Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
In this chapter, we turn to community-level characteristics that could potentially function as barriers to employment and self-sufficiency for TANF recipients. These characteristics have to do with the influence communities can exert, both positive and negative, on inhabitants in the realm of work readiness and attendance. Specifically, we include in the area of “community barriers” the subtopics of transportation, crime, housing problems, as well as the lack of affordable housing, inadequate job availability, and inadequate social and community service availability.
Table VI.1 summarizes our recommendations and priorities for measuring community barriers in the survey of TANF recipients. The estimate of total time to administer all the “A”-rated items in the community barriers domain, as indicated in Table VI.1, is five minutes.
| Community Barriers | Number of Items | Past Survey(s) | Estimate of Time (minutes) | Priority Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transportation Problems | ||||
| How does Respondent get to work (usual mode of of transportation)? | 1 | WES; MO; NE; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| How long it takes to get to work? | 1 | WES; NE; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| Does Respondent have a valid driver’s license? | 1 | WES; MO; NE; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| Does Respondent own or have access to a car? | 1 | WES; MO; NE; AC; IL | .25 | A |
| Did Respondent’s car break down last month? | 1 | IL | .25 | A |
| Do transportation issues keep Respondent from working? | 1 | MO; NE; IL | .25 | A |
| Could Respondent get to work via public transportation, if needed? | 1 | None | .25 | B |
| How long would it take to get to work via public transportation? | 1 | None | .25 | B |
| High Crime Rates | ||||
| In Respondent’s neighborhood, how much of a problem is… drug use or dealing in the open, unemployment, rundown buildings and yards, crime, assaults, and burglaries? | 4 | IL; YFC | .50 | A |
| Is Respondent afraid to walk alone within 8 blocks of home? | 1 | IL; YFC | .25 | A |
| Does Respondent feel safe at home at night? | 1 | IL; YFC | .25 | A |
| Does Respondent feel neighborhood is a safe place for children to play? | 1 | IL; YFC | .25 | A |
| Housing Problems and Lack of Affordable Housing | ||||
| Is affordable housing available in Respondent’s area? | 1 | WES | .25 | A |
| Has Respondent been homeless during the past year? | 1 | WES | .25 | A |
| Has Respondent been evicted during the past year? | 1 | WES | .25 | A |
| Inadequate Job Availability | ||||
| Do people in Respondent’s neighborhood have to travel a long way to work? | 1 | YFC | .25 | A |
| Is there high unemployment in Respondent’s neighborhood? | 1 | IL; YFC | .25 | A |
| Inadequate Social and Community Service Availability | ||||
| Are the following services available in Respondent’s community... career or job counseling, counseling or treatment for alcohol or drug abuse, counseling to help with other personal or family problems, health clinics or places for emergency health care? | 4 | YFC | .75 | A |
| Are the following services available… community day care or after-school program, literacy, GED, or tutoring program? | 2 | WES | .25 | A |
Transportation is a common barrier to employment and self-sufficiency for TANF recipients. Transportation problems can involve poor public transportation within a respondent’s area or between the area where a respondent lives and where jobs are located, inadequate access to a car or other vehicle, mechanical problems with that vehicle, or the lack of a current driver’s license. Recipients who face transportation problems often show up late for work, a behavior most employers are unsympathetic to. Transportation problems can impede a recipient’s ability to attend school or training, thereby perpetuating the cycle of unemployment due to lack of work skills, work training, and low education level.
Many survey instruments (WES, Missouri, Nebraska, Alameda, and Illinois) covered a core group of questions on this topic. Those core questions asked for the method of transportation that respondents typically used to get to work, training, or school; how many minutes it usually took them to travel one way to work; whether respondents owned or had access to a car; and whether they had a valid driver’s license. The Missouri instrument contained an additional battery of questions asking whether transportation issues prevented the respondent from working or attending educational activities, whether the respondent was ever docked pay, lost or quit a job because of lack of transportation, and whether public transportation was perceived as a reasonable way to get to work or as a barrier to getting a job.
The Nebraska survey asked additional questions — whether the respondent’s community offered shuttle or van service, and whether transportation issues prevented the respondent from working or attending educational activities. The Illinois survey asked three additional questions — whether the respondent’s car broke down during the past month, whether transportation issues prevented the respondent from working, and an opinion question, whether the respondent’s neighborhood has good public transportation.
We recommend six measures under this topic, from either the Nebraska or the Illinois survey: (1) how the respondent usually gets to work, (2) how long it takes to get to or from work one way, (3) whether the respondent owns or has access to a car, (4) whether he or she has a valid driver’s license, (5) whether the respondent’s car has broken down during the past month, and (6) whether the respondent feels that transportation issues prevent him or her from working. Time permitting, we recommend including two new measures: (1) whether the respondent believes he or she could get to work using public transportation, if needed; and (2) an estimate of how long it would take to get to work using public transportation. The last two questions were not found in any of the survey instruments reviewed; we think they are important, in order to determine a respondent’s perception of public transportation as a barrier to work and the potential hardship of using that method. However, these questions would not be asked of any respondents who usually travel to work using public transportation, since they would be repetitive and unnecessary.
Crime is more prevalent in low-income communities where most welfare recipients live, and has a negative impact on its members, creating feelings of powerlessness and worthlessness, which can feed back into the cycle of crime and perpetuate itself. In addition, crime has the potential to become employment — particularly for young adults who may see their employment options limited due to lack of job availability in their community, combined with low levels of education and job skills.
Measures of crime varied greatly among the survey instruments. Many surveys did not address the topic at all. Only the WES, Illinois, Youth Fair Chance Community, and Iowa Child Impact surveys contained questions on neighborhoods and crime. The WES contained the most extensive battery of questions about neighborhood problems. Questions asked whether respondents had problems in their neighborhood with vandalism, prostitution, sexual assaults, rapes, muggings, gangs, drug dealing, groups of youth hanging out, and police taking a long time to come when called. Additional questions included respondent perceptions of neighborhood safety, whether the respondent would move from the neighborhood if he or she could, and whether the respondent had any serious problems with neighbors in the past year.
The Illinois and Youth Fair Chance Community surveys each contained a similar, four-question scale that asked the respondent to rate the magnitude of the problem in his or her neighborhood with unemployment, run-down buildings and yards, crime, assaults and burglaries, and drug use. The surveys also contained the same questions on perceptions of safety in walking alone within an eight-block vicinity of home, feeling safe at home at night, and whether the neighborhood is a safe place for children to play.
The Iowa Child Impact Survey contained a list of questions to be answered by the interviewer at the end of the survey, based on his or her observations of the neighborhood. Among the questions was whether the interviewer observed groups of youths hanging out in public, vandalism, vacant lots, abandoned or boarded-up houses, and litter or garbage on the streets.
We recommend seven of the measures listed under this topic, from either the Illinois or the YFC survey. They include the four-item scale that asks the respondent to rate the magnitude of the problem in their neighborhood with: unemployment; run-down buildings and yards; crime, assaults and burglaries; and drug use. We also would include the three measures that ask for the respondent’s perception of safety walking alone within eight blocks of home, feeling safe at home at night, and whether the neighborhood is a safe place for kids to play. Although these measures are briefer than those used in the WES, they capture the key information on the respondent’s perception of crime in his or her neighborhood.
Housing, or shelter, is one of our most basic needs, along with food and clothing. To be without housing or to have a daily struggle with housing can derail the most motivated jobseeker or worker. Like transportation, housing problems can cause worker absenteeism or tardiness, which can lead to job instability and unemployment. Low-income individuals have greater difficulty finding and keeping affordable housing. There often is a waiting list for obtaining low-income housing; and, once obtained, that housing can be fraught with plumbing, heating and/or insect-infestation problems. Similarly, low-income individuals may be faced with a choice of which bills to pay in any given month, due to financial shortages.
Housing problem measures varied widely among surveys. The WES and Alameda surveys were the most thorough in their coverage of the topic. Each contained a battery of questions that gathered different information about potential housing problems. The WES asked more general questions on whether affordable housing was available in the respondent’s community, whether the respondent had been homeless during the past year and for how long, whether he or she had been evicted in the past year, and whether the respondent lost their gas, electricity, or phone service because he or she could not pay the bill.
The Alameda survey asked more specific questions, such as whether the respondent owned or had access to a flush toilet, bath or shower with hot water, cooking equipment, refrigerator, telephone, fire escape, windows that open, curtains or blinds on the windows, enough lights, and electricity. Each item had a follow-up question that asked whether that item worked (that is, it was not broken). In addition, a second set of questions asked whether the respondent had any of the following problems where they currently lived: exposed wires, too few outlets, fuses that blew or circuit breakers that cut out, lead paint, holes in the ceiling or floor, broken locks on doors or windows, rats or rodents, insect problems, plumbing problems, landlord problems with providing heat or hot water, smoke detectors missing or not working, and security bars that would not open.
