and Access to Jobs in Boston

and Access toJobs in Boston

U.S. Department of TransportationBureau of Transportation Statistics

BTS98-A-02January 1998

and Access toJobs in Boston

This report was prepared for theU.S. Department of Transportation,Bureau of Transportation Statistics

by Annalynn LacombeResearch and Special Programs Administration

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

The contents of this report reflect the viewof the author and do not necessarily reflectthe views of the policies of the U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation or the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics.

All material contained in this report is in thepublic domain and may be used and reprintedwithout special permission; citation as to sourceis required.

Recommended citation:U.S. Department of Transportation,Bureau of Transportation Statistics,Welfare Reform and Access toJobs in Boston,BTS98-A-02,prepared by Annalynn Lacombe(Washington, DC: 1998)

Copies of this report are available from:Customer ServiceBureau of Transportation StatisticsU.S. Department of Transportation400 7th Street, SW, Room 3430Washington, DC 20590

Phone: 202-366-DATAfax: 202-366-3640email: [email protected] Info Line 1-800-853-1351Internet: www.bts.govFax-on-demand 1-800-671-8012

About the Bureau of TransportationStatistics

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)was established as an operating administra-tion of the U.S. Department of Transportationby the Intermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act of 1991. The Bureau’s missionis to

x compile, analyze, and make accessibleinformation about the nation’s transporta-tion systems;

x collect information on intermodal transpor-tation and other areas as needed;

x enhance the quality and effectiveness ofthe Department’s programs throughresearch and the development of guide-lines;

x promote improvements in data acquisitionand use.

U.S. Department ofTransportation

Rodney E. SlaterSecretary

Mortimer L. DowneyDeputy Secretary

BUREAU OFTRANSPORTATIONSTATISTICS

T.R. LakshmananDirector

Robert A. KniselyDeputy Director

Rolf R. SchmittAssociate Director forTransportation Studies

Philip N. FultonAssociate Director for StatisticalPrograms and Services

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the followingindividuals and organizations for theirhelp in my research and preparation ofthis report:

Todd Maio and Jules GodesMassachusetts Department of TransitionalAssistance

Edward Kaznocha and Rena KottkampMassachusetts Division of Employment andTraining

Gregory PerkinsBoston Redevelopment Authority

Bruce SpearBureau of TransportationStatistics

Jackson RoyalVolpe National TransportationSystems Center

The report was designed and producedfor the Bureau of Transportation Statisticsby the Census Bureau’s Graphics andCreative Design Section.

Annalynn LacombeJanuary 1998

Page

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Welfare recipients, transportation, and employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Profile of the nation’s welfare population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Travel patterns of single mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Suburbanization, deconcentration, and spatial mismatch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Welfare recipients in Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Job opportunities for Boston welfare mothers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Entry-level job opportunities in Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Location of entry-level employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Transit in the suburbs: the job accessibility gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7The gap between transit and employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Transit service takes too long, requires transfer, or is inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix. Industries in Massachusetts Likely to Create New Entry-Level Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Charts

Figure

1. Dependents of non-exempt Boston TANF recipients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. Boston central-city employment by sector: 1970-90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53. Distribution of Boston central-city jobs by education level of jobholders: 1970-90 . . . . . 64. New entry-level jobs in Massachusetts: 1994-2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75. The job accessibility gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Maps

1. Concentration of Boston TANF recipients by ZIP code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102. Entry-level employment growth in greater Boston by city and town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113. Spatial distribution of potential entry-level employers in greater Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124. Transit service to Boston high-employment areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135. Gap in transit service to Waltham, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

i

Contents

Welfare Reform and Accessto Jobs in Boston

INTRODUCTION

The July 1996 welfare reform law, the PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct, made far-reaching changes in federal social ser-vice programs. ‘‘Welfare reform’’ typically refers to thatpart of the law that replaced Aid to Families withDependent Children (AFDC), an entitlement programfor poor families, with block grants to the states calledTemporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).TANF is fundamentally different from AFDC in threeways:

1. It provides states with a lump sum for their wel-fare programs, regardless of changes in the num-ber of families who need assistance.

2. The assistance is time-limited—a state may notuse federal TANF funds to provide assistance to afamily that includes an adult who has receivedbenefits for 60 months, whether or not consecu-tive (but may exempt up to 20 percent of familiesdue to hardship).

3. States must require that parents or caretakersengage in work (as defined by the state) within24 months of receiving assistance.

Under TANF, states are free to set shorter timelimits and stricter work requirements. A NationalGovernors’ Association report dated June 30, 1997,indicates that 22 states plan to have time limits shorterthan 60 months and that 21 will require work before2 years.

