Policy Sciences

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 335–359 | Cite as

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



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.


Unemployment One-Stop Service provider Accessibility Mobility Spatial mismatch GIS 


  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  4. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenberg, E. (2004). En-gendering effective planning: Spatial mismatch, low-income women, and transportation policy. Journal of American Planning Association, 70, 269–284.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, L. J. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Browne, I. (2000). Opportunities lost? Race, industrial restructuring and employment among young women heading households. Social Forces, 78, 907–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  11. Census Bureau (1990). Census of population and housing. Summary tape files 3. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  12. Census Bureau (2000). Census of population and housing. Summary file 3. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  13. Census Bureau (2000). Census transportation planning package. Washington, DC: Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  14. Census Bureau (2000). Census of population and housing. Public use microdata sample (PUMS). Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  15. Coulton, C. J. (2003). Metropolitan inequities and the ecology of work: Implications for welfare reform. Social Service Review, 77, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellen, I., & Turner, M. (1999). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8, 833–866.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  18. ESRI. (2003). Data and maps. Redland, CA: ESRI.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, work, and space. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  24. Holzer, H. (1991). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown? Urban Studies, 28, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyland, J. (1998). An update on state workforce development reforms. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  27. Immergluck, D. (1998). Job proximity and the urban employment problem: Do suitable nearby jobs improve neighborhood employment rates? Urban Studies, 35, 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson-Anumonwo, I. (1995). Racial differences in the commuting behavior of women in Buffalo, 1980–1990. Urban Geography, 16, 23–45.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  32. Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  34. MacDonald, H. I. (1999). Women’s employment and commuting: Explaining the links. Journal of Planning Literature, 13, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martinson, K. (1999). Literature review on service coordination and integration in the welfare and workforce development systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  37. Martinson, K., & Holcomb, P. A. (2002). Reforming welfare: Institutional change and challenges. In Assessing the new federalism. The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  38. McLafferty, S., & Preston, V. (1997). Gender, race, and the determinants of commuting: New York in 1990. Urban Geography, 18, 192–202.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  40. Mouw, T. (2000). Job relocation and the racial gap in unemployment in Detroit, 1980–1990. American Sociological Review, 65, 730–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  43. Ong, P., & Blumenberg, E. (1998). Job access, commute, and travel burden among welfare recipients. Urban Studies, 35, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pindus, N., Koralek, R. Martinson, K., & Trutko, J. (2000). Coordination and integration of welfare and workforce development systems. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Preston, V., & McLafferty, S. (1999). Spatial mismatch research in the 1990s: Progress and potential. Papers in Regional Science, 78, 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  50. Southern California Association of Governments. (1990). Census tract employment data by industry, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  51. Southern California Association of Governments. (2000). Census tract employment data by industry, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sultana, S. (2005). Racial variations in males’ commuting times in Atlanta: What does the evidence suggest? The Professional Geographer, 57, 66–82.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, M. (1997). The impact of spatial mismatch on female labor force participation. Economic Development Quarterly, 11, 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. United States Department of Labor. (2004). Service locator. http://www.servicelocator.org. Accessed August 2006.Google Scholar
  57. Villeneuve, P., & Rose, D. (1988). Gender and the separation of employment from home in metropolitan Montreal, 1971–1981. Urban Geography, 9, 155–179.Google Scholar
  58. Waldinger, R. (1996). Still the promised city? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  60. Wyly, E. K. (1998). Containment and mismatch: Gender differences in commuting in metropolitan urban markets. Urban Geography, 19, 395–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Massachusetts-BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations