Public Transit: Information on Job Access and Reverse Commute Activities after 2012 Statutory Changes
Released: 2017-05-04T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Established in 1998, the JARC program, which was administered by FTA, provided grants to states and localities for improving the mobility of low-income individuals to and from jobs and employment-related activities. In 2005, statute changed JARC into a formula program with dedicated funds apportioned by FTA. Then in 2012, MAP-21 repealed and consolidated the JARC program. However, activities previously funded through the JARC program are still eligible for funding through other programs administered by FTA.

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act included a provision for GAO to examine the impact of changes that MAP-21 had on public transportation. This report examines: (1) how FTA communicated the 2012 statutory changes to JARC activities to transit providers and (2) whether and how selected states and transit providers have continued to fund and provide JARC activities since the 2012 statutory changes. GAO reviewed FTA program guidance. GAO interviewed FTA officials and 34 selected recipients of JARC funding, including transportation officials and transit providers, from six states (Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia). GAO judgmentally selected these JARC recipients for interviews to represent diverse geographic locations, including large-urban, small-urban, and rural funding areas within each state, among other factors.

GAO provided a draft of this report to DOT for comment. DOT had no comment on this report.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) communicated changes that Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) made to public transportation programs, including the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program, to designated recipients through program guidance and outreach. For example, in an October 2012 Federal Register notice, FTA addressed the consolidation of the JARC program and its eligible activities (JARC activities) into the existing Urbanized Area Formula Program (urban transit program) and the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (rural transit program). Additionally, in 2014, FTA issued final guidance on JARC activities allowed under the urban and rural transit programs. In addition to written guidance, FTA officials offered webinars and made staff available via in-person meetings, calls, and e-mail messages to answer any questions or concerns about the 2012 program change. Of the 34 selected JARC recipients (selected recipients) GAO interviewed, most (22) stated that they found the guidance provided to them, either by FTA directly or by other means, to be sufficient and effective in communicating program changes.

Most of the selected recipients we interviewed (30 of 34) said that they have continued to provide some level of JARC activities after the 2012 statutory changes. Selected recipients cited several reasons why they continue—or plan to continue—providing JARC activities, including:

recipients still have remaining dedicated JARC funds,

overall federal transit formula amounts were unchanged, and

JARC activities have already been integrated into existing transit services.

The 34 selected recipients GAO interviewed also identified an array of challenges in continuing their JARC activities. All but one of the selected recipients specified funding challenges related to MAP-21 changes. In particular, 21 selected recipients reported JARC activities had difficulty competing against other public services, including transit services, for funds, and 17 reported year-to-year funding allocations for continued JARC activities could change. In addition, 25 selected recipients specified service challenges linked to the location of low-income housing and employment centers. GAO found that it is too soon to determine the full impact of the statutory changes on JARC activities. This finding is in part due to the number of grant recipients and subrecipients still spending dedicated funds apportioned before the 2012 statutory changes. Half of the 34 selected recipients GAO interviewed reported that they were still spending dedicated JARC funds, and recent FTA data indicate that as of February 2017, there were approximately 265 active program grants funding JARC activities. Officials from 7 of the 17 selected recipients that have already expended all of their JARC program funding stated that they are uncertain whether or not they will be able to obtain long-term funding to continue to support JARC activities into future years.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Access to transportation is critical for enabling low-income individuals to  find and retain employment and attend to other life needs. To help  provide this access, Congress established the Job Access and Reverse  Commute (JARC) program in 1998. Administered by the U.S.  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Transit Administration  (FTA), the JARC program provided grants to states and localities to fill  gaps in transportation services for low-income individuals needing access  to jobs and related services, such as child care and training. JARC funds  could also be used for public transportation activities designed to  transport residents in both urbanized and rural areas to suburban  employment opportunities regardless of income. In 2012, the Moving  Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) made a number of  changes to public transportation programs, including repealing and  consolidating the JARC program. However, activities previously funded  through the JARC program are still eligible for funding through other  programs administered by FTA. Since this change, questions have been  raised about the impacts of the program’s consolidation on funding  recipients, and any effects it has had on transit services targeting low- income users.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) included a  provision for us to analyze and evaluate possible impacts of changes  made to public transportation activities under MAP-21 on low-income  riders. This report examines (1) how FTA communicated the 2012  statutory changes to JARC activities to transit providers and (2) whether  and how selected states and transit providers have continued to fund and  provide JARC activities since the 2012 statutory changes.

To determine how FTA communicated the MAP-21 changes to the JARC  program we reviewed FTA program guidance, including a federal register  publication and applicable program circulars. We also interviewed FTA  officials and representatives of relevant stakeholder groups, such as the  Community Transportation Association of America, American Association  of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the National Rural  Transit Assistance Program. To determine the current status of JARC  program activities that started before the 2012 statutory changes, we  reviewed fiscal year 2009 through 2012 funding information on program  apportionments, and FTA program information about ongoing JARC  activities as of February 2017.

To answer both objectives, we interviewed a total of 34 entities from six  states (Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia).  This population included officials from the 6 selected state transportation  agencies, as well as 13 selected large-urban JARC program’s designated  recipients and 15 subrecipients, which consisted of local transit agencies  and nonprofit organizations, among others. We selected states and  JARC recipient agencies to interview to include a range of geographic  locations, states that received large amounts of JARC program funds, as  well as states that received smaller JARC funding amounts. We also  reviewed a list provided by FTA of ongoing JARC program activities  funded prior to the MAP-21 statutory changes to assist in our selection.  All selected recipients we interviewed had received dedicated JARC  program funds and were either actively administering, or had recently  completed, their eligible JARC grant activities. We developed interview  question sets to use with designated recipients and subrecipients. We  then analyzed responses from our interview question set with the 34  selected JARC recipients (selected recipients). To conduct this analysis,  we established high-level categories of responses, and reviewed the  recipients’ answers to interview questions to determine any common  themes in selected recipient responses, and quantify those responses.  One analyst conducted the categorization of responses, and a second  analyst reviewed this analysis. Results of this analysis are not  generalizable.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to May 2017 in  accordance with the generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Public transportation provides many groups with wide-ranging benefits.  Those served include transportation disadvantaged populations, such as  “low-income individuals”. Congress created the JARC program in the  1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to support  national welfare-reform goals, including helping adults meet new work  requirements to receive federal assistance. A purpose of the program  was to improve low-income individuals’ ability to access jobs and job- related needs by providing grants to states and localities for the provision  of additional or expanded transportation services. Under TEA-21, JARC  was a discretionary program, with projects selected by FTA for funding  through a competitive process or congressionally designated for funding.  Figure 1 provides a timeline of subsequent surface transportation  authorizations that affected the program.

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity  Act —A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) changed JARC into a formula  program. FTA apportioned dedicated program funds to states for  projects in small urbanized and rural areas, and to large urbanized areas,  based on a statutory formula. State transportation agencies were required  to be JARC designated recipients for small urbanized and rural areas.  Designated recipients for large urbanized areas include major transit  agencies and metropolitan planning organizations. SAFETEA-LU also  required that designated recipients develop and conduct a competitive  selection process for their projects, and competitively allocate funds to  subrecipients. After projects were selected, designated recipients had to  apply to FTA to fund the projects. FTA awarded grants to designated  recipients and funds were obligated at the time of award. Figure 2 below  provides an overview of the JARC grants process under SAFETEA-LU.  Program-eligible activities included, among others: late-night and  weekend transit service, expansion of fixed-route public transit routes  (e.g., bus routes), ride-sharing activities, local car loan programs, or  capital expenditures such as vehicle purchases to support a transit  service. In fiscal year 2012, the last year before the program was  consolidated, FTA apportioned approximately $176.5 million to urbanized  and rural areas. Funds were available for obligation for 3 years from the  time of apportionment. JARC funds remain subject to the program  requirements that were in place at the time the funds were apportioned.

In 2012, the JARC program was one of several FTA grant programs that  MAP-21 changed or did not renew. Specifically, the statute consolidated  eligible JARC activities into the existing Urbanized Area Formula Program  (urban transit program) and Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program  (rural transit program). Eligible activities of the consolidated urban and  rural transit programs are as follows.

Urban transit program: In addition to providing funds for eligible  JARC activities in urbanized areas, this program provides funds for  activities including: (1) planning, certain operating costs, engineering,  design, and evaluation of transit projects and other technical  transportation-related studies; (2) capital investments in bus and bus- related activities; and (3) capital investments in new and existing  fixed-guideway systems including, but not limited to, rolling stock,  overhauling and rebuilding of vehicles, and communications.

Rural transit program: In addition to providing funds for eligible  JARC activities in rural areas, this program provides funds for  activities including: (1) planning; (2) capital expenses for the  acquisition of buses and vans or other paratransit vehicles; (3)  preventive maintenance, vehicle rehabilitation, remanufacture, or  overhaul; and (4) operating expenses directly related to system  operations  We have previously noted that consolidation was seen as a means of  continuing the goals of the program while offering greater efficiency and  flexibility, including decreasing administrative burdens, to recipients.

section_title: FTA Issued Guidance and Conducted Outreach to Communicate That JARC Activities Remain Eligible for Federal Funding
paragraphs: FTA communicated changes that MAP-21 made to public transportation  programs, including the JARC program, to designated recipients through  program guidance and outreach. Initially, FTA issued a Federal Register  notice regarding FTA transit program changes in October 2012. The  notice provided interim guidance and emphasized that under MAP-21,  activities that were funded through the former JARC program are eligible  under the urban transit program and the rural transit program. The notice  also stated that there is no set-aside or spending cap on JARC activities.

After the 2012 consolidation, DOT applied all of the JARC eligibility  requirements and existing activities in the urban transit program and rural  transit program. For example, FTA officials explained that they  incorporated a unique aspect of grantee eligibility under the JARC  program—the eligibility of private nonprofit organizations as sub- recipients—in the urban transit program. FTA issued circulars with the  final MAP-21 program guidance in 2014. The circulars reiterated that  there is no limit to the amount of allocated and unobligated formula funds  that can be used for JARC activities until Congress rescinds or redirects  the funds to other programs, and outlined the eligibility requirements for  these activities.

As part of its outreach to funding recipients, FTA held webinars  highlighting new and consolidated programs under MAP-21, and the  JARC program was among the programs covered. Additionally, FTA  officials stated that headquarters and regional FTA officials made  themselves available through conferences, or other means such as  telephone calls or e-mail, to answer questions or concerns regarding the  consolidation and its potential impacts on JARC activities. Selected  recipients we spoke with said they found out about changes to the JARC  program through FTA webinars or designated JARC recipients.

Of the 19 selected designated recipients we interviewed, a majority  (12 of 19) said they found out about the JARC consolidation primarily  through webinars and FTA’s summer 2012 conference. Some also  reported they viewed their contact with FTA officials as a useful  resource as they navigated the program changes. For example, an  official with the Texas Department of Transportation said he found  FTA staff to be the most important resource during program changes,  because the staff was available for questions and feedback.  Furthermore, this official told us that his agency had meetings twice a  year with subrecipients, and FTA staff joined those meetings to assist  in answering a range of questions or concerns, including those on  JARC activities, from subrecipients.

Of the 15 selected subrecipients we interviewed, about half (7)  reported finding out about the JARC program changes through their  state’s transportation agency or other designated recipient. For  example, an official with a Mississippi subrecipient said it found out  about the JARC consolidation and its implications at the annual  workshop held by the Mississippi Department of Transportation to  assist agencies with grant applications. In Arizona, an official with a  selected subrecipient said he learned about the JARC program  changes through its metropolitan planning organization’s committee  meeting.

Of the 34 total selected recipients we interviewed, 22 stated they found  the guidance provided to them, either from FTA directly or through their  respective designated recipients, to be sufficient and effective in  communicating program changes. For example, an official from a  designated recipient in Mississippi who characterized FTA’s  communications as effective noted that the information was readily  available, but that it was primarily up to recipients to read the guidance  and follow up with FTA on any questions or concerns. An official from a  selected subrecipient in Virginia said that the state’s communication  regarding the MAP-21 program changes was good and that FTA’s written  resources also provided useful details on the changes.

