a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2002 WELFARE REFORM

Job Access Program 

Improves Local 

Service Coordination, 

but Evaluation Should 

Be Completed

GAO-03-204
Since 1999, DOT has awarded over $355 million for 352 Job Access grants in

42 states to help low-income people get to job opportunities and job support

services, such as training and child care. Job Access grantees used various

approaches to provide transportation for this purpose, such as expanding

existing bus service, adding new areas to be served by an existing fixed

transit route, or enhancing the frequency of the service.

Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees

Transportation approach Percentage of grantees

Fixed bus route extension (frequency or location)

established

51

New bus service initiated 43

Demand-responsive service establisheda 19

Connection to existing service established 14

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because some grantees provided multiple services.

a

Demand-responsive service takes riders at times they request to places that are not on a fixed

route.

Source: GAO analysis of 1999 grantees’ services.

The program has met its goal of encouraging collaboration among

transportation, human service, and other community-based agencies in Job

Access service design, implementation, and financing. However, most of the

program’s services are not financially sustainable. For example, 12 percent

of Job Access grantees indicated that they could continue their services after

the end of program funding, while 41 percent reported they would likely

terminate or decrease services, and 47 percent were uncertain about their

ability to continue those services.

DOT has not evaluated the Job Access program or reported to the Congress,

as TEA-21 requires. The department therefore is missing an opportunity to

provide timely information to the Congress that could assist it in deciding

whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. GAO has several concerns

about DOT’s plans to evaluate the Job Access program. For its evaluation,

DOT initially planned to use one performance measure—employment sites

served. However, using a methodology that is based on this measure would

yield limited information because it only partially addresses the program’s

goal of providing transportation to low-income people and does not address

other program goals and criteria. Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

program officials informed GAO that they also plan to use other

performance measures, but they did not provide sufficient detail for GAO to

comment on the quality of their evaluation. Moreover, the final report’s date

of issuance and its contents are uncertain because the report has yet to be

reviewed and approved by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and

the Office of Management and Budget. DOT officials did not provide GAO

with an estimated date for submitting the report to the Congress.

WELFARE REFORM

Job Access Program Improves Local

Service Coordination, but Evaluation

Should Be Completed

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-204.

To view the full report, 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-03-204, a report to the

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs and the House

Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure

December 2002

Pursuant to Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),

GAO periodically reports on the

implementation of the Job Access

and Reverse Commute (Job

Access) program. The program is

designed to assist low-income

people in accessing employment

opportunities. This report examines

the Department of Transportation’s

(DOT) efforts to evaluate the

program and report the results to

the Congress. GAO also examined

(1) transportation and related

services provided by the program;

(2) whether the program fosters

collaboration between Job Access

grantees and others in the design,

financing, and delivery of those

services; and (3) whether Job

Access services would be

financially sustainable after the end

of Job Access funding.

GAO recommends that DOT:

• Report to the Congress on the

results of the Job Access

program, as required by law.

• Base the report on data that

fully measures the effectiveness

of the Job Access program,

including financial

sustainability of Job Access

projects.
Page i GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

DOT’s Evaluation Has Been Delayed and May Not Address 

Significant Aspects of the Job Access Program 7

Varied Services Delivered and Collaboration Improved, but Projects’ 

Sustainability and Use of Federal Funds Can Be Improved 12

Conclusions 19

Recommendations 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendixes

Appendix I: Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports 22

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26

Review of Selected, Ongoing Job Access Projects 28

Survey of Job Access Grantees 29

Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts 29

Appendix III: Services of Selected Job Access Grantees 31

Alliance for Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) – 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 33

California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry 

Transportation Services – Kings County and Kerns County, 

California 34

Capital District Transportation Authority – Albany, New York 37

City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services – Albuquerque, 

New Mexico 39

City of Santa Rosa Citybus – Santa Rosa, California 41

Fort Worth Transportation Authority – Fort Worth, Texas 43

Good News Garage, Commuteshare – Burlington, Vermont 45

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Frankfort, Kentucky 47

Housing Department – Las Vegas, New Mexico 49

Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute 

Program – Annapolis, Maryland 51

Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs – New York City 53

State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job 

Access 55

Transit Authority of River City – Louisville, Kentucky 57

Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services 58
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees 62

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment 72

Tables Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to 

Our Survey 10

Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access 

Grantees 13

Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited 32

Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access 

Project 33

Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project 36

Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access 

Project 37

Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access 

Project 40

Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access 

Project 42

Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job 

Access Project 44

Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project 46

Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access 

Project 48

Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department 

Job Access Project 50

Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job 

Access Program 51

Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project 54

Table 15: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and 

Rural Job Access Project 56

Table 16: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and 

Rural Job Access Project 58

Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access 

Services 60
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Abbreviations

AITS Agriculture Industry Transportation Services

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CTAA Community Transportation Association of America

DOT Department of Transportation

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWTA Fort Worth Transportation Authority

FY fiscal year

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

LIFT Low-Income Flexible Transportation

MTA Maryland Transit Administration

MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

PATH Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, 

and Health Access

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program

TARC Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, Kentucky)

TDA Transportation Development Act (California State)

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

WIA Workforce Investment Act

WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Page 1 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

December 6, 2002 Letr

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes 

Chairman

The Honorable Phil Gramm

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Banking, Housing,

 and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation

 and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The government’s national welfare reform effort seeks to transition welfare 

recipients from welfare to work. One important factor in welfare 

recipients’ finding and keeping work is their access to adequate 

transportation. In 1998, the Congress found that while three-fourths of 

welfare recipients lived in central cities or rural areas, two-thirds of new 

jobs were located in the suburbs. Public transportation facilities, such as 

buses or subways, often offer limited or no access to many of the places 

where jobs are located. As a result, the Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA-21) authorized up to $750 million for fiscal years 1999 

through 2003 for the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Job Access and 

Reverse Commute (Job Access) Program. The program attempts to fill gaps 

in transportation services that constitute barriers to low-income people1

accessing job opportunities. The program provides grants to transit 

agencies, local human service agencies, and others. DOT’s two major goals 

for the program are to (1) provide transportation and related services to 

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

including welfare recipients, with access to employment and related 

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

1

The Job Access program serves “low-income” people, who are defined as having family 

income at or below 150 percent of the official poverty line as defined in 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). 

People who are low income and are eligible to use the Job Access Program include welfare 

recipients who qualify for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

Program as well as beneficiaries of other federal assistance programs. 
Page 2 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

among such parties as transportation providers, human service agencies, 

employers, and others in planning, funding, and delivering those services. 

Since TEA-21 expires at the end of fiscal year 2003, the Congress will soon 

be making decisions regarding the possible reauthorization of the Job 

Access Program. 

TEA-21 requires that we report on the implementation of the Job Access 

Program. To date, we have issued six reports on the Program from May 

1998 through December 2001, and we also testified on the Program in April 

2002 before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure. (See app. I for a summary of the 

results of our previous reports on the Program.) 

As agreed with your offices, this report 

• examines the status of DOT’s efforts to evaluate the Job Access Program 

and report to the Congress and 

• discusses our findings about the Job Access Program’s efforts to (1) 

provide transportation and related services to allow low-income people 

to reach employment and related opportunities; (2) increase 

collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of the services of Job 

Access projects; and (3) foster the financial sustainability of the services 

delivered by Job Access projects after program funding terminates. 

To meet these objectives, we examined Program documentation at DOT, 

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

of Labor (Labor); interviewed officials of these agencies; conducted a mail 

survey of all 173 fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 Job Access grantees 

with projects that were still operating at the time we did our study,2

achieving a response rate of about 88 percent (or 152 grantees); and 

interviewed nine experts in welfare reform and/or transportation. We 

selected these experts on the basis of our review of transit and welfare 

reform literature and referrals from HHS, Labor, DOT, and national 

associations, such as the Community Transportation Association of

2

In 2000, we surveyed organizations responsible for implementing 194 projects selected for 

award in 1999; the numbers of projects and grantees have changed since then because some 

projects were dropped, some grantees withdrew from the program, and other grants were 

consolidated.
Page 3 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

America (CTAA).3 We also visited and documented activities at 14 locations 

where Job Access projects were being implemented. We judgmentally 

selected these locations to obtain a nationwide geographic dispersion of 

existing projects; different sizes (large urban, medium-size urban, and 

small cities/rural areas) of the areas served by Job Access projects; and 

various types of services funded by Job Access grants. Moreover, to 

address the first objective of our study, we monitored DOT’s efforts to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the program and report to the Congress by 

June 2000, as required by TEA-21. Our work was performed from January 

2002 through October 2002 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. For more detailed information about our 

scope and methodology, see appendix II.

Results in Brief DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of the 

Program, as TEA-21 required; therefore, DOT is missing an opportunity to 

provide timely information that could be useful as the Congress considers 

whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. Though required to submit the 

report by June 2000, DOT neither submitted the report nor established a 

date for doing so. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Program officials 

are uncertain of when the report would be submitted to the Congress 

because the report must undergo a review and approval process by the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and 

Budget. In addition, we have serious concerns about FTA’s proposal for the 

evaluation because, as we testified in April 2002, 4

 the agency’s plan to focus 

its evaluation on the number of employment sites5 served by each Job 

Access project does not fully address key aspects of the program. For 

example, the employment sites measure addresses only the program goal 

of providing transportation-related services and does not address the other 

goal of encouraging collaboration in the design, financing, and service 

delivery of Job Access projects. According to DOT officials, their report to 

3

The Community Transportation Association of America is an association with a stated goal 

of improving the mobility of low-income and other disadvantaged people. The association 

conducts research, provides technical assistance, offers educational programs, and serves 

as an advocate for coordinated community transportation. 

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Has Made Progress in 

Implementing the Job Access Program but Has Not Evaluated the Impact, GAO-02-640T

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 17, 2002).

5

An employment site, where employers are located, is considered accessible if it is located 

within one-quarter mile of Job Access transportation services provided by the grantee.
Page 4 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

the Congress will include additional data that they believe would address 

both of the program’s objectives but not the selection criterion that the 

services funded by Job Access projects continue after the termination of 

program funding. However, we are unable to comment on the evaluation, 

because agency officials did not provide us with a draft of the report. 

Our analysis shows that, through its grants, the Job Access Program funds 

a variety of transportation-related services that are intended to assist lowincome people in traveling to the workplace and associated support 

services, such as child care or job training. In awarding over $355 million in 

grants in 42 states through fiscal year 2002, the program funded such 

services as extending existing bus routes to serve low-income populations 

and informing clients about available transportation service and their use. 

In addition, according to grantees and experts we contacted, the program 

has increased planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among 

local transportation providers, human service agencies, employers, and 

others. For example, over three-quarters of our survey’s respondents6

stated that the program increased collaboration with other transit and 

human service agencies. Such collaboration allows transit agencies to 

design and provide transportation service that is based on information 

from other agencies about where low-income people live and where jobs 

and support services are located. However, more collaboration at the 

federal level is needed between Labor and DOT to enable grantees to 

obtain additional federal funding for Job Access projects. Specifically, 

some grantees have not used funds from Labor’s Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) programs7

 as a match for Job Access grants because Labor and DOT 

officials have not yet clarified the eligibility of WIA funds for this purpose. 

According to the Job Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, 

such as those from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

Program and the WIA programs, have an advantage over nonfederal 

matching funds because these are formula programs that have a 

predictable funding stream to the states and localities so that funding can 

be maintained without disruption. However, the ability of many grantees to 

financially sustain their Job Access services after the end of program 

assistance (a criterion for FTA to consider in the selection of Job Access 

projects) is uncertain. Only 12 percent of our survey’s respondents said 

6

For our study, we surveyed all of the 173 grantees that FTA selected for grants during fiscal 

years 1999 and 2000; 152 responded, for a response rate of 88 percent.

7

WIA programs provide individuals with job training and placement services and 

transportation to those services.
Page 5 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

they would maintain or expand the level of Job Access services after the 

end of Job Access funding; 41 percent said they would decrease or 

discontinue services; and 47 percent were uncertain about continuing 

services. According to one expert we contacted, because many Job Access 

services are more costly than the services for the general transit clientele, 

grantees would likely continue operating the Job Access services only as 

long as federal funding covered the associated costs. According to FTA 

program officials, FTA has recently taken new steps to coordinate with 

Labor by forwarding questions to Labor requesting clarification on the use 

of WIA funds as Job Access matching funds. FTA program officials said that 

Labor’s responses might be published on a government Web site, thereby 

informing grantees and other stakeholders of the availability of WIA funds 

for Job Access purposes. 

We are making a recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation that 

DOT report to the Congress on the results of its evaluation of the Job 

Access Program, as required by law. Another recommendation is intended 

to help ensure that in reporting to the Congress, DOT evaluates the 

program against both program goals as well as against the selection 

criterion that Job Access projects be financially sustainable after the end of 

program funding. A third recommendation addresses barriers to the use of 

WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access grants.

We submitted a draft of this report to DOT, including FTA, for review and 

comment. 

Background The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 dramatically altered the nati’on’s system to 

provide assistance to the poor. The 1996 act replaced the existing 

entitlement program for poor families with block grants to the states to 

provide temporary assistance for needy families under the TANF Program. 

Also, under the TANF Program, states provide cash assistance to needy 

families with children and provide parents with job preparation; work; and 

support services, including transportation benefits. The 1996 act gave 

states flexibility in designing their programs to best provide those benefits 

and services. HHS’s Administration for Children and Families manages the 

TANF Program and has provided about $16.5 billion annually for states to 

use to assist needy families to become self-sufficient, including about $800 

million annually for transportation benefits. In addition, Labor’s 

Employment and Training Administration administers programs authorized 

under WIA, with about $4 billion in fiscal year 2002 appropriations to 
Page 6 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

provide individuals with job training and placement services. The WIAsponsored programs also provide transportation services to take their 

clients to program-supported services, such as job training and placement.8

The TANF- and WIA-sponsored transportation efforts focus on their 

program clients, while the Job Access Program attempts to improve 

transportation for low-income people in general. 

With the enactment of TEA-21, DOT became a sponsor of welfare-to-work 

initiatives. The Job Access Program is focused on assisting address the 

transportation aspect of welfare reform by assisting low-income people 

travel to work and/or employment-related activities. Many low-income 

people and welfare recipients do not have access to cars and existing 

public transportation systems cannot always bridge the gap between where 

low-income people live and where jobs are located. In addition, many 

entry-level jobs require shift work in evenings or on weekends, when public 

transportation services are either limited or unavailable. When the Job 

Access Program was established, $750 million was authorized from fiscal 

years 1999 through 2003 for the Program. Appropriations have totaled $375 

million through fiscal year 2002, with $75 million appropriated in each of 

the fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and $100 million and $125 million 

appropriated for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, respectively.9 

The Job Access Program was established to close gaps in transportation 

services for low-income people in places where and at times when such 

transportation was not available. The program addressed these gaps by 

funding, through grants, new transportation and related services and 

expanding existing services to help low-income people access employment 

opportunities and related support services. TEA-21 identified a variety of 

factors for DOT to consider in funding Job Access projects, such as the 

need for Job Access services as evidenced by the percentage of the 

population in the area receiving welfare benefits; the demonstrated 

collaboration between the grantee and other stakeholders, such as other 

8

The expenditures for WIA-funded transportation services have not been estimated or 

determined.

9

Some of the Job Access Program funds are “guaranteed,” that is, subject to a procedural 

mechanism designed to ensure that minimum amounts of funding are made available each 

year. TEA-21 provided guaranteed funding of $50 million for fiscal year 1999, $75 million for 

fiscal year 2000, $100 million for fiscal year 2001, $125 million for fiscal year 2002, and $150 

million for fiscal year 2003. In addition, as of the date of this report, DOT is being funded 

through a continuing resolution, and the final funding level for the program for fiscal year 

2003 has not been decided.
Page 7 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

transportation and human service agencies; and the extent to which an 

applicant identified long-term financing strategies that would support the 

Job Access services after the end of the grant. Job Access grantees are 

required to provide at least 50 percent matching funds from other sources, 

which may include federal sources of funds available for transportation 

services, such as the TANF or WIA programs. 

DOT has consistently used two goals that it synthesized from TEA-21 as the 

primary criteria for evaluating, selecting, and funding Job Access projects 

to be funded through program grants. Those goals are that Job Access 

projects and services funded should

• provide transportation and related services to urban, suburban, and 

rural areas to assist low-income individuals, including welfare 

recipients, with access to employment and related services, such as 

child care and training, and 

• increase collaboration among such parties as transportation providers, 

human service agencies, employers, and others in designing, funding, 

and delivering those transportation services.

In selecting Job Access projects, DOT also considered the extent to which 

the projects would be financially sustainable after the end of Job Access 

Program funding.10

DOT’s Evaluation Has 

Been Delayed and May 

Not Address 

Significant Aspects of 

the Job Access 

Program

DOT has not reported to the Congress on the results of an evaluation of the 

Job Access Program, as TEA-21 required. DOT therefore is missing an 

important opportunity to provide information that could be useful as the 

Congress considers whether to reauthorize the program in 2003. FTA 

Program officials are not certain about when the report will be submitted 

to the Congress and have not established a date for doing so. 

10When selecting projects, DOT also has considered such factors as the geographic 

dispersion of Job Access projects and the innovative nature of proposed Job Access 

services.
Page 8 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Evaluation Report Has Been 

Delayed, and Its Submittal 

Date Is Uncertain

DOT has delayed completion of its evaluation of the Job Access Program, 

and the date that it will be submitted to the Congress is uncertain. TEA-21 

required that DOT evaluate the Job Access Program and submit a report to 

the Congress by June 2000. FTA officials stated their intentions to us 

several times and to the Congress to complete and submit the required 

evaluation report. DOT’s delays in issuing the report have cost it an 

important opportunity to provide information to the Congress on the 

effectiveness of the Job Access Program as the Congress begins its debate 

on the reauthorization of the program. In addition, as shown below, we 

have repeatedly reported on and emphasized the need for DOT to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the Job Access Program. 

• In May 1998, before the program was enacted into law, we reported that 

DOT lacked specific information for assessing how a Job Access 

Program would improve mobility for low-income workers, and we 

recommended that DOT establish specific objectives. 

• In December 1998, we reported that DOT was in the process of 

establishing an evaluation plan for the program.11

• In November 1999, we noted that DOT had not yet completed a plan for 

evaluating the program, although we had recommended that it do so.12

• In December 2000, we reported that the evaluation plan had been 

completed and that for the purposes of reporting under the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, DOT had established a goal of 

serving 4,050 new employment sites in fiscal year 2000, and 8,050 in 

fiscal year 2001.13

• On April 17, 2002, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we testified 

that DOT had not yet prepared the required evaluation report and had

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs 

Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 1998).

12U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs 

Program in Its First Year, GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999).

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in 

Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO-01-133 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000).
Page 9 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

no definite date for submitting the study.14 At that hearing, DOT officials 

stated that the report would be completed and sent to the Congress by 

June 2002. 

Throughout our study, FTA program officials discussed the reasons for the 

delays in issuing the report to the Congress. FTA program officials 

explained that to meet the requirement that they submit an evaluative 

report to the Congress by June 2000, they asked the grantees to submit data 

regarding the employment sites served by Job Access projects as well as 

the numbers of employers and entry-level jobs at those sites. They 

explained that they found that only about two-fifths of the data they 

obtained from grantees proved to be useful, because the rest of the data 

were inconsistently or inaccurately reported. By the summer of 2001, DOT 

officials decided that the data were out-of-date. They decided to wait for 

new data to be reported to them and to redraft the report to the Congress 

using the new data.

As of the end of our review, FTA program officials continued to be unsure 

of the date the evaluative report will be submitted to the Congress. In 

November 2002, they said that they had completed their draft report and 

that the draft was being reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation for approval before the report could be sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget for its approval. FTA Program officials did not 

provide us with an estimated date for submitting the draft report to the 

Office of Management and Budget and the final report to the Congress. 

Reporting Only 

Employment Sites Would 

Not Comprehensively 

Evaluate the Program, and 

Contents of Final Report to 

the Congress Are Uncertain

When we testified on April 17, 2002, DOT had planned to use only 

employment sites as a measure of program effectiveness. We testified that 

this measure presents only a partial picture of program effectiveness in 

meeting program goals for the following reasons: 

• First, employment sites attempt to measure whether the Job Access 

Program establishes effective transportation services that help lowincome people reach jobs—only one of the program goals. However, 

employment sites do not address the other program goal of whether 

projects were designed and implemented in a collaborative fashion 

involving the grantee and stakeholders. In addition, employment sites 

14GAO-02-640T.
Page 10 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

do not address the selection criterion of whether Job Access projects 

can be financially sustained after the end of program funding. 

• Second, the use of employment sites does not fully capture whether the 

Job Access Program effectively addresses the program goal of providing 

transportation-related services to low-income people. Employment sites 

do not capture such information as the number of jobs available at a site 

or the number of Job Access beneficiaries using a Job Access service 

over a period of time. 

Grantees that responded to our survey reported that they are using 

additional indicators of and data on the performance of Job Access 

services. These grantees reported that, for internal reporting purposes, 

they collect a variety of data that can indicate the effectiveness of Job 

Access services. These survey results are shown in table 1.

Table 1: Performance Measures Cited by Grantees Responding to Our Survey

Source: GAO survey of the 173 grantees that were awarded their grants in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 

and are still operating their Job Access projects. One-hundred, fifty-two (152) responded to our survey. 

See also appendix IV of this report.

In addition to the measures listed in the table, experts we contacted 

suggested that DOT consider such measures as (1) the number of new and 

expanded transportation services (including data on service frequency, 

hours, and miles); (2) the level of collaboration achieved; and (3) the 

beneficiaries’ views of the effectiveness of Job Access services. In 1998, 

Performance measures reported by grantees

Percentage of grantees that cited

the performance measure

Number of passengers that use a new or enhanced 

transportation service 81

Number of trips made by Job Access service 64

Number of employment sites accessed through the 

Job Access service 60

Number of employers made available to lowincome people through a Job Access service 57

Number of jobs served by a Job Access 

transportation service 53

Number of TANF clients who were able to obtain 

and keep employment as a result of Job Access 

service 25
Page 11 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

DOT funded a study that also identified many of these same measures for 

evaluating prospective Job Access projects.

After we discussed with FTA program officials their plans to use only 

employment sites as performance measures, they stated that they planned 

to issue an evaluative report to the Congress that would contain 

information in addition to employment sites. In September 2002, we 

requested that FTA program officials provide a draft of the report for our 

review or a description of the evaluative methodology. In response, on 

October 4, 2002, they provided us with a memorandum that listed the 

contents of the report they proposed for the evaluative report to the 

Congress, including a list of the performance measures they proposed to 

use. According to FTA program officials and this document, the evaluative 

report would contain the results of a study by the University of Illinois, 

including surveys of passengers who were riding Job Access vehicles and 

studies of Job Access grantees. FTA program officials told us that they 

hoped to profile the services provided by the Job Access Program, 

including data on the geographic distribution of the services, the types of 

transportation-related services provided, the costs of the services, and the 

cost per ride. They also proposed an assessment of the program that would 

include such indicators as the number of employment sites, the number of 

jobs, and the job support services made available by Job Access projects. 

Other proposed measures include Job Access project ridership and user 

characteristics, such as users’ age, income, car ownership, driver’s license 

status, and work history, and information about users’ assessments of the 

importance of the Job Access service. According to the measures that FTA 

program officials listed, their report might address the second objective of 

the program by conveying information on Job Access planning 

partnerships between transportation and human service providers as well 

as community representatives and employers. The report also might 

address the financial partnerships established to fund Job Access services, 

such as the partnerships involving transportation providers, human service 

providers, and private and not-for-profit organizations. 

Notwithstanding the information given to us by FTA program officials 

about the proposed contents for their report to the Congress, for the 

following reasons we continue to believe that contents of the final report 

are uncertain, including whether the report would evaluate the program 

against both program goals and selection criterion: 

• First, FTA’s list of the performance indicators that FTA proposed for its 

report to the Congress did not specify how FTA would collect these 
Page 12 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

additional performance data—an important consideration given the 

results of FTA’s earlier efforts to collect performance data from the Job 

Access grantees. 

• Second, the document did not contain sufficient information for us to 

comment on the adequacy of the report that FTA program officials 

propose to submit to the Congress or the rigor of the proposed 

evaluative methodology. For example, the document did not specify 

how the data would be used to address the goals and selection criterion 

of the Job Access Program. 

• Third, as previously stated, FTA program officials must still submit the 

draft through a review process. The reviewing parties may not approve 

the contents of the report as proposed by FTA program officials.

Varied Services 

Delivered and 

Collaboration 

Improved, but Projects’

Sustainability and Use 

of Federal Funds Can 

Be Improved 

In awarding over $355 million in grants in 42 states through fiscal year 2002, 

the Job Access Program funded such services as extending existing bus 

routes to serve low-income populations and implementing services that 

provide information to clients about available transportation services and 

their use. Moreover, the program has increased planning, financial, and 

service delivery collaboration among local transportation providers, 

human service and job placement agencies, employers, and others in 

providing access to employment and employment support services. 

However, the ability of many Job Access projects to be financially 

sustainable after the end of program assistance (a criterion FTA considered 

in the selection of Job Access projects) is uncertain. In addition, some 

states have not used WIA funds as Job Access matching funds, because 

specific guidance on the use of WIA funds has not been issued.

The Job Access Program 

Funded a Variety of Services 

to Help Low-Income People 

Travel to Work

Through Job Access grants, the program served a broad range of 

geographic areas, including large and medium-size cities as well as small 

towns and rural areas. Most grantees—about two-thirds of them—are 

traditional transit providers, such as metropolitan transit authorities or bus 

companies. The remaining grantees, such as local human service agencies, 

local housing agencies, and faith- and community-based organizations, do 

not provide transit services as a primary activity. 

As shown in table 2, Job Access grantees used a variety of approaches to 

provide transportation services that assist low-income people to access job 
Page 13 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

opportunities. Many Job Access projects involved expanding existing 

transit resources, such as bus routes. On the basis of our analysis of project 

documentation, about 51 percent of the 181 grantees selected in fiscal year 

1999 modified an existing fixed transit route by adding new areas served or 

by enhancing the frequency of the service, while 43 percent added entirely 

new bus routes to serve the needs of low-income people.15 For example, the 

Santa Rosa, California, transit agency started a new route that provides bus 

service from a low-income neighborhood to employment locations on the 

other side of town and training centers en-route. According to transit 

officials, this service will eventually be incorporated into the existing 

transit network once their Job Access grant is ended. 

Table 2: Approach to Transportation Services by Job Access Grantees

a

Percentages do not add to 100 because some grantees provided multiple services. 

b

Fixed bus routes are traditional bus routes that operate on predetermined streets and at fixed times.

c

Demand-responsive service refers to a transit service, often utilizing small buses or vans, that take 

riders to locations they request at times they request.

d

Connection to existing service refers to a new transit service that transports riders to preexisting 

transit routes—for example, bus or van connections to a subway system.

Source: Analysis of project data on all 181 grantees that FTA selected in fiscal year 1999 as presented 

in report GAO/RCED-00-14. These grantees include over 80 percent of the grantees still participating 

in the Job Access Program. 

According to our analysis, grantees used a variety of transportation 

modes—in particular, vans, buses, or rail—to provide those transportation 

services for low-income people. Forty-one percent of the Job Access 

grantees used vans to serve low-income people. For example, because 

some low-income people faced problems getting to and from work during 

late hours, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

15 The fiscal year 1999 grantees include over 80 percent of the grantees still participating in 

the Job Access Program. See GAO/RCED-00-14. 

Transportation approach Percentage of granteesa

Fixed bus route extension (frequency or location) 

establishedb 51

New bus service initiated 43

Demand-responsive service establishedc 19

Connection to existing service establishedd 14
Page 14 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

began a demand-responsive16 shuttle van service that operated 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week for those needing transportation during late evening and 

early morning service hours. In addition, 14 percent of the grantees utilized 

buses or rail to provide Job Access services, while 9 percent utilized 

carpools or ridesharing, and 4 percent utilized taxis. 

About one-third of the grantees provided information to assist low-income 

people to better utilize existing transportation resources to get to 

employment and related support services. Specifically, 31 percent of the 

grantees employed an information coordinator or information brokerage 

center to provide information on how to use existing transit facilities and 

services for travel to work, training, child care, and other support services. 

For example, since fiscal year 1999, WMATA has received about $3.2 

million in Job Access funds and, among other things, created the 

Washington Regional Call Center that provides a central location where 

eligible, low-income people can call to get exact trip information. Under 

this same grant, Montgomery County, Maryland, used Job Access funds to 

provide transit information by creating a Web page for human service 

employment centers to use to help their clients find ways to get to work. In 

another example, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet received a $2.5 

million grant in fiscal year 2000 and established a centralized brokerage 

system to help low-income people utilize demand-responsive service in 

rural areas.

Some grantees have provided innovative services for the specialized needs 

of low-income people or to serve special populations, as the following 

examples demonstrate: 

• The Good News Garage—a community-based, nonprofit association, 

which is based in Burlington, Vermont—used $277,935 in Job Access 

funding in 2000 for a service called CommuteShare. The Good News 

Garage obtains, repairs, and provides used vehicles to economically 

disadvantaged people. The CommuteShare Program made some 

repaired vehicles available for carpools and demand-responsive 

transportation to take low-income people to and from work. According 

to Good News Garage officials, about 75 percent of the TANF recipients 

who receive cars provided by the project eventually leave TANF and 

16Demand-responsive service refers to a transit service scheduled in advance, often utilizing 

small buses or vans, that take riders to locations they request at times they request.
Page 15 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

become economically self-sufficient. About 190 people have 

participated in the project, with about 25 participating at one time. 

• Project Renewal, a rehabilitation center for homeless men and women 

located in New York City, used Job Access funding of $799,337 to 

implement its Suburban Jobs project.17 Project Renewal identifies and 

secures job opportunities in suburban areas around New York City and 

places formerly homeless New Yorkers in unsubsidized employment. 

According to the project’s administrator, Suburban Jobs directs vans 

daily to five worksites, where employers offer at least $6.50 per hour to 

each participant. Project Renewal’s housing facilities as well as other 

nonprofit employment programs refer qualified candidates for Suburban 

Jobs. Project Renewal identifies appropriate employment opportunities, 

prepares clients for interviews, supplements public transportation 

through its own van service to the suburban jobsites, and provides 

counseling to project beneficiaries on their way to and from work. (See 

app. III for more information about the projects we visited.)