The requirement that the poor work in return forassistance is inextricably linked to the issue of mobil-ity. Clearly, work requires mobility—safe and efficienttransportation not only to jobs but to day care centersand other services that make work possible. Thus,adequate transportation is a prerequisite for work andfor welfare reform. Yet, people receiving welfare facetremendous mobility challenges. Welfare recipients aredisproportionately concentrated in big cities and veryfew own an automobile, so most must rely on transitto access employment and related services. Moreover,because more than 90 percent of welfare parents aresingle mothers (Urban Institute 1997), their transporta-tion needs will be much greater once they are work-ing. A recent study shows that poor working mothers

spend more than twice as much on transportation aswelfare-reliant mothers (Edin and Lein 1997). Singleworking mothers also must make several intermediatestops during the commute to and from work: to dropoff children at day care or school, shop for groceries,or pick up children on the way home. Finally, many ofthe entry-level jobs for which recipients are qualifiedare located in the outer suburbs of metropolitan areas,which are not typically served by public transit (see,for example, Coulton, Verma, and Guo 1996). Today,about 70 percent of jobs in manufacturing andtrade—sectors employing large numbers of entry-levelworkers—are suburban (Kasarda 1995).

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau ofTransportation Statistics and Volpe National Transpor-tation Systems Center are engaged in an effort to bet-ter understand the dimensions of the mobility problemfacing welfare recipients across the country. This studyuses a geographic information system (GIS) to assessmobility for recipients living in the City of Boston.Although the scope and specific nature of the mobilityproblem vary considerably among U.S. cities, Bostonpresents a good case study for older Frostbelt citieswith mature central areas and well-developed transitsystems.

This study has three objectives:

1. Determine recipients’ overall access to transitservice.

2. Estimate where in the metropolitan area recipientsare likely to find work and determine these poten-tial employers’ proximity to transit.

3. Ascertain how well mass transit in Boston con-nects welfare recipients and employers and thusmeets recipients’ mobility needs.

This study did not address other key mobility con-siderations, such as the locations of day care centersand other services upon which working mothers rely.

This report profiles the recipient population nation-wide and describes their most significant mobility chal-lenges, namely, the transportation demands of singleparenthood and the changing spatial patterns ofemployment. It also looks at the spatial distributionand key characteristics of TANF recipients in Boston,and assesses recipients’ job opportunities and the

1

location of potential employers. It provides an analysisof recipients’ access to jobs and of transit system per-formance, and presents key conclusions and suggestsareas for future analysis.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS, TRANSPORTATION,AND EMPLOYMENT

Like most poor families in America, families receiv-ing welfare are headed predominately by singlewomen.1 For these women, finding and keeping ajob—and staying off welfare—will require an ongoingbalancing act: managing the demands of work andfamily on a low income and with little support, madeeven more difficult by current spatial patterns ofemployment and limited transportation options.

Profile of the Nation’s Welfare Population

When assessing recipients’ mobility requirements,at least three overall characteristics should be kept inmind: the vast majority of adult welfare recipients aresingle mothers, about half of these mothers have chil-dren younger than school age, and more than three-fourths have only a high school diploma or less. Spe-cifically:

x Of the 4.3 million adults receiving AFDC in 1995,3.8 million, or 88 percent, were females (Depart-ment of Health and Human Services 1997).

x About 19 percent of all welfare cases consist of chil-dren only. Of the cases that do include an adult, 90percent are headed by a single mother (Urban Insti-tute 1997).

x Eighty-one percent of welfare mothers are in theirtwenties and thirties; 74 percent have only one ortwo children. Of all welfare cases with a parent,about 50 percent have at least one child under theage of 5. In 30 percent of the cases, the youngestchild is 6 to 11 years of age, and in the remaining20 percent the youngest child is 12 or older (UrbanInstitute 1997).

x Eighty-four percent of recipients have a high schooleducation or less: 42 percent have less than a highschool education and another 42 percent have ahigh school diploma or equivalency. Sixteen percenthave some college education (Urban Institute1997).

Contrary to popular myth, the majority of welfaremothers are not long-term recipients but rather ‘‘cycle’’back and forth between low-paid work and welfare.

According to the Institute for Women’s PolicyResearch (1995), most welfare mothers are alreadyworking but cannot earn enough to lift their familiesout of poverty. Seven of 10 welfare mothers spendsignificant time in the labor force, with over 40 percentworking more than 950 hours a year and another 30percent actively looking for work. The jobs held bythese women tend to be in the low-paying retail andservice industries (restaurants, hotels, departmentstores, nursing homes, hospitals). These employerspay an average of just $4.29 per hour and employ 40percent of welfare mothers, compared with 19 percentof all women.

