States have started to meet the challenge by developing new approaches to providing transportation. These innovations include the development of vehicle purchasing agreements to enable recipients to own their own cars, filling transit service gaps, offering entrepreneurial opportunities for recipients to become transportation providers, and providing transitional services for recipients who leave welfare because of employment.

In developing transportation innovations, states must develop relationships with other agencies and service providers. This link will be crucial, as human service agencies will be venturing into issues and problems once thought to be handled only by transportation agencies. Transportation agencies will be confronting issues faced primarily by human service agencies, as they become involved-literally moving welfare recipients to work. Each has an expertise that will need to be tapped if states hope to become truly innovative about providing transportation. All those involved must participate in finding solutions. Otherwise, states risk spending valuable resources on services or research that already might exist, or problems that already have been solved. By opening communication, agencies will be able to overcome administrative barriers that sometimes impede implementation of programs and ideas.

Many jobs are out of reach for welfare recipients, but not because they lack the skills to get those jobs. The growth in the U.S. economy has created many new jobs. Two of three are located in suburban areas and, in some cities, more than 50 percent of these jobs are outside the range of public transportation. A recent study in Boston concluded that only 43 percent of entry level jobs are accessible by public transportation. Even then, most of these jobs require a one- to two-hour commute each way. Since only about 6 percent of recipients own cars, many will depend on public transportation or other transportation providers to get them to work; for rural areas the problem is magnified. Only 40 percent of rural communities have access to public transportation, leaving recipients who live in these areas with even fewer options. "Transportation between many poor urban neighborhoods where welfare recipients live and the outer ring of economic opportunity must be improved, " according to Texas Senator Rodney Ellis.

States must be cautious, however. Although many of the newly created jobs are located in suburban areas, many existing jobs are within reach of cities. "Many of our departments tell us recipients are not looking toward the suburbs, they are finding jobs right here in the city. We can't use transportation as an excuse for recipients not to work. There are jobs out there, and they are not all located in the suburbs," says Joel Potts, policy coordinator for the Ohio Department of Human Services

Public transit may solve some of the transportation problems that recipients face, but it is not the total solution. Even when jobs are easily accessible to public transportation routes, many day care centers and schools are not, putting a further wedge between transportation providers and those who depend on their services. Although public transit might take recipients to a job, if recipients cannot use transit to take their child to day care, they still face a significant barrier to required participation. For some recipients, an excessive amount of time is involved just to take the bus. One recipient in Colorado had to walk a mile from the bus stop to take her daughter to day care, walk the same mile back to the bus, and then take two more busses to her work destination. In all, she spent more than four hours just to get to and from daycare and work. Most commuters would find this unreasonable. States will need to decide if this type of dependency on public transit is reasonable for its welfare recipients.

Many of the available jobs require weekend or night shift work when transit system schedules are even more limited. Public transit may be a readily available option, but riders often face delays on even the best running bus systems. New Jersey Representative Nick Asselta spent a day with a local welfare recipient and experienced this himself; he had to wait more than 20 minutes for a bus that was late. "Public transportation is not as reliable as people think. If you're waiting for a bus to get to work and it's late, you'll be late," Asselta said.

Public transit will not be able to serve the needs of all recipients. Other options-such as feeder buses, vanpools and enabling recipients to own vehicles-will be important links to connect recipients with employment. It is important to remember that any one transportation idea will not fit the needs of every recipient, nor will it solve every transportation problem. The more tools that are available to local welfare departments mean a greater possibility of providing the types of assistance that recipients need. Figure 5 illustrates the status of state transportation assistance for those who receive welfare benefits.

Figure 5

Who Gets What

Providing transportation to welfare recipients is not a new concept, but new state and federal work requirements affect a much larger proportion of recipients. Some states have guaranteed that transportation assistance will be provided, while others take a less assertive approach. Because of this, deciding what happens to recipients who cannot participate in work activities because of transportation barriers is yet another problem to be resolved. States have taken different approaches. Minnesota allows an exception to a recipient's participation in work activities if transportation is a barrier. South Carolina goes a bit further by exempting recipients from time limits if transportation is unavailable. Ohio does not exempt recipients from work activities but will not sanction them for not participating. Florida will not exempt recipients from work requirements if they do not have transportation. Now, more than ever, states have the resources to offer assistance for transportation and, given the emphasis for states to meet work participation rates, it will be crucial to ensure that every recipient is able to participate.

