of
Overcoming Transportation Barriers to Work
Bronwyn Mauldin
Researcher/Program Developer
Port Jobs
PO Box 1209
Seattle, WA 98111
mauldin.b@portseattle.org
Presented at the 29th Annual
Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action (ARNOVA)
November 16-18, 2000
New Orleans, LA
While most Americans take jobs and decide how to get to work afterward, many low income people find their choice of jobs limited by transportation barriers. They are barred from taking jobs and participating in training programs because they do not own a functioning car, do not have a valid driver’s license, or cannot afford auto insurance. While public transportation can solve some transportation-related barriers to work, many people work shifts outside of nine-to-five hours, must take children to school or day care on their way to work, or live beyond the reach of a transit system. Furthermore, many jobs, apprenticeship and training programs require a valid driver’s license or reliable transportation as a condition of employment. Ultimately, too many people are barred from jobs and training programs for which they are otherwise qualified because of a lack of transportation options.
Transportation barriers to work have recently become the focus of increasing attention from workforce development organizations, welfare to work agencies, state legislatures and academic researchers. For years, many organizations have been aware of the transportation barriers to work faced by their clients. As new work requirements under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) have been implemented, however, these barriers have taken on greater significance. Transportation barriers prevent welfare recipients from accessing jobs, thus serving as a barrier to those people leaving the welfare rolls.
In response, many states have made changes to transportation-related eligibility requirements for welfare and related programs. In some cases, TANF or food stamps recipients are now allowed to own higher value cars and remain clients. TANF and support services funds can be used in some states for transportation-related expenses. The federal Department of Transportation has developed new programs to fund paratransit and reverse commute systems. However, some of the most innovative and politically challenging work is being done by small nonprofit organizations around the country that are creating programs to make individual cars available to low income workers and job seekers.
Many nonprofits see the transportation issue more broadly than simply getting people from home to work and back again. Solving transportation barriers to work provides economically disadvantaged people with only limited assistance. Solving mobility problems for those people opens up a whole range of new options, which can translate into greater work opportunities, more time to spend with family, and greater access to educational, training and recreational opportunities. Moreover, a car can serve as an asset that can be the basis of building wealth for a low income family.
This paper tells the story of Working Wheels, a car provision program created by Port Jobs in Seattle, Washington. It began as a research project in mid-1999, which led to a series of community stakeholder workshops. Funding to create the program was received from the Washington State Employment Security Department in mid-2000. The history of the project is chronicled here, including the practical and political barriers it faced, while also looking at research into various areas related to transportation barriers to work. This paper provides pointers to nonprofit organizations interested in pursuing car provision programs, but also to encourages academic and other researchers to focus on new areas of inquiry that will provide support to those nonprofit initiatives.
An overview of the literature in areas related to transportation barriers to work follows this section. Then the early days of the project and its design are described. The practical, legal and political issues Port Jobs faced in creating its program are discussed next. The analysis includes recommendations to nonprofit organizations considering creating their own car provision programs as well as recommendations for future research.
In recent literature on welfare reform, two of the most commonly cited barriers to work for welfare recipients are child care and transportation. In addition, a growing number of studies call specifically for the elimination of economic disincentives for welfare recipients to own cars, and for the creation of new programs to help low income people purchase cars (Waller and Hughes 1999; Allen and Kirby 2000; Sweeney et al 2000).
There are several bodies of literature relevant to a discussion of transportation barriers to work. These include studies of the geographical disconnect between work and home, studies on racial inequity in transportation planning, and studies of commute patterns. However, no unified area of inquiry brings all the issues together in a holistic discussion.
