Testimony 

Before the Committees on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and Education and the 

Workforce 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 1, 2003 TRANSPORTATIONDISADVANTAGED 

POPULATIONS 

Many Federal Programs 

Fund Transportation 

Services, but Obstacles to 

Coordination Persist 

Statement of Katherine Siggerud, Acting Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

GAO-03-698T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO found 62 federal programs—most of which are administered by the 

Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 

Transportation—that currently fund a variety of transportation services for the 

transportation-disadvantaged. The full amount of spending for these programs is 

unknown because transportation expenditures are not always tracked separately 

from other program expenditures. However, available information (i.e., 

estimated or actual outlays or obligations) on 28 of the programs shows that 

federal agencies spent at least an estimated $2.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 on 

these services. 

Effective coordination can help avoid duplication of effort and inefficiency in 

providing transportation services. GAO’s preliminary results indicate that some 

jurisdictions have realized significant benefits, such as improved customer 

service and lower unit costs, and through coordination efforts such as sharing 

vehicles, consolidating services under one provider, or sharing information 

among programs. By contrast, GAO found several examples of overlapping, 

fragmented, or confusing services resulting from a lack of coordination. 

Overlapping Routes of the Vehicles of Seven Agencies that Separately Serve the 

Transportation-Disadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota 

This graphic illustrates that many of these seven agencies’ routes have similar starting and ending 

points. Many of these routes represent trips serving similar populations and occurring within 30 

minutes of each other. 

GAO identified numerous obstacles impeding coordination, including: (1) 

reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination; (2) differences in federal 

program standards and requirements; and (3) limited guidance and information 

on coordination. To mitigate these obstacles, officials and experts suggested 

harmonizing standards among federal programs to better share resources and 

serve additional populations, expanding forums to facilitate communication 

among agencies, providing and disseminating additional guidance, and providing 

financial incentives or instituting mandates to coordinate.

Numerous federal government 

programs provide assistance to 

“transportation-disadvantaged” 

individuals—those who are unable 

to provide their own transportation 

as a result of a disability, an agerelated condition, or an income 

constraint. The assistance is 

provided to help these populations 

connect with services such as 

health and medical care, 

employment and training activities, 

and education programs. 

Coordination of this assistance—

through such steps as pooling 

resources, consolidating 

transportation services under a 

single state or local agency, and 

sharing information about available 

services—has been found to 

improve the cost-effectiveness and 

quality of service. GAO was asked 

to identify (1) the federal programs 

that provide these transportation 

services and the amount spent on 

these programs; (2) the effect of 

coordination—or lack of 

coordination—on the delivery of 

transportation services for the 

transportation-disadvantaged; and 

(3) any obstacles that may impede 

effective coordination and 

potential ways to overcome such 

obstacles. 

This testimony is based on ongoing 

work being done for the 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee. GAO expects to issue a 

report in June 2003, at which time 

there may be recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-698T.

To view the full testimony, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-698T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce, House of 

Representatives 

May 1, 2003 

TRANSPORTATION-DISADVANTAGED 

POPULATIONS 

Many Federal Programs Fund 

Transportation Services, but Obstacles to 

Coordination Persist 
Page 1 GAO-03-698T 

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Committees: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the coordination of 

transportation services for people with limited access to transportation. At 

the request of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we have 

been examining transportation assistance that the federal government 

funds to benefit these individuals. Our work focuses on a population we 

call “transportation-disadvantaged”—that is, people who are unable to 

provide their own transportation as a result of a disability, an age-related 

condition, or an income constraint. This is a sizeable group. For example, 

according to the 2000 U.S. Census, 35.1 million people were over age 65, 

44.5 million people over age 21 were disabled, and 33.9 million people 

were living below the poverty line. We have been studying the assistance 

available to help such people connect with the services provided through 

government programs, such as health and medical care, employment and 

training activities, and education programs. For many people in this group, 

traditional public transportation may not be an option to access such 

services. 

Providing transportation services to these populations and coordinating 

them across program lines are becoming more critical issues as the 

transportation-disadvantaged populations grow and financial constraints 

on the federal government and other government levels increase due to 

budget deficits. With these trends, it will become more important to 

maximize efficiency wherever possible to avoid having to reduce services. 

The coordination of transportation services—through pooling resources, 

consolidating transportation services under a single state or local agency, 

or sharing information about available services—has been found to 

improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of service. 

My statement today, which is based on the preliminary results of our 

ongoing work for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

addresses (1) the federal programs that provide transportation services for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations; the types of services they 

provide; and federal, state, and local government spending for 

transportation through these federal programs; (2) the effect of 

coordination—or lack of coordination—on the delivery of transportation 

services for the transportation-disadvantaged; and (3) any obstacles that 

may impede effective coordination and potential options for overcoming 

such obstacles. We are continuing to examine these issues and expect to 

report on the final results of our work in June 2003. 
Page 2 GAO-03-698T 

Our work is based on an analysis of pertinent federal laws and regulations, 

available data on federal and state spending, and the research literature on 

coordination of transportation services. We also conducted an in-depth 

study of coordination efforts in five states—Arizona, Florida, New York, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin. We selected these five states to include a 

cross-section of characteristics including the presence or absence of a 

state-level coordinating body and geographic dispersion. Appendix I 

contains more information about our scope and methodology. 

In summary: 

• Sixty-two federal programs—most of which are administered by the 

Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and 

Transportation—fund a variety of transportation services for the 

transportation-disadvantaged, and spending for these programs is 

estimated to be in the billions of dollars. 1 Most of these programs 

purchase transportation from existing public or private sources, such as 

providing bus tokens or passes, or contracting for service from private 

providers. Also, several programs fund the purchase or modification of 

vehicles for agencies to provide transportation for their clients. The full 

amount of spending for these programs is unknown because 

transportation is not always tracked separately from other program 

spending. Available information on actual or estimated spending shows 

that federal agencies spent at least an estimated $2.4 billion in fiscal year 

2001 on various transportation services. Department of Health and Human 

Services programs spent about three-quarters of this amount. State and 

local agencies also provide significant funding for many of these programs, 

often to fulfill matching requirements, which generally range from 5 to 50 

percent of total program costs for these programs. However, estimates of 

state and local spending are not available because few agencies track such 

information at the federal or state level. 

• We found some agencies that have realized substantial benefits by 

coordinating their transportation services through sharing vehicles, 

consolidating services under a single agency, or sharing information about 

available services, while others that do not coordinate have experienced 

overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services. In locations where 

coordination among programs has occurred, agencies and users are 

realizing significant benefits, such as improved customer service and 

 1

In this testimony, spending refers to actual or estimated outlays or obligations, depending 

on what information was available from the agency. 
Page 3 GAO-03-698T 

lower unit costs. For example, a transit agency in South Dakota 

consolidated the transportation services previously provided by both 

senior and medical centers as well as other federal, state, and local 

programs. This consolidation allowed the agency to increase the number 

of trips provided while reducing the average cost of providing each trip by 

more than 20 percent. The agency has also improved its services by 

coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and weekend 

trips. In areas without coordination, local officials reported some 

examples of (1) overlapping services, such as the transportation provider 

who often runs two vehicles on the same route at nearly the same time to 

accommodate different paperwork requirements; (2) fragmented services, 

when transportation services provided by different counties or programs 

do not connect and riders have difficulty scheduling complete trips; and 

(3) confusion, when both providers and users are overwhelmed by the 

sheer number of programs and their different requirements. 

• Decision makers face numerous obstacles in trying to coordinate services 

for the transportation-disadvantaged; officials and experts that we 

consulted offered several potential options to mitigate these obstacles and 

enhance coordination among federal, state, and local agencies. We 

grouped the obstacles that impede coordination into three categories: (1) 

reluctance to share vehicles and fund coordination activities; (2) 

programmatic differences, including fragmented administration and 

distinct reporting requirements among programs; and (3) limited guidance 

and information on coordination, as shown by the limited technical 

assistance provided by federal and state agencies on the possible 

techniques for coordinating services. To mitigate these obstacles, some 

officials and experts have suggested three potential options that may be 

undertaken to improve coordination. One option is to harmonize 

standards among federal programs—such as safety standards related to 

types of seat belts and driver training requirements—so that they may 

serve additional populations or better share transportation resources. 