A significant factor limiting recipients’ job prospectsis their lack of an automobile. Nationally, less than 6percent of welfare families reported a car as a house-hold asset in 1995; the average value was just $620(Department of Health and Human Services 1997).This ownership figure is probably low, because previ-ous welfare eligibility rules limiting the value of assetsmay have led some recipients to ‘‘hide’’ ownership byhaving a family member or friend hold the title. How-ever, Edin and Lein’s 1997 study of welfare mothers inselected cities found that car ownership among recipi-ents ranged no higher than 20 to 40 percent.

Travel Patterns of Single Mothers

As previously suggested, welfare mothers face anumber of challenges to finding and retaining employ-ment: the responsibilities of single parenthood andyoung children, low educational attainment, irregularwork experience, low pay, and lack of an automobile.Combined, these circumstances create severe mobilityproblems both for welfare recipients and for othersingle mothers. These problems are exacerbated bythe unique transportation requirements of workingsingle mothers, particularly those with low incomes.

As shown by Sandra Rosenbloom (1995), workingwomen overall have different travel patterns andneeds than either working men or nonworking women.For example, data from the 1990 Nationwide PersonalTransportation Survey (NPTS) show that employedwomen, 16 to 64 years old, in urban areas take 3.8person trips a day—12 percent more trips than urbanemployed men and 31 percent more than urbanwomen who are not employed. On average, employedmen make 19 percent more trips a day than men notworking, while employed women make 33 percentmore trips than women who are not employed.Undoubtedly, this is because employed women retainmost child care and domestic responsibilities and linktheir work commute with trips to schools, day carecenters, and other services (Rosenbloom 1995,McKnight 1994).

One result of this need to ‘‘trip chain’’ is thatemployed women, and particularly employed mothers,

1According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest poverty statistics(March 1997), 54 percent of all families living below the povertylevel are headed by female householders with no husband present.

2 Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs in Boston

are becoming increasingly dependent on the automo-bile (McKnight 1994). The 1990 NPTS shows that thenumber of miles driven by all women between 1969and 1990 increased 76 percent, and more thandoubled among women aged 16 to 34 (compared witha 46-percent increase for all men). As explained byRosenbloom, ‘‘working women with children are par-ticularly dependent on the car because it is thebest—and perhaps only—way to balance the childcare and domestic responsibilities they retain whenthey enter the paid labor force’’ (1995, p. 2-48).

The need to balance domestic and job responsibili-ties is especially acute for single mothers. Thesewomen face more domestic demands than either mar-ried women or men and are far more likely to havelower incomes. A number of recent studies suggestthat single mothers take both more trips and longertrips than married mothers. For instance,Rosenbloom’s analysis of 1990 NPTS data indicatesthat at almost every income level, single mothersmake more trips than married mothers—with low-income single and married mothers often taking moretrips than women with considerably higher incomes.Moreover, research cited by Rosenbloom suggeststhat single mothers also travel further and longer thanmarried mothers. As discussed in more detail below,one conclusion is that many single mothers, particu-larly those who are poor, are forced to take longertrips because of a ‘‘spatial mismatch’’ between thelow-income neighborhoods in which they live and sub-urban employment centers.

Suburbanization, Deconcentration,and Spatial Mismatch

Welfare recipients are disproportionately concen-trated in inner cities. U.S. Census Bureau statistics forprogram participation in 1992 show that almost half ofall people receiving AFDC or state General Assistancelived in central cities, compared with just 30 percent ofthe U.S. population (1997). At the same time, manyresearchers have documented the economic restruc-turing of cities (particularly in the Northeast and Mid-west), the subsequent loss of blue-collar jobs, and theoverall shift of employment to the suburbs. Asdescribed by John Kasarda:

Fueled by an intense interaction of technological, eco-nomic, and social forces, the economic and demo-graphic structures of metropolitan areas were alteredsignificantly during the 1970s and 1980s. Manufactur-ing dispersed to the suburbs, exurbs, nonmetropolitanareas, and abroad. Warehousing activities relocated tomore regionally accessible beltways and interstatehighways. Retail establishments followed their subur-banizing clientele and relocated in peripheral shoppingcenters and malls. The urban exodus of the middle

class from the central cities further diminished thenumber of blue collar service jobs such as gas stationattendants and delivery personnel. Many secondarycommercial areas of central cities withered as theincome levels of the residential groups that replaced asuburbanizing middle class could not economicallysustain them (1995, p. 234).