Geographical disconnect The spatial mismatch theory posits that a geographical disconnect is at the root of these transportation barriers. As jobs have moved from central cities to the suburbs over the past thirty years, the access of low income people living in those central cities to those jobs has been reduced (Pugh 1998; Katz and Allen 1999). Of the jobs created in the 1980s, 70% were in the suburbs (Bogren 1996). At the same time, welfare caseloads have become increasingly concentrated in central cities (Allen and Kirby 2000). Most of the jobs that have remained in center cities are relatively high skill, white collar, “knowledge-intensive” jobs, for which many low income inner-city residents would not qualify (Katz and Allen 1999). Over the same time period, public transit investments have tended to favor middle class- and white-dominated suburb-to-city train and rail commutes over low income- and minority-dominated bus routes from the inner-city (Stolz 2000). As a result, low income inner-city residents, who are more dependent on public transit than higher income people, are unable to access living wage jobs that do not require extensive post-secondary education or training.
Recognizing this disconnect, in recent years transit agencies from cities to the federal level have invested in “reverse commute” programs, providing transit and paratransit services to inner-city residents for commutes to work in the suburbs (Kaplan 1998). Perhaps the most ambitious test project to date is the national Bridges to Work program, funded by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) (Bogren 1996; Elliott, Palumbinsky and Tierney 1999). In this program, qualifying low income residents of Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis and Denver are placed in jobs in the suburbs, with a full range of transportation to work supports provided, including bus or paratransit passes and a guaranteed ride home in case of emergency. This program was designed to serve job-ready applicants, in order to isolate the effects of transportation on the ability to get and keep a job in the suburbs. Early findings from the first two years of the study have shown that keeping a low income urban resident in a suburban job is more complicated than simply providing a ride to work (Elliott, Palumbinsky and Tierney 1999). In particular, the researchers discovered that a ride to work is not adequate to solve an individual’s other mobility problems, which can negatively affect that person’s ability to keep the job.
Another important spatial mismatch that is less discussed is the disconnect between rural residents and jobs. Many of them today commute to the same suburbs where there has been significant job growth (Bogren 1996). However, low income rural residents often have their job options limited by the lack of any public transportation system at all.
Racial inequity Racial inequity in public transit policies has long been seen as playing a role in the ability of people of color to access jobs. Inadequate public transportation was identified as contributing to the high rates of unemployment among urban African-Americans in the aftermath of the Los Angeles civil rights protests of the 1960s (Stolz 2000; Sanchez 1999). Sanchez (1999) found some evidence in his comparison of Portland and Atlanta that increased access to public transit in predominantly minority neighborhoods may increase labor participation by the residents of those neighborhoods. His study also concluded that “vehicle ownership remains a key factor in access to jobs and labor participation.”
Commute patterns Studies of commute patterns focus on who commutes how far and for how long. In general, the number of people who commute by public transit or carpool declined from 1980 to 1990, with nearly three-quarters of all workers driving alone to work by the end of the decade (Bogren 1996). Women tend to commute shorter distances and time periods than men, and people of color tend to commute shorter distances than whites (Howell and Bronson 1996; Preston, McLafferty and Liu 1998). Several theories have been developed to explain this behavior. The “household responsibility hypothesis” posits that women choose jobs where they have shorter commute times because their household responsibilities are greater (Howell and Bronson 1998). However, some studies indicate that only white women have this option, as white women’s commute times and distance decrease after having children, but the commute times and distances for women of color remain steady before and after having children (Preston, McLafferty and Liu 1998).
Because of their dependence on public transit and walking, low income people travel shorter distances overall than middle and upper income people in the U.S. (Murakami and Young 1997). Analysis of the most recent (1995) National Personal Transportation Survey found that while 97% of middle and upper income families own a car, only 77% of low income families and 64% of single parent low income families own a car. Car ownership among welfare recipients is estimated to be far lower – fewer than 7% own cars, and the average value of those cars is only $620 (Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 1998).
At the same time, though, low income people still make most of their trips, personal and for work, in private vehicles. They do that by arranging rides with friends or borrowing friends’ cars. Seventeen percent of private vehicle trips by single parent households are made in a car owned by someone outside of their household, compared to 9% for all low income households and 1% for people who are not low income.