Another option is to expand forums that would facilitate communication 

among agencies involved in coordination and to share additional technical 

guidance and information on coordination among federal and state 

agencies through a central clearinghouse or improved Web site. The third 

option is to provide financial incentives and mandates that would give 

priority in federal funding to those applicants that show a strong 

commitment to coordinate. Some of these options, however, would 

require extensive statutory or regulatory changes and may cause agencies 

to incur significant costs. 
Page 4 GAO-03-698T 

Concern over coordinating transportation services for transportationdisadvantaged populations has been evident since the 1970s. In 1977, we 

issued a report on transportation coordination,2

 which concluded that the 

most significant hindrance to the coordination of transportation services 

under these programs was confusion at all levels of government as to how 

much coordination federally funded projects could engage in. 

Since 1986, responsibility for coordinating transportation programs at the 

federal level has rested in the Coordinating Council on Access and 

Mobility. This body is composed of representatives from program offices 

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

Department of Transportation (DOT), and its staffing needs are met, on a 

part-time basis, by employees of these agencies. 

In a 1999 report on transportation coordination,3

 we found that 

coordination efforts of the Coordinating Council, DOT, and HHS were 

ongoing but needed strengthening. This report also noted that the 

Congress had endorsed increased coordination as evidenced by several 

provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),4

and significant financial benefits had been realized through coordination. 

More recently, reports and agency officials have raised concerns over 

continuing duplication of effort among federal programs and certain subpopulations still not being served effectively.5

 2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Hindrances to Coordinating Transportation of People 

Participating in Federally Funded Grant Programs: Volume I, GAO/RCED-77-119

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 17, 1977). 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Transportation Coordination: Benefits and Barriers 

Exist, and Planning Efforts Progress Slowly, GAO/RCED-00-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 

1999). 

4

P.L. 105-178 (June 9, 1998). 

5

For example, a report prepared for the AARP found that transportation resources for the 

elderly, disabled, and other groups were often not coordinated and led to duplication of 

services. The services were also found to vary in quality and to fail to address the needs of 

individuals who did not meet specific agency or program eligibility requirements. See Jon 

E. Burkhardt, Coordinated Transportation Systems (AARP, Washington, D.C.: September 

2000). 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-03-698T 

We identified 62 federal programs that fund a variety of transportation 

services to populations that are transportation-disadvantaged.6

 The bulk of 

these programs are administered by 4 federal agencies—23 programs in 

HHS, 15 programs in the Department of Labor (DOL), 8 programs in the 

Department of Education, and 6 programs in DOT.7

 The remaining 10 

programs are administered by the Departments of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs (VA), Agriculture, and the Interior. 

A full listing of programs with their authorizing statutes, typical uses, types 

of trips provided, target populations, and available spending information is 

found in appendix II. 

According to program officials, most of these 62 programs typically use 

existing public or private transportation services through such methods as 

contracting for services with private transportation providers, or through 

providing bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers, or mileage 

reimbursement to volunteers or program participants. For example, DOL’s 

Workforce Investment Act Adult Program typically provides participants 

with bus tokens, while HHS’s Grants for Supportive Services and Senior 

Centers program most often contracts with local transportation providers 

to provide client transportation. Several programs, however, are typically 

used to purchase, modify, or operate vehicles. These include Head Start 

 6

In addition to these 62 programs, it is likely that there are other federal programs that 

could be used to fund transportation improvements or other transportation services. Our 

scope included programs that provide nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface transportation 

services, targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations. We excluded most 

programs that were strictly for research or demonstration activities or provided strictly 

cash assistance with no restrictions on use, as well as some economic development 

programs that benefit the general public and are not targeted to transportationdisadvantaged populations. Efforts by other researchers to inventory all federal programs 

that could conceivably provide transportation yielded additional programs not found in our 

inventory due to differing selection criteria. Community Transportation Association of 

America, Building Mobility Partnerships: Opportunities for Federal Investment 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2002). 

7

Two DOT programs that are included here, the Urbanized Area and Nonurbanized Area 

Formula Programs, are used to support mass transit intended for the general public, many 

of whom could conceivably provide their own transportation. We include them because the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 126) requires that transit 

operators provide accessible paratransit service that is comparable to their regular service 

for disabled individuals who are unable to provide their own transportation or access the 

regular transit system, and TEA-21 allows a portion of these transit formula grants to be 

used to offset paratransit operating costs. Because it is impossible to determine the amount 

these programs spend to provide transportation to transportation-disadvantaged 

populations, who are among the general population that is served by these programs, we 

only report on the portion of these funds used for ADA paratransit. 

Sixty-two Federal 

Programs Fund 

Transportation 

Services for the 

TransportationDisadvantaged, and 

Spending on Them Is 

in the Billions of 

Dollars 
Page 6 GAO-03-698T 

and the Program for American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native 

Hawaiian Elders in HHS; the Vocational Rehabilitation Grants program in 

the Department of Education; and the Capital Assistance Program for 

Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, the Urbanized and 

Nonurbanized Area Formula Programs, and the Job Access and Reverse 

Commute program in DOT. 

Information on federal spending for transportation is available for 28 of 

the 62 programs we identified.8

 These programs spent an estimated $2.4 

billion on transportation services in fiscal year 2001.9

 (Appendix II lists 

available spending data for each federal program.) Based on available 

information, HHS programs as a whole spent the most on transportation 

for transportation-disadvantaged populations in 2001—an estimated $1.8 

billion. Table 1 shows estimated transportation spending by the eight 

federal agencies that fund services for the transportation-disadvantaged. 

 8

Of these 28 programs, 16 provided actual spending data for fiscal year 2001. Program 

officials for the remaining 12 programs provided an estimate of transportation spending for 

2001. 

9

There was no spending information available on four programs viewed as important 

providers of transportation services. These programs included HHS’s Program for 

American Indian, Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian Elders and DOL’s Workforce 

Investment Act Adult Program, Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program, and 

Workforce Investment Act Youth Activities. The Community Transportation Association of 

America, a national, professional membership association that conducts research and 

provides technical assistance for community transportation providers, identified the four 

programs, whose total obligations were $3.7 billion in fiscal year 2001, as routinely used to 

provide transportation. While information was not available on the portion of the $3.7 

billion devoted to providing transportation services, we were able to analyze data on other 

human services programs which indicates that, on average, about 3 percent of total 

spending on those programs was devoted to transportation. 

Spending by 28 Federal 

Programs Is Estimated at 

$2.4 billion in Fiscal Year 

2001 
Page 7 GAO-03-698T 

Table 1: Estimated Spending on Transportation Services for the TransportationDisadvantaged by Eight Federal Agencies in Fiscal Year 2001 

Agency 

Amount spent 

on 

transportation 

(in millions)

Percent of 

total estimate 

Number of 

programs 

included in 

estimate

Total number 

of programs 

that provide 

transportation

Department of 

Health and Human 

Services $1,771.0 72.9% 10 23

Department of 

Transportation $317.3 13.1% 6 6

Department of 

Veterans Affairs $160.8 6.6% 3 3

Department of 

Education $133.8 5.5% 2 8

Department of 

Labor $26.4 1.1% 3 15

Department of 

Agriculture $13.0 0.5% 1 1

Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development $7.5 0.3% 3 4

Department of the 

Interior Not available 0.0% 0 2

Total for 8 

agencies $2,429.8 100.0% 28 62

Source: GAO analysis of HHS, DOT, VA, Education, DOL, Agriculture, HUD, and Interior data. 

The amount spent on transportation services by the remaining 34 federal 

programs is unknown, mainly because the majority of programs do not 

require recipients of federal funds to report transportation spending 

information to the federal agency. 

Total state and local spending for transportation services, which 

supplements federal spending for such programs, is likely significant—

reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars at least—although the 

total is unknown because most programs do not require grantees to report 

these data. Matching requirements, which represent the nonfederal 

contributions to the program’s costs that come from state, local, or private 

funds, provide some information on state and local spending on 

transportation for the transportation-disadvantaged. For example, 

according to state officials, state and local spending for one program—

Medicaid—made up between 32 and 50 percent of the total spending on 

nonemergency medical transportation in the five states that we visited, 

Total State and Local 

Transportation Spending Is 

Unknown, but May Be 

Significant 
Page 8 GAO-03-698T 

totaling $188.9 million in 2001 in those five states.10 Thirty-two of the 

programs that we identified have matching requirements that generally 

require states and localities to contribute between 5 and 50 percent of total 

program costs. 

