Welfare
and Transportation: Will there be justice for the ‘extorted sojourners’
by Beverly G. Ward
Ezekiel 22:29 The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without redress. (RSV)
When I was asked to write this article, I responded with an enthusiasm that I am sure The Witness did not expect. Nor have I always responded so enthusiastically when asked to speak on this subject. In 1993, while working on a terminal degree, I took a class that included a major task of developing a "pathfinder." The purpose of this exercise was to prepare us to write a thesis or dissertation by following a path, which included preliminary research, development of a bibliography, etc. My pathfinder was on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients and public transportation. I went on with my full-time job, family, and other courses. In 1996, however, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, (PRWORA) "ending welfare as we [knew] it." Among other changes in welfare, PRWORA replaced the AFDC program with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, setting a lifetime program participation limit of five years, maximum. (Some states, Florida, for example, have a four-year limit.) Although PRWORA provided funds for transportation, there was no guidance in the initial legislation on including transportation in state plans. Several coworkers, knowing my social justice background, stated that this was an excellent research opportunity for me. "Surely, we can do something on welfare and transportation!" some said.
I was incensed.
This was my second, no, third reform. I was in undergraduate school in the mid-1970s, when welfare was reformed. I was working for a state transit agency and had helped to "educate" the State legislature and Congress in the late 1980s when welfare was reformed then. We asked legislators to include in the implementation instructions to states mandates or, at a minimum, guidance on coordinating public transportation with welfare reform activities. As one state public transportation administrator explained to his welfare administration counter part, "We can provide the service, but we need to coordinate the resources."
But wait, PRWORA was my fourth reform. The Kerner Commission made the link between employment opportunities and transportation in 1967. "Most new employment opportunities do not occur in central cities, near all-[black] neighborhoods. They are being created in suburbs and outlying areas and this trend is likely to continue indefinitely" (1968:392). The Commission went on to recommend expansion of aid to local public transportation service providers and subsidization of routes serving the inner cities in an effort to allay the "civil disorders" of the 1960s (1968:418). A 1967 Business Week article noted, "For Washington’s [D.C.] big (63%) Negro population, rapid transit offers the prospect of better access to jobs in the suburbs, where warehouses and plants have been fleeing in search of cheaper land" (Sealy 1967:60). The Commission’s recommendation has largely been unheard.
I initially refused to do any transportation research related to welfare. Like Jonah, I ran. Eventually, a colleague and I did a couple of studies for a local transit system and the State, but not what was needed. I was still running. Finally, in Winter 2000, in a discussion of a dissertation chapter on public transportation needs that I had spent a semester developing, my faculty advisor said, "You’re trying too hard to make the case. What about welfare reform? If any group needs public transportation, that’s who you should be writing about." I had just written an exploratory paper on public transit and welfare-to-work, but it wasn’t what was needed. Here, in the dissertation, was the forum that was needed to speak truth to power. I was released from the belly of the whale.
Not only am I a policy wonk, as an African-American woman, I am what is known in the lingo as a "native anthropologist." I also am positioned, by my education and experiences, to reflect in a scholarly manner the experiences of other minorities and women in the industry and those of transportation users. Although I am an African-American woman, I acknowledge that I am not representative of public transportation users. At best, I can provide a partial disclosure of the politics and other forces that shape the programs and services for public transportation users. The fractionated nature of public programs resulting in economic and social barriers could be resolved or at least lessened, but legislators, policymakers, and planners — the decisionmakers — are often separated from these consumers by class, gender, ethnicity, and race. I also am bound by my spiritual beliefs. As a member of the Religious Society of Friends of the Truth (Quakers), there are queries and advices on social and economic relationships, including:
So, I responded enthusiastically when called. I have been preparing for this call, although I did not know it. The intersection of ethnicity, gender, and spiritual responsibility have created unique personal challenges. I constantly have had to redefine my "place" in academe as it intersects with "place" in the transportation industry and the spiritual difficulty of trying to appeal to "that of God" in everyone, particularly coworkers who should know better. I responded enthusiastically because this is an opportunity to address the spiritual relationship of public transportation and welfare reform, care of the poor, and care of the world’s resources.
James 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court? (RSV)
There is a general tendency to think of class, ethnicity, gender, and race as distinct descriptors of humans’ social or even biological conditions. Rarely, however, in social interactions do humans function solely from any one of these. Karen Brodkin writes of
‘Metaorganization,’ or organization of organizations, to refer to the ways that all these race, gender, and class dimensions of social organization form a mutually constituting system that is both American and capitalist, that constitutes both the nation and the political economy . . . This system of reciprocal definitions operates at multiple levels, from political and economic organization, to state policies to discursive practices and meanings, that give American capitalism real stability (1998:53).