According to Kasarda, national trends since 1970show that the metropolitan employment balanceshifted to the suburbs in the mid-1970s and has con-tinued deconcentrating at a rate of approximately 1percent a year. Today, 70 percent of all jobs in manu-facturing, retailing, and wholesaling are in the suburbs.For workers in central cities, suburbanization hasmeant the decline of key industries, such as manufac-turing and trade, that once employed large numbers ofless-educated city residents. In Boston and othermajor northern cities these industries have beenreplaced by ‘‘information-processing’’ industries, suchas finance and public administration, that typically hireworkers with education beyond high school. AsKasarda explains, ‘‘Job losses have been greatest inthose northern urban industries in which educationrequirements for employment tend to be low [while]....Job growth has been concentrated primarily inurban industries in which education beyond highschool is the norm’’ (p. 246). Thus, even though thenew information-processing jobs are ‘‘spatially acces-sible’’ to city workers with less education, they never-theless are functionally inaccessible to them.

In Poverty and Place, Paul Jargowsky points outthat the deconcentration explanation for inner cityunemployment is a variation of the spatial mismatchhypothesis, first stated by John Kain in 1968. In gen-eral, this hypothesis holds that inner city residents areisolated from low-skill jobs for which most of thegrowth is in the suburbs. Although early researchresults were mixed, ‘‘a growing body of evidence sup-ports Kain’s theory that spatial mismatch affects theemployment and earnings of minorities in central cit-ies. The effects seem to be growing over time, as met-ropolitan areas continue to move toward a moredecentralized paradigm’’ (p. 125).

Recent studies have confirmed the relationshipamong inner city residence, transportation access, andemployment. For example, Ihlanfeldt and Sjoquist(1991) determined that travel time was significantlyrelated to the probability of employment for inner cityteenagers: as the length of their required commuteincreased, their probability of having a job declined. Inanother study, Popkin, Rosenbaum, and Meaden(1993) found that those African-American women par-ticipating in the Gautreaux housing program in Chi-cago who relocated to the suburbs were 14 percentmore likely to be employed than those who relocatedto another area of the city. Clearly, given welfaremothers’ poverty, low skills, family responsibilities,

3Welfare Reform and Access to Jobs in Boston

travel needs, and limited transportation options, theyfeel most acutely the effects of increasing employmentdeconcentration and spatial mismatch.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS IN BOSTON

An analysis of welfare recipients’ access to jobsinvolves asking at least three questions: Where dorecipients live? Where are they likely to work? Howwell does transit connect the two?

Welfare reform in Massachusetts predates nationalwelfare reform, having been in effect since Novem-ber 1, 1995. Under TANF, the state is continuing theAFDC waivers approved earlier by the Department ofHealth and Human Services. These waivers set up atwo-tier system for recipients: those subject to a24-month time limit and those also subject to a workrequirement. Approximately half of all adult recipientsare subject to a two-year limit on assistance withinany five-year period. (Other recipients are exemptfrom the time limit due to their own or a child’s disabil-ity or similar reason). Those recipients whose young-est child is age 6 or older must also work a minimumof 20 hours a week.

As of June 1997, there were approximately 74,000welfare families in Massachusetts (Department ofHealth and Human Services November 1997). InBoston, about 7,900 are headed by adults subjectto the two-year time limit.2 Map 1, which shows thenumber of recipients by zip code, indicates thatwelfare families are concentrated in a few adjacentareas of the city.

That recipients are concentrated in particular areasof Boston is not surprising, given that the overall con-centration of poverty3 rose from 12 to 18 percentbetween 1970 and 1990 (Jargowsky 1997). U.S. Cen-sus data for 1990 reveal that the areas in which Bos-ton recipients are concentrated are substantiallypoorer than the city as a whole. Within these neigh-borhoods, more than 25 percent of the population isbelow the poverty level, compared with 18 percent inthe entire City of Boston and just 9 percent in thegreater metropolitan area. Moreover, about 30 percentof the households in these poor areas were receivingsome form of public assistance in 1990, comparedwith 14 percent of all households in the city. In onearea of Boston with a high concentration of recipients,42 percent of households received public assistanceincome.

In addition to being concentrated in the poorestareas of the city, Boston welfare recipients face atleast two severe mobility limitations: most are raisingyoung children and most do not own a car.

Figure 1 shows the age of the youngest child andthe number of children for non-exempt TANF recipi-ents in Boston. More than half have children who arenot yet of school age: these are the mothers who arelikely to have the most difficulty balancing work andfamily responsibilities. About 40 percent of the recipi-ents have no pre-school-age children and are subjectto the immediate work requirement. (Even thoughmothers with young children are not required to work,they are still subject to the two-year time limit, and forsome assistance will cease as early as December

2In this study, ‘‘Boston’’ recipients include those in Boston, Cam-bridge, Somerville, and Brookline.

3Jargowsky defines the concentration of poverty as the percent-age of a metropolitan area’s poor living in high-poverty neighbor-hoods, or census tracts where at least 40 percent of the populationis below the poverty line.

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

��

��


1998.) As with welfare recipients nationwide, three-fourths of those in Boston have only one or two chil-dren.

