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

Policy Sciences

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 335-359

  Joassart Marcelli, Pascale ^a   Giordano, Alberto ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^b TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accessibility; GIS; Mobility; One Stop; Service provider; Spatial mismatch; Unemployment

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; GIS; SPATIAL MISMATCH; UNEMPLOYMENT;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33846490246     PISSN: 00322687     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11077-006-9028-1     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Allard, S. (2004). Access to social services: The changing urban geography of poverty and service provision. Metropolitan policy program, survey series. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
3. Allard, S., & Danziger, S. (2003). Proximity and opportunity: How residence and race affect the employment of welfare recipients. Housing Policy Debate, 13, 675-700.
4. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Bielefeld, W., Murdoch, J., & Waddell, P. (1997). The influence of demographics and distance on nonprofit location. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 207-225.
6. Bielefeld, W., & Murdoch, J. (2004). The locations of nonprofit organizations and their for-profit counterparts: An exploratory analysis. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 221-246.
7. Blumenberg, E. (2004). En-gendering effective planning: Spatial mismatch, low-income women, and transportation policy. Journal of American Planning Association, 70, 269-284.
8. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, L. J. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
9. Browne, I. (2000). Opportunities lost? Race, industrial restructuring and employment among young women heading households. Social Forces, 78, 907-929.
10. Carslon, V., & Theodore, N. (1997). Employment availability for entry-level workers: An examination of the spatial mismatch hypothesis in Chicago. Urban Geography, 18, 228-242.
11. Census Bureau (1990). Census of population and housing. Summary tape files 3. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
12. Census Bureau (2000). Census of population and housing. Summary file 3. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
13. Census Bureau (2000). Census transportation planning package. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation.
14. Census Bureau (2000). Census of population and housing. Public use microdata sample (PUMS). Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.
15. Coulton, C. J. (2003). Metropolitan inequities and the ecology of work: Implications for welfare reform. Social Service Review, 77, 159-190.
16. Ellen, I., & Turner, M. (1999). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8, 833-866.
17. Elliott, M., Sprangler, D., & Yorkievitz, K. (1998). What's next after work first: Workforce development report to the field. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
18. ESRI. (2003). Data and maps. Redland, CA: ESRI.
19. GeoDa (2004). An introduction to spatial data analysis (version 0.9.5-i). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Department of Geography: Statistical Analysis Laboratory, https://www.geoda.uiuc.edu/ default.php.
20. Gilbert, M. (1998). "Race," space, and power: The survival strategies of working poor women. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88, 595-621.
21. Grubb, W. N., Badway, N., Bell, D., Chi, B., King, C., Herr, J., Prince, H., Kazis, R., Hicks, L., & Combes Taylor, J. (1999). Toward order from chaos: State efforts to reform workforce development systems. Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
22. Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, work, and space. New York: Routledge.
23. Henly, J. R. (1999). Barriers to finding and maintaining jobs: The perspectives of workers and employers in the low-wage labor market. In J. F. Handler & L. White (Eds.), Hard labor: Women and work in the post-welfare era (pp. 48-75). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
24. Holzer, H. (1991). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies, 28, 105-122.
25. Hyland, J. (1998). An update on state workforce development reforms. Washington, DC: National Governor's Association.
26. Ihlanfeldt, K. R., & Sjoquist, D. L. (1998). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: A review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate, 9, 849-892.
27. Immergluck, D. (1998). Job proximity and the urban employment problem: Do suitable nearby jobs improve neighborhood employment rates? Urban Studies, 35, 7-23.
28. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In M. McGeary & L. Lynn (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy.
29. Johnson-Anumonwo, I. (1995). Racial differences in the commuting behavior of women in Buffalo, 1980-1990. Urban Geography, 16, 23-45.