Overall, people in low income households make about 20% fewer trips per person than people in other households, and they travel nearly 40% fewer miles. This means that low income people make fewer trips and go shorter distances than wealthier people when they do move. Murakami and Young (1997) argue that this is primarily due to low-income people’s dependence on walking and public transit to make those trips.
The Office of Port JOBS became aware of transportation barriers to work by observing clients in one of its programs, the Apprenticeship Opportunities Project (AOP). AOP helps women, minorities and low income people enter and succeed in building and construction trades apprenticeship programs in King County. Most apprenticeship programs require a valid driver’s license in order to enter the program, and due to the nature of the construction industry, it is necessary to own a car in order to work. We were seeing far too many people who were otherwise ready, willing, qualified and able to work, barred from these opportunities by lack of a car or lack of a driver’s license. We also knew from talking with other workforce development organizations in the region that many of their clients were unable to take certain jobs due to a lack of transportation options.
In the early days after passage of the PRWORA, key individuals at King County’s local transit agency, Metro, began developing programs to address the transit needs of welfare recipients. However, the transportation barriers we were seeing at AOP could not be addressed by Metro services. Therefore, we began a research project to learn what a nonprofit organization could do to help solve the transportation problems of those people who cannot work without a car, either because of work requirements, or child care or other personal needs. The project set out to answer three key questions: What is the size of the problem in King County? What kinds of car provision programs are out there around the country? What are all the elements necessary to create a sustainable car provision program?
We issued our report, Working Wheels: A Guide to Overcoming Transportation Barriers to Work, in October 1999[1]. We found that no organizations were keeping careful track of how often transportation barriers were preventing their clients from taking work. However, everyone was aware of the problem and had some kind of basic information about either the numbers of clients unable to work due to transportation barriers, or the amount of time staff worked with them on overcoming their transportation problems. We also found several program models that we could try replicate in Seattle. The one that we thought showed the most promise and applicability was Getting There, a car provision program in Scott County, Minnesota, run by Judson Kenyon of the local CAP Agency.
The answer to the third question is complex. We concluded that a comprehensive transportation-to-work program would include
· Low or no cost cars available to qualified applicants, through loans, sales or donations;
· Inspection assistance;
· Affordable repair and maintenance;
· Information on purchasing used cars;
· Backup transportation to and from work while clients’ cars are being serviced;
· Relicensing assistance;
· Insurance assistance;
· Driver training; and
· Information on public transit.
Port Jobs’ next step was to find out if there was interest in and support for a project like this in the community. We joined with the City of Seattle’s Office of Economic Development (OED) and the Northwest Forum of the University of Washington’s Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs to convene a workshop of local stakeholders, individuals and organizations we thought would be interested. Participants included representatives of local workforce training agencies and social service agencies, community based organizations, the Washington State Employment Security Department and the Department of Social and Human Services, local and state elected officials, the insurance industry, banks, the Office of the State Insurance Commissioner, legal services and the municipal courts. We also invited Judson Kenyon to speak about his car provision program to the group.
We learned at this meeting that efforts were already underway to deal with several issues related to low income people and driving, and these will be discussed in greater detail later. We also found significant interest at this meeting in seeing a car provision program created. Several actors at the table were even willing to commit resources to this effort.
As a result of this meeting, we found two important partners ready to provide support to this project, OED and the state’s Employment Security Department (ESD). OED saw car ownership as a key to job retention. Their staff also considered it to be similar to home ownership in that the car could be an asset to help low income families build wealth for the future. ESD saw this as an important part of ensuring that their WorkFirst clients (the name for Washington’s welfare-to-work jobs program) can get and keep better jobs.
Port Jobs submitted a joint proposal with OED to ESD to create a car provision program modeled on the Minnesota Getting There program. Our program will acquire low end used cars either through donations from government fleets being surplused, donations from the general public, or purchased from used car lots or auto auctions. These cars will be repaired and then re-sold to low income workers and job seekers for an affordable price through a low interest bank loan. The program will provide relicensing services either directly or through referrals to other agencies, and will assist car buyers in finding affordable auto insurance. OED will provide assistance similar to what the City offers low-income home buyers: they will buy down interest on the bank loans to make the cars more affordable.