section_title: Selected Recipients Continue to Provide JARC Activities, but the Full Impact of Statutory Changes Is Unclear
paragraphs: Almost all (30 of 34) selected recipients reported that they have continued  providing JARC activities, such as transportation services, that were  started prior to the 2012 MAP-21 consolidation. About two-thirds (22) of  the selected recipients we interviewed have maintained all such activities.  Officials from half of the selected recipients (17) reported that they still are  expending dedicated JARC program funds received prior to the 2012  statutory changes to support their ongoing JARC activities, and that they  plan to continue using those funds until they are depleted. Further, all  selected recipients reported that they have had to address, or anticipate  having to address, service or funding challenges in order to continue their  JARC activities. Despite reported challenges, all selected recipients  except one reported they are working to maintain their JARC activities,  including service hour expansions and commuter bus routes. Some  selected recipients reported that it is too soon to tell whether they will  need to make additional adjustments to their JARC activities in the future  because of possible year-to-year funding challenges.
subsections: section_title: Selected Recipients Stated That to Date, They Have Continued Funding and Providing JARC Activities
paragraphs: Of the 34 selected recipients we interviewed, 30 had continued JARC  activities, such as ongoing transit service, started prior to the MAP-21  changes. These selected recipients reported that they have maintained  some level of JARC activities using a number of funding sources,  including urban or rural transit program funds and remaining JARC  program funds. Specifically, about two-thirds of selected recipients (22 of  34) reported continuing all of their previous JARC activities to date, and  just under one-quarter (8 of 34) said they continue to provide downsized  or redesigned JARC activities. The remaining 4 selected recipients had  used their JARC program funds to complete short-term activities, such as  capital expenditures for vehicles or pilot transit programs, which were not  affected by the MAP-21 changes.

Through analysis of our interviews with selected recipients, we identified  a number of reasons recipients have been able to continue JARC  activities after the MAP-21 program changes. These reasons include the  following:

Remaining dedicated JARC funds: Seventeen of the 34 recipients  reported that they have not yet expended all of their dedicated funds  and continue to use them to fund JARC activities. Officials from 5  selected recipients reported that when MAP-21 was implemented in  2012, they started planning their expenditure of remaining dedicated  funds to sustain existing JARC activities into future years. For  example, officials at Texas Department of Transportation, a selected  designated recipient, reported redistributing dedicated funds that their  subrecipients had not expended in a timely manner to other eligible  subrecipients’ ongoing JARC activities. Those funds were fully  expended in August 2016. Additionally, in Oregon, officials from Tri- County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), a  selected designated recipient, said they distributed remaining  dedicated JARC funds to subrecipients, which used this funding in  combination with local funds to maintain their transit services  connecting residential neighborhoods and employment centers to  longer or more heavily used transit routes. The officials said they  expect to close out their final dedicated program grant in June 2017.

Overall federal transit formula funding amounts were  unchanged: None of the 19 selected designated recipients we  interviewed reported a significant overall change to their annual FTA  formula funding allocations attributable to the statutory changes. In  addition, five of those designated recipients noted that the changes  led to overall benefits, including reduced administrative burden and  increased spending flexibility of federal funds. For example, officials  from Maricopa Association of Governments, a selected designated  recipient in Arizona, explained that they were able to re-evaluate  ongoing service and capital needs and reallocate some unused funds  (in this case, urban transit program funds that they had initially chosen  to set aside for JARC activities) to undertake bus stop capital  upgrades. According to the officials, the reallocation had no impact on  their subrecipients’ JARC activities, and the added funding flexibility  was beneficial to the region’s transit system as a whole.

JARC activities integrated into existing transit services: Half of  selected recipients (17 of 34) reported that their JARC program  funded activities fulfilled a variety of citizens’ transportation needs,  encouraging the providers to continue those JARC activities using  alternate funding sources after the 2012 statutory changes. For  example, officials with Ride Connection, a selected Oregon  subrecipient, stated that their ongoing JARC transit service has  become an important transportation option serving the broader  community with trips to schools and grocery stores, in addition to job  centers. A dedicated program grant currently funds this service, but  officials we spoke with said they are actively seeking alternate funds  to maintain it. Additionally, officials with Blue Water Area Transit, a  selected Michigan subrecipient, told us that late-night bus service  initially funded under the JARC program has become popular with a  wider population, helping increase ridership on their other transit  services. Due to the ridership increase, officials reported that the  agency is able to cover a greater portion of operating expenses using  revenue from fares, providing an overall benefit to the system. Four of  the recipients we selected provide transit service in university  communities. Those transit officials said that students, faculty, and  other campus employees make up a large portion of transit riders in  their jurisdictions. This customer base creates demand for expanded  transit service hours, like extended weekday hours of operation and  weekend service, which JARC program grants had previously funded.  These selected recipients all reported that they now receive dedicated  local transit funding from the university or surrounding jurisdiction to  maintain these services.