Job Access Program Has 

Met Its Goal of Improving 

Collaboration between 

Grantees and Stakeholders

The Job Access Program has met its goal of increasing planning, financial, 

and service delivery collaboration among local transportation providers, 

human service and job placement agencies, employers, and others in 

providing access to employment and employment support services. 

Individual Job Access grantees and welfare reform and transportation 

experts we contacted stated that the Job Access Program brought together 

transit and human service agencies that have not widely collaborated in the 

past. According to our survey of grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and 

2000, almost 80 percent of the 152 grantees that responded indicated that 

the Job Access Program increased cooperation with other transit agencies, 

and 88 percent indicated that the program increased cooperation with 

human service agencies. In addition, all but one of the nine transportation 

and welfare reform experts we contacted stated that this significant 

increase in collaboration at the grantee level was the most successful result 

of the Job Access Program. One expert noted that the Job Access 

requirement for matching funds further encouraged grantees to approach 

state and local agencies that administer TANF funds to use those funds as 

part of a project’s matching funds. About 58 percent of the grantees that 

17FTA provided the Job Access grants for Project Renewal for fiscal years 1999 and 2001.
Page 16 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

responded to our survey indicated they used TANF funds as part of their 

required matching funds. 

On the basis of our survey and visits to Job Access grantees, coordination 

between grantees and state and local stakeholders to plan and implement 

Job Access services occurred in varied forms. In some cases, transit 

agencies consulted with human service agencies to design new 

transportation services for low-income people. In other cases, coordination 

included simple referrals of low-income clients from human service 

agencies to the Job Access grantee for information about transportation 

services, such as vanpools, bus routes, and demand-responsive van 

services. Housing authorities also collaborated with transit agency 

grantees to transport low-income people from public housing to jobs, 

training, and/or child care. In addition, transit agency grantees often 

partnered with local human service agencies and local workforce 

investment boards by sending representatives to job fairs and one-stop job 

placement and training facilities to train low-income people to use the 

transit system to commute to work. 

Each of the 14 grantees we visited cited increased cooperation as a 

program benefit, although they ascribed varying degrees of difficulty in 

achieving such cooperation. Officials of state transportation and human 

service agencies we contacted said that applying for the Job Access grant 

made transit agencies aware of the need to tailor transportation services to 

low-income persons. Human service agency officials also said their 

involvement with the Job Access grant increased their awareness of the 

need to consider low-income persons’ transportation needs when 

implementing human service programs. The Capital District Transit 

Authority in Albany, New York, credited its Job Access project with 

encouraging it to develop new working relationships. Transit Authority 

officials stated that information from those agencies helped it redesign its 

bus routes to provide service that was more responsive to the needs of lowincome people. WMATA officials also credited the Job Access Program 

with enabling them to take the lead, as the region’s largest transit agency, in 

coordinating the Job Access services with smaller, regional, transit service 

providers. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Transit Authority of River City 

coordinated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit agencies in 

developing its Job Access project. The Job Access project received its 

matching funds from the City of Jeffersontown, Kentucky; United Parcel 

Service; and Kentuckiana Works—the Workforce Investment Board 

sponsored by Labor. The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation 

Department and the University of New Mexico developed several 
Page 17 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

databases of publicly funded vehicles, TANF households by zip code, and 

jobsites to help local agencies plan transportation services for low-income 

people. On the other hand, Ft. Worth Transit Authority officials cited the 

administrative burden related to obtaining funds from other federal 

programs as their reason for being reluctant to seek out matching funds 

from other partners.

Collaboration at the Federal 

Level Is Needed to Clarify 

That WIA Funds Can Be 

Used to Match Job Access 

Grants

DOT agreed that the use of WIA funds as a match for Job Access grants 

needs to be clarified, and it plans to continue its efforts to collaborate with 

Labor to issue new guidance to states. Currently, it is not clear to grantees 

or to the state agencies that administer Labor programs that WIA funds can 

be used as matching funds for Job Access grants, in part because Labor, 

which administers WIA programs, and DOT have not issued written 

guidance indicating that WIA funds can be used for this purpose. Labor, 

DOT, and trade association officials we contacted agreed that existing 

guidelines on the use of WIA funds indicate that those funds can be used 

for a variety of purposes, but are ambiguous on whether those funds can be 

used to pay for transportation services. As previously mentioned, 

applicants for Job Access grants must obtain at least 50 percent matching 

funds from other sources.18 Some grantees used WIA funds as Job Access 

project matching funds, while others did not. 

DOT and Labor officials are in the process of trying to issue guidelines 

about using WIA funds for Job Access purposes. Labor issued an internal Email stating that WIA funds could be used as matching funds for Job Access 

projects; however, Labor did not disseminate this knowledge outside of the 

department to the state and local agencies that provide the WIA-funded 

services. FTA program officials told us that they are currently working with 

Labor to issue clarification about the use of WIA funds and have has 

sponsored an effort by a CTAA working group for this purpose. FTA 

officials said that the working group queried Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration about the use of WIA funds. Once answers are 

received, they may be published over the Internet on a federal Web site, 

according to FTA program officials.

According to experts we contacted, as well as CTAA, DOT, and Labor 

officials, clarification of federal guidelines could help states understand 

18DOT and HHS have issued joint guidance to the states and grantees that TANF funds could 

be used to match Job Access grants.
Page 18 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

that federal funds, such as WIA funds, can be used as part of the match. 

According to these officials, some states, such as New York, have 

interpreted federal guidelines to reach a conclusion that it is not 

permissible to use WIA funds as Job Access project matching funds. The 

interpretation has precluded grantees in those states from using WIA funds 

as a source for obtaining the necessary match for a Job Access grant. 

Using federal funds as matching funds—such as WIA and TANF funds—can 

be advantageous for Job Access grantees because federal funds may be 

more predictable and stable than nonfederal matching funds. According to 

the Job Access Program coordinator, federal matching funds, such as TANF 

and WIA, have an advantage over nonfederal matching funds because these 

are formula programs that have a predictable funding stream to the states 

and localities so that funding can be maintained without disruption. Also, 

more sources of funds available as a match for Job Access grants would 

provide additional options to grantees and improve their ability to sustain 

their projects. One of our previous surveys of Job Access grantees 

indicated that soliciting, finding, and maintaining matching funds was 

difficult for many grantees. For example, 34 percent of the grantees 

selected in fiscal year 1999 that responded to our 2000 survey reported that 

FTA’s lengthy grant approval process caused problems with the availability 

of their project’s matching funds, and seven projects were withdrawn 

(about 4 percent of the Job Access projects) after losing their matching 

funds.19

Financial Sustainability of 

Many Job Access Projects Is 

in Doubt

The ability of many Job Access projects to be financially sustainable after 

the end of Job Access assistance is questionable. DOT selected Job Access 

projects by considering, among other factors, the ability of projects to 

achieve financial sustainability after the end of Job Access Program 

funding. More specifically, in evaluating applications for Job Access 

projects, FTA program officials assessed the extent to which a prospective 

grantee identified long-term financing strategies to support the Job Access 

services after the end of Job Access funding. However, FTA program 

officials consider financial sustainability to be secondary to other program 

goals. 

19GAO-01-133.
Page 19 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

The results of our survey of grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 

indicate that many Job Access projects would probably be discontinued 

after the end of DOT funding, and many other projects would face 

uncertain prospects for continuation. Specifically, about 41 percent of the 

respondents to our survey reported that after the end of Job Access 

funding, they would have to decrease the scope of services or discontinue 

services altogether once their Job Access funding ends.20 Another 47 

percent of the grantees responded that they were uncertain about their 

ability to continue their services. The remaining 12 percent reported that 

they would continue their projects at the same or expanded levels after the 

end of their Job Access funding. One expert explained that many Job 

Access services are more costly than the services for the general transit 

clientele; grantees would likely continue operating the Job Access services 

only as long as federal funding covered the associated costs. 

Conclusions Because DOT has not evaluated the Job Access Program and reported the 

findings to the Congress as required by law, the department is missing an 

opportunity to provide important information on a timely basis to the 

Congress on the effectiveness of the program. FTA program officials have 

not provided us with a specific date for issuing the report because the draft 

must still be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget before release to 

the Congress. In addition, the usefulness of the report is also in doubt: If 

the report contains information only on employment sites, then it would 

address only the first program goal of providing transportation services to 

low-income people while ignoring the other goal of promoting 

collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of those services and 

the criterion of ensuring that Job Access projects are financially 

sustainable after the end of program funding. Finally, while the law and 

guidelines allow the use of other federal funds to match Job Access grants, 

neither DOT nor Labor have provided written guidance clarifying the 

eligibility of funds from Labor’s WIA programs for those purposes. As a 

result, some states will not allow grantees to use WIA funds to match Job 

Access grants. 

20Of the 152 grantees that responded to our survey, 142 grantees answered this question.
Page 20 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take the following 

actions:

• Report to the Congress, as required by TEA-21, on the results of the 

evaluation of the Job Access Program. 

• Include in the report to the Congress, an evaluative methodology that 

examines the Job Access Program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals of 

(1) establishing transportation-related services that help low-income 

individuals, including welfare recipients, reach jobs and employment 

support services, such as child care and training, and (2) increasing 

planning, financial, and service delivery collaboration among local 

transportation providers, human services agencies, and others in 

providing access to employment and employment support services. The 

report also should examine the financial sustainability of Job Access 

projects after the end of Job Access Program funding. 

• In conjunction with the Department of Labor, issue guidance to states 

providing clarification on the use of Workforce Investment Act funds as 

matching funds for Job Access projects.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment. We 

met with DOT and FTA program officials who provided us with comments 

on our draft report. The officials generally agreed with most aspects of our 

report. They stated that our survey of Job Access grantees provides 

interesting, unique, and useful data, worthy of greater emphasis in our 

report. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that it is important to 

emphasize both our survey and DOT’s progress in its evaluation report 

because DOT risks not having the report available to the Congress in time 

to assist in making decisions about reauthorizing the program. With regard 

to our first recommendation, agency officials stated that the Job Access 

Program evaluation, required by TEA-21, has been drafted and is being 

processed through the Department; however, the officials were not sure 

when the report would be issued. With regard to our second 

recommendation, the officials said that the evaluation report would fulfill 

the department’s statutory requirement and address most of the elements 

specified in the recommendation. With regard to our third 

recommendation, the officials indicated that DOT has been working closely 

with Labor to clarify issues and provide guidance related to using Labor’s 

WIA funds as matching funds for Job Access projects. As appropriate, we 
Page 21 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

revised our report to, among other things, provide updated information on 

the status of DOT’s evaluative report to the Congress and DOT’s efforts to 

coordinate with the Labor to clarify the use of WIA funds as Job Access 

matching funds. 

We are sending copies of this report to the cognizant congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Transportation; the Administrator, Federal 

Transit Administration; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services; and other interested parties. We will make copies 

available to others on request, and the report will be available on GAO’s 

Web site at www.gao.gov for no charge. If you have any questions about 

this report, please call me at (202) 512-2834 or e-mail me at 

siggerudk@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix V.

Katherine A. Siggerud

Acting Director, Physical

 Infrastructure Issues
Page 22 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Appendix I

Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports ApApenednxidexiIs

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) requires that 

we report on the implementation of the Job Access and Reverse Commute 

(Job Access) Program. To date, we have issued a report on transportation 

and welfare reform efforts in May 1998, before the program was 

established,21 and five other reports on the program: in December 1998,

November 1999, December 2000, August 2001, and December 2001.22

In May 1998, we reported that the proposed Job Access Program would aid 

the national welfare reform effort by, among other things, providing 

additional resources to transport welfare recipients to work. We 

recommended that the Department of Transportation (DOT) (1) establish 

specific objectives, performance criteria, and goals for measuring the 

program’s progress; (2) require grantees to coordinate transportation 

strategies with local job placement and other social service agencies; and 

(3) work with other federal agencies to coordinate welfare-to-work 

activities. TEA-21 reflected these recommendations and required 

appropriate action by DOT.

Our December 1998 report was the first to be completed in response to the 

TEA-21 mandate that we periodically review and report on the 

implementation of the Job Access Program. We reported on DOT’s 

preliminary steps and strategy for implementing the Job Access Program, 

noting that DOT’s overall plan for implementing the program included 

distributing grant funds to as many areas throughout the United States as 

possible, subject to grant funding limits of $1 million for large urban areas 

and $150,000 for rural areas. DOT announced that it would use several 

criteria for selecting projects to fund, including a project’s effectiveness in 

serving a demonstrated regional need; the degree of local coordination 

with other regional stakeholders demonstrated by the prospective grantee 

in designing and identifying funding for a project; and the project’s financial 

plans and sustainability after the end of Job Access funding. An 

21U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Transportation’s Role in Moving from 

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

22U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs 

Program, GAO/RCED-99-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec., 8, 1998); Implementing DOT’s Access 

to Jobs Program in Its First Year, GAO/RCED-00-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 1999); 

Welfare Reform: DOT Is Making Progress in Implementing the Job Access Program, GAO01-133 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4, 2000); Welfare Reform: GAO’s Recent and Ongoing Work 

on DOT’s Access to Jobs Program, GAO-01-996R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2001); and, 

Welfare Reform: Competitive Grant Selection Requirement for DOT’s Job Access Program 

Was Not Followed, GAO-02-213 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2001).
Appendix I

Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports

Page 23 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

application’s compliance with these factors would be weighted for each 

factor, and DOT said that it would also award bonus points for innovative 

approaches to providing Job Access services. DOT also considered the 

geographic dispersion of projects in making award decisions. We noted 

that DOT made important efforts in attempting to establish communication 

channels with various federal welfare reform agencies through its role in a 

policy council that involved the White House and other agencies in 

formulating interagency policy decisions about the Job Access Program. 

DOT also formulated “Joint Guidance” with the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (Labor) on how the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and Welfare-toWork Program funds23 could be used as matching funds to help pay for Job 

Access projects. Regarding evaluation of the Job Access Program, DOT 

initially established four types of data it would collect from grantees in 

assessing the performance of Job Access grants and the Job Access 

Program: (1) the number of new and expanded transportation services 

(including data on service frequency, hours, and miles); (2) the number of 

jobs made accessible by the Job Access project; (3) the number of people 

using the new service; and (4) the level of collaboration achieved. We 

agreed that these were good measures for monitoring Job Access projects, 

but DOT still needed to measure the program’s overall success by 

establishing programwide goals or benchmarks against which the 

cumulative data on new routes, new system users, and newly accessible 

jobs could be compared.

In November 1999, we reported on the implementation of the pProgram in 

fiscal year 1999, its first year. We found that DOT had implemented our 

second and third recommendations in carrying out TEA-21. Specifically, 

DOT had required grantees to coordinate transportation strategies with 

local job placement and other social service agencies and had worked with 

other federal agencies to coordinate welfare-to-work activities. DOT also 

had taken preliminary steps to implement our first recommendation that it 

establish specific objectives, performance criteria, and goals for measuring 

the program’s progress. However, we also found that DOT’s process for 

selecting Job Access grant proposals was not consistent in fiscal year 1999, 

and the basis for some selections was unclear. 