Through coordination, some local agencies have realized both improved 

levels of service and financial benefits, such as reduced costs of providing 

each trip, as follows: 

Improved customer service: 

• A coordinated system in central Florida provides transportation for 

Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation, and other programs. According to 

local officials, vans used to show up late, if at all, and clients had difficulty 

finding out the status of their ride. Since consolidating services under a 

single provider and bringing scheduling and dispatch services in-house, 

officials report service improvement. 

• Through collaboration, information-sharing, and cost-sharing among 

county agencies, the Clinton County transit system in New York serves 

both Medicaid and elderly populations, making it easier for those 

populations to access medical and community services because they only 

have to be familiar with one system. 

 10The amount that states are required to contribute depends on how states claim 

transportation under Medicaid. If states claim transportation as an optional medical 

expense, the state or local portion ranges from 17 to 50 percent of total costs, based on a 

measure known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage. If states claim 

transportation as an administrative expense, the state or local portion is 50 percent of total 

costs. 

Coordination Has Led 

to Improvements, 

while Lack of 

Coordination Can 

Result in Overlap 

Coordination Has 

Financial Benefits and Can 

Lead to Improved Service 
Page 9 GAO-03-698T 

• A federal regional official said that coordination can remove the stigma of 

specialized transportation because all recipients use the same service and 

are treated equally. 

Financial benefits: 

• Three New York counties joined in a transportation brokering service11

that saved an estimated $92,000 in 2001 by identifying a lower-cost 

alternative means of transportation, that is, moving groups of clients in 

buses rather than transporting individual clients in taxis. This brokerage 

service provides transportation to Medicaid patients, the disabled, 

veterans, and other client groups. 

• In Aberdeen, South Dakota, the local transit agency consolidated the 

transportation services previously provided by both senior and medical 

centers as well as other federal, state, and local programs. This 

consolidation allowed the agency to increase the number of trips provided 

while reducing the average cost of providing each trip by more than 20 

percent—from about $5 to $4. The agency has also improved its services 

by coordinating with local taxi companies to provide night and weekend 

trips. 

Although the various programs we reviewed target specific populations, 

some populations are eligible to receive transportation services from 

multiple programs, resulting in duplication and inefficiency in some cases. 

In our visits with state and local transportation and human service 

agencies and providers, we found examples of areas or programs that 

were not coordinating, resulting in overlapping services. A for-profit 

transportation provider in one state told us that he often has two vehicles 

overlap on the same route at the same time, one for medical trips and one 

for paratransit,12 because it is too difficult to mix clients due to 

complicated fee structures and paperwork requirements imposed by the 

 11The Community Transportation Association of America defines brokerage as a method of 

providing transportation where riders are matched with appropriate transportation 

providers through a central trip-request and administration facility. The transportation 

broker may centralize vehicle dispatch, record keeping, vehicle maintenance, and other 

functions under contractual arrangements with agencies, municipalities, and other 

organizations. Actual trips are provided by a number of different vendors. 

12Paratransit most often refers to wheelchair-accessible, demand-response van service, 

according to the Community Transportation Association of America, and is more flexible 

than fixed route transit but more structured than the use of a private automobile. 

Lack of Coordination Can 

Lead to Overlapping 

Services and Confusion 
Page 10 GAO-03-698T 

state for the two programs. An official from a workforce development 

program in another state told us that many programs in his county use 

their own vans to deliver clients to the job center, but because the 

programs do not coordinate, only a few people ride in each van. In another 

area that has had difficulty coordinating, several human service providers 

hired a consultant to study the extent to which various agencies provide 

similar transportation services within a geographic region. This research 

showed substantial overlap in local services for the transportationdisadvantaged, as shown in figure 1. The consultant identified ways in 

which the number of routes could be substantially reduced through better 

coordination. 
Page 11 GAO-03-698T 

Figure 1: Overlapping Daily Routes of Vehicles Serving the TransportationDisadvantaged in Sioux Falls, South Dakota 

This picture shows the daily routes of vehicles operated by seven different agencies in the same 

region of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Overlap occurs when routes have the same or nearby starting 

and ending points and are transporting similar clients at similar times. This graphic illustrates that 

many of these agencies have similar starting and ending points. Among the agencies shown in this 

graphic are two vocational rehabilitation agencies (serving the same general population) as well as 

agencies that serve low-income clients or clients with disabilities. While the graphic cannot show the 

time element, many of these routes represent trips occurring within 30 minutes of each other in the 

morning and afternoon. 

We also found examples of fragmented services and confusion among 

users as a result of uncoordinated programs. One official said that a lack 

of coordination results in fragmented services, placing a burden on people 

who receive transportation through many different programs, depending 

on trip purpose, because they must be familiar with multiple systems, 

rules, and requirements. Fragmentation also occurs when adjoining 

counties do not coordinate their public transportation routes, leaving 
Page 12 GAO-03-698T 

riders stranded due to unconnected transit systems. For example, a local 

transit administrator said that a 62-year old woman regularly walks 1.5 

miles from the northern border of the county to her job in the next county, 

along roads with no sidewalks, because the counties do not coordinate 

and the bus service does not connect across county lines. Another 

provider in the same state has contracts to provide transportation services 

for clients in multiple human service programs. Because of a lack of 

coordination among those programs, the transportation provider has to 

maintain two separate dispatching and reservation systems for its vehicles 

to comply with differing reporting and eligibility requirements. Vehicles 

can only operate under one dispatching system at a time, so the drivers 

cannot provide rides to more than one type of client at a time. In addition, 

the provider said that clients who call for rides are confused by the sheer 

number of programs, and the agents who make their reservations do not 

know for which program the clients are eligible. 

Although some federal, state, and local agencies encourage the 

coordination of services for the transportation-disadvantaged and some 

coordination efforts have been established, officials representing these 

agencies and experts in the area cited numerous obstacles that impede 

more effective coordination of transportation services among agencies, as 

well as potential ways for overcoming these obstacles. 

Officials pointed out that agencies may be reluctant to share vehicles or 

may give low priority to funding coordination activities. In addition, some 

areas have limited transportation services available, thus limiting any 

opportunities to benefit from coordination. 

Administrators of federal programs may be apprehensive about sharing 

vehicles for coordination due, in part, to their concerns about a loss of 

control over the quality of client services or their concerns about mixing 

frail, sick, and healthy populations in one coordinated system. According 

to a report on coordinated transportation systems, this reluctance among 

Officials Cited 

Numerous Obstacles 

to Successfully 

Coordinating Services 

and Provided 

Potential Options to 

Mitigate Them 

Obstacles Related to 

Sharing Vehicles and 

Providing Financial 

Resources for 

Coordination 

Apprehension About Sharing 

Available Financial Resources 

and Vehicles 
Page 13 GAO-03-698T 

providers to cooperate can lead to an underutilization of vehicles.13

Likewise, some human service clients may be apprehensive about using 

coordinated transportation because they may be uncomfortable mixing 

with members of other populations with whom they are unfamiliar or they 

may fear a loss of accommodation or convenience, such as having to 

adjust from door-to-door service to curb-to-curb service or public transit. 

Despite the per unit cost-savings that some agencies have experienced 

through coordinating, the overall cost of coordination can be significant. 

For example, a transportation brokerage firm in one state faced 

substantial added costs when it began providing transportation to human 

service programs due to requirements to meet more stringent state and 

federal safety standards. However, some officials stated that the low 

priority given to funding coordination activities could impede coordination 

efforts. For example, according to officials in one state, although 

recipients of funds from DOT’s Capital Assistance Program for Elderly 

Persons and Persons with Disabilities are required to coordinate with 

other local transportation services provided from federal sources, DOT 

does not currently encourage the use of these funds for administration of 

the program and, thus, the current allotment for administrative expenses 

would not support any staff to work on coordination activities. 