Port Jobs will do the research and development necessary in the first year to create this program. When the time comes to actually create the program, we will go through an RFQ process or, if necessary, create a new nonprofit organization to actually run the car provision program.
A car provision program that solves transportation barriers to work without creating additional financial burdens for low income job seekers and that will be sustainable in the long term is more complex than simply buying and selling cars like a used car lot. Choices must be made about whether to follow a more business-like model or a more service-oriented model, and how to combine both elements. In addition to the practical matters discussed in this section, there are political and legal issues that a nonprofit should be prepared to address. The next section discusses those.
Car inspection and repair, pre-purchase Before buying or accepting any used cars, it is necessary to have them inspected by a qualified mechanic to determine that they can be affordably repaired. Mechanics must be identified and their services purchased, or a volunteer system must be created. Repairs will require both space to do them as well as the labor and parts.
Car storage We estimate that we will, at least in the beginning, need storage for about 20-25 cars at a time in a single location, or about 6000 square feet. Port Jobs has been working with the City of Seattle, King County and the Port of Seattle to find unused land where we can store cars in the start-up year.
Business plan In order for our car provision program to be sustainable in the long run, the nonprofit running the program will need a business plan in place. Among other business issues, this will take into account the cost of purchasing the cars plus repairing them, and the price for which they will be sold. Revenues from the sale of cars will be reinvested in purchasing additional cars for the program. One difficulty will be setting a price that will be affordable for low income car buyers, but will replenish the fund for purchasing future cars.
Costs of car ownership If this program is to genuinely serve the transportation needs of low income workers and job seekers, then it must be set up so that a car facilitates mobility instead of becoming an additional financial burden. Operating a car necessitates buying gas, insurance, vehicle licenses, repairs and maintenance. Car buyers may need additional assistance with financial planning to ensure that they will be able to afford these additional costs. They may also need assistance understanding legal requirements for operating cars, such as insurance and driver’s licensing, which will be discussed in the next section.
In the process of developing this program and seeking support for it, Port Jobs has run into two main types of legal and political issues. First are insurance and licensing laws, which became a contentious political issue in 2000 in Seattle. Second are questions about the impact this program would have on the environment and traffic congestion.
Port Jobs convened a second stakeholder’s workshop a few months after the first one to talk in more detail about licensing/relicensing and insurance issues. These two issues are closely intertwined in most states, and addressing them is integral to creating a sustainable, successful car provision program. Together, they create barriers to low income people being able to drive to work.
Washington requires all drivers to have liability insurance, as do all but five states. Despite the passage of mandatory insurance, the share of the driving population without insurance has not dropped. Some people choose not to buy insurance, while others cannot afford to buy it. In Seattle, the cheapest auto insurance providing the legal minimum of coverage will run about $600 for a year. Most low income drivers do not qualify for those low rates for a variety of reasons. Insurance companies may use an individual’s credit rating and/or residence to set rates, placing low income drivers in higher rate categories. A person with no history of insurance will pay much higher rates for the first twelve to 24 months of coverage than another driver with the same driving history and demographics. The fine for driving without insurance in Washington is $480 for the first offense. Failure to pay the fine or appear in court to contest it will lead to the individual’s license being suspended.
In January 1999 the City of Seattle passed an “impound ordinance.” This ordinance authorized police to impound the car of any driver pulled over for any reason who is found to be “driving with license suspended” (DWLS) for any reason. It was argued that this would take dangerous drivers off the streets. In many cases, cars were impounded on the spot and the driver and passengers left on the sidewalk, whether or not the driver of the car was the owner. By March the effect of this law on low income drivers and especially people of color was becoming clear. While only 11% of the Seattle population is African-American, 44% of people whose cars were impounded were African-American. Furthermore, about half of the cars impounded were not being redeemed by their owners because they could not afford to pay fines and storage fees to the tow lots.