Importance of JARC activities to the community: Officials from just  over one-third of selected recipients we interviewed (12 of 34) stated  that transportation for low-income workers is a high priority in their  communities, and they are willing to seek out additional funds in order  to sustain JARC activities. For example, TriMet reported receiving  political support from its regional business community for transit  access to low-wage employment centers, particularly during off-peak  hours such as evenings and weekends when transit service can be  limited. TriMet officials explained that their transit system attracts  relatively high interest from employers because their main local  funding source is a payroll tax. Additionally, officials with Flint Mass  Transportation Authority, a selected Michigan designated recipient,  reported that limited job availability in their metropolitan area creates a  high demand for JARC commuter bus routes that service employment  centers in other jurisdictions. According to the officials, the funding  needs of their commuter service limit the amount of funding available  for other needs such as capital purchases.

Officials from the eight selected recipients said they continue to provide  downsized or redesigned JARC activities, service modifications or other  changes that have enabled them to maintain a level of JARC activities to  help meet low-income riders’ needs. Reported adjustments fell into three  categories:

Realigning service and funding: Two selected recipients reported  redesigning their JARC activities. Lower Rio Grande Valley  Development Council, a selected designated recipient in Texas,  reported realigning one 50-mile long JARC funded route into three  separate routes to more efficiently meet rider needs. These bus  routes serve affordable housing projects in rural areas—locations that,  according to officials, had limited transit options before the service  began—and job centers in urban areas such as industrial parks and  universities. Additionally, officials with Suburban Mobility Authority for  Regional Transportation, a selected Michigan designated recipient,  reported that one of their subrecipients, a nonprofit transit provider,  adjusted service on a JARC funded demand response bus service to  better align it with community needs and funding sources. The  officials said the service primarily served elderly and disabled riders;  after fully expending dedicated JARC funds, the officials have used  funds from FTA’s Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Persons with  Disabilities program to maintain the service. However, they also said  that as a result of this funding change, the service’s target ridership  now focuses exclusively on seniors and persons with disabilities in  order to comply with program requirements.

Adjusting service hours or frequencies: Two selected recipients  informed us that they were unable to sustain all activities started with  JARC program grants, but have adjusted service hours and  frequencies to allow them to continue some such activities after the  program changes. Officials with the Oregon Department of  Transportation, a selected designated recipient, reported that a  number of their subrecipients that provide transit service used  dedicated JARC program grants to fund enhancements such as  expanded service hours, more extensive service areas, and increased  bus frequencies. After the statutory changes, some of Oregon  Department of Transportation’s subrecipients had to partially cut back  their transit service enhancements, but aspects of the enhancements  remain. More specifically, officials said that one of their subrecipients  maintained 2 of the 4 hours of enhanced bus service, but eliminated  the 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. window after the JARC funds ran out.  Blacksburg Transit, a selected Virginia subrecipient, reported reducing  service on a JARC commuter bus route from two round trips per day  to one daily round trip, which it said allowed them to fulfill a  community need while reducing the cost of the service.