Coordination may not be an effective strategy in those communities that 

have limited transportation services available, particularly in those 

communities that are not served by public transportation. For example, in 

some remote areas—such as the northwestern part of South Dakota where 

services available to many communities are 40 to 60 miles away—there are 

few transportation services available to transport individuals to hospitals 

or other services. In these areas, coordination may not be a workable or 

cost-effective option. 

Coordinating multiple programs administered at various levels of 

government is complicated because the programs have different 

requirements with respect to eligibility, funding, reporting, and safety; and 

they differ in their programmatic goals and missions. 

 13Moss Adams LLP, Community Transportation Association of America, The Coordination 

Challenge (Seattle, WA: June 2000). 

Low Priority Given to Funding 

Coordination Activities 

Limited Availability of 

Transportation Services 

Obstacles Related to 

Programmatic Differences 
Page 14 GAO-03-698T 

Federal program rules that specify the eligible populations that each 

program can serve may limit opportunities for collaboration. For example, 

DOT officials in one region stated that they were unable to combine DOL 

and DOT funds for a DOT transportation program for migrant farm 

workers because DOL funds are designated for U.S. citizens, while there is 

no such restriction on the use of DOT funds. In addition, some liability 

insurance policies specify that a program’s vehicles may serve only a 

certain population, thus those programs face additional insurance costs to 

transport individuals other than program clients. Such restrictions can 

lead to inefficient transportation services within a community. For 

example, an official in one state we visited commented that one federal 

agency’s vehicle provided medically related trips three times per week to 

that agency’s clients, but would not transport other individuals seeking 

similar medical services provided under other federal programs due, in 

part, to liability insurance restrictions. Safety requirements also vary by 

program and jurisdiction, thus complicating efforts to transport multiple 

client groups. For instance, different standards for roof strength, types of 

seat belts, and driver qualifications pose problems for schools, human 

service agencies, and public transit providers interested in sharing 

vehicles. Some areas have been able to overcome specific program rules to 

share vehicles. For example, a Head Start grantee in one state we visited 

was able to transport students using vehicles supplied by the local public 

transit provider because these vehicles met the same safety standards as 

school buses. 

Funding streams and cycles vary across federal programs, making 

coordination more difficult. For example, DOT funds generally flow from 

the state to counties or cities, while DOL funds flow through the states to 

local workforce investment boards. In addition, funding for programs such 

as Head Start flows directly to grantees rather than going through states, 

making it more difficult for the states to directly manage the coordination 

activities of local grantees, according to an official in one state. There is 

also complexity in working with different funding time frames and cycles 

under multiple federal programs. For example, although DOT’s Job Access 

and Reverse Commute (JARC) program encourages grantees to use other 

federal funds to provide the local “match” required to obtain JARC funds, 

the funding time frames and cycles of these other funding sources are 

different, complicating efforts to combine financial resources. 

Different reporting requirements among programs can create excessive 

paperwork in a coordinated system and may make it difficult for agencies 

to determine their true transportation costs and the benefits that may be 

realized from coordination. For example, one report commented that a 

Different Eligibility Rules 

Varying Funding Streams and 

Cycles 

Lack of Uniform Data 

Collection and Reporting 

Requirements Among Programs 
Page 15 GAO-03-698T 

transit provider was required to give each of several human service 

agencies a separate type of bill for services provided, which reflected the 

unique requirements imposed by each of those agencies.14 In addition, 

human service agencies and providers may not be required or accustomed 

to collecting complete and uniform transportation data for their programs, 

even though such information may enable administrators to estimate their 

transportation-related costs and re-evaluate how best to provide 

transportation. For example, when Florida’s statewide coordination 

program was established, state and local agencies in Florida reported their 

total estimated annual transportation-related expenditures at $8 million. 

However, once reporting requirements were in place for all agencies 

providing services to the transportation-disadvantaged, actual 

expenditures were estimated to total $224.9 million—much higher than the 

initial estimate. Such information has helped human service agencies in 

Florida understand their true transportation costs, which has encouraged 

some of these agencies to be more interested in coordination as they 

realize the potential for cost savings. 

Unlike transportation agencies, human service agencies provide 

transportation as a secondary service so that their clients may access 

primary human services. Therefore, while DOT-funded transportation 

agencies have specific and relatively uniform federal requirements for 

transportation planning, human service agencies do not typically conduct 

transportation planning or collect transportation-related data for their 

programs, making the planning of coordinated transportation services 

between transportation and human service agencies challenging.15 In 

addition, human service, transportation, medical, and workforce agencies 

all have distinct technical languages and cultures, which may inhibit 

collaboration among these agencies. In one state we visited, the labor and 

transportation departments experienced difficulty collaborating because 

some common terms have completely different meanings within each 

agency. For example, transportation officials interpreted the term “costallocation” as an accounting methodology to estimate the overall cost of 

operating transportation services in order to determine the appropriate 

rate to charge for these services, while state labor officials interpreted the 

 14Ecosometrics, Inc., Recommended Framework for Developing State and Local Human 

Services Transportation Planning Guidance (Bethesda, MD: Sept. 22, 1998). 

15Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Innovative State and Local Planning for 

Coordinated Transportation (Washington, D.C.: February 2002). 

Distinct Purposes and Goals 

Among Agencies 
Page 16 GAO-03-698T 

term as a way to determine what proportion of overall costs will be funded 

by each agency. 

Although some federal and state agencies have recognized the potential 

offered by coordination and provided some assistance toward this end, 

some state officials we interviewed expressed concerns about the amount 

and effectiveness of the guidance they have received on coordination. In 

addition, the absence of interagency forums or other mechanisms to 

develop and share information about initiatives to coordinate services 

limits the support that local providers receive to effectively coordinate. 

Officials in some states we visited said that they receive little federal 

guidance on potential strategies to coordinate services. As a result, they 

develop their own approaches without the benefit of guidance on the most 

effective way to coordinate services. For example, officials in one state 

said that there was insufficient guidance on how to share costs among 

programs for projects funded jointly by DOT’s JARC grants, HHS’s 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and DOL’s Welfare-to-Work 

program funds. Instead, they had to seek advice from other states. In 

addition, the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility is not directly 

funded and has limited visibility for agencies actually involved in 

implementing coordination efforts. For example, although the Council has 

developed a Web site16 that is accessible through a link on the Federal 

Transit Administration’s section of DOT’s Web site, there is no similar link 

from HHS’s Web site, possibly limiting human service agencies’ awareness 

of and ability to access the site. In several states, human service program 

administrators with whom we spoke were not aware of the Council or its 

Web site. 

In the five states we visited—even in those states with a coordinating 

body—there was limited state guidance to help local areas implement 

coordination, and some officials stated that the lack of leadership and 

commitment at the state level was a major obstacle to local coordination. 

In addition, while some states have established coordinating councils or 

bodies or have designated a lead agency for coordination, nearly one-half 

of the states have no coordinating body, according to one report.17 Officials 

 16www.fta.dot.gov/CCAM/www.index.html 

17Westat, Toolkit for Rural Community Coordinated Transportation Services, Transit 

Cooperative Research Project of the Transportation Research Board, Project B-24, Interim 

Report (Rockville, MD: March 2002). 

Obstacles Related to 

Limited Federal and State 

Guidance and Information 

on Coordination 

Limited Federal Guidance and 

Information on Coordination 

Limited State Guidance and 

Information on Coordination 
Page 17 GAO-03-698T 

in one state explained that the lack of a coordinating body that requires 

various agencies to discuss and resolve transportation issues is the main 

obstacle toward a more coordinated system. 

Federal, state, and local officials, as well as experts in the area, have 

suggested a number of potential ways to improve coordination of 

transportation services among federal programs. We are still in the 

process of collecting additional information and reviewing it with 

stakeholders, but three key options have emerged thus far. 

Officials and experts expressed a need to harmonize requirements among 

federal programs, such as providing more flexible regulatory language that 

would allow providers to serve additional client groups, creating 

consistent cost accounting methods, and adopting common safety 

standards. For example, one official commented that federal program 

regulations could include language permitting other client groups to make 

use of available transportation options. Also, some officials believed that 

adopting standard accounting procedures could provide a consistent 

measure for comparing services, allowing administrators to evaluate how 

best to provide transportation services and determine the savings they 

could achieve through coordination. Likewise, making standards for safety 

(e.g., types of seat belts) and driver training uniform among federal human 

service programs, as appropriate, may facilitate the shared use of vehicles 

and drivers in one coordinated system, according to some officials. 

