Funds must be obligated within 3 years from the time of  apportionment or they lapse. In our 2009 report on JARC, we found that about 14 percent of the fiscal  year 2006 JARC funds lapsed, in part due to the fact that some applicants  did not meet administrative requirements, such as developing a  coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan, in time to  apply for funds. Recipients—with FTA Help—Have Made Progress Using Apportioned Funds, but a Few Areas Continue to Let Funds Lapse

		Recipients Have Made Progress Using JARC Funds

JARC funds have been apportioned to 258 geographic areas and each year  since SAFETEA-LU was enacted the number of designated recipients  allowing JARC funds to lapse has decreased. In fiscal  year 2008, 29 designated recipients (or 11.2 percent of all designated  recipients) let all funds apportioned in fiscal year 2006 lapse. By the end of  fiscal year 2010, 11 designated recipients (or 4.3 percent of all designated  recipients) allowed all the JARC funds to lapse that were apportioned to  them for fiscal year 2008. The Amount of Funding Allowed to Lapse Decreased

In addition, the amount of funding allowed to lapse also steadily declined  from the end of fiscal year 2008 through 2010. In fiscal year 2008,  approximately $16.7 million, or 12 percent of all apportioned funds, were  allowed to lapse. However, three challenges remain:    Limited funding available to provide the local match. Formula funding not aligned with local demands. FTA Has Taken Steps to Address Difficulties Recipients Faced

The designated recipients and subrecipients we interviewed reported that  they have overcome many of the challenges we identified in our 2009  report. Some designated recipients attribute the improvement to actions taken by  FTA to help recipients overcome barriers to using JARC funds. While these classifications allow  designated recipients to transfer funds among small urban and rural areas,  the funds can not be distributed away from large urban areas. However, other proposals suggested merging JARC with other  programs. For example, one state said it has more demand for services to help people  who are elderly and/or have disabilities than for JARC grants and could  better respond to state priorities by shifting its JARC funds to New  Freedom or Section 5310 programs. Agency Comment

DOT reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical corrections,  which were incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act–A  Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires that we evaluate the Job Access  and Reverse Commute program (JARC) every 2 years. This report  addresses (1) the progress the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and  recipients have made in reducing the instances and amounts of lapsed  funds; (2) the challenges recipients have faced in implementing JARC; and  (3) the tradeoffs of proposals to revise JARC, according to stakeholders,  during the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization process. To examine challenges recipients have encountered in implementing the  program, we interviewed 9 designated recipients and 10 subrecipients in  five states and compared the challenges to those we identified in our 2009  report.
Why GAO Did This Study

Established in 1998, the Job Access and Reverse Commute program (JARC)--administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)-- awards formula based grants to states and localities to provide transportation to help low-income individuals access jobs. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) reauthorized this program and made changes, such as allocating funds by formula to subrecipients in three areas--large urban, small urban, and rural--through designated recipients (usually transit agencies and states). SAFETEA-LU required GAO to periodically review JARC. This third report under the mandate examines (1) the progress FTA and recipients have made in reducing the instances and amounts of funds they allowed to lapse without using them; (2) the challenges recipients have faced in implementing JARC; and (3) the tradeoffs, according to stakeholders, of proposals to revise JARC during the next surface reauthorization process. For this work, GAO reviewed FTA grant data; interviewed officials from FTA, 9 designated recipients, 10 subrecipients, and industry associations; and reviewed recent proposals to revise JARC. GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOT officials reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical corrections, which were incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Since GAO's last report on JARC in 2009, the instances of recipients letting their funds lapse--allowing the funds to be reapportioned to all recipients-- have decreased. Recipients have 3 years from the time of apportionment to use the funding before it is reapportioned. In fiscal year 2008, 29 designated recipients, or 11.2 percent, let their entire fiscal year 2006 apportioned funds lapse. In fiscal year 2010, 11 designated recipients, or 4.3 percent, let their entire fiscal year 2008 apportioned funds lapse. In addition, the amount of funds lapsing has decreased. In fiscal year 2008, $16.7 million (12 percent) of apportioned funds lapsed, and fiscal year 2010, $10.2 million (6.5 percent) of apportioned funds lapsed. A few recipients have allowed a large amount of funds to lapse; however, others have made progress in using JARC funds, in part due to FTA's efforts. The designated recipients GAO interviewed reported that they have overcome many of the challenges identified in our 2009 report. This improvement was due in part to actions taken by FTA, such as issuing guidance on project eligibility and providing workshops to help officials in areas where a large portion of JARC funds had lapsed. However, three challenges remain. First, some JARC funds have been allowed to lapse because subrecipients have difficulty providing the local funding required to receive JARC funding. Second, three recipients we interviewed faced challenges coordinating with human service organizations, as required. Finally, officials from three of the five states we interviewed said that the funding classifications they receive either do not align with local demands for JARC services or create confusion among local area recipients. Stakeholders have proposed changing JARC. Officials GAO interviewed cited various tradeoffs to these proposals. Some proposals would combine JARC with other transit programs designed to help people who are elderly and/or have disabilities. Proponents of these proposals cited potential benefits such as increased flexibility to use funding to meet specific needs, while critics of these proposals were concerned that targeted populations will no longer receive the same amount of funding unless they are protected.