The responsibility for developing transportation programs for welfare participants spans multiple public agencies. Consequently, federal funding programs require that agencies work together to develop a coordinated response to address the transportation needs of welfare participants. Based on a survey of transportation, welfare, and employment agencies in nineteen California counties, this study examines the potential institutional obstacles to successful local collaboration and coordination among public agencies. The research shows that new sources of federal funds have encouraged interagency efforts to address the transportation needs of welfare participants. However, the divergent organizational goals, methods, and approaches of the participating agencies heavily influence these collaborative efforts. As a consequence, stakeholders may have difficulty moving beyond the narrow interests of their individual institutions to identify and plan for the transportation needs of welfare participants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agranoff, R.1991. Human services integration: Past and present challenges in public administration. Public Administration Review51 (6): 542-53.
2.
Alexander, E. R.1993. Interorganizational coordination: Theory and practice. Journal of Planning Literature7 (4): 328-43.
3.
Austin, J. E.2000. The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Bardach, E.1998. Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5.
Blank, R.1997. It takes a nation: A new agenda for fighting poverty. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
Blumenberg, E. , and P. Ong. 2001. Cars, buses, and jobs: Welfare recipients and employment access in Los Angeles. Transportation Research Board1756:22-31.
7.
Cervero, R. , O. Sandoval, and J. Landis. 2002. Transportation as a stimulus of welfare-to-work: Private versus public mobility. Journal of Planning Education and Research22 (1): 50-63.
8.
Cole, R. L. , R. V. Hissong, and E. Arvidson. 1999. Devolution: Where's the revolution? Publius29 (4): 99-112.
9.
Community Transportation Association of America . 1999, July. Your toolkit for linking people to the workplace. Washington, DC: Community Transportation Association of America.
10.
Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility . 2000, July 26. Planning guidelines for coordinated state and local specialized transportation services. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Transportation.
11.
Danziger, S. , M. Corcoran, S. Danziger, C. Heflin, A. Kalil, J. Levine, D. Rosen, K. Seefeldt, K. Siefert, and R. Tolman. 2000. Barriers to the employment of welfare recipients. In Prosperty for all? The economic boom and African Americans. edited by R. Cherry and W. M. Rogers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12.
Dilger, R. J. 1998. TEA-21: Transportation policy, pork barrel politics, and American federalism. Publius 28 (1).
13.
Ebener, P. A., and J. A. Klerman. 1999. Welfare reform in California. Results of the 1998 All-County Implementation Survey. RAND Statewide CalWORKs Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications/ MR/MR1052/MR1052.pdf.
14.
Education and Human Services Consortium . 1991. What it takes: Structuring interagency partnerships to connect children and families with comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.
15.
Federman, M. , T. I. Garner, K. Short, W. B. Cutter IV, J. Kiely, D. Levine, D. McGough, and M. McMillen. 1996. What does it mean to be poor in America. Monthly Labor Review119 (5): 3-17.
16.
Garrett, M. , and B. Taylor. 1999. Reconsidering social equity in public transit. Berkeley Planning Journal13:6-27.
17.
Graham, J. R. , and K. Barter. 1999. Collaboration: A social work practice method. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services80 (1): 6-13.
18.
Gray, B.1985. Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations38 (10): 911-36.
19.
---. 1989. Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Grubbs, J. W.2000. Can agencies work together? Collaboration in public and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review60 (3): 275-80.
21.
Habermas, J.1981. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R. , and D. L. Sjoquist. 1998. The spatial mismatch hypothesis: A review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate9 (4): 849-92.
24.
Imel, S.1992. Interagency collaboration: Its role in welfare reform (EDCE-92-126). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
25.
Innes, J.1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-91.
26.
Innes, J. E. , and D. E. Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65 (4): 412-23.
27.
Kincaid, J. 1998. The devolution tortoise and the centralization hare. New England Economic Review May/June:13-40.
28.
Los Angeles County, Urban Research Division, UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, GIS/Trans, Ltd., J. Horton, and L. Shaw. 2000. Assessing the transportation needs of welfare-to-work participants in Los Angeles County. Retrieved 2 November 2000, from http://dpss.co.la.ca.us/transportation_plan/default.cfm.
29.
Mandlebaum, S.1996. The talk of the community. In Exploration in planning theory, edited by S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, 3-10. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
30.
Martinson, K. 1999. Literature review on service coordination and integration in the welfare and workforce development systems, The Urban Institute. Retrieved January 1999 from http://www.urban.org/welfare/lit_review.html.
31.
Mattessich, P.W. , and B. R. Monsey. 1992. Collaboration: what makes it work. A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
32.
Melaville, A. I. , M. J. Blank, and G. Asayesh. 1993. Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: Together We Can Initiative, Institute for Educational Leadership.
33.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 1998. Alameda County Welfare-to-Work [maps].
34.
Murakami, E. , and J. Young. 1997. Daily travel by persons with low income. Paper presented at the NPTS Symposium, 29-31 October, Bethesda, MD.
35.
Nathan, R. P.1996. The devolution revolution: An overview. In Rockefeller Institute Bulletin, 5-13. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York.
36.
Neuman, M.2000. Communicate this! Does consensus lead to advocacy and pluralism?Journal of Planning Education and Research19 (4): 343-50.
37.
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. 1999. Access-to-jobs. Retrieved from http://www.nymtc.org/access/default.html.
38.
Ong, P.1996. Work and car ownership among welfare recipients. Social Work Research2 (4): 255-62.
39.
Ong, P., and E. Blumenberg . 1999. The transportation-welfare nexus: Getting welfare recipients to work. In California policy options, 1999, edited by Daniel Mitchell and Patricia Nomura. Los Angeles: UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research and UCLA Anderson Forecast.
40.
Project Share. 1981. Strategic local planning: A collaborative model. Human Services Monograph Series No. 23, July.
41.
Riccio, James , et al. 1989. GAIN early implementation experiences and lessons. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
42.
Rittel, H.W. J. , and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4:155-69.
43.
Sarason, S. B. , and E. M. Lorentz. 1998. Crossing boundaries: Collaboration, coordination, and the redefinition of resources. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
44.
Sawicki, D. S. , and M. Moody. 2000. Developing transportation alternatives for welfare recipients moving to work. Journal of the American Planning Association66 (3): 306-18.
45.
Schon, D. A.1971. Beyond the stable state. London: Temple Smith.
46.
Thompson, F. J., and T. L. Gais. 2000. Federalism and the safety net: Delinkage and participation rates. Publius winter/spring:119-42.
47.
Tweedie, J. 2000. From D.C. to Little Rock: Welfare reform at midterm. Publius winter:69-97.
48.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . 1997. Characteristics and financial circumstances of AFDC recipients. FY1996. Aid to Families with Dependent Children. October 1995-September 1996. Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
49.
---. 2000. Policy announcement. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program. Administration for Children and Families. Office of Family Assistance. Transmittal No. TANFACF-PA-00-2, 26 May. Retrieved from http:// www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/welfare/pa002.htm.
50.
U.S. Federal Transit Administration. n. d. Access to Jobs brochure.
51.
---. 1998, 6 November. Job Access and Reverse Commute Competitive Grants: Notice. Federal Register63:215.
52.
U.S. General Accounting Office . 1998. Welfare reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program (GAO/RCED-99-36). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
53.
---. 1999. Welfare reform: Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program in its first year (GAO/RCED-99-14). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
54.
Waller, M. , and M. A. Hughes. 1999. Working far from home: Transportation and welfare reform in the 10 big states (Policy Report). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
55.
Winer, M. , and K. Ray. 1994. Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
