ERIC ED409458: Getting from Here to There. The Bridges to Work Demonstration. First Report to the Field. Field Report Series.

14 Pages·1997·0.18 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 409 458 CE 074 415
AUTHOR
Palubinsky, Beth Z.; Watson, Bernardine H.
Getting from Here to There. The Bridges to Work
TITLE
Demonstration. First Report to the Field. Field Report
Series.
INSTITUTION Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
SPONS AGENCY
D.C. Office of Policy Development and Research.; Ford
Foundation, New York, N.Y.; John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL.; Rockefeller Foundation,
New York, N.Y.
PUB DATE
97
NOTE
13p.
Reports
PUB TYPE
Research (143)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE'
Adults; Demonstration Programs; *Employment Opportunities;
DESCRIPTORS
Employment Problems; *Entry Workers; *Equal Opportunities
(Jobs); *Inner City; *Job Development; *Suburbs;
Transportation
ABSTRACT
Research has shown that three main barriers impede the
ability of inner-city, low-income job seekers to find employment in the
suburbs: an administrative or information barrier, a physical barrier, and a
social barrier. The Bridges to Work demonstration program was designed to
test the idea that improved access to suburban jobs can significantly improve
outcomes for low-income urban workers and their neighborhoods. The elements
of the Bridges to Work model are designed to address each of the three
barriers described. Bridges elements include the following:
(1) a placement
mechanism across the metropolitan area to connect residents of inner-city
neighborhoods to suburban job openings; (2) a targeted commute to allow
residents to reach those suburban destinations; and (3) limited support
services aimed at mitigating problems created or exacerbated by the daily
commute to distant and unfamiliar job locations. Following 2 years of
planning, 5 sites--in Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, and St.
Louis--began 4 years of project operations in late 1996. The sites are
designed to answer questions about the strategy, policy, concerns and funding
shifts. At present, the five sites are grappling with immediate concerns:
(1)
administrative barriers among the agencies and jurisdictions involved;
(2)
physical barriers involving transportation providers; and (3) social
barriers, including racism and lack of supportive services.
(KC)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
00
1
O
gtZr
p
MIK
S
I
t
I
I
t
EDUCATION
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
US DEPARTMENT OF
Improvement
Olt a of Eaucaoonat Research and
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
INFORMATION
ED CATIONAL RESOURCES
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
reproduced as
CO This document has been
organization
received from the person or
originating it
to
Minor changes have been made
improve reproduction quality
this
Points of view or opinions stated in
TO THE EW(CATIONALIRESOURCES
represent
document do not necessarily
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
official OERI position or policy
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
BRIDGES TO WORK FUNDERS
Predemonstration costs for Bridges to Work
were funded by the Office of Policy
Development and Research of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the U.S. Department
of Transportation's Federal Transit
Administration, The Ford Foundation,
The Rockefeller Foundation, The John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and
The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Demonstration costs are funded by HUD;
The Ford, MacArthur and Rockefeller
Foundations; and a variety of local sources at
each of the five demonstration sites.
3
GETT_NG FROM
HERE
T
T
E
E
Eta
2Z3 Paiddimkgy
%VINOD
NIEADIECOIDS
I.ILb
DM
Osatim
Pennsylvania
aboINARtsEnU Vsffeamo
4
BACKGROUND
PLANNING THE DEMONSTRATION
In 1993with the support of a consortium of
In the early 1990s, P/PV began to examine the
private funders, the Department of Housing
increase in inner-city joblessness and the growing
and Urban Development (HUD) and the
"suburbanization" of employment that had
Federal Transit AdministrationP/PV began
occurred in many major metropolitan areas of the
to plan Bridges to Work, a demonstration
United States over the past three decades. Our
designed to test the idea that improved access
to suburban jobs can significantly improve
investigation showed that, in six of the nation's
outcomes for low-income urban workers and
eight largest metropolitan regions, more than two-
their neighborhoods. The elements of the
thirds of the jobs created during the 1980s were
Bridges to Work model are designed to
located in the suburbs; at the same time, inner-city
address each of the three barriers described
poverty rates had become from two to five times
above. Bridges' elements are:
higher than those in the suburbs of those regions.
