Over half of these funds are for highway infrastructure  investments. States Are Using Existing Plans to Identify Transportation Projects and Described Considering Recovery Act Requirements in Selecting Projects

As of April 16, DOT reported that nationally $6.4 billion in Recovery Act  highway infrastructure investment funding apportioned to the states had  been obligated—meaning that DOT and the states had executed  agreements on projects worth this amount. For the locations that we  reviewed, approximately $3.3 billion in highway funding has been  obligated with the percent of apportioned funds obligated to the states and  the District of Columbia, ranging from 0 to 65 percent. As required by the Act, states have used existing planning processes and  plans to quickly identify and obligate funds for projects. Several selected states have generally focused on initiating  preventive maintenance projects, because these projects require less  environmental review or design work and can be started quickly. For  example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation selected 40  projects and concentrated mainly on replacement projects that require  little environmental clearance or extensive design work, such as highway  and bridge painting and deck replacement. Some states also reported targeting funds toward projects with an  emphasis on job creation and consideration of economically distressed  areas. According to Colorado Department of Transportation officials,  they are emphasizing construction projects rather than projects in  planning or design phases, in order to maximize job creation. The Illinois Department of Transportation reported that it is planning to  spend a large share of its estimated $655 million in Recovery Act funds for  highway and bridge projects in economically distressed areas. States Are Modifying Systems to Track Recovery Act Funds but Are Concerned about Tracking Funds Distributed Directly to Nonstate Entities

States’ and localities’ tracking and accounting systems are critical to the  proper execution and accurate and timely recording of transactions  associated with the Recovery Act. Officials from all 16 states and the  District of Columbia told us they have established or are establishing  methods and processes to separately identify (i.e., tag), monitor, track, and  report on the use of the Recovery Act funds they receive. Officials from  many of the 16 selected states and the District of Columbia told us that  they had concerns about the ability of subrecipients, localities, and other  nonstate entities to separately tag, monitor, track, and report on the  Recovery Act funds they receive. Given that governors have certified the  use of funds in their states, officials in many states also expressed concern  about being held accountable for funds flowing directly from federal  agencies to localities or other recipients. Officials in several states indicated  that either their states would not be tracking Recovery Act funds going to  the local levels or that they were unsure how much data would be  available on the use of these funds. States’ Plans to Assess Impact of Recovery Act Funds Are in the Initial Stages

States vary in how they plan to assess the impact of Recovery Act funds. Some states will use existing federal program guidance or performance  measures to evaluate impact, particularly for ongoing programs, such as  FHWA’s Surface Transportation Program. A number of states have expressed concerns about definitions of jobs  created and jobs retained under the Act, as well as methodologies that can  be used for the estimation of each. Given questions raised by many state and  local officials about how best to determine both direct and indirect jobs  created and retained under the Recovery Act, we recommended in our  first bimonthly report that OMB continue its efforts to identify appropriate  methodologies that can be used to assess jobs created and retained from  projects funded by the Recovery Act, determine the Recovery Act  spending when job creation is indirect, and identify those types of  programs, projects, or activities that in the past have demonstrated  substantial job creation or are considered likely to do so in the future.
Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $48.1 billion in additional spending at the Department of Transportation (DOT) for investments in transportation infrastructure, including highways, passenger rail, and transit. This statement provides a general overview of (1) selected states' use of Recovery Act funds for highway programs, (2) the approaches taken by these states to ensure accountability for these funds, and (3) the selected states' plans to evaluate the impact of the Recovery Act funds that they receive for highway programs. This statement is based on work in which GAO examined the use of Recovery Act funds by a core group of 16 states and the District of Columbia, representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available through the Act. GAO issued its first bimonthly report on April 23, 2009.

What GAO Found

According to DOT, as of mid-April, the 17 locations that GAO reviewed had obligated $3.3 billion of the over $15 billion (21 percent) in highway investment funds that DOT had apportioned to them. These funds will be used in about 900 projects. States are using existing statewide plans to quickly identify and obligate funding for Recovery Act transportation projects. Several states have generally focused on rehabilitation and repair projects, because these projects require lessenvironmental review or design work. For example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation selected 40 projects and concentrated mainly on projects that require little environmental clearance or extensive design work, such as highway and bridge painting and deck replacement. Some states also reported targeting funds toward projects with an emphasis on job creation and consideration of economically distressed areas. For example, Colorado Department of Transportation officials are emphasizing construction projects, such as highway bridge replacements, rather than projects in planning or design phases, in order to maximize job creation. The Illinois Department of Transportation reported that it is planning to spend a large share of its estimated $655 million in Recovery Act funds for highway and bridge projects in economically distressed areas. States are modifying systems to track Recovery Act funds but are concerned about tracking funds distributed directly to nonstate entities. Officials from all 16 of the states which GAO is reviewing and the District of Columbia stated that they have established or are establishing ways to identify, monitor, track, and report on the use of the Recovery Act funds. However, officials from many of these states and the District of Columbia have concerns about the ability of subrecipients, localities, and other non-state entities to separately monitor, track, and report on the Recovery Act funds these nonstate entities receive. Officials in several states also expressed concern about being held accountable for funds flowing directly to localities or other recipients and indicated that either their states would not be tracking Recovery Act funds going to the local levels or that they were unsure how much data would be available on the use of these funds. Our April 23rd report recommended that the OMB evaluate current reporting requirements before adding further data collection requirements. States vary in their responses to determining how to assess the impact of Recovery Act funds. For programs such as the Federal-aid Highway Surface Transportation Program, some states will use existing federal program guidance or performance measures to evaluate impact. However, a number of states have expressed concerns about definitions of "jobs retained" and "jobs created" under the act, as well as methodologies that can be used for the estimation of each. Given these concerns, GAO recommended in its first bimonthly report that the OMB continue to identify methodologies that can be used to determine jobs retained and created from projects funded by the Recovery Act.