Finally, some officials suggested that federal grant programs that allow the 

use of funds from multiple sources should be under the same funding 

cycle or time frame so that these funds may be combined more easily. 

However, differing program standards exist to ensure that the distinct 

needs of specific target populations are adequately served and that 

agencies maintain accountability for providing these services. Thus, the 

benefits from any change in standards or requirements would need to be 

balanced against continuing to properly meet client needs and sufficiently 

control funds distributed to grantees. In addition, harmonizing program 

standards and requirements among 62 federal programs authorized by 

more than 20 pieces of legislation would necessitate extensive legislative 

changes and could impose additional costs for agencies to meet new 

requirements. 

Some officials advocated expanding the number of agencies involved in 

coordination, establishing interagency forums, and improving central 

clearinghouses as ways to better develop and disseminate guidance on 

coordination. To enhance coordination efforts at the federal level, some 

Potential Options to 

Improve Coordination 

Harmonizing Program 

Standards and Requirements 

Expanding Forums and 

Providing and Disseminating 

Additional Guidance and 

Information on Coordination 
Page 18 GAO-03-698T 

officials suggested expanding the membership of the Coordinating Council 

on Access and Mobility to include additional agencies so that a broader 

array of agencies that serve the transportation-disadvantaged are 

represented. This could include agencies such as DOL and the Department 

of Education that we identified as being significant because a large 

number of their programs authorize the funding of transportation services 

for the transportation-disadvantaged. In addition, establishing state-level 

forums may also facilitate communication among agencies involved in 

coordination and can lead to benefits. For example, one state has 

established an interagency task force on transportation coordination, 

which has resulted in a number of benefits—including the pooling of 

vehicles and the expansion of services—in some areas of the state. Some 

officials and experts suggested that federal agencies provide additional 

guidance and other information that result from forums or other sources 

to clearly define the allowable uses of funds, assist agencies in developing 

cost-sharing arrangements for transporting common clientele, and 

encourage the establishment and participation in interagency forums. This 

additional guidance and information could be better disseminated through 

a central clearinghouse, such as the Coordinating Council’s Web site. 

Some officials and experts believed that incentives or mandates could help 

improve coordination, although others expressed concerns that such 

actions would have negative effects on the ability of local agencies to 

respond to community needs. Officials provided several examples, 

including the following: 

• Federal grant applications could contain provisions giving priority in 

funding to those grantees committed to coordination efforts. 

• Current funds allotted by multiple federal sources could be combined into 

one state or local fund for transportation services for the transportationdisadvantaged. 

• Funding opportunities could be tied to federal or state coordination 

mandates so that there are financial consequences for a failure to 

coordinate. 

However, officials pointed out that these options also had some potential 

downsides that would need to be carefully considered. For example, 

combining funds into a single source could result in some populations 

being unfairly overlooked because smaller agencies would be at a 

disadvantage in competing for funding with larger agencies serving larger 

numbers of clients. In addition, several officials also raised concerns about 

Providing Financial Incentives 

or Mandates 
Page 19 GAO-03-698T 

mandates to coordinate. For example, some officials said that mandates 

might reduce the flexibility of agencies to design and deliver 

transportation services that specifically address their communities’ needs. 

In addition, some officials noted that state efforts or mandates might not 

guarantee successful local coordination. For example, a city in one state 

we visited was unsuccessful in coordinating its multiple transportation 

services despite state encouragement to do so and despite losing some 

federal funding as a result. 

Messrs. Chairmen, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or Members of the Committees may 

have at this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Christine Bonham, Rita Grieco, 

Bradley Hunt, Susan Irving, Jessica Lucas-Judy, Sara Ann Moessbauer, 

Hilary Murrish, Ryan Petitte, Stanley Stenersen, Andrew Von Ah, and 

Randall Williamson.

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 20 GAO-03-698T 

Our scope of work included federal programs that provide transportation 

services to the transportation-disadvantaged. To provide information on 

the purposes and types of such federal programs, we first determined the 

universe of programs by reviewing an existing inventory produced by the 

Community Transportation Association of America1

 and a report prepared 

for the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility.2

 We then 

supplemented and modified this inventory of programs based on 

interviews with agency officials and searches of the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance. We included only those programs that provide 

nonemergency, nonmilitary, surface transportation services of any kind, 

targeted to transportation-disadvantaged populations. We interviewed 

program administrators to identify the general target population and the 

types of transportation services and trips that are typically provided under 

each program. 

To address the issues related to program funding, effects of coordination, 

and coordination obstacles and strategies, we: (1) conducted interviews 

and document reviews in the pertinent federal agencies; (2) conducted five 

case studies in Arizona, Florida, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; 

(3) reviewed the literature on the challenges encountered in providing and 

coordinating services to the transportation-disadvantaged; and (4) 

interviewed industry representatives and advocacy groups representing 

elderly and disabled populations. We did not verify spending data or 

estimates received from federal agencies for accuracy. 

At the federal level, we interviewed officials from the headquarters of the 

Federal Transit Administration in the Department of Transportation; the 

Administration on Aging, the Administration for Children and Families, the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Health Resources 

Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services; 

the Employment and Training Administration in the Department of Labor; 

the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Education; the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of the 

Interior; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We also interviewed 

federal officials from the 10 regional offices of the Federal Transit 

 1

Community Transportation Association of America, Building Mobility Partnerships: 

Opportunities for Federal Investment (Washington, D.C.: March 2002). 

2

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Planning Guidelines for State and Local 

Coordination (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2000). 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Page 21 GAO-03-698T 

Administration and some regional officials in the departments of Health 

and Human Services and Labor. The federal officials we met with included 

representatives of the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility from 

the Federal Transit Administration and the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

In conducting our case studies in the five states, we reviewed 

documentation and interviewed officials from state and local 

transportation and human service agencies and service providers, as well 

as consumers of transportation services. We judgmentally chose the states 

to include three states without a state mandate or state coordinating body 

and two states with such conditions. We also chose states on the basis of 

relative concentrations of elderly, disabled, and low-income populations, 

and for some, geographic dispersion. 

Finally, we interviewed representatives of professional, industry, and 

advocacy organizations that are part of the National Consortium on the 

Coordination of Human Services Transportation, a group that represents a 

broad spectrum of stakeholders involved with coordination of 

transportation for the disadvantaged. We conducted our work from July 

2002 through April 2003 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 
Page 22 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 

Food Stamp 

Employment and 

Training 

Program 

Food Stamp Act 

of 1977, as 

amended 

7 U.S.C. § 

2015(d)(4)(I)(i)(I) 

Reimbursement or 

advanced payment 

for gasoline 

expenses or bus 

fare 

To access 

education, 

training, 

employment 

services, and 

employment 

placements 

Low-income 

persons 

between the 

ages of 16 and 

59 

$12,952,956c

Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

21st-Century 

Community 

Learning 

Centers 

No Child Left 

Behind Act of 

2001 

20 U.S.C. § 

7173(a)(10) 

Contract for service To access 

educational 

services 

Students from 

low-income 

families 

$84,600,000 

(estimate)d

Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement 

Voluntary Public 

School Choice 

No Child Left 

Behind Act of 

2001 

20 U.S.C. § 

7225a(a) 

Contract for 

services, purchase 

and operate 

vehicles, hire bus 

drivers & 

transportation 

directors, purchase 

bus passes, 

redesign 

transportation 

plans including 

new routing 

systems, offer 

professional 

development for 

bus drivers 

To access 

educational 

services and 

programs 

Students from 

underperforming 

schools who 

choose to 

transfer to 

higher 

performing 

schools 

New program, no 

actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

Assistance for 

Education of All 

Children with 

Disabilities 

Individuals with 

Disabilities 

Education Act 

20 U.S.C. §§ 

1401(a)(22), 

1411(a)(1) 

Purchase and 

operate vehicles, 

contract for service 

To access 

educational 

services 

Children with 

disabilities 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Centers for 

Independent 

Living 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

796f-4(b)(3) and 

705(18)(xi) 