This ordinance turned out to capture large numbers of drivers with income-related offenses, such as poor vehicle maintenance or not carrying auto insurance. Eighty-five percent of all cars impounded started out as a minor traffic ticket, often times non-payment of tickets for driving without insurance. It is important to note than in those cases, unlike drunk driving or reckless driving, the original ticket would not cause a driver’s license to be suspended – it is the subsequent non-payment of fines that led to the suspension.
Port Jobs saw these as transportation-related barriers to work, and we became involved in efforts to change the law to make it easier for low income people who wanted to buy insurance and pay the fines they owe do so. Our staff served on a committee, chaired by the state Insurance Commissioner’s office, to develop legislation to create a low cost auto insurance plan for low income state residents. Two bills were introduced to the state legislature in 2000, modeled on a pilot insurance program in California. Although neither passed that year, a workgroup was created to study the issue in more detail over the summer, and Port Jobs participates, along with insurance company representatives, community based organizations and legislators. Additional legislation is expected in 2001.
It is the auto insurance industry’s position that the solution to the insurance problem is ending mandatory auto insurance (NAII 1998). While this would solve the legal problem low income drivers face, it would leave them without the ability to protect what is, in many cases, a family’s most valuable asset. State legislators had difficulty separating the issue of uninsured motorists from the issue of people who want to pay their legal requirements but cannot afford to due to low income. Their preference was to lump all of them together as irresponsible drivers and dismiss legislation as either impossible to enforce or inappropriate regulation of the insurance industry.
At the same time, several community based organizations, particularly in the African American community, joined together to create the Drive to Survive committee (DtS). DtS is a coalition of Seattle/King County residents working to get low income community members licensed and insured, and to end punitive driving-related measures such as impoundment that push poor people into poverty. One of the committee’s goals was to amend the Seattle impound ordinance so that drivers whose licenses were suspended due to non-payment of fines would not be subject to impound. Drivers whose original offense was behavioral, such as drunk driving or reckless driving, would still be subject to immediate impoundment under the law. This issue was hotly debated in local churches, community groups, city council and the media. Port Jobs provided indirect support to DtS, including testifying before City Council about how taking cars from economically disadvantaged people only creates additional barriers to work for them.
To the community groups, impoundment is as much about racial profiling by police as about meeting transportation needs. In the midst of the debate the Seattle Times, a major mainstream paper, conducted a study finding that African Americans living in Seattle are twice as likely to be given a traffic ticket as whites. They also found that African Americans are issued more tickets per stop than whites. Ultimately, the impound ordinance amendment failed on a 5-4 vote, but the Council passed several amendments in an attempt to soften the blow of impoundment.
Seattle Municipal Court has started an effort to make it easier for low income people whose licenses have been suspended to pay their fines and regain their licenses. The courts have initiated a major outreach effort to community groups, and they have introduced time payment plans and community service in lieu of fines. Port Jobs supports these efforts by participating in “relicensing summits” organized by the court to bring state, local and community stakeholders together to develop solutions. We also utilize the new services made available by the courts. For example, at a recent job fair hosted by Port Jobs, customer service representatives from Municipal Court staffed a booth where job seekers with license problems could find out how much they owed and learn about options to pay off their fines.
This may seem like a long digression, but it is an important one. Any nonprofit interested in creating a car provision program needs to understand local and state laws related to licensing and insurance in order to include program elements to address these issues. New car owners need to understand their legal and financial obligations, and may need assistance meeting them. Port Jobs will work closely with nonprofit relicensing programs and the courts to assist potential car buyers. We will continue to work on solving the insurance problem, which continues to be a major barrier. Most important, we have included some of these as elements integral to the success of our car provision program.
