While policy-makers assert that increased public transit mobility can positively affect employment status for low-income persons, there is little empirical evidence to support this theory. It is generally assumed that public transit can effectively link unemployed, car-less, persons with appropriate job locations—hence the call for more public transit services to assist moving welfare recipients to gainful employment. Thus far, the available evidence is anecdotal, while general patterns of transit access in relationship to labour participation remain relatively unexplored. This analysis examines whether increased transit access is associated with the case status (employment status) of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients in the Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Milwaukee, Wisconsin ; and Portland, Oregon metropolitan areas. Individual TANF recipient location data, transit route/stop data and employment location data were used in limited dependent variable regression analyses to predict the employment status of TANF recipients. The results of this analysis indicate that access to fixed-route transit and employment concentrations had virtually no association with the employment outcomes of TANF recipients in the six selected metropolitan areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Black, A. (1995) Urban Mass Transportation Planning. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
2.
Blackley, P.R. (1990) Spatial mismatch in urban labor markets: evidence from large U. S. metropolitan areas, Social Science Quarterly , 71, pp. 39-52.
3.
Blumenberg, E. (2002) On the way to work: welfare participants and barriers to employment, Economic Development Quarterly, 16(4), pp.314-325.
4.
Bowman, L.A. and Turnquist, M.A. (1981) Service frequency, schedule reliability and passenger wait times at transit stops, Transportation Research, 15A(6), pp. 465-471.
5.
Cervero, R., Sandoval, O. and Landis, J. (2002) Transportation as a stimulus of welfare-to-work: private versus public mobility, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 50-63.
6.
Coulton, C., Leete, L. and Bania, N. (1997) Housing, transportation and access to suburban jobs by welfare recipients in the Cleveland area. Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.
7.
Crain, J.L. (1970) The Reverse Commute Experiment: A $7 Million Demonstration Program. Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration, SRI Project MSU-7598, Menlo Park, Stanford Research Institute, CA.
8.
Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S. ET AL. (2000) Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients , in: R. Cherry and W. M. Rodgers (Eds) Prosperity for All? The Economic Boom and African Americans, pp. 245-278. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
Ellwood, D.T. (1986) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: are there teen-age jobs missing in the ghetto?, in: R. B. Freeman and H. J. Holzer (Eds) The Black Youth Employment Crisis, pp. 147-185. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
10.
Gordon, P., Kumar, A. and Richardson, H.W. (1989) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: some new evidence, UrbanStudies, 26, pp. 315-326.
11.
Greenberg, M. and Laracy, M.C. (2000) Welfare reform: next steps offer new opportunities. a role for philanthropy in preparing for the reauthorization of TANF in 2002 . Center for Law and Social Policy and Annie E. Casey Foundation .
12.
Hamilton, G., Brock, T., Farrell, M. ET AL. (1997) National evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies: evaluating two welfare approaches. US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
13.
Hansen, W.G. (1959) How accessibility shapes land use, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25, pp. 73-76.
14.
Hughes, M.A. (1991) Employment decentralization and accessibility: a strategy for stimulating regional mobility, Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, pp. 288-298.
15.
Ihlanfeldt, K.R. and Sjoquist, D.L. (1998) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform, Housing Policy Debate, 9(4), pp. 849-892.
16.
Isaacs, J.B. (1999) Monitoring outcomes for former welfare recipients: a review of 11 survey instruments. Paper presented at the National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics 39th Annual Workshop, Cleveland, Ohio, August.
17.
Jargowsky, P.A. (1997) Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
18.
Kain, J.F. and Meyer, J.R. (1970) Transportation and poverty, The Public Interest, 18, pp. 75-87.
19.
Kaplan, A. (1998) Transportation: the essential need to address the "to" in welfare-to-work, Welfare Information Network: Issues Notes, 2(10) (http://www.welfareinfo.org/transitneed.htm).
20.
Kawabata, M. (2002) Job accessibility by travel mode in U.S. metropolitan areas, Papers and Proceedings of the Geographic Information Systems Association, 11, pp. 115-120.
21.
Kawabata, M. (2002) Job access and work among autoless adults on welfare in Los Angeles. Working Papers Series No. 40, The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, UCLA.
