to 

resource constraints.

As a result, HHS does not fully capture the total transportation costs 

provided under its Medicaid program.

26

The interagency Coordinating Council, chaired by DOT, has been 

charged with leading governmentwide transportation coordination efforts 

since 2003.27

 

25Each state has an individual agreement with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 

called a state plan.

The Coordinating Council launched the “United We Ride” 

initiative in fall 2003, designed to establish an interagency forum for 

communication and help states and communities overcome obstacles to 

coordination. The Coordinating Council undertook a number of activities 

through its United We Ride initiative, largely between 2003 and 2007. 

26Some other HUD programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant 

programs, track federal transportation spending, as shown in table 1.

27In 2003, the Coordinating Council, consisting of HHS and DOT, invited DOL and 

Education to join, as they had been actively working under the council. The Coordinating 

Council was expanded by executive order in February 2004 to include 10 federal 

agencies—one more agency was added by the chair to bring its membership to 11 federal 

entities. 

Federal Coordination 

Efforts Are Led by an 

Interagency Council, 

but Key Challenges 

Remain 

Coordinating Council
 

Page 13 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Coordinating Council actions included issuing publications such as policy 

statements and progress reports on efforts taken, providing funding 

through FTA to help states and localities promote coordinated services 

and planning, and supporting technical assistance efforts (see table 2). 

For example, the Coordinating Council’s 2005 Report to the President 

outlined the council’s action plan for implementing the 2004 executive 

order, reported on the council’s accomplishments, and made specific 

recommendations to improve human services transportation coordination. 

The Coordinating Council is structured in several levels, including the 

Secretary-level members, an Executive Council consisting of senior-level 

appointees from each member agency, and interagency working groups 

(seven in fiscal year 2011) that cut across issue areas at the 

programmatic level.28 The Coordinating Council is staffed by officials from 

FTA. The Secretary-level members of the Coordinating Council last met 

in 2008.29 However, according to DOT officials, more recent Coordinating 

Council efforts have taken place at the working group level.

 

28Working groups cover such areas as coordination infrastructure, emergency 

preparedness, and current administration priorities such as veterans’ transportation.

29According to DOT, the Secretary-level members of the Coordinating Council, or their 

designees, met annually in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008. The Executive Council met from 

2004 through 2007—quarterly in 2004 and biannually from 2005 through 2007. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Table 2: Examples of Coordinating Council Actions

Actions Description

Reports and policy statements • 2003 Framework for Action: The 2003 planning and assessment tool provides a step-by-step 

guide for states and communities to assess their transportation delivery systems and develop 

a plan for a fully coordinated human services transportation system.

• 2005 Report to the President on Human Service Transportation Coordination: The 2005 

report outlined collective and individual department actions and recommendations to 

decrease duplication, enhance efficiencies, and simplify access for consumers, as required by 

Executive Order 13330. Recommendations included: (1) Coordinated Transportation 

Planning: seek mechanisms to require human service transportation programs to participate 

in coordinated planning; (2) Vehicle Sharing: promote vehicle sharing between federal 

programs; and (3) Cost Sharing: develop standard transportation cost allocation principles for 

federal human service and transportation agencies.a

• 2006 Policy Statement on Coordinated Human Service Transportation Planning: The 2006 

policy statement encouraged member agencies to ensure that grantees participate in local 

coordinated planning. Each agency took a pledge to implement the coordination plan within 6 

months of Coordinating Council adoption.

 

• 2006 Policy Statement on Vehicle Sharing: The 2006 policy statement clarified that federal 

grantees are allowed to share the use of their own vehicles so long as costs are also shared.

• 2007 Progress Report on Implementation of Executive Order 13330: The 2007 Progress 

Report described actions taken since the 2005 Report to the President, including 

recommendation follow-up. Actions taken on 2005 recommendations included: (1) 

Coordinated Transportation Planning: the Coordinating Council adopted the 2006 policy 

statement; (2) Vehicle Sharing: the Coordinating Council adopted the 2006 policy statement; 

and (3) Cost Sharing: the Coordinating Council reported it was working on cost-sharing 

principles that would be adopted by the Council and implemented by member agencies.

Funding opportunities 

b 

• United We Ride State Grants: FTA awarded three cycles of state grants in 2004, 2006, and 

2009. These grants are intended to (1) support the development of state-level coordinated 

plans, (2) implement target elements of state action plans, and (3) help develop mobility 

management efforts, respectively.

• Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative Grant Program: This federal initiative 

supports one-call transportation resource centers, developed and supported by the 

Coordinating Council’s veterans’ affairs working group in partnership with the Departments of 

Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. Over $34 

million in federal funding was awarded in 2011 for the first round and $30 million in federal

funding is to be awarded in 2012.

Technical assistance 

c

• National Resource Center for Human Service Transportation Coordination (NRC): Through a 

cooperative agreement with FTA, the NRC was formed in 2007 to provide states and 

communities with the support they need to better integrate public transportation services with 

the services and demands of their human services networks. The NRC also provides 

technical assistance to the Coordinating Council and its member agencies.

• United We Ride Regional Ambassadors: NRC employs transportation professionals, called 

regional ambassadors, who provide technical assistance to state and local agencies on 

coordination efforts, including assisting states in developing and implementing coordinated 

human services transportation plans.

• National Partnerships: NRC convenes several partnerships including a national Partnership 

for Mobility Management, largely funded by FTA, consisting of seven national organizations, 

formed to promote and support mobility management in states and localities by providing 

technical assistance, training, and a national communication network for mobility managers.d
 

Page 15 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Source: GAO analysis of information from the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility and the National 

Resource Center for Human Service Transportation Coordination.

a

Other Coordinating Council recommendations included: (4) Reporting and Evaluation: develop 

methods to analyze coordination effectiveness; and (5) Consolidated Access Transportation 

Demonstration Program: seek statutory authority for a pilot project to consolidate federal funding for a 

single transportation system to meet the mobility needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations.

b

Additional recommendation follow-up included: (4) Reporting and Evaluation: the Coordinating 

Council developed a logic model to measure progress towards goals; and (5) Consolidated Access

Transportation Demonstration Program: DOT launched eight demonstration projects in 2007.

c

Largely funded by FTA. VA and DOL are also contributing funds to help support this initiative. 

According to DOT officials, $3 million in VA funds have been allocated for hiring and training mobility 

managers and $400,000 in DOL funds have been allocated to purchase open government 

technologies for grantees. DOT officials stated that the Veterans Transportation and Community 

Living Initiative Grant Program will provide valuable lessons on which to model subsequent program 

collaborations among members of the Coordinating Council.

d

FTA also funds a variety of technical assistance efforts for states and 

localities to help foster state leadership in human services transportation 

coordination. In addition to funding the NRC and its efforts, FTA supports 

Easter Seals Project ACTION,

According to FTA, mobility management consists of short-range planning and management activities 

and projects for improving coordination among public transportation and other transportation service 

providers.

30 the National Center on Senior 

Transportation,31 the National Rural Transit Assistance Program,32 and 

the Joblinks Program33

 

30Easter Seals Project ACTION’s mission is to promote universal access to transportation 

for people with disabilities under federal law and beyond by partnering with transportation 

providers, the disability community, and others through the provision of training, technical 

assistance, applied research, outreach, and communication. Project ACTION is funded 

through a cooperative agreement with FTA. According to FTA, Easter Seals Project 

ACTION is instrumental in fostering mobility management techniques. 

(in cooperation with DOL), among other efforts, to 

31The National Center on Senior Transportation’s mission is to increase transportation 

options for older adults and enhance their ability to live more independently within their 

communities throughout the United States. The center is funded through a cooperative 

agreement with FTA.

32The National Rural Transit Assistance Program’s mission is to address the needs of 

rural, small urban, and tribal transit operators across the nation. The program is funded 

through a cooperative agreement with FTA.

33Joblinks focuses on the mobility needs of low-wage job seekers and earners, as well as 

workers with disabilities, youth, veterans, and older workers and works to connect 

workforce development agencies, transportation providers, and other stakeholders with 

transportation-to-work solutions that are affordable, reliable, and accessible. Joblinks 

activities are funded by FTA and DOL. According to FTA, the Joblinks Employment 

Resource Center developed a One Call-One Click toolkit with resources for communities 

and states interested in developing a One Call-One Click Transportation Center, which 

has helped to support coordinated transportation for transit-dependent populations. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

support coordinated transportation and mobility management at the state 

and local levels. FTA and DOL also provided funding to the National 

Council of State Legislatures to study and report on state transportation 

coordination strategies.34

Some agency programs we reviewed require or encourage their grantees 

to coordinate transportation services through regulations, guidance, or 

agency initiatives. For example, DOT’s Job Access and Reverse 

Commute, New Freedom, and Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 

Disabilities programs require grantees to coordinate their transportation 

services and establish locally developed, coordinated public transithuman services transportation plans.35 Similarly, HHS’s Head Start 

program issued regulations in 2001 requiring its grantees to participate in 

coordinated planning processes, when possible.36 In addition, some 

programs have provided guidance to their grantees to encourage 

transportation coordination. For example, in 2012, DOL’s Employment 

and Training Administration developed and disseminated a Training and 

Employment Notice encouraging state workforce agencies and One-Stop 

Career Centers to participate in local human services transportation 

coordination planning.37

 

34National Conference of State Legislatures, State Human Service Transportation 

Coordinating Councils: An Overview and State Profiles (Denver, Colo., April 2010).

