Welfare Reform: Transportation's Role in Moving From Welfare To Work
(Letter Report, 05/29/98, GAO/RCED-98-161).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) whether current
studies and research demonstrate the importance of transportation
services in implementing welfare reform; (2) the preliminary results of
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) current welfare-to-work
programs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)
Bridges to Work program; and (3) how an Access to Jobs program would
support welfare reform.

GAO noted that: (1) transportation and welfare studies show that without
adequate transportation, welfare recipients face significant barriers in
trying to move from welfare to work; (2) existing public transportation
systems cannot always bridge the gap between where the poor live and
where jobs are located; (3) the majority of entry-level jobs that the
welfare recipients and the poor would be likely to fill are located in
suburbs that have limited or no accessibility through existing public
transportation systems; (4) FTA has funded welfare-to-work demonstration
projects, planning grants, and regional seminars, while HUD's Bridges to
Work research program is in the early stages of placing inner-city
participants in suburban jobs; (5) although these programs began
recently and have limited funding, they have identified programmatic and
demographic factors that state and local officials should consider when
they select the best transportation strategies for their welfare-to-work
programs; (6) these factors include: (a) collaboration among
transportation providers and employment and human services
organizations; (b) analyses of local labor markets to help design
transportation strategies that link employees to specific jobs; and (c)
flexible transportation strategies that may not always rely on existing
mass transit systems; (7) if authorized, an Access to Jobs program would
bring additional resources and attention to the transportation element
of welfare reform; (8) however, limited information about the program's
objectives or expected outcomes makes it difficult to evaluate how the
program would improve mobility for low-income workers or support
national welfare-to-work goals; (9) the new program may require FTA and
local transit agencies to undergo a cultural change whereby they are
willing to accept nontraditional approaches for addressing
welfare-to-work barriers; (10) the agency must ensure that the millions
of dollars it contributes to welfare reform support rather than
duplicate the transportation funds provided through other federal and
state agencies; and (11) while FTA has begun to consider some of these
important issues, addressing all of them before the program is
established would help ensure that the transportation funds provided for
an Access to Jobs program would be used efficiently and effectively in
support of national welfare goals.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-161
     TITLE:  Welfare Reform: Transportation's Role in Moving From 
             Welfare To Work
      DATE:  05/29/98
   SUBJECT:  Transportation research
             Public assistance programs
             Interagency relations
             Welfare recipients
             Disadvantaged persons
             Mass transit operations
             Workfare
IDENTIFIER:  HUD Bridges to Work Program
             DOT Access to Jobs Program
             AFDC
             Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives

May 1998

WELFARE REFORM - TRANSPORTATION'S
ROLE IN MOVING FROM WELFARE TO
WORK

GAO/RCED-98-161

Transportation's Welfare Reform Role

(348075)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
  BTS - Bureau of Transportation Statistics
  DOL - Department of Labor
  DOT - Department of Transportation
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  NGA - National Governors' Association
  TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279727

May 29, 1998

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.  L.  104-193, Aug.  22, 1996) replaced the existing
entitlement program for poor families with a program that includes
work requirements and time limits on assistance.  Welfare reform
specialists contend that transportation is an important element in
moving people from welfare to work because three-fourths of welfare
recipients live in either central cities or rural areas, while
two-thirds of new jobs are located in the suburbs.  This geographic
mismatch is compounded by the low rate of car ownership among welfare
recipients.  To address the apparent need for transportation services
for welfare recipients, the Department of Transportation (DOT)
proposed to establish a $600 million Access to Jobs program to be
administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 
Furthermore, surface transportation reauthorization bills passed by
the House and Senate would establish similar programs.  In addition,
although smaller than DOT's proposed program, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development provided funds toward a $17 million
Bridges to Work project to support transportation and other services
to help low-income people get to jobs. 

Concerned about the need, scope, and size of DOT's proposed Access to
Jobs program, you asked us to (1) determine if current studies and
research demonstrate the importance of transportation services in
implementing welfare reform, (2) assess the preliminary results of
FTA's current welfare-to-work programs and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development's (HUD) Bridges to Work program, and (3)
determine how an Access to Jobs program would support welfare reform. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Transportation and welfare studies show that without adequate
transportation, welfare recipients face significant barriers in
trying to move from welfare to work.  These challenges are
particularly acute for urban mothers receiving welfare who do not own
cars and must make multiple trips each day to accommodate child care
and other domestic responsibilities and for the rural poor who
generally drive long distances in poorly maintained cars.  Existing
public transportation systems cannot always bridge the gap between
where the poor live and where jobs are located.  These existing
systems were originally established to transport inner city residents
to city locations and bring suburban residents to central-city work
locations.  However, the majority of the entry-level jobs that
welfare recipients and the poor would be likely to fill are located
in suburbs that have limited or no accessibility through existing
public transportation systems.  Furthermore, many entry-level jobs
require shift work in the evenings or on weekends, when public
transit services are either unavailable or limited. 

