Under the previous Job Training and Partnership Act, Cleveland was its own ..... are the general educational development (GED) and specific vocational ...... who would benefit from skilled trade opportunities are moved right into non-traditional.
WELFARE REFORM AND ACCESS TO JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN AREA
Neil Bania, Claudia Coulton and Laura Leete
Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 44106-7164 (216) 368-6946
This chapter will appear in a book on the Multi-City Access to Opportunity Study, Edited by Michael Rich, Emory University. This study was funded by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
WELFARE REFORM AND ACCESS TO JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN AREA
I. Introduction: Setting and Context The Cleveland metropolitan area is the site for this case study of access to job opportunities and welfare reform. The unique social, economic and political context in Cleveland is relevant to understanding how welfare reform is implemented and the degree to which its objectives are achieved. Therefore, the study begins with a description of the geographic and political boundaries of the Cleveland metropolitan area and highlights some general features of state and local welfare reform policy and implementation. The chapter also presents selected demographic and economic trends that are relevant to welfare programs and employment opportunities. Metropolitan Political Jurisdictions Cleveland is located on the shores of Lake Erie and is the central city in an eightcounty metropolitan area, which is designated as the consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA). A map of the CMSA is presented in Figure 1. The employment portion of this case study uses this CMSA for analysis because it is considered a regional labor market. However, counties administer welfare programs in Ohio. Thus, Cuyahoga County, the largest of Ohio’s 88 counties, is the main focus of the welfare analysis in this case study. Cuyahoga County’s welfare caseload is concentrated within the City of Cleveland, but there are over 50 other suburban municipalities within the county as well.
1
Figure 1. The Eight Counties of the Cleveland-Akron CMSA
Three county agencies administer programs that are related to welfare reform. Cuyahoga Work & Training is responsible for cash benefits and welfare to work programs for families receiving or at risk of needing cash assistance. Federally, cash assistance is available as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF. In Ohio, the federal TANF program is administered as Ohio Works First or OWF. Throughout this paper we will refer to this type of assistance as OWF. Cuyahoga Health and Nutrition administers medical assistance, food stamp and various social service programs for low-income families and individuals who do not require cash assistance under OWF. There is also a county Child Support Enforcement agency. Each agency has a director who reports to a three-member Board of County Commissioners. City or county governments in Northeast Ohio administer many other public programs and services pertinent to welfare reform. Public housing, child welfare, mental health and alcohol and other drug treatment services are operated by county level agencies. Community development programs are primarily municipal functions. There 2
are both municipal and county health departments in the region. Public schools are administered by local school boards that, for the most part, comport with municipal boundaries. Only a few relevant agencies are regional such as the childcare resource and referral networks and the Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency (NOACA), which is responsible for transportation and other regional planning. The public transit systems in the region are special governmental districts that conform to county boundaries. However, they operate under a charter from state government and have their own independent taxing authority. Six of the eight counties in the Cleveland-Akron CMSA operate public transit systems. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority serves Cuyahoga County and operates over 100 bus routes and three rail lines. The Akron Metro Regional Transit Authority serves the City of Akron and the surrounding areas of Summit County. Lake County, located to the east, and Lorain County, located to the west, are served by their own transit agencies. However, both systems are quite limited with fewer than six bus routes. Portage and Medina Counties have small public transit agencies that operate “dial a ride” services rather than fixed bus route schedules. With few exceptions, most of the transit agencies do not cross county boundaries. Each of the public transit agencies in Lake, Lorain, and Summit County operates a single express bus route designed to move passengers from the outlying counties into downtown Cleveland. Under current policies and schedules, these routes do not provide an effective means for would-be passengers to travel from the City of Cleveland to the outlying counties. The Cuyahoga County public transit operates three or four bus routes that are timed to meet bus routes operated by Lake, Lorain, and
3
Summit County. Service is infrequent, time consuming, indirect, and requires the payment of two fares since the systems do not have a fully reciprocal transfer policy. The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority is supported by a dedicated one percent sales tax in Cuyahoga County. About one-third of the system’s revenues are provided by the tax, another 25 percent by fare box revenue, and the remainder is provided by state and federal government grants. The board is made up of ten members with four appointed by the mayor of the City of Cleveland, three appointed by the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners, and three appointed by the Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. Employment and training programs are delivered by a vast array of public and private organizations. Hundreds of private organizations, mostly not-for-profit, but also profit-making enterprises, play a role in labor force development. Many of these organizations receive government funds from TANF and programs that are now part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), to serve welfare recipients and other low-skill workers. Cities and counties are in the process of setting up boards to administer WIA funds. Under the previous Job Training and Partnership Act, Cleveland was its own Service Delivery Area (SDA) and the balance of the County was a separate SDA. Employment programs through OWF are administered by counties. The City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County each provide some employment services directly at their own centers. The city intends to operate several one-stop employment centers and the 11 Neighborhood and Family Service Centers run by the county provide work experience placements and job search assistance.
4
The juxtaposition of labor markets that are regional with government programs that are administered by numerous county and municipal jurisdictions presents a number of challenges for creating opportunities under welfare reform. The rich array of private organizations that also are involved represent a tremendous asset but also compound the political and organization complexity. Such is the political context for this case study of the Cleveland metropolitan area. Welfare Reform Policy Ohio’s welfare reform program, set out in House Bill 408, is known as Ohio Work’s First (OWF). The OWF program puts into effect the new federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and goes beyond these requirements in many respects. Among the most significant elements of OWF are time limits on cash assistance, work requirements and transitional benefits and services. OWF places a 36-month time limit on cash assistance in any 60-month period. This is over and above the five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance established under federal welfare reform rules. Ohio’s three-year clock began running in October 1997. The time limit applies to adult-headed cases and there is a provision for hardship exemptions for up to 20 percent of the caseload. OWF single parent households are required to work at least 30 hours per week; two parent households must work 35 hours. At least 20 of those hours must be in an allowable work activity such as employment, job search, on-the-job training or full-time post-secondary education for up to one year. An additional ten hours may be spent in developmental activities such as GED programs or counseling related to employment. Failure to cooperate with the work requirements can lead to a family losing their cash
5
benefits for a one-, three- or six-month period depending upon the number of instances of non-compliance. Financial incentives for employment and transitional benefits are another feature of OWF. The first 250 dollars and one half of the remainder of earnings each month is disregarded in calculating cash benefits. Medical assistance and childcare subsidies are available for one year after leaving cash assistance and thereafter, based on financial eligibility. OWF has also set aside funds for transportation and diversion programs. Up to 5 million dollars per year has been allocated to provide work-related transportation to OWF recipients. The Prevention, Retention and Contingency (PRC) program allows families to be helped with urgent needs so that they can stay off cash assistance or remain employed. Ohio has chosen not to apply for the Department of Labor’s welfare-to-work funds and is instead financing job-related services out of its basic TANF allocation. The Ohio Department of Human Services (ODHS) administers the OWF program at the state level. In addition to OWF, that agency is responsible for Medicaid, food stamps, child welfare, child support enforcement, child-care subsidies and regulation and a number of other social service programs. Heretofore ODHS has not been responsible for employment programs such as employment services funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, unemployment insurance or the state employment offices that were administered by the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES). However, in 1999, Ohio began the process of merging these two agencies so that WIA and OWF employment programs will now be housed in a single component of state government.
6
Since counties administer welfare programs in Ohio, the State requires that each county submit a plan for welfare reform, which is then formalized in a contract with ODHS. Cuyahoga County’s plan established 11 neighborhood family service centers to handle benefits administration and welfare-to-work activities. Representatives of other agencies and service programs needed for family support and employment are also located at the centers. Cuyahoga Work & Training adopted a single case manager model in which a self-sufficiency coach determines eligibility, assesses employment and training potential and needs, develops a self-sufficiency plan, makes referrals for specialized services as needed and coordinates and monitors client progress. In addition to the self-sufficiency coach’s case management services, the County also contracts with numerous private organizations to supply employment-related services for OWF recipients. Demographic and Economic Trends Welfare reform in Cuyahoga County was introduced in a dynamic demographic context. The population trends in Cleveland resemble many older, industrial cities that have become increasingly suburbanized. The population that was once clustered in central-city industrial neighborhoods has now spread into surrounding cities and counties. The older central-city neighborhoods now have very high poverty rates and municipal boundaries confine these pockets of poverty to a few political jurisdictions. In some cities, older neighborhoods have experienced significant immigration from Asia and Latin America, but such is not the case in Cleveland. With a falling population base in the region, extremely poor neighborhoods in the Cleveland have thinned out, averaging 25 percent vacant parcels in 1996.
