A Driving Factor in Mobility? Transportation's Role in Connecting Subsidized Housing and Employment Outcomes in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Program

Blumenberg, Evelyn; Pierce, Gregory

doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.935267

Cited by 74 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, the poor continue to face signifi cant barriers to employment while policymakers remain focused on three types of spatial strategies to improve their employment outcomes: moving jobs closer to job seekers, moving job seekers closer to jobs, and making it easier for job seekers to travel to existing jobs (Chapple, 2006;Ihlanfeldt & Sjoquist, 1998). My research fi ndings explain in part why these spatial strategies have not been more successful (Blumenberg & Pierce, 2014;Sanchez & Brennan, 2008).…”

Section: Job Accessibility In Los Angeles: Implications For Public Pomentioning

confidence: 90%

“…However, there is serious debate about how much spatial barriers explain the poor employment outcome of Blacks, a debate fueled by the fact that most of these policies and programs have not been very successful in increasing the employment of the poor or racial minorities (Blumenberg & Pierce, 2014;Sanchez & Brennan, 2008). Ellwood (1986) fi nds little effect of job accessibility on youth employment rates in Chicago and thus claims that "the problem isn't space.…”

Section: Spatial Mismatch Under Changing Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the last 50 years a number of policies have attempted to reduce these barriers, including housing dispersion programs that move inner-city residents to the suburbs, economic development programs designed to bring jobs to the inner cities where low-income workers live, and transportation and reverse-commuting programs to help inner-city residents get more easily to suburban jobs (Blumenberg & Pierce, 2014;Chapple, 2006;Ihlanfeldt & Sjoquist, 1998).…”

Section: Spatial Mismatch Under Changing Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Job Accessibility of the Poor in Los Angeles

2015

Journal of the American Planning Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Job Accessibility In Los Angeles: Implications For Public Pomentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Spatial Mismatch Under Changing Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Spatial Mismatch Under Changing Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Job Accessibility of the Poor in Los Angeles

2015

Journal of the American Planning Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cross-subsidization would not be ruled out across the board, but would require additional justification, for instance based on considerations of environmental externalities including climate change. Second, the model would provide a fundamentally different underpinning for the provision and financing of public transport services (or possibly also car ownership support schemes; [6]). These would no longer be seen as a form of charity, but rather as the means to uphold the formal mobility or accessibility rights of citizens.…”

Section: Equitable Provision In the Domain Of Transportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equity in transport: Learning from the policy domains of housing, health care and education

Jeekel

Martens

2017

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The aim of this paper is to explore the equity principles in three main domains of government intervention (health, education and especially housing) and to draw lessons for the domain of transport. In line with the burgeoning literature, we consider equity in transport to be primarily -albeit not only -concerned with the level of accessibility conferred by the transport-land use system to persons. While some (recent) research has explored what requirements of fairness may imply for accessibility the issue has received scant attention in the practice of transport planning and policy. In contrast, equity principles are fairly well established in the domains of health care, education and housing. By analyzing the equity principles in each of the latter domains, and assessing their possible relevance for the domain of transport, we want to contribute to the rapidly growing literature addressing equity concerns in the domain of transport. Methods The paper consists of two parts. In the first part, we conduct a thought experiment with the aim to provide a rough first estimate of the population at risk of what we call accessibility poverty. In the second part of the paper, we contrast the (lack of) equity principles in the transport domain with the type of equity principles underpinning three domains of government intervention: health care, education, and housing. We have selected these domains, because in contrast to transport, they are generally considered key anchors of developed welfare states; and in parallel to transport, they are each concerned with the delivery of a particular good to citizens. Results We estimate that in developed (Northern-European) countries about 9% to 11% of households is at risk of accessibility poverty. Of this group, 7% of all households is at risk because of a poor transport system (and sometimes also because of affordability problems), while another 2% to 4% is at risk of accessibility poverty because of disproportionally high motoring costs. We observe that most Western societies have well-established policies regarding the fair provision of health care, education and housing for all (income) groups. In contrast, decision-makers have not even started to define what fairness in the domain of transport could amount to. Conclusion Given the importance of mobility in modern societies, we argue that there is an urgent need for societal and policy debates about fairness and for subsequent translation of the outcomes of these debates into adequate principles, standards, and policies for the transport domain.

show abstract

“…Since MTO did not improve participants' access to jobs, MTO's disappointing employment outcomes cannot be seen as evidence that spatial mismatch was not the cause of poverty (Quigley & Raphael, 2008). In fact, Blumenberg and Pierce (2014) found that MTO movers who gained access to a car or public transit were positively related to employment outcomes after controlling the effect of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, housing attributes, and neighborhood quality.…”

Section: A Impact On Accessibility To Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trapped in the Tiebout model : the impact of federal affordable housing programs on migration of wealthier residents.

Lin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

do not pay more taxes for the public goods used exclusively by the poor, like welfare and health, further migration may still occur under a decentralized fiscal system. Property taxation requires wealthier residents to pay more for each unit of other nonexclusive public goods than the poor do. The research implies that funding anti-poverty programs at the local level rather than the national level may stimulate the out-migration of wealthier residents. As wealthier residents exit the newly mixed-income municipalities, poverty may re-concentrate, limiting the effectiveness of housing mobility programs.vii

show abstract

A Driving Factor in Mobility? Transportation's Role in Connecting Subsidized Housing and Employment Outcomes in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Program

Cited by 74 publications

References 53 publications

Job Accessibility of the Poor in Los Angeles

Job Accessibility of the Poor in Los Angeles

Equity in transport: Learning from the policy domains of housing, health care and education

Trapped in the Tiebout model : the impact of federal affordable housing programs on migration of wealthier residents.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About