The Federal Transit Administration has funded welfare-to-work
demonstration projects, planning grants, and regional seminars, while
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Bridges to Work
research program is in the early stages of placing inner-city
participants in suburban jobs.  Although these programs began
recently and have limited funding, they have identified programmatic
and demographic factors that state and local officials should
consider when they select the best transportation strategies for
their welfare-to-work programs.  These factors include collaboration
among transportation providers and employment and human services
organizations, analyses of local labor markets to help design
transportation strategies that link employees to specific jobs, and
flexible transportation strategies that may not always rely on
existing mass transit systems. 

If authorized, an Access to Jobs program would bring additional
resources and attention to the transportation element of welfare
reform.  However, limited information about the program's objectives
or expected outcomes makes it difficult to evaluate how the program
would improve mobility for low-income workers or support national
welfare-to-work goals.  The new program also may require the Federal
Transit Administration--an agency accustomed to funding mass transit
systems--and local transit agencies to undergo a cultural change
whereby they are willing to accept nontraditional approaches for
addressing welfare to work barriers.  These nontraditional approaches
include working with local employment and social service agencies to
develop a collaborative network for placing welfare recipients in
jobs and considering a mix of transportation approaches that do not
always rely on existing mass transit systems as the preferred method
for transporting welfare recipients to jobs.  In addition, the agency
must ensure that the millions of dollars it contributes to welfare
reform support rather than duplicate the transportation funds
provided through other federal and state agencies.  While the Federal
Transit Administration has begun to consider some of these important
issues, addressing all of them before the program is established
would help ensure that the transportation funds provided for an
Access to Jobs program would be used efficiently and effectively in
support of national welfare goals. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

DOT's proposal to reauthorize surface transportation included a
6-year, $600 million Access to Jobs program to support new
transportation services for low-income people seeking jobs.  The
funding levels and other program details of such an initiative may
change as the Congress completes final action in 1998 to reauthorize
surface transportation programs.  The House and Senate
reauthorization proposals would authorize appropriations of $900
million over 6 years for similar programs to be administered by DOT. 
The Senate proposal would also authorize appropriations of an
additional $600 million (bringing the total to $1.5 billion) over the
same period for a reverse commute program that the Department could
use to support its welfare-to-work initiatives.\1 While these
programs have not been established, several federal departments
currently provide states and localities with federal funds to support
transportation welfare reform initiatives. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program--a $16.5
billion program of annual block grants to the states that replaced
Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC).  The states may use
TANF funds to provide transportation assistance to people on or
moving off of public assistance.  However, the states generally may
not use TANF funds to provide assistance to a family for more than 60
months and must require parents to work within 24 months of receiving
assistance. 

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 established a 2-year, $3 billion
Welfare-to-Work program administered by the Department of Labor
(DOL).  Among other things, this grant program provides funding for
job placement, on-the-job training, and support services (including
transportation) for those who are the most difficult to move from
welfare to work.  The states receive about 75 percent of the funds on
the basis of a formula, while local governments, private industry
councils, and private, community-based organizations receive most of
the remaining 25 percent on a competitive basis.\2

Although not specifically designed to address welfare-to-work issues,
HUD's $17 million Bridges to Work program provides funds to support
transportation, job placement, and counseling services for a small
number of low-income people living in the central cities of
Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, and St.  Louis.  HUD provided
an $8 million grant for the program in fiscal year 1996, while the
Ford, Rockefeller, and MacArthur Foundations provided $6 million and
local public and private organizations contributed the remaining $3
million.  The demonstration program began in late 1996 and will be
completed in 2000. 


--------------------
\1 As defined in the Senate proposal, a reverse commute project means
a project related to the development of transportation services
designed to transport residents of urban areas, urbanized areas, and
areas other than urbanized areas to suburban employment
opportunities. 

\2 Some of the funds are set aside for special purposes, including
Indian tribes and program evaluation. 


