S P R E A D T H I N: HUMAN SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS IN POOR - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• 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?

Nonprofit Human Services in Poor Neighborhoods

The Spatial Location

• f 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 POOR, CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN 5 POOR, AFRICAN AMERICAN POOR, LATINA/O 16 YEARS AND OVER, EMPLOYED MEDIAN INCOME

DESERT TRACTS 16.9% 22.9% 19.2% 17.0% 57.5% $68,652 TRACTS WITH ONE OR MORE NONPROFITS 15.6% 19.6% 16.9% 15.6% 59.0% $78,935

AVERAGE RATES OF SELECTED SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Single parent households with children Less than high school education Foreign born non- citizens DESERT TRACTS 18.1% 33.0% 22.7% TRACTS WITH ONE OR MORE NONPROFITS 15.7% 23.8% 19.6%

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

• utside 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

50% 15% 35% 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

• rganizations.

31% 29% 35% 27% 61% 3% 4% 2% 5% 2% 46% 45% 47% 46% 15% 13% 17% 7% 18% 9% 2% 3% 1% 1% 8% 5% 3% 6% 3% 5%

All respondents* Poor Extremely Poor Poor AA LA NHSO

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

Revenue Composition, by Neighborhood Poverty

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

31% 33% 28% 45% 19% 44% 41% 48% 33% 40% 15% 17% 11% 12% 28% 6% 5% 7% 3% 5% 4% 4% 4% 6% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All Respondents Poor Very Poor Poor AA LA HSNO African American Latino White Asian Other

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

4% 5% 2% 5% 4% 23% 25% 21% 21% 26% 8% 8% 7% 4% 7% 8% 9% 6% 8% 23% 28% 25% 33% 27% 13% 17% 15% 22% 21% 10% 8% 8% 7% 8% 13% 4% 5% 1% 5% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All Poor Extremely Poor Poor AA LAHSNO

advocacy special needs services youth development/student services basic needs assistance individual assistance crime and legal clinical services childcare

Source: 2012 Nonprofit Poverty Survey, 2011 LA HSNO Survey

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

44 48 43 77 60 56 52 57 23 40 20 40 60 80 100 All Poor Extreme Poverty Poor AA L.A. HSNO None/some considerable

COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY

ALL POOR EXTREMELY POOR POOR AA L.A. HSNO

BELONG TO A NETWORK 60% 55% 68% 50% NA COLLABORATE TO OBTAIN FUNDING 68% 66% 71% 66% 64% COLLABORATE TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS/SERVICES 82% 78% 88% 74% 76% COLLABORATE TO COORDINATE SERVICES 89% 86% 93% 84% 85% COLLABORATE TO ADVOCATE FOR CLIENTS 84% 80% 89% 75% 80%

COMPOSITION OF BOARD MEMBERS, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY ALL RESPONDENTS POOR EXTREMELY POOR POOR AA L.A. HSNO AVERAGE NUMBER ON BOARD 11 10 14 8 14 AVERAGE PERCENT WHO HOLD HIGH LEVEL CORPORATE POSITION 36% 35% 38% 31% Not asked AVERAGE PERCENT WHO ARE SOCIAL SERVICE OR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS 31% 34% 26% 36% Not asked AVERAGE PERCENT WHO ARE CLIENTS OR FORMER CLIENTS 11% 11% 12% 9% Not asked

Ethnic Composition of Boards, by Neighborhood Poverty

Due to rounding, figures may not total 100. Source: 2012 Nonprofit Poverty Survey, 2011 LA HSNO Survey

29% 36% 18% 58% 15% 20% 18% 23% 11% 15% 40% 37% 45% 23% 60% 7% 5% 10% 4% 8% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

All Poor Extremely poor Poor AA LANHSO

African American Latino White Asian Other

MEDIAN AND MEAN FTE, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY

(EXCLUDING ORGANIZATIONS WITH OVER $40 MILLION) ALL POOR EXTREMELY POOR POOR AA L.A. HSNO MEDIAN FTE 5.5 4.0 12.5 2 12.5 MEAN FTE 29.7 18.0 56.0 9 59.0

Staffing and Management

Source: 2012 Survey, Los Angeles Human Service Nonprofit Survey, 2011

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, BY NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY

ALL POOR EXTREMELY POOR POOR AA L.A. NHSO PERFORMED MARKET ANALYSIS 30% 24% 40% 21% 26% DEVELOPED STRATEGIC PLAN 75% 70% 82% 64 64% IMPLEMENTED PROGRAM EVALUATION SYSTEM 65% 59% 74% 58% 60% IMPLEMENTED A NEW FISCAL OR COST CONTROL SYSTEM 51% 48% 56% 41% 46% USED A MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT 41% 34% 52% 35% NOT ASKED

Conclusions

 Very poor neighborhoods, particularly African American

neighborhoods, are much more deprived of nonprofit human services then well-off neighborhoods.

 Absence of investment in human services that locate in very poor

neighborhoods.

 Organizations in poor neighborhoods are appreciably smaller,

especially in poor African American neighborhoods.

 Organizations in poor neighborhoods are much more dependent

• n donations which are a volatile source of funding.

 Considerable disparity between the service needs in poor

neighborhoods and the nonprofit resources made available to them.

Thank you!

The State of the Nonprofit Sector Reports are available online: www.civilsociety.ucla.edu.