Discontinuing select low-ridership JARC activities: Officials with 4  selected recipients explained that they discontinued some JARC  activities with limited ridership. According to these recipients, they  have found ways to provide alternate services for transportation- disadvantaged individuals, including those commuting to low-wage  jobs. For example, officials with Detroit Department of Transportation,  a selected designated recipient in Michigan, reported discontinuing a  demand response service after their dedicated JARC funding was  expended. The officials explained that they used city resources to  assist individuals that used the demand response service in finding  more transit-accessible workplaces, and utilized federal and local  funds to enhance existing fixed route bus service. Additionally,  officials with Brownsville Metro, a selected subrecipient transit agency  in Texas, reported that they discontinued one of their JARC bus  routes when a local university that directly benefited from the service  could no longer provide the required matching funds to maintain the  route. However, a different JARC route funded through a partnership  with a neighboring county continues operation.

section_title: Selected JARC Recipients Identified Some Ongoing Funding and Service Challenges, as well as Possible Methods for Addressing Challenges
paragraphs: Selected recipients reported facing service and funding challenges in  continuing JARC activities after the statutory changes in 2012. FTA  officials explained that low-income transit users may live or work in areas  that are not adjacent to heavily-serviced transit areas, a situation that can  make JARC activities more expensive to provide than other transit  service. A majority of our selected recipients (25 of 34) reported service  challenges due to factors such as location of housing or employment  characteristics of low income individuals (e.g., working late-night hours or  weekends). Additionally, officials with almost all selected recipients (33 of  34) reported facing challenges pertaining to funding. For example, many  noted that they have had difficulty competing for funds against other  public services. Table 1 below highlights some of the service and funding  challenges our selected recipients identified, as well as examples of  methods some selected recipients used to address these challenges.

section_title: It Is Too Soon to Determine the Full Impact of Statutory Changes on JARC Activities
paragraphs: A substantial amount of dedicated JARC funds apportioned in 2012 and  earlier under SAFETEA-LU remains unspent. According to FTA data, as  of February 2017, there are approximately 265 federally funded JARC  program grants accounting for about $147.9 million still open with funds to  expend. As noted earlier, half of our selected recipients reported that they  have not yet expended all of their dedicated federal JARC funds. For  those with dedicated funding still available, they may not yet have faced  the decision of whether to continue to fund—or at what level to fund— eligible JARC activities under the urban or rural transit program, whether  to fund other eligible activities under those programs, or whether to seek  additional nonfederal funds to continue their eligible JARC activities.

Officials with nine of the selected recipients with dedicated funds  remaining said they have not yet finalized plans for continuing their  current JARC activities after the funds are expended and that they were  not sure if the activities would be maintained as-is or be adjusted. For  example, Sun Metro Mass Transit Department, a selected designated  recipient in Texas, reported that it plans to re-evaluate eligibility  requirements for its JARC activities and analyze its regional transit  priorities before making a final future funding decision. Also, officials with  RADAR Transit, a selected Virginia subrecipient, reported that they are  working to educate regional government officials about the benefits of the  current JARC activities in advance of dedicated funds being expended,  but officials are not sure whether they will be able to obtain local funds to  replace their expended monies. However, the remaining eight of the 17  selected recipients with dedicated funds remaining have developed plans  to continue their JARC activities after spending all of the funds.

Officials from 7 of the 17 selected recipients that have already expended  all of their dedicated funds stated that they are uncertain whether they will  be able to obtain long-term funding to continue to support JARC activities  into future years. For example, a selected subrecipient transit agency in  Michigan reported that to date the state has provided funding in the  annual budget to sustain its JARC activities. However, that funding is not  guaranteed to continue beyond year to year. Officials with a selected  Mississippi subrecipient nonprofit transportation provider explained that  the funding amounts they receive from local jurisdictions for their rural  JARC transit service can be inconsistent, making it challenging for them  to cover the local portion of their operating expenditures. Also, officials  with Charlottesville Area Transit, a selected Virginia subrecipient,  explained that the level of local and state funding, which they currently  use to help sustain expanded transit service hours started with a JARC  program grant, could change in the future. According to the officials, at  any time their jurisdiction could redirect municipal funds to non-transit  activities such as the city’s fire or police departments. Furthermore, these  officials reported that Virginia’s state gas tax, which provides transit  operating funds, is scheduled to sunset in 2019 and might not be  renewed. However, all seven selected recipients that have expended their  dedicated funds and face such uncertainty indicated that they are seeking  sustained, long-term funding sources to help them continue JARC  activities in the future.

section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for comment. DOT had no  comments on this report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Administrator of FTA, the Secretary of the Department of  Transportation, and interested congressional committees. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at 202-512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found at the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix II.