It is also important to consider the differential treatment clients of color will face once they have bought a car from a program like this. Will people of color be discouraged from participating in the program because they fear how they will be treated by police? Do they need additional training to help them cope with racial profiling? What can a nonprofit do to help solve this problem for the general population in order to create a better environment for its clients of color to drive in? The degree to which it is appropriate to get involved will depend on the organization. These issues should be considered at the program design stage.
One of the first negative comments Port Jobs received to our car provision program concept came from a local elected official who generally supports the work we do. He wrote a letter after reading our Working Wheels report, expressing concern about our looking to single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to solve transportation to work problems. He felt that SOVs will only add to the severe traffic congestion and environmental problems we already face in our region, and he encouraged us to look instead into public transit, biking, walking and other environmentally friendly options. We have heard variations on this argument from other sources as well. Any organization interested in creating a program like ours will need to be prepared to respond.
Our response is two-fold. First, there seems to be something unfair about expecting low income people to bear the burden of solving congestion and environmental problems that they did not create. While there are programs to encourage middle and upper income people to drive less, nothing prevents them from driving as much as they want. Laws that take away the cars of drivers who cannot afford to pay fines, on the other hand, prevent economically disadvantaged people from driving. In fact, many middle and upper income families own as many or more cars than there are people in those families, creating the congestion and environmental problems, while low income people go without.
Second, it is important to recognize that no single car provision program will ever sell, lease or give away enough cars to measurably affect traffic congestion or the environment in any city. Most of the programs we surveyed have made no more than twenty cars available in a single year. Getting There in Minnesota was unique in having sold nearly 150 cars in its first two year. Port Jobs seeks to replicate and expand on that, but even those numbers will not have significant impact.
In Washington, our public transit problem was worsened by the passage in 1999 of a “tax revolt” initiative, I-695, that has gutted the source of most public transit funding. In Seattle, this has meant service cuts for King County Metro, our local transit agency. Much greater service cuts are expected in 2001. Smaller towns and cities in the state have already laid off transit drivers and other staff.
Ultimately, it makes sense for a car provision program to participate in efforts to improve public transit, and to encourage public officials to make transit decisions that will benefit communities of color and the economically disadvantaged. Port Jobs includes this as part of our work, collaborating with and supporting Metro in several transportation-to-work projects for welfare recipients. Better public transit is an important part of overcoming transportation barriers to work for low income people. However, it will never be the complete answer.
Port Jobs and other nonprofit and government agencies identified transportation barriers to work through their own experience providing services to low income workers and job seekers. The existing literature gives us a view of the systematic nature of those barriers. By combining practitioner and research perspectives we can understand how those barriers affect which groups, and identify ways to overcome them.
In most U.S. cities today, low income neighborhoods are located far from the centers of major job growth. Because of the interconnection between race and poverty, those low income neighborhoods also house high concentrations of people of color. Those are also the neighborhoods that tend to be less well served by public transportation systems than other, higher income, predominantly white communities. At the same time, low income people are far less likely to own a car than higher income people, and that car is likely to be less reliable. For all of these reasons, the geographical range where low income people can and do look for work is more constricted than for higher income people. Not having a car also bars individuals from specific jobs and industries.
Low income families and communities have developed practices for assisting each other in meeting their transportation needs in these circumstances. Specifically, they loan cars to each other at a far higher rate than among higher income families. In Seattle, this practice has caused many people to lose their cars when a friend or family member with a suspended license borrows them.
Improved public transit, bike lanes and other alternative commuting supports are an important part of solving transportation barriers to work. For many job seekers, it will be enough. However, if people must take heavy tools to and from work, drive children to day care or school on the way to work, or must travel long distances during the work day, public transit will not enable them to overcome their transportation barriers to work. It is simply a fact of American life that some jobs, some industries and some individual situations make it necessary for some people to drive to work. To bar low income people from those opportunities will only keep them economically disadvantaged. Therefore, car provision programs should be one element among many to help the economically disadvantaged find and keep living wage jobs.
