S P R E A D T H I N: HUMAN SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS IN POOR NEIGHBORHOODS The State of the Nonprofit Sector in Los Angeles Conference March 5, 2013
Nonprofit Human Services in Poor Neighborhoods 31% of LA County Census Tracts are in Poor Neighborhoods. • Poverty is an indication of increased demand for nonprofit services. • Residents have all the service needs of people in richer neighborhoods and more. • They have less ability to access needed services in the market, and thus rely more on nonprofit s. • With devolution and privatization, they depend heavily on nonprofits to receive government • benefits. They tend to be politically marginalized. Nonprofits that serve them can give them political voice. • How well does the nonprofit human services sector respond to the demand in poor • neighborhoods? What are the challenges that organizations located in poor neighborhoods face? • We try to answer these questions in two ways: • By compiling a census of all the nonprofit human services in the County • Where do nonprofit human services locate themselves? • By conducting a survey of a sample of nonprofit human services in poor neighborhoods • How well are they doing to meet the needs of the neighborhood? •
The Spatial Location of Nonprofit Human Services Are nonprofit human services more or less likely to locate where the need is greatest? To find out, we mapped all nonprofit human services in the county. We created a measure of service gap: % poor – nonprofits per capita. The map shows that the highest service gaps are in South Los Angeles and parts of the San Fernando Valley.
Nonprofit “ deserts ” We also wanted to understand the location of ‘deserts’: neighborhoods with no established nonprofit human services at all. The absence of human services is important because it can adversely affect psychological and social well-being of residents in the neighborhood. We found that deserts are mostly located where the services gaps — and need — are high. Deserts are clustered in South Los Angeles and are more likely to be located in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
AVERAGE POVERTY RATES FOR DESERT TRACTS VS. TRACTS WITH ONE OR MORE HUMAN SERVICES NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION POOR, CHILDREN POOR, 16 YEARS AND YOUNGER AFRICAN POOR, OVER, MEDIAN POOR THAN 5 AMERICAN LATINA/O EMPLOYED INCOME DESERT TRACTS 16.9% 22.9% 19.2% 17.0% 57.5% $68,652 TRACTS WITH ONE OR MORE 15.6% 19.6% 16.9% 15.6% 59.0% $78,935 NONPROFITS
AVERAGE RATES OF SELECTED SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Single parent households with Less than high school Foreign born non- children education citizens DESERT TRACTS 18.1% 33.0% 22.7% TRACTS WITH ONE OR 15.7% 23.8% 19.6% MORE NONPROFITS Source: 2011 Los Angeles Human Services Census; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey
The cost of deserts All of the indicators suggest that deserts are places where very vulnerable populations reside. Because deserts are generally located in areas with high or medium service gaps, adjacent neighborhoods are also sparsely populated by nonprofits. Thus more vulnerable populations have less access to needed human services.
Scope of the problem The scarcity of nonprofit human services in poor neighborhoods is a longstanding phenomenon in Los Angeles County. The 2002 survey conducted by the Center for Civil Society showed similar service gaps. It also showed that nonprofit human services in poor, African American neighborhoods have less access to government grants and contracts than organizations in other poor neighborhoods. Research shows that similar disparities exist in other metropolitan areas.
Implications When the neighborhood has few or no nonprofits it has less ability to attract resources to the neighborhood. Disparities in nonprofit density may become self-reinforcing. The scarcity or absence of nonprofits is also an indication of a lack of investment in the community. Nonprofits may be unwilling to locate in neighborhoods that lack investment. When the do locate in them, they may struggle to survive. Vulnerable communities need the sustained commitment of outside stakeholders to support a vibrant nonprofit sector.
The 2012 Survey of Nonprofit Human Services in Poor Neighborhoods Resources Clients Services Advocacy Competition and Collaboration Governance Management
Revenue Size of 2012 Survey Respondents 35% 50% 15% Less the $500,000 $500,000 -$1 million Over $1 million
Basic Revenue Profile of Respondents Median revenue = $430,160. Average revenue = $1.7 million (Excluding the four organizations with revenues over $40 million) For organizations in poor African American neighborhoods, the median revenue was $100,000, indicating that they were more likely to be small organizations.