Recipients in Boston also resemble recipientsnationally in their lack of a car. In fact, car ownershipfor Massachusetts welfare recipients may be evenless likely than for recipients overall. While about 6percent of welfare families in all states reported anautomobile as an asset in 1995, only 3 percent ofMassachusetts families did so (Department of Healthand Human Services 1997).

As mentioned previously, these statistics forrecipients’ automobile assets are probably low,because welfare rules encouraged many recipients toconceal car ownership. Nevertheless, it is likely thatfar more Boston recipients go without a car than pos-sess one. In Edin and Lein’s study of low-wage andwelfare-reliant mothers, only 24 percent of the welfaremothers in Boston reported owning an automobile.Undoubtedly, the mothers without cars face signifi-cantly greater difficulties entering a job market thathas become predominately suburban.

JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOSTONWELFARE MOTHERS

Given their family responsibilities, work histories,and relatively low educational levels, most welfaremothers will have to find entry-level, low-skill jobs. Yet,spatial and skills mismatches have isolated residentsof inner cities from many entry-level job opportunities.The shift in educational requirements for city jobs hasbeen particularly pronounced in Boston, which by1990 had nearly twice as many jobs in industries with

high mean employee education levels as it had inthose with low mean levels. Between 1970 and 1990,jobs in Boston’s high-education industries increasedby 41 percent, while jobs in low-education businessesdropped by 14 percent (Kasarda 1995).

Figures 2 and 3 show the changes in Bostoncentral-city employment by sector and by educationallevel from 1970 to 1990. As indicated in figure 2,employment in manufacturing and trade, sectors thattraditionally hire large numbers of entry-level workers,fell by 19 percent, while employment in white-collarservices increased by 17 percent. Figure 3, whichshows the percentage distribution of Boston jobs bythe educational level of jobholders, is even morerevealing. This figure shows that while almost 30 per-cent of Boston jobs in 1970 were held by workerswithout a high school diploma, by 1990 just 7 percentof jobs were held by such workers. Approximately 70percent of jobs in central-city Boston in 1990 wereheld by those with at least some college education.

Entry-Level Job Opportunities in Boston

The Massachusetts Division of Employment andTraining (DET) projects that approximately 106,000new entry-level jobs will be created in the statebetween 1994 and 2005.4 (The DET defines ‘‘entry-level’’ work as that requiring only minimal on-the-jobtraining.) More than 75 percent of these jobs will be inthe 10 occupations shown in figure 4.

4Labor market analysts generally feel that it is more appropriateto look at new entry-level jobs rather than job openings—whichinclude replacements—since in this market ‘‘replacements’’ typicallyare due to job switching rather than new positions created throughretirements.

Figure 2. Boston Central-City Employment by Sector: 1970-90

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Where will these new jobs be? According to theBoston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), many will notbe in central Boston. The BRA estimates that approxi-mately 3,000 new entry-level jobs are created in thecity each year. Competing for these jobs are about1,100 high school graduates, other new entrants tothe labor force, the unemployed (about 10,000 work-ers in the city), and the 7,900 non-exempt TANFrecipients.

The competition for entry-level positions in Bostonis not different than that in other cities. One study, forexample, found that the ratio of job applicants to hiresin Harlem’s fast-food industry was 14 to 1. This studyconcluded that an ‘‘oversupply of job-seekers causesa creeping credentialism in the ghetto’s low-wage ser-vice industries’’ and that, therefore, ‘‘welfare recipientswill have a tough time beating out their competitioneven for these low-wage jobs’’ (Newman and Lennon,1995). A recent study in Chicago estimates that therewould be six workers for every entry-level position inthat city if all people unemployed or on welfare wereto look for jobs (cited in Weir 1997). Clearly, many ofBoston’s welfare recipients will have to seek work out-side the central city in one of the metropolitan area’sfast-growing suburbs.

Location of Entry-Level Employment

Entry-level job opportunities for welfare recipientsare not evenly distributed across the greater Bostonarea.

Because the Massachusetts DET does not projectjob growth below the statewide level, identifying thelocation of potential employers first requires an esti-mation of where such growth will likely occur. In thisstudy, this was accomplished by

1. using an occupation/industry matrix to determinewhich industries hire workers in the state’s high-growth entry-level occupations,

2. collecting employment data for these industries forall cities and towns in greater Boston, and

3. analyzing the employment figures to determinewhich cities and towns have experienced thegreatest job growth in these industries.