In addition, the Veterans Health Administration 

has a new initiative under way, the Veterans Transportation Service, to 

help veterans access transportation resources to obtain care by 

35DOT issued guidance requiring the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated 

public transit-human services transportation plan for all FTA human service transportation 

program grants, effective in 2007. See Job Access and Reverse Commute Program: FTA 

C 9050.1, New Freedom Program: FTA C 9045.1, Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 

Disabilities Program: FTA C 9070.1. FTA verifies the existence of a coordinated plan but 

does not evaluate the plans. In addition, DOT issued guidance that defined and made 

mobility management activities eligible as a capital expense under all FTA formula 

programs, while permitting other non-DOT federal funds to be used as matches for FTA 

human service transportation grant programs. FTA’s planning programs (5305(e) and (f)) 

can also be used to support the coordinated planning effort. According to FTA, this adds 

significant resources for data collection, forecasting, and transit market analysis of the 

mobility needs of transportation-disadvantaged individuals. Planning is an eligible activity 

under Section 5307.

3666 Fed. Reg. 5296 (Jan. 18, 2001).

37Training and Employment Notice No. 21-11 (Jan. 3, 2012). DOL also developed and 

disseminated a Training and Employment Notice to the public workforce system on human 

services transportation coordination in 2007. See Training and Employment Notice No. 

36-06 (June 21, 2007).
 

Page 17 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

improving resource coordination with other community transportation 

service providers.38

Although some agencies have coordination efforts under way, there are 

still several challenges to federal interagency coordination efforts 

including a recent lack of activity at the leadership level of the 

Coordinating Council and the absence of key guidance documents for 

furthering agency coordination efforts. The Secretary-level leaders of the 

11 Coordinating Council members have not met since 2008, and the 

Executive Council designees have not met since 2007. According to 

some agency officials, this lack of direction and visible activity on 

coordination from agency leaders contributes to a lack of buy-in from 

federal program officials, which may affect how program coordination is 

treated at the state and local levels. For example, some agency officials 

told us that direction and formal buy-in at the executive level is needed for 

improvements in coordination to occur. While presidential executive 

orders remain in effect from one administration to the next unless they are 

revised or rescinded, some agency officials said it was unclear whether 

the 2004 executive order outlining federal coordination efforts effectively 

translated from one administration to the next. Some officials attributed 

this uncertainty to explain why the Coordinating Council’s activity level 

has decreased since 2008.

Key guidance documents, including those discussed below, for furthering 

agency coordination are absent or incomplete, hindering federal 

coordination efforts.39

 

38The Veterans Health Administration also issued an information letter in 2007 to VA 

medical centers to coordinate transportation services with their local community and other 

federal agencies, including allowing excess capacity VA transportation services to be used 

by other federal agencies provided there are agreements in place for reimbursement. See 

IL 10-2007-006 (Mar. 2, 2007).

39In March 2011, we identified several actions that federal departments on the 

Coordinating Council should undertake to promote federal coordination and reduce the 

potential for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, which include developing and 

disseminating additional policies and grantee guidance for coordinating transportation 

services, such as a cost-sharing policy. See GAO-11-318SP. In February 2012, we 

reported that most of the federal departments on the Coordinating Council that we 

reviewed had not yet addressed these actions. See GAO-12-453SP. 

Key Challenges in 

Coordination Efforts
 

Page 18 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

• Strategic plan: The Coordinating Council lacks a strategic plan that 

identifies agency roles and responsibilities, measurable outcomes, or 

required follow-up. According to agency officials, the Coordinating 

Council is drafting a strategic plan, but officials were unable to provide 

an estimate for when the plan might be finalized.40 As previously 

discussed, the executive order contained reporting and 

recommendation requirements, resulting in the 2005 Report to the 

President and the 2007 Progress Report. However, since those 

reports, no other guidance document has been created, or is required,

to report on actions taken or to plan additional actions. We have 

previously reported that defining and articulating a common outcome, 

agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities, and reinforcing agency 

accountability through agency plans and reports are important 

elements for agencies to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts.41

Further, we have reported that federal agencies engaged in 

collaborative efforts need to create the means to monitor, evaluate, 

and report on their efforts to enable them to identify areas for 

improvement. There are several practices involved in strategic 

planning that could be useful to help the Council determine and 

communicate its long-term goals and objectives.42

• Cost-sharing policy: A joint cost-sharing policy has not been endorsed 

by all Coordinating Council members, even though development of a 

cost allocation policy was one of the recommendations of the 

 However, without 

a plan to help reinforce agency goals and responsibilities, the 

Coordinating Council may be hampered in articulating a strategy to 

help strengthen interagency collaboration and lack the elements 

needed to remain a viable interagency effort.

 

40The 2010 United We Ride National Dialogue was held to help shape future policy 

direction and provide input into the strategic plan. See National Academy of Public 

Administration, A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for 

the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility: The United We 

Ride National Dialogue (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2010).

41See GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 

Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 

2005).

42See GAO, Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate 

Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: 1997) and GAO, Executive 

Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: 1996).
 

Page 19 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Coordinating Council in its 2005 Report to the President.43 According 

to the 2005 report, a major obstacle to sharing transportation 

resources has been the difficulty of reaching agreements at the local 

level about the appropriate allocation of costs to each agency.

Federal, state, and local agency officials that we spoke with noted that 

this continues to be a significant impediment. Further, as part of a 

discussion hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration 

in 2009, which brought together key stakeholders to discuss ways to 

improve access to reliable transportation for the transportation 

disadvantaged, explicit and clear guidance for cost sharing was said 

to be needed in order to address significant federal policy barriers to 

coordination.44

• Coordinated transportation planning: Coordinating Council members 

pledged to take actions to accomplish federal program grantee 

participation in locally developed, coordinated planning processes as 

part of their 2006 Coordinated Human Service Transportation 

Planning Policy Statement, but it is unclear if the Coordinating 

Council’s members have consistently followed through on their 2006 

pledge. According to the Coordinating Council’s 2006 policy 

statement, federal grantees’ participation in their local human services 

transportation planning process is necessary to reduce duplication of 

services, increase service efficiency, and expand access for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, the discussion 

hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2009 

indicated that the process for creating coordinated transportation 

plans continues to need improvement and recommended that 

Coordinating Council members with grant programs create incentives 

for their grantees to participate in coordinated planning at the state 

and local levels.45

 

43According to FTA, while a final federal cost-sharing policy has not been issued, FTA 

funded a Transit Cooperative Research Program study which aims to provide guidance for 

state and local agencies to begin sharing costs with partners. However, this report has not 

been endorsed by all member agencies of the Coordinating Council. See Transportation 

Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Sharing the Costs of Human 

Services Transportation (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 

According to participants, while the Coordinating 

Council has issued a joint policy on coordinated planning, challenges 

remain to fully engage agencies that are not funded by DOT in the 

44National Academy of Public Administration, The United We Ride National Dialogue. 

45National Academy of Public Administration, The United We Ride National Dialogue. 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

planning process at the local levels. DOT’s FTA is the only agency 

that has adopted a coordinated human services transportation 

planning requirement, which has resulted in broadened participation in 

the transportation planning processes.

Coordination of services is also challenging due to differences in federal 

program requirements and perceived regulatory or statutory barriers, 

according to officials. For example, coordinated planning is generally only 

a requirement for FTA-funded human service transportation programs, 

and while a handful of programs may encourage coordination, other 

federal program rules are unclear about coordination of transportation 

services between programs. Also, programs may have perceived or 

actual statutory or regulatory barriers related to sharing costs, or have 

differences in service requirements and eligibility. For example, HHS’s 

Medicaid program is the largest source of federal funds for 

nonemergency medical transportation for qualified low-income 

beneficiaries;46 however, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

(CMS) officials expressed concern about coordinating transportation 

services due to concerns about commingling federal program funds47 and 

the potential for fraud.48 CMS has issued rules that allow states to 

contract with one or more transportation brokers to manage their 

Medicaid transportation to, among other things, reduce costs.49

 

46Under 42 C.F.R. § 431.53, states are required in their state plans to ensure necessary 

transportation of Medicaid beneficiaries to and from medical providers. Expenditures for 

transportation may be claimed as administrative costs, or a state may elect to include 

transportation as a medical benefit under its state Medicaid plan.

However, 

these rules could result in fragmented transportation services at the state 

47CMS officials trace their concern to restrictions against the use of Medicaid funds for 

purposes other than to deliver medical services to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries, which 

they argue is implemented by CMS’s regulations and policy. Further, according to CMS 

officials, federal Medicaid funding must be matched by nonfederal funding unless there is 

express authority under federal law for other federal funds to be used for purposes of the 

nonfederal Medicaid matching share.

48The Medicaid program is on GAO’s High-Risk List, in part because of improper 

payments submitted by providers for ineligible claims. See GAO, High-Risk Series, an 

Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2011).

