Welfare-to-Work transportation programs are premised on a conceptualization of the spatial mismatch hypothesis that focuses on the physical separation between the central city locations of welfare participants, rapidly expanding job opportunities in the suburbs, and the long commutes needed to connect them. Using data from three diverse California counties, welfare recipients’ spatial access to employment was examined. The results indicate that the traditional notion of the spatial mismatch is less relevant to welfare recipients, many of whom live in counties in which the urban structure does not fit the simple model of poor, central-city neighborhoods and distant, job-rich suburbs. Many welfare recipients live in job-rich areas; others live in neighborhoods that are spatially isolated from employment. Therefore, to be effective, transportation policies must be tailored to the diverse characteristics of the neighborhoods in which welfare recipients live.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllardS. W., and DanzigerS.. Proximity and Opportunity: How Residence and Race Affect the Employment of Welfare Recipients. University of Michigan, School of Social Work, Program on Poverty and Social Welfare Policy, Ann Arbor, Sept.2000. www.ssw.umich.edu/poverty/jpam91.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2002.
2.
BlumenbergE.On the Way to Work: Welfare Participants and Barriers to Employment. Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2002, pp. 314–325.
3.
BlumenbergE., and OngP.. Job Accessibility and Welfare Usage: Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1998, pp. 639–657.
4.
CerveroR., SandovalO., and LandisJ.. The Value of Transportation in Stimulating Welfare-to-Work Transitions: Evidence from San Francisco. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2002, pp. 50–63.
5.
DanzigerS., CorcoranM., DanzigerD., HeflinC., KalilA., LevineJ., RosenD., SeefeldtK., SiefertK., and TolmanR.. Barriers to the Employment of Welfare Recipients. In Prosperity for All? The Economic Boom and African Americans (CherryR. and RodgersW. M.III, eds.). Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2000, pp. 245–278.
6.
OngP.Work and Car Ownership Among Welfare Recipients. Social Work Research, Vol. 2, 1996, pp. 255–262.
7.
OngP.Car Access and Welfare-to-Work. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 21, 2002, pp. 239–252.
8.
OngP., and BlumenbergE.. Job Access, Commute, and Travel Burden Among Welfare Recipients. Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1998, pp. 77–93.
9.
BaniaN., LeeteL., CoultonC., and HarrisL. F.. Job Access for Urban Neighborhoods: A Tool for Improving Welfare-to-Work Policy and Practice. The Job Access Measurement System. Case Western Reserve University, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Cleveland, Ohio, 2000.
10.
JeskeyC.Linking People to the Workplace. Community Transportation Association of America, Washington, D.C., Jan.2000.
11.
The Challenge of Job Access: Moving Toward a Solution. FHWA-PD-98-038. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, FTA, 1998.
12.
RichM.Access to Opportunities: The Welfare-to-Work Challenge in Metropolitan Atlanta. Paper presented at the Annual Fall Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1999.
13.
SawickiD. S., and MoodyM.. Developing Transportation Alternatives for Welfare Recipients Moving to Work. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 66, No. 3, Summer2000, pp. 306–318.
LacombeA.Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs in Boston. BTS98-A-02. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass., Jan.1998.
16.
PughM.Barriers to Work: The Spatial Divide Between Jobs and Welfare Recipients in Metropolitan Areas. Discussion paper. Brookings Institution Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, D.C., 1998. www.brook.edu/es/urban/mismatch.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2002.
17.
ThakuriahP., SenA., SootS., MetzxatosP., YanosG., DirksL., YangD., and SternbergT.. Implications of the Welfare Reform Law on Suburban Chicago Transit Demand. Final Report. University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban Transportation Center, July1999.
18.
BaniaN., CoultonC., and LeeteL.. Welfare Reform and Access to Job Opportunities in the Cleveland Metropolitan Area. Paper presented at the Annual Fall Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1999.
19.
LaubeM., LyonsW., and vanderWildenP.. Transportation Planning for Access to Jobs. Job Access and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process in Hartford, St. Louis, and Detroit. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Mass., 1997. www.fta.dot.gov/office/planning/access.htm#Detroit,%20Michigan. Accessed April 1, 2002.
20.
BlumenbergE., and OngP.. Cars, Buses, and Jobs: Welfare Recipients and Employment Access in Los Angeles. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1756, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 22–31.
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, 1998, pp. 849–892.
23.
ShenQ.A Spatial Analysis of Job Openings and Access in a U.S. Metropolitan Area. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 67, No. 1, Winter2001, pp. 53–68.
24.
PawasaratJ., and StetzerF.. Removing Transportation Barriers to Employment: Assessing Driver’s License and Vehicle Ownership Patterns of Low-Income Populations. University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Employment and Training Institute, July1998. www.uwm.edu/Dept/ETI/dot.htm. Accessed April 1, 2002.
25.
E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change: January 1, 2001 and 2002. California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Sacramento, 2002.
26.
Historical Census Populations of California State, Counties, Cities, Places, and Towns, 1850-2000. California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Sacramento, no date.
27.
CalWORKs Cash Grant Caseload Movement Report. Report CA 237 CW. California Department of Social Services, Sacramento, Jan.2002.
28.
Annual Average Labor Force Data for Counties, Year 2001. 2002 Benchmark. Not Seasonally Adjusted. California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Sacramento, Feb.2002.
29.
Summary Tape File. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.
30.
American Business Directory. American Business Institute, 2000.
31.
Summary Tape File 1. U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.
32.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The State of the Cities 2000. Megaforces Shaping the Future of the Nation’s Cities. Fourth Annual Report. Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, D.C., 2000.
33.
OlsonK., and PavettiL.. Personal and Family Challenges to the Successful Transition from Welfare to Work: How Prevalent Are These Potential Barriers to Employment?Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1996.