7
Table 1 presents selected demographic trends for the region. The Cleveland metropolitan area has not grown in terms of population during the last three decades but the population has become more widely dispersed. Since 1970, the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have declined in population by 33.7 and 19.1 percent respectively. While the surrounding counties have increased their population share, the region as a whole has experienced a net population loss since 1970 as well. Table 1: Demographic and Economic Trends, Cleveland-Akron CMSA Population a CMSA Cuyahoga Cleveland City
1970
1980
1990
1997
3,098,048 1,720,835 750,879
2,938,277 1,498,400 573,822
2,859,644 1,412,140 505,616
2,916,056 1,391,864 497,743
Percent CMSA pop. in central city a
24.24 %
19.53 %
17.68 %
17.07 %
Poverty Rate a CMSA Cuyahoga Cleveland City
8.83 % 9.77 % 17.10 %
9.64 % 11.29 % 21.76 %
12.0 % 13.8 % 28.7 %
11.7 % b 14.3 % b 29.7 % d
Percent Cuyahoga poor in high poverty t racts a 18.09 %
21.33 %
28.99 %
Percent Blacka CMSA Cuyahoga Cleveland City
12.73 % 19.10 % 38.30 %
14.58 % 22.75 % 43.77 %
15.53 % 24.78 % 46.49 %
16.60 % 26.86 % 48.90 %
Percent Hispanic a CMSA Cuyahoga Cleveland City
1.18 % 1.16 % 1.86 %
1.49 % 1.63 % 3.12 %
1.87 % 2.15 % 4.42 %
2.28 % 2.66 % 5.56 %
Percent Foreign Born a CMSA Cuyahoga Cleveland City
5.75 % 7.54 % 7.51 %
5.14 % 6.97 % 5.81 %
4.14 % 5.63 % 4.15 %
1,394,955 877,415 374,988
1,478,679 880,719 371,604
1,592,279 911,830 331,956
1,751,328 954,693
31.94 % 30.20 %
25.98 % 24.47 %
19.67 % 18.09 %
16.94 % 14.53 %
Total Employment c CMSA Cuyahoga Cleveland City e Percent Manufacturing Employment c CMSA Cuyahoga a
U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1970, 1980, 1990; Bureau of the Census, 1997 population estimates. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 1997. c Bureau of Labor Statistics, ES -202 series, compiled by Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Measurement Division, 1997. d Poverty Estimates for 1994, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Case Western Reserve University e Special tabulation of the Census Place of Work Data for the State of the Cities Data Set, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1998. b
8
The low-income population of the region has become increasingly concentrated within the City of Cleveland as evidenced by the poverty rates presented in Table 1. Furthermore, the poor residents of the county have become increasingly more likely to live in extremely poor neighborhoods. The percentage of the county’s poor living in census tracts with poverty rates of 40 percent or more had reached 29 percent by 1990. With respect to the concentration of poverty, the Cleveland metropolitan area compares unfavorably with other regions of the county. A study of the 100 largest metropolitan areas found Cleveland to be among the most economically divided, with both affluent and poor households living in relative isolation (Coulton et al., 1996). The concentration of poverty in the Cleveland metropolitan area is a function of its fairly high-income inequality and also the fact that its African-American population is among the most highly racially segregated in the nation (Massey and Eggers, 1990). Moreover, while the poor have largely remained in the central part of the region, the affluent population has tended to cluster at the outskirts of Cuyahoga County and across the county line (Coulton et al., 1996). Table 1 also presents the ethnic composition of the area. The Cleveland metropolitan area has a sizable African-American population (labeled as ‘percent black’ in the 1990 Census) but a relatively small Hispanic population. Unlike many regions that are growing, the Cleveland area has little immigration from other countries as can be seen in the relatively small percentage of the population that is foreign-born presented in Table 1. The Cleveland area economy also has experienced many significant changes characteristic of northern industrial cities. These economic changes are clearly integrally
9
related to the demographic shifts described above. During the first half of the twentieth century, Cleveland grew into a strong manufacturing center. At that time Cleveland ranked high in the nation on many indicators of prosperity. It was hard hit, however, as the size of its manufacturing sector declined precipitously after 1970. While manufacturing represented approximately 30 percent of employment in 1970, it had declined to under 15 percent by 1996. The region has recently compensated for this loss by the significant development of its service sector, but the earnings of workers without advanced education have fallen. Suburbanization has also affected employment, with many enterprises relocating to the suburbs and with the development of new manufacturing and service sector jobs in outlying areas. As shown in Table 1, recent employment growth has been exclusively suburban in nature. Total employment in the region grew by 25 percent between 1970 and the mid-1990s, but employment within city boundaries actually fell during the same time period. Between 1991 and 1996, the number of jobs in the City of Cleveland actually fell by 1.6 percent while the suburbs experienced job growth of 121 percent (Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). By the end of the 1990s though, there were signs that adverse trends of the 1970s and 1980s might be abating. Developers have begun to fill in vacant land in city neighborhoods with over 1,000 new homes. There have been remarkable examples of retail and industrial development in previously depressed sections of the city. Population loss has slowed in the city after the rapid losses of the previous decades. The impressive revitalization of the downtown and lakefront has boosted the image of the city and the climate for investment. Led by service sector growth, employment in the downtown
10
district of the city has increased by as much as 7 percent since the decade began, after years of decline (Gottlieb and Bogart, 1998). Neighborhood development efforts also have expanded and intensified with employment retention and workforce development programs of the empowerment zone and other community building and development programs. Finally, central cities, inner-ring suburbs and preservation-minded outlying communities have been working together to address the problems of urban sprawl. The powerful economic forces that swept over the Cleveland area in the past are factors with which the region is beginning to contend. The community’s growing confidence that it can tackle such challenges has provided an energized, action-oriented context for welfare reform.
II. The Problem: Spatial Analysis of the Welfare to Work Challenge The OWF Population Caseload Trends. The number of Ohio’s residents participating in cash assistance (formerly known as AFDC and now known as OWF) was rising at the beginning of the 1990s but has declined steadily since 1993 (See Table 2). Ohio’s caseload decline preceded the nation’s decrease, which did not begin until 1994. Cuyahoga County’s welfare caseload began to decline in 1994, and fell more slowly than the caseload in the rest of the state. This pattern of large cities showing slower rates of caseload decline than the balance of their states has been documented in a number of other locations (Katz and Carnevale, 1999). The gradual caseload decline between 1993 and 1996 occurred before either state or federal welfare reform legislation was passed. This was, however, a period of rising employment, although Cuyahoga County’s recovery lagged that of the balance of the 11
state. The caseload decline continued through the welfare reform planning stages in 1996 and early 1997 and is seen most clearly after OWF was implemented in late 1997. The economic growth was sustained during this period as well. A study of Cuyahoga County families that left cash assistance in third quarter, 1996, before welfare reform, revealed that 60 percent were working in jobs they had found largely on their own (Coulton and Verma, 1999). Thus, the local caseload decline seems to be reflective of both economic factors and changes in local welfare programs due to welfare reform.
Table 2: Cash Assistance Caseloads in Cuyahoga County, the Clevland-Akron CMSA, and Ohio Cuyahoga County Cleveland-Akron CMSA Ohio Years Recipients % Change Recipients % Change Recipients % Change 1989 128,214 195,809 632,226 1990 125,218 -2.34 192,062 -1.91 626,754 -0.86 1991 125,505 0.23 195,187 1.63 663,434 5.85 1992 134,357 7.05 212,301 8.77 747,298 12.64 1993 137,650 2.45 213,097 0.37 720,476 -3.59 1994 135,680 -1.43 207,831 -2.47 691,099 -4.08 1995 129,797 -4.33 195,829 -5.77 629,719 -8.88 1996 118,882 -8.41 178,155 -9.03 552,304 -12.29 1997 113,860 -4.22 171,063 -3.98 518,595 -6.1 1998 94,121 -17.35 137,946 -19.36 386,239 -25.52 1999 77,074 -18.11 107,938 -21.34 284,482 -26.34 Source: Ohio Department of Human Services. Recipients are as of January of each year.