49HHS issued regulations (42 C.F.R. § 440.170(a)(4)) that permit states to establish, 

under the state plan, a nonemergency medical transportation brokerage program. Under 

such a program, the state contracts with one or more brokers to manage the provision of 

nonemergency medical transportation services for beneficiaries who need transportation 

to or from medical providers. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

and local levels because some brokers transport only Medicaid-eligible 

beneficiaries, and may not coordinate their transportation services with 

other programs. In another example, VA officials explained that VA only 

has the authority to provide transportation at the agency’s expense to 

certain qualifying veterans and nonveterans in relation to VA health care, 

but has no legal authority to transport nonbeneficiaries.

State and local officials in the five states we selected used a variety of 

coordinated planning and service efforts to serve the transportation 

disadvantaged. One way that states facilitate coordination efforts is 

through statewide coordinating bodies—some created by legislative 

actions and others by executive order or initiative—to oversee the 

implementation of coordinated transportation for transportationdisadvantaged populations in their states. State coordinating bodies can 

help to facilitate collaboration between federal, state, and local agencies 

by providing a venue for agencies to discuss and resolve transportation 

issues to better coordinate transportation activities related to the provision 

of human services and enhance services for transportationdisadvantaged populations. Three of the five states we selected had state 

coordinating bodies in 2010.50

 

50In 2010, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that about half of the 

states in the United States have created state coordinating councils. We did not verify the 

accuracy of this number but verified that three of our five selected states—Florida, 

Washington, and Wisconsin— did have a coordinating council in 2010; Texas and Virginia 

did not. See National Conference of State Legislatures, State Human Service 

Transportation Coordinating Councils: An Overview and State Profiles (Denver, Colo.: 

Apr. 2010). According to this report, many state coordinating councils were created as a 

result of the United We Ride initiative to improve coordination of human services 

transportation activities. 

In addition to state coordinating councils, 

State and Local 

Efforts Include 

Transportation 

Planning and Service 

Coordination, but 

Challenges Continue

State and Local 

Transportation 

Coordination Efforts
 

Page 22 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

efforts include regional and local planning, one-call centers, mobility 

managers, and vehicle sharing (see table 3). 

Table 3: Types of State and Local Transportation Coordination Efforts

Coordination activity Description

State coordinating council Several states have created statewide coordinating bodies to oversee the implementation of 

coordinated transportation for the transportation disadvantaged in their states. For example, Florida has 

created a Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged that partners with a number of state, local, 

and private transportation and human services entities to coordinate transportation services for the 

state’s transportation disadvantaged. According to a 2008 Florida State University study, each dollar 

invested in transportation-disadvantaged program trips throughout the state in 2007 generated benefits 

of $8.35.a

Regional and local planning 

Based on these figures, the study concluded that the estimated benefits of providing 

coordinated trips for transportation-disadvantaged programs outweighed their costs. 

With regional and local planning, some combination of human service and transportation agencies and 

providers work together to plan transportation services for their clients. For example, Texas encourages 

its 24 regions, each with a lead agency, to develop regional plans for transportation coordination, in an 

effort to ensure that the state’s public transportation resources benefits are maximized. Representation 

on the regional planning councils includes regional transportation planners, public transportation and 

health and human services agencies, transportation providers, and local government officials.

One-call center One-call centers support human service and other specialized transportation services by providing 

program information such as service characteristics, eligibility criteria, and referrals for appropriate 

service providers. For example, a regional planning commission in Virginia operates a one-call center 

that provides clients with information on the public, private, and volunteer transportation options 

available in the region. According to officials, in addition to providing information on transportation 

options, the one-call center also provides referral services for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations.

Mobility manager Mobility managers can serve as policy coordinators, operations service brokers, and customer travel 

navigators.b

Vehicle sharing

For example, Wisconsin currently has about 52 mobility managers serving its counties and 

tribes. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation developed a mobility manager training program 

and pilot using United We Ride/New Freedom grant funding. While funding for this effort has been 

discontinued, mobility managers in Wisconsin have formed a Wisconsin Association of Mobility 

Managers, which now holds monthly meetings to discuss their work. According to officials, mobility 

managers in Wisconsin have made a positive impact on transportation coordination in the state. 

With vehicle sharing, one agency may provide transportation for clients of multiple programs, or each 

program may own its own vehicles but allow them to be used by other programs. For example, in 

Washington, Mason County Transit and the Superintendent of Schools coordinated so that school 

buses could be used as transit buses after school hours. According to an official with whom we spoke, 

this coordination began with a transportation need—and the transit agency and education system 

worked together to address that need.

Other Other coordination activities include outreach efforts and continued improvement in communications. 

For example, in Washington, local outreach efforts serve pockets of unmet transportation needs among 

minority and Native American populations and also help different programs work together. In rural 

communities in particular, special outreach is used to help make people aware of the program services 

for which they qualify. Similarly, communities and service providers are invited to discussions about 

available services, eligibility, and how to apply for services.

Source: GAO analysis of interviews with officials from selected states.

a

The Marketing Institute, Florida State University College of Business, Florida Transportation 

Disadvantaged Programs: Return on Investment Study (Mar. 2008).
 

Page 23 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

b

As policy coordinators, mobility managers may help communities develop coordination plans, 

programs, and policies, and build local partnerships. As brokers, they coordinate transportation 

services among all customer groups, service providers, and funding agencies. As travel navigators, 

mobility managers work with human services agencies and workforce centers that coordinate clients’ 

travel and trip planning needs.

Several state and local agency officials said that federal requirements for 

the establishment of locally developed, coordinated public transit-human 

services transportation plans for FTA’s human service transportation 

programs have had a positive impact on transportation coordination in 

their state. According to officials, these planning efforts help to bring 

relevant stakeholders to the table to discuss needs for the transportation 

disadvantaged and to resolve problems. For example, in Virginia, the 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation has taken the lead in 

implementing this requirement, assisting 21 planning district commissions 

to formulate human services transportation coordination plans for their 

districts, and formulating a statewide plan which draws from these local 

plans. According to officials of a regional planning commission in Virginia, 

transportation coordination in the state would not be at the same point it is 

currently without these requirements. These officials said that the federal 

requirements created one place for people to come together to learn what 

programs are available, raise awareness, and avoid duplication. Also, a 

Virginia Regional Transit official told us that the increased communication 

among agencies due to coordinated planning efforts made it possible for 

providers to transport more people, including those who were not 

currently being served, thus opening access to larger and broader groups 

of people.

State and local entities’ efforts to coordinate services for the 

transportation disadvantaged are not without challenges. According to 

officials, challenges include insufficient federal leadership, changes to 

state legislation and policies, and limited financial resources in the face of 

growing unmet needs.

Several state and local officials told us that there is not sufficient federal 

leadership and guidance on how to coordinate transportation services for 

the transportation disadvantaged and that varying federal program 

requirements may hinder coordination of transportation services. State 

and local officials in four out of the five states we selected said that with 

the exception of DOT, other federal agencies were not actively 

encouraging transportation coordination. For example, Texas Department 

of Transportation officials told us there is a disconnect between human 

services and transportation agencies and that the general perception is 

Challenges to State and 

Local Efforts

Insufficient federal leadership
 

Page 24 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

that other human services programs, such as some of those funded by 

HHS, are exempt from coordination. These officials also said that federal 

leadership is needed to promote buy-in for transportation coordination 

among human services agencies and transportation agencies at the state 

level.

Officials in each of the five states that we selected said that the federal 

government could provide state and local entities with improved guidance 

on transportation coordination—especially as it relates to instructions on 

how to share costs across programs (i.e., determining what portion of a 

trip should be paid by whom). State and local officials in Virginia, Texas, 

and Washington identified a fear of losing federal funding if they 

improperly shared funding with other federal programs. These officials 

said that federal cost-sharing guidance would help facilitate transportation 

coordination between programs. Further, state Medicaid officials said that 

their main priority is to make sure they are following Medicaid 

requirements, and some officials expressed concerns about their ability to 

ensure Medicaid funds are being appropriately spent and properly 

accounted for if they coordinated with other programs. For example, 

Medicaid officials in one state said that they would need to obtain 

approval from CMS before adopting any cost-sharing strategies with other 

programs to ensure the appropriateness of their state program’s 

expenditures. When we spoke with CMS officials, they told us that CMS is 

not opposed to coordinating transportation services; however, the agency 

does have concerns that coordination would result in Medicaid funds 

being improperly commingled with other federal program funds. 

