Welfare Reform: Job Access Program Improves Local Service Coordination, but Evaluation Should Be Completed
Published: 2002-12-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 people  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  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,  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 America (CTAA). 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  provide individuals with job training and placement services. The WIA- sponsored programs also provide transportation services to take their  clients to program-supported services, such as job training and placement.  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.
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  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.
section_title: DOT’s Evaluation Has Been Delayed and May Not Address Significant Aspects of the Job Access Program
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Evaluation Report Has Been Delayed, and Its Submittal Date Is Uncertain
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
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 no definite date for submitting the study. 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.
section_title: Reporting Only Employment Sites Would Not Comprehensively Evaluate the Program, and Contents of Final Report to the Congress Are Uncertain
paragraphs: 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 low- income 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  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.
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,  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  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.
section_title: Varied Services Delivered and Collaboration Improved, but Projects’ Sustainability and Use of Federal Funds Can Be Improved
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: The Job Access Program Funded a Variety of Services to Help Low-Income People Travel to Work
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
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) began a demand-responsive 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  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. 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.)
section_title: Job Access Program Has Met Its Goal of Improving Collaboration between Grantees and Stakeholders
paragraphs: 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  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 low- income 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  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.
section_title: Collaboration at the Federal Level Is Needed to Clarify That WIA Funds Can Be Used to Match Job Access Grants
paragraphs: 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. 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 E- mail 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  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.
section_title: Financial Sustainability of Many Job Access Projects Is in Doubt
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Summary of Results of Previous GAO Reports
paragraphs: 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, and five other reports on the program: in December 1998,  November 1999, December 2000, August 2001, and December 2001.
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  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-to- Work Program funds 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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 job- related 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  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   surveying all Job Access grantees selected during fiscal years 1999 and   consulting with nine welfare reform and transportation experts.
subsections: section_title: Review of Selected, Ongoing Job Access Projects
paragraphs: 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, demand- responsive 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).  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.
section_title: Survey of Job Access Grantees
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Consultation with Welfare Reform and Transportation Experts
paragraphs: 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 low- income 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.
Our work was performed from January 2002 through October 2002 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Services of Selected Job Access Grantees
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Alliance for Children and Families (Subsidiary of Ways to Work) – Milwaukee, Wisconsin
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: California Department of Transportation, Agriculture Industry Transportation Services – Kings County and Kerns County, California
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project and the sources of matching funds and amounts.
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.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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  other organizations to continue operation in the absence of Job Access  funding.
section_title: Capital District Transportation Authority – Albany, New York
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: City of Albuquerque Transit Job Access Services – Albuquerque, New Mexico
paragraphs: 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 demand-  responsive 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: City of Santa Rosa Citybus – Santa Rosa, California
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Fort Worth Transportation Authority – Fort Worth, Texas
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Good News Garage, Commuteshare – Burlington, Vermont
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the source of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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  Job Access project but may have problems sustaining itself after the end of  Job Access funding.
section_title: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet – Frankfort, Kentucky
paragraphs: 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet coordinated with the Cabinet for  Family and Children Services, 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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  factory depends on low-income labor. The factory would most likely  support the Job Access service to keep its workers.
section_title: Housing Department – Las Vegas, New Mexico
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
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.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Maryland Transit Administration Job Access and Reverse Commute Program – Annapolis, Maryland
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes Job Access subprojects funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Project Renewal, Suburban Jobs – New York City
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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  agencies and does not ask them to help pay for the transportation costs of  Suburban Jobs beneficiaries.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: State of New Mexico, Transportation Toolkit and Rural Job Access
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Transit Authority of River City – Louisville, Kentucky
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Washington Metropolitan Area Job Access Services
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Funding
paragraphs: The following table describes the Job Access Program funding for this  project as well as the sources of matching funds and the amounts.
section_title: Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Sustainability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Survey of Job Access Grantees
paragraphs: 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.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) is an agency of  facilitate the return of your questionnaire.  If the return  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).
If you have any questions, please call Frank Taliaferro  funding grantees have received under this program.
Please review the label above and respond to the  questions in this questionnaire as they relate to the  we receive, will be used in our report to the Congress on  this program. 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.
Thank you for your help.
Please provide the following information for the person  we should contact if we have any questions.    rounding).
GAO Control # : (N=152)
General Information About Your Project  3.  How does this Job Access project (your organization  or sub-grantee) primarily provide transportation  1.  What is the name and address of the grant recipient  services (including mobility manager services) to  for this Job Access project? program participants? (Please check one.)    (N=145) _(N=152)___________________  1.   Uses a combination of direct  transportation service, contractors, or  vouchers.