22.
Loprest, P.J. (1999) How families that left welfare are doing: a national picture. Series B, No. B-1, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
23.
Loprest, P.J. and Zedlewski, S.R. (1999) Current and former welfare recipients: how do they differ? Discussion Paper 99-17, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
24.
Meyer, J.A. (1999) Assessing welfare reform: work pays, The Public Interest, 136, pp. 113-120.
25.
Meyer, M.D. and Millier, E.J. (2001) Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach. New York: McGraw Hill .
26.
Murakam, E. and Young, J. (1997) Daily travel by persons with low income. Paper presented at the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) Symposium, Bethesda, Maryland.
27.
Naccd (National Advisory Commission On Civil Disorders) (1968) Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
28.
Ong, P. ( 1996) Work and automobile ownership among welfare recipients , Social Work Research, 20(4), pp. 255-262.
29.
Ong, P. and Blumenberg, E. (1998) Job access, commute and travel burden among welfare recipients, Urban Studies, 35(1), pp. 77-93.
30.
Ong, P. and Houston, D. (2002) Transit, employment and women on welfare, Urban Geography, 23(4), pp. 344-364.
31.
Ong, P., Houston, D., Horton, J. and Shaw, L. (2001) Los Angeles County CalWORKS transportation needs assessment. Working Paper Series No. 36, The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, UCLA.
32.
Pearlmutter, S., Su , M., Coulton, C. and Bania, N. (1999) Characteristics of an exit cohort of AFDC recipients that affect use of child care subsidies. Center on Poverty and Social Change , Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.
33.
Pugh, M. (1998) Barriers to work: the spatial divide between jobs and welfare recipients in metropolitan areas. A discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution , Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC.
34.
Raphael, S. and Rice, L. (2002) Car ownership, employment, nd earnings, Journal of Urban Economics, 52, pp. 109-130.
35.
Rosenbloom, S. (1992) Reverse commute transportation: emerging provider roles. US Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration , Washington, DC.
36.
Sanchez, T.W. (1999a) The connection between public transit and employment: the cases of Portland and Atlanta, Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), pp. 284-296.
37.
Sanchez, T.W. (1999b) Transit access analysis of TANF recipients in the city of Portland, Oregon, Journal of PublicTransportation , 2(4), pp. 61-73.
38.
Schumacher, R. and Greenberg, M. (1999) Child care after leaving welfare: early evidence from state studies. Center for Law and Social Policy, Washington, DC.
39.
Shen, Q. (1998) Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-wage workers, Environment and Planning B, 25, pp. 345-365.
40.
Shen, Q. (2001) A spatial analysis of job openings and access in a US metropolitan area, Journal of the American Planning Association , 67(1), pp. 53-68.
41.
State Policy Documentation Project (1999) Asset limits and vehicle exclusions (http://www.spdp.org/tanf/financial/asset.pdf ).
42.
Taylor, B.D. and Ong, P.M. (1995) Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An examination of race, residence and commuting in US metropolitan areas, Urban Studies, 32(9), pp.1453-1473.
43.
Thompson, G.L. (1997) How ethnic/racial groups value transit accessibility: modeling inferences from Dade County. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning , Ft Lauderdale, Florida.
44.
Umta (Urban Mass Transit Administration) ( 1979) Analyzing transit options for small urban communities: analysis methods. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.
45.
Usdot (Us Department Of Transportation) (1998 ) Access to jobs: a guide to innovative practices in welfare-to-work transportation. Report prepared by the Community Transportation Association of America, Washington, DC.
46.
Wachs, M. and Taylor, B.D. (1998) Can transportation strategies help meet the welfare challenge ?, Journal of the American Planning Association , 64(1), pp. 15-19.
47.
Waldfogfl, J. and Mayer, S.E. (2000) Gender differences in the low-wage labor market , in: D. Card and R. M. Blank (Eds) Finding Jobs: Work and Welfare Reform , pp. 193-232. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
48.
Wfibull, J.W. (1976) An axiomatic approach to the measurement of accessibility , Regional Science and Urban Economics, 6, pp. 357-379.
49.
Wilson, W.J. (1996) When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.