Several state and local officials said that varying federal government 

program requirements may hinder the provision of transportation services 

and act as barriers to coordination. A regional planning official in 

Washington told us that varying program requirements may discourage 

transportation coordination as one program’s requirements may not be 

suitable for another program’s clients. For example, if two different 

program clients were to share school vehicles for special needs 

populations, each program might have a separate set of rules and 

requirements. Determining whether drivers meet drug and alcohol testing 

requirements for both programs could be a challenge, according to this 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

official.51 Similarly, an official from the Florida Department of 

Transportation told us that the federal government could do more to 

identify standards and requirements that act as barriers to coordination. In 

Wisconsin, a Department of Transportation study found that key 

challenges to coordinating transportation services in the state include 

program regulations or requirements that impede coordination, including 

different guidance and restrictions on how federal funding could be 

spent.52

Officials we interviewed in four states identified recent changes in state 

legislation or state policies as potential challenges to coordinating 

services for the transportation disadvantaged in their states. According to 

these officials, such changes have caused some uncertainty in their 

efforts to coordinate human services transportation in the future. For 

example, some state coordinating bodies’ authority has not been renewed 

or is about to expire:

 

• Executive order not renewed: In Wisconsin, the governor charged a 

group of individuals from a number of state agencies to form a state 

coordinating council in 2005—the Interagency Council on 

Transportation Coordination (ICTC).53

 

51A 2011 report prepared for the Washington state legislature found that some of the most 

significant barriers to coordinating or sharing trips between programs providing 

transportation stem from differences in federal regulations, especially as they relate to 

sharing costs between programs. See Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation, 

Final Report of the Federal Opportunities Workgroup (Olympia, Wash.: 2011).

In addition to sponsoring a 

statewide coordination conference in 2007, ICTC contracted with a 

national consultant to develop a Wisconsin Model of Coordination with 

implementation strategies. Intended outcomes of this model included 

increasing the quantity and quality of existing transportation 

resources, supporting and encouraging local coordination efforts, and 

improving transportation service for users. However, due to a 

downturn in the economy and a change in the state’s administration 

after the model’s completion, its findings were not implemented. 

52Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Human Service Transportation 

Coordination Model (July 2008).

53ICTC’s membership consists of the Wisconsin Departments of Transportation, Health 

Services, Veterans Affairs, Workforce Development, and the Office of the Commissioner 

of Insurance. In addition, ICTC has a multimember Stakeholder Advisory Committee 

(SAC) which consists of transportation consumers, advocates, providers, and partners 

who advise ICTC on statewide transportation needs and coordination opportunities. 

Changes to state legislation and 

policies
 

Page 26 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Because the new administration did not renew the executive order 

establishing ICTC’s authority, ICTC has been inactive since January 

2011.

• Enabling legislation to expire: In Washington, the state legislature 

created the Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT) in 

1998 to coordinate with state and local agencies and organizations to 

provide affordable and accessible transportation choices for the 

transportation disadvantaged.54

In some states, officials were uncertain about how recent developments 

may affect their state Medicaid program’s participation in state and local 

efforts to coordinate transportation services for the transportation 

disadvantaged. For example, in an effort to control program costs, state 

legislation was signed into law in Florida in June 2011 that moves the 

responsibility for Medicaid nonemergency medical transportation from the 

coordinated transportation system run by the Florida Commission for the 

Transportation Disadvantaged to a private managed care system. An 

official with the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 

said that it is not known whether the managed care system will choose to 

operate within the state’s coordinated transportation system or contract 

with private transportation brokers outside of the coordinated system, 

Over the years, ACCT has facilitated 

coordination by helping to form transportation coalitions that include 

human services representatives, transit services, and community 

transportation providers. These coalitions plan regional public 

transportation, evaluate and prioritize project proposals, and 

implement local coordination strategies. However, enabling legislation 

for ACCT expires in June 2012 and officials do not expect the 

legislation to be renewed.

 

54ACCT’s membership consists of 14 voting members and four nonvoting members.

Voting members include representatives from four state agencies—including the 

Departments of Public Instruction, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and the Washington 

Health Care Authority. Ten governor-appointed members serve 2-year terms and include 

a representative from the Office of the Governor, a representative appointed by the 

Governor’s Committee on Disability Issues and Employment, a representative appointed 

by the Developmental Disabilities Council, an at-large consumer of special needs 

transportation, and representatives from the Washington Association of Pupil 

Transportation, the Washington State Transit Association, the Community Transportation 

Association of the Northwest or the Community Action Council Association, regional 

transportation planning organizations/metropolitan planning organizations, nonemergency 

medical transportation brokers, and the Washington State Association of Counties. The 

ACCT Council also consists of four nonvoting legislative members. 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

which could result in duplication of transportation services. Similarly, 

officials in Texas and Wisconsin told us that, in an effort to control costs, 

their state Medicaid program is moving to a transportation brokerage 

system.55

A number of state and local officials in our five selected states told us that 

limited financial resources and growing unmet needs were challenges for 

them. In Texas, state and local officials told us that although it is believed 

that coordination will save costs in the mid- to long-term, state budgets 

are being reduced in transit and social services agencies, as well as in 

municipal programs and nonprofit organizations. According to these 

officials, some agencies and their potential partners find it difficult to come 

up with funding, even when it is a modest local match for grants.

Similarly, state and local officials in Virginia told us that state and local 

match requirements may preclude some entities from applying for federal 

funds. State and local officials also mentioned that limited financial 

resources often promote turf battles—or a mistrust and unwillingness to 

share resources for fear of losing control of them. Conversely, some 

officials told us that limited resources were an incentive to coordinate 

because coordination made the best use of limited resources. 

According to some state and local officials, these brokers 

typically only transport Medicaid-eligible clients and do not often 

coordinate their transportation services with other federally funded 

programs. CMS maintains that their brokerage rule does not preclude 

state Medicaid agencies from coordinating transportation services, as 

long as they comply with all applicable Medicaid policies and rules and 

ensure that Medicaid funds are only used for Medicaid services provided 

to eligible beneficiaries.

In the face of limited financial resources, state and local officials are also 

concerned about growing disadvantaged populations and unmet needs—

both now and in the future. As part of the discussion hosted by the 

National Academy of Public Administration in 2009, participants identified 

continuing transportation gaps in programs across the federal 

government.56

 

55As previously mentioned, CMS has provided states with the authority to establish 

nonemergency medical transportation brokerage programs in which the state contracts 

with one or more brokers to manage the provision of transportation services for eligible 

beneficiaries.

Several state and local officials that we spoke with also 

56National Academy of Public Administration, United We Ride National Dialogue. 

Limited financial resources and 

growing unmet needs
 

Page 28 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

expressed concern about their ability to adequately address expected 

growth in elderly, disabled, low-income, and rural populations. A local 

transit agency official in Virginia, for example, told us that there is a great 

need for transportation services for the elderly and disabled and that the 

need is increasing. This agency official questioned whether transportation 

providers will have adequate funding and resources to meet this growing 

demand. In a presentation before the state Senate in 2011, Florida’s 

Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged reported that, 

statewide, 3.75 million trips had been denied to passengers in the 

coordinated transportation system during the past 5 years due to a lack of 

funding or for other reasons. Nevertheless, the commission expects the 

state’s transportation-disadvantaged population to undergo steady growth 

over the next decade. In addition, a number of state and local entities 

were concerned about populations in rural areas—primarily because 

public transportation availability was limited in these areas.

The Coordinating Council was created to, among other things, promote 

interagency cooperation and minimize duplication and overlap of federal 

programs providing transportation services to transportationdisadvantaged populations. While some member agencies, including 

DOT, have remained active in pursuing these goals, sustained 

interagency activity through the Coordinating Council has lost momentum 

in recent years. The 11 Coordinating Council members have not met 

since 2008 and the Executive Council designees have not met since 

2007. According to some federal officials, this lack of leadership at the 

Coordinating Council poses challenges to federal-, state-, and local-level 

coordination efforts.

Further, the Coordinating Council has been operating without a strategic 

plan to help determine and communicate its long-term goals and 

objectives. While Executive Order 13330 spurred Coordinating Council 

activity beginning in 2004, sustained agency commitment has proved 

challenging. We have previously reported that articulating a common 

outcome, agreeing on agency roles and responsibilities, and reinforcing 

agency accountability through agency plans and reports are important 

elements for agencies to sustain and improve collaborative efforts. A 

collaborative interagency strategic planning effort could help to provide 

the direction and momentum the Coordinating Council needs at this time.

Finally, we have previously reported that federal agencies engaged in 

collaborative efforts need to create the means to monitor, evaluate, and 

report on their efforts to enable them to identify areas for improvement. It 

Conclusions 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

is difficult to fully assess activities of the Coordinating Council, in part, 

because the council has not reported on its activities or reported on 

progress implementing its own recommendations since 2007. At that 

time, the Coordinating Council reported that it was working to establish 

cost-sharing principles for transportation coordination that federal human 

service and transportation agencies could endorse; however, we found 

that the council had not accomplished this goal as of June 2012. Also in 

2007, the council reported it had issued a policy statement encouraging 

federally assisted grantees involved in human services transportation to 

participate in local coordination planning processes. As part of that policy 

statement, members of the Coordinating Council agreed to take action to 

implement the policy within 6 months of council adoption; however, it is 

unclear what implementation actions agencies have taken to date.

Despite recent actions that some agencies have taken to encourage 

coordination and provide technical assistance, without any means to 

monitor, evaluate, or report on interagency efforts, the Coordinating 

Council may face barriers to identifying areas for improvement and 

pursuing its goal of improving transportation services for transportationdisadvantaged populations.