An interesting question about caseload decline is whether it is mainly occurring due to more individuals leaving assistance or fewer individuals entering the system. In Cuyahoga County, the decline from 1992 to 1996 was largely fueled by shorter welfare spells, especially among recent entrants to the system (Coulton, Verma and Guo, 1996). This was increasingly the case as time went on. More recently, there has been a decline in welfare entry, with fewer individuals being added to the welfare roles in recent years. Although the absolute caseload size has been decreasing, the remaining caseload is
12
comprised of individuals who have been on welfare longer than average. They may, therefore, have more barriers to employment than their counterparts who have already exited welfare. Caseload demographics. The cash assistance caseload in Cuyahoga County is predominantly young, made up of young mothers and their children (see Table 3). Older women on assistance are often grandmothers or other relatives taking care of children, but this group also includes some mothers of older children. A significant percentage of the children on welfare are in child-only cases (28 percent of the caseload), in which the adult caretaker is not the biological mother but another relative who does not receive cash for themselves. These adults are not required to work under welfare reform. Their characteristics are not reflected in the caseload demographics presented here. African-Americans have increasingly come to dominate the ethnic and racial composition of the caseload in Cuyahoga County since welfare reform was implemented. As shown in Table 3, Cuyahoga County has a greater percentage of African-American welfare recipients than the other counties in the region; the majority of the region’s Hispanic recipients live outside of Cuyahoga County. Table 3 also shows that less than half of the adults receiving cash assistance in either Cuyahoga County or the Cleveland CMSA have a high school diploma or a GED certification. Most adults on the caseload have been receiving assistance fairly regularly since the federal lifetime limit went into effect in October 1996. In these respects, the caseload has become more disadvantaged, suggesting that individuals with stronger ties to the labor market have been leaving assistance in large numbers over the last few years.
13
Characteristic Age:
Table 3: Characteristics of Cash Assistance Recipients, 1999 Cuyahoga County CMSA Percent of Recipients
5 and under 6-12 13-17 18-25 26-40 41 and over
29.96 29.15 12.63 11.15 13.60 3.52
30.42 28.50 12.36 11.70 13.62 3.40
17.29 75.32 0.16 5.90 0.12 1.22
26.18 66.91 5.44 0.19 0.17 1.16
1.09
0.94
Percent of Adults: 0-6 months 7-12 months 13-18 months 19-24 months 25-35 months
8.39 8.89 9.46 11.14 62.12
10.4 10.06 10.33 11.9 57.31
High School Graduate or GED: Percent of Adults
43.94
46.77
Child Only Cases: Percent of Assistance Groups
27.85
28.61
Race/Ethnicity: White, not Hispanic Black, not Hispanic Hispanic Asian American Indian Other Not Citizens: Number of months receiving cash since Oct. 1996:
Source: Ohio department of Human Services, OWF Demographic Reports, June, 1999
The Geographic Distribution of OWF Households. As noted above, the Cleveland metropolitan area has high levels of residential segregation by income. This pattern extends to the population of OWF recipients in Cuyahoga County, which is quite geographically concentrated in relatively poor sections of the metropolitan area. The spatial pattern of residences of adult OWF recipients is seen in Figure 2 (shown here as the residences of ADC recipients in 1995) and summarized in Table 4. OWF recipients
14
are concentrated within the City of Cleveland, particularly on the relatively poorer east side of the city. Seventy-eight percent of OWF recipients reside within the city boundaries of Cleveland, with the remainder in the surrounding suburbs. Even poor adults, more generally defined as adults in households with incomes below federally designated poverty levels, are more dispersed, with only 71 percent living within city boundaries. These figures stand in sharp contrast with the distribution of the overall population of the county, of whom only 34 percent reside within the city.
Figure 2.
While Figure 2 provides a visual sense of the spatial distribution of OWF households, it does not provide a definitive quantitative measure. To this end, we calculate several alternate measures of spatial concentration. The first of these is an adaptation of the C-index (Coulton, et. al., 1996; Jargowsky and Bane, 1991; Kasarda, 1993). This index is simply the proportion of a population living in areas with high
15
concentration of some characteristic. In this case, we examine the population shares in census tracts in which at least 15 percent of households receive public assistance, and the percent living in census tracts with poverty rates of 40 percent or more.1 A third measure is the index of dissimilarity, or D-index (Massey and Denton, 1988; Abramson, Tobin, and VanderGroot, 1995; Jargowsky, 1997). This is a measure widely used by sociologists to measure degree of segregation. The index indicates the share of a population that would have to be moved to some other census tract in order to achieve equal representation in each census tract of the metropolitan area. The D-index is calculated as: D = .5∑ qi − ri , i
Where qi represents the share of a given population (e.g. all welfare recipients) living in census tract i and ri represents the share of all persons not in the specified population (e.g. all adults who do not receive welfare) living in census tract i. A fourth, and related index, is the P-index (Massey and Eggers, 1990). This measures the probability that individuals from one group will encounter individuals from other groups within their census tract. It is calculated as: P = ∑ qi [ yi / t i ] , i
Where qi is defined as above, yi is the number of persons not in the specified group living in census tract i, and t i is the total population of census tract i. Sometimes known as the interaction index, the P-index “is the minority-weighted average of each census tracts
1
1990 Census data is used to establish census tract characteristics.
16
majority proportion” (Massey and Denton, 1988, p. 288). Thus, a lower P-index indicates higher levels of segregation.
Table 4. The Geographic Distribution and Concentration of Households in the Cleveland-Akron Metropolitan Area Adult Cash Assistance 1990 Census Recipients 1990 Census Adult Adult Poverty (July 1997) Population Population Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Cuyahoga County City of Cleveland Suburban Cuyahoga County
29,138 22,729 6,409
Measures of Concentration within Cuyahoga County Percent in Census Tracts with 15+ Percent Welfare Households Percent in Census Tracts with 40+ Percent Poverty Population D-Index P-Index
100% 78% 22%
1,072,941 369,395 703,546
100% 34% 66%
118,881 84,526 34,355
100% 71% 29%
71.3%
22.9%
62.9%
24.7% 55.3% 90.9%
6.3% n/a n/a
26.6% 49.0% 71.9%
These four concentration measures are shown in Table 4 for different populations — adult OWF recipients, the overall population and the poor population. These measures reveal strikingly different degrees of spatial segregation for the different populations. In particular, OWF households are more concentrated in both ‘high welfare’ and 'high poverty' census tracts than the population at large or the poor population. Seventy-one percent of adult OWF recipients live in tracts in which at least 15 percent of households receive public assistance (compared with 22.9 percent of the whole population and 62.9 percent of the poor population). The D-index and the P-index yield similar conclusions. Significantly, 55.3 percent of OWF recipients would have to move in order to be evenly dispersed throughout the county.
17
A final illustration of the relative geographic distributions of different populations can be made by measuring the portion of the population that lives a given (straight line) distance from the population-weighted centroid of the county. This is shown in Figure 3, for the whole population and the population of adult OWF recipients. The 'higher' line for the OWF population demonstrates the higher concentration of their residences near the county center.
Figure 3. Spatial Distribution of Different Sub - Populations, Cuyahoga County
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Adult Recipients Population
0.20
0.00 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Mile s from County Population Centroid
Job Opportunities Number and Location of Available Jobs. While the OWF recipients studied here reside in Cuyahoga County, the labor market available to them is the entire eight-county Cleveland-Akron CMSA. Thus, our jobs database encompasses that entire area.
18
Estimates of the number and locations of projected job openings were prepared using three steps. First, we determined the occupations for which the majority of welfare recipients are likely to be qualified. Second, we estimated the expected number of job openings within these occupations. Third, we allocated these openings to the geographic locations (e.g. census tracts) of the industries in which they are expected to occur. In this section, we describe the general approach to developing estimates of entry-level job openings. More details regarding this methodology can be found in our previous work (Leete and Bania, 1995, 1999; Leete, Bania and Coulton, 1998; Coulton, Leete and Bania, 1999). Identifying Low Skill Occupations. Starting with census data from the 1990 5Percent Public Use Micro Sample (1990 PUMS), we identify the entry-level occupations that are most skill-appropriate for the population likely to leave cash assistance and enter the labor force. These occupations typically require 11 or 12 years of education and less than six months of job-specific training. They are identified on the basis of occupational skill-content measures and the distribution of educational attainment for those employed in an occupation.2 The skill content measures are an idealized version of the training and skills deemed necessary to perform in a particular occupation, while the actual educational level of workers in each occupation reflect market conditions in the Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area. Using factor analysis, we combine these measures of occupational requirements into a single skill content index. Occupations are ranked by this index and a cut-off appropriate to the 'entry-level' criteria was chosen. 2
The skill-content measures used are the general educational development (GED) and specific vocational preparation (SVP) scores developed by the U.S. Department of Labor in The Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 4th edition (1977). The educational attainment measure used is the first quartile of educational
19
Projections of Job Openings by Occupation. Projections of the expected number of annual openings by occupation for the years 1995-2005 were obtained from the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. Annual job openings come from two sources: the annual growth projections for each occupation and the expected number of net annual replacement openings. These projections are full-employment forecasts; they forecast changes in equilibrium employment, anticipating normal labor force growth. Geographic Locations of Industries and Job Openings. The geographic location of existing employment by industry can be identified using data from the national data file Zip Code Business Patterns or from state level ES202 data (derived from employer unemployment insurance records). The work presented here is based on Zip Code Business Patterns data. Employment by industry by zip code was then converted to employment by occupation by zip code using average occupational staffing levels (derived from the 1990 PUMS for the Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area) for each census industry category. Anticipated job openings at each skill level were then estimated for each zip code by allocating job openings in a specific occupation in proportion to the existing geographic distribution of employment in that occupation. To make the job openings data conform with the information available for OWF recipients, the final step was to convert zip code level data to census tract level data. To accomplish this, we used MapInfo, a geographic information systems (GIS) software program. MapInfo converts our zip code level job openings data into a density (i.e. job openings per square unit of land area). Then this density is overlaid with the census tract boundaries and finally converted into actual job openings within each census tract area. attainment for individuals employed in an occupation as reported in the 1990 PUMS for the ClevelandAkron metropolitan area. The first quartile measure is indicative of minimum acceptable education levels.
20
The final geographic distribution of annual entry-level job openings is summarized in Table 5. As Table 5 shows, most job openings are expected to be in the suburban areas of the Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area. The City of Cleveland accounts for less than 20 percent of the job openings, while nearly 80 percent lie outside the city. With the exception of suburban Cuyahoga County, no single suburban area dominates. Yet, taken together nearly 50 percent of the job openings are located outside of Cuyahoga County. The geographic distribution of entry-level job openings across the metropolitan region is shown in Figure 4A, while Figure 4B combines the job openings data with the distribution of adult welfare recipients from Figure 2.
Table 5: Geographic Distribution of Annual Entry Level Job Openings, Cleveland-Akron Metropolitan Area Entry Level Jobs Number Percent of Total Metropolitan Area Total 12,298 100.0 % Cuyahoga County City of Cleveland Cuyahoga suburbs Ashtabula County
6,274 2,412 3,862 303
51.0 % 19.6 % 31.4 % 2.5 %
Geauga County Lake County Lorain County Medina County Portage County Summit County (with City of Akron)
240 974 915 600 555 2,437
2.0 % 7.9 % 7.4 % 4.9 % 4.5 % 19.8 %
21
Figure 4A.
While the job openings are generally highly dispersed across seven counties, there appear to be five distinct areas of concentration (see Coulton, Leete, and Bania, 1999): •
Downtown Cleveland,
•
Northeastern Cuyahoga County and western Lake County near the junction of Interstate 90 and Interstate 271,
•
Southeastern Cuyahoga County and northern Summit County near the junctions of Interstate 480, 271, US Route 422 and the Ohio Turnpike,
•
Southwestern Cuyahoga County, near Cleveland Hopkins Airport and the junction of Interstate 71 and 480, and
•
Central and eastern Medina County and western Summit County near the junction of Interstate 271, 71, and 76.
22
Figure 4B.
Support Services Welfare recipients often experience substantial barriers to work and require various types of services to transcend these barriers. Childcare, employment and training services and transportation are among the most important services for the welfare to work transition. Whether or not recipients can access these services depends on the overall supply of services and whether they are located in proximity to residences and employers. A question that is more difficult to answer is whether the available services are compatible with the needs and preferences of the recipient population. Childcare. Like most working families with children, welfare recipients who obtain jobs or participate in meeting Ohio’s work requirements need care and supervision for their children. It is widely accepted that welfare reform will result in an increased need for paid childcare and, therefore, government subsidies for childcare are an important part of welfare programs in Ohio. Childcare subsidies, mainly in the form of
23
vouchers, are available for all OWF recipients 12 and under, whose parents are participating in meeting work requirements. Transitional child care benefits are available for up to one year after a family leaves cash assistance or until their income exceeds 150 percent of the poverty threshold. Ohio families whose income is below 185 percent of the poverty threshold, but who are not receiving OWF, may also receive assistance to pay for childcare. However, non-welfare families must pay part of the cost of their childcare on a sliding scale basis. Childcare subsidies are guaranteed for OWF recipients but are not guaranteed for other low-income families. Until recently, childcare subsidies were restricted to payment for care in licensed childcare centers and family day care homes. Since the inception of welfare reform, subsidies can now be paid to relatives who care for OWF children and these individuals presently do not need to meet licensing requirements or pass an inspection. The extension of subsidies to a broad group of relatives was, in part, a response to preferences expressed for this type of care, especially by mothers of infants and toddlers. Parents of pre-school age children tend to prefer center based care. This, however, may not be available during the times of day that parents need it and, even with the help of subsidies, may be unaffordable (Pearlmutter and Katona, 1998.) Furthermore, allowing relative care was a way to rapidly increase the supply of care, especially for the youngest children for whom there was a perceived shortage of care. Nevertheless, the unregulated nature of this care is of concern due to the fact that its quality is not known and the possibility that it could become a less expensive substitute for more educationally oriented group care. In recognition of the increased need for childcare under welfare reform, the federal and state dollars available for these payments have been increased considerably.
24
In fact, available funds for childcare subsidies in Ohio have gone up more than 30 percent since welfare reform went into effect. However, the payment per child remains below market rates and studies have shown that it is difficult for centers or day care homes to recoup start up costs or provide high quality programming if most of their slots are filled by subsidized children (Sheridan, 1998). Therefore, the availability of funds for families to purchase child care does not guarantee that families will be able to find care that is convenient and acceptable. Indeed, the question can be raised as to whether there are sufficient childcare services in the Cleveland area and whether these services are accessible to children whose parents are making the transition from welfare to work. Estimating the supply and demand for childcare under welfare reform has proven challenging for several reasons (Gallagher et al., 1997). First, the type and amount of care families need depends upon the age of the children, the hours worked by the parent, the availability of other members of the household to care for children and the preferences of the family. Second, data are only available on regulated childcare services, even though much childcare is provided informally. Third, there is some uncertainty as to what proportion of welfare recipients are likely to participate in work requirements at any given time and, therefore, be eligible for childcare subsidies. Bearing these limitations in mind, we estimate the supply of regulated child care in the Cleveland area using data from Starting Point, the child care resource and referral network. Starting Point, along with a network of collaborating agencies, provides leadership for the community to develop new and expanded childcare resources that meet the needs of all the region’s children. Furthermore, they have led a community effort to respond to the needs of welfare recipients who are participating in work requirements. In
25
this analysis, we focus on childcare programs for children ages 0 through 5. After school programs for children ages 6 through 12 are also an important service but, because many of these programs are recreational, they are not included among the child care licensing and certification agencies that supply data to Starting Point. The childcare slots in the Starting Point data are largely filled slots. Thus, they represent slots for which there is currently effective demand. Children on welfare, whose parents are subject to work requirements but who are not currently participating or using childcare represent a potential increase in demand for slots. The ratio of the potential increase in demand to the existing capacity of the system is an indication of how adequately the regulated childcare system may be able to respond to the effects of welfare reform. These figures are presented in Table 6.
26
Table 6: Possible Effect of Welfare Reform on the Childcare System – Ratio of Potential New Demand to Existing Supply, Cuyahoga County, 1997 Potential Demand (Children on OWF Not Currently in Childcare)
Existing Supply (Regulated Child Care Slots)
Ratio of Child Care Potential Demand to Number of Existing Slots
City of Cleveland Suburbs Unknown
Infant Care (Under Age 1) 2,925 1,129 773 1,464 165 0
2.59 0.53
Cuyahoga County
3,863
2,593
1.49
City of Cleveland Suburbs Unknown
Toddler (1 - 2 years old) 9,043 2,743 2,220 3,261 493 13
3.30 0.68
Cuyahoga County
11,756
6,017
1.95
City of Cleveland Suburbs Unknown
Preschool (3 - 5 years old) 6,352 11,666 1,460 19,686 340 40
0.54 0.07
Cuyahoga County
8,152
31,392
0.26
All Children (Age 0 - 5) City of Cleveland Suburbs Unknown
18,320 4,453 998
15,538 24,411 53
1.18 0.18
Cuyahoga County
23,771
40,002
0.59
Source: Starting Point Child Care Resource and Referral System and Cuyahoga County Department of Entitlement and Employment Services (June, 1997).