23Labor’s Welfare-to-Work Program provided $3 billion to states to help persons who are 

difficult to employ find work. The program was initially authorized for 2 years, then was 

extended for an additional 2 years, and was terminated at the end of fiscal year 2002.
Appendix I

Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports

Page 24 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Our December 2000 report examined DOT’s implementation of the 

Program in fiscal year 2000. We found that DOT had taken steps to improve 

its process for selecting Job Access proposals. For example, to promote 

greater consistency in the evaluation and selection of grantees, DOT 

developed a standard format for reviewing Job Access proposals and 

provided more detailed guidance to its reviewers. Almost 90 percent of the 

fiscal year 1999 Job Access grantees that responded to our survey were 

satisfied with the goals and intent of the program.24 However, 51 percent 

said that satisfying various standard FTA grant requirements took too 

long—about 9 months, on average. As a result, about one-third of 

respondents reported experiencing problems in obtaining matching funds. 

In addition, seven projects were withdrawn (about 4 percent of Job Access 

projects) for various reasons, including, in one case, the loss of matching 

funds. In this report, we note that DOT had implemented our 

recommendation that it develop specific objectives, performance criteria, 

and measurable goals for its Job Access Program evaluation. DOT 

developed a goal to increase new employment sites by 4,050 in fiscal year 

2000, and 8,050 in fiscal year 2001, and it had requested specific data from 

the grantees.

Our August 2001 report provided our preliminary observations on (1) 

DOT’s proposal to use a formula for allocating grant funds to the states, (2) 

the status of obligations for the Job Access Program, and (3) DOT’s plans 

for reporting on the program to the Congress. First, DOT had proposed a 

change to the Job Access Program beginning in fiscal year 2002, under 

which it would allocate funding to the states via a formula, instead of to 

individual grantees. DOT proposed this change in response to language in 

the conference reports accompanying DOT’s appropriations acts for fiscal 

years 2000 and 2001 that designated Job Access funding for specific states, 

localities, and organizations. Second, as of August 7, 2001, DOT had 

obligated 94 percent of the funds for fiscal year 1999, 67 percent of the 

funds for fiscal year 2000, and 20 percent of the funds for fiscal year 2001. 

Third, DOT officials had missed the June 2000 deadline for a status report 

to the Congress but expected to report instead in September 2001. 

Our December 2001 report primarily addressed DOT’s response to language 

in conference reports that accompanied its fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 

2001 appropriations statutes. The conference reports designated specific 

24We surveyed grantees that were responsible for 194 Job Access projects and attained a 

response rate of 82 percent.
Appendix I

Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports

Page 25 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

grantees that were to receive Job Access funding; these grants involved up 

to three-quarters of the appropriated funding for the Job Access Program in 

a fiscal year. DOT elected to award grants to the designated parties in a 

noncompetitive fashion; however, in doing so, it was not in compliance 

with the provisions of the authorizing legislation—TEA-21—because the 

act called for a competitive grant selection process. To address this finding, 

we recommended that DOT implement a competitive selection process for 

all prospective grantees, including those that were designated by language 

in conference reports. As a result of our recommendation, DOT announced 

that it would implement a competitive selection process for all grantees—

congressional designated and otherwise. 

On April 17, 2002, we testified on the Job Access Program before the 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure. We emphasized the need for DOT to 

evaluate the program as directed by TEA-21. We noted that, at the time of 

our testimony, DOT had no estimated date for issuing the required report. 

Further, we stated that DOT’s use of employment sites as the sole measure 

of program success does not address key aspects of the program nor 

specifically relate to DOT’s criteria for selecting Job Access grantees.
Page 26 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

For its first objective, this report examines the status of DOT’s efforts to 

evaluate the Job Access Program and report to the Congress. For its 

second objective, the report discusses our findings about the Job Access 

Program’s efforts to (1) provide transportation and related services to 

allow low-income people to reach employment and related opportunities; 

(2) increase collaboration in the design, financing, and delivery of the 

services of Job Access projects; and (3) foster the financial sustainability of 

the services delivered by Job Access projects after program funding 

terminates. 

In responding to our first objective, we contacted FTA Program officials to 

discuss and document their efforts to evaluate the Program and to issue a 

report to the Congress. We monitored FTA’s plans to evaluate the Program, 

including their proposal to utilize employment sites, and we queried 

Program officials about reasons for their delay in issuing the report to the 

Congress and plans for expediting completion of the evaluation. In 

addition, through our discussions with program officials, transportation 

and welfare reform experts, and national associations, we identified 

prospective measurements of program success and discussed the 

availability and appropriateness of those measurements for an evaluation 

of the Job Access Program. 

In responding to our second objective, we examined the services delivered 

by Job Access projects in assisting low-income people access jobs and jobrelated services. Specifically, we followed up on our previous findings, 

observations, and recommendations from our reports; reviewed the 

agency’s ongoing efforts to solicit, evaluate, and select Job Access grantees 

in fiscal year 2002; and examined DOT’s ongoing implementation of 

existing grants and projects. Our November 1999 report contained an 

analysis of project data regarding the transportation-related services 

delivered by all 181 projects selected in fiscal year 1999. Those projects 

constitute over 80 percent of the projects that are still operating today. We 

used this information to supplement our discussion of the types of services 

funded through Job Access grants. 

As part of the work for our second objective, we assessed whether the Job 

Access Program was increasing collaboration in the design, financing, and 

delivery of the services of Job Access projects—a program goal. We 

addressed the issue of collaborative project design, financing, and delivery 

in our survey of 173 Job Access grantees selected in fiscal years 1999 and 

2000 that are still implementing Job Access projects. We also examined 

how the implementation of individual Job Access projects has been 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

integrated into the transportation and human service efforts of states and 

local communities by observing the interactions between grantees, 

metropolitan planning organizations, transit agencies, and human service 

agencies, such as those in the Albany, New York, area; the Washington, 

D.C., metropolitan area; the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, area; the San 

Francisco Bay area; and the Louisville, Kentucky, area. 

Meeting our second objective also required that we assess whether the Job 

Access Program was meeting a criterion for FTA’s selection of Job Access 

projects—whether the projects could achieve financial sustainability of 

their services after program funding terminates. Our previous work on the 

Job Access Program showed that many projects might not be sustained if 

their Job Access funding terminated; therefore, our survey of Job Access 

grantees included questions about the likelihood of Job Access projects 

retaining their matching funds and continuing to operate. We also inquired 

about the prospects for projects’ financial sustainability with the grantees 

we selected for site visits and discussed financial sustainability with Job 

Access Program officials, national associations, and welfare reform and 

transportation experts.

Finally, as part of our second objective, we examined the use of federal 

funds from other programs as matching funds for Job Access projects. Job 

Access Program regulations require that grantees obtain at least 50 percent 

of their project funding from non-DOT sources, which may include funding 

from federal sources such as the TANF Program and the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA)-sponsored programs of Labor. We therefore 

reviewed policies affecting coordination and cost-sharing in federal 

programs, which included Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, 

and we contacted DOT, HHS, and Labor officials about their efforts to 

refine the interagency “Joint Guidance” regarding matching funds for Job 

Access Program grants.

In addition, we selected and utilized three broad methodologies that 

addressed both objectives of our study. These methodologies included

• performing a detailed review of selected, ongoing Job Access projects at 

different locations;

• surveying all Job Access grantees selected during fiscal years 1999 and 

2000; and

• consulting with nine welfare reform and transportation experts.
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Review of Selected, 

Ongoing Job Access 

Projects 

We performed detailed reviews of selected, ongoing Job Access projects at 

different locations. We selected these projects to represent the geographic 

dispersion of Job Access projects across the United States. In addition, we 

selected projects that served the different sizes of areas prescribed by the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Job Access administrative 

requirements: large urban areas, medium-size urban areas, and rural 

areas/small cities. These grantees provided different types of Job Access 

service delivery methods (e.g., carpools, fixed bus and van routes, demandresponsive transportation, and trip information and assistance). We visited 

the following: 

• Grantees serving large cities:

1. Project Renewal (not-for-profit, community-based, organization,

 New York City).

2. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (transit agency,

 Washington, D.C.). 

3. Maryland Transit Administration (statewide transit agency, Baltimore,

 Maryland).

4. Fort Worth Transit Authority (transit agency, Fort Worth, Texas).

• Grantees serving medium-size cities:

1. Capital District Transit Authority (transit agency, Albany, New York).

2. Santa Rosa City Department of Transit and Parking (transit agency,

 Santa Rosa, California).

3. Transit Authority of River City (transit agency, Louisville, Kentucky). 

 City of Albuquerque Transit (transit agency, Albuquerque, New

 Mexico).

• Small cities and rural areas:

1. Good News Garage (community-based, not-for-profit, organization,

 Burlington, Vermont). 

2. New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (state DOT,

 Albuquerque, New Mexico).

3. Las Vegas Housing Department (public housing agency, Las Vegas, New

 Mexico).

4. California DOT (CALTRANS, state DOT, Sacramento, California).

5. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (state transportation agency,

 Frankfort, Kentucky). 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

6. Alliance for Children and Families (not-for-profit organization, based in

 Milwaukee, Wisconsin).

At each location, we examined how Job Access services were delivered, 

how the design and delivery of Job Access services were coordinated with 

those of other transportation services and human service agencies in the 

area, and whether the grantees could financially sustain their services if 

Job Access funding terminated. The grant recipients that we visited 

included state and regional agencies that distributed Job Access funds to 

subgrantees and that made substantial efforts to coordinate those services 

to avoid duplicating ongoing transportation services that serve low-income 

people, including welfare recipients. 

Survey of Job Access 

Grantees

We conducted a mail survey of all 173 Job Access grantees that were 

funded in fiscal years 1999 or 2000. (See app. IV for the survey results.) We 

did not survey the grantees selected in fiscal year 2001 because they did not 

have enough time to begin implementing their Job Access projects. Our 

survey addressed issues pertaining to the grantees’ implementation of their 

projects, including costs, ridership, collaboration with other agencies, their 

financial ability to sustain services in the absence of Job Access funding, 

and their views on the usefulness of the program in addressing the 

transportation needs of low-income individuals. Our response rate, about 

88 percent (152 respondents), can be generalized to the universe of all 

grantees funded in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.

Consultation with 

Welfare Reform and 

Transportation Experts

We consulted nine experts from academia, federal and state transportation 

and welfare programs, and national associations with backgrounds in the 

fields of welfare reform and transportation. They provided information and 

views on such matters as the strategy DOT used to implement the Job 

Access Program, the role of the Job Access Program in the national welfare 

reform effort, the overall effectiveness of the Program in serving lowincome people, ways that the program could be improved, the 

sustainability of Job Access projects, and ways in which DOT could 

evaluate the program as required by TEA-21. We selected these experts on 

the basis of our review of transit and welfare reform literature and referrals 

from DOT, HHS, Labor, and national associations, such as the American 

Public Transportation Association. 
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Our work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 31 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees ApendxiI

To address the objectives of our review, we visited ongoing Job Access 

projects at different locations. At each location, we examined how Job 

Access services were delivered, how the design and delivery of Job Access 

services were coordinated with those of other transportation services and 

human service agencies in the area, and whether these projects could 

financially sustain their services if Job Access funding terminated. We 

selected these projects to represent the geographic dispersion of Job 

Access projects across the United States as well as the different sizes of 

areas prescribed by FTA’s Job Access administrative requirements: large 

urban areas, medium-size urban areas, and rural areas/small cities. 

The projects we visited, as well as their locations, the services they 

delivered, and the kinds of matching funds used, are summarized in table 3. 

Following table 3, we provide more detailed information on each project. 

The information contained in this text is based on interviews with project 

officials as well as project-specific documentation, including program and 

budget information. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 32 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 3: Information About Job Access Projects We Visited

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantees.

Organization Project Location Type of service Job access funding

Alliance for Children and 

Families

Ways to Work Milwaukee, WI Car purchase/finance program 

with carpool requirement

FY 2000 - $1,000,000

California Department of 

Transportation 

Agriculture Industry 

Transportation Services Pilot 

Project 

Kings and Kern 

Counties, CA

Bus/Vanpool service FY 2000 - $1,500,000 

FY 2001 - $3,000,000 

Capital District 

Transportation Authority

Transit to Jobs Albany, NY Van service on fixed routes FY 2000 - $497,500

FY 2001 - $497,500

City of Albuquerque 

Transit

Albuquerque Transit Job 

Access Program

Albuquerque, NM Demand-responsive van, rides 

for employment and 

transportation, training, vanpool, 

and reduced bus pass

FY 1999 - $325,000

FY 2000 - $1,000,000

City of Santa Rosa Santa Rosa CityBus Route 

15-Stony Point Route 

Extension Project

Santa Rosa, CA Fixed route bus service FY 1999 - $200,000 

FY 2000 - $250,000 

Fort Worth 

Transportation Authority

Fort Worth Transit Fort Worth, TX Demand-responsive vans and 

taxi service and fixed route bus 

service

FY 1999 - $175,0000

Good News Garage CommuteShare Burlington, VT Demand-responsive rides and 

carpooling program

FY 2000 - $277,935

Kentucky Transportation 

Cabinet

Human Service 

Transportation Delivery 

System

Frankfort, KY Demand-responsive trip 

brokerage system and fixed bus 

route

FY 2000 - $2,500,000

Las Vegas Housing 

Department 

Las Vegas Housing 

Department 

Welfare-to-Work Program

Las Vegas, NM Demand-responsive van service FY 2000 - $40,798 

FY 2001 - $54,386

Maryland Transit 

Administration

Maryland Job Access and 

Reverse Commute Program

Maryland 

(statewide)

Fixed route bus service, 

demand-responsive van service, 

and computer project to connect 

human service employment 

centers to a county transit 

internet site

FY 1999 - $2,119,880

FY 2000 - $3,000,000

FY 2001 - $2,394,720

Project Renewal Suburban Jobs New York, NY Van service from city to suburb 

and return for clients 

transitioning to work

FY 1999 - $398,760

FY 2001 - $400,577

State of New Mexico Transportation Toolkit New Mexico 

(statewide)

Demand-responsive van service 

and extended fixed route 

FY 1999 - $1,198,000

FY 2000 - $601,190 

FY 2001 - $1,995,600

Transit Authority of River 

City

Access to Jobs Program Louisville, KY Fixed bus route and 

demand-responsive van service

FY 1999 - $1,032,938

FY 2001 - $1,097,400

Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transportation 

Authority 

Washington Region Access 

to Jobs Program

Washington, DC Fixed route bus service, 

demand-responsive vanpools, 

and trip information brokering

FY 1999 - $1,350,000

FY 2000 - $650,000

FY 2001 - $998,000 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 33 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Alliance for Children 

and Families 

(Subsidiary of Ways to 

Work) – Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin

Ways to Work, a subsidiary of the Alliance for Children and Families, 

provides low-income people with loans of various sizes, ranging from $750 

for car repairs up to $3,000 for the purchase of a used car. For its Job 

Access project, Ways to Work implemented a carpool project. 