To promote and enhance federal, state, and local coordination activities, 

we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation, as the chair of the 

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and the Secretaries of the 

Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, 

Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, 

as member agencies of the Coordinating Council, should meet and take 

the following actions:

• Complete and publish a strategic plan for the Coordinating Council, 

which should, among other things, clearly outline agency roles and 

responsibilities and articulate a strategy to help strengthen 

interagency collaboration and communication.

• Report on the progress of Coordinating Council recommendations 

made as part of its 2005 Report to the President on Implementation of 

Executive Order 13330 and develop a plan to address any 

outstanding recommendations, including the development of a costsharing policy endorsed by the Coordinating Council and the actions 

taken by member agencies to increase federal program grantee 

participation in locally developed, coordinated planning processes.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 30 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

We provided USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, Interior, DOL, DOT, and VA 

with a draft of this report for their review and comment. In commenting on 

a draft of this report, Education and VA generally agreed with our 

conclusions and recommendations. Education also provided technical 

and written comments, which appear in appendix III. HHS, HUD, and 

DOT neither agreed nor disagreed with the report and provided technical 

comments. In their technical comments, DOT officials stated that, as chair 

of the Coordinating Council, they have been working with the council to 

refocus its efforts away from policy discussions to the coordination of onthe-ground services, such as through the Veterans Transportation and 

Community Living Initiative Grant Program, which is discussed in this 

report. USDA, Interior, and DOL did not comment on our report. We 

incorporated the technical and clarifying comments that we received from 

the agencies, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, 

Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. We also will make copies available 

to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no 

charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

David Wise at 202-512-2834 or WiseD@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. 

David J. Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

To identify federal programs that provide funding for transportation 

services for the transportation disadvantaged, we examined prior GAO 

work on the topic, conducted an online search of the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance, and requested program information from federal 

agency officials for the programs identified. We included only federal 

programs that provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface transportation 

services of any kind, targeted to transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. We then asked program administrators to review and verify 

the programs identified and the program information collected, including 

the general target population, types of transportation services and trips 

typically provided, and program spending on transportation services in 

fiscal year 2010. We supplemented and modified the inventory based on 

this information. In addition, we reviewed the relevant federal laws 

governing these programs including their popular title or original source of 

program legislation and U.S. Code or other provision cited as authorizing 

transportation.

To determine what federal coordination efforts have taken place since we 

last fully reported on this issue in 20031 and what challenges remain, we 

conducted interviews with program officials from eight federal agencies—

the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, 

Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and 

Veterans Affairs—and reviewed relevant documentation provided by 

agency officials. We chose these agencies because they administered 

programs that were authorized to provide funding for transportation 

services for the transportation disadvantaged in fiscal year 2010 and were 

identified by executive order2 to participate in coordination. We also 

interviewed officials from the National Resource Center for Human 

Service Transportation Coordination and interviewed or corresponded 

with transportation researchers and representatives from relevant industry 

and advocacy groups, including the following:

 

1

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).

2

Human Service Transportation Coordination, Exec. Order No. 13330 (February 24, 

2004). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

• American Public Transportation Association

• Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• Easter Seals Project ACTION

• National Conference of State Legislatures

• Westat

To identify the types of coordination that have occurred at the state and 

local levels, we conducted interviews with state and local officials from 

five states—Florida, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. We 

based our selection of these states on a variety of characteristics, 

including size of target populations per state, geographic diversity, 

existence of a state coordinating body, and states deemed notable for 

their transportation coordination efforts. As part of our state and local 

interviews, we spoke with officials from state and local human services 

and transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, 

transportation providers, interest and advocacy groups, and others and 

reviewed relevant documentation. Because we used a nongeneralizable 

sample of states, our findings cannot be used to make inferences about 

other states. However, we determined that the selection of these states 

was appropriate for our design and objectives and that the selection 

would generate valid and reliable evidence to support our work. Table 4 

provides more detailed information about the state and local entities we 

interviewed.

Table 4: State and Local Interviews

State Organization Description

Florida Capital Region Transportation 

Planning Agency

Metropolitan planning 

organization

Commission for the Transportation 

Disadvantaged

State coordinating council

Florida Agency for Health Care 

Administration

State human services agency

Florida Agency for Persons with 

Disabilities

State human services agency

Florida Department of Children and 

Families

State human services agency

Florida Department of Economic 

Opportunity

State human services agency
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

State Organization Description

Florida Department of Elder Affairs State human services agency

Florida Department of Transportation State transportation agency

StarMetro Transportation provider

Texas Capital Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization

Metropolitan planning 

organization

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Transportation provider

North Central Texas Council of 

Governments

Metropolitan planning 

organization

Texas Department of Aging and 

Disability Services

State human services agency

Texas Department of Assistive and 

Rehabilitative Services

State human services agency

Texas Health and Human Services 

Commission

State human services agency

Texas Department of Transportation State transportation agency

Texas Veterans Commission State human services agency

Virginia Virginia Regional Transit Transportation provider

Virginia Department of Medical 

Assistance Services 

State human services agency

Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation

State transportation agency

Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional 

Commission

Regional planning organization

Washington Agency Council on Coordinated 

Transportation, Washington 

Department of Transportation

State coordinating council

Alliance of People with Disabilities Advocates for the needs of 

clients

Hopelink Transportation provider

Thurston Regional Planning Council Regional planning organization

Washington Department of Veterans 

Affairs 

State human services agency

Washington Health Care Authority State human services agency

Wisconsin Dane County, Department of Human 

Services 

Local human services agency

Greater Wisconsin Agency on Aging 

Resources

Advocates for the needs of its 

clients

Madison Area Transportation Planning 

Board 

Metropolitan planning 

organization

Wisconsin Association of Mobility 

Managers

Advocates for the needs of its 

members
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

State Organization Description

Wisconsin Department of Health 

Services, Medicaid

State human services agency

Wisconsin Department of Health 

Services, Office on Aging

State human services agency

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation

State transportation agency

Wisconsin Department of Workforce 

Development

State human services agency

Wisconsin Urban and Rural Transit 

Association

Advocates for the needs of its 

members

Source: GAO.

We also interviewed the appropriate United We Ride Regional 

Ambassadors for each state. In addition, we reviewed relevant literature 

and prior GAO and Congressional Research Service reports, as 

appropriate.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to June 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 35 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

Department of Agriculture 

a

 

10.551 Supplemental 

Nutrition 

Assistance 

Program, 

Employment and 

Training Program

Food Stamp Act 

of 1977 

7 U.S.C.

§ 2015(d)(4)(I)(i) (I) 

Reimbursement 

or advanced 

payment for 

gasoline 

expenses or 

bus fare 

To access 

education- and 

employmentrelated 

services

Low-income 

persons between 

the ages of 16 

and 59 

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

10.766 Community 

Facilities Loans 

and Grants

Consolidated 

Farm and Rural 

Development 

Act of 1972

7 U.S.C. § 1926 Purchase of 

vehicles

Routine 

medical 

appointments, 

shopping, 

entertainment, 

etc.

People who are 

disabled, senior 

citizens, and lowincome persons

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Department of Education 

84.027 Special 

Education Grants 

to States

Individuals with 

Disabilities 

Education Act

20 U.S.C.

§§ 1411(a)(1) and 

1401(26)

School district 

bus 

expenditures 

and other 

modes of 

transportation, 

including 

wheelchairaccessible vans

To access 

school and 

special 

education and 

related 

services

Children with 

disabilities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.126 State Vocational 

Rehabilitation 

Services 

Program 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 

29 U.S.C.

§ 723(a)(8) 

Transit 

subsidies for 

public and 

private 

transportation, 

training in the 

use of public 

transportation

To access 

vocational 

rehabilitation 

services

People with 

disabilities

$81,000,000b

84.132

(estimate)

Centers for 

Independent 

Living 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 

29 U.S.C.

§§ 796f-4(b)(2) and 

705(18)(xi) 

Transit 

subsidies for 

public and 

private 

transportation, 

training in the 

use of public 

transportation

To access 

program 

services

Individuals with

significant

disabilities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 36 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

84.169

a

Independent 

Living State 

Grants 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 

29 U.S.C.

§§ 796e-2(1) and 

705(18)(xi) 

Transit 

subsidies for 

public and 

private 

transportation, 

training in the 

use of public 

transportation

To access 

program 

services

Individuals with 

significant 

disabilities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.173 Special 

Education 

Preschool Grants

Individuals with 

Disabilities 

Education Act

20 U.S.C. 

§§1419(a) and 

1401(26)

School district 

bus 

expenditures 

and other 

modes of 

transportation, 

including 

wheelchair 

accessible vans

To access 

programs and 

special 

education 

services 

Children with 

disabilities ages 

3-5 

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.177 Independent 

Living Services 

for Older 

Individuals Who 

Are Blind 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 

29 U.S.C.

§ 796k(e)(5) 

Transit 

subsidies for 

public and 

private 

transportation,

training in the 

use of public 

transportation

To access 

program 

services

Individuals who 

are blind and age 

55 or older

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.181 Special 

Education-Grants 

for Infants and 

Toddlers

Individuals with 

Disabilities 

Education Act

20 U.S.C. §§1433 

and 1432(4)(E)(xiv)