1. A metropolitanwide placement mechanism to
connect residents of inner-city neighborhoods
The results of our examination highlight a
to suburban job openings;
problem seen often in the employment and training
2. A targeted commute to allow residents to reach
field: work-ready adults, including graduates of
those suburban destinations; and
city-based job training programs, still face
3. Limited support services aimed at mitigating
unemployment despite their training, partly
problems created or exacerbated by the
daily commute to distant and unfamiliar job
because they have no access to the suburban job
locations.
market where good entry-level jobs often abound.
Nine sites participated in two years of
Further investigation identified three barriers to
planning, during which they attempted to
this access.
build unusual metropolitanwide partnerships
we call them "collaboratives"among city
First, an administrative, or information, barrier
and suburban SDAs (Service Delivery Areas)
keeps the inner-city job-seeker from employment in
and Private Industry Councils (PICs),
the suburbs. City-based job training programs
community organizations, employer
typically have citywide rather than metropolitan-
representatives, transportation providers, state
and local human service providers, and others
wide jurisdictions, which means they seldom place
necessary to support the Bridges model.
program participants into suburban jobs about
In the spring of 1996, five sitesBaltimore,
which they have little information. Second, a
Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee and St. Louis
physical, or transportation, barrier limits access.
were selected to implement the model based
Even if program graduates obtain suburban jobs,
on their demonstrated capacity to build,
manage and sustain these complex new
they may be unable to get Yrom here to there."
collaboratives. These sites began four full
They may not have reliable automobiles and, for
years of project operations in late 1996.
the most part, public transit supports suburb-to-
city commuters, not those going the other way.
Finally, the relatively lengthy commute to the
suburbs heightens the need for supports, like child
care, without which suburban access may be
limited, especially for low-income workers trying
to make the transition to self-sufficiency and keep
5
a job somewhat far from home.
EST COPY AVAILABLE
1
EARLY SUCCESS, ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
During the pilot, program operators at
Bridges was conceived and born in a complex,
four of the five project sites are testing all
difficult time. Shrinking federal transit
the operational elements of Bridgesthe
dollars, diminished funding for employment/
placement, transportation and support
training and human services, movement from
services mechanismswith a small number
categorical toward block-granted funding,
of participants who will not "count" as part of
and profound changes in the thinking of
the sites' research samples. Full-fledged
policymakers and the public about society's
operations, and the research, will not begin
obligations to the poor, articulated
until late spring 1997, when these four sites
most clearly in the new welfare legislation
each begin to enroll and serve 800 persons
all these currents put strains on the
whose activities and outcomes in Bridges we
collaboratives' ability to stay together, plan
will follow and assess. In the fifth Bridges
and implement the Bridges demonstration.
city, the project's operators will attempt to
But the collaboratives did stay intact and
place 1500 workers without having to comply
moved forward to plan the project and pull
with the rigorous requirements of the research
together the resources they would need to
design. At this site, P/PV will document the
operate the three elements of Bridges. For
challenges of going "to scale" as quickly and
though the national climate was changing, the
with as many persons as possible.
local labor market landscape remained the
samepoor people landlocked in urban
To date, cooperation among institutions and
across regional lines has been impressive. At
neighborhoods, isolated from opportunities in
the same time, some issues and challenges
job-rich suburbs by the lack of information
have emerged from the implementation of
and a ride.
what appears to be a simple solution to the
By the fall of 1996, the sites completed their
problem of spatial mismatcha bridge built
planning for Bridges and prepared for the
of transportation, placement and limited
demonstration's three- to six-month pilot
support services. These issues and challenges
phase. This would be the Bridges "road test":
go to the heart of two big questions about the
a trial period in which the sites would provide
Bridges to Work approach: does it work, and
placement, transportation and support
what does it take to make it work?
services to a small number of participants,
before the rigors of research and full-fledged
Bridging the administrative barrier between
operations would begin.
the poor and suburban opportunity
A key goal of the demonstration is to
Bridges requires the participation of
generate information for policymakers and
institutions and individuals that have typically
decisionmakers about Bridges' "mobility"
functioned inside distinct jurisdictions or
approach, which focuses on the realities of
geographies, their missions often overlapping
current metropolitan settlement patterns and
but their activities largely separated by law,
the demands of the labor market. Because
regulation or local tradition. To qualify at the
Bridges to Work has a rigorous evaluation
earliest stage for a planning grant, a
design, we expect to be able to provide
prospective Bridges site had to assemble a
critical information about how Bridges is
collaborative of players from throughout the
most effectively implemented and its impact
metropolitan regiona lead CBO with
on the lives of participants. We will also
employment/training experience, an
document and analyze the ways that the
experienced transportation provider (public or
Bridges sites secure and package funding
private), an experienced human services
support.
provider, and a "convener"an agency able
to keep them all at the table through a lengthy
and complicated planning process.