The ratios suggest the amount by which the system would have had to expand if all work-required OWF families sought childcare for their children in the regulated childcare system. This, in fact, is an unlikely scenario since some families will probably be able to obtain childcare from relatives or other unregulated sources, and since others will fail to meet the work requirements. Nevertheless, the ratios reveal that at the
27
beginning of welfare reform implementation in 1997, the greatest shortage of childcare was expected to occur in the central city for infants and toddlers. Little shortage of childcare was anticipated in suburban communities, especially for 3 to 5 year old children. The maps appearing in Figures 5, 6, and 7 further demonstrate that the greatest childcare shortages are concentrated in particular neighborhoods near the center of the city.
Figure 5.
28
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
29
The option of paying relatives to care for children whose mothers are moving from welfare to work has the potential to fill the gap between the supply of childcare homes and centers and the potential need. Relative care may be more flexible and acceptable to the parents, although little is known about the quality and safety of such care. It is still unclear how whether many individuals will avail themselves of this type of care. However, the number of children using subsidies for relative care increased by 46 percent between 1997 and 1999 (see Table 7). Nevertheless, relative care still represented a very small percent of the total subsidy use in 1999. An additional important aspect of childcare is that it be conveniently located. Our focus groups suggested that mothers generally preferred childcare locations near their homes rather than near their jobs or on their way to work (Pearlmutter and Katona, 1998). To investigate whether parents were having to travel to more distant child care locations as demand has increased under welfare reform, we use child care subsidy files to calculate the number of miles between home and childcare location. We did this for June 1997 and June 1999. These results are presented in Table 7. It can be seen that travel distances remained quite similar over this time period even though use of the subsidy grew. Furthermore, in both years fewer than 25 percent commuted more than 3 miles to their childcare location. Somewhat less than 25 percent commuted distances less than .5 miles, a distance that might be considered walkable. Thus, it appears that most subsidy users must use either private auto or public transportation to reach their childcare destinations.3
3
It should be noted that the public transit fare structure accommodates day care trips for working parents. Up to three children under six may ride free with an adult and up to three children ages six to fifteen can
30
Table 7: Distance from Home to Childcare (in Miles) for Families Receiving Childcare Subsidies 1997 1999 Number (%) of children receiving subsidies Center based care 13,843 ( 77 %) 17,887 ( 71 %) Family childcare homes 3,780 ( 21 %) 6,460 ( 26 %) Relative care 333 ( 2 %) 566 ( 3 %) Total 17,956 (100 %) 24,913 (100 %) Mean (S.D.) miles to childcare Center based care Family childcare homes Relative care
2.09 (2.26) 1.60 (1.92) 1.99 (2.59)
2.09 (2.41) 1.79 (2.11) 2.00 (2.99)
Source: Cuyahoga County, subsidized child care files, June, 1997 and 1999
Employment and Training The employment and training services that serve Ohio’s families on welfare are not part of any single system. Cuyahoga Work & Training is the entry point for cash assistance recipients. Self-sufficiency coaches are responsible for initially helping people to move as quickly as possible into employment or to prevent them from losing their job in the first place. The coaches are also able to refer recipients to various education, training and placement programs that can assist them in becoming employed. Many welfare recipients also find employment or education and training on their own. Cuyahoga Work & Training has 11 neighborhood locations known as Neighborhood Family Service Centers. In addition to administering public assistance benefits, the Centers offer some employment services such as assessment, supportive counseling, job referrals and brokering of other employment related services. Help with childcare and transportation is also provided at the neighborhood family service centers. The locations of the Centers were selected so that they would be near clusters of recipients and accessible by public transportation. Numerous government, non-profit and ride with an adult for a one-dollar surcharge. A parent may take exit a bus and resume their trip later with
31
proprietary organizations throughout the region supply adult and vocational education and employment training and services. A significant subset of these organizations have contracts with the County to serve the OWF population. Referrals to these contractors are made by self-sufficiency coaches or by contract service providers who provide specialized vocational or clinical assessments and referrals. The agencies under contract with the County to provide employment and training services and the neighborhood family service centers appear in the map in Figure 8. They are generally located in the central areas of the county, close to residences of OWF participants but at great distance from areas of employment growth. Few employment service contractors are located in the suburbs. Figure 8. Major contracted employment and training programs
Although most of the employment and training programs accept referrals from many sources, there is a particular set of agencies that constitute a network that has come together to serve OWF recipients with more significant vocational needs. They are part of a consortium known as the Cuyahoga Work & Training Alliance and have agreed to work
the use of a transfer.
32
with over 6000 assistance group heads that are at risk of reaching time limits and seem to require multiple services. The agencies making up the Alliance also appear in Figure 8. It can be seen that they are generally clustered in the central city, near the homes of the majority of welfare recipients. While all of these providers are quite accessible to the residential locations of Cuyahoga County welfare recipients, they are at considerable distance from the centers of entry-level job concentration in the suburbs. The employment and training sites are heavily concentrated in the City of Cleveland. This distance from the job centers, especially those in other counties may limit the degree to which the training programs attended by welfare recipients are going to be effective in linking them to jobs throughout the regional labor market. However, the residential locations of welfare recipients might preclude them from reaching training programs if they were in the outer ring suburbs and counties. Job Access and Accessibility Previous sections of this report have explored the geographic distributions of the residences of OWF recipients, the support services that they need and the job openings in which they are most likely to become employed. In this section, we explicitly compare the spatial distributions of homes and jobs and measure the average commute times that they imply. Because moving OWF recipients into the workforce is one of the most important goals of welfare reform, measures of access to skill appropriate job openings are likely to play an important role in policy discussions. From the previous discussion, it is clear the OWF recipients are relatively concentrated in the center of Cuyahoga County, while entry-level job openings are rather
33
dispersed in outlying areas. This spatial mismatch can be further quantified. In Figure 9, we plot the cumulative share of job openings and populations by their distance from the population-weighted centroid of Cuyahoga County. While most OWF recipients live within 10 miles of the centroid, only 75 percent of the general adult population and 45 percent of entry-level jobs are located within the same radius.
Figure 9. Spatial Distribution of Entry Level Jobs and the Welfare Population, Within 16 Miles of Cuyahoga County Population Weighted Centroid
1.00
Share
0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00
0
2
4
6
8 Miles
10
12
14
16 Entry Level Jobs Adult Welfare Recipients Adult Population
Based on data from the 1990 Census, we also develop three indices of job accessibility from the centroid of each census tract: •
Access Measure 1: The percent of all entry-level job openings in the ClevelandAkron metropolitan area located with a given straight-line distance from the centroid of a census tract. This measure is computed for distances of 5 miles, 10 miles, 15 miles, 20 miles, and 25 miles. Based on the 1990 Census, the average length commute by automobile in the Cleveland PMSA is about 7 miles with a standard deviation of just over 5 miles. For public transit, the mean is 6.5 miles, and the standard deviation is just less than 4 miles.