Revenue Composition, by Neighborhood Poverty All respondents* 31% 3% 46% 13% 2% 5% Poor 29% 4% 45% 17% 3% 3% Extremely Poor 35% 2% 47% 7% 1% 6% Poor AA 27% 5% 46% 18% 1% 3% LA NHSO 61% 2% 15% 9% 8% 5% Funding from any level of government Private/non-government 3rd party payments Foundation, Corporate and Individual Donations Fees and charges Sales and unrelated business income Other Source: 2012 Survey, 2011 LANHSO Survey
The fiscal challenges Decline in government funding 43% of the organizations noted cuts in government programs affecting their services. Difficult to mobilize resources for poor people – lack of political support Constraints in serving undocumented Unreasonable demands by funders for «innovative programs»
Ethnic Composition of Clients, by Neighborhood Poverty 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All Respondents 31% 44% 15% 6% 4% Poor 33% 41% 17% 5% 4% African American Latino White Very Poor 28% 48% 11% 7% 4% Asian Other Poor AA 45% 33% 12% 3% 6% LA HSNO 19% 40% 28% 5% 8% Source: 2012 Nonprofit Poverty Survey, 2011 LA HSNO Survey
Challenges in serving poor residents Difficult life circumstances reduce access to services Even when services are free Serving undocumented who fear contact Barriess of stigma and discrimination «Invisible» minority groups
Service Activities, by Neighborhood Poverty 100% 1% 3% 4% 5% 5% 7% 8% 8% 8% 13% 90% advocacy 22% 80% 17% 15% 10% special needs services 21% 70% youth development/student 13% services 60% 25% basic needs assistance 28% 33% 27% individual assistance 50% 23% 9% crime and legal 40% 8% 8% 7% clinical services 8% 6% 8% 30% 4% 7% childcare 20% 26% 25% 21% 23% 21% 10% 5% 5% Source: 2012 Nonprofit Poverty 4% 4% 2% 0% Survey, 2011 LA HSNO Survey All Poor Extremely Poor Poor AA LAHSNO
Advocacy Organizations in poor neighborhoods less likely to engage in advocacy Less than half engage in any advocacy to obtain resources compared to 65% of all nonprofits. 37% actively mobilize residents around local issues 41% active in contacting public officials The barrier of limited resources
Competition for Resources L.A. HSNO 60 40 Poor AA 77 23 Extreme Poverty 43 57 None/some considerable Poor 48 52 All 44 56 0 20 40 60 80 100
COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY ALL POOR EXTREMELY POOR AA L.A. HSNO POOR BELONG TO A NETWORK 60% 55% 68% 50% NA COLLABORATE TO OBTAIN FUNDING 68% 66% 71% 66% 64% COLLABORATE TO DEVELOP 82% 78% 88% 74% 76% PROGRAMS/SERVICES COLLABORATE TO COORDINATE 89% 86% 93% 84% 85% SERVICES COLLABORATE TO ADVOCATE FOR 84% 80% 89% 75% 80% CLIENTS
COMPOSITION OF BOARD MEMBERS, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY ALL EXTREMELY POOR L.A. RESPONDENTS POOR POOR AA HSNO AVERAGE NUMBER ON BOARD 11 10 14 8 14 AVERAGE PERCENT WHO HOLD HIGH LEVEL CORPORATE 36% 35% 38% 31% Not POSITION asked AVERAGE PERCENT WHO ARE Not SOCIAL SERVICE OR HEALTH 31% 34% 26% 36% asked PROFESSIONALS AVERAGE PERCENT WHO ARE Not 11% 11% 12% 9% CLIENTS OR FORMER CLIENTS asked
Ethnic Composition of Boards, by Neighborhood Poverty 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 All African American 29% 20% 40% 7% 2% Latino Poor 36% 18% 37% 5% 2% White Asian Extremely poor 18% 23% 45% 10% 3% Other Poor AA 58% 11% 23% 4% 1% LANHSO 2% 15% 15% 60% 8% Due to rounding, figures may not total 100. Source: 2012 Nonprofit Poverty Survey, 2011 LA HSNO Survey
Staffing and Management MEDIAN AND MEAN FTE, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY (EXCLUDING ORGANIZATIONS WITH OVER $40 MILLION) EXTREMELY ALL POOR POOR AA L.A. HSNO POOR MEDIAN FTE 5.5 4.0 12.5 2 12.5 MEAN FTE 29.7 18.0 56.0 9 59.0
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY EXTREMELY POOR ALL POOR POOR AA L.A. NHSO PERFORMED MARKET ANALYSIS 30% 24% 40% 21% 26% DEVELOPED STRATEGIC PLAN 75% 70% 82% 64 64% IMPLEMENTED PROGRAM 65% 59% 74% 58% 60% EVALUATION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED A NEW FISCAL OR 51% 48% 56% 41% 46% COST CONTROL SYSTEM USED A MANAGEMENT NOT 41% 34% 52% 35% CONSULTANT ASKED Source: 2012 Survey, Los Angeles Human Service Nonprofit Survey, 2011
Recommend
More recommend