A starting point for states that are developing transportation ideas will be to inventory the available transportation options and assess the individual needs of recipients. Like welfare reform itself, transportation services cannot be designed uniformly to meet the needs of all recipients. In the AFDC program, the traditional options were to provide reimbursement for the cost of transportation through gas vouchers, provide bus passes or tokens for recipients, or pay for vehicle repairs or maintenance. This blanket approach can leave states unprepared to deal with the variety of transportation barriers that recipients face. Before implementing TANF, for example, Kentucky's policy was to provide a $3 per day transportation allowance to its recipients. This approach worked well for those recipients whose transportation expenses did not exceed the allotted $3 or who had reasonable access to transportation in the first place. For recipients who lived in rural areas with no access to public transportation or a vehicle, the $3 per day was of limited value. This created a challenge in planning for TANF implementation, because the department had no way to gauge the actual cost to provide the types of transportation services that recipients would need to participate in work activities.

Reimbursement for gas and providing bus passes undoubtedly will continue under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Some recipients need little case management and minimal services. For them, gas vouchers or reimbursement might be adequate. For recipients who need more assistance, states will need to address transportation needs creatively. For states to meet the increasing demand for transportation services, they will need to redirect resources and develop ways to provide additional services.

Developing innovations to fill service gaps means that states must become familiar with the types of transportation services already provided, the existing service providers and the communities that have access to these services. Most states can easily name public buses, subways and taxicab companies as available transportation providers, but may not realize that school buses, civic organizations, churches and elderly groups can be targeted as potential providers. Because states cannot revamp their entire transportation systems to accommodate welfare reform, it will be important to take advantage of all existing services.

The other important link is to determine the relationship between service areas and the population that will most likely use the service. A study conducted in the Cleveland, Ohio, area found that only 15 percent of jobs could be reached by public transit within a 40-minute commute time, and only 44 percent if the commute time were doubled. To determine where service gaps exist, many states have begun to use geographic information system (GIS) software to plot fixed route service areas, the neighborhoods and areas most likely to need services, and employment centers. Typically, this mapping technology has been used locally by transit providers or planning organizations. As human service departments begin to plan transportation strategies, however, GIS will become a useful tool.

Determining the specific needs of a recipient is a next step. Some states include transportation barriers as part of their assessment of a recipient's work readiness. Caseworkers need to be able to identify barriers and communicate the types of service options available to recipients. One approach incorporates transportation needs into a recipient's responsibility contract. The contract details a recipient's obligations and specifies services the department will provide to ensure successful participation. The caseworker also can help recipients solve problems or develop backup options for their transportation needs if the primary source of transportation fails. Utah provides intensive case management to its clients and provides immediate assistance to remove transportation barriers for such things as car repairs, working with recipients to avoid future transportation dilemmas. By working with individuals directly, caseworkers have a better chance of assessing what services or options will best serve recipients. Caseworkers will not give recipients a blank check without first discussing all available solutions and alternatives with their clients. This strategy also helps to foster client responsibility and planning.

Other states such as Maryland have used diversion strategies to remove transportation barriers. By providing money for emergency car repairs or tires, some potential recipients can be diverted from long-term assistance and continue to retain employment because they have dependable transportation. This strategy will work well for individuals or families who simply need a boost, not a check. By preventing welfare dependency, families are likely to stay employed and off the welfare rolls.

