Florida, for instance, had its JARC funds increased by more than 1,200  percent, from $594,708 in fiscal year 2005 to $8.3 million in fiscal year  2006. In addition, the formula program will result in some states and areas  receiving JARC funds that had not received them in the past. FTA Has Developed Proposed Final Guidance for JARC, but Delays in Issuing the Final Guidance May Reduce the Time Available to Obligate JARC Funding

FTA has been developing guidance to help JARC recipients implement  changes to the program resulting from the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, but  delays in releasing final guidance will reduce the window of availability of  fiscal year 2006 funding. FTA received  more than 200 comments on its March interim guidance and proposed  strategies from state and local departments of transportation, metropolitan  planning organizations, private transportation service providers, interest  groups, and other JARC stakeholders. A number of states and large urbanized areas have proceeded to implement  JARC’s requirements using the interim guidance and proposed strategies. Under this  view, the availability of fiscal year 2006 funding would expire at the end of  fiscal year 2008, and those agencies that chose to wait for the final  guidance to be released before applying for fiscal year 2006 JARC funds would have only 2 years in which to obligate those funds. Few States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Received Fiscal Year 2006 JARC Funds, Although Most We Interviewed Are in the Process of Fulfilling Funding Requirements

As we previously noted, states and large urbanized areas must fulfill three  SAFETEA-LU requirements prior to applying to FTA to receive JARC funds  to award for projects: identify a designated recipient for JARC funds,  conduct a competitive selection process, and certify that JARC projects  were derived from a coordinated public transit-human services  transportation plan. Nationwide, 3 states and 9 of the 152 large urbanized areas that were  apportioned JARC funding had received fiscal year 2006 funds as of the end of fiscal year 2006. States and Large Urbanized Areas Have Encountered Several Implementation Challenges, Most of Which FTA Has Responded to in Its Proposed Final Guidance

In comments submitted on FTA’s March interim guidance and proposed  strategies and in interviews with selected state and local officials, program  stakeholders expressed several implementation challenges they had  encountered or concerns they had as the program moves forward. FTA officials also said they are encouraging  areas to build on existing planning efforts to fulfill SAFETEA-LU  requirements. FTA plans to use existing oversight processes for  monitoring JARC recipients; however, FTA officials also noted that  SAFETEA-LU did not specifically provide project management oversight  funds for the JARC program. As a result, FTA officials are looking for  alternate sources of funding—such as the agency’s administrative  funding—to provide program oversight for JARC. Gaps in Monitoring May Limit FTA’s Ability to Evaluate and Oversee the JARC Program

Even if FTA resolves its performance measurement and reporting issues,  gaps in its plan for monitoring JARC recipients may continue to limit FTA’s  ability to evaluate and oversee the program. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addresses the following four objectives:  (1) changes that were  made to the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program as a result  of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A  Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); (2) progress that the Federal Transit  Administration (FTA) has made in implementing these changes; (3) the  extent to which states and large urbanized areas have implemented  changes to the JARC program, and challenges they have encountered; and  (4) whether FTA’s proposed strategy for evaluating and overseeing the  JARC program will allow the agency to assess the extent to which the  program is meeting its stated goals. We selected the 12 states to obtain diversity in a range of criteria, as  follows:  Change in JARC funding:  Analyzed the percentage change and  selected 4 states that received an increase in their federal JARC funds  from fiscal years 2005 to 2006, 5 states whose JARC funds decreased  from 2005 to 2006, 1 state that received approximately the same amount  of funding in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and 2 states that did not receive  JARC funds in 2005.
Why GAO Did This Study

Begun in 1998, the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program provides grants to states and localities for improving the mobility of low-income persons seeking work. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers this program. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized $727 million for JARC for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, changed how these funds were to be awarded after fiscal year 2005, and required FTA to evaluate the program by August 2008. GAO examined (1) SAFETEA-LU's changes to JARC, (2) FTA's progress in implementing these changes, (3) states' and localities' efforts to respond and challenges they have encountered, and (4) FTA's proposed strategy for evaluation and oversight. GAO's work included analyzing program guidance as well as interviewing officials from FTA, industry groups, and more than 30 state and local agencies.

What GAO Found

SAFETEA-LU created a formula for distributing JARC funds starting in fiscal year 2006, substantially altering funding allocations provided under earlier grants. Funding in some states increased, with 2 states receiving increases of more than 1,200 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Funding in other states decreased as much as 80 percent, while 18 other states received funds that had not received them in fiscal year 2005. To receive funds, SAFETEA-LU required that states and localities designate a recipient agency to administer JARC funds, award grants on a competitive basis, and certify that projects were derived from a coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. In March 2006, FTA issued interim guidance and proposed strategies for implementing these new requirements, but delays in issuing final guidance have reduced the window of opportunity for states and localities to obligate fiscal year 2006 funding. As required by SAFETEA-LU, FTA requested public comment on its interim guidance and proposed strategies, and responding to the more than 200 comments took more time than FTA had initially planned. FTA has specified in its guidance that states and localities have until the end of fiscal year 2008 to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds, so their ability to use the funds is not imminently jeopardized. FTA also encouraged states and localities to implement their programs on the basis of the interim guidance. However, given that officials in a number of areas we interviewed planned to wait for final guidance before moving forward, these areas will have less time available to obligate fiscal year 2006 funds. Most states and localities are in the process of trying to meet these new requirements, and although they have encountered challenges in doing so, FTA is taking steps to alleviate most of these challenges. As of the end of fiscal year 2006, about 4 percent of fiscal year 2006 funding apportioned to states and localities had been obligated. States and localities have raised a number of questions or concerns about the new requirements, such as whether an agency serving as the designated recipient would also be eligible to receive funds. In response, FTA proposed several actions that localities could take to reduce the potential conflict of interest in such situations. FTA is continuing to develop and refine its strategies for evaluation and oversight of JARC. FTA, which has had difficulty assessing this program in the past, proposed a new approach, but states and localities found problems with it. FTA is revising its approach and gathering baseline data for its required evaluation of the JARC program. Even if FTA resolves the concerns that have been raised, gaps in monitoring may still limit its ability to evaluate and oversee the program. FTA plans to use existing oversight processes for monitoring JARC recipients; however, FTA officials noted that SAFETEA-LU did not provide specific program management oversight funds for the JARC program and said that they are looking for alternate sources of funding.