•
Access Measure 2: The percent of all entry-level job openings in the ClevelandAkron metropolitan area located within a given automobile commute time from a census tract centroid. This measure is computed for various times: 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, and 40 minutes. Based on the 1990 Census, the average length
34
auto commute in the Cleveland PMSA is about 23 minutes with a standard deviation of about 12 minutes. •
Access Measure 3: The percent of all entry-level job openings in the ClevelandAkron metropolitan area that located within a given public transit commute time from a census tract centroid. This measure is computed for various times: 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes, 50 minutes, 60 minutes, 70 minutes, and 80 minutes. Based on the 1990 Census, the average length public transit commute in the Cleveland PMSA is about 39 minutes with a standard deviation of about 18 minutes. Our measures of commute time by mode are based on a statistical model that we
developed using data from the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). The details are described in Leete, Bania and Coulton (1998). We adopted a variety of measures of job access for two reasons. First, many welfare recipients do not have access to an automobile and therefore are quite dependent on public transit systems. From 1990 Census data we calculate that of all Cuyahoga County households that received some public assistance income in 1989, 52 percent did not have access to an automobile. Public transportation is more time consuming than automobile travel; many bus lines do not operate 24 hours per day; and most importantly, public transit often does not reach suburban areas where job growth is greatest. For this reason, we developed separate measures of job access via public transportation and auto commuting (access measures 2 and 3). Even given the importance of such measures, many communities might not have the data resources or the ability to derive such complex measures. Therefore, we develop the simpler distance-based measure as an alternative (access measure 1). Table 8 presents all three measures of job accessibility for all adult welfare recipients. We computed the average value for each of the three job accessibility indexes across all tracts in the county, weighted by the number of persons in the population in each tract. The data demonstrates that travel by public transit is much slower than travel
35
by automobile. Those who depend on the public transit system pay a big price either in terms of increased commute times or decreased access to job opportunities. For example, for the average welfare recipient, an auto commute of 20 minutes results in access to 12.8 percent of entry-level job openings, while a commute of the same length via public transit yields access to only 1.9 percent of job openings. For a 30-minute trip, the auto commute provides access to 41.7 percent of job openings, versus 7.1 percent for a public transit commute. Thus, auto commuting provides access to roughly six times as many job opportunities as commuting by public transportation. Alternatively, it would take public transportation commuters about 65 minutes to reach the same number of job opportunities as auto commuters can reach in 30 minutes. Each day, this would amount to an extra 70 minutes of commute time for public transit users to have equal access to job openings. These findings are summarized in Table 9, which presents a relative measure of job access for public transit and automobile commuting. This measure is the ratio of public transit access to automobile job access for a commute of a given time. It captures the gap between public and auto travel for a commute of each time. For example, a 30-minute commute by public transit will yield access to about 17 percent of the job openings that could be reached via an auto commute.
36
Table 8: Percent of Entry Level Job Openings Accessible by Welfare Recipients Access Measure #1 -- By Straight Line Distance From Home to Job 5 Miles 14.4% 10 Miles 36.4% 15 Miles 53.9% 20 Miles 66.5% 25 Miles 76.9% Access Measure #2 -- By Automobile Commute Times 10 Minutes 0.5% 20 Minutes 12.8% 30 Minutes 41.7% 40 Minutes 68.4% Access Measure #3 -- By Public Transit Commute Times 10 Minutes 0.3% 20 Minutes 1.9% 30 Minutes 7.1% 40 Minutes 18.0% 50 Minutes 29.8% 60 Minutes 38.0% 70 Minutes 42.7% 80 Minutes 45.0%
It should be noted that these estimates of job access via public transit represent somewhat of a best-case scenario. They represent job access by public transit, assuming that transit schedules coordinate well with work schedules. While this may be the case for those with standard ‘nine to five’ work schedules, it may not be the case for others with less standard work assignments. While some bus routes do operate 24-hours per day and seven days per week, many do not. In virtually all cases, service levels are reduced during off-peak hours. Many service industry jobs require new entry-level workers with the least seniority to work non-standard and irregular shifts, making their use of public transit more difficult.
37
Table 9: Relative Job Accessibility Measures – The Ratio of Entry Level Job Openings Accessible by Public Transit to Entry Level Job Openings Accessible by Auto Ratio of Accessibility by Bus and Auto 10 Minutes 20 Minutes 30 Minutes 40 Minutes
0.66 0.15 0.17 0.26
III. The Response: Institutional Arrangements for Addressing the Welfare to Work Challenge The challenge of enabling nearly all adults on welfare to become employed and stay off of the welfare roles requires systems to work together in ways and at a scale that are previously unprecedented. The necessary plans and working relationships have mainly evolved at a local and regional level for two reasons. First, Ohio’s welfare programs are administered by county rather than by state government. Second, many of the barriers to employment for welfare recipients are uniquely local and regional in nature and the agencies and organizations that can contribute to overcoming these barriers tend to be local as well. In this section, we provide a review of some of the ways the institutions and systems in the Greater Cleveland area have begun to work together to create greater access to employment opportunities for welfare recipients since the passage of welfare reform. A series of interviews were conducted with key informants in Fall 1999 to obtain information for this review. Twelve key informants were selected to represent government sectors such as transportation, employment training and human services; non-profit organizations; and planning and advocacy organizations. A snowball sampling
38
techniques was incorporated in that previous interviewees suggested some candidates for further interviews. The interviewer followed a semi-structured interview guide which contained questions about new or modified programs, services and procedures that were being developed to enable large numbers of welfare recipients to become and remain employed. The interviews especially focused on initiatives that dealt with increasing access to the regional labor market and overcoming the spatial and social barriers to obtaining suburban jobs. Interviewees were asked to describe the process of collaboration and relevant aspects of inter-organizational relations represented by these initiatives. They were queried further about the factors that helped or hindered collaboration and planning, especially at a regional level. Moreover, documents and reports were obtained and analyzed. Although many things have been accomplished in this short period, the analysis in this chapter focuses on those steps that have been taken to enable employment programs for welfare recipients to increase their scale and scope and to overcome the spatial barriers to employment throughout the regional labor market. The local initiatives and activities are divided into four types based on their primary purpose: raising awareness and advocating for job access, transportation programs, housing mobility strategies, and building capacity of employment programs. The initiatives vary in the degree to which they have moved from planning to implementation but the analysis here focuses on the role that collaboration and regionalism has played in the ability to increase access to opportunities for welfare recipients. Problem Recognition, Advocacy and Capacity Building The first step in the local collaborative planning and advocacy process was the formation of the Welfare Reform Council in Fall 1996. This was a joint venture of the 39
government and non-profit sectors. The Council was co-chaired by the President of the Board of County Commissioners and the President and CEO of the Federation for Community Planning, a human service planning and advocacy agency. The Welfare Reform Council was highly inclusive of individuals and organizations throughout the Greater Cleveland area that had a stake in the new welfare policy. Most pertinent to this chapter is the fact that the Council almost immediately understood that moving large numbers of welfare recipients to work would require that they have markedly improved access to regional labor markets. This understanding was fostered by research presented at one of the first public meetings of the Council. As described by on the next day’s editorial page of the local newspaper: The highlight of the seminar was a presentation by Claudia J. Coulton of Case Western Reserve University, …who is now completing an extensive study of Cuyahoga County’s welfare population. [She] puts one plastic sheet on the projector. It shows the distribution in greater Cleveland of low-skilled jobs—presumably the ones welfare recipients have the best chance of getting—in different shades of green. The deeper the shade, the higher the concentration of job openings. Look: the second and third rings of the suburbs are a deep forest green; the inner city is pale green to white. Then [she] overlays another sheet showing where welfare recipients live. Clusters of black dots all but cover the white spaces on the first sheet, but rarely appear in deep green areas….Get on the bus, you say. Fine. [She] produces another sheet showing the time it takes someone starting at E. 116th and Kinsman Rd.—one big cluster of dots—to get to the high-job areas using public transportation. The answer: 60 to 90 minutes, sometimes more—when the bus goes that way at all. Jean Dubail, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Nov. 3, 1996, p.3E
Following this large community meeting, working committees on transportation, employment and other topics were quickly formed by the Council. Sizing up the situation, these committees crafted legislative ideas that would help to foster access to job opportunities for Greater Cleveland’s welfare recipients. These ideas were turned into effective advocacy work as Ohio began to draft its plan for the implementation of welfare reform. The fact that the welfare reform council had vast membership and participation from throughout the community served as a platform for strong and responsive
40
mobilization. Moreover, the Federation for Community Planning and the County Commissioners lent highly competent government relations staff to the effort. When House Bill 408 containing Ohio’s version of welfare reform was signed into law in July 1997, it had several new provisions that resulted from the advocacy of the Council and its partners. One component contains provisions for comprehensive transportation planning. Specifically, a state planning committee was established to address the issue of moving people to jobs. The formulation of county welfare-to-work transportation plans was required, as was input from local interested parties. Furthermore, five million dollars per year was allocated from unspent block grant funds for local welfare-to-work transportation initiatives. The state was required to apply for federal transportation funds available for welfare-to-work programs. Transportation had not been included in the original legislative proposal submitted by Ohio Department of Human Services, but significant provisions were added after lobbying efforts and testimony in committee hearings. Included in that testimony was the presentation of the research reprinted in this chapter, showing the spatial mismatch and transportation barriers to putting welfare recipients to work in the Cleveland area. In addition, the Council went on record as urging the State to work with business leaders and local communities to create job opportunities in areas of high unemployment and slow job growth. Intense and comprehensive advocacy efforts also lead to the incorporation of much flexibility into the legislation’s work requirements. Under these provisions, counties would be able to allow as work activities job training, vocational education or other activities deemed appropriate for local labor market conditions. These allowances were made in response to the recognition that there were likely to be regional differences
41
in the skill profile of welfare caseloads and the skill requirements of the local industries. In the absence of this flexibility, programs to move welfare recipients to work in Cleveland would have been hampered. The Welfare Reform Council represents a timely, participatory and cross-sectorial collaboration with a strong sense of purpose and focus. It achieved remarkable success in affecting state policy so that it would be more supportive of job access for welfare recipients. This success may be attributed in part to strong and committed governmental and civic leadership, a very clear understanding and articulation of the issues, bi-partisan and community wide involvement in the planning and advocacy process and financial support for staff work. Following the very active and focused phase of legislative advocacy, the Council has had to reinvent itself to support implementation of welfare reform in the community. Initially, there was ambiguity over what role it could play, since the implementation of the main provisions of the new welfare programs were clearly a county responsibility. Nevertheless, the committees of the Welfare Reform Implementation Council did continue to work on the issues of transportation and employment. These committees published information documents on these subjects, reviewing successful programs in other states and analyzing what was possible under state and federal law. As the work on welfare reform implementation progressed, it became increasingly clear to the leadership that the community and its agencies needed greatly increased capacity in order to successfully move large numbers of families from welfare into sustainable employment. Therefore, with funding from several private and government sources, the Federation for Community Planning launched the Capacity Building Project.