Low-income people that participate in Ways to Work volunteer to be in a 

carpool project with other participants. Ways to Work then coordinates the 

pool on the basis of home location and jobsite. While approximately 

three-fourths of borrowers received government aid at the time of their 

loan application, their use of public assistance dropped by 40 percent 

within 2 years, and less than 1 percent of borrowers became "new" users of 

public assistance since receiving their loans. Ways to Work officials stated 

that internal studies show that borrowers can average a 20 percent increase 

in household income. Currently, the Job Access project in Alabama is the 

only ongoing effort under this grant. These officials told us that Ways to 

Work is also applying for Job Access grants in other locations, such as New 

Philadelphia, Canton, and Akron, Ohio.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 

Table 4: Funding for Alliance for Children and Families Job Access Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

2000 $1,000,000 Alabama Department 

of Human Resources

$540,000

Alabama bank 

partnerships

338,800

Ways to Work, Inc. 79,576

Alabama Alliance for 

Children and Family 

Member Organization

41,624

Total $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 34 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Coordination Ways to Work has had different results with state DOTs. According to the 

president of Ways to Work, the relationship with the Alabama DOT was 

positive but slow. The Alabama DOT assisted Ways to Work by coordinating 

on behalf of Ways to Work with other state and local resources, such as 

human service agencies. However, according to Ways to Work’s president, 

this coordination process was too slow because Ways to Work confronted 

Alabama’s slow budget process. As a result, the Program experienced 

delays in being implemented. Local participants in the Job Access project 

did not have the cash flow to advance the project, but the funding was 

obtained from the Alabama DOT. 

Sustainability Ways to Work would reduce its carpool project if Job Access funds were no 

longer available, according to its president. Job Access funding expanded 

and strengthened the carpool project and Ways to Work overall. Ways to 

Work, however, has been in operation since 1984 and received most of its 

funding from foundations, banks, and other private funding resources; 

thus, it could find alternative funding sources to maintain the project. 

Moreover, as people repay the loans, Ways to Work can reuse the money, so 

that successful lending would help stretch funding out over many years. 

However, the carpool budget would be reduced, thereby reducing the 

scope of the project. 

California Department 

of Transportation, 

Agriculture Industry 

Transportation 

Services – Kings 

County and Kerns 

County, California

In May 2001, the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) 

established the Agriculture Industry Transportation Services (AITS) pilot 

project in response to a series of accidents involving farm labor vehicles in 

the San Joaquin Valley—specifically, the death of 14 farm workers. Many 

workers had been using unlicensed and uninsured van service that charged 

passengers about $6 to $10 per day. The AITS pilot project was designed to 

improve access to safe public transportation for farm workers and their 

communities by providing expanded or new transit service in Fresno, Kern, 

Kings, and Tulare Counties. There are two components of the 

project—first, the Kings County component, which encompasses the 

Fresno and Tulare Counties, and second, the Kerns County component. 

Service started in May 2002. 

The Kings County component involves purchasing 134, 15-passenger vans. 

Residents in each of the targeted communities are trained to safely operate 

the vanpool vehicles. The operators of these vehicles both drive the vans 

and work at the agricultural fields and nearby packing facilities. Vanpool 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 35 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

fare for the pilot project is $50 per person, per month. In addition, the Kings 

County component involves purchasing 12, 28-passenger buses. Residents 

of the community operate the buses between the communities and nearby 

agricultural employment centers. Bus fare is $3 per person, per day, and 

service frequency varies (from 4 to 7 days a week), depending upon 

seasonal demand for labor. An average of 26 people per day are currently 

riding the first bus in operation in Kings County. The combined van and bus 

service costs each person about $5 per day.

The Kerns County component of the AITS Job Access project is an 

expansion of a fixed route bus service. Kern Regional Transit provided 

expansion of existing portions of the transit system. Previously, service 

consisted of one fixed route bus serving the Lamont/Weedpatch 

communities, one demand-responsive bus for those, and an intercity 

commuter bus linking Lamont with the Bakersfield area. Expansion of 

service under this Job Access project consists of a second intercity bus 

operating in the communities of Arvin, Weedpatch, and Lamont 6 days a 

week, with limited service provided on Sundays. An additional bus was 

placed into service for the Lamont/Weedpatch communities providing 

improved service for residents in the communities that required transit 

services to jobsites. Because the pilot project began operating in May 2002, 

data compilation and reporting of the project’s success has not been 

completed. CALTRANS officials plan in the future to collect data on the 

number of agricultural workers who use the service to measure the success 

of the program.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project and the sources of matching funds and amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 36 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 5: Funding for CALTRANS Job Access Project 

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

CALTRANS was awarded $4.5 million for the AITS pilot project. According 

to CALTRANS officials, the $4.5 million was to be matched by funds from 

the State Public Transportation Account, derived from fuel tax revenue. 

However, the state did not fund the request for the additional $500,000 from 

the State Public Transportation Account to match the funding awarded in 

January 2001. Therefore, CALTRANS will only use $4 million of the total 

$4.5 million of Job Access funds.

Coordination CALTRANS officials fostered collaboration with other agencies by 

conducting statewide workshops to explain the Job Access effort. They 

invited the regional transportation agencies, metropolitan planning 

organizations, and associated agencies to these workshops. According to 

CALTRANS officials, coordination efforts have faced some challenges, 

especially because of incompatible tracking systems. CALTRANS has only 

been able to track the total number of passengers, whereas the California 

Office of Health and Human Services is required to track the ridership of 

each individual TANF client. As a result, the Office of Health and Human 

Services has had difficulties providing TANF funds for the required Job 

Access match because they could not account for the number of TANF 

clients who specifically used the mass transit system. 

Sustainability CALTRANS officials said that the vans would continue to operate without 

Job Access funds. The fares paid by the passengers of the Kings County 

services are used for insurance, maintenance, fuel, vehicle replacement, 

overhead, and drivers’ salaries. However, the bus service in Kern County 

would need to be funded with contributions from local governments or 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access

Program funding Source Amount

2000 $1,500,000 State Public 

Transportation Account

$1,500,000

2001 3,000,000 State Public 

Transportation Account

2,500,000

Total $4,500,000 $4,000,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 37 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

other organizations to continue operation in the absence of Job Access 

funding.

Capital District 

Transportation 

Authority – Albany, 

New York

The Capital District Transportation Authority provides fixed route bus and 

van transit service as well as individualized trip planning and information 

brokering. The transit authority’s Job Access funds are used to expand the 

hours of operation for their suburban services, primarily in Albany, 

Rensselaer, and Schenectady Counties. The extension allowed the transit 

authority to operate late night service as well as service during the 

weekend. As a result of its Job Access project, transit authority officials 

said they identified and filled gaps in its service by developing a system that 

provides a transportation solution for TANF clients who had difficulties 

getting to and from work. According to transit authority officials, specific 

projects being funded by Job Access are not for traditional fixed route bus 

services, so services are contracted to companies that use vans in all three 

counties. These services are paid for on a cost-per-trip basis. Taxis are also 

utilized to take some of the grantee’s Job Access clients to and from work.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 

Table 6: Funding for Capital District Transit Authority Job Access Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

Coordination Transit authority officials said that the Job Access Program has helped 

improve the coordination between transit and human service agencies. 

According to grantee officials, as part of the Job Access grant process, the 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 $497,500 New York State 

Department of Labor

$900,000

2001 497,500 New York State 

Department of Labor

3,400,000

Total $995,000 $4,300,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 38 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

transit authority established a relationship with the New York State 

Department of Labor, which created a link to local human service agencies 

and made transportation more accessible for TANF clients while 

broadening their client focus. 

However, coordinating the implementation of the Job Access project 

between the grantee and various stakeholders has been complicated by 

differences in reporting requirements between these parties and by the 

volume of data that has to be collected. To conform with TANF reporting 

requirements, the grantee has had to collect data it does not normally 

collect for the numbers of TANF recipients that use the Job Access service. 

Grantee officials explained that they had difficulties accounting for their 

ridership along with determining if their passengers are TANF clients. In 

addition, according to these officials, private and nonprofit organizations 

operate their own transportation vans and have services that overlap with 

Capital District Transportation Authority services in some areas. Some of 

these other agencies operating in the community include the following: the 

Department of Aging Markets, the Association of Retarded Citizens, the 

Veterans Administration, and the Office of Mental Retardation and 

Developmental Disabilities. Transit authority officials stated that better 

coordination among these services could result in a more efficient 

transportation network.

Sustainability Capital District Transportation Authority officials said that their agency’s 

sources of revenue are limited, and that without Job Access funding, they 

would be unable to continue the services started under the Program. The 

officials stated that the need to provide transportation during weekends 

and second and third shifts has produced a greater need for heavier 

subsidies. However, many counties are feeling a budget squeeze, resulting 

in less funding being available to contribute to the match necessary to 

obtain FTA Job Access funding. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 39 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

City of Albuquerque 

Transit Job Access 

Services –

Albuquerque, New 

Mexico

The Albuquerque Transit Department has seven Job Access projects that 

include demand-responsive rides for work, job training, or transportation 

emergencies; subsidized vanpools; reduced price bus passes; a free 1-day 

bus pass available for job-training trips; a free 6-month bus pass for social 

service agency staff who volunteer to be travel trainers for their clients; 

and a mobility manager service that teaches people how to utilize bus 

schedules, ride buses, and use other transit services. The demandresponsive services are available to anyone at or below 150 percent of the 

poverty level. Participants are offered 120 round-trips within 2 years to 

their jobs, job-related training, and child care required for their jobs and/or 

job-related training. Participants can only utilize the services to these 

designated trips if they lack (1) a local bus stop within a quarter-mile of 

their home or destination, (2) a local bus service that duplicates the route 

in less than 90 minutes, and (3) a local bus service that is available to their 

destination. Albuquerque Transit officials estimate that on-demand van 

services cost about $17.50 per ride; eligible participants pay 75 cents per 

trip. 

Albuquerque Transit officials stated that, on the basis of qualitative 

measures, their project is successful. The agency has tried to measure the 

success of the Program by obtaining community feedback. This feedback 

has indicated that the communities like the projects and feel that the 

services were long overdue, according to transit officials. Although it does 

not have exact numbers, the grantee claims that the project is helping to 

reduce the welfare rolls, and that overall ridership is increasing. In the first 

3 months of 2002, the Job Access project had 120 riders, according to 

Albuquerque Transit officials.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 40 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 7: Funding for City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee.

Coordination Albuquerque Transit has had mixed results coordinating with other 

agencies. The project successfully involved about 95 organizations in the 

Job Access project. The project has obtained matching funds from the City 

of Albuquerque, the New Mexico Human Service Department, and the 

University of New Mexico Career Works. Coordination efforts, however, 

have faced some challenges. The biggest barriers to coordinating human 

service activities with transit services stemmed from different agency 

cultures for complying with services standards for clients, according to 

transit officials. They said transportation providers do not speak the same 

language as human service providers because the two have different 

missions and philosophies. The officials said that compliance with all of the 

requirements to acquire matching funds is also a barrier because human 

service agencies usually only provide funds under certain conditions, such 

as are not paying for nonclients. Consequently, the transit agency has spent 

considerable financial resources tracking the number of TANF clients using 

Job Access project services. 

Sustainability According to transit officials, Albuquerque’s project requires some sort of 

public assistance and support to exist. Without Job Access funding, they 

would no longer be able to provide the services created under the project. 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 $325,000 New Mexico Human 

Service Department

$250,000

Bernalillo County, 

New Mexico

50,000

Commission on the 

Status of Women

25,000

2000 1,000,000 City of Albuquerque 450,000

New Mexico Human 

Service Department

450,000

University of New 

Mexico

100,000

Total $1,325,000 $1,325,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 41 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

The grantee officials are unsure of what they would do if the funds stopped 

or the Job Access Program was not reauthorized. Furthermore, they do not 

expect the state to fill the funding void—New Mexico is one of four states 

that provide no state funds for public transit. 

City of Santa Rosa 

Citybus – Santa Rosa, 

California

Santa Rosa, California, is a rapidly growing metropolitan area that is 

approximately 55 miles north of San Francisco, in Sonoma County. Santa 

Rosa’s City Department of Transit and Parking (Santa Rosa CityBus) 

operates 16 bus routes, most emanating from the transit center in the 

downtown area. Santa Rosa CityBus’s Job Access project established a new 

public transit route, Route 15–Stony Point Road, in August 1999. This new 

transit route serves the highest concentration of TANF recipients in Santa 

Rosa, and it links job seekers with multiple job opportunity worksites (e.g., 

light industry and telecommunications) and human service agencies. 

According to Santa Rosa CityBus officials, Route 15 has decreased the 

travel time of route users because it eliminates unnecessary transfers 

through the downtown area. The cross-town route, extending over 15 

miles, requires about 1 hour to make a round-trip and uses two buses. The 

service is available to the general public and all passengers pay the same 

fare. However, the local health and human services agency (SonomaWorks) 

purchases monthly bus passes at the regular price and provides them at no 

cost to TANF participants. Transit officials estimate that the route will 

service about 132,000 people in fiscal year 2002.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 42 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 8: Funding for City of Santa Rosa CitiBus Job Access Project

Legend:

LIFT Low-Income Flexible Transportation

MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

TDA Transportation Development Act

a

LIFT funds include 50 percent Job Access funding through a state grant.

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination Santa Rosa CityBus officials worked closely with the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission (MTC), the area’s metropolitan planning 

organization, to develop and acquire funding for Route 15. MTC worked on 

a plan that identified the regional shortfalls of existing transportation 

services in terms of areas covered and times served. MTC also helped 

gather the background information and produced Geographic Information 

Systems maps, which plotted the TANF population that needed to be 

served in the City of Santa Rosa. This allowed Santa Rosa and 

transportation commission officials to identify the service gaps in Santa 

Rosa and the areas where the highest concentration of TANF recipients 

lived. Because of this collaboration, Santa Rosa CityBus was able to 

provide a route linking low-income people to the resources they need, such 

as jobs, child care, and health care. 

The Job Access Program has also improved collaboration between Santa 

Rosa CityBus and the local health and human service agency officials. 

SonomaWorks officials, with the assistance of Santa Rosa CityBus staff, 

trained local health and human services’ caseworkers to better inform their 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 $200,000 MTC, State TDA $300,000

2000 250,000 MTC, State TDA 250,000

MTC, State LIFTa 250,000

2001 0 MTC, State LIFT 250,000

State TDA 250,000

2002 0 MTC, State LIFT 250,000

MTC, State TDA 250,000

Total $450,000 $1,800,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 43 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

clients about all services being provided by Santa Rosa CityBus—

specifically, Route 15. However, Santa Rosa officials did not discuss using 

TANF funds as a match with SonomaWorks. Santa Rosa officials stated that 

they were aware that the Job Access Program allowed for a 

federal-to-federal funds match, but they chose not to pursue the possibility 

of using TANF funds because they did not face any difficulties in raising the 

matching funds. 

Sustainability Currently there is no plan to discontinue service in the absence of Job 

Access funding. Santa Rosa CityBus officials stated that even if the Job 

Access Program were discontinued, Route 15 would continue to operate. 

They added that it would be virtually impossible to discontinue any 

established transit line because the transit users in the community depend 

on these services. The goal of the Santa Rosa CityBus was to use Job 

Access funding to assist in the establishment of the route. They expect the 

route to be self-sustaining without Job Access funds.