What should a nonprofit organization or government agency consider when developing a car provision program? The first question to ask is, do we create a transportation to work program or a mobility program? In their review of the Bridges to Work reverse commute program described earlier, Elliott, Palumbinsky and Tierney (1999) recommend not including other transportation needs in a transportation to work programs, such as taking riders’ children to school or dropping off riders at appointments. A mobility program like a car provision program will offer more to clients but will be much more complex to design and implement. The issues are both practical and political. On the practical side, planners need to determine
· Where the cars will come from;
· How will they be inspected and repaired before release to clients;
· Whether they will they will be sold, leased or loaned to clients;
· Where cars will be stored;
· Whether the program will provide driving-related assistance such as relicensing, insurance assistance and drivers’ education;
· Whether the program will provide other supports to the cost of driving, such as assistance with maintenance and repairs or financial planning;
· Eligibility requirements; and
· How to make the program sustainable in the long term, which requires a business plan.
At the same time, car provision program planners need to consider legal and political issues. Some of these issues can be included in creating the program. For example, Port JOBS has included as one of our program elements working with our local transit agency to make information available through our car provision program about alternative commute options such as riding the bus, vanpools and carpools, reverse commute programs and car sharing programs.
Before taking any action on a car provision program, a nonprofit should research the full range of transportation barriers to work and identify local and state laws and political issues that might cause a car provision program to fail. It may make sense for program developers to get involved with efforts to overcome related transportation barriers to work through political action. Probably the thorniest issue among them all is auto insurance, and at Port Jobs we are still are not sure how we will solve that for our clients. Other issues to consider include
· Driver’s license laws:
· Auto insurance costs and availability:
· Commute reduction programs:
· Local issues like Seattle’s impound ordinance: and
· Improving public transit.
More research is needed to fully understand the role cars can play in alleviating poverty, and to help nonprofits develop programs that better focus their car provision programs. To begin, we need to know where on a career ladder a car becomes necessary for future advancement, and whether an individual can earn enough at that point to support a family and operate a car. This will differ between industries, career ladders and locales. Researchers can build on existing job and career ladder studies. We also need better information on how car ownership, or lack thereof, affects commute and job decisions of low income workers and job seekers. Specifically, surveys and focus groups should be formed to understand how not having a car, distance to work and personal or home needs influence job decisions.
Insurance is probably the most difficult issue for clients of a car provision program. The cost of insurance is simply unaffordable for many low income people. In fact, if insurance coverage costs $1000 per year and a ticket for driving without insurance is $480, then a person may be making a very rational decision to risk the ticket. Insurance companies claim that their use of such factors as residence, credit ratings or history of insurance to set rates is based on statistical proof that people who live in certain neighborhoods, who have poor credit or who have never had auto insurance are more likely to file claims. Is this true? Does “more claims” mean that the driver is in some way at fault? How does racial profiling affect the insurance rates of drivers of color? We need more independent, objective research on the factors the auto insurance industry uses to set premiums and on accident rates among low income and minority drivers.
There is also a place for historical research to understand how people of color have been treated by driver’s license, insurance and car ownership laws. Is there a history in the U.S. of people of color being denied driver’s licenses in the same way that voting rights were denied? Some people argue that the use of credit ratings and residence to set auto insurance rates is the equivalent of “redlining.” Is there historical precedent for that? Have people of color had more difficulty getting car loans or buying cars in the past? Also, the national debate over racial profiling has brought to our attention the fact that people of color are more likely to receive tickets than white drivers. What is the history of how traffic laws have been enforced against people of color? Knowing this history is important to helping us understand present behavior and attitudes, and can help us identify remnants of those practices today.
At a Seattle city council meeting earlier this year, a Drive to Survive community activist held up a sign that read, “America = Freedom = Car.” The car holds a special place in American society, to the economically disadvantaged no less than to middle and upper income people.