42
This project has brought together numerous organizations and sub-contractors to provide training, consultation and technical assistance to organizations so that they can expand the nature and scope of their work. The staff of the Capacity Building Project, along with a variety of consultants, has played a significant role in establishing several of the employment training collaboratives that are described in the sections below. Transportation Planning for Welfare Reform The fact that both federal and state funds had been set aside for welfare reform transportation was a significant impetus for new collaborative efforts around transportation planning. It served to bring the transportation and human service agencies together in developing a joint vision for addressing job access for low-income families. Although the regional transit authority already had a long-range plan to modify the transportation infrastructure to improve access to dispersed employment locations in the region, the plan did not focus specifically on welfare recipients and areas of job opportunities for them. The local welfare agencies’ roles in transportation had previously been fairly small, providing transportation assistance mainly on a case-by-case or project basis. County officials recognized that high levels of work requirements under welfare reform and the geographic dispersion of job locations necessitated a collaborative approach to planning. Moreover, such planning was required in House Bill 408. Thus, the Cuyahoga County Transportation Task Force was co-convened by the county commissioners and Cleveland’s mayor. The task force included representatives from government transportation and human service agencies, and from the non-profit sector. The Task Force’s deliberations led to the submission to the State of the County’s Welfare Reform Transportation Plan in October 1997. In addition to drawing down state and 43
federal funds, the plan received financial support from the Greater Cleveland Growth Association. The strategies outlined by the task force included: •
Provision of transportation information and vouchers to welfare recipients through computer supported transportation advisors in the Neighborhood Family Service Centers;
•
Enabling welfare recipients to use auto transportation through driver training, working as van drivers and support for automobile purchases and repairs;
•
Piloting comprehensive transportation projects that link specific employers to van pools and include a guaranteed ride home and additional services;
•
Supporting transportation linkages to one-stop employment service centers
In response to these recommendations, the regional transit authority has assigned mobility specialists to maximize the use of available services, and identify areas where service adjustments may be needed. In the past two years, they have also made 15 service adjustments to better serve the entry-level job market. Other collaborative efforts to improve access to employment in the County are also underway or are being considered in response to welfare reform. A vanpool program for reverse commuting has been implemented by the regional transportation agency in cooperation with the county work and training agency. This program concentrates on poorly served suburban areas and off-hours and weekend supplemental links. The regional transportation agency is also working with a local nonprofit agency to create a new type of vanpool that links employers with transit services and is available to a broader pool of employees. The transportation agency is also creating transportation hubs at locations where existing routes intersect. There are also several examples of non-profit organizations working together to provide childcare or other services associated with these hubs and to enhance selected hubs that are gateways to suburban jobs. These efforts are also being supported
44
by local environmental organizations. One challenge to all of these efforts is the funding of capital investment needed for new or improved buildings and facilities. Since the outset of welfare reform, the regional transportation authority has added or modified some bus routes to enable inner city residents to reach selected suburban employment locations. However, there remain significant barriers for city residents to reaching the portion of the regional labor market that is outside Cuyahoga County. While there are limited agreements with other counties, at present each county transportation authority needs permission to enter another county. There are currently ongoing bi-lateral discussions to deal with this issue, but these are preliminary. Housing Mobility Strategies The lack of affordable housing has always been a concern for low-income families in the Greater Cleveland area. However, with welfare reform’s emphasis on employment, the location of affordable housing relative to areas of employment growth has also come to the forefront as an issue. Studies had already documented the lack of low-income housing in Cleveland’s suburban job growth areas (Coulton, Leete and Bania, 1999), but it was the announcement of the availability of new Section 8 vouchers for welfare-to-work programs that stimulated a collaborative program to address the issue. The new program is a partnership between the local housing authority (Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority), the county agency that administers welfare and work programs and a fair housing organization. The additional Section 8 vouchers will be used to assist welfare families to move into stable and adequate housing, especially in areas where jobs are available. The county welfare agencies and the local housing authority have adopted a collective agreement to develop a proposal to secure federal funds to 45
coordinate their services on behalf of clients in compliance with OWF work requirements. The fair housing organization is involved to assist with housing searches, as well as to provide support for those seeking to move to locations where racial discrimination may be a barrier. The local housing authority will work with landlords on their certification, especially in areas where there is both job growth and rental housing that is affordable for welfare families with Section 8 subsidies. The process of approving rental units will be accelerated so as to increase housing options for these families with vouchers. These collaborative efforts seek to improve access to job opportunities largely by making it possible for families to move to areas of high job growth. A secondary benefit may be a reduction of racial discrimination or reluctance by suburban landlords to accept low-income families on welfare. The fair housing organization will play an important role by providing landlords with education, and by providing support to seekers of Section 8 housing. This will include training them on appropriate methods for finding and meeting with potential landlords. Enhancing and Expanding Welfare-To-Work Programs The work participation and time-limit provisions of welfare reform have placed tremendous pressure on the entire employment training system to increase the numbers of individuals they serve, and to become more effective in serving at-risk groups such as the long-term unemployed and mothers of young children. The fact that tens of thousands of individuals are involved means that agencies have had to establish connections with employers and industry sectors with which they previously may have been unfamiliar. Collaboration between agencies and employers has lead to an expansion of services and
46
an increase in the number of locations, industries and sectors involved. Two examples of such collaboration are described below. The Employment Mobilization Program (EMP) is a neighborhood-based project that links women to temporary jobs in blue-collar trades. The goal is to place women who have traditionally not participated in this sector into these jobs and sustain their employment. This collaborative brings together the faith community and the private and public sectors to develop a comprehensive service delivery network. Specifically, the agencies involved are: Mt. Sinai Baptist Church, a church with a tradition of outreach and community service; Hard Hatted Woman, a organization fostering non-traditional careers for women; Minute Men Staffing, a temporary labor supplier; and Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C), the local community college. This group of organizations did not form its own corporation; rather it functions as a collaborative effort with agreements between the entities and a seamless system of assessment and activity. The formation of this collaborative was made possible by consultation form Orian Consulting through the Federation for Community Planning’s Capacity Building Project. Participants are referred to EMP by self-sufficiency coaches at the county work and training agency. Initially, assessment and orientation is provided by Hard Hatted Woman at the Mt. Sinai Baptist Church. The church provides childcare for children as needed, and life skills training over a three-week period after the assessment. Women who would benefit from skilled trade opportunities are moved right into non-traditional job training. Those who do not qualify for the HHW program are then moved into further assessment and follow a variety of paths. They are provided with transportation to and from the Minute Men Staffing agency and the community college (both located in the
47
same building) where they receive college identification cards and whey they can combine temporary job assignments with classroom work on basic adult skills, including GED and work related training. The work and study time at Tri-C allows participants to develop basic and technical skills, including computer literacy. Minute Men Staffing provides transportation to job sites, where participants are paid as any other client of Minute Men. Participants are then taken back to Mt. Sinai Church at the end of the work or school day to pick up their children, and then to return to their homes. The church functions as a hub for activities and the structure of the program appears to aid participants in the feeling of a structured workday. The program also has retention components and works with participants on a one-on-one basis. EMP has several features that address access to job opportunities for welfare recipients. First, it is tied to industrial sectors that while non-traditional for women (and particularly for women on welfare), have the potential to help them enter jobs with above average employment opportunities and wage growth. Second, it is based solidly in a neighborhood in which many welfare recipients live, reducing geographic and social distance to the program. Third, this neighborhood base serves as a transportation hub, with the presence of childcare further reducing commute times and difficulties. The Federation for Community Planning’s Community Capacity Building Project and ORION Consulting have helped to establish another collaborative known as the County Work and Training Alliance. The goal of the collaborative is to exponentially increase their capacity to deal with the significant number of difficult to serve clients on the county welfare rolls. Six organizations are involved: Cleveland Works, Goodwill Industries, Salvation Army, Towards Employment, Urban League, and Vocational