Fort Worth 

Transportation 

Authority – Fort Worth, 

Texas

Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) is the primary public 

transportation system for the city of Fort Worth, Texas. With the use of the 

Job Access grant, FWTA employed a vanpool for the city’s outlying areas 

and contracted with a taxi company to provide demand-responsive service 

to its clients within the Fort Worth area. Officials at FWTA identified their 

target population as TANF recipients and people with incomes at or below 

150 percent of the poverty level. They stated that their project has resulted 

in individuals finding jobs and maintaining employment. They said that 

they provided transportation services for 6 months, in the belief that if a 

person is employed for that period of time, the person has increased his or 

her chances of being hired again. As a result of the Job Access project, 

FWTA officials said they have been able to help some people transition 

from welfare to work by providing them with transportation to and from 

work, daycare, and other services.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 44 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 9: Funding for Fort Worth Transportation Authority Job Access Project

a

FWTA also received a Job Access grant for $240,000 for fiscal year 2001. According to an FWTA 

official, the project would consist of expanding fixed-route bus service on two major routes through the 

city. However, budgetary constraints prevented the authority from providing the 50 percent match at 

this time. According to the official, the project may yet be implemented as the FTWA’s financial 

condition changes.

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination FWTA officials have been reluctant to consult and coordinate with other 

stakeholders, such as other transit agencies and human service agencies, to 

receive assistance in operating their Job Access project because of their 

negative experience in obtaining matching funds from other stakeholders. 

They explained that they experienced a significant administrative burden in 

complying with the data collection and reporting requirements imposed by 

those stakeholders. Specifically, in the early days of the project when 

seeking financial contributions from other partners, they encountered 

problems in receiving TANF and other matching funds, because of the 

significant reporting requirements imposed by those funding sources. 

Although FWTA officials received the required matching funds, they 

concluded that they would rather have its partners provide noncash 

contributions since those contributions would not result in any 

administrative requirements. FWTA officials are now reluctant to request 

any operating assistance from other stakeholders. 

Sustainability FWTA officials said that their project could not be continued without Job 

Access funds and would require additional assistance and support for it to 

continue. FWTA spends about $11.50 on its demand-responsive taxi 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 $175,000 Fort Worth 

Transportation 

Authoritya

$50,000

Workforce Investment 

Board

50,000

City of Fort Worth 50,000

Fort Worth Housing 

Authority

25,000

Total $175,000 $175,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 45 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

service. The cost per trip averages about $17.50 because of the shared ride 

nature of each family trip. These costs are comparable to taxi rides 

provided on a zone basis. For rides on its fixed route services, FWTA 

assumes almost all of the $20 per ride costs of providing the transit 

services, charging an average of only 50 cents per trip. According to FWTA 

officials, their agency has no dedicated funding stream for the Job Access 

services and the fares they collect are not enough to continue their Job 

Access project in the absence of FTA funding. 

Good News Garage, 

Commuteshare –

Burlington, Vermont

CommuteShare is the Job Access project component of the Good News 

Garage--a nonprofit association that repairs used vehicles and provides 

them to economically disadvantaged applicants. The Good News Garage 

donates some of its vehicles to CommuteShare for one carpool service and 

four demand-responsive services. Under the carpool service, a driver keeps 

the vehicle and provides rides to three other participants. The 

demand-responsive service has an assigned volunteer-driver take people to 

work upon request. CommuteShare services are free and available to any 

person whose household income is less than 225 percent of the federal 

poverty level. Individuals receiving case-managed services have free access 

to the vehicle for 6 months. After that, there is a sliding fee scale fee that is 

based on income. Carpool group members split the cost of fuel and 

parking, while demand-responsive passengers each pay a $1 fuel 

contribution. One-way rides cost CommuteShare roughly $16—this 

includes all operating expenses, such as fuel, insurance, and repairs. About 

190 people have participated in the program, with 25 people participating at 

any given time.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the source of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 46 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 10: Funding for Good News Garage Job Access Project

Legend: PATH Vermont Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and Health Access (state 

funds)

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination Good News Garage and CommuteShare have enjoyed strong coordination 

with other agencies, according to project administrators. Lutheran Social 

Services, the nonprofit association that is based in New England that 

created the Good News Garage, aligned the Garage with the Vermont 

Department of Prevention Assistance, Transition, and Health Access 

(PATH)—the state TANF clearinghouse—and the Vermont Department of 

Employment and Training. Most Good News Garage and CommuteShare 

referrals come from PATH. The Good News Garage also receives referrals 

from local battered women’s shelters. It used PATH state funds to satisfy its 

matching funds requirements. 

According to a PATH official, CommuteShare and PATH have coordinated 

effectively in the overall welfare-to-work effort. PATH helps the Good News 

Garage and CommuteShare clients pay for repairs or get them to work if 

their car is not working. The support lasts 1 year and thereafter, is no 

longer continued. The PATH official added that positive experiences with 

demand-responsive service have resulted in plans to expand such projects. 

PATH wants to have at least one car in each of Vermont’s 12 districts for 

demand-responsive service.

Sustainability CommuteShare officials are not sure if the project can maintain operations 

in the absence of Job Access funding. Because of a tight budget cycle, 

Vermont may not be able to supplement the required match—making a loss 

of Job Access funding critical to the projects sustainability. According to 

project administrators, the project has some support from the private 

sector but needs strong public funding to maintain services. Grantee 

officials said that CommuteShare appears to be a successful and innovative 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

2000 $277,935 PATH $277,935

Total $277,935 $277,935
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 47 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Job Access project but may have problems sustaining itself after the end of 

Job Access funding.

Kentucky 

Transportation Cabinet 

– Frankfort, Kentucky

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s Human Service Transportation 

Delivery project involved consolidating transportation services previously 

provided by various state governmental agencies to transport Medicaid and 

low-income people to job interviews, job training, employment, and child 

care facilities. According to cabinet officials, services were consolidated 

because the previous transportation delivery process was fragmented, 

increasingly costly, and vulnerable to fraud and abuse. Kentucky’s welfare 

reform initiative was expected to double transportation needs for TANF 

recipients. In addition, transportation services were not easily accessible in 

some rural areas. For example, in an 11-county region in Southeast 

Kentucky, an average of 32.5 percent of the households were living in 

poverty, while an estimated 46,977 people over the age of 60 and 13,570 

households did not have access to an automobile. As a result, the cabinet 

began a statewide demand-responsive service program. Seniors and 

low-income passengers needing transportation could contact 1 of the 14 

regional transportation brokers within 72 hours of their trip.25

Although the cabinet targets low-income people, the project is open to the 

public. The service costs 50 cents to $1 for low-income individuals and the 

general public. The Kentucky Cabinet for Family and Children Services 

pays for TANF recipients’ fares. According to cabinet officials, the Job 

Access project is efficient and a major improvement from past welfare 

reform efforts. The brokerage system resulted in more people taking more 

trips at less cost. As of June 2002, the project has provided 549,914 trips for 

TANF recipients and 330,596 trips for those participating in Medicaid. 

Under the Job Access project, revenue projections indicate that reductions 

in expenditures will result in a Medicaid savings of $3 million annually. 

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 

25Brokers are a combination of human service agencies, transit departments, and private 

contractors such as taxis. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 48 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 11: Funding for Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Job Access Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet coordinated with the Cabinet for 

Family and Children Services,26 local communities, human service 

agencies, transit departments, and private transportation operators to 

implement its Job Access project. According to grantee officials, the 

Transportation Cabinet also relied heavily on local community support. 

Local areas provided 40 percent of the necessary match and were excited 

that the needed services were to start, according to the cabinet official. The 

project also required coordination from the 14 different transportation 

brokers. One such broker, the Kentucky River Foothills, estimates that 95 

percent of the clients it transports have incomes that are less than or equal 

to 150 percent of the official federal poverty income threshold, and 65 

percent to 70 percent earn less income than the official federal poverty 

level. According to Kentucky River Foothills officials, the biggest obstacle 

to coordination is convincing localities to invest in public transportation. 

Sustainability Kentucky Transportation Cabinet officials estimate that about half its 

services can be sustained in the absence of Job Access funding. The 

services most likely to survive would be those that have the strongest 

community and employment ties. For example, in one region, a chicken 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

2000 $2,500,000 Kentucky Department 

of Children and Family 

Services

$1,000,000

Combined contribution 

of local communities

1,000,000

Kentucky State 

Transportation Funds

500,000

Total $2,500,000 $2,500,000

26The Department of Family and Children Services, however, discontinued their funding of 

this project as of July 1, 2002, because their state budget for transportation services 

decreased from $8 million to $3 million.
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 49 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

factory depends on low-income labor. The factory would most likely 

support the Job Access service to keep its workers. 

Housing Department –

Las Vegas, New Mexico

The Las Vegas Housing Department’s Job Access project—a subgrantee of 

the New Mexico State Highway Transportation Department—is a 

continuation of a welfare-to-work project run by Highlands University. 

According to the housing director, the university’s project was not working 

very well because it lacked an effective transportation component. When 

the Job Access project began, the Las Vegas housing director took on the 

responsibilities of transportation coordinator and organized a new 

welfare-to-work project. The new project leveraged funds from a variety of 

sources, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) and DOT, and had an existing clientele. The city’s Housing 

Department also provided the city Transportation Department with a 

facility to enhance their coordination. The Las Vegas project is open to the 

public and provides demand-responsive van service during the traditional 

workweek. Although the project is targeted to those who are low-income, 

anyone can utilize the service. Las Vegas has a sliding scale for the service 

costs; the general public pays a general cost (about $1.50), those who are 

below 30 percent of the county median-income level—60 percent of their 

participants meet this criteria—pay 75 cents (after applying through the 

local TANF office at Highlands University), and residents of the housing 

department can access the service for free. The van service requires 

24-hour notice to schedule rides and can be used to travel to work, child 

care, and retail locations as well as other purposes. According to the Las 

Vegas housing director, the Las Vegas Housing Department’s project is a 

success; ridership has doubled in 3 years and housing participants have 

improved their lives.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 50 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 12: Funding for Las Vegas, New Mexico, Housing Department Job Access 

Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

The housing director was also able to use HUD’s Drug Elimination grant 

funds to help fund the project because the services included taking teens to 

after-school activities. The grantee did not use DOT funds for rural 

transportation as matching funds for the project, but it did use them to 

purchase vans for the service. 

Coordination According to the housing director, the project is an excellent example of 

coordination between local, state, and federal agencies. Highlands 

University is the human service provider and is receiving welfare-to-work 

money from Labor’s Welfare-to-Work Program. The state’s Department of 

Labor runs the TANF Program and also is providing matching funds. The 

state Department of Labor has increased its number of vans from three to 

five, and the department’s director said he is starting to receive interest 

from other rural communities looking to replicate the project.

Sustainability According to project officials, the project cannot exist without public 

support, particularly Job Access funds. The housing director argued for the 

need to have continued federal funding of the Job Access project. The 

housing director stated that clients need to have flexible and free or cheap 

service, or else they will purchase a car. However, buying an old car makes 

it harder for clients to develop financial independence, because the costs of 

maintaining such a car are burdensome. The director added that Job 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

2000 $40,798.00 New Mexico 

Department of Labor

$20,399.00

New Mexico Human 

Service Department

20,399.00

2001 54,386.00 New Mexico 

Department of Labor

27,193.50

New Mexico Human 

Service Department

27,193.50

Total $95,184.00 $95,185.00
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 51 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Access and other welfare-to-work services fail because people who 

purchase a car do not have enough remaining funds to pay for 

non-work-related automobile trips and to pay for such necessities as child 

care, food, and clothing. 

Maryland Transit 

Administration Job 

Access and Reverse 

Commute Program –

Annapolis, Maryland

The Maryland Transit Administration’s (MTA) project serves as a broker for 

transportation funds throughout the state. Much of its Job Access funding 

is applied toward demand-responsive services, but several subprojects 

serve existing public service routes. MTA solicits subprojects for its Jobs 

Access project by mailing applications, advertisements, and guidelines to 

Maryland localities. MTA uses performance indicators and standards to 

grant both awards and award amounts. 

Funding The following table describes Job Access subprojects funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 

Table 13: Funding for the Maryland Transit Administration Job Access Program

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access program

funding Source Amount

1999 $2,119,880 Maryland (state) $391,250

Maryland DOT for 

Montgomery County

 200,000

Maryland Department of 

Human Resources/Local 

Department 

of Social Services 

 667,375

Upper Shore Private 

Industry Council

 15,000

Baltimore Enterprise 

Zone/Abell Foundation

285,880

Housing Authority of 

Baltimore City 

200,000

Local governments 165,375

Historical East Baltimore 

Community Action 

Coalition

150,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 52 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access program

funding Source Amount

Anne Arundel Econ. 

Development Corp

45,000

2000 3,000,000 Maryland (state) 854,679

Maryland DOT for 

Montgomery County

 405,000

Maryland Department of 

Human Resources/Local 

Department 

of Social Services 

2,767,688

Upper Shore Private 

Industry Council

 20,000

Baltimore Enterprise 

Zone/Abell Foundation

109,844

Housing Authority of 

Baltimore City 

100,000

Local governments 515,476

Historical East Baltimore 

Community Action 

Coalition

75,000

Anne Arundel Econ. 

Development Corp

 151,242

Frederick County 

One-Stop

33,000

Mills Corporation 109,615

2001 2,394,720 Maryland (state) 997,179

Maryland Department of 

Human Resources/Local 

Department 

of Social Services 

2,551,469

Baltimore Enterprise 

Zone/Abell Foundation

 300,063

Local governments 347,389

Anne Arundel Econ. 

Development Corp

228,990

Mills Corporation 149,004

Chesapeake College 15,000

Total $7,514,600 $11,850,518

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 53 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Coordination According to MTA officials, the Job Access Program has encouraged 

greater collaboration and coordination between the transportation agency 

and human service organizations at the state and local level. MTA officials 

said that through an executive order, the Governor established the State 

Coordinating Committee for Human Services Transportation to encourage 

state agencies to identify needs and develop strategies to ensure the 

coordination of human services transportation. This committee facilitated 

MTA’s ability to market the Job Access project to other state agencies. In 

addition, MTA mapped out all transportation projects across the state and 

extended its outreach efforts to the local level. MTA officials credited the 

Jobs Access Program with helping to formulate and standardize 

coordination between transit and social service agencies in providing 

transportation services to low-income people. 

Sustainability Officials at MTA stressed the importance of having the state’s 

administration support public transit that has facilitated other state and 

local agencies supporting the Job Access Program. According to MTA 

officials, several factors contributed to their success. These officials said 

that Maryland’s existing transportation services (1) do not serve areas that 

are too rural, remote, or small; (2) are supported by the state legislature; 

and (3) are supported by the public. Moreover, MTA created its own set of 

guidelines that would help the sustainability of its programs. MTA officials 

added that state legislation required that at least 25 percent of the required 

match toward FTA transportation funds—including Job Access 

grants—would be paid by the state. These officials said that this legislation 

also requires that a portion of the matching funding be automatically 

included in the state’s transportation budget and provided a total of $503 

million over a 6-year period. They said that were not sure if they would be 

able to maintain all of the services they have started without continued Job 

Access funding.

Project Renewal, 

Suburban Jobs – New 

York City

Under its Job Access grant, Project Renewal—a rehabilitation center for 

homeless men and women—operates a Suburban Jobs Program that places 

formerly homeless New Yorkers in unsubsidized employment by 

identifying and securing job opportunities in suburban areas around New 

York City. Suburban Jobs vans travel daily to five worksites, carrying an 

average of about 150 people daily, and has an average employment 

retention rate of 81 percent. At Montclair State University—one of the 

project’s five worksites—participants account for up to 75 percent of the 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 54 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

university’s nonfaculty staffing, according to University personnel. Each 

position at the University has a training element and promotional 

opportunity. 