   TRANSPORTATION IS AN IMPORTANT
   ELEMENT OF WELFARE REFORM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Access to transportation is generally recognized by social service
and transportation professionals as a prerequisite for work and for
welfare reform.  According to the Census Bureau, in 1992, welfare
recipients were disproportionately concentrated in inner
cities--almost half of all people who received AFDC or state
assistance lived in central cities, compared with 30 percent of the
U.S.  population.  However, as cited in the 1998 report entitled
Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs in Boston (the 1998 Boston study),
national trends since 1970 show that most new jobs have been created
in the suburbs rather than in the inner cities.\3 In addition, this
study indicated that about 70 percent of the jobs in manufacturing,
retailing, and wholesaling--sectors employing large numbers of
entry-level workers--were located in the suburbs. 

Many of these newly created entry-level suburban jobs should attract
people moving from welfare to work since many welfare recipients lack
both higher education and training.  However, most welfare recipients
seeking employment live in central cities that are located away from
these suburban jobs.  Thus, the less-educated, urban poor need either
a car or public transportation to reach new suburban employment
centers.  However, both modes of transportation have posed challenges
to welfare recipients. 


--------------------
\3 Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs in Boston, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics BTS98-A-02 (Washington, D.C.:  Jan.  1998). 


      WELFARE RECIPIENTS HAVE
      LIMITED ACCESS TO CARS AND
      RELIABLE PUBLIC TRANSIT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The 1998 Boston study and a 1995 GAO study found that the lack of
transportation is one of the major barriers that prevent welfare
recipients from obtaining employment.\4 A significant factor limiting
welfare recipients' job prospects has been their lack of an
automobile.  According to a 1997 HHS study, less than 6 percent of
welfare families reported having a car in 1995 and the average
reported value of the car was $620.  According to DOT's Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS), these figures are probably low
because previous welfare eligibility rules limiting the value of
assets may have led some recipients to conceal car ownership.  Under
AFDC, families that received assistance were not allowed to
accumulate more than $1,000 in resources such as bank accounts and
real estate.  This limit excluded the value of certain assets,
including vehicles up to $1,500 in value.\5 However, a 1997 study of
welfare mothers found that car ownership ranged from 20 to 40
percent.\6

Without a car, welfare recipients must rely on existing public
transportation systems to move them from their inner-city homes to
suburban jobs.  However, recent studies show important gaps between
existing transit system routes and the location of entry-level jobs. 
For example, the 1998 study of Boston's welfare recipients found that
while 98 percent of them lived within one-quarter mile of a bus route
or transit station, just 32 percent of potential employers (those
companies located in high-growth areas for entry-level employment)
were within one-quarter mile of public transit.  The study noted that
it was presumed that welfare recipients living in or near a central
city with a well-developed transit system could rely on public
transit to get to jobs.  However, the study found that Boston's
transit system was inadequate because (1) many high-growth areas for
entry-level employment were in the outer suburbs, beyond existing
transit service; (2) some areas were served by commuter rail, which
was expensive and in most cases did not provide direct access to
employment sites; and (3) when transit was available, the trips took
too long or required several transfers, or transit schedules and
hours did not match work schedules, such as those for weekend or
evening work. 

Similar findings were reported in a July 1997 study of the
Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area.\7 The study found that since
inner-city welfare recipients did not own cars, they had to rely on
public transit systems to get to suburban jobs.  The study found that
welfare recipients traveled by bus at times outside the normal
rush-hour schedule and often had significant walks from bus stops to
their final employment destinations.  The study concluded that these
transportation barriers would be difficult to overcome using
traditional mass transit since the locations of over one-half of the
job openings were served by transit authorities other than the one
serving inner-city Cleveland residents.  The study further indicated
that even within areas where employers were concentrated, such as in
industrial parks, employers' locations were still too dispersed to be
well served by mass transit systems. 


--------------------
\4 Welfare to Work:  Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing Job
Placement (GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995). 

\5 Most states have raised their vehicle asset limits under TANF.  As
of Oct.  1997, 47 states had increased their vehicle asset limits
from the $1,500 allowed under AFDC, with 22 states allowing at least
one vehicle of any value. 

\6 K.  Edin and L.  Lein, Making Ends Meet:  How Single Mothers
Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work, (Russell Sage Foundation, 1997). 

\7 C.  Coulton, et al, Housing, Transportation and Access to Suburban
Jobs by Welfare Recipients in the Cleveland Area.  Cleveland, OH,
Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change, Case Western Reserve
University, 1997. 


      URBAN WELFARE MOTHERS AND
      RURAL RESIDENTS HAVE SPECIAL
      TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

According to BTS, transportation for welfare mothers is particularly
challenging because they do not own cars and must make more trips
each day to accommodate their child care and domestic
responsibilities.  According to 1997 Census and Urban Institute
information, most adult welfare recipients were single mothers, about
half of these mothers had children under school age, and more than
three-fourths had a high school diploma or less education.  To reach
the entry-level jobs located in the suburbs without access to a car
they would have to make a series of public transit trips to drop
children off at child care or schools, go to work, pick their
children up, and shop for groceries.  According to BTS, traditional
transit service is unlikely to meet the needs of many welfare
mothers, given their need to take complex trips. 

