Spatial Mismatch in Welfare to Work:

Transportation and Land Use Implications

In 1996, the nation’s welfare program was reorganized into the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). PRWORA now requires a welfare to work program, and assumes that jobs are available provided that improved transportation and job search assistance opportunities are available to participants (Chapple, 2001). A number of factors impact the success of the welfare-to-work program including the extent of racial segregation, location of entry-level jobs and the existing transportation infrastructure in a region. John Kain’s theory of spatial mismatch includes these factors and explains the condition of spatial separation between homes and workplaces (Pugh, 1998). Welfare participants experience spatial mismatch in that they disproportionately live in the inner city and face long commutes to entry-level jobs often located in the suburbs (Blumenberg & Ong, 2001). Lack of efficient public transportation and access to affordable private cars exacerbates this condition of spatial mismatch.
There is no one single solution that will adequately address transportation needs for welfare to work participants. The type of neighborhood in which a participant lives dictates the mode of transportation that most efficiently gives individuals access to jobs. In job rich neighborhoods, participants can easily reach jobs by car or transit. Therefore, it makes sense to promote accessing jobs by transit in these neighborhoods (Blumenberg and Ong 2001). In a job rich neighborhood, improvements in transit that would improve accessibility to jobs in several ways including: adding additional bus lines, increasing the number of vehicles serving the area, increasing off-peak service to appeal to shift workers, and using distance based fares. Instituting distance-based fares will benefit recipients, as welfare to work participants on average travel shorter distances than higher income individuals (Blumenberg and Ong 2001). On the other hand, for residents in job-poor areas improvements in pubic transportation is unlikely to greatly enhance their access to jobs. Instead of focusing on public transportation to improve access to jobs in job poor areas, Blumenberg and Ong suggest programs aimed at increasing auto ownership (Blumenberg and Ong 2001). Programs could include low-cost auto loans, car sharing, car-pooling programs, reduced rate auto insurance, auto maintenance services, employer-sponsored vanpools, shuttles and paratransit (Blumenberg and Ong 2001). Guaranteed ride home programs would also benefit welfare to work participants who travel far distances to work, as they would know they have a way home in case of an emergency.
Los Angeles has chosen to deal with their spatial mismatch between residences of welfare to work participants and employment opportunities by distributing free bus passes or reimbursing auto travel in an attempt to decrease the transportation burden on these individuals. In addition to direct subsidies, the city has also established an outreach program that automatically gives bus route information to participants (Blumenberg and Ong 2001). However, for Los Angeles to fully accommodate the needs of those on welfare, a more targeted approach may be needed.
The Federal Government offers transportation assistance to metropolitan areas with welfare to work programs. Margaret Pugh argues that the federal Access to Jobs program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation can be most efficient if the grants are focused on metropolitan areas that experience high levels of spatial mismatch. She also believes that priority should be given to projects that maximize the existing transportation system and reflect the transportation and job location patterns of the metropolitan area (Pugh 1998). Pugh further argues that long term federal solutions should focus on decreasing the distance between housing and jobs through controlling sprawl, increasing suburban affordable housing and strengthening the urban economy, with a sub-focus on increasing car ownership among low income individuals (Pugh 1998).
A significant number of welfare recipients are women with children. This situation creates a group of recipients with specific needs including childcare and access to schools. As Karen Chapple explains, the needs of women with children are not being met by current welfare to work programs that focus on transporting welfare recipients to workplaces. Low-income women with children often rely on personal contacts and networks because of their need for employment near their residences. It has been shown that a third of women on welfare with children and without access to a car walk to work (O’Regan and Quigley 1999). Due to their lifestyle choices, women with children will be better supported by policy that focuses on community economic development instead of transportation (Chapple 2001).
As previously discussed, there are several approaches to improving transportation alternatives for welfare recipients. A study by Bruce and Richards at the University of Tennessee confirms many of the previous findings on car access and its impact on assistance program participants (Bruce and Richards 2003). The study uses survey data from the Family Assistance Longitudinal Study, which includes a large number of individuals from Tennessee’s Families First, a low-income assistance program. This study draws data from urban as well as rural participants, which is important in analyzing its conclusions.
One important conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that car access is essential in maximizing the effectiveness of welfare to work programs. Car access increases the probability of becoming employed and staying employed, and also increases the number of hours worked. Results of the Tennessee study reinforce previous research done on access to cars and indicate that that among forms of transportation, private and public, private mobility is most effective in moving participants from welfare to work (Cervero, Sandoval and Landis, 2000 in Bruce and Richards 2003).
To those living in a society so dependent on the automobile as a mode of travel, the results of these studies on access to autos might seem quite obvious. Individual not on welfare typically drive to work and job interviews: why should it be any different for those who need financial assistance? When attempting to move people back into the labor market that has physically relocated, policy makers are confronted with the true costs of certain development strategies and the consequences of living in an automobile-based society. The success of welfare as a philosophy will continue to be attacked and defended by opposing political forces. There seems to be little debate, however, about the dominant current mode of transportation that Americans use to go to work. Without addressing this fundamental issue, or the certainly related issue of how and where American workplaces develop in relation to residences, programs that attempt to move people from welfare to work will only be addressing a symptom, rather than the problem.
While many are quick to shun the idea of increased government intervention in the planning and development process, the reinvigoration of the inner city, the protection of the suburbs, and a true solution to the problem of job relocation all seem to depend on governmental action. As William Wilson asserts, “Perhaps at no other time in the nation’s history has it been more important to talk about the need to promote city and suburban cooperation, not separation. The political fragmentation of many metropolitan areas in the United States has contributed to the problems of joblessness and related social dislocations of the inner-city poor” (Wilson 1997). Indeed, the cooperation between cities and suburbs seems increasingly important as one examines the necessity for car travel among those receiving welfare. While increasing the availability of cars for those on welfare would seem to be a quick fix, the long-term costs, including congestion, the true cost of automobile ownership, and increased environmental impact, may be great. A strong policy of urban revitalization, combined with commitment to an equitable public transit system, seems to hold greater hope for those on assistance.