The DET’s occupation/industry matrix rank-ordersthe industries employing persons in specific occupa-tions in Massachusetts. (The U.S. Department ofLabor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes such amatrix for the United States as a whole.) This matrixindicates that five industries are likely to create thebulk of the new entry-level jobs shown in figure 4:retail and wholesale trade, restaurants, hotels, healthcare services, and business services. (The appendixlists the industries determined to be most likely to hireworkers in the top 10 entry-level occupations.Throughout the rest of this report, they are referred tosimply as ‘‘entry-level industries.’’)

Industry employment statistics for Massachusettscities and towns are available through the state’sES-202 program, which compiles data on employment

Figure 3. Distribution of Boston Central-City Jobs by Education Levelof Jobholders: 1970-90

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


and wages for workers covered under state unemploy-ment insurance laws. The city and town data arereported annually by three-digit Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC) code.

Using these employment figures, it is possible todetermine the actual rates of job growth in entry-levelindustries for cities and towns constituting the Bostonmetropolitan area (defined here as those within theI-495 ‘‘loop’’). Data for 1992 and 1995 show that theaverage employment growth rate for entry-level indus-tries in greater Boston was 8.5 percent.5 (The City ofBoston experienced below-average employmentgrowth in these industries, at about 6 percent a year.)The growth in entry-level industry employment by cityand town is shown on map 2. This map reveals thatthe highest growth areas for such industries between1992 and 1995 were well outside of the central city.

The next step in this analysis was to identify spe-cific companies in industries likely to hire entry-levelworkers that are located in cities or towns with above-average job growth in these industries (referred tohere as ‘‘high-growth areas’’). A DET database ofMassachusetts companies lists about 3,200 such busi-nesses with 20 or more employees. Map 3 showstheir spatial distribution.

Finally, map 4 shows the Boston area’s transitroutes in relation to the high-growth areas for entry-level employment. This map makes clear the fact thatmost of these areas are either underserved by or wellbeyond the reach of public transit. The rest of thisreport is devoted to an analysis of public transitaccess to jobs for Boston’s welfare recipients.

TRANSIT IN THE SUBURBS: THE JOBACCESSIBILITY GAP

Living in or near a central city with a well-developedtransit system, welfare recipients in Boston shouldhave excellent access to some form of transit service.Indeed, about 98 percent of recipients are within one-quarter mile of a bus route or transit station. Yet, asshown in figure 5, there is a ‘‘job accessibility gap’’:just 32 percent of potential employers in the Bostonarea are within one-quarter mile of transit.6 Moreover,only 43 percent are within one-half mile of transit and58 percent within 1 mile.

In general, four classes of deficiencies preventBoston’s transit system from providing access to theuniverse of available jobs:

5The employment growth rate for each city or town was derivedusing 1992 as the base year (the last year of a major recession inMassachusetts) and calculating the number of jobs added or lost by1995 (the most recent year for which data were available) for theindustries in each relevant SIC code (see appendix).

6Here, potential employers are the 3,200 companies in the DETdatabase that are located in high-growth areas for entry-levelemployment and that are in industries most likely to create newentry-level jobs. See map 3.

Figure 4. New Entry-Level Jobs in Massachusetts: 1994-2005

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


1. As shown on map 4, many high-growth areas forentry-level employment are in the outer suburbsand well beyond existing transit service.

2. Some areas are served only by commuter rail,which in most cases fails to provide direct accessto employment sites and is prohibitively expensivefor recipients.

3. For many suburban areas served by transit thereis a substantial gap between existing routes andstations and growing employment areas.

4. Even when transit does provide direct access to asuburban job, the trip takes too long or requiresseveral transfers, or transit schedules and hoursdo not match work schedules.

The Gap Between Transit and Employment

Map 4 shows that several high-growth areas forentry-level work are served by transit. Yet, these ser-vices are not designed for inner city commuters travel-ing daily to suburban jobs. Instead, most suburbanroutes are meant to take residents of ‘‘bedroom com-munities’’ to city jobs downtown. Map 5 shows howthis can leave large gaps between existing transitroutes and suburban employment centers.

The site of map 5 is the Town of Waltham, a high-growth suburb west of Boston located along Route128. Specifically, the map shows an area in NorthWaltham with 77 employers that currently employ

about 3,000 entry-level workers. Clearly, this mapshows that although a number of bus routes serve theNorth Waltham area, none are within walking distanceof the 77 employers shown; the closest bus is morethan one-half mile away. Although this appears to sug-gest the need for a feeder service or vanpool from thisbus to employment sites, both the length and com-plexity of the trip from Boston to Waltham, as dis-cussed below, make an extended or flexible routemore feasible.