It is these multiple dimensions and their intersections that are of interest. According to Pisarski (1996:66) high users of public transit are most likely to be of Asian, black, or Hispanic heritage; central city dwellers, particularly female workers, living alone; households with no vehicles; or low income persons. Since persons with the above characteristics have a high propensity for transit use and these also are characteristics shared by those who received AFDC, it would appear that transit also should meet the needs of adults participating in the new welfare reform program, TANF. An examination of these and other characteristics, however, suggests that mobility problems disproportionately affect poor black women who live in inner cities.
Before looking at those characteristics, I will discuss a little of the history of public transportation, African Americans, and land use in the U. S. Until 1900, the bulk of the United States population lived in close proximity to places of work — the home or farm. New transportation technologies in the late 1800s and early 1900s contributed to decentralization of cities for some of the population. A more general cause of decentralization was the rise in real incomes. With increased income some people were able to spend more on land, more on transportation, and more on housing. Due to housing segregation and limited income, however, not everyone could move to the suburbs. These settlement patterns began as early as the late 1800s in older cities, however, the greatest intensity occurred after 1970. Although there have been historical ethnic enclaves, race has been persistent in containing large numbers of blacks in inner cities. A 1931 report to President Herbert Hoover perhaps best describes the conditions, "One notable difference appears between the immigrant and Negro populations. In the case of the former, there is the possibility of escape, with improvement in economic status in the second generation" (Massey and Denton 1993:148).
The need for public transportation is partially explained by the policy of federal road-building that is almost as old as the settlement and colonialization of this country by Europeans, with the impetus being moving goods to market, not the movement of people. Passenger transportation for most of the history of the United States has been a private endeavor, including personal motive power — by foot or bicycle — horse, coach, train, and automobile. However, in 1916, a Bureau of Public Roads was established in the United States Department of Commerce. Federal involvement in the provision of roads grew of out of the increasing use of automobiles and trucks. The first dedicated funding for roads was made available through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1934. Mass transportation of passengers remained the purview of private companies until the late 1940s when state and local governments began creating transit authorities to replace failing private services.
After World War II, public transit systems, specifically buses and commuter rail companies faced an unending spiral of fare increases and service cuts. Higher incomes, increased suburbanization, highways and private auto-use, all contributed to this decline. The Federal Transit Act (formerly Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964) was presented by President Johnson as part of his Great Society "in the spirit of President Kennedy’s Transportation Message" and was enacted by Congress (Weiner 1992:54).
In light of the funding that was available for the interstate highway system, the Federal Transit Act was only a token gesture to address public mass transportation needs. In the first year of the program $375 million were authorized for capital projects. Only $350 million were appropriated. The first gesture at balancing the nation’s transportation system did not occur until 1978 when highway, public transportation, and highway safety were combined in one piece of legislation. Over the years, the funding for public transit has been reauthorized at 20 to 25 percent of the federal budget for surface transportation, while the needs for public transit have continued to increase, e.g., rural transportation, clean air transportation control measures, and in 1998, to provide transportation for welfare reform. The underinvestment in mass transportation and land use patterns have forced large segments of the U. S. population to become dependent on private automobiles to meet their basic needs. Marcia D. Lowe wrote, "One of the greatest ironies of the twentieth century is that around the globe, vast amounts of such priceless things as land, petroleum, and clean air have been relinquished for motorization — and yet most people in the world will never own an automobile" (1991).
Former United States Department of Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater said transportation is the "to" in Welfare-to-Work (WtW) initiatives, realizing that many welfare recipients and the working poor have limited access to transportation. Welfare parents and others seeking employment need access not only to jobs, but other services such as daycare facilities, schools, training programs, and health care providers. Persons with private automobiles take for granted the ability to plan and control worktrips, errands, shopping, recreation, and other trips. Lack of automobile ownership, however, limits access. Automobile ownership is associated with class in that automobiles, symbolizing not only status in American society, but also freedom. Popular slogans abound such as "It’s not just your car, it’s your freedom," and "On the road of life, there are passengers and drivers." These slogans come to have real manifestations.
Mobility and access, particularly access to economic markets, have been unique experiences since Africans were forcibly moved to the American colonies. Violence, disenfranchisement, economic exploitation, and segregation laws have been used to limit mobility on physical, psychological, economic, and other social levels. And throughout this history, some aspect of transportation has been a major locus of dissent — the Underground Railroad, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the bus boycotts, the Freedom Rides — continuing to this writing with the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union and the environmental justice action in Atlanta, Georgia.
The intersection of space, ethnicity, and income also seems to intensify the issues related to women’s travel. Female headed-households comprised 88 percent of all United States households receiving public assistance in 1996. Women outnumber men in urban areas from 115:100, overall, to 157:100 for those over age 65 (Birch 1985). The concentration of women and female-headed families in the city is both cause and consequence of the city’s fiscal woes. Women live in cities because it is easier and cheaper for them to do so, but because fewer women are employed, and those that are receive lower pay then men, they do not make the same contribution to the tax base that an equivalent population of men would. Concomitantly, they are more dependent on public resources, such as transportation and housing (Freeman 1981:10). Lopata (1980:161-162) found in Chicago that women’s movement was restricted by the presence of young children in the home and the design and availability of public transportation. Concerns about adequate childcare may restrict a woman from taking a job outside the home. Access to goods and services, when traveling with small children may be limited by the design of public transportation facilities.
It is one thing to say that federal funds are available for welfare reform, but these funds do very little if the infrastructure, such as buses, 24-hour bus service, and daycare, is not available. Even in areas where there is relatively good bus service, research suggests that public transportation is not a feasible option for many rural and inner-city residents. Legislators, policymakers, and transportation providers often are not users of public transportation services. The real conditions that users face are often far removed from the decision-making arena.
The connection between work and access to employment opportunities was overlooked in the welfare reform legislative process. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), leading up to reauthorization, found that only about 6 percent of welfare recipients owned automobiles (1998). While two-thirds of all new jobs were in the suburbs, three-quarters of welfare recipients lived in rural areas or central cities. In metropolitan areas with excellent public transit systems, less than half of the jobs were accessible by transit. The median price of a new car was equivalent to 25 weeks of salary for the average worker, in 1991. (For a low-income worker, the price would be considerably more.) Approximately 9 million households or 10 million Americans of driving age, most of whom are low-income workers, did not own cars. There were no new funds, however. Congress "set aside" formula grant dollars that would have been used to provide general transportation services. Thus, the available formula grant funds have been reduced. Transit authorities now compete with each other and other entities for these funds through "innovative" grant proposals.
The disconnection between federal policy and reality continues with examples of the lack of coordination between federal programs. The FTA found "most state welfare plans submitted to the federal government barely mentioned transportation" (1997). Peter Edelman, former Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services stated, "[PRWORA] closes its eyes to all the facts and complexities of the real world and essentially says to recipients, ‘Find a job’"(1997). Edelman, too, was incensed. He resigned his post as assistant secretary in protest over the welfare-reform bill.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), at the end of fiscal year 1996 (30 September 1996), the average monthly number of AFDC families was 4.6 million or 12.6 million recipients, of which nearly four million persons were adults (Administration for Children and Families 1997). The families averaged 1.9 recipient children. The average age of the children was 7.6 years, however, 44 percent were under age six and one-fifth were under age three. Seventy percent of families had only one adult recipient. Men represented only 13 percent of recipients. Of the adult female recipients, the average age was 30 years; 14 percent were 40 years of age or older. The profile of a TANF adult required to find work was a 30-year-old, single woman, with two young children.
Although the "welfare queen" driving her Cadillac is usually portrayed as an African American, members of ethnic or racial minority groups overall were represented at a higher rate than the general population. African-American families represented 37 percent of the 1996 AFDC families. Sixty percent of all AFDC families were of minority races or ethnic groups and, as noted earlier, few have cars. According the 1996 United States Census Bureau estimates, nearly 37 million people or 14 percent of the population lived below the poverty level. Only 11.2 percent of whites were estimated to live below the poverty level; however, the estimate for female heads of households with children was 32.6 percent; blacks, 28.4 percent; persons of Asian or Pacific Island descent, 14.5 percent; and persons of Hispanic origin, 29.4 percent.
Due to such factors as housing segregation patterns and income, ethnic and racial adult TANF participants generally reside in inner cities or rural areas where there are fewer employment opportunities (Massey and Denton 1993; Hughes 1992:19-24). The loss of interconnectivity between residence and place of employment and services was first described by geographers in the 1950s as spatial mismatch. While 13.2 percent of persons in poverty lived in metropolitan areas, 19.6 percent lived inside central cities where jobs are scarce and 15.9 percent lived outside metropolitan areas, also inaccessible by public transit to major job sites. The statistics and studies cited above suggest that many of those required to "work first" are not prepared to work or are have limited opportunities. Overall, there appeared to be considerable overlap between the characteristics of AFDC participants and general transit ridership. While a number of factors suggest that AFDC participants already were users of public transit, the changes in travel behavior brought on by TANF brought about new challenges. Public transportation accounts for about only 5 percent of all worktrips and worktrips account for about 20 percent of all household travel. The intersection of some of the characteristics discussed earlier may make transit even less feasible for welfare leavers.