For those who do not live in a city, transportation to jobs is also
important.  In 1995, the National Transit Resource Center, a
federally funded technical assistance resource, found that about 60
million rural Americans were underserved or unserved by public
transportation.\8 Forty-one percent of rural Americans lived in
counties that lacked any public transportation services, and an
additional 25 percent of rural residents lived in areas with
below-average public transit service.  According to the Community
Transportation Association of America--a nationwide network of public
and private transportation providers, local human services agencies,
state and federal officials, transit associations, and
individuals--the rural poor have less access to public transportation
than their urban counterparts and must travel greater distances to
commute to work, obtain essential services, and make needed
purchases.  In addition, members of low-income rural groups generally
own cars that are not maintained as well as they need to be for
long-distance commutes. 


--------------------
\8 Atlas of Public Transportation in Rural America, National Transit
Resource Center, 1995. 


   FTA'S AND HUD'S PROGRAMS
   SUPPORT WELFARE REFORM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Both DOT and HUD have implemented initiatives to support
transportation strategies for moving welfare recipients off federal
assistance and into full-time employment.  Primarily through FTA's
demonstration programs and seminars and HUD's Bridges to Work
program, these agencies have provided limited funding for programs
that support transportation research and demonstration programs aimed
at helping the poor move from welfare to work.  While the number of
welfare recipients moved into jobs has been low, the programs have
identified programmatic and demographic factors that local
transportation and welfare officials should consider to ensure that
the most effective transportation strategies are employed to support
welfare reform. 


      FTA IS USING SEVERAL
      STRATEGIES TO SUPPORT
      WELFARE REFORM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

According to an FTA official, the agency is supporting
welfare-to-work initiatives by funding demonstration projects,
working with state and local partners to encourage the development of
collaborative transportation plans, providing states and localities
with technical assistance, and developing a program that would
increase the financial resources available for welfare initiatives. 
Of the estimated $5 million that FTA has provided for welfare
initiatives in 1993 through 1998, the agency's largest effort has
been its JOBLINKS demonstration program.  JOBLINKS, a $3.5 million
demonstration program administered by the Community Transportation
Association of America, began in 1995 to fund projects designed to
help people obtain jobs or attend employment training and to evaluate
which types of transportation services are the most effective in
helping welfare recipients get to jobs. 

As of March 1998, JOBLINKS had funded 16 projects located in urban
and rural areas of 12 states.\9 Ten projects are completed and six
are ongoing.  While the projects' objectives are to help people
obtain jobs or attend employment training, the projects' results have
differed.  For example, a JOBLINKS project in Louisville, Kentucky,
was designed to increase by 25 percent the number of inner-city
residents hired at an industrial park.  The JOBLINKS project
established an express bus from the inner city to the industrial
park, thereby reducing a 2-hour commute for inner-city residents to
45 minutes.  Although an April 1997 evaluation of the project did not
indicate if the project had met the 25-percent new-hire goal, it
stated that 10 percent of the businesses in the industrial park were
able to hire inner-city employees as a result of the express service. 
Another JOBLINKS project--in Fresno, California--was established to
provide transportation services to employment training centers and
thereby reduce dropout rates and increase the number of individuals
who found jobs.  The April 1997 evaluation of the project found that
of the 269 participants in a job training program, 20 had completed
the program and 3 had found jobs. 

FTA has also helped state and local transportation agencies develop
plans for addressing the transportation needs of their welfare
recipients.  In 1997, FTA and the Federal Highway Administration
provided the National Governors' Association (NGA) with $330,000 to
develop plans that identify the issues, costs, and benefits
associated with bringing together the transportation components of
various social service programs.  In January 1997, NGA solicited
grant applications and 24 states and one territory applied for
grants.\10 All 25 applicants received grants and are participating in
the demonstration project; final plans are expected by September
1998. 

FTA has also sponsored regional seminars that focus on the
transportation issues involved in welfare reform and the actions that
states and local agencies need to take to address these issues.  The
seminars are intended to encourage the states to develop
transportation strategies to support their welfare reform programs
and to facilitate transportation and human services agencies working
together to develop plans that link transportation, jobs, and support
services.  In addition, FTA helps fund the National Transit Resource
Center, which provides technical assistance to communities.\11 For
example, the Resource Center developed an Internet site that provides
up-to-date information on federal programs, transportation projects,
and best practices. 