Project Renewal’s housing facilities as well as other nonprofit employment 

programs refer qualified candidates for Suburban Jobs. All candidates are 

screened to ensure that they have undergone vocational education and job 

readiness training. Project Renewal then identifies appropriate 

employment opportunities, prepares clients for interviews, and 

supplements public transportation through its own van service to the 

suburban jobsites. Vans are necessary since public transportation, even in a 

transit-rich city like New York, was not designed for reverse commutes 

during nontraditional work shifts, according to project officials. Personal 

counseling is provided to Suburban Jobs beneficiaries while they are being 

transferred to and from the jobsite. Including capital and operating 

expenditures, the rides cost Project Renewal about $15 per person. 

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 

Table 14: Funding for the Project Renewal Suburban Jobs Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination Project Renewal has worked closely with its metropolitan planning 

organization —the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council—and 

has coordinated with other agencies. The Metropolitan Transportation 

Council supports Project Renewal by providing guidance for improving and 

starting new routes. For its required Job Access matching funds, Project 

Renewal utilized HUD funds. Project Renewal also partners with dozens of 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 $398,760 Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

$398,760

2002 400,577 Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

 400, 577

Total $799,337 $799,337
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 55 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

agencies and does not ask them to help pay for the transportation costs of 

Suburban Jobs beneficiaries.

Sustainability According to project officials, Suburban Jobs would likely not exist 

without Job Access funding. However, in the absence of DOT funding, the 

managers of the project would attempt to continue the services currently 

funded by DOT by soliciting greater contributions from employers. For 

example, Montclair State University currently contributes about $300 

monthly for the service, and other employers might be persuaded to 

contribute also.

State of New Mexico, 

Transportation Toolkit 

and Rural Job Access

The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department developed 

a statewide “Transportation Toolkit” to coordinate welfare-to-work 

resources and to administer rural Job Access services. The Toolkit contains 

several databases of the inventory of vehicles that were purchased through 

publicly funded programs and TANF households by zip code. The Toolkit 

helps agencies prepare TANF adults for employment: A TANF adult will be 

referred, as needed, to appropriate resources, which may be in different 

geographic locations. These resources include counseling for substance 

abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence; classes in parenting, life 

skills, and job preparation; and programs to improve literacy and/or to 

obtain a general equivalency diploma. 

The State Highway and Transportation Department also solicits and awards 

Job Access grants to rural areas. New Mexico has 22 state Job Access 

projects, 18 of which combine resources from DOT’s funds for rural 

transportation. Most of the Job Access projects are demand-responsive, 

which makes tracking the number of rides easier. Participants call 24 hours 

in advance to request a trip. These services are available to the general 

public as well as low-income and TANF recipients. New Mexico promotes 

the services to the general public through local advertisements and to 

targeted clients through referrals from local human service agencies. 

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 56 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 15: Funding for the New Mexico Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job Access 

Project

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination According to the Highway and Transportation’s Chief of Programs, the 

Toolkit has resulted in remarkable coordination of transportation 

resources. Responsible state and local agencies, such as the highway, labor, 

and social development offices, use the Toolkit to determine the most 

effective transportation mode to transport low-income and TANF people to 

employment. The Toolkit helps localities determine (1) where TANF 

recipients reside, (2) the inventory of vehicles that were purchased through 

publicly funded programs, and (3) where jobs are located for the entire 

state. The chief of highway programs stated that the Toolkit is intended to 

avoid duplication of services and helps localities determine if the vehicles 

that were purchased through publicly funded programs were available for 

welfare to work. In addition, the Job Access projects utilized matching 

funds from the New Mexico Department of Labor and Human Service 

Department. 

Sustainability The State Highway and Transportation Department believes the projects 

can exist without Job Access funding. New Mexico uses self-sustainability 

as a selection criterion in determining grantees; the state Highway and 

Transportation department has been in constant discussion with 

subgrantees about finding a way to fund their projects without Job Access 

money. Highway and Transportation Department officials said they believe 

that the Human Service Department will continue to fund the Job Access 

service even if the federal Job Access Program is not reauthorized by the 

Congress. 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 $1,198,000 New Mexico 

Department of Labor

$1,700,000

2000 601,190 New Mexico Human 

Service Department 

(FY 2000 and 2001)

 2,700,000

2001 1,995,600 0

Total $3,794,790 $4,400,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 57 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Transit Authority of 

River City – Louisville, 

Kentucky

Through its Job Access project, the Transit Authority of River City (TARC) 

offers a variety of services to low-income people:

• The Night Owl bus offers demand-responsive transportation for $1.50 

each way to those who live and work in Louisville’s Jefferson County. 

• A Flex-Route deviates from a fixed-path bus route whenever a person 

living near the route needs to access the bus service. 

• The Job Hunter bus provides free, demand-responsive service for 

transporting potential employees to interviews and career development 

opportunities. The Job Hunter Bus has transported over 3,500 people 

since 1999. 

• In coordination with the United Parcel Service, two bus routes transport 

students and low-income workers to the United Parcel Service’s 

worldwide hub in Louisville. 

• A demand-responsive rideshare service to disabled workers. 

• Three fixed route bus services—one for teenagers seeking jobs and two 

for taking employees to Blue Grass Industrial Park—a large 

employment site. 

• A Bikes on Board project placed bike racks on 208 buses. This allows 

people to travel from the end of the bus route to their place of 

employment and back.

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 58 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 16: Funding for the Transit Authority of River City Job Access Project

a

Grantee received $1,032,938 in fiscal year 1999 and $1,097,400 in fiscal year 2001. 

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Coordination TARC collaborated with 43 different private, public, and nonprofit agencies 

in developing its Job Access project. TARC also has a kiosk located in the 

Workforce Investment Board One-Stop Center, which provides 

unemployed persons with job placement and training services. 

Sustainability TARC has integrated the Job Access services into its general services. 

TARC officials said they would evaluate the efficiency of all their routes 

and cut the least efficient if the agency lost its Job Access funding. 

Currently, however, 80 percent of their ridership is in their top five 

routes—none of which are Job Access services. Thus, services funded 

through the Job Access project may be among those that could be 

eliminated.

Washington 

Metropolitan Area Job 

Access Services

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) provides 

fixed route bus and rail service for Washington, D.C., and surrounding 

areas. In its Job Access grant, WMATA provides three types of services: (1) 

a trip brokerage service, (2) improved access to fixed bus routes, and (3) a 

demand-responsive van service.

WMATA found that some clients faced problems in getting to and from 

work during nontraditional work hours—for example, late-night or early 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

funding Source Amount

1999 to 2001a $2,130,338 City of Jeffersontown $180,000

United Parcel Service 153,000

Kentuckiana Works 435,000

Others 2,000

TARC 1,360,338

Total $2,130,338 $2,130,338
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 59 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

morning hours. Due to a lack of transportation, these employees face a 

difficult time maintaining employment. As a result, under its Job Access 

grant, WMATA began in 1999 a trip brokerage system that allows its clients 

to reserve transportation services for odd hours and in areas that are 

underserved by traditional public transit services. According to WMATA 

officials, their program has been able to serve thousands of individuals 

every month. WMATA’s demand-responsive component incurs a cost of 

about $46 per trip, with no costs to the client.

In addition to the trip brokerage system, WMATA implements a fixed-route 

component of its Job Access Program. While the fixed route service costs 

an average of $41.68 per ride, passengers pay a fare of roughly $1.75 (both 

the Job Access client and general public pay this amount). With just over 

330 trips per month on fixed bus routes, WMATA’s Job Access project has 

been able to provide service to about 9,500 individuals.

WMATA also established a one-stop information center—the Washington 

Regional Call Center—that allows people to access exact trip information 

to various locations. 

Funding The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this 

project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts. 
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 60 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Table 17: Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services

Source: Federal Transit Administration and grantee. 

Matching funds

Fiscal year of 

funding

Job Access Program

fundinga Source Amount

1999 $1,350,000 United People’s 

Organization 

$200,000

Washington, DC, Dept. of 

Employment Services 

300,000

Virginia Department of 

Human Services

195,000

Fairfax County 

Department of 

Family Services

180,000

Potomac Rappahannock 

Transportation 

Commission

140,000

Fairfax County (Gen. 

Govt.)

 350,000

2000 650,000 Washington, DC, Dept. of 

Employment Services 

300,000

Fairfax County 

Department of 

Family Services

180,000

Potomac Rappahannock 

Transportation 

Commission

 127,000

Virginia Department of 

Human Services

195,000

2001 998,000 Washington, DC, Dept. of 

Employment Services 

300,000

People’s Involvement 

Corporation

267,000

Fairfax County 

Department of 

Family Services

225,000

Potomac Rappahannock 

Transportation 

Commission

 200,000

Total $2,998,000 $3,159,000
Appendix III

Services of Selected Job Access Grantees

Page 61 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Coordination According to WMATA officials, the Job Access Program increased their 

coordination with human service agencies and others in their service area 

because it was designed to address problems related to low-income people 

getting transportation services. As the most prevalent transit provider for 

the Washington metropolitan area, WMATA and the Metropolitan 

Washington Council of Government’s Transportation Planning were the 

regional catalysts for getting transportation and social services together to 

provide Job Access services. According to WMATA officials, WMATA has 

been able to leverage its status as the region’s primary transit provider to 

encourage the involvement of other regional transit systems as well as 

human service agencies across two states, Washington, D.C., and multiple 

local jurisdictions. In addition, WMATA has been able to use the 

information and outreach component of its Job Access project to promote 

the use of transit programs throughout the region. WMATA has been able to 

direct welfare clients to utilize more timely and efficient public transit 

routes to and from work, thereby enabling individuals to get to work on 

time and keep their jobs. Consequently, WMATA officials noted that 

employers have begun to take notice of the WMATA Job Access project 

because it has produced a dependable form of transportation for their 

employees. WMATA is currently working with the Washington, D.C., Board 

of Trade and Chamber of Commerce to encourage more public and private 

collaborations in serving low-income populations.

Sustainability WMATA officials said they would not be able to sustain services started 

with Job Access funding if they did not continue to receive grants. They 

believe that theirs is a model program, but they have not been able to 

encourage sufficient private sector involvement in the program to replace 

Job Access funds.
Page 62 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees ApendxiIV

Appendix IV: Survey of Job Access Grantees 

 U.S. General Accounting Office 

 

 Survey of Job Access Grantees ____________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The General Accounting Office (GAO) is an agency of 

the Congress that performs studies of federal programs. 

The Transportation Equity Act has mandated the GAO 

for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to periodically examine 

how the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is implementing the Access to 

Jobs Program (Job Access/Reverse Commute Program). 

To obtain perspectives on this program, we are asking 

organizations that were selected to receive project grants 

from the Access to Jobs Program to complete this 

questionnaire. It covers a variety of topics including the 

funding grantees have received under this program. 

Instructions

Please review the label above and respond to the 

questions in this questionnaire as they relate to the 

project named. If you have a question about the 

information on the label or it is incorrect, please call one 

of the GAO contact persons listed below. 

In addition, when responding to these questions, please 

coordinate with the members of your staff as well as any 

sub-recipients or sub-grantees, as appropriate. 

Please complete the questionnaire and return it to the 

address below within 10 working days of receipt. We 

have provided a postage-paid business reply envelope to 

facilitate the return of your questionnaire. If the return 

envelope is misplaced, please send or fax your 

completed questionnaire to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Attn: Frank Taliaferro 

200 W. Adams Street, Suite 700 

Chicago, Illinois 60606-5219 

FAX #: (312) 220-7726 

If you have any questions, please call Frank Taliaferro 

on (312) 220-7715 (e-mail: taliaferrof@gao.gov) or 

Josephine Perez on (312) 220-7626 (e-mail: 

perezj@gao.gov.) Your response, along with the others 

we receive, will be used in our report to the Congress on 

this program. 

Thank you for your help. 

Please provide the following information for the person 

we should contact if we have any questions. 

Name: _________________________________ 

Title: _________________________________ 

Organization: ___________________________ 

Phone #: ___________________________ 

E-mail: ______________________________ 

(Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to 

rounding). 

GAO Control # : (N=152)
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 63 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

General Information About Your Project 

1. What is the name and address of the grant recipient 

for this Job Access project? 

 _(N=152)___________________ 

 ___________________________ 

 ___________________________ 

2. Which of the following would best characterize your 

organization? (Please check one.) (N=151) 

1. [15%] State Department of Transportation 

2. [ 1%] State Human Service Department 

3. [20%] Regional transit agency 

4. [34%] Local transit agency 

5. [ 1%] Local government human service office 

6. [ 7%] Other local government (city/county) 

7. [ 5%] Nonprofit human service organization 

 

8. [ 0%] Private organization 

9. [ 0%] Public housing authority 

10. [17%] Other (Please specify) 

 __________________________ 

3. How does this Job Access project (your organization 

or sub-grantee) primarily provide transportation 

services (including mobility manager services) to 

program participants? (Please check one.) (N=145) 

1. [34%] Uses a combination of direct 

transportation service, contractors, or 

vouchers. 

2. [41%] Provides transportation services directly 

to program participants 

3. [14%] Hires companies to provide services 

such as bus, van, or taxi 

4. [ 1%] Provides vouchers to participants to 

obtain transportation to work 

5. [10%] Other (Please specify)

 

 ____________________________ 

4. Currently, about how many passengers per month 

does your Job Access project serve? (Enter number; 

if none, enter ‘0’) (N=135) 

(Range: 0 – 257,856 passengers) 

(Median: 1,880 passengers) 

(Mean: 11,079 passengers) 

_______ passengers per month 
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 64 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

5. What types of service does your Jobs Access project provide? If this type of service is provided, currently, 

what are the average costs per trip, the typical fares that Job Access passengers and the general public pay for 

this service, the number of trips provided, and passengers served per month? (Note: values may be rounded)

(A) 

Does your 

project 

provide this 

service? 

(Please 

check one for 

each.) 

Type of Service 

No Yes 

Æ

(B) 

Currently, what 

is the average 

operating cost 

per trip for this 

service? (Please 

enter dollar and 

cents.)

(C) 

What is the 

fare that a Job 

Access 

passenger 

pays for a trip 

on this 

service? 

(Please enter 

dollar and 

cents.)

(D) 

What is the 

fare that the 

general public

pays for a trip 

on this 

service? 

(Please enter 

dollar and 

cents.)

(E) 

If your passenger 

fares are based on 

zones, what is the 

range of fares that 

Job Access 

passengers pay per 

trip? (Please enter 

dollars and cents.)

(F) 

How many 

trips does your 

Job Access 

transportation 

service 

provide each 

month? 

(Please enter 

numbers.) 

(G) 

How many 

passengers

does your Job 

Access 

transportation 

project serve 

each month? 

(Please enter 

numbers.)

