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

Abstract

The paper uses Geographic Information System to investigate (1) the location of One-Stop Career Centers in Southern California, (2) their level of accessibility to unemployed workers of various demographic groups, (3) their proximity to employment opportunities, and (4) the effect of these spatial relations on Census tract unemployment. We build on the non-profit literature on accessibility to social service providers and on spatial mismatch research that emphasizes the gap between places of work and residence. We argue that One-Stops can play an important role in bridging this gap. We find that One-Stops are well positioned to serve the unemployed, although accessibility varies by race/ethnicity, age, and location. Access to One-Stops reduces local unemployment, particularly in neighborhoods with limited employment opportunities. This effect is larger for groups who experience limited mobility due to gender or race, such as black and female job seekers. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2006Unemployment, One-Stop, Service provider, Accessibility, Mobility, Spatial mismatch, GIS,

Social networks and Black–White differentials in public employment agency usage among mature job seekers

“…This question has been addressed by the recent literature. In an analysis of One-Stop Career Centers in southern California, Joassart-Marcelli and Giordano (2006) reported that their accessibility was higher for unemployed workers than for the employed (as expected), and for Blacks and Hispanics than for Whites. They also found that these centers increased in importance for Black and female job seekers when employment opportunities declined, as they provided job seekers with indirect access to information on new jobs.…”

Gender, social network geographies, and low-wage employment among recent Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles

“…Data on nonprofits were obtained from the National Center of Charitable Statistics' Core data (NCCS, 2001) and GuideStar (2010) was used to match employer identification numbers with full addresses for geocoding. While these data only reflect formal nonprofit institutions and exclude smaller organizations and for-profit employment agencies, they provide a rough landscape of employment service provision in the region, which tends to be organized around service hubs (Joassart-Marcelli & Giordano, 2007;Joassart-Marcelli & Wolch, 2003).…”

“…Concentration in ethnic and gender niches results from socio-spatial processes through which residential segregation interacts with the local division of labor (Ellis et al, 2004;Parks, 2004a;Scott, 1996;Wang, 2010;Wright et al, 2010), social networks (Greve & Salaff, 2005), and other local resources to influence mobility and access to given occupations (Joassart-Marcelli, 2009;Joassart-Marcelli & Giordano, 2007;Mclafferty & Preston, 1992;Parks, 2004b). Consideration of these spatial forces is thus critical.…”

Are Nonprofit Antipoverty Organizations Located Where They Are Needed? A Spatial Analysis of the Greater Hartford Region

“…Yet nonprofits still need to locate where they also have access to sustainable resources. Accordingly, an emerging body of research has examined the spatial connections between nonprofit organizations, particularly antipoverty nonprofits, and community need and local resources (Bielefeld and Murdoch, 2004;Brass, 2012;Joassart-Marcelli and Giordano, 2006;Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch, 2003;Metzler and Giordano, 2007;Peck, 2008;Wolpert, 1988). Important as the geographical locations of antipoverty nonprofits are for economic development, social services, public health, and policy efforts, this emerging line of research often suffers from methodological limitations and has yet to benefit from the most recent advances in the statistics literature.…”