Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 6
Sources of Matching Funds they are uncomfortable about reviewing new proj- ects and the continuation of old projects simultane- Sources of the local match requirement for the ously, and that the grant awards do not necessarily grant programs varied by the state interviewed and by account for project sustainability beyond the initial area within these states, with some states providing grant funding. the local match and some agencies relying on local Numerous states interviewed expressed a desire governments or even local organizations. Often urban to have the same criteria and rules for both JARC areas were required to find a local match, while the state provided the match in rural areas. Pennsylvania and NF, with some respondents suggesting that the and Washington, however, were two states that pro- programs be combined. However, one state, namely vided the local match to recipients regardless of their Ohio, suggested that rather than combine the two location in the state. In a few creative cases, such as very similar programs, the NF program could be dif- in Ohio, agencies used other federal grants to match ferentiated further to make it more applicable to se- the Section 5316 and 5317 FTA grant programs. niors who do not have physical limitations that keep Other states found it was not possible to coordinate them from driving but simply do not feel comfort- between the human services transportation grant pro- able doing so. Finally, several states expressed a grams and other federal grant programs. desire for more standardized, outcome-based perfor- mance measures to review the programs. Performance Measures Some states interviewed were more diligent than FTA Grants Data others in utilizing performance measures for deter- Using data from the FTA website, Fiscal Year mining grant funding allocations. Missouri, Ohio, (FY) 2006 and FY 2007 FTA Statistical Summaries Pennsylvania, and South Carolina seemed to have (the FY 2008 FTA Statistical Summary was not the most consistent processes for utilizing perfor- available at the time of the analysis), and the U.S. mance measures. These states primarily use standard Government Accounting Office's (GAO) Report: service indicators to gauge performance of the pro- Progress and Challenges in Implementing and Eval- grams funded by the grants. uating the JARC Program (May 2009), the follow- ing tables examine the portion of JARC and NF Major Concerns/Desired Changes Expressed funds that have been appropriated to and obligated A consistent area of concern expressed by the by the states. These tables help identify the extent to states interviewed was the desire to remove the local which states and their grantees are having difficulty match requirement due to the difficulty in identify- obligating the appropriated funds before they expire, ing and sustaining local matching funds. Another as these grants must be obligated within 3 years of common concern expressed was the lack of under- appropriation. Any funds not obligated after 3 years standing regarding the requirements for NF grants. will be reapportioned among all recipients in the A few states also indicated they are unhappy with next FY appropriations, e.g., lapsed FY 2006 funds the grant administrative process, including the length are reapportioned as part of FY 2009. of time it takes to apply for and receive the grant Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the total appropri- money. In addition, some respondents indicated that ated funds (for all states and urbanized area designated Table 1 Summary of total JARC funds appropriated and obligated between FY 2006 and FY 2008. Transferred Obligated Obligated in Obligated in Out (as of % FY Appropriated in FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 9/30/08)1 Remaining Unobligated 2006 $136,620,000 $5,291,004 $22,731,680 $87,374,069 $2,621,612 $18,603,175 13.6% 2007 $144,000,000 $7,204,231 $47,596,190 $1,909,878 $87,289,701 60.6% 2008 $156,000,000 $22,376,472 $859,596 $132,763,932 85.1% Total $436,620,000 $5,291,004 $29,935,911 $157,346,731 $5,391,086 $238,656,808 54.7% 1States are allowed to transfer JARC funds to Section 5307 Urbanized Area formula grant program and Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance Program. Source: FTA, http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_9293.html . 6