30. Joassart-Marcelli, P., & Wolch, J. (2003). The intrametropolitan geography of poverty and the nonprofit sector in Southern California. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 70-96.
31. Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2006). Closing the gap between places of work and residence: The role of rental housing assistance in Southern California, Housing Policy Debate, forthcoming.
32. Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 175-197.
33. Kirschenman, J., & Neckerman, K. M. (1991). "We'd love to hire them, but...": The meaning of race for employers. In C. Jencks & P. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
34. MacDonald, H. I. (1999). Women's employment and commuting: Explaining the links. Journal of Planning Literature, 13, 267-283.
35. Marcuse, P. (1997). The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the post-fordist US city. Urban Affairs Review, 33, 228-264.
36. Martinson, K. (1999). Literature review on service coordination and integration in the welfare and workforce development systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
37. Martinson, K., & Holcomb, P. A. (2002). Reforming welfare: Institutional change and challenges. In Assessing the new federalism. The Urban Institute.
38. McLafferty, S., & Preston, V. (1997). Gender, race, and the determinants of commuting: New York in 1990. Urban Geography, 18, 192-202.
39. Metzler, D., & Giordano, A. (2007). The location of employment services and people with disabilities in the United States: A geographical analysis of accessibility. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, in press.
40. Mouw, T. (2000). Job relocation and the racial gap in unemployment in Detroit, 1980-1990. American Sociological Review, 65, 730-753.
41. Nightingale, D. S., Jones, R., O'Brien, C. T., & Brennan, K. (1997). The structural link between JTPA and state welfare reform programs in 1997. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
42. Nightingale, D. S., O'Brien, C. T., Egner, M., Pindus, N., & Trutko. J. (2003). Welfare-to-work grants programs: Adjusting to changing circumstance. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research Inc. and The Urban Institute.
43. Ong, P., & Blumenberg, E. (1998). Job access, commute, and travel burden among welfare recipients. Urban Studies, 35, 77-93.
44. Parks, V. (2004). Access to work: The effect of spatial and social accessibility on unemployment for native-born black and immigrant women in Los Angeles. Economic Geography, 80, 141-172.
45. Pindus, N., Koralek, R. Martinson, K., & Trutko, J. (2000). Coordination and integration of welfare and workforce development systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
46. Preston, V., & McLafferty, S. (1999). Spatial mismatch research in the 1990s: Progress and potential. Papers in Regional Science, 78, 387-402.
47. Raphael, S. (1998). The spatial mismatch hypothesis and black youth unemployment: Evidence from the San Francisco bay area. Journal of Urban Economics, 43, 79-111.
48. Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. (2001). Can boosting minority car-ownership rates narrow inter-racial employment gaps? Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 1, 99-145.
49. Scott, A. J. (1996). The manufacturing economy: Ethnic and gender divisions of labor. In R. Waldinger & M. Bozorgmehr (Eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles (pp. 215-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
50. Southern California Association of Governments. (1990). Census tract employment data by industry, Los Angeles, CA.
51. Southern California Association of Governments. (2000). Census tract employment data by industry, Los Angeles, CA.
52. Stoll, M. (1999). Spatial job search, spatial mismatch, and the employment and wages of racial and ethnic groups in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 129-155.
53. Sultana, S. (2005). Racial variations in males' commuting times in Atlanta: What does the evidence suggest? The Professional Geographer, 57, 66-82.
54. Taylor, B., & Ong, P. (1995). Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An examination of race, residence and commuting in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 32, 1453-1473.
55. Thompson, M. (1997). The impact of spatial mismatch on female labor force participation. Economic Development Quarterly, 11, 138-145.
56. United States Department of Labor. (2004). Service locator. http://www.servicelocator.org. Accessed August 2006.
57. Villeneuve, P., & Rose, D. (1988). Gender and the separation of employment from home in metropolitan Montreal, 1971-1981. Urban Geography, 9, 155-179.
58. Waldinger, R. (1996). Still the promised city? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Werner, A., & Lodewick, K. (2004). Serving TANF and low-income populations through WIA One-Stop Centers, Report on highlights of site visits prepared for the US Department of Health and Human Services. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
60. Wyly, E. K. (1998). Containment and mismatch: Gender differences in commuting in metropolitan urban markets. Urban Geography, 19, 395-430.