48
Guidance Services. Although these agencies have previously served welfare-to-work clients under separate county contracts, they have joined together to provide a system of services targeted to the long-term recipients who are at risk of reaching their cash assistance time limits. A unique feature of the Alliance is that it decided to create a new corporation while keeping individual agency identities and current county contracts intact. Each member organization has one vote and equal power on the board. The corporation contracts with ORION as a management service organization to handle administrative needs, convene the group and set agendas. This support function keeps the balance of power intact and allows for lower overhead costs than each individual organization would have if they duplicated management services. Each organization provides several functions within the Alliance service network based on the strengths and experiences that they bring to the project. The Alliance is an illustration of an attempt to rapidly expand the capacity of the employment and training system and to bring to bear a range of services that address multiple barriers to employment. This requires careful collaboration as well as a management structure and contractual relations that foster a comprehensive and coordinated approach. Within the alliance service network are the major programs that are needed to support access to opportunities, including transportation, child care, basic skills and employment specific training, and supportive services. Summary Important institutions and individuals within the greater Cleveland community have organized quickly to respond to welfare reform and did so with a clear
49
understanding of the regional labor market and the challenges facing welfare recipients in accessing job opportunities. Moreover, the Greater Cleveland community was positioned to act on that awareness through legislative advocacy and the dissemination of public information. The ability to act in a timely and effective manner was fostered by existing working relationships. Government agencies, non-profit organizations and local foundations and universities already had well-established partnerships for doing applied research, planning and action. Their work together around welfare policy began when the elimination of the statewide general assistance program was imminent five years previously. In many ways, they anticipated welfare reform coming and had already begun the necessary information gathering and analysis. Furthermore, Cleveland’s recent economic difficulties had already spurred the private sector to organize around the issue of workforce development. The Jobs and Workforce Initiative, under the direction of the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, had begun to link the workforce development system with the needs of employers throughout the region. It is significant that local advocacy efforts led to provisions into Ohio’s welfare reform bill that recognized importance of the local labor market conditions. Subsequently, the community was also able to mount the collaborative efforts that would allow it to take advantage of these provisions. This process was aided by the strong cooperative tradition and good will between government officials and local agencies and communities. Welfare reform, however, has also resulted in much new collaboration between organizations, which previously functioned independently of one another, and often with little awareness of each other. In fact, some of the groups that are now working together come from markedly different traditions and have had to learn to
50
appreciate each other’s points of views. However, Greater Cleveland now has functioning examples of transportation, employment and training services, employers and support services coming together in ways that promise to increase access to opportunity for local welfare recipients.
IV. Conclusion The economic history and urban geography of the Cleveland metropolitan area are not unlike those of many older Northeastern and Midwestern cities. These conditions have given rise to an inner-city concentration of poverty and welfare receipt at the same time that entry-level job openings have become increasingly concentrated in outlying suburban areas. Support services such as childcare and job-training programs are also generally concentrated in the central city. However, the current infrastructure of public transportation is inadequate to bridge the spatial gap from central residential, childcare and job training locations to outlying suburban job openings. We have shown here that public transit commutes from the central city to the suburbs are significantly longer than comparable commutes by automobile. This may present a sizable barrier for the large number of parents of young children that must rely on public transportation for trips from home to childcare to job training to work and back again. While Cleveland’s problematic economic history may have given rise to the conditions described here, it may have also provided a foundation for the emerging institutional response to these problems. The severe economic downturn of the 1980s in Cleveland provided impetus for increasing levels of cooperation among private and public sector organizations on a number of poverty and economic development issues.
51
This cooperation laid the groundwork for the more recent collaborative efforts that have emerged in response to welfare reform. It is also noteworthy that this response coalesced relatively early as a result of considerable foresight in the community regarding both the inevitability and implications of welfare reform. Cleveland’s private and public institutions recognized early the nature and scope of the barriers to self-sufficiency facing current welfare recipients and have responded to them urgently. This response has included collaboration between nonprofit social service organizations, training providers, faith-based institutions, private businesses and government. Responses have included innovative approaches to providing transportation (e.g. vanpooling and car-ownership programs), childcare, education and training in a coordinated and space-sensitive fashion. It is too early to conclude, however, that the efforts in Cleveland are a panacea for the labor market access problems associated with welfare reform. These programs still lack the scale and infrastructure to effectively deal with the tens of thousands of clients who will need of assistance in coming years. Furthermore, the historical roots of most of the organizations involved are urban ones. Their infrastructure as well long-standing relationships are largely based in the central city. The social distance from city to suburb has yet to be effectively bridged. City-based training programs are still not entirely well equipped to direct trained individuals to the more plentiful job openings in the outlying suburbs. Overcoming this organizational history is another challenge associated with welfare reform.
52
References Abramson, A.J., Tobin, M.S., and VanderGoot, M.R. “The changing geography of metropolitan opportunity: The segregation of the poor in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1970 to 1990”, Housing Policy Debate, 6(1):45-72, 1995. Coulton, C., Chow, J., Wang, E., and Su, M., “Geographic concentration of affluence and poverty in 100 metropolitan areas, 1990”, Urban Affairs Review, 32(2): 186-216, 1996. Coulton, C. J. and Verma, N., Employment and Return to Public Assistance Among Single Female Headed Households Leaving AFDC, Third Quarter 1996, Cuyahoga County, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1999. Coulton, C.J.; Verma, N., and Guo, S., Time Limited Welfare and the Employment Prospects of AFDC Recipients in Cuyahoga County, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, October, 1996. Coulton, C., Leete, L., and Bania, N., “Housing, transportation, and access to suburban jobs by welfare recipients in the Cleveland Area”, in Sandra J. Newman (Ed), The Home Front: Implications of Welfare Reform for Housing, Washington: Urban Institute Press, 1999. Department of Housing and Urban Development, The State of the Cities, 1998, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1999. Gallagher, P., Pearlmutter, S. Wang, E. Coulton, C. and Bania, N. Subsidized Childcare for Eligible Cash Assistance Recipients’ Children Age 0-5 In Cuyahoga County, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1997. Gottlieb, P.D. and Bogart, W.T., Downtown’s Economic Revival, Center for Regional Economic Issues, Case Western Reserve University, 1998. Jargowsky, P.A., Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997. Jargowsky, P.A. and Bane, M. “Ghetto poverty in the United States, 1970-1980”, in Jencks, C. and Peterson, P.E., editors, The Urban Underclass. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1991. Kasarda, J.D. “Inner-city concentrated poverty and neighborhood distress: 1970-1990”, Housing Policy Debate, 4:253-302, 1993.
53
Katz, B. and Carnevale, K., The State of Welfare Caseloads in America’s Cities, Washington: Brookings Institution, 1999. Leete, L. and Bania, N., Assessment of the Geographic Distribution and Skill Requirements of Jobs in the Cleveland-Akron Metropolitan Area, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1995. Leete, L., and Bania, N., “The impact of welfare reform on local labor markets”, The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(1) 50-76, 1999. Leete, L., Bania, N., and Coulton, C., “Welfare reform: Using local labor market data for policy analysis and program planning”, Workforce Investment Quarterly (National Governor’s Association) 5(1), 1998. Massey, D.S. and Denton, N.A., “The dimensions of residential segregation”, Social Forces, 67 (2):281-305, 1988. Massey, D.S. and Eggers, M., “The Ecology of inequality; Minorities and the concentration of poverty, 1970-1980”, American Journal of Sociology, 95 (5):1153-1188, 1990. Pearlmutter, S. and Katona, M, Subsidized Child Care in Cuyahoga County: Using the System is No Easy Matter, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1998. Sheridan, R., Meeting Child Care Obligations, Cleveland: Federation for Community Planning, 1998.
54