The car may be an important key for some people to work their way out of poverty. For the many reasons discussed above, existing public transportation systems are not adequate to meet the commute needs of all citizens. In fact, they appear to provide inferior service to communities where car ownership rates are lower. Many observers and workers in the welfare system are beginning to argue for the creation of car provision programs, lest work requirements under the PRWORA fail for lack of transportation to work for welfare recipients. If economically disadvantaged job seekers are to have full access to work and training opportunities where they can earn enough to care for themselves and their families, then solutions to their transportation problems must be creative and flexible. These solutions must acknowledge the fact that many transportation barriers cannot be overcome by a bus pass. They must also ask whether the goal is to provide a ride to work or to solve an individual’s or family’s mobility problems.
References
Allen, Katherine and Maria Kirby 2000. Unfinished Business: Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform. July 2000. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Survey Series. Accessed: 7 August 2000 <http://www.brookings.org/es/urban/welfarecaseloads/ wfrstdy.pdf>.
Bogren, Scott. 1996. “Work Trips Take New Routes.” Community Transportation Magazine n. pag. November 1996. Community Transportation Association of America. Accessed: 3 August 2000. <http://www.ctaa.org/ct/nov96/worktrip.shtml>.
Elliott, Mark, Beth Palumbinsky and Joseph Tierney. 1999. Overcoming Roadblocks on the Way to Work: Bridges to Work Field Report. Summer 1999. Public/Private Ventures. Accessed: 5 June 2000 <http://www.ppv.org/indexfiles/workforce-index.html>.
Howell, Frank M. and Deborah Richey Bronson. 1996. “The Journey to Work and Gender Inequality in Earnings: A Cross-Validation Study for the United States.” The Sociological Quarterly. 37: 429-447.
Kaplan, April. 1998. “Transportation: The Essential Need to Address the “To” in Welfare-to-Work.” Welfare Information Network Issue Notes. June 1998, n. pag. Accessed 9 June 1999 <http://www.welfareinfo.org/ transitneed.htm>.
Katz, Bruce and Katherine Allen. 1999. “Help Wanted: Connecting Inner-City Job Seekers with Suburban Jobs.” Brookings Review Fall 1999: n. pag. Accessed: 7 August 2000 <http://www.brookings.org/press/review/fall99/bkatz.pdf>.
Murakami, Elaine and Jennifer Young. 1997. “Daily Travel by Persons with Low Income.” Presented at the National Personal Transportation Survey Symposium, Bethesda, MD.
National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII). 1998. The Ineffectiveness of Compulsory Private Passenger Automobile Liability Insurance Laws: An Empirical Look.
Preston, Valerie, S. McLafferty and X.F. Liu. 1998. “Geographical barriers to employment for American-born and immigrant workers.” Urban Studies 35(3): 529-46. Expanded Academic Index. Accessed: 11 July 2000.
Pugh, Margaret. 1998. 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.
Sanchez, Thomas W. 1999. “The connection between public transit and employment: the cases of Portland and Atlanta.” Journal of the American Planning Association. 65(3) n. pag. Expanded Academic Index. Accessed 11 July 2000.
Stolz, Rich. 2000. Race, Poverty and Transportation. Spring 2000. Center for Community Change. Accessed: 3 August 2000 <http://www.communitychange.org/transportation/ raceandtransportation.asp>.
Sweeney, Eileen, Liz Schott, Ed Lazere et. al. 2000. Windows of Opportunity: Strategies to Support Families Receiving Welfare and Other Low-Income Families in the Next Stage of Welfare Reform. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Washington, DC.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 1998. “The transportation system’s role in moving welfare recipients to jobs.” Volpe Transportation Journal. 2: n. pag. US Dept of Transportation’s Research and Special Programs Administration. Accessed 23 August 2000 <http://www.volpe.dot.gov/resref/journal/spring98/jobs.html>.
Waller, Margy and Mark Alan Hughes. 1999. Working Far From Home: Transportation and Welfare Reform in the Ten Big States. Progressive Policy Institute: Washington, DC.
[1] Available online at http://www.portjobs.org/jobs/workingwheels.pdf, or call Port Jobs at 206-728-3883.