--------------------
\9 Phase I of the program was completed in fiscal year 1996 and
covered 10 projects; another 6 projects are currently under way in
Phase II.  Phase I sites were Fresno, CA; Portland, OR;
Glendale/Azalea, OR; Pine Bluff, AR; Blytheville, AR; Louisville, KY;
seven counties in Southeast KY; Cabarrus County, NC; Sault Ste. 
Marie, MI; and Detroit, MI.  Phase II sites are Kansas City, KS; Anne
Arundel County, MD; North Delta, MS; Zuni Pueblo and McKinley County,
NM; Rochester, NY; and Wayne and Cabell Counties, WV. 

\10 The 24 states and one territory are Alaska, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

\11 The National Transit Resource Center is operated by the Community
Transportation Association of America with support from FTA and HHS. 


      HUD'S BRIDGES TO WORK
      PROJECT IS IN EARLY STAGES
      OF IMPLEMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

HUD's Bridges to Work program is a 4-year research demonstration
program that began in late 1996 with $17 million in public and
private funding.  This program is intended to link low-income,
job-ready, inner-city residents with suburban jobs by providing them
with job placement, transportation, and support services (such as
counseling).  The program was conceived by Public/Private Ventures, a
nonprofit research and program development organization located in
Philadelphia.  Under the program, a total of about 3,000 participants
in five cities--Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, and St. 
Louis--will receive employment, transportation, and support services. 

According to HUD, it became involved in welfare reform because a
large portion of its clients are low-income or disadvantaged persons
who rely upon welfare benefits.  Several HUD programs, according to
Bridges to Work program documents, are intended to address the
geographic mismatch between where the jobless live and where
employment centers operate.  Bridges to Work researchers identified
three solutions to this mismatch:  (1) disperse urban residents by
moving them closer to suburban jobs, (2) develop more jobs in the
urban community, or (3) bridge the geographic gap by providing urban
residents with the mobility to reach suburban jobs.  HUD's Bridges to
Work program is intended to address the third solution.  It was
designed to determine whether the geographic separation of jobs and
low-income persons could be overcome by the coordinated provision of
job, transportation, and support services. 

The program's goal is to place 3,000 low-income people in jobs during
the 4 years of the program.  Through March 1998, the Bridges to Work
program had placed 429 low-income, urban residents in suburban jobs. 
According to the project's sponsors, the number of placements has
been low in part because the program accepts only job-ready
applicants--a criterion that limits the number of eligible
participants when unemployment rates are low and job-ready people are
already employed.  A Bridges to Work participant must meet the
following criteria:  He/she must be at least 18, have a family income
of 80 percent or less of the median family income for the
metropolitan area (e.g., $29,350 for a family of one in Milwaukee),
live in the designated urban area, and be able to work in the
designated suburban area.  In addition, no more than one-third of the
participants can be former AFDC recipients.\12 The pilot phase of the
program found jobs paying between $6.00 and $7.99 per hour for over
70 percent of the first 239 placements and one-way commutes of
between 31 and 60 minutes each day for over 76 percent of these
placements. 

Bridges to Work officials have found that the five demonstration
sites have encountered two key challenges.  First, each site needed
to establish a collaborative network consisting of transportation,
employment, and social services agencies working together with
employers to ensure the successful placement of applicants. 
Baltimore's network, for example, includes the state transportation
agency, the area's Metropolitan Planning Organization, employment
service providers, the city's employment office, a community-based
organization, the Private Industry Council, and the
Baltimore-Washington International Business Partnership.  Second,
recruiting job-ready participants has been difficult.  During the
current healthy economy, many potential job-ready individuals can
find their own jobs closer to home because jobs are plentiful and
unemployment is low.  The Bridges to Work project's co-director noted
that, in some instances, the sites did not identify an adequate pool
of job-ready individuals and therefore needed to change their
recruiting and marketing strategies to better locate potential
participants for the program. 


--------------------
\12 The project's sponsors designed the demonstration program to
cover many low-income people, not just people covered by any one
assistance program.  Accordingly, no more than one-third of
participants could come from any one antipoverty program such as
HUD's housing, the former AFDC, or DOL training programs. 


      PROJECTS IDENTIFY IMPORTANT
      THEMES FOR DESIGNING AND
      IMPLEMENTING TRANSPORTATION
      PROGRAMS SUPPORTING WELFARE
      REFORM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

FTA's JOBLINKS program, HUD's Bridges to Work program, individual
cities' projects, and past research have reported common strategies
for designing and implementing a transportation program that supports
welfare to work.  Preliminary results show that the following factors
appear to support a program's success:  (1) collaboration among
transportation, employment, and other human services organizations;
(2) an understanding of local job markets; and (3) flexible
transportation systems. 

According to the 1997 JOBLINKS evaluation report and Bridges to Work
project managers, welfare-to-work programs must establish a
collaborative network among transportation, employment, and other
human services organizations to ensure a successful program. 
Officials noted that for welfare recipients and the poor to move from
welfare to work, they need employers' support, transportation
services, and human services organizations' support to find child
care and resolve workplace conflicts.  A Bridges to Work director in
St.  Louis noted that the area's metropolitan planning organization
was motivated to participate in the program because prior
welfare-to-work attempts focused on transportation alone, rather than
providing participants with the job placement and counseling services
needed to find and retain jobs.  In addition, the JOBLINKS program
concluded in a 1997 evaluation of its 10 projects that coordination
among transportation providers, human services agencies, and
employers was an important element of successful welfare-to-work
programs.  Studies conducted in the late 1960s to early 1970s support
this experience.  For example, in the late 1960s, the Los Angeles
Transportation-Employment Project found that improved public
transportation alone was not sufficient to increase employment
opportunities; other factors, such as the shortage of suitable jobs,
obsolete skills, or inadequate education, also had to be addressed. 

According to the 1997 JOBLINKS evaluation report and Bridges to Work
officials, analyses of the local labor and job markets are essential
before local welfare-to-work sponsors select transportation
strategies to serve their projects' participants.  According to
officials, these market analyses should first identify which
employers are willing to participate in the program and if their
locations provide program participants with reasonable commutes. 
Next, each employer's needs, such as shift times and the willingness
to offer "living wages," must be evaluated.  For example, a Chicago
official said that requiring participants to commute 2 hours each way
is not reasonable, particularly for a low-wage job.  Milwaukee's
Bridges to Work officials developed a bus schedule to meet the
12-hour shift times of a large employer participating in the program. 

JOBLINKS' and Bridges to Work's preliminary experiences also show
that flexible transportation systems are needed to address employers'
locations and shift times.  As explained earlier, many studies,
including BTS' study of Boston, showed that lower-income residents
could not rely on mass transit to go from the inner city to suburban
employment in a timely manner.  Mass transit systems ran infrequently
to the suburbs, or at night, and often did not stop close to
employers.  The Denver Bridges to Work site illustrates the
importance of a flexible transportation strategy.  Denver originally
extended the hours of service and added stops to its existing bus
system to address a variety of shift times.  However, Denver
officials soon found that the bus system could not address all the
employers' and employees' needs and added vanpools and shuttles. 


   QUESTIONS REMAIN ABOUT THE
   ACCESS TO JOBS PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Under DOT's Access to Jobs proposal, as well as the proposals passed
by the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, DOT's
financial support of welfare-to-work initiatives would increase
substantially.  The attention given to the transportation component
of welfare reform would increase dramatically as well.  However, the
Access to Jobs program, as currently defined by DOT, does not contain
key information about the program's objectives and expected outcomes
or explain how the results from JOBLINKS and other federal
welfare-to-work programs will be reflected in the program's
operation.  Accordingly, it is difficult to evaluate how funds
provided for an Access to Jobs program would effectively support
national welfare reform goals.  Details may not be available until
after a program is authorized and DOT begins implementation. 

DOT's proposal and related documents generally indicate what the
Access to Jobs program is to accomplish.  The program would provide
grants to the states, local governments, and private, nonprofit
organizations to help finance transportation services for low-income
people seeking jobs and job-related services.  The program would
provide localities with flexibility in determining the transportation
services and providers most appropriate for their areas.  Among other
things, grant recipients could use the funds to pay for the capital
and operating costs of transportation services for the poor, promote
employer-provided transportation, or integrate transportation and
welfare planning activities.\13 However, the lack of specific
information on the program's purpose, objectives, performance
criteria, and evaluation approach makes it difficult to assess how
the program would improve mobility for low-income workers and
contribute to overall welfare reform objectives. 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act),
enacted to improve the effectiveness of and accountability for
federal programs, requires agencies to identify annual performance
goals and measures for their program activities.  DOT's fiscal year
1999 performance plan under the Results Act showcases the Access to
Jobs program under DOT's goals to improve mobility, but the plan does
not define performance goals for measuring the program's success.  In
contrast, the plan establishes benchmarks for other mobility goals,
such as the average age of bus and rail vehicles or the percentage of
facilities and vehicles that meet the requirements of the Americans
With Disabilities Act.  Since an Access to Jobs program is intended
to move people to jobs, rather than build and sustain public
transportation systems, evaluation criteria that correspond to this
goal would be needed. 

In addition, DOT's Access to Jobs Program, as currently defined, does
not fully describe how lessons learned through the JOBLINKS and
Bridges to Work programs would be incorporated into an Access to Jobs
program.\14 For example, although the proposal would require DOT to
consider grant applicants' coordination of transportation and human
resource services planning, the proposal would not specifically
require grant recipients to carry out such coordination.  However,
the proposal would allow other federal transportation-eligible funds
to be used to meet the program's matching requirement.  According to
DOT officials, this provision will help promote coordination between
transportation and social service funding.  In addition, the proposed
program does not specify that grant recipients evaluate the local job
and labor markets before selecting the optimal transportation
services to provide welfare recipients.  Bridges to Work officials
expressed concern that FTA would provide Access to Jobs grants
primarily to local transportation agencies that may be unwilling to
support nontraditional transportation services.  For example, in
Denver, traditional mass transit systems did not provide sufficient
flexibility to transport Bridges to Work participants to their jobs. 
Accordingly, program officials had to add private van pools and
shuttle services to take participants from public transit stops to
their new jobs.  FTA's challenge in efficiently managing the Access
to Jobs program would be to go beyond its customary mass transit
community and work with different local groups (employment, community
services) to support non-mass-transit solutions to welfare-to-work
mobility problems. 

Finally, under its proposal, DOT would be required to coordinate its
Access to Jobs program with other federal agencies' efforts.  This
requirement is particularly important to ensure that FTA's welfare
reform funds are working with, rather than duplicating, those of
other federal agencies.  HHS and DOL have significant levels of
funding that the states and localities can use for transportation
services in their welfare-to-work programs.  In addition, smaller
programs, such as HUD's Bridges to Work program, have been used to
transport welfare recipients to jobs.  For example, in Chicago, a
local organization has received $1.6 million through the Bridges to
Work program; another local organization has applied for a $5.4
million DOL grant to assist welfare recipients in paying for their
transportation to work; and these and other local organizations would
probably be eligible for grants under the proposed Access to Jobs
program.  It is therefore important that DOT's new program ensure
that grant recipients are effectively applying and coordinating their
federal welfare-to-work grants to successfully move people from
welfare to work. 


--------------------
\13 The Access to Jobs programs that would be established under the
House and Senate reauthorization proposals would authorize grants for
some of the same purposes. 

\14 In the report accompanying H.R.  2400, the Building Efficient
Surface Transportation and Equity Act of 1998, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure urged DOT to consider the
experience of several other successful programs. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Welfare and transportation experts agree that current welfare
recipients need many supporting services, such as transportation, job
counseling, and child care, to successfully make the transition from
welfare to work.  An Access to Jobs program would authorize
significant funding ($900 million) to support the transportation
element of welfare reform.  However, the program's success will
depend in part on how FTA defines the program's specific objectives,
performance criteria, and measurable goals and the extent to which
the program balances two national needs:  the need to provide a
supportive framework for helping welfare recipients and the need to
oversee federal dollars so that the program does not duplicate other
federal and state welfare programs.  In addition, a successful Access
to Jobs program should build on lessons learned from existing
welfare-to-work programs.  These lessons learned focus on the need to
coordinate transportation strategies with other local job placement
and social services, the importance of assessing the local labor and
employer markets, and the inclusion of many transportation strategies
(not just existing mass transit systems) in implementing welfare
reform. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

If the Congress authorizes an Access to Jobs program, we recommend
that the Secretary of Transportation (1) establish specific
objectives, performance criteria, and measurable goals for the
program when the Department prepares its Fiscal Year 2000 Performance
Plan; (2) require that grant recipients coordinate transportation
strategies with local job placement and other social service
agencies; and (3) work with other federal agencies, such as the
departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Housing and
Urban Development, to coordinate welfare-to-work activities and to
ensure that program funds complement and do not duplicate other
welfare-to-work funds available for transportation services. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To obtain information about the need for transportation in welfare
reform, we interviewed FTA, HUD, Community Transportation Association
of America, Public/Private Ventures, and National Governors'
Association officials.  These officials also provided insights into
identifying transportation strategies that programs like FTA's
JOBLINKS, HUD's Bridges to Work demonstration project, and the NGA's
Transportation Coordination Demonstration project have used to help
low-income people secure jobs.  In addition, we interviewed program
staff at each of the five Bridges to Work demonstration sites and
visited one of the sites--the suburban office of Chicago's Bridges to
Work program.  We examined the Bridges to Work program's
documentation, preliminary reports, brochures on individual programs,
and other descriptive materials.  We also reviewed the results of two
studies that FTA's Coordinator for Welfare-to-Work activities
identified as significant studies on transportation and welfare
reform--BTS' January 1998 report entitled Welfare Reform and Access
to Jobs in Boston and the July 1997 report entitled Housing,
Transportation, and Access to Suburban Jobs by Welfare Recipients in
the Cleveland Area.  To obtain information on the DOL's grant
applications, we spoke with transportation officials in Chicago and
Los Angeles.  Finally, we reviewed legislative proposals and spoke to
transportation and federal officials to obtain information about
FTA's proposed Access to Jobs program. 

We performed our review from December 1997 through May 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We provided a draft of this report to DOT and HUD for review and
comment.  We met with DOT officials from the Office of the Secretary
and the Federal Transit Administration's Coordinator for
Welfare-to-Work activities to discuss the Department's comments on
the draft report.  DOT agreed with our recommendations and stated
that it has begun to take actions to implement our recommendations
related to coordinating with local and federal agencies providing
welfare-to-work services.  First, DOT provided a May 4, 1998,
memorandum signed by the Secretaries of Transportation, Health and
Human Services, and Labor that encourages coordination among
transportation, workforce development, and social service providers. 
Second, DOT provided examples of how it has begun to encourage
collaboration among state and local transit and social service
providers and how provisions in the Access to Jobs proposal would
foster collaboration further.  We have included information in the
report on DOT's collaboration efforts and the provisions of the
Access to Jobs proposal that will foster collaboration. 

Finally, DOT disagreed with our assessment that an Access to Jobs
program will require the Federal Transit Administration to undergo a
cultural change--a change whereby the agency may have to accept
nontraditional transportation solutions to address barriers to
welfare-to-work programs.  DOT noted that innovative or
nontraditional transportation strategies do not exclusively offer the
best strategies for helping welfare recipients; traditional mass
transit systems may also provide welfare recipients with the means to
reach employment centers.  In addition, DOT stated that as a result
of its collaborative efforts on welfare reform with local and other
federal agencies, it believes that it has been a cultural change
leader.  First, we agree that states and localities should not
routinely exclude traditional bus and rail transit systems as one
approach to helping welfare recipients get to jobs.  Nonetheless, the
DOT and HUD studies cited in this report consistently emphasized the
limitations of existing mass transit systems as the transportation
solution to welfare-to-work barriers.  These systems do not
adequately serve job-rich suburban markets that inner-city welfare
recipients must reach to find employment.  Second, we acknowledge the
initial work that the Federal Transit Administration has undertaken
to prepare state and local transportation officials for their new
welfare-to-work responsibilities and included examples of this effort
in this report.  However, the Access to Jobs program would represent
a significant federal commitment.  Accordingly, a change in the
traditional mass transit culture at the Federal Transit
Administration will still be needed to ensure that Access to Jobs
funds address innovative and nontraditional transportation solutions
to welfare-to-work problems.  DOT had additional technical comments
that we incorporated throughout the report, where appropriate. 

In its comments, HUD stated that we should expand our recommendations
to the Secretary of Transportation to include HUD's suggested changes
to the Access to Jobs program.  (See app.  I.) These suggested
changes would allow Access to Jobs grant recipients to (1) use
program funds for planning and coordination purposes and (2) apply
"soft expenditures" (such as the value of staff reassigned to the
program) to fund their required local match.  In addition, HUD
suggested that it be included among the federal agencies with which
DOT must coordinate program implementation.  HUD's first two
suggestions may be important for the Congress to consider as it
completes programmatic and funding decisions for the Access to Jobs
program through its reauthorization of surface transportation
programs.  However, we have not included these as recommendations in
our report because they address policy issues that were not part of
our review's scope.  We agree with HUD's last suggested change and
have modified our recommendations to include HUD as one of the
federal agencies that DOT should work with when it begins
implementing the Access to Jobs program.  HUD also had minor
technical comments that we incorporated throughout the report, where
appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We will send copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, and the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration.  We will also make copies available to others on
request. 

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202)
512-2834.  Major contributors to this report were Ruthann Balciunas,
Joseph Christoff, Catherine Colwell, Gail Marnik, and Phyllis F. 
Scheinberg. 

Sincerely yours,

John H.  Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation Issues




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
============================================================== Letter 

HUD's comments refer to
our draft report.  GAO's
response to HUD's
comments is on
p.  16 of our report. 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


*** End of document. ***