Various modes 

of 

transportation, 

including 

wheelchair 

accessible vans

To access 

program 

services such 

as screening 

and early 

intervention 

services

Infants and 

toddlers with 

disabilities or at 

risk, in need of 

early intervention 

services

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.187 Supported 

Employment 

Services for 

Individuals with 

Most Significant 

Disabilities 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 

29 U.S.C.

§§ 795g and 

705(36) 

Transit 

subsidies for 

public and 

private 

transportation, 

training in the 

use of public 

transportation

To access 

work, training, 

and vocational 

rehabilitation 

services

People with the 

most significant 

disabilities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.196 Education for 

Homeless 

Children and 

Youth

McKinney-Vento 

Homeless 

Assistance Act 

42 U.S.C.

§ 11433(d)(5) 

Student 

transportation to 

school of origin

To access 

educational 

services and 

programs 

Homeless 

students

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 37 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

84.250

a

Rehabilitation 

Services 

American Indians 

with Disabilities 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 

29 U.S.C.

§§ 741(a) and 

(b)(1)(B) and 

723(a)(8) 

Vouchers for 

transportation 

services (e.g. 

fuel and taxi 

vouchers) and 

training in the 

use of 

transportation

To access 

vocational 

rehabilitation 

services

American Indians 

with disabilities 

who live on or 

near reservations 

served by the 

projects

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.287 21st-Century 

Community 

Learning Centers 

Elementary and 

Secondary 

Education Act of 

1965

20 U.S.C.

§ 7173(a)(10) 

Student 

transportation

To access 

educational 

services and 

programs 

Students in 

underserved 

communities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

84.361 Voluntary Public 

School Choice 

Elementary and 

Secondary 

Education Act of 

1965

20 U.S.C.

§ 7225a(a) 

Lease and 

operate 

vehicles, hire 

bus drivers, and 

reimburse 

partnering 

school districts 

for 

transportation

To access 

educational 

services and 

programs 

Students from 

underperforming 

schools 

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Department of Health and Human Services 

93.044 Special 

Programs for the 

Aging, Title III, 

Part B, Grants for 

Supportive 

Services and 

Senior Centers

Older 

Americans Act 

of 1965 

42 U.S.C.

§ 3030d(a)(2) 

Contract for 

services

To access 

supportive 

services, such 

as nutrition 

services and 

aging services 

Adults age 60 

and older

$73,585,717c

93.047

(expended)

Special 

Programs for the 

Aging, Title VI, 

Part A, Grants to 

Indian Tribes, 

Part B, Grants to 

Native Hawaiians

Older 

Americans Act 

of 1965

42 U.S.C.

§§ 3057, 

3030d(a)(2) 

Purchase and 

operate 

vehicles

To access 

supportive 

services, 

including 

nutrition 

services

American Indian, 

Alaskan Native, 

and Native 

Hawaiian elders

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.104 Comprehensive 

Community 

Mental Health 

Services for 

Children with 

Serious 

Emotional 

Disturbances

Public Health 

Service Act

42 U.S.C.

§ 290ff-1 

Any 

transportationrelated use

To access 

program 

services

Children and 

families with 

serious 

emotional 

disturbance

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 38 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

93.193

a

Urban Indian 

Health Services

Snyder Act: 

Indian Health 

Care 

Improvement 

Act

Act of Nov. 2, 

1921, ch, 115, 42 

Stat. 208, as 

amended, and 

Pub. L. No. 94-437, 

as amended

Public 

transportation, 

mileage 

reimbursement, 

GSA lease, etc.

Transportation 

costs for 

clients/patients 

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Natives 

$7,318

(estimate)

93.224 Health Centers Public Health 

Service Act

42 U.S.C.

§ 254b 

Bus tokens, 

vouchers, 

transportation 

coordinators, 

and drivers 

To access 

health care 

services 

Medically 

underserved 

populations 

$26,300,000d

93.237

(expended)

Special Diabetes 

Program for 

Indians Diabetes 

Prevention and 

Treatment 

Projects

Indian Health 

Care 

Improvement 

Act: Balanced 

Budget Act of 

1997

42 U.S.C. § 254c-3 Public 

transportation, 

mileage 

reimbursement, 

etc.

To access 

diabetes 

prevention and 

cardiovascular 

disease 

services

American 

Indian/Alaska

Natives 

$419,247

(estimate)

93.275 Substance 

Abuse and 

Mental Health 

Services-Access 

to Recovery

Public Health 

Service Act

42 U.S.C §§ 

290aa(d)(5), 

290bb-2 

Bus tokens, cab 

fare, or van 

purchase by 

provider 

To access 

substance 

abuse 

treatment or 

recovery 

support 

services

Persons with 

substance use or 

mental disorders

$3,800

(estimate)

93.550 Transitional 

Living for 

Homeless Youth

Runaway and 

Homeless Youth 

Act of 1974

42 U.S.C. §§ 5701, 

5712

Information not 

collected

Education, 

employment, 

training, and

health care

16 to 21 year 

olds

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.558 Temporary 

Assistance for 

Needy Families 

Personal 

Responsibility 

and Work 

Opportunity 

Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 

42 U.S.C.

§ 604(a), (k) 

States have 

wide flexibility in 

what they may 

fund

To access 

work, 

employment 

training, and 

child care 

providers

Low-income 

families

$445,118,725

(expended)

93.566 Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance - 

State 

Administered 

Programs 

(Transitional and 

Medical Services 

and Social 

Services Formula 

Grants Only)

Refugee Act of 

1980 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus or transit 

passes

To access 

employment 

services 

Refugees and 

asylees

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 39 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

93.567

a

Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance - 

Voluntary 

Agency 

Programs 

(Matching Grants 

Only)

Refugee Act of 

1980 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus or transit 

passes, vehicle 

donations, van 

pools, or 

volunteer rides

Employment 

and training 

purposes

Refugees and 

asylees

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.569 Community 

Services Block 

Grant

Community 

Opportunities, 

Accountability, 

Training, and 

Educational 

Services Act of 

1998 

42 U.S.C.

§ 9904 

Access to 

reliable 

transportation 

or a driver’s 

license, public 

transportation 

routes, rides, 

carpool 

arrangements, 

car purchase 

and 

maintenance

To receive 

community 

services, 

including 

program 

services, 

educational 

opportunities, 

and jobs 

Low-income 

populations

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.570 Community 

Services Block 

Grant 

Discretionary 

Awards

Community 

Opportunities, 

Accountability, 

and Training 

and Educational 

Services Act of 

1998

42 U.S.C.

§ 9921

Grantees have 

wide flexibility in 

what they may 

fund

Information not 

collected

Low-income 

populations

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.576 Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance - 

Discretionary 

Grants 

(Preventive 

Health, Targeted 

Assistance and 

Social Services 

Discretionary 

Grants Only)

Refugee Act of 

1980

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus or transit 

passes

To access 

employment 

services 

Refugees and 

asylees

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.584 Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance - 

Targeted 

Assistance 

(Formula Grants 

Only)

Refugee Act of 

1980 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus or transit 

passes

To access 

employment 

services 

Refugees and 

asylees

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 40 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

93.594

a

Native 

Employment 

Works

Social Security 

Act 

42 U.S.C. § 612 Grantees have 

broad flexibility 

in what they 

may fund

To access 

program and 

employment 

activities

Members of 

federally 

recognized 

Indian tribes

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.600 Head Start Head Start Act 42 USCA

§ 9835(a)(5)(B) 

Information not 

provided

Transporting 

children to 

Head Start and 

Early Head 

Start centers

Low-income 

children

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.612 Native American 

Programs

Native American 

Programs Act of 

1974 

42 U.S.C.

§§ 2991-2991c

Bus passenger Community 

meetings and 

activities

Native American 

communities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.630 State Councils 

on 

Developmental 

Disabilities and 

Protection and 

Advocacy 

Systems 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Assistance and 

Bill of Rights Act 

of 2000 

42 U.S.C.

§§ 15002, 15082 

General travel 

expenses

Limited travel 

expenses to 

participate in 

grant activities

People with 

intellectual and 

developmental 

disabilities, their 

families, and 

other grant 

participants

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.631 Developmental 

Disabilities 

Projects of 

National 

Significance 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Assistance and 

Bill of Rights Act 

of 2000 

42 U.S.C.

§§ 15002, 15082 

General travel 

expenses

Limited travel 

expenses to 

participate in 

grant activities

People with 

intellectual and 

developmental 

disabilities, their 

families, and 

other grant 

participants

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.667 Social Services 

Block Grants 

Social Security 

Act 

42 U.S.C.

§ 1397a(a)(2)(A) 

Provide or 

arrange for 

travel, such as 

accessible vans

Access 

services, or 

obtain medical 

care or 

employment

Adults and 

children

$22,863,512e

93.674

(estimate)

Chafee Foster 

Care 

Independence 

Program

Foster Care 

Independence 

Act of 1999

42 U.S.C. § 677 Information not 

provided

Information not 

provided

Foster youths 

who are 

transitioning to 

independence

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.767 Children’s Health 

Insurance 

Program 

Social Security 

Act

42 U.S.C.

§ 1397jj(a)(26), 

(27) 

