The Growth of Ethnic Organizations in the Context of Neighborhood Change: Organizational Ecology in Postwar San Francisco

Abstract

Which neighborhood conditions foster the growth of ethnic organizations? This paper explores how changing unemployment, homeownership, and immigration in neighborhoods shape the growth of ethnic organizations in San Francisco from 1940 to 1970. Using hierarchical linear modeling, this paper analyzes the growth of white ethnic and racial minority organizations as postwar neighborhood changes took form. Results indicate that white ethnic and racial minority organizations experience very different growth trajectories. Findings indicate that the growth of racial minority organizations was negatively affected as foreign‐born population size grew and unemployment rose. White ethnic organizations, however, were impervious to these same neighborhood changes. These results suggest that social heterogeneity and economic uncertainty stall the growth of racial minority organizations, whereas white ethnic organizations are unaffected by these conditions.

Chinatowns Lost? The Birth and Death of Urban Neighborhoods in an American City

“…For example, through the 1860s, Los Angeles passed a series of Housing Segregation Laws that both barred Chinese immigrants and people of Chinese descent from owning property within Los Angeles and prescribing the only area in which Chinese people would be legally allowed to reside (Li 1998). In addition, Los Angeles' many nativist groups workedthrough civic organizations, newspapers, and overt intimidation and violence-to ensure that Chinese and other Asian migrants to Los Angeles were unable to live outside of already established Chinatowns (Brooks 2009;Olvera 2015). Chinese residents were forced to live in the segregated ghetto-Chinatown-not only because it was mandated de jure, but also because it was where Chinese migrants were safe from abuse (Brooks 2009).…”

The Relevance of Inequality Research in Sociology for Inequality Reduction

“…However, relatively few articles come closer to a focus on mechanisms that might improve neighborhoods where the disadvantaged live (i.e., what we call feasibility research). Positive examples include Olvera (2015), who addressed the structural conditions that favor the growth of racial minority organizations, such as the rise in neighborhood home ownership, though her research did not link this process to the neighborhood factors conjectured by Sampson to improve neighborhoods and thereby affect community outcomes. In another example, Hein (2014) used the collective efficacy framework to study the frequency of civic engagement actions and their connection to local organizations by Hmong Americans living in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.…”

Whose Need Matters?: The Local Welfare State, Poverty, and Variation in US Counties’ Social Service Provisioning

“…Density of service provisioning tends to be highly related to demand heterogeneity, such that demand for services will be larger where the population size is larger (Allard 2009;Garrow 2012). Since count measures of service provision are highly predicated on population size (Small and McDermott 2006;Olvera 2015), we incorporate population size and metropolitan status into the model in two ways. First, we use total population from the 2009 American Community Survey (where 2007 is the mid-point year), as an exposure variable, thereby specifying that a given county's social service provision variation is divided by population.…”

“…The standard Poisson model assumes constant "exposure" across units." Yet, scholars have noted that the range of community services and organizations is predicated on population size and that failing to accommodate this in community models artificially inflates the relationship between population size and services (Carroll 1984;Oates 1988;Olvera 2015). In the case of counties, their populations vary dramatically in size affecting the range of services that can be provided efficiently.…”