The Intrametropolitan Geography of Poverty and the Nonprofit Sector in Southern California

Abstract

that the number of antipoverty nonprofits and their level of expenditure are higher in poorer cities. Nevertheless, given poverty concentration patterns, these activities are insufficient to guarantee equal services to poor persons in the poorest areas compared with those in wealthier cities. Regression analyses indicate that higher levels of nonprofit antipoverty activity are likely to be found in older and centrally located cities with higher socioeconomic status and significant government contribution to the provision of social services. These findings suggest that nonprofits and governments ought to be seen as complements rather than substitutes in efforts to alleviate intrametropolitan poverty disparities.

Does local access to employment services reduce unemployment? A GIS analysis of One-Stop Career Centers

“…For instance, Joassart- Marcelli and Wolch (2003) analyze the location of antipoverty non-profits and its relationship to the distribution of poverty in Southern California. They show that although antipoverty service providers tend to locate in proximity to poor populations, they lack the financial resources to provide equal services to all.…”

Place Matters: The Spatial Effects of Human Service Expenditures

“…The research points to necessary caution in conducting spatial analysis that extends beyond spatiallymeaningful regions. A tremendous amount of research (Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch 2003;Garrow 2014;McDougle 2015) has been conducted in southern California around the distribution of nonprofit organizations. Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch (2003) find that median income, unemployment rate, and low educational attainment are all negatively associated with the number of nonprofits in a geography, yet when adjusted for proportion in of the population in poverty, there is a very strong positive effect on the number of nonprofits per thousand poor persons.…”

“…A tremendous amount of research (Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch 2003;Garrow 2014;McDougle 2015) has been conducted in southern California around the distribution of nonprofit organizations. Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch (2003) find that median income, unemployment rate, and low educational attainment are all negatively associated with the number of nonprofits in a geography, yet when adjusted for proportion in of the population in poverty, there is a very strong positive effect on the number of nonprofits per thousand poor persons. Lastly, Chen, Guo, and Paarlberg (2014) use a spatial count model (ZIP) to find that unemployment rate, renter rate, and poverty rate are all positively associated with the presence of antipoverty nonprofits in Hartford, Connecticut.…”

“…A defining feature of many human services is that they are place-based (e. g. Bielefeld, Murdoch, and Waddell 1997;Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch 2003;Allard 2009;Hillier 2007;Peck 2008). One cannot provide a feeding program over the internet, or an afterschool program from a call center overseas.…”

The Changing Face of Welfare during the Bush Administration

“…Other agencies may choose to locate nearer affluent populations that can generate revenues through fees and private giving, ensuring consistent service delivery to those in need. Certain communities and neighborhoods may be better equipped to raise resources that can be dedicated to social service provision than others, which will lead to geographic variation in service availability (Grønbjerg and Paarlberg 2001;Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch 2003;Allard 2004).…”