Public transit is perhaps the easiest and most available tool for states to use when thinking about providing transportation, at least in urban areas. Public transit is almost nonexistent in many rural areas. Most metropolitan cities have public transit in some form, and it is fairly easy and inexpensive to provide bus passes or tokens to recipients. However, most public transit is not routed to suburban areas where much of the new job growth has been and routing sometimes is not convenient from neighborhoods where recipients live or where their children go to school. So, although transit is available, for some it is not a feasible solution either because the bus cannot take them everywhere they need to go, or because it takes an unreasonable amount of time to get there. Relying on public transit also is troublesome if there is an emergency-such as picking up a sick child from school. This puts recipients at the mercy of transit routing and scheduling. Using transit to connect recipients with potential employers is a challenge that states must confront to maximize the employment potential for their caseload. Some states have begun plan how they can fill in where public transit leaves off.

Connecticut has answered this call by developing a feeder bus that transports riders from bus stops to major employment sectors. Connecticut worked with the local transit provider to extend its hours to accommodate later shift changes and work schedules from the area's main retail district. Bridges to Work in Colorado contracts with the local bus provider to connect inner-city workers with suburban employment areas. The program consists of several demonstration projects funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and private foundations. The Colorado site provides monthly bus passes for riders who have secured jobs, and guarantees a ride home in case of an emergency. The program serves a dual purpose in that it provides needed transportation and demonstrates that there is sufficient demand for routes to areas where the available jobs tend to be full- time positions with benefits and pay substantially higher than minimum wage. "These recipients are earning a starting wage of $2 to $3 higher than jobs found within the city, and these jobs tend to be career oriented with a much better opportunity for advancement," said Mandi Huser, the project coordinator.

Although public transit will not be the answer for all situations, many welfare recipients will depend on its services. If states can develop ways to augment existing transit services, they may be able to reduce some of the problems related with public transit. It also can provide an opportunity for those who would not otherwise use public transit.

Vanpooling or shuttle services offer ways to fill transit gaps or to provide service in areas where public transit is not available. Vanpooling traditionally has been a volunteer organized service or a special service provided by a particular organization. States are considering ways to use vanpools by contracting with providers who operate vanpools or transit services. Taking advantage of existing transportation providers is a new venture, in part because many providers are not aware they are in the transportation business. Schools, churches, elderly and civic organizations operate vans or shuttle services but usually are not considered providers. Tapping these resources is not without challenge. Existing vanpools operate on a specific schedule for the population they already serve, and might not be able to accommodate the changing work schedules of recipients. They also might be limited in their ability to provide rides on short notice. Most vanpools or shuttle services require a reservation, some as much as 24 hours in advance. There also are liability and insurance issues that would need to be addressed. "These details are not insurmountable; the opportunity to use these services is too great not to try," says Doug Birnie, director of research management for the Federal Transit Administration.

A rural Alabama county contracted to use passenger vans to transport participants to jobs in a nearby town. Before the van pooling service began, there was no public transportation into or out of the county. In Maryland and Missouri, recipients are being trained through an entrepreneurial program to become transportation providers.

North Carolina and Ohio are using school buses to provide these needed transit services. North Carolina combines recipients' work activity with their transportation, allowing recipients to act as bus monitors or to work directly in the destination school. Ohio will use school buses during off-hours and summer schedules to transport recipients.

For recipients who cannot make an advance reservation-say for a job interview or an additional shift-vanpooling will continue to be problematic. For rural areas, it offers an effective way to get recipients to jobs. In urban areas, it can fill in where bus service is not available. In addition, using existing resources by contracting with providers can be cost effective for departments that are seeking alternatives to purchasing department vehicles.

Now, more than ever before, states have the flexibility and opportunity to develop their own transit options. Needs of a diverse welfare caseload will mandate the development of a variety of transportation options. Ohio has capitalized on this flexibility by allowing counties to develop individual transportation plans. The legislature appropriated $5 million to be distributed among counties that submit transportation proposals. "Because our inner cities and rural areas have such diverse needs, we needed to respond by enabling them to come up with their own innovative ideas. We have plenty of people available to work; we need to get them there," says the bill sponsor, Representative Joan Lawrence.

The plan must include an inventory of existing providers, a service plan and a working group that will oversee the implementation of the plan. "Having all the players at the table has been crucial to counties developing innovations. When a regulatory or administrative barrier comes up, there is always a representative who can speak to a solution," says Kim Kehl, from Ohio Works First.