1. Fixed route 

service 

(regular van, 

bus or light 

rail) 

 

 

(N=135) 

28% 72% 

Range: 

$0 - $187.00 

Median: $10.06 

(N=91) 

Range: 

$0 - $4.00 

Median: $1.00 

(N=91) 

Range: 

$0 - $4.00 

Median: $1.00 

(N=89) 

Range: $0 - $4.00 

Median: $ .75 

(N=31) to 

Range: 

$0 - $12.00 

Median: $1.55 

(N=31) 

Range: 

0 - 456,502 

Median: 1,420 

(N=84) 

Range: 

0 – 875,000 

Median: 2,773 

(N=83) 

2. Variable or 

flexible route 

service, that is, 

bus or vanpool 

service that 

follows a route 

that changes to 

meet needs 

 

(N=117) 

68% 33% 

Range: 

 $0 - $74.00 

Median: $9.73 

(N=32) 

Range: 

$0 - $4.00 

Median: $ .35 

(N=31) 

Range: 

$0 - $4.00 

Median: $1.00 

(N=20) 

Range: $0 - $2.00 

Median: $ .50 

(N=05) to 

Range: $0 - $3.00 

Median: $ 2.00 

(N=05) 

Range: 

0 – 35,000 

Median: 1,100 

(N=29)

Range: 

0 – 9,997 

Median: 288 

(N=31) 

3. Demandresponse 

service, that is, 

passengers call 

ahead for 

service 

 

(N=124) 

39% 61% 

Range: 

$1.00 – $52.34 

Median: $15.00 

(N=63) 

Range: 

$0 - $10.95 

Median: $1.00 

(N=61) 

Range: 

$0 - $12.17 

Median: $1.75 

(N=49) 

Range: $0 - $4.00 

Median: $ .88 

(N=18) to 

Range: 

$0 - $44.00 

Median: 2.75 

(N=18) 

Range: 

18 – 28,760 

Median: 1,385 

(N=62) 

Range: 

 8 – 203,498 

Median: 200 

(N=58) 

4. Carpool 

service 

(carpools 

created by the 

project) 

 

(N=111) 

92% 8% (N=02) (N=03) (N=01) (N=01) (N=02) (N=04) 

5. Mobility or 

trip manager, 

or broker 

service that 

provides 

information on 

how to use 

transportation 

services 

 (N=114) 

66% 34% 

6. Other (Please 

specify) 

 ___________ 

 

(N=90) 

84% 16% (N=07) (N=07) (N=05) (N=02) (N=06) (N=06) 

(Please note: The number of respondents for question 5.4 and 5.6 were too small to provide meaningful 

statistics.)
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 65 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

6. Of the passengers that your Job Access 

transportation project serves, about what percent 

could be described as the following? (Enter percent, 

if none, enter ‘0’.) 

1. TANF recipients (Range: 0 - 100%) 

 (Median: 16%) 

 (N=110) % 

2. Non-TANF Welfare- (Range: 0 – 60%) 

to-Work program (Median: 4%) 

participants (Department of Labor) (N=93) % 

3. Other low income (Range: 0 - 100%) 

 (below 150% of poverty) (Median: 30%) 

 N=107 % 

4. Reverse commuters, with (Range: 0 – 90%) 

 no income restrictions (Median: 0%) 

 (N=91) % 

5. General public (Range: 0 – 100%) 

 (Median: 19%) 

 (N=107) % 

6. Other project participants 

 (for example, Medicaid 

recipients, senior citizens, 

etc.) (Please specify (Range: 0 – 100%) 

program) (Median: 0%) 

 ___________________ (N=89) %

7. How are Job Access project fare box receipts used? 

(Please check all that apply.) (N=142) 

1. [16%] Included as part of match for Job Access 

grant 

2. [51%] Used to support operating costs of Jobs 

Access project 

3. [32%] Returned to organization’s general 

revenue fund 

4. [ 2%] Other (Please specify.) 

 _________________________ 

5. [25%] Not applicable – do not have fare box 

receipts 

8. About what percent of your project’s Job Access 

funding is used for a mobility or trip manager, or 

broker services? (Enter percentage; if none, enter 

‘0’.) (N=137) 

 (Range: 0 – 100%) 

 (Median: 0%) 

 

_______ % 

9. As of June 30, 2002, under your Job Access 

grant(s), for how many months have these 

transportation services been provided? (Please enter 

number of months) (N=135) (Range: 0 – 58 months) 

 (Median: 24 months) 

 (Mean: 23 months) 

________ months 

10. How are employers involved with either the funding 

or implementation of this Job Access project? 

(Please check all that apply.) (N=139) 

1. [16%] Employers provide some or all of the 

matching funds for the service 

2. [ 7%] Employers provide additional funding-- 

beyond the Job Access project match 

funding-- for services 

3. [ 2%] Employers make in-kind contributions 

such as vehicles, maintenance for 

vehicles, or fuel 

4. [17%] Employers pay fares for employees who 

are passengers receiving services 

5. [ 9%] Employers supplement the service by 

providing emergency rides for special 

circumstances (for example, when 

employees must leave early for family 

emergencies) 

6. [31%] Employers have adjusted work 

schedules to accommodate the operating 

limitations of the Job Access 

transportation service 

7. [ 4%] Employers provide vans or shuttle buses 

to take workers from the end of the 

transit service to the workplace 

 8. [25%] Other (Please identify)

 _______________________________ 

9. [48%] No employers are involved with the 

implementation of this project Æ (Go to 

Question 13) 
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 66 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

11. About how many employers are involved with either 

the funding or implementation of this Job Access 

transportation project? (Enter number; if none, enter 

‘0’.) (N=93) 

(Range: 0 – 3,000 employers) 

(Median: 3 employers) 

(Mean: 54 employers) 

________ employers 

12. Which specific employers (public or private) in your 

area are significantly involved with helping TANF 

recipients or low-income people get to work? 

(Please identify the employers; use additional sheets 

if necessary.) (N=152) 

[34%] Don’t know 

 

13. In addition to your Job Access services, what other 

transportation services in your area are provided by 

other human service or transit agencies? (Please 

check all that apply.) (N=147) 

1. [10%] NoneÆ (Go to Question 14) 

2. [60%] Fixed route bus or van service 

3. [20%] Trains or light rail 

4. [38%] Flexible route bus or vanpools 

5. [39%] Demand response vanpools 

6. [33%] Carpools 

7. [57%] Taxis 

8. [68%] Medicaid, Medicare, Head Start, or 

Office of Aging vanpools 

9. [20%] Other (Please identify)

 _______________________________ 

14. What was the role of the metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) in planning and approving your 

Job Access project? (Please check all that apply.) 

 (N=145) 

1. [15%] Not Applicable – this project is in a 

rural area not subject to an MPO. Æ (Go 

to Question 15)

2. [59%] Provided data for project plan 

3. [69%] Reviewed plans for project 

4. [36%] Coordinated and facilitated the creation 

of this project 

5. [ 9%] Provided funding for this project that 

was included in the match 

6. [ 9%] Created a process and selected MPO 

organizations to provide services 

7. [30%] Helped prepare/write grant application 

8. [21%] Other (Please explain)

 _______________________________ 

15. What was the role of the state DOT in planning and 

approving your Job Access project? (Please check 

all that apply.) (N=145) 

1. [38%] Not Applicable – this project is in an 

urban area, subject to an MPO. Æ (Go 

to Question 16)

2. [23%] Provided data for project plan 

3. [49%] Reviewed plans for project 

4. [19%] Coordinated and facilitated the creation 

of this project 

5. [30%] Provided funding for project that was 

included in the match 

6. [16%] Created a process and selected 

organizations to provide services 

7. [22%] Helped prepare/write grant application 

8. [18%] Other (Please explain)

 

 __________________________ 
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 67 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

16. Overall, how satisfied or not are you with how your 

Job Access project has enabled your organization to 

help people get to work? (Please check one.) 

 (N=138) 

1. [49%] Very satisfied 

2. [39%] Generally satisfied 

3. [ 9%] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 

4. [ 2%] Generally dissatisfied 

5. [ 1%] Very dissatisfied 

17. How has your participation in the Job Access 

program affected coordination and collaboration 

with social service organizations in your service 

area? (Please check one.) (N=143) 

The level of coordination and collaboration has... 

1. [36%] Greatly increased 

2. [37%] Generally increased 

3. [15%] Slightly increased 

4. [12%] No change 

5. [ 0%] Slightly decreased 

 

6. [ 0%] Generally decreased 

7. [ 0%] Greatly decreased 

18. Please briefly explain below the reason for your 

response in question 17. (Please use additional 

sheets if necessary.) 

(N=126 comments) 

19. How has your participation in the Job Access 

program affected coordination and collaboration 

with other transportation or transit organizations in 

your service area? (Please check one.) (N=142) 

 

The level of coordination and collaboration 

has ... 

1. [20%] Greatly increased 

2. [28%] Generally increased 

3. [17%] Slightly increased 

4. [15%] No change 

5. [ 1%] Slightly decreased 

 

6. [ 1%] Generally decreased 

7. [ 0%] Greatly decreased 

8. [20%] Not applicable—we are the only transit 

organization in service area 

20. Please briefly explain below the reason for your 

response in question 19. (Please use additional 

sheets if necessary.) 

(N=100 comments) 

21. Please describe any difficulties your project 

experienced, if any, in coordinating and 

collaborating with transportation, transit or social 

service organizations. (Please use additional sheets 

if necessary.) 

[57%] No difficulties--> (Go to Question 23) 

(N=87 checked the no difficulties box) 

(N=43 comments) 

 
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 68 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

22. Please describe how difficulties with coordination 

and collaboration with transportation, transit or 

social service were overcome, if at all. (Please use 

additional sheets if necessary.) 

[13%] Difficulties identified in question 21 were not 

overcome 

(N=19 checked the no difficulties box) 

(N=28 comments) 

Funding for the Job Access Project 

23. In addition to the FTA’s funding for this project’s 

Job Access grant, what other sources of funds were 

used to fund your organization’s Job Access 

transportation services? (Please check all that 

apply.) (N=144) 

 

1. [58%] State TANF funds 

2. [35%] State transportation funds 

3. [25%] Other State funds 

4. [43%] Local government funds 

5. [34%] Local transit operator funds 

 

6. [20%] Private nonprofit organization donations 

7. [13%] Employer donations or contributions 

8. [47%] Fare-box revenue 

9. [19%] Other (Please specify) 

 __________________________ 

24. What was the total funding for all years and from all 

sources for this Job Access project? (Please enter 

total dollar amount.) (N=132) 

(Range: $1,275 – $68,586,800) 

(Median: $1,022,509) 

(Mean: $2,821,652) 

$________ 

25. Consider all of the sources of funding for this Job 

Access project. About what percent of your total 

project funding came from this Job Access grant? 

(Please enter percent) (N=133) 

(Range: 3 – 100%) 

(Median: 50%) 

 ________ % 

26. As of June 30, 2002, have this project’s Job Access 

funds from FTA grants been fully depleted? (Please 

check one.) (N=144) 

1. [29%] YesÆ (Go to Question 28) 

2. [71%] NoÆ (Continue) 

27. Consider the period after June 30, 2002. At the 

current rate of expenditures, for how many months 

can your organization continue the transportation 

services that were started under the Job Access 

program, without getting more funds? (Please enter 

the number of months.) (N=83) 

(Range: 0 – 102 months) 

(Median: 9 months) 

(Mean: 13 months) 

_________ months 

28. Has your organization applied to receive a Job 

Access project grant to fund the period after June 30, 

2002? (Please check one.) (N=145) 

1. [78%] Yes 

2. [22%] No ÆPlease explain the reasons below. 

 (N=12 comments)
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 69 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

29. If your Job Access project funding should end, will 

your organization continue to provide transportation 

services that were previously provided through the 

Job Access grant? (Please check one.) (N=142) 

1. [ 1%] Yes, with expanded services 

2. [11%] Yes, at same level of services 

3. [28%] Yes, at a reduced level of services 

4. [47%] Uncertain, will completely discontinue 

services if other sources of funds are not 

obtained 

5. [13%] No, will discontinue servicesÆ (Go to 

Question 31) 

30. If your Job Access project funding ends, what 

sources of funds does your organization expect to 

use to pay for continued operations of the services 

that were started or expanded under the program? 

(Please check all that apply.) (N=126) 

1. [37%] Other federal transportation funds 

2. [33%] State TANF funds 

3. [44%] State transportation funds 

4. [18%] Other State funds 

5. [52%] Local government funds 

6. [37%] Local transit operator funds 

 

7. [22%] Private nonprofit organization donations 

8. [57%] Fare-box revenue 

9. [27%] Employer donations or contributions 

10. [14%] Other (Please specify) 

 __________________________ 

31. What was your organization’s expectation for the 

funding cycle for your Jobs Access project? (Please 

check one.) (N=143) 

1. [34%] Funding would be available on a 

continuing basis 

2. [52%] Funding would be available for a limited 

number of years only 

3. [ 7%] Funding was for a one-time only grant 

4. [ 7%] Other (Please specify.) 

 ______________________________ 

32. Which of the following does your organization 

currently use to measure the success of your Jobs 

Access project? (Please check all that apply and, if 

necessary, explain how you measured success in the 

comments section.) (N=145) 

1. [81%] Number of passengers 

2. [64%] Number of trips per day 

3. [35%] Number of TANF recipients that have 

been able to get and keep jobs 

4. [26%] Number of federal Welfare-to-Work 

recipients that have been able to get and 

keep jobs 

5. [60%] Number of employment sites that lowincome people can access with the Job 

Access service not previously served by 

your organization 

6. [57%] Number of employers that low-income 

people can access with the Job Access 

service 

7. [53%] Number of jobs that low-income people 

can access with the Job Access service 

8. [61%] Additional hours during the day that the 

project was able to provide service 

9. [23%] Transportation service can be sustained 

without continued Job Access funding 

10. [16%] Other (Please specify) 

 __________________________ 
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 70 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

33. Overall, based on the above measures used by this 

Job Access project, how successful has/have this 

project been? (Please check one.) (N=130) 

1. [19%] Extremely successful 

2. [48%] Very successful 

3. [22%] Moderately successful 

4. [ 9%] Somewhat successful 

5. [ 2%] Slightly or not successful

Comments 

34. The Congress is currently considering the reauthorization of many transportation programs, including the Job 

Access program. Consider the individual services that are funded through your Job Access project when 

answering the questions below. 

a. If federal funding for the Job Access program were no longer available for your project, how and to what 

extent would these individual services be sustained, if at all. (Please use the back of this sheet or 

additional sheets if needed.)

 (N=129 comments) 

b. If federal funding for the Job Access program were no longer available for your project, how and to what 

extent would these individual projects’ resources, clients, and services be affected, if at all. (Please use 

the back of this sheet or additional sheets if needed.)

 (N=124 comments) 
Appendix IV

Survey of Job Access Grantees

Page 71 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

35. Please provide below any additional comments that you have about the implementation of the 

Job Access program, your project, the transportation needs of low-income people and people 

moving from welfare-to-work, or any issues raised by questions contained in this 

questionnaire. (Please use the back of this sheet or additional sheets if needed.)

(N=72 comments) 

Thank you for your help. 
Page 72 GAO-03-204 Welfare Reform

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment ApendxiV

GAO Contact Katherine A. Siggerud (202) 512-2834

Staff Acknowledgment In addition, Sam Abbas, Ernie Hazera, JayEtta Hecker, Landis Lindsey, 

Susan Michal-Smith, LuAnn Moy, Josephine Perez, and Frank Taliaferro 

made key contributions to this report.

(544024)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve 

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American 

people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00