Self-Sufficiency Stalled

Given the demonstrated link between transportation and employment, wouldn’t it be counterproductive to force families to surrender or downgrade their car in order to be eligible for assistance?

This recession marks the first time since welfare reform that policymakers are revisiting the social safety net.

Yet when thousands of families are struggling to find and keep employment, some on Beacon Hill threatened to cut the one tool proven effective in moving families from welfare to work: a car.

Last month, Sen. Steven Baddour (D-Methuen) proposed an amendment to cut a program begun by former Gov. Mitt Romney that provides families on public assistance with a car if they demonstrate it necessary to securing and maintaining work. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) argued this support is inappropriate given the state’s fiscal crisis. Indeed, slashing the program would have narrowed a $3 billion deficit by a whopping .01 percent while forcing dozens of families to continue drawing down public assistance, at least until policymakers voted to fund public bus lines to every corner of the state. Thankfully, Baddour’s amendment was shot down by the Senate. But saving a program that helps a few dozen families a year does little to solve the spatial mismatch between jobs and workers in Massachusetts.

There is an important mismatch between where low-income folks live and where employers are hiring low-skilled workers. For decades, urban centers were the source of lower-skilled jobs and, not surprisingly, also the home of many low-skilled workers. Public transportation linked workers and jobs. But we’re now seeing job growth in the low-skill sector taking place in the suburbs and, again, not surprisingly, seeing more poor families with suburban addresses. Low-skilled job growth is taking place outside of the center city and outside of the reach of public transportation.

In 2007 the program Baddour and Brown sought to eliminate helped 39 families progress from assistance to employment; in 2008 that number climbed to 56. Moving families from welfare to work saved the state more than $500,000 in welfare payments, not to mention increasing the tax revenue and benefits of having more parents employed and able to support their families.

With the prospect of finding work made infinitely more difficult by the economic crisis, having a car expands the geographical scope of the job search - and the odds of an employee making it to work on time, thereby decreasing the likelihood of being laid off.

Given the demonstrated link between transportation and employment, wouldn’t it be counterproductive to require families to surrender or downgrade their vehicle in order to be eligible for assistance? But that’s exactly the policy in the Bay State. At the same time we empower a few dozen families with a vehicle, we’re asking hundreds, if not thousands, of others to toss their car if they want state aid.

Twelve states exclude all household vehicles when determining a family’s eligibility for cash assistance; another 15 exclude at least one vehicle. Yet Massachusetts excludes only a portion of the value of one vehicle, up to a fair market value of $10,000 or equity value of $5,000. This confusing policy is the most restrictive in New England and among the nation’s most restrictive, undermining job opportunities and thereby increasing the time families spend on the dole.

Just this week, the California State Assembly passed a bill to exclude all vehicles in determining eligibility for public assistance. Policymakers there estimate the move may even save money since caseworkers will no longer have to waste countless hours deliberating between the value of a 1998 Camry and a 2002 Civic.

Massachusetts should follow suit. Blocking Baddour’s amendment prevented a step backward. Now it’s time to take a step forward by allowing families to keep their cars while receiving public assistance.