6
2
P/PV required that interested regions use the
In yet another city, the convener had
collaborative structure because we were
determined early on that any number of the
convinced that a cure for spatial mismatch
region's key employment/training agencies
would not be found without genuine, bottom-
might play a part in the success of Bridges in
up buy-in and planning involving both city
the region, which has a long and rich history
and suburb. But we required more than
of collaboration. In deciding which to
merely a structure for the planning groups.
invite into the Bridges planning process, the
We required that they collaborate around the
convener had to weigh the relative strengths
concrete concept that came out of our
of each potential partner against the
knowledge-gathering: that the solution to a
possibility that either the politics in the region
region's city-suburb mismatch would require
or at any one agency might overwhelm the
the implementation of the three key elements
planning process. The convener concluded
of our proposed mobility-for-work strategy.
that too-heavy reliance on one or two partners
could be fatal if, as the process became
We did not expect that Bridges would or
more demanding and the rigors of Bridges
should mitigate all the individualism,
operations and research were more widely
territoriality and protectionism that often
understood, one or another opted to back out.
characterize relations among agencies and
So the convener elected to build the group
between city and suburb. We did, though,
with a larger-than-typical number of agency
expect them to lower the barriers that
partners on the theory that each could
typically impede success by committing to
contribute a lot to Bridges, while the loss of
share their information, staff, facilities,
any would not bring the process or the project
experience and expertise to achieve the
to a halt.
demonstration's goals.
Bridges challenges agencies, used to doing
Some sites have achieved success more easily
business in certain ways, to do things in new
than others. In one site, for example, there are
ways; so far they seem to be succeeding.
growing mutual comfort and trustborn in
We do not idealize the collaborative; we
the Bridges planning phasebetween the city
recognize that even the best may not be able
and suburban employment/training
to overcome all the resistance its members
administrations, a relationship that has led to
retain, legitimately or not, to ceding
agreements to exchange information and
power and control (and funding) to those
share credits for job placements achieved
from different, and differing, jurisdictions
through Bridges.
and geographies within a region. Even as we
At another site, the collaborative met with
prepare this report, Bridges sites struggle
such resistance to its placement plan" job
with management, staffing and other issues
protectionism and racism" is how the
that arise as the demonstration gets up steam.
convener describes itfrom the PICs in the
At every one of the sites, though, even while
region's job-rich counties that the group
a commitment to finding a regional solution
abandoned its plan to build Bridges around
to spatial mismatch has not eliminated
a partnership between the city and suburban
all strain, and some vestiges of territorialism
PICs. With the city administration still a
remain, one convener has said that the
strong member, the group held together,
Bridges structure has worked so far because it
changed course and soon had established a
challenged the sites to organize around a firm
promising relationship between one of the
conceptnot just a rhetorically noble goal
city's new one-stop employment centers and
while enabling "each partner agency to
a major suburban business partnership,
accomplish something it was individually
bypassing the suburban public employment/
motivated to achieve" and to "advance its
training system altogether.
individual objectives collectively."
7
3
"targeted commute" mechanisms, three
During the planning and pilot phases, of
involving public transit to a degree but not
course, success may rely on elements
exclusively, two using only nonpublic
different from those required for success
providers.
during implementation. For instance, during
the early phases, the convener at each site
In nearly every case, the local choice has
played the major role, guiding the group's
required players to work together in ways
activities and decisions. As the sites make the
entirely new to them and to learn new kinds
transition into full-fledged operations and
of information and vocabularies. The sites
research, each project is run by a project
have by and large managed it well so far,
director and a staff who operate, for the most
but nowhere without hard work and commit-
part, out of a single agency designated to
ment, and almost nowhere without signs
manage the project. So far, all five conveners
of strain and even conflict as each seeks to
and collaboratives retain a strong presence.
develop a sound transportation plan to
What remains to be seen is whether and how
connect its Bridges "Origin" (the single city
a transition from convener and collaborator to
neighborhood in which Bridges participants
project staff takes place and what, if any,
must reside) to its "Destination" (the job-rich
issues arise as former collaborators and
area of the suburbs in which Bridges
conveners play a reduced role.
participants will work).
Sometimes the seemingly simplest issues
Bridging the physical barrier between the
have engendered the fiercest debates. For
poor and job opportunities in the suburbs
example, at the threshold of transportation
We expected that bridging the physical gap
planning at some Bridges sites lay the
between poverty and opportunity would have
question of where Bridges participants should
been easy to achieve: in a world richrife,
be picked up for their rides to workat their
evenwith cars, buses, vans and rail, we
homes, on street corners or at other collection
thought, the mechanics of the targeted
points in the Origin, at a child-care center
commute would be first to fall into place. As
where Bridges parents would take their
the federal government moved to consolidate
children, or some other spot? Which would
the nation's transit, highway, land-use and
be most efficient and cost-effective? But what
other policies and funding under ISTEAthe
started out as an inquiry into transportation
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
service planning and management became
Actwe believed that Bridges would have
something else. Some argued that it was not
broad appeal to those charged with reshaping
fair to ask Bridges participants, already
the planning and provision of transit in major
laboring under significant deficits, to travel on
metropolitan regions.
their own to the Bridges pick-up point. What
if they have to walk dangerous streets in their
We were wrong. At the worst, we and the
neighborhoods? Why should they not have
sites realized that some public transit
the same conveniences as those of us who
agencies and MPOs (Metropolitan Planning
have cars in our driveways?
Organizations) had no interest in city-to-
suburb commuting as an antipoverty strategy.
Bridges planners have argued, too, about the
At best, we found that some did, but are
appropriateness of requiring Bridges
lockedby tradition, timing and funding
participants to pay for their targeted
limitsinto traditional methods of transit
commutes to work. In a focus group at one
planning and could not be persuaded to
Bridges site, collaborators listened to some,
support Bridges' innovative, border-crossing
including poor people and social services
approach. So, early on, the sites moved
professionals, assert that a Bridges
toward what has become a variety of Bridges
participant, newly employed and facing
enough other challenges as he or she heads
for the suburban frontier, should not have to
8
4
spend even a small portion of earnings on the
serves neither riders nor employers well.
commute, and that the fare requirement
The job developer, on the other hand, asserts
would be a disincentive to participation in the
that the jobs are just the kind the project must
program. On the other side, some said that
develop to succeed, and that the provider
transportationwhether bus, train or caris
should deal with the dispersal. The collabora-
one of the inevitable costs of being a working
tive is working hard to resolve the tension
person and that Bridges participants should
and to enable each of these key Bridges
be expected to deal with it from the start.
partners to hear what the other has to say.
What has emerged is a variety of fare
At the three sites where public transit will
strategies, sometimes grounded in an uneasy
provide some or all Bridges services, Bridges
truce over these complicated issues. At one
riders will use existing, scheduled public bus
site, Bridges riders will receive full fare
and light rail, combined with circulator
subsidies while they participate in the
van services where necessary in the Origin or
program; at the other sites, riders will pay
Destination to complete the targeted
some or all of the fare for their daily rides,
commute. In the two other sites, all Bridges
with fare subsidies decreasing at some sites
transportation will be provided by for-profit
over time. In some sites, Bridges riders will
providers who see Bridges as the ideal
embark for work at their own doors; in most
laboratory in which to develop and expand
places, though, they will start their ride at
their paratransit operations and market shares,
another point in their neighborhood.
serving Bridges Origins (dense city
neighborhoods) and Destinations (suburban
The issues brought up by transportation
office and industrial complexes) where
planning have exposed the players to new
physical and labor market conditions render
challenges and information. Those who come
large buses cumbersome in size and inflexible
to Bridges from a tradition of serving the
in routing and scheduling.
poor have had to learn that train and bus
routes and schedules tend to change, if at all,
Bridging the social barriers between the
only after costly and lengthy analysis and
poor and employment in the suburbs
revision, and only when the transportation
provider believes that ridership and market
Some of the biggest disagreements among the
share will increase. On the other side, transit
players at the sites have arisen over that piece
providers who are members of the Bridges
of Bridges that gets the least amount of
collaboratives may or may not become
funding and ranks third among our three key
advocates for the poor. They apparently see
elementssupport services. We encouraged
Bridges as good business, but they will have
the sites to plan for and allocate a small
to deal with labor market factors, including
portion of their operations funding to such
unannounced shift changes, overtime
things as child-care subsidies, emergency
requirements and the like, as these
rides home and a limited array of strategies
partnerships progress.
that a site might adopt to enable Bridges
participants to overcome what some call
At one Bridges site, the transportation
resistance, others racism, in their new
provider, who is an experienced private
suburban workplaces. We discouraged more,
operator, has clashed with the project's job
though, because of our conviction that the
developer, a just-as-experienced employment
enhanced services of Bridges should be
professional, over the location of jobs
aimed at solving the problems caused by
recently developed for Bridges participants.
spatial mismatch, not aimed at solving all the
The transportation operator says that the jobs
problems related to unemployment or
are so widely dispersed across the site's
underemployment among urban job-seekers.
Destination that, in these early months of the
effort at least, the targeted commute covers
too many miles and takes too long and so.
9
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
5
information about suburban jobs and
Both during planning and pilot, some fierce
transportation to those jobs, are work-ready
debates have waged over how muchor how
then shouldn't Bridges projects need to
littleBridges should provide by way of
provide few, not many, supports?
support services. Very soon, the corollary
questions came up: just how "work-ready" is
But what kind of supports, even limited ones,
someone who has a lot of support service
are appropriate and necessary? For instance,
needs; and what could and should Bridges do,
what kind and amount of support should
and not do, for those seeking work in the
Bridges give to urban residents who
suburbs?
encounter the Big Rcall it resistance or
racismin the suburban workplace? On one
In its earliest incarnation, the debate arose
side are those Bridges staffers, ardent and
over one site's plan to fund, through its
experienced, who assert that Bridges should
support services budget, fees for extended
provide a full range of supportive services to
child care, professional licenses, tools and
their clients. Some have taken the position,
uniforms, and emergency rent and utility
for example, that Bridges staff must act
allowances; and of another's to fund family
aggressively when racism appears in a
crisis counseling and substance abuse
Bridges workplace, demanding that the
interventions. The rationale was the same in
employer offer diversity training to workers,
both instances, and it was not unsound: all
or provide time and facilities for crisis
sorts of things besides the lack of a ride and
intervention counseling.
placement information may conspire to keep
a poor person from finding work in the first
But not all agree. In response to that
place or from sustaining a job once found.
very comment, another Bridges staffer said:
Any of a number of unexpected events, they
"No, it's our job to make sure that the
argueda baby-sitter falls ill, a tool belt
participant gets a good job and earns a good
is stolen, an employer requires all workers to
wage. I don't care if they wind up being
wear expensive steel-toed shoes, a family
friends with their coworkers, or if their boss
member's substance abuse threatens the
ever understands or accepts black culture.
stability of the householdcould derail a
That's not what this is about and this isn't the
worker who, albeit determined and willing,
place to take care of all those problems."
has no nest egg or safety net.
So the debate goes on, between two Bridges
Despite the persuasiveness of this position, we
staff constituencies: those professionals
decided to stay with limited support services.
who support intense advocacy for their job-
This would ensure that the focus of the
seeking clients not only in regard to
Bridges demonstration would remain on the
employment but in regard to health, family
changes in the wages and earnings of the
relations, culture and race, and the like; and
participants who make these new suburban
those who believe that the right amount
connections, not on the effects of a wide array
of intervention for a truly work-ready Bridges
of supports that job-seekers may well need but
participant is the least amount needed
that do not relate specifically to the location of
to obtain and sustain a job that leads to real
their new employment in the suburbs.
increases in wages and earnings.
But recently, with the projects virtually fully
Whether we call them "support services" or
staffed at each site and ready to move from
something else, we expect that discussion
planning to implementation, the debate has
will continue over the types and level
been renewed, focused this time on the highly
of assistance necessary to sustain these new
charged issue of just whom Bridges serves
city-suburb relationships and that Bridges
and how to best serve them. Or put another
will enable us to discover useful information
way, if the basic hypothesis of Bridges is
about them.
rightthat there is in each of our cities a
large pool of adults who, but for the lack of
10