PRWORA mandates that TANF recipients "work first." The profile of the recipients at time of enactment suggests that those subject to employment mandates of the Act faced significant challenges in meeting this requirement. Lack of transportation seemed to be chief among the challenges. For many rural recipients there may be no transportation–no private automobile and no public transportation. Where public transportation is available in rural areas, temporal gaps may pose barriers. The service may be available days or hours during the week not compatible with commuting needs. Studies from three major metropolitan areas found that geographic and temporal gaps existed in areas with public transit systems ranked among the top 25 in the nation. Many TANF participants have passed the critical five-year period of program participation. Although PRWORA addresses transportation as an allowable support service for participants, few states have transportation elements as part of their statewide plans. Former Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Administrator Gordon Linton stated that the failure of the legislation and state plans to address transportation needs of TANF participants was "poor planning" (1999). Since authorization for PRWORA will expire on 30 September 2002, there are other programmatic and policy issues, along with those discussed above, that need to be addressed.
"Is there enough funding available?" It is difficult to assess the true amount of funds expended through TANF and WtW. Transportation services are viewed as a support service that allows TANF-eligible individuals to meet program mandates. One concern, however, is that while job access continues to be a problem, states have not made use of the available funds for TANF. Between 1997 and 1998, $3 billion set aside for welfare reform went unspent (DeParle 1999; Wolf 1999). Some states, however, have begun to draw down these funds, using them in programs to assist the working poor, e.g., childcare, transportation, etc.
The most critical factors in changes in destination relate to the labor market. These include number of work hours, time of day, and occupation or industry. Each factor alone or combined with characteristics discussed earlier may further exacerbate barriers to public transportation. Several studies have found that while more than half of employed welfare leavers worked 30 hours or more, the average number of hours was less than 40 (Brauner 1999; General Accounting Office 1999; Loprest 1999). The number of hours worked may create difficulties for recipients relying on public transportation as travel times are likely to occur during off-peak hours when services are less frequent.
While work time of day is somewhat related to the number of hours of work, this concern specifically relates to the beginning and ending of work shifts. The above-referenced studies also indicate that employment among welfare leavers is highly concentrated in specific industries and occupations that have shift hours extending beyond the traditional 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. As with hours worked, when work shifts extend beyond traditional commute times, transit services may be less frequent or nonexistent.
Again, the studies of welfare leavers found that about two-thirds are employed in service, sales, or clerical or administrative occupations. About three-quarters of leavers are employed in the service or trade industries. The occupation and industry concerns for public transportation are related to geography. As discussed earlier, welfare recipients generally do not reside near potential places of employment.
There are ancillary factors that do not have a direct impact on public transit, but may be expected to affect travel behavior of the target group. First, the average earnings of welfare leavers are between $5.50 and $7.00 per hour (National Governors’ Association 1998). This may contribute to frequent changes in travel needs as leavers look for better wages or return to TANF. Second, many jobs in the service industry may be seasonal, particularly those associated with the tourist industry. This may contribute to frequent changes in employment or return to TANF. And finally, changes in the economy. The economy has slowed down. Many TANF recipients were among the first to be "laid off" due to their lack of seniority, experience, or skills.
In addition to the spatial mismatch issues discussed above, there are several geographic and regional issues related to the availability of public transit. The preponderance of "edge cities" "…combining residential, business, social, and cultural areas that are removed from older central cities and overlaid on earlier patterns of suburbanization…" present transportation problems. As former FTA Administrator Gordon Linton stated, "Reverse commute programs are wrong. They are not immoral. At best, they are short-term, stopgap measures. But you are asking people to travel to places to work where they cannot live" (Linton 1993).
By using the example of TANF recipients, I have tried to illustrate how public policy can be embedded with disparities. This may be a little strong, but "…the mercy of the wicked is cruel" (Proverbs 12:10). Today’s spatial patterns of poverty pockets, edge cities, exurbs, and "fortified enclaves" have been developing for many years and are part of the economic and other social characteristics of the United States. Public transportation could and should provide us choices other than the private automobile, but the lack of it continues to contribute to the reproduction social differences.
Proverbs 31:9 - Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy. (RSV)