2.   3.   Hires companies to provide services  2.  Which of the following would best characterize your  such as bus, van, or taxi  organization? (Please check one.) (N=151)
4.
Provides vouchers to participants to  1.   2.    State Human Service Department  5.   Other (Please specify)
3.   Regional transit agency  4.   Local transit agency  4.  Currently, about how many passengers per month  5.   Local government human service office   does your Job Access project serve? (Enter number;  if none, enter ‘0’) (N=135)
6.   Other local government (city/county) (Range: 0 – 257,856 passengers)
7.   Nonprofit human service organization   (Median: 1,880 passengers)  (Mean: 11,079 passengers)
8.   9.   10.   Other (Please specify) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) zones, what is the  service? service? each.) cents.) service? trip? (Please enter  month? each month? dollars and cents.) cents.) numbers.) numbers.) cents.)
Range: $0 - $4.00  (N=31) $0 - $187.00  $0 - $4.00  $0 - $4.00  rail) (N=91) (N=91) (N=89) $0 - $12.00  (N=84) (N=83) (N=135) (N=31)
Range: $0 - $2.00  service, that is,   $0 - $74.00  $0 - $4.00  $0 - $4.00  (N=05) (N=32) (N=31) (N=20)
Range: $0 - $3.00  (N=29) (N=31) (N=05) (N=117)
Range: $0 - $4.00  service, that is,  $1.00 – $52.34  $0 - $10.95  $0 - $12.17   (N=18) (N=63) (N=61) (N=49) $0 - $44.00  (N=62) (N=58) (N=124) (N=18) (N=02) (N=03) (N=01) (N=01) (N=02) (N=04) project)    (N=111)       (N=114)  6.  Other (Please  specify) (N=07) (N=07) (N=05) (N=02) (N=06) (N=06) (N=90)  (Please note: The number of respondents for question 5.4 and 5.6 were too small to provide meaningful  statistics.)  6.  Of the passengers that your Job Access  8.  About what percent of your project’s Job Access  transportation project serves, about what percent  funding is used for a mobility or trip manager, or  could be described as the following? (Enter percent,  broker services?  (Enter percentage; if none, enter  if none, enter ‘0’.) ‘0’.) (N=137) (Range: 0 – 100%)
subsections: section_title: 1. TANF recipients (Range: 0 - 100%)
paragraphs: (Median: 0%) (Median: 16%)                (Range: 0 – 60%)
9.
As of June 30, 2002, under your Job Access                      (Median: 4%) grant(s), for how many months have these  participants (Department of Labor)              (N=93) %  transportation services been provided? (Please enter  3.  Other low income                           (Range: 0 - 100%)  (below 150% of poverty)                     (Median: 30%) number of months)                                         (N=135) (Range: 0 – 58 months)  (Median: 24 months)  (Mean: 23 months)
section_title: 4. Reverse commuters, with (Range: 0 – 90%)
paragraphs: (Median: 0%)
10.  How are employers involved with either the funding  or implementation of this Job Access  project? (Range: 0 – 100%) (Please check all that apply.) (N=139) (Median: 19%)
1.   Employers provide some or all of the  matching funds for the service  6.   Other project participants   (for example, Medicaid   2.   Employers provide additional funding--  recipients, senior citizens,    beyond the Job Access project match  etc.) (Please specify              (Range: 0 – 100%) program) (Median: 0%)            (N=89)   %  3.   Employers make in-kind contributions  such as vehicles, maintenance for  7.  How are Job Access project fare box receipts used?  (Please check all that apply.) (N=142)
4.   Employers pay fares for employees who  1.
Included as part of match for Job Access  5.   Employers supplement the service by  providing emergency rides for special  2.   Used to support operating costs of Jobs  circumstances  (for example, when  employees must leave early for family  3.   Returned to organization’s general  emergencies)  6.   Employers have adjusted work  schedules to accommodate the operating  4.   Other (Please specify.) limitations of the Job Access  7.   Employers provide vans or shuttle buses  5.   Not applicable – do not have fare box  to take workers from the end of the  transit service to the workplace  8.   Other (Please identify)  9.   No employers are involved  with the  implementation of this project  (Go to  Question 13)
section_title: 11. About how many employers are involved with either
paragraphs: Job Access project? (Please check all that apply.) ‘0’.) (N=93) (N=145) (Range: 0 – 3,000 employers)
1.   Not Applicable – this project is in a  (Median: 3 employers)  (Mean: 54 employers) rural area not subject to an MPO.  (Go  to Question 15)
2.    Provided data for project plan  3.    Reviewed plans for project  12.  Which specific employers (public or private) in your  area are significantly involved with helping TANF  4.   Coordinated and facilitated the creation  recipients or low-income people get to work?    (Please identify the employers; use additional sheets  if necessary.) (N=152)
5.