Transit Service Takes Too Long, RequiresTransfers, or Is Inadequate

Although welfare recipients in Boston have goodaccess to transit, existing service does not reachmany suburban jobs. For example, a commuter travel-ing to North Waltham from a central point in one areaof the city with a high concentration of recipientswould have to take three buses—a trip of 1 hour and40 minutes—and then walk more than a mile to get towork. Moreover, from this central-city location:

x Not one of the potential employers in high-growthareas for entry-level work can be reached within30 minutes by transit.

x Just 14 percent of the employers can be reachedvia transit within 60 minutes. These employers

Figure 5. The Job Accessibility Gap

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��


account for only 10 percent of all entry-level jobsthat currently exist in high-growth areas.7

x Thirty-one percent of employers can be accessedwithin 90 minutes, representing 33 percent of cur-rent entry-level jobs.

x And, finally, 48 percent of the employers in thisstudy cannot be reached by transit within 2 hours—or 45 percent of the existing entry-level jobs.

As big as these gaps in accessibility are, these dataactually present a ‘‘best-case’’ scenario for recipientswho must rely on transit. This spatial analysis doesnot consider impediments such as inadequate hoursof transit operation, infrequent or unreliable transit ser-vice, or security concerns of recipients using isolatedbus stops or transit stations during off-peak hours. Forexample, mirroring the situation at many suburbanmalls, transit service to a large mall in Burlington, oneof Boston’s western suburbs, ends at 9:30 p.m., whenthe mall closes. Because employees of the mall’sretail establishments typically must stay at work pastclosing, they cannot rely on transit for their trip home.This service gap effectively shuts out workers withoutan automobile from employment at the mall.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates that although Boston’swelfare recipients have adequate access to transit,existing transit service does not reach a large number

of potential employers. Boston recipients face tremen-dous mobility problems, including lack of transit ser-vice in the suburbs, gaps in existing service, longtravel times, numerous transfers, and inadequateschedules. Moreover, traditional transit service isunlikely to meet the transportation needs of many wel-fare mothers, given their need to make frequent inter-mediate trips during the commute to and from work.

Nevertheless, this analysis also suggests that itmay be possible to improve or expand the existingtransit system so that it more closely meets welfarerecipients’ needs. For example, technology innova-tions such as flexible routing, advanced paratransitservices, and other applications of information technol-ogy offer real, if limited, solutions to improving transitservice to low-density suburban areas. Thesetechnology-based solutions also may facilitate serviceinnovations, including extended schedules, expressroutes in key corridors, modified routes, and day careservices at transit stations. Such improvements in thetechnology and operation of the existing transit systemmay do more to improve transit’s overall efficiency andutility than creating complementary services solely forwelfare recipients.

Finally, the results of this analysis also suggest theneed for further study in a number of areas. First, it iscritical that assessments such as this be expanded toinclude access to day care, job training, and other ser-vices. Next, a network analysis is needed to determinethe overall time and monetary costs of transportationfor welfare recipients and other inner city residents.Lastly, additional studies in other cities and in ruralareas are necessary to further develop GIS applica-tions for use as a policy and planning tool by transitagencies, metropolitan planning organizations, humanservices agencies, and others faced with the chal-lenge of implementing welfare reform.

7Estimates of current entry-level employment were derived by (1)taking the midpoint of the size-class range for each company(obtained from the DET employer database) and (2) using the DETindustry/occupation matrix to determine what percentage of employ-ees may be considered entry-level.


Map 1. Concentration of Boston TANF Recipients by ZIP Code

0 2 4 6

Number of Recipients in Zip Code Not in Study 1 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 749 Over 750

Miles


Map 2. Entry-Level Employment Growth in Greater Boston by City and Town

Miles

0 9 18 27

Employment Growth RateCould Not Be Classified

Negative Growth

Below Average Growth (Less than 8.6%)

Above Average Growth (8.6% or More)

Outside of Study


Map 3. Spatial Distribution of Potential Entry-Level Employers in Greater Boston

Miles

0 9 18 27

Employment Growth Rate

Could Not Be ClassifiedNegative GrowthBelow Average Growth (Less than 8.6%)Above Average Growth (8.6% or More)Outside of Study

Massachusetts Boundary

Town BoundaryHighwayEmployers

Employment Growth Rate


Map 4. Transit Service to Boston High-Employment Areas

Miles

0 9 18 27

Map LayersMassachusetts Boundary

Town Boundaries

Bus Routes

Commuter RailFixed Guideway Transit

High Growth Towns

Towns


Map 5. Gap in Transit Service to Waltham, MA

✉✉✉✉✉✉

✉✉✉✉✉

✉✉

✉✉✉

✉✉

✉

✉

✉✉

✉

✉

✉✉✉✉✉

✉✉

✉✉✉✉✉

✉✉

✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉

✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉✉

✉ ✉✉ ✉✉

✉✉✉✉

✬

0 .30 .60 .90

Miles


References

Boston Redevelopment Authority. 1997. Internalmemorandum. 13 February.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Division ofEmployment and Training. 1996. MassachusettsEmployment by Occupation and Level of Educationand Training, 1994-2005. Boston, MA. December.