Information not 

collected

Information not 

collected

Eligible children $3,681,903f

(partial)
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 41 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

93.778

a

Medicaid Social Security 

Act 

42 U.S.C.

§§ 1396a, 

1396n(e)(1)(A) 

Fixed route 

transportation, 

demand 

response 

transportation, 

mileage 

reimbursement, 

air transport 

and 

nonemergency 

medical 

transportation 

brokerage

To access 

covered 

medical 

services

Medicaid- eligible 

beneficiaries who 

do not have any 

other means of 

transportation

$786,966,682g

93.912

(partial)

Rural Health 

Care Services 

Outreach, Rural 

Health Network 

Development, 

and Small Health 

Care Provider 

Quality 

Improvement 

Program

Health Centers 

Consolidation 

Act of 1996 

42 U.S.C. § 254c Volunteer 

drivers, private 

vehicles, 

vouchers, 

vanpools

To access 

health care 

services, oral 

health care, 

elder day care 

services

Elderly, migrant 

workers, and 

general 

population

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.914 HIV Emergency 

Relief Project 

Grants

Ryan White 

Comprehensive 

AIDS Resources 

Emergency Act 

of 1990 

42 U.S.C.

§§ 300ff-11 – 

300ff-20

Bus passes, 

tokens, taxis, 

vanpools, 

vehicle 

purchase/lease 

by providers, 

and mileage 

reimbursement 

To access 

health care 

services 

Persons with HIV 

or AIDS 

$10,750,025h

93.917

 

(estimate)

HIV Care 

Formula Grants 

Ryan White 

Comprehensive 

AIDS Resources 

Emergency Act 

of 1990 

42 U.S.C. 

§§ 300ff-21, 300ff23(a)(2)(B)

Bus passes, 

tokens, taxis, 

vanpools, 

vehicle 

purchase/lease 

by providers, 

and mileage 

reimbursement 

To access 

health care 

services 

Persons with HIV 

or AIDS 

$5,598,234h

93.926

(estimate)

Healthy Start 

Initiative 

Public Health 

Service Act 

42 U.S.C.

§ 254c-8 

Bus tokens, taxi 

vouchers, 

reimbursement 

for use of own 

vehicle 

To access 

health care 

services 

Residents of 

areas with 

significant 

perinatal health 

disparities 

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 42 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

93.958

a

Community 

Mental Health 

Services Block 

Grant 

ADAMHA 

Reorganization 

Act of 1992

42 U.S.C.

§ 300x-1(b)(1) 

Any 

transportationrelated use

To access 

program 

services

Adults with 

mental illness 

and children with 

emotional 

disturbance

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.959 Substance 

Abuse 

Prevention and 

Treatment Block 

Grant 

ADAMHA 

Reorganization 

Act of 1992

42 U.S.C.

§ 300x-21 

Any 

transportationrelated use

To access 

program 

services

Persons with a 

substancerelated disorder

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

93.994 Maternal and 

Child Health 

Services Block 

Grant to the 

States

Social Security 

Act 

42 U.S.C.

§ 701(a) 

States have 

broad discretion 

in implementing 

program

To access 

prenatal care 

visits, medical 

appointments, 

and other 

health care 

services

Maternal and 

child health 

population

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Department of Housing and Urban Development

14.157 Supportive 

Housing for the 

Elderly

Housing Act of 

1959

12 U.S.C. 

1701g(g)(1)

Information not 

known

To access 

supportive 

services, such 

as medical 

treatment, 

employment, 

or job training, 

etc.

Very low- income 

persons aged 62 

and older

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

14.170 Congregate 

Housing Services 

Program

Congregate 

Housing 

Services Act of 

1978

42 USCA § 8004 Accessible 

taxis, local 

transportation 

programs, 

buses, etc.

To access 

medical 

appointments, 

work, 

shopping, and 

other services

Elderly and 

people with 

disabilities

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

14.218 Community 

Development 

Block 

Grants/Entitleme

nt Grants

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1974 

42 U.S.C.

§ 5305(a)(8)

Transit services To access 

social 

services, 

medical 

services, jobs, 

etc. 

Low- and 

moderate-income 

persons, 

mobility-impaired 

persons, and 

jobseekers

$4,218,209i

14.225

(expended)

Community 

Development 

Block 

Grants/Special 

Purpose 

Grants/Insular 

Areas

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1974 

42 U.S.C.

§ 5305(a)(8)

Transit services To access 

social 

services, 

medical 

services, jobs, 

etc. 

Low- and 

moderate-income 

persons, 

mobility-impaired 

persons, and 

jobseekers

$0

(expended)
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 43 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

14.228

a

Community 

Development 

Block 

Grants/State’s 

program and 

Non-Entitlement 

Grants in Hawaii

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1974 

42 U.S.C.

§ 5305(a)(8)

Transit services To access 

social 

services, 

medical 

services, jobs, 

etc. 

Low- and 

moderate-income 

persons, 

mobility-impaired 

persons, and 

jobseekers

$19,211

(expended)

14.231 Emergency 

Shelter Grants 

Program

McKinney-Vento 

Homeless 

Assistance Act

42 U.S.C. § 11374 Bus or transit 

tokens, taxi 

fares, and any 

related 

organizational 

transportation 

expenses 

To access 

training 

programs and 

other services 

to enhance 

independence

Homeless No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

14.235 Supportive 

Housing Program

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1992

42 U.S.C.

§ 11385 

Bus or transit 

tokens, taxi 

fares, and any 

related 

organizational 

transportation 

expenses

To access 

training 

programs and 

other services 

to enhance 

independence

Homeless No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

14.241 Housing 

Opportunities for 

Persons with 

AIDS

AIDS Housing 

Opportunity Act 

42 U.S.C.

§ 12907(a)(3) 

Bus tokens, taxi 

fares, and any 

related 

organizational 

transportation 

expenses 

To access 

supportive 

services, such 

as medical 

treatment, 

employment, 

job training, 

etc.

Low to extremely 

low- income 

persons living 

with HIV/AIDS

$1,530,187

(expended)

14.862 Indian 

Community 

Development 

Block Grant

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1974

42 U.S.C. § 

5305(a)(8), 17

Information not 

collected

To access 

public 

services, 

which are 

directed 

toward 

improving the 

community’s 

public services 

and facilities

Indian and 

Alaska Native 

communities, 

primarily for 

persons with lowand moderateincomes

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

14.866 HOPE VI 

Revitalization

Housing Act of 

1937

42 U.S.C. § 

1437v(d)(1)(L), 

(i)(3) 

Transportation 

services

To access 

employment, 

education, and 

other 

supportive 

services

Public housing 

residents

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 44 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

14.867

a

Indian Housing 

Block Grant

Native American 

Housing 

Assistance and 

Self 

Determination 

Act of 1996

25 U.S.C.

§ 4132(3)

Information not 

collected

To access selfsufficiency 

services

Low- income 

Native 

Americans

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

14.889 Choice 

Neighborhoods 

Implementation 

Grants

Housing Act of 

1937

42 U.S.C. § 

1437v(d)(1)(L), 

(i)(3) 

Transportation 

services

To access 

employment, 

education, and 

other 

supportive 

services

Public housing 

residents and 

HUD-assisted 

multifamily 

housing 

residents

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Department of the Interior 

15.043 Indian Child and 

Family Education 

No Child Left 

Behind Act of 

2001

25 U.S.C.

§ 2001(b)(8)(C)(v)

School bus, offroad, and other 

vehicle leases

To access 

school and 

educational 

activities

Preschool 

through adult 

students

$373,368

(estimate)

15.044 Indian Schools - 

Student 

Transportation

No Child Left 

Behind Act of 

2001

25 U.S.C.

§ 2001(b)(8)(C)(v)

School bus, offroad, and other 

vehicle leases; 

use of 

commercial 

vehicles

To access 

school, 

educational 

activities, and 

for use in 

emergency 

situations

Day and 

residential 

students

$52,637,635

(obligated)

15.130 Indian Education 

Assistance to 

Schools

JohnsonO’Malley Act of 

April 16, 1934

25 U.S.C.

ch. 14, subchapter 

II

Transporting 

students

Trips could be 

to and from the 

project site or 

an educational 

field trip

Eligible students 

are aged 3 

through grade 12

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Department of Labor

17.211 Job Corps Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §

2864(d)(2)

Travel for 

program 

enrollees 

between the 

center and their 

home of record 

by bus, train, or 

plane 

Enrollment and 

separation 

from the 

program

At-risk youth, 

ages 16-24, who 

meet lowincome criteria

$24,100,000

(estimate)

17.235 Senior 

Community 

Service 

Employment 

Program

Older 

Americans Act 

of 1965

42 U.S.C.

§ 3056(c)(6)(A) (iv) 

Information not 

known

To access 

program 

services and 

jobs

Unemployed 

Americans 55 

years of age or 

older, earning no 

more than 125% 

of the poverty 

level

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 45 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

17.245

a

Trade 

Adjustment 

Assistance - 

Workers 

Trade Act of 

1974 

19 U.S.C.

§ 2296(b) 

Information not 

known

To access job 

training 

programs, job 

searches 

outside the 

normal 

commuting 

area, and 

relocation 

expenses

Program 

participants and 

workers who 

seek 

employment 

outside the 

normal 

commuting area

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

17.258 Workforce 

Investment Act

Adult Services 

Program

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C.