section_title: Appendix I: Selected Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Designated Recipient and Subrecipient Interviews

section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Heather MacLeod (Assistant  Director), Betsey Ward-Jenks (Analyst-in-Charge), Dwayne Curry,  Andrew Furillo, Delwen Jones, Elizabeth Wood, Rachel Frisk, Cheryl  Peterson, and Max Sawicky.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: How did the FTA communicate the MAP-21 changes?
answer: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) communicated changes that Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) made to public transportation programs, including the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program, to designated recipients through program guidance and outreach.
child_questions: question: What is an example of how the FTA communicated the changes?
answer: For example, in an October 2012 Federal Register notice, FTA addressed the consolidation of the JARC program and its eligible activities (JARC activities) into the existing Urbanized Area Formula Program (urban transit program) and the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (rural transit program). Additionally, in 2014, FTA issued final guidance on JARC activities allowed under the urban and rural transit programs.

question: What kinds of guidance did the FTA provide regarding the changes?
answer: In addition to written guidance, FTA officials offered webinars and made staff available via in-person meetings, calls, and e-mail messages to answer any questions or concerns about the 2012 program change.

question: To what extent did the JARC recipients find the FTA guidance to be sufficient?
answer: Of the 34 selected JARC recipients (selected recipients) GAO interviewed, most (22) stated that they found the guidance provided to them, either by FTA directly or by other means, to be sufficient and effective in communicating program changes.

questions: question: To what extent did the MAP-21 changes affect funding?
answer: The 34 selected recipients GAO interviewed also identified an array of challenges in continuing their JARC activities. All but one of the selected recipients specified funding challenges related to MAP-21 changes. In particular, 21 selected recipients reported JARC activities had difficulty competing against other public services, including transit services, for funds, and 17 reported year-to-year funding allocations for continued JARC activities could change. In addition, 25 selected recipients specified service challenges linked to the location of low-income housing and employment centers.
child_questions: question: What did GAO conclude as to the impact of the changes?
answer: GAO found that it is too soon to determine the full impact of the statutory changes on JARC activities.
child_questions: question: Why is it too soon to determine the impact of the changes to JARC activities?
answer: This finding is in part due to the number of grant recipients and subrecipients still spending dedicated funds apportioned before the 2012 statutory changes. Half of the 34 selected recipients GAO interviewed reported that they were still spending dedicated JARC funds, and recent FTA data indicate that as of February 2017, there were approximately 265 active program grants funding JARC activities.

question: To what extent will the recipients be able to obtain long-term funding for JARC activities?
answer: Officials from 7 of the 17 selected recipients that have already expended all of their JARC program funding stated that they are uncertain whether or not they will be able to obtain long-term funding to continue to support JARC activities into future years.

questions: question: What does the JARC program do?
answer: Established in 1998, the JARC program, which was administered by FTA, provided grants to states and localities for improving the mobility of low-income individuals to and from jobs and employment-related activities.
child_questions: question: How was JARC changed in 2005?
answer: In 2005, statute changed JARC into a formula program with dedicated funds apportioned by FTA.

question: How did MAP-21 change the JARC program?
answer: Then in 2012, MAP-21 repealed and consolidated the JARC program.
child_questions: question: How did this affect activities previously under the JARC program?
answer: However, activities previously funded through the JARC program are still eligible for funding through other programs administered by FTA.

questions: question: Why did GAO examine the impact of MAP-21 changes?
answer: The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act included a provision for GAO to examine the impact of changes that MAP-21 had on public transportation.

question: What does this report examine?
answer: This report examines: (1) how FTA communicated the 2012 statutory changes to JARC activities to transit providers and (2) whether and how selected states and transit providers have continued to fund and provide JARC activities since the 2012 statutory changes.
child_questions: question: How did GAO source their data for this report?
answer: GAO reviewed FTA program guidance. GAO interviewed FTA officials and 34 selected recipients of JARC funding, including transportation officials and transit providers, from six states (Arizona, Michigan, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia).
child_questions: question: How did GAO select the JARC recipients examined?
answer: GAO judgmentally selected these JARC recipients for interviews to represent diverse geographic locations, including large-urban, small-urban, and rural funding areas within each state, among other factors.