Referral, 

assistance, and 

training in the use 

of public 

transportation 

To access 

program services 

Persons with a 

significant 

disability 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Independent 

Living Services 

for Older 

Individuals Who 

Are Blind 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. § 

796k(e)(5) 

Referral, 

assistance, and 

training in the use 

of public 

transportation 

To access 

program 

services, for 

general trips 

Persons aged 

55 or older who 

have significant 

visual 

impairment 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Appendix II: Inventory of Federal Programs 
Page 23 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Independent 

Living State 

Grants 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

796e-2(1) and 

705(18)(xi) 

Referral, 

assistance, and 

training in the use 

of public 

transportation 

To access 

program 

services, 

employment 

opportunities 

Persons with a 

significant 

disability 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Supported 

Employment 

Services for 

Individuals with 

Severe 

Disabilities 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

795g and 

705(36) 

Vehicle 

modifications, bus 

tokens 

To access 

employment 

placements, 

employment 

services, and 

vocational 

rehabilitation 

services 

Persons with a 

significant 

disability 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agencye

Vocational 

Rehabilitation 

Grants 

Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. § 

723(a)(8) 

Vehicle 

modifications, bus 

tokens 

To access 

employment 

placements, 

employment 

services, and 

vocational 

rehabilitation 

services 

Persons with 

physical or 

mental 

impairments 

$49,200,000 

(estimate)e

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families 

Child Care and 

Development 

Fund 

Child Care and 

Development 

Block Grant Act 

of 1990, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

9858c 

States rarely use 

CCDF funds for 

transportation and 

only under very 

restricted 

circumstances 

To access child 

care services 

Children from 

low-income 

families 

$0 

(estimate)f

Community 

Services Block 

Grant Programs 

Community 

Opportunities, 

Accountability, 

Training, and 

Educational 

Services Act of 

1998 

42 U.S.C. § 9904 Taxi vouchers, bus 

tokens 

General trips Low-income 

persons 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Projects of 

National 

Significance 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Assistance and 

Bill of Rights 

Act of 2000 

42 U.S.C. §§ 

15002, 

15081(2)(D) 

Transportation 

information, 

feasibility studies, 

planning 

General trips Persons with 

developmental 

disabilities 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agencyg

Head Start Augustus F. 

Hawkins 

Human 

Services 

Reauthorization 

Act of 1990 

42 USCA § 

9835(a)(3)(C)(ii) 

Purchase and 

operate vehicles, 

contract with 

transportation 

providers, 

coordinate with 

local education 

agencies 

To access 

educational 

services 

Children from 

low-income 

families 

$514,500,000 

(estimate)h
Page 24 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance 

Discretionary 

Grants 

Refugee Act of 

1980, as 

amended 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus passes To access 

employment and 

educational 

services 

Refugees No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance State 

Administered 

Programs 

Refugee Act of 

1980, as 

amended 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus passes To access 

employment and 

educational 

services 

Refugees No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance 

Targeted 

Assistance 

Refugee Act of 

1980, as 

amended 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus passes To access 

employment and 

educational 

services 

Refugees No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Refugee and 

Entrant 

Assistance 

Voluntary 

Agency 

Programs 

Refugee Act of 

1980, as 

amended 

8 U.S.C. §§ 

1522(b)(7)(D), 

1522(c) 

Bus passes To access 

employment and 

educational 

services 

Refugees No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Social Services 

Block Grants 

Social Security 

Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

1397a(a)(2)(A) 

Any transportationrelated use To access 

medical or social 

services 

States 

determine what 

categories of 

families and 

children 

$18,459,393 

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, 15025 

States are 

encouraged to 

provide 

transportation 

services instead of 

vehicles 

Attendance at 

meetings, 

conferences, 

trainings 

Persons with 

developmental 

disabilities and 

family members 

$786,605 

(partial outlay)i

Temporary 

Assistance for 

Needy Families 

Personal 

Responsibility 

and Work 

Opportunity 

Reconciliation 

Act of 1996, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. §§ 

604(a), (k) 

Any transportationrelated use, 

matching portion of 

JARC grants 

General trips No assistance is 

provided to 

families without 

a minor child, 

but states 

determine 

specific eligibility 

$160,462,214 

(partial outlay)j

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging 

Grants for 

Supportive 

Services and 

Senior Centers 

Older 

Americans Act 

of 1965, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

3030d (a)(2) 

Contract for 

services 

To access 

program 

services, 

medical, and for 

general trips 

Program is 

targeted to 

persons aged 60 

or over 

$72,496,003 
Page 25 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Program for 

American Indian, 

Alaskan Native, 

and Native 

Hawaiian Elders 

Older 

Americans Act 

of 1965, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. §§ 

3057, 

3030d(a)(2) 

Purchase and 

operate vehicles 

To access 

program 

services, 

medical, and for 

general trips 

Program is for 

American 

Indian, Alaskan 

Native, and 

Native Hawaiian 

elders 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

Medicaid Social Security 

Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. §§ 

1396a, 

1396n(e)(1)(A) 

Bus tokens, 

subway passes, 

brokerage services 

To access health 

care services 

Recipients are 

generally lowincome persons, 

but states 

determine 

specific eligibility 

$976,200,000 

(estimate)k

State Children’s 

Health Insurance 

Program 

Medicare, 

Medicaid, and 

SCHIP Benefits 

Improvement 

Act of 2000 

42 U.S.C. §§ 

1397jj(a)(26), 

(27) 

Any transportationrelated use To access health 

care services 

Beneficiaries are 

children from 

low-income 

families, but 

states determine 

eligibility 

$4,398,089 

Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration 

Community 

Health Centers 

Public Health 

Service Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

254b(b)(1)(A)(iv) 

Bus tokens, 

vouchers, 

transportation 

coordinators, and 

drivers 

To access health 

care services 

Medically 

underserved 

populations 

$4,200,000 

(estimate)l

Healthy 

Communities 

Access Program 

Public Health 

Service Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

256(e)(B)(iii) 

Improve 

coordination of 

transportation 

To access health 

care services 

Uninsured or 

underinsured 

populations 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Healthy Start 

Initiative 

Public Health 

Service Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

254c-8(e)(1) 

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 

HIV Care 

Formula Grants 

Ryan White 

Comprehensive 

AIDS 

Resources 

Emergency Act 

of 1990 

42 U.S.C. §§ 

300ff-21(a), 

23(a)(2)(B) 

Bus passes, 

tokens, taxis, 

vanpools, vehicle 

purchase by 

providers, mileage 

reimbursement 

To access health 

care services 

Persons with 

HIV or AIDS 

$19,500,000 

(estimate)m

Maternal and 

Child Services 

Grants 

Social Security 

Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

701(a)(1)(A) 

Any transportationrelated use To access health 

care services 

Mothers, infants 

and children, 

particularly from 

low-income 

families 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 
Page 26 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Rural Health 

Care, Rural 

Health Network, 

and Small Health 

Care Provider 

Programs 

Health Centers 

Consolidation 

Act of 1996 

42 U.S.C. § 254c Purchase vehicles, 

bus passes 

To access health 

care services 

Medically 

underserved 

populations in 

rural areas 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

Community 

Mental Health 

Services Block 

Grant 

ADAMHA 

Reorganization 

Act, as 

amended 

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 

Substance 

Abuse 

Prevention and 

Treatment Block 

Grant 

ADAMHA 

Reorganization 

Act, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

300x-32(b) 

Any transportationrelated use To access 

program services 

Persons with a 

substance 

related disorder 

and/or 

recovering from 

substance 

related disorder 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development 

Community 

Development 

Block Grant 

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1974 

42 U.S.C. § 

5305(a)(8) 

Purchase and 

operate vehicles 

General trips Program must 

serve a majority 

of low-income 

persons 

$6,761,486 

(partial outlay)n

Housing 

Opportunities for 

Persons with 

AIDS 

AIDS Housing 

Opportunity Act 

42 U.S.C. § 

12907(a)(3) 

Contract for 

services 

To access health 

care and other 

services 

Low-income 

persons with 

HIV or AIDS and 

their families 

$73,000 

(estimate)o

Supportive 

Housing 

Program 

McKinneyVento 

Homeless 

Assistance Act 

of 1987, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

11385 

Bus tokens, taxi 

vouchers, 

purchase and 

operate vehicles 

To access 

supportive 

services 

Homeless 

persons and 

families with 

children 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agencyp

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing 

Revitalization of 

Severely 

Distressed 

Public Housing 

Housing and 

Community 

Development 

Act of 1992, as 

amended 

42 U.S.C. § 

1437v(l)(3) 

Bus tokens, taxi 

vouchers, contract 

for services 

Trips related to 

employment or 

obtaining 

necessary 

supportive 

services 

Residents of the 

severely 

distressed 

housing and 

residents of the 

revitalized units 

$700,000 

(estimate)q

Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Indian 

Employment 

Assistance 

Adult Indian 

Vocational 

Training Act, as 

amended 

25 U.S.C. § 309 Gas vouchers To access 

training 

Native American 

persons 

between the 

ages of 18 and 

35 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 
Page 27 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Indian 

Employment, 

Training and 

Related 

Servicesr

Indian 

Employment, 

Training and 

Related 

Services 

Demonstration 

Act of 1992 

25 U.S.C. § 3401 Gas vouchers Employmentrelated Low-income 

Native American 

persons 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration 

Job Corps Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2888(a)(1), 2890 

Bus tickets To access Job 

Corps sites and 

employment 

services 

Low-income 

youth 

$21,612,000 

Migrant and 

Seasonal 

Farmworkers 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 

2912(d) 

Mileage 

reimbursement 

To access 

employment 

placements or 

intensive and 

training services 

Low-income 

persons and 

their dependents 

who are 

primarily 

employed in 

agricultural labor 

that is seasonal 

or migratory 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Native American 

Employment and 

Training 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998 

29 U.S.C. § 

2911(d)(2) 

Bus tokens, transit 

passes 

To access 

employment 

placements, 

employment 

services 

Unemployed 

American 

Indians and 

other persons of 

Native American 

descent 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Senior 

Community 

Service 

Employment 

Program 

Older 

Americans Act 

of 1965 

42 U.S.C. § 

3056(c)(6)(A)(iv) 

Mileage 

reimbursement, 

reimbursement for 

travel costs, and 

payment for cost of 

transportation 

To access 

employment 

placements 

Low-income 

persons aged 55 

or over 

$4,400,000 

(estimate)s

Trade 

Adjustment 

Assistance - 

Workers 

Trade Act of 

1974, as 

amended 

19 U.S.C. § 

2296(b) 

Mileage 

reimbursement, 

transit fares 

To access 

training 

Persons found 

to be impacted 

by foreign trade, 

increased 

imports, or shift 

in production 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Welfare-to-Work 

Grants to 

Federally 

Recognized 

Tribes and 

Alaska Nativest

Personal 

Responsibility 

and Work 

Opportunity 

Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 

42 U.S.C. § 

612(a)(3)(C) 

Any transportationrelated use, though 

purchasing 

vehicles for 

individuals is not 

allowable 

To access 

employment 

placements, 

employment 

services 

American 

Indians and 

other persons of 

Native American 

descent who are 

long-term 

welfare 

recipients or are 

low-income 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 
Page 28 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Welfare-to-Work 

Grants to States 

and Localitiest

Personal 

Responsibility 

and Work 

Opportunity 

Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 

42 U.S.C. § 

603(a)(5)(C) 

Any transportationrelated use, though 

purchasing 

vehicles for 

individuals is not 

allowable 

To access 

employment 

placements, 

employment 

services 

Long-term 

welfare 

recipients or 

low-income 

individuals 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Work Incentive 

Grants 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 

2864(d)(2) 

Encourage 

collaboration with 

transportation 

providers 

To access onestop services Persons with 

disabilities who 

are eligible for 

employment and 

training services 

under WIA 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

Adult Program 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 

2864(e)(2) 

Mileage 

reimbursement, 

bus tokens, 

vouchers 

To access 

training 

Priority must be 

given to people 

on public 

assistance and 

low-income 

individuals 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

Dislocated 

Worker Program 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 

2864(e)(2) 

Transportation 

allowance or 

reimbursement, 

bus/subway tokens 

To access 

transition 

assistance in 

order to find or 

qualify for new 

employment 

Includes 

workers who 

have been laid 

off, or have 

received an 

individual notice 

of termination, 

or notice that a 

facility will close 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

Youth Activities 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 

2854(a)(4) 

Public 

transportation 

To access 

training and 

other support 

services 

Youth with low 

individual or 

family income 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Youth 

Opportunity 

Grants 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 

2914(b) 

Bus tokens To access 

program services 

Youth from high 

poverty areas, 

empowerment 

zones, or 

enterprise 

communities 

$415,000 

(estimate)u

Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration 

Black Lung 

Benefits 

Program 

Black Lung 

Benefits Reform 

Act of 1977 

30 U.S.C. § 923 Mileage 

reimbursement, 

transit fares, taxi 

vouchers 

To access health 

services 

Disabled coal 

miners 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agencyv 
Page 29 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service 

Homeless 

Veterans’ 

Reintegration 

Project 

Homeless 

Veterans 

Comprehensive 

Assistance Act 

of 2001 

38 USCA §§ 

2011, 2021 

Bus tokens To access 

employment 

services 

Homeless 

veterans 

No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Veterans’ 

Employment 

Program 

Workforce 

Investment Act 

of 1998, as 

amended 

29 U.S.C. §§ 

2801(46), 2913 

Bus tokens, minor 

repairs to vehicles 

To access 

employment 

services 

Veterans No actual data or 

estimate 

available from 

the federal 

agency 

Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 

Capital and 

Training 

Assistance 

Program for 

Over-the-Road 

Bus Accessibility 

Title 49 

Recodification, 

P.L. 103-272 

49 U.S.C. § 5310 To make vehicles 

wheelchair 

accessible and 

training required by 

ADA 

General trips Persons with 

disabilities 

$2,877,818 

Capital 

Assistance 

Program for 

Elderly Persons 

and Persons 

with Disabilities 

Title 49 

Recodification, 

P.L. 103-272 

49 U.S.C. § 5310 Assistance in 

purchasing 

vehicles, contract 

for services 

To serve the 

needs of the 

elderly and 

persons with 

disabilities 

Elderly persons 

and persons 

with disabilities 

$174,982,628 

Capital 

Investment 

Grants 

Transportation 

Equity Act for 

the 21st 

Century 

49 U.S.C. § 5309 Assistance for bus 

and bus-related 

capital projects 

General trips General public, 

although some 

projects are for 

the special 

needs of elderly 

persons and 

persons with 

disabilities 

$17,500,000 

(estimate)w

Job Access and 

Reverse 

Commute 

Transportation 

Equity Act for 

the 21st 

Century 

49 U.S.C. § 5309 Expand exisiting 

public 

transportation or 

initiate new service 

To access 

employment and 

related services 

Low-income 

persons, 

including 

persons with 

disabilities 

$85,009,627 

Nonurbanized 

Area Formula 

Program 

Title 49 

Recodification, 

P.L. 103-272 

49 U.S.C. § 5311 Capital and 

operating 

assistance for 

public 

transportation 

service, including 

paratransit 

services, in 

nonurbanized 

areas 

General trips General public, 

although 

paratransit 

services are for 

the special 

needs of 

persons with 

disabilities 

$0 

(partial 

obligation)x
Page 30 GAO-03-698T 

Program 

Popular title of 

authorizing 

legislation 

U.S. Code 

provisions 

authorizing 

funds for 

transportation 

Typical uses as 

reported by 

program officials 

Types of trips 

as reported by 

program 

officials 

Target 

population as 

defined by 

program 

officialsa

FY 2001 

spending on 

transportationb

Urbanized Area 

Formula 

Program 

Title 49 

Recodification, 

P.L. 103-272, 

as amended 

49 U.S.C. § 5307 Capital assistance, 

and some 

operating 

assistance for 

public transit, 

including 

paratransit 

services, in 

urbanized areas 

General trips General public, 

although 

paratransit 

services are for 

the special 

needs of 

persons with 

disabilities 

$36,949,680 

(partial 

obligation)y

Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration 

Automobiles and 

Adaptive 

Equipment for 

Certain Disabled 

Veterans and 

Members of the 

Armed Forces 

Disabled 

Veterans and 

Servicemen’s 

Automobile 

Assistance Act 

of 1970 

38 U.S.C. § 3902 Purchase of 

personal vehicles, 

modifications of 

vehicles 

General trips Veterans and 

service 

members with 

disabilities 

$33,639,000 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration 

VA Homeless 

Providers Grant 

and Per Diem 

Program 

Homeless 

Veterans 

Comprehensive 

Service 

Programs Act of 

1992 

38 U.S.C. § 7721 

note 

20 vans were 

purchased under 

this program 

General trips Homeless 

veterans 

$565,797 

Veterans 

Medical Care 

Benefits 

Veterans’ 