§ 2864(d)(2) 

Information not 

known

Supportive 

services to 

enable 

program 

participation

Adults, with 

priority to 

veterans and 

covered 

spouses, and 

individuals 

receiving public 

assistance

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

17.259 Workforce 

Investment Act 

Youth Activities 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C.

§ 2854(a)(4) 

Information not 

known

To access job 

training and 

related 

activities

Low income 

youth, ages 14-

21 years old with 

barriers to 

employment

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

17.264 National 

Farmworker Jobs 

Program

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. § 774 

(3)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 

2912 (d)

Information not 

known

To access 

supportive 

services

Disadvantaged 

migrant and 

seasonal farm

workers

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

17.265 Native American 

Employment and 

Training 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998

29 U.S.C.

§ 2911(d)(2) 

Bus passes, 

vehicle mileage, 

gas for program 

vehicles, and 

reasonable car 

repairs

To access 

employment 

activities

Indian tribes, 

Alaska Natives, 

and Native 

Hawaiians 

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

17.274 Youthbuild Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46) 

Information not 

known

To access 

program 

services

Youth, including 

those from lowincome families 

or those with a 

disability

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

17.802 Veterans’ 

Employment 

Program 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C.

§ 2913 

Transit tickets, 

bus fare, or cab 

fare

To access 

employment 

activities

Veterans No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 46 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

17.805

a

Homeless 

Veterans’ 

Reintegration 

Project 

Homeless 

Veterans 

Comprehensive 

Assistance Act 

of 2001 

38 USCA

§§ 2011, 2021 

Transit tickets, 

bus fare, or cab 

fare

To access 

employment 

activities

Homeless 

veterans

No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Department of Transportation 

20.500 Capital 

Investment 

Grants 

Mass 

Transportation 

Act of 1964

49 U.S.C.

§ 5309 

Funding for bus 

and bus 

facilities, new 

fixed guideway 

and 

modernization, 

and other 

capital 

expenses

General 

transportation

General public $3,566,689,946j

20.507

(obligated)

Urbanized Area 

Formula Program 

Mass 

Transportation 

Act of 1964

49 U.S.C.

§ 5307 

Funding for 

transportation 

service for 

transportation 

projects in cities

Support transit 

service in 

cities over 

50,000 

population

General public in 

urbanized areas

$4,849,410,834

(obligated)

20.509 Nonurbanized 

Area Formula 

Program 

Federal Public 

Transportation 

Act of 1978

49 U.S.C.

§ 5311 

Funding for 

transportation 

service for 

public transit 

and intercity 

bus 

transportation 

projects in 

nonurbanized 

areas

To increase 

and enhance 

public 

transportation 

service in 

nonurbanized 

areas and for 

tribes

General public 

and federally 

recognized tribes

$624,837,418k

20.513

(obligated)

Capital 

Assistance 

Program for 

Elderly Persons 

and Persons with 

Disabilities 

Urban Mass 

Transportation 

Act of 1970

49 U.S.C.

§ 5310 

Purchase of 

capital 

expenses to 

support 

transportation 

services

General 

transportation 

services

Elderly 

individuals and 

persons with 

disabilities

$176,237,261

(obligated)

20.516 Job Access and 

Reverse 

Commute 

Safe, 

Accountable, 

Flexible, 

Efficient 

Transportation 

Equity Act: A 

Legacy for 

Users

49 U.S.C.

§ 5316 

Purchase of 

small buses and 

vans

To access 

employment 

and related 

services

Low-income 

individuals and 

reverse 

commuters 

$163,976,876

(obligated)
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 47 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Catalog of 

Federal 

Domestic 

Assistance 

no. Program name

Popular title or 

original source 

of program 

legislation 

U.S. Code or 

other provision 

cited as 

authorizing 

transportation 

Typical use of 

transportation 

funds as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Purpose of 

trips as 

reported by 

program 

officials

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officials

Fiscal year 

2010 federal 

spending on 

transportation

20.518

a

Capital and 

Training 

Assistance 

Program for 

Over-the-Road 

Bus Accessibility 

Urban Mass 

Transportation 

Act of 1970

49 U.S.C.

§ 5310 

Purchase of 

capital 

expenses that 

will result in 

vehicles being 

accessible

Intercity fixedroute, charter, 

commuter, and 

tour bus 

transportation

General public 

and individuals 

with disabilities

$544,261

(obligated)

20.521 New Freedom 

Program 

Safe, 

Accountable, 

Flexible, 

Efficient 

Transportation 

Equity Act: A 

Legacy for 

Users

49 U.S.C § 5317 Provide 

expanded 

service in both 

geographic 

coverage and 

hours or days of 

service

To enhance 

transportation 

systems and 

access to 

those systems

Individuals with 

disabilities

$90,140,813

(obligated)

Department of Veterans Affairs

64.009

l

Veterans Medical 

Care Benefits

Veterans 

Benefits Act of

1957

38 U.S.C. § 111 Mileage 

reimbursement; 

special mode 

(ambulance, 

wheelchair 

van); common 

carrier (air, bus, 

train, boat, taxi)

To access VA 

or VAauthorized 

non-VA health 

care

Low-income and 

special-group 

veterans

$745,315,000m

64.024

(obligated)

VA Homeless 

Providers Grant 

and Per Diem 

Program

Homeless 

Veterans 

Comprehensive 

Service 

Programs Act of 

1992

38 U.S.C. §§ 

2011(b)(1)(B), 

7721 Note 

Purchase vans Outreach to 

and 

transportation 

of homeless 

veterans by 

communitybased 

providers

Homeless 

veterans

$720,167n

64.026

(obligated)

Veterans State 

Adult Day Health 

Care

Veterans 

Millennium 

Health Care and 

Benefits Act

38 U.S.C.

§ 1720; 38 U.S.C. 

§ 111 

Any expenses 

for 

transportation

Adult day 

health care

Veterans No actual data 

or estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency

Source: GAO analysis of information from the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, the U.S. Code; and 

the Code of Federal Regulations.

a

Spending was reported by program officials, and we did not verify the information. Amounts 

obligated or expended on transportation are given, depending upon the information available. When 

actual information was not available, agency officials provided estimates.

b

According to program officials, figure is expenditure data reported by state vocational rehabilitation 

agencies to the Department of Education on the Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program Cost 

Report (RSA-2) form.
Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 

Providing Transportation Services to the 

Transportation Disadvantaged

Page 48 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

c

According to program officials, figure includes $69,133,539 for transportation and $4,452,178 for 

assisted transportation (assistance and transportation for a person who has difficulties using regular 

transportation).

d

Health center grantees reported spending $26.3 million on transportation services in calendar year 

2010, according to program officials. 

e

Fiscal year 2010 data was not yet available, and fiscal year 2009 spending ($22,863,512) can be 

used as an estimate, according to program officials.

f

According to program officials, $3,681,903 is the federal share for states that recorded transportation 

expenses under Line 23 - Medical Transportation on the CMS 21. There is no dedicated line item for 

Administrative Transportation expenses. If there are any Transportation Administration expenditures, 

they may be reported in the Other line item category, however there is no separation to break it out. 

g

According to program officials, $786,966,682 is the federal share for states that recorded 

transportation expenses under Line 29 - Nonemergency Transportation Services on the CMS 64. This 

information does not include expenditures for nonemergency medical transportation claimed as an 

Administrative Transportation expense, as there is no dedicated line item for such expenses.

h

According to program officials, 2010 Part A and Part B expenditures for transportation are not 

available. As an estimate, officials used 2009 Part A - $10,750,025 and Part B expenditures - 

$5,598,234 from the Ryan White 2009 Part B Expenditure Report.

i

In fiscal year 2009, $4.0 million was expended nationally among all CDBG grantees for transportation 

services, according to program officials.

j

According to program officials, figure includes: 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities $516,224,661; 5309 

Fixed Guideway Modernization $1,383,358,415; and 5309 New Starts $1,667,106,870.

k

Figure does not include Tribal Transit, according to program officials.

l

According to program officials, Pub. L. No. 111-163, § 307, 124 Stat. 1154 (38 U.S.C. § 1710 Note)

will provide grants for transportation of veterans in highly rural areas, however the program has not 

yet become operational and funds had not been spent as of January 2012. 

mFigure includes Special Mode/Common Carrier ($313,797,000) and Mileage ($431,518,000), 

according to program officials. 

n

Figure was amount obligated in fiscal year 2010 for 32 van grants, and grantees have 5 years to 

spend these funds, according to program officials.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 49 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Education
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Education

Page 50 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 51 GAO-12-647 Transportation Coordination

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834, wised@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, other key contributors to this 

report were Heather MacLeod, Assistant Director; Rebekah Boone; Brian 

Chung; Jennifer Clayborne; Jean Cook; Bert Japikse; Delwen Jones; and 

Sara Ann Moessbauer.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542187)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.