Transportation-disadvantaged populations, including those that cannot provide their own transportation due to age, disability, or income constraints, may face challenges in accessing transportation, such as lack of access to public transportation or a private vehicle. For example, according to a 2011 report by the National Council on Disability, people with disabilities are more likely than people without disabilities to report that they have inadequate transportation (34 percent versus 16 percent, respectively). We have previously reported that people in need of transportation often benefit from greater and higher quality services when transportation providers coordinate their operations. In addition, we have reported that coordination has the potential to reduce federal transportation program costs by clustering passengers; using fewer one- way trips; and sharing the use of personnel, equipment, and facilities. Federal agencies, including USDA, Education, HHS, HUD, Interior, DOL, DOT, and VA, play an important role in helping transportation- disadvantaged populations access federal programs by providing funds to state and local grantees. Federal programs that provide funding for transportation cover a variety of services, including education, job training, employment, nutrition, health, medical care, or other human services. As we have previously reported, many federally funded programs purchase transportation services from existing private or public providers. This includes contracting for services with private transportation providers or providing transit passes, taxi vouchers, or mileage reimbursement to program participants, or some combination of these methods. Some programs may use federal funds to purchase and operate their own vehicles. DOT and HHS formed the Coordinating Council on Human Services Transportation (Coordinating Council) in 1986 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of human service transportation by coordinating related programs at the federal level and promoting the maximum feasible coordination at the state and local levels. In 2003, we reported that coordination efforts at the federal, state, and local levels varied greatly, and while some coordination efforts showed promising results, obstacles continued to impede coordination. As a result, we recommended that, among other things, the Coordinating Council be expanded to include additional federal agencies. The Coordinating Council was expanded to 11 federal agencies in 2004 by Executive Order 13330 and renamed the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. The expanded Coordinating Council was charged with, among other things, promoting interagency cooperation and establishing appropriate mechanisms to minimize duplication and overlap of federal programs and services so that transportation-disadvantaged persons have access to improved transportation services. More recently, in 2011, we reported that reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among government programs and activities could save tax dollars and help agencies to provide more efficient and effective services. With regard to transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged, we found that, while some federal agencies were developing guidance and technical assistance for transportation coordination, federal departments still had more work to do in identifying and assessing their transportation programs, working with other departments to identify opportunities for additional coordination, and developing and disseminating policies and grantee guidance for coordinating transportation services. As we have previously reported, many federal efforts transcend more than one agency, yet agencies face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work collaboratively. Both Congress and the executive branch have recognized this, and in January 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 was enacted, updating the almost two-decades-old Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). This act establishes a new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government performance. As we reported in February 2012, effective implementation of this act could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes; addressing program performance spanning multiple organizations; and facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. In recent years, Congress has supported increased transportation coordination, as reflected in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Enacted in 2005, SAFETEA-LU amended several human services transportation coordination provisions sharpening the focus on transportation services for persons with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with lower incomes. Currently, the law requires the establishment of a locally developed, coordinated, public transit-human services transportation plan for all of DOT’s human service transportation programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Further, it requires the plan to be developed by a process that includes representatives of public, private, and nonprofit transportation and human services communities, including the public. Federal law also has promoted coordinated funding for non-DOT programs to be used as matching funds for specific transportation programs. More recently, FTA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request proposed consolidating some existing programs to give communities more flexibility in designing and coordinating FTA-sponsored human service programs. We identified 80 federal programs that fund a variety of transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged populations (see fig. 1). Thirty- one of these programs are administered by HHS. The Departments of Education and HUD each administer 12 programs; DOT administers 7 programs; and DOL, VA, Interior, and USDA administer 18 programs combined. Out of the 80 federal programs identified, 4 programs focus expressly on supporting transportation services for transportation- disadvantaged populations, including DOT’s Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, Capital and Training Assistance Program for Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility, and the New Freedom Program. A full list of programs is in appendix II. Transportation is not the primary mission for the vast majority of the programs we identified. Except for the 7 DOT programs, where all funds are used to support public transportation, the remaining 73 programs we identified primarily provide a variety of human services, such as job training, employment, education, medical care, or other services, which incorporate transportation as an eligible program expense to ensure participants can access a service. In addition, the types of transportation services provided to the transportation-disadvantaged population through these federal programs vary, and may include capital investments (e.g., purchasing vehicles), reimbursement of transportation costs (e.g., transit fares, gas, bus passes), or direct provision of transportation service to program clients (e.g., operating vehicles). Examples of transportation services authorized for funding include the following: HHS’s Medicaid program reimburses states that provide Medicaid beneficiaries with bus passes to access eligible medical services, among other transportation options. DOL’s Workforce Investment Act-funded programs can provide funding for transportation services so that recipients can access employment and participate in required work activities. Types of transportation services include bus passes and cab fare. DOT’s Job Access and Reverse Commute Program allows for grantee agencies to purchase vehicles such as vans to improve access to transportation for employment-related services. VA’s Beneficiary Travel Program, as part of Veterans Medical Care Benefits, can provide mileage reimbursement to low-income or disabled veterans for travel to receive medical services at their VA hospital. Total spending on transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged remains unknown because, in many cases, federal departments do not separately track spending for these services. Of the 80 programs we identified, roughly two-thirds of the programs were unable to provide spending information for eligible transportation services. However, total expenditures and obligations for the 28 programs that do track or estimate transportation spending were at least $11.8 billion in fiscal year 2010 (see table 1). DOT’s 7 programs accounted for about $9.5 billion of this total amount. Of the non-DOT programs, HHS’s Medicaid program and VA’s Veterans Medical Care Benefits program each reported spending over $700 million in fiscal year 2010. Most of the programs we identified do not separately track transportation spending. According to federal officials, transportation spending may not be tracked for several reasons, including the following: Some programs allow for transportation spending as an optional service, but it is not required so they do not ask grantees to provide spending information. For example, HHS’s Head Start program, which provides comprehensive child development services to low-income children and their families, reported that many of its grantees may provide transportation, but the agency does not collect specific data on transportation spending. Some federal programs give states and localities broad flexibility to administer program funds, and the program structure may not lend itself to tracking transportation expenses. For example, Education provides grants to states under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for special education and related services to children with disabilities. State education agencies allocate most of these grant funds to local education agencies, usually school systems, to provide these services.on the amount of funds expended by local education agencies for specific services, including transportation services. Education does not collect data Some agencies may consider transportation services to be an administrative expense, and may include transportation spending with other eligible administrative expenses. As a result, transportation- specific spending is not fully known. For example, HHS’s Medicaid program has two allowable methods for states to report the costs of transportation services to the program—as expenditures for nonemergency medical transportation benefits or as an administrative expense, which is combined with other nontransportation expenses.As a result, HHS does not fully capture the total transportation costs provided under its Medicaid program. Resources necessary to track this information in some federal departments may outweigh the potential benefits, according to HUD officials who told us that for some HUD programs, requiring grantees to report transportation expenses would require a new reporting effort and that the resulting information may not be analyzed due to resource constraints. The interagency Coordinating Council, chaired by DOT, has been charged with leading governmentwide transportation coordination efforts since 2003. The Coordinating Council launched the “United We Ride” initiative in fall 2003, designed to establish an interagency forum for communication and help states and communities overcome obstacles to coordination. The Coordinating Council undertook a number of activities through its United We Ride initiative, largely between 2003 and 2007.