Some studies suggest that, among other obstacles to employment, welfare participants face a spatial separation from jobs and employment-related services. Using data on welfare participants, low-wage jobs, and public transit in Los Angeles County, an examination was made of the relative access that welfare participants have to employment opportunities. The analysis shows that welfare participants’ access to employment varies dramatically depending on their residential location and commute mode. Many welfare participants live in job-rich neighborhoods and are able to reach numerous jobs without difficulty by either car or public transit. Others, however, live in job-poor neighborhoods where a reliance on public transit significantly reduces their access to employment. In these neighborhoods long and unreliable commutes on public transit often severely limit their ability to find and reliably travel to and from work. Therefore, given the distinctly uneven patterns of employment opportunities in metropolitan areas, policies to address the transportation needs of welfare participants should be targeted to reflect the characteristics of the neighborhoods in which welfare participants live.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaniaN., CoultonC., and LeeteL.Welfare Reform and Access to Job Opportunities in the Cleveland Metropolitan Area. Presented at Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2.
PughM.Barriers to Work: The Spatial Divide Between Jobs and Welfare Recipients in Metropolitan Areas. Discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 1998
3.
RichM.Access to Opportunities: The Welfare-to-Work Challenge in Metropolitan Atlanta. Presented at Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference, Washington, D.C., 1999.
4.
LacombeA.Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs in Boston. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Jan.1998.
5.
SawickiD. S., and MoodyM.Developing Transportation Alternatives for Welfare Recipients Moving to Work. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2000, pp. 306–318.
6.
IhlanfeldtK. R., and SjoquistD. L.The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: A Review of Recent Studies and Their Implications for Welfare Reform. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1998, pp. 849–892.
7.
McLaffertyS., and PrestonV.Spatial Mismatch and Labor Market Segmentation for African-American and Latina Women. Economic Geography, Vol. 68, 1992, pp. 406–431.
8.
ThompsonM. A.The Impact of Spatial Mismatch on Female Labor Force Participation. Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1997, pp. 138–145.
9.
BellD.Jr.Residential Location, Economic Performance, and Public Employment. In Patterns of Racial Discrimination, Vol. 1 (Von FusstenbergG. M., HarrisonB., and HorowitzA. R., eds.), Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1974, pp. 55–76.
10.
VroomanJ., and GreenfieldS.Are Blacks Making It in the Suburbs? Some New Evidence on Intrametropolitan Spatial Segmentation. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 7, 1980, pp. 155–167.
11.
ReidC. E.The Effect of Residential Location on the Wages of Black Women and White Women. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 18, 1985, pp. 350–363.
12.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program: First Annual Report to Congress. Administration for Children and Families. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Aug.1998. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/welfare/congress/tanfp7.htm.
13.
California Department of Social Services. Job Readiness Survey: Study Months of May, June or July 1996. Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Information Services Bureau, 1996.
14.
OngP.Work and Automobile Ownership Among Welfare Recipients. Social Work Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1996, pp. 255–262.
15.
Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services. Welfare-to-Work Transportation Plan. Submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the Welfare-to-Work Transportation Interagency Task Force. May5, 1999. http://dpss.co.la.ca.us/calworks.c/transportation_plan_menu.htm.
16.
National Personal Transportation Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1995.
17.
SpainD.Proc., Second National Conference. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Information Management, HPM-40, Publication No. FHWA-PL-024, 1996.
18.
SchulzD. and GilbertS.Women and Transit Security: A New Look at an Old Issue. Women’s Travel Issues. Proc., Second National Conference. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Information Management, HPM-40, Publication No. FHWA-PL-024, 1996.
19.
DanzigerS., CorcoranM., DanzigerS., HeflinC., KalilA., LevineJ., RosenD., SeefeldtK., SiefertK., TolmanR.Barriers to the Employment of Recipients. University of Michigan, Poverty Research and Training Center, School of Social Work, 1999.
20.
OstermanP.Welfare Participation in a Full Employment Economy: The Impact of Neighborhood. Social Problems, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1991, pp. 475–491.
21.
RosenbaumJ. E.Changing the Geography of Opportunity by Expanding Residential Choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux Program. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1995, pp. 231–269.
22.
RosenbaumJ. E., and PopkinS. J.Employment and Earnings of Low-Income Blacks Who Move to Middle-Class Suburbs. In The Urban Underclass (JencksC. and PetersonP. E., eds.), The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1991.
23.
OngP., and BlumenbergE.Job Access, Commute and Travel Burden Among Welfare Recipients. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1998, 77–93.
24.
BlumenbergE., and OngP.Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 639–657.
HarrisK. M.Work and Welfare Among Single Mothers in Poverty. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 2, 1993, pp. 317–352.
27.
BrandonP.What Happens to Single Mothers After AFDC?Focus, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1995, pp. 13–15.
28.
OngP., and BlumenbergE.Welfare and Work among Southeast Asians. In The State of Asian Pacific America: Economic Diversity, Issues and Policies. A Public Policy Report (OngP.., ed.), LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American Studies Center, 1994.
29.
RubinT.Is Light Rail Right for Los Angeles?Presented at the Union Internationale Des Transports Publics Third International Light Rail Conference—Mobility for a Better Future, 1996.
30.
TaylorB. D., and GarrettM.Equity Planning the 90s: A Case Study of the Los Angeles MTA. Presented at the Meeting of the Association of the Collegiate Schools of Planning, 1998.
31.
RubinT. A.Learning from Los Angeles: Rail and Transportation Equity. Tech Transfer, University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, Spring2000, pp. 4–7, 15.
32.
GarrettM., and TaylorB.Reconsidering Social Equity in Public Transit. Berkeley Planning Journal, Vol. 13, 1999, pp. 6–27.
33.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.Ancillary Services to Support Welfare to Work—Inadequate Transportation. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation. Published on web Aug.20, 1998. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/transp.htm.
Community Transportation Association of America. Access to Jobs: A Guide to Innovative Practices in Welfare-to-Work Transportation, July1999. http://www.ctaa.org/ntrc/atj/pubs/innovative/
36.
BlumenbergE.Gender Equity Planning: Inserting Women into Local Economic Development. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1998, pp. 131–146.