Benefits 

Improvements 

Act of 1994 

38 U.S.C. § 111 Mileage 

reimbursement, 

contract for service 

To access health 

care services 

Veterans with 

disabilities or 

low-incomes 

$126,594,591 

Total spending on transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged $2,429,835,887 

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 Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility; the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance; the U.S. Code; the Code of Federal Regulations; and the Community Transportation Association of America. 

a

A supplemental source for the target populations was the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

b

Actual outlays or obligations on transportation are given for programs that track this information. All 

data are outlays, except for the following programs, which are obligations: Capital Investment Grants, 

Urbanized Area Formula Program, Nonurbanized Area Formula Program, Job Access and Reverse 

Commute, Capital and Training Assistance for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, Capital Assistance 

Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for 

Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces, and Veterans Medical Care Benefits. 

Actual data and estimates are the total for the program, unless otherwise noted as partial outlays or 

obligations in the table. When actual information was not available, estimates are given based on 

information provided by program officials or the officials agreed with an estimate made by another 

source. 

c

According to a program official, outlays for the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program have 

increased due to changes in the program from the 2002 Farm Bill. The 2002 Farm Bill eliminates the 

$25 per month cap that the Department of Agriculture will reimburse the states for transportation and 

other work costs incurred by participants. In fiscal year 2002, federal outlays for transportation were 

$18,523,535. 
Page 31 GAO-03-698T 

d

A program official said that 10 percent of total program outlays would be a conservative estimate of 

transportation outlays. 

e

According to a program official, grantees report total transportation outlays for Vocational 

Rehabilitation Grants, Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe Disabilities, and 

other rehabilitation sources together. The program official reports that transportation outlays for 

Vocational Rehabilitation Grants are approximately 90 percent of the total amount reported, but did 

not provide a similar estimate for Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Severe 

Disabilities. 

f

A program official said that, while transportation is an allowable use of funds, using funds for 

transportation is not encouraged. Program officials estimate that transportation expenditures are zero 

or close to zero for this program. 

g

Fiscal year 2001 data are not available because transportation was not an area of emphasis until 

fiscal year 2002. The preliminary fiscal year 2002 outlays for transportation projects totaled 

$1,084,798. 

h

A program official estimated that transportation outlays were 8.3 percent of total outlays. 

 iThis is a partial outlay based on voluntary reporting by grantees. Full outlays are not available 

because, according to a program official, grantees were not required to report transportation outlays 

prior to fiscal year 2002. Fiscal year 2002 data are incomplete, however preliminary data on 

transportation outlays from 46 of the 51 grantees totaled $2,215,498. 

j

This is a partial outlay based on the amount grantees reported as non-assistance outlays in a 

category exclusively for transportation. States reported an additional $356.5 million as outlays on 

assistance in a category that includes transportation and supportive services, however program 

officials were unable to determine what percentage of the outlays on assistance were spent on 

transportation. 

k

Program officials indicate that federal data on nonemergency medical transportation are not 

available. Estimate assumes that transportation outlays are 0.73 percent of total program outlays, 

based on previous research, including a survey of state Medicaid programs. 

l

According to a program official, grantees report total outlays for transportation and it is not possible to 

distinguish between federal and nonfederal funds. The official said 22 percent of total transportation 

outlays would be a good estimate of the federal portion of fiscal year 2001 transportation outlays. 

m

Estimate of transportation outlays is based on data from grantee’s budget allocations, as suggested 

by an agency official. 

n

This is a partial outlay for transportation through the Community Development Block Grant program. 

This figure includes transportation outlays for the Entitlement program, but excludes the State 

Administered program. 

o

This is a partial estimate because, according to a program official, data on transportation outlays are 

only available from competitive grantees; formula grantees are not required to report outlays for 

transportation. The program official could not provide an estimate of outlays for transportation through 

the formula grant program. The program official said that fiscal year 2001 data for the competitive 

grant program are incomplete and the agency is still collecting fiscal year 2001 data from 

approximately one-third of its competitive grantees, due to differing reporting schedules. As of March 

2003, competitive grantees reported outlays of approximately $60,000 on transportation, and the 

program official expects total outlays for transportation to reach the level of outlays on transportation 

in fiscal year 1999 (approximately $73,000) or more after all competitive grantees report data. 

p

Data on outlays for transportation are not available. The agency does collect data on the amount that 

grantees request for various supportive services, including transportation. These requests may cover 

1, 2, or 3 years; a program official said that they could not easily determine for how many years 

grantees are requesting money. In fiscal year 2001, grantees requested $12,973,992 for 

transportation. 

q

Estimate of outlays for transportation is based on a program official’s review of the budgets from 15 

grantees who renewed their grants in fiscal year 2001. The official projected total transportation 

outlays for the program based on these 15 grantees. 
Page 32 GAO-03-698T 

r

Public Law 102-477 allows tribal governments to consolidate funding from several federal programs. 

These include: the Department of Health and Human Services’s Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families, and Child Care and Development Fund programs; the Department of Labor’s Native 

American Employment and Training, and Welfare-to-Work Grants for Federally Recognized Tribes 

programs; and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s Employment Assistance, Indian Social Service and 

Welfare Assistance, Adult Basic Education, and Higher Education programs. The Indian Social 

Services and Welfare Assistance Program is not used for transportation outside 102-477. The Adult 

Basic Education and Higher Education programs do not target transportation-disadvantaged 

populations as defined in this study outside of 102-477. The Employment Assistance program and the 

HHS and DOL programs can provide transportation assistance separately from 102-477. 

s

A program official estimated that transportation outlays were approximately 1 percent of total 

program outlays. 

t

Program funding from FY 1998 and 1999 may still be spent, but the program no longer receives 

funding. 

u

Estimate of transportation outlays is based on a program official’s review of grantee obligations. 

v

According to a program official, fiscal year 2001 data are not available due to changes in the 

program’s reporting system. The official reported that transportation outlays for fiscal year 2002 

totaled $478,408. 

w

According to a program official, there are three distinct allocations of funds under the Capital 

Investment Grants: the New Starts allocation, which funds new rail projects; the fixed-guideway 

modernization allocation, which provides funding to maintain and update aging rail systems; and the 

bus allocation, which provides funding for the purchase of buses, bus-related equipment and 

paratransit vehicles, and for the construction of bus-related facilities. Because the Capital Investment 

Grants fund projects that provide services for the general public, the transportation-disadvantaged 

likely benefit from many projects funded through each of the three allocations, but information was not 

available to estimate what portion of these funds for the general public benefit the transportationdisadvantaged. However, the program official said that the bus allocation would likely provide the 

most direct benefit for the transportation-disadvantaged and the obligation level could be estimated 

by totaling allocations to purchase vans, buses for the elderly or disabled, or paratransit vehicles and 

equipment. 

x

The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program funds projects that provide services for the general public, 

however grantees can use up to 10 percent of their funds to provide complementary ADA paratransit 

services. Although grantees did not report obligations for complementary ADA paratransit, a program 

official said that transportation-disadvantaged populations might benefit from other services provided 

through this grant, such as demand-responsive services. However, the program official could not 

identify the amount of spending that directly benefits the transportation-disadvantaged. 

 yAccording to a program official, the Urbanized Area Formula Program funds projects that provide 

services for the general public, however grantees can use up to 10 percent of their funds to provide 

complementary ADA paratransit services. The figure listed in the table is the total obligations that 

grantees reported for providing complementary ADA paratransit services. Although grantees may 

benefit from other services provided through this grant, such as demand-responsive services, the 

amount spent on complementary ADA paratransit is the only portion that program officials could 

identify as directly benefiting the transportation-disadvantaged. 

(542022)