. 1994. The Job Guide, Volume I: Occupa-tional Staffing Patterns in Massachusetts Industries.Boston, MA. January.

Coulton, C.J; N. Verma, and S. Guo. 1996. TimeLimited Welfare and the Employment Prospects ofAFDC Recipients in Cuyahoga County. Cleveland, OH:Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, CaseWestern Reserve University. December.

Edin, K., and L. Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet:How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-WageWork. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Ihlanfeldt, K.R., and D.L. Sjoquist. 1991. TheEffect of Job Access on Black and White YouthEmployment: A Cross-sectional Analysis. UrbanStudies 28, no. 2:255-265.

Jargowsky, P.A. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos,Barrios, and the American City. New York, NY: RussellSage Foundation.

Kain, J.F. 1968. Housing Segregation, NegroEmployment, and Metropolitan Decentralization.Quarterly Journal of Economics 82:175-197.

Kasarda, J.D. 1995. Industrial Restructuring andthe Changing Location of Jobs. State of the Union:America in the 1990s, Volume I: Economic Trends.Edited by R. Farley. New York, NY: Russell SageFoundation.

McKnight, C.E. 1994. Transportation with Women inMind. The Journal of Urban Technology Fall:1-15.

National Governor’s Association. 1997. Summaryof Selected Elements of State Plans for TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF). [cited 30June] Available from http://www.nga.org/welfare/WelfareRecentDevelopments.html/

Newman, K., and C. Lennon. 1995. The JobGhetto. The American Prospect no. 22:66-67. Avail-able from http://epn.org/prospect/22/22newm.html/

Popkin, S., J. Rosenbaum, and P. Meaden. 1993.Labor Market Experience of Low-Income BlackWomen in Middle-Class Suburbs: Evidence from aSurvey of Gautreaux Program Participants. Journal ofPolicy Analysis and Management 12, no. 3:556-573.

Rosenbloom, S. 1995. Travel by Women. 1990Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey: Demo-graphic Special Reports. FHWA-PL-95-032. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration. February.

Spalter-Roth, R.,B. Burr, H. Hartmann, and L.Shaw. 1995. Welfare that Works: The Working Livesof AFDC Recipients. Washington, DC: Institute forWomen’s Policy Research. March.

Urban Institute. 1997. A General Profile of theWelfare Population. Available from http://eris.doleta.gov/ohrw2w/recruit/urban.html/

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus. 1997. Current Population Survey. March.Available from http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty96/pvest1.html/

. 1997. Dynamics of Economic Well-Being:Program Participation, 1991 to 1993. Available fromhttp://blue.census.gov/hhes/www/transfer.html/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children and Families. 1997.Change in Welfare Caseloads. [cited November] Avail-able from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/caseload.html/

. 1997. Aid to Families with Dependent Chil-dren: Characteristics and Financial Circumstances ofAFDC Recipients FY 1995. Available from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/content.html/

Weir, M. 1997. Is Anybody Listening? The UncertainFuture of Welfare Reform in the Cities. The BrookingsReview 15, no.1:30-33.

15

Appendix

Industries in Massachusetts Likely to Create New Entry-Level Jobs

The following list of industries likely to hire entry-level workers was derived from state occupational employmentprojections by education and training category and the DET’s occupation/industry matrix for Massachusetts:

SIC Industry SIC Industry

20 Food and Kindred Products 70 Hotels and Other Lodging Places26 Paper and Allied Products 72 Personal Services271 Newspapers 734 Services to Buildings308 Misc. Plastics Products, NEC 736 Personnel Supply Services42 Trucking and Warehousing 737 Computer and Data Processing Services481 Telephone Communications 738 Misc. Business Services482 Telegraph and Other Communications 78 Motion Pictures489 Communications Services, NEC 801 Offices and Clinics of Medical Doctors50 Wholesale Trade—Durable Goods 802 Offices and Clinics of Dentists51 Wholesale Trade—Nondurable Goods 803 Offices of Osteopathic Physicians53 General Merchandise Stores 804 Offices of Other Health Practitioners54 Food Stores 805 Nursing and Personal Care Facilities55 Automotive Dealers and Service Stations 806 Hospitals56 Apparel and Accessory Stores 807 Medical and Dental Laboratories57 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 808 Home Health Care Services58 Eating and Drinking Places 809 Health and Allied Services, NEC59 Miscellaneous Retail 81 Legal Services60 Depository Institutions 821 Elementary and Secondary Schools63 Insurance Carriers 822 Colleges and Universities65 Real Estate

17

and Access to Jobs in Boston

Documents

Transcript of and Access to Jobs in Boston