The Illinois and Missouri surveys contained, respectively, one or two questions about housing problems. The Missouri survey asked whether the respondent had received help with paying the rent in the past year, and whether the phone service had been turned off because the respondent could not pay the bill. The Illinois survey asked whether the respondent had a working telephone in his or her home.
Due to survey time limitations, we recommend using three measures under this topic from the WES: (1) whether affordable housing is available; (2) whether the respondent has been homeless at any time during the past year (includes both living in a shelter or on the street); and (3) whether the respondent has been evicted at any point in the past year. These measures will best evaluate whether the respondent has experienced any critical housing problems during the past year, using a minimum number of questions.
Obtaining jobs that pay a decent living wage and that include health benefits often is a challenge for welfare recipients. One reason for this difficulty can be the relative availability (or lack thereof) of such employment. The robust economy, which has largely been responsible for helping many welfare recipients get off welfare and find jobs, is now slowing down. Even though the economy spurred new job growth during its recent robust period, many of the jobs created did not provide a decent living wage or health benefits. The lack of good-paying jobs with health benefits can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and of moving on and off the welfare rolls.
This topic was not well covered in the surveys. The Missouri survey asked whether the respondent was not working because there were no jobs available in their local area. The Illinois survey asked whether there was high unemployment in the neighborhood. The Youth Fair Chance (YFC) Community Survey asked two questions: whether people living in the respondent’s neighborhood had to travel a long way to work, and whether there was high unemployment in the neighborhood.
The question in the Missouri survey focused more directly on whether the lack of available jobs was the reason why the respondent was not working, while the YFC questions focused more on the respondent’s perceptions of the community. Although the former measure may appear more direct, we believe the answer could be interpreted as a transportation problem. Was the respondent not working because he or she had no transportation to get to a job outside the local area? Or was the respondent not working because he or she refused or did not want to travel outside the local area? Analysis of the answer would not be clear. We also believe the information could be collected under the employment section when asking the question why a respondent was not working.
We recommend asking two questions under this topic: first, whether people living in the respondent’s neighborhood have to travel a long way to work; and, second, how much of a problem there is with unemployment in the neighborhood. The unemployment question is already included in one of the recommended scales under the high crime rate section and does not need to be asked twice. We believe these measures will best address the issue of inadequate job availability in the respondent’s neighborhood.
Social and community services form a cushion against family instability, stress, and hardship. Often, these services are lacking in low-income communities, where they are needed most. Such services can provide recipients with needed health care, alcohol or drug treatment, mental health services, or career counseling — which can mean the difference between keeping a job and losing it.
Very few surveys covered this topic. Only the WES, Alameda, and YFC surveys contained questions that covered various types of community services. The WES survey asked whether any of the following services were available, and whether the respondent used any of them during the past year; a community family health service, a bank or credit union; an organized summer recreational program; a community day care or after-school program; a literacy, GED, or tutoring program; and an employment office.
The Alameda survey asked a much longer battery of questions on whether the respondent needed any of the following services: assistance with physical health, help with an emotional or mental health problem, help with an alcohol or drug problem, help with combating physical violence in the home, prenatal care, assistance with managing money or paying utility bills, help getting or keeping a job, child care, help finding housing, assistance with paying rent, low-cost attorney services, help with transportation, free or inexpensive clothing or goods, and free or reduced priced meals for their children at school or Head Start. Three follow-up questions asked whether the respondent knew where to go for the service, whether he or she actually received the service, and where the respondent went for each item.
The YFC Community Survey asked a shorter battery of questions on whether the following services were available in the respondent’s community: career or job counseling; counseling or treatment for alcohol or drug abuse; counseling to help with other personal or family problems; health clinics or places for emergency health care, birth control, or family planning services; referrals or help finding needed assistance; help preparing for a GED; a place to improve reading, math, or other subject skills; and a place for recreational activities.
We recommend six measures under this topic, taken from the WES and YFC surveys. From the WES, we recommend asking two measures on the availability and service use of (1) community day care and after-school programs, and (2) literacy, GED, or tutoring programs. From the YFC survey, we recommend asking four measures on the availability and service use of (1) career or job counseling, (2) counseling or treatment for alcohol or drug abuse, (3) counseling to help with other personal or family problems, and (4) health clinics or places for emergency health care. These measures provide a brief but salient list of services that recipients might need access to.
Main Page of Report | Main Contents
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)