Provided funding for this project that  was included in the match  6.   Created a process and selected MPO  7.   Helped prepare/write grant application  8.   Other (Please explain)
13.  In addition to your Job Access services, what other  15.  What was the role of the state DOT in planning and  transportation services in your area are provided by  approving your Job Access project? (Please check  other human service or transit agencies? (Please  all that apply.) (N=145) check all that apply.) (N=147)
1.    Not Applicable – this project is in an  1.   None (Go to Question 14) urban area, subject to an MPO.  (Go  to Question 16)
2.
Fixed route bus or van service  2.    Provided data for project plan  3.   Trains or light rail   3.    Reviewed plans for project  4.
Flexible route bus or vanpools   4.   Coordinated and facilitated the creation  5.   Demand response vanpools  5.
Provided funding for project that was  6.   Created a process and selected  8.   Medicaid, Medicare, Head Start, or  7.   Helped prepare/write grant application  9.   Other (Please identify)
8.   Other (Please explain)
Job Access project has enabled your organization to  program affected coordination and collaboration  help people get to work? (Please check one.) with other transportation or transit organizations in                                                                               (N=138) your service area? (Please check one.)         (N=142)
The level of coordination and collaboration  3.   Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied  3.
17.  How has your participation in the Job Access  5. 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…  8.   Not applicable—we are the only transit  20.  Please briefly explain below the reason for your  3. response in question 19. (Please use additional  sheets if necessary.)   (N=100 comments)
5.   18.  Please briefly explain below the reason for your  response in question 17. (Please use additional  sheets if necessary.)
21.  Please describe any difficulties your project  experienced, if any, in coordinating and  (N=126 comments) collaborating with transportation, transit or social  service organizations. (Please use additional sheets  if necessary.)
No difficulties--> (Go to Question 23)  (N=87 checked the no difficulties box)  (N=43 comments)
Access project.  About what percent of your total  social service were overcome, if at all. (Please use  project funding came from this Job Access grant? additional sheets if necessary.) (Please enter percent)                                   (N=133)
Difficulties identified in question 21 were not  (Range: 3 – 100%)  (Median: 50%) (N=19 checked the no difficulties box)  (N=28 comments)
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.      Yes (Go to Question 28)
Funding for the Job Access Project  2.       No (Continue)
section_title: 23. In addition to the FTA’s funding for this project’s
paragraphs: Job Access grant, what other sources of funds were  27.  Consider the period after June 30, 2002.  At the  used to fund your organization’s Job Access  current rate of expenditures, for how many months  transportation services? (Please check all that  can your organization continue the transportation  apply.) (N=144) services that were started under the Job Access  program, without getting more funds? (Please enter  1. the number of months.) (N=83)
2.    State transportation funds  (Range: 0 – 102 months)  (Median: 9 months)
3.   Other State funds  (Mean: 13 months)
4.   Local government funds  5.   Local transit operator funds   28.  Has your organization applied to receive a Job  6.
Access project grant to fund the period after June 30,  2002? (Please check one.)                             (N=145)
7.   Employer donations or contributions  8.
2.   No Please explain the reasons below.
9.   Other (Please specify) (N=12 comments)
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)  $________   29.  If your Job Access project funding should end, will  31.  What was your organization’s expectation for the  your organization continue to provide transportation  funding cycle for your Jobs Access project? (Please  services that were previously provided through the  check one.) (N=143)
Job Access grant?  (Please check one.)         (N=142)
1.
Funding would be available on a  1.   Yes, with expanded services  2.   Yes, at same level of services  2.
Funding would be available for a limited  3.   Yes, at a reduced level of services  3.
Funding was for a one-time only grant  4.   Uncertain, will completely discontinue  services if other sources of funds are not  4.   Other (Please specify.)
5.   No, will discontinue services (Go to  Question 31)
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  30.  If your Job Access project funding ends, what  necessary, explain how you measured success in the  sources of funds does your organization expect to  comments section.) (N=145) use to pay for continued operations of the services  that were started or expanded under the program?
1.   Number of passengers  (Please check all that apply.) (N=126)
Access service not previously served by  7.     Private nonprofit organization donations  6.   Number of employers that low-income  people can access with the Job Access  9.     Employer donations or contributions  7.   Number of jobs that low-income people  10.   Other (Please specify) can access with the Job Access service  8.   Additional hours during the day that the  project was able to provide service  9.   Transportation service can be sustained  without continued Job Access funding  10.   Other  (Please specify) __________________________  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)  4.   5.   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)  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.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgment
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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 full- text 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.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs