Red state vs. Blue state: where can you do more good?

November 29, 2013 10:08 PM

I'm currently serving as an AmeriCorps VISTA in VT and while I love it here in this socialist wonderland, I find myself wondering if poverty-related service wouldn't do more immediate good in a red state.

I'm originally from the Austin area and while I don't imagine that I'll settle down there, while I'm serving with AmeriCorps and have this job security and support system, I'd like to maximize the amount of good that I can do. I have a BA in Political Science, lots of experience with kids and a working knowledge of Spanish.

Since I'll start looking for places to serve for the 2014-2015 year in the next few months, I'd like to know if there is actual evidence one way or another on this. Anecdotes are appreciated, but article or papers would be even better.

posted by youcancallmeal to Society & Culture (10 answers total)

West Virginia had some bleak stuff written about it in the New York Times recently. Appalachia in general might be what you want. Or what about Detroit? It's not in a red state, but it's certainly in the red.
posted by oceanjesse at 10:11 PM on November 29, 2013

Response by poster: Please note: I'm not looking for examples of red states to move to. If I leave Vermont, it will most likely be for Texas or (maybe) Montana. I'm asking for information on blue vs. red writ large.
posted by youcancallmeal at 10:14 PM on November 29, 2013

I guess it would be useful to ask yourself specifically what your goals are. What do-good do you want to maximize? If you stay in socialist wonderland, you have the opportunity to work with, learn from, and expand on what's already there. You get to really push at the boundaries of the Overton window. If you move to a red state, you'll be working with, learning about, and expanding on different projects, bringing your vision of a socialist wonderland and listening to red state expectations and beliefs and figuring out how to make the differences compatible. You'll be at the boundary of the Overton window for more people, and they will for you as well.

Basically, there's work to be done everywhere. Where do you feel like you need to serve?
posted by aniola at 10:40 PM on November 29, 2013 [1 favorite]

Mod note: One comment deleted. Please just answer the question rather than debate the premise. OP, you may want to be more explicit about what sort of articles or papers you are hoping to find. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:00 PM on November 29, 2013

Response by poster: I'm not really sure what sort of articles or papers I'm looking for... just wondering if there's evidence that poverty alleviation-centered service does more good in places with less of a social safety net... or if it doesn't.
posted by youcancallmeal at 11:07 PM on November 29, 2013

Here is an interesting paper that just touches on your question - I'm hoping it's helpful:
The Investigator #2: Volunteering by States

Anecdotally I grew up in western MA (liberal to moderate politically) and lived lots of places but the time I lived in Las Vegas which is conservative and has big pockets of need was probably the most interesting. I love to volunteer but LV 's got a big religious component that is hard to compete with.
posted by lasamana at 6:00 AM on November 30, 2013

I can't point you at data, but it's very hard for me to imagine that the marginal effect of one additional worker is significantly different anywhere in the US. At least above a certain minimum of need, anyway.

I mean, suppose you learn that poverty alleviation nonprofits work better, in some way, in areas with a worse safety net. Does that mean that your personal work will be better, or will help more people, or do more good? No. You'll still have your caseload, or whatever your equivalent is. That more or less summarizes the amount of good you can do.

If you have enough of a caseload to keep you busy in Vermont, then you do. That simple fact means that there are enough people who need your help to soak up your input. Would there be more poor people, and poorer people, in TX or MT? Maybe. But your caseload is still your caseload; you yourself can't help more people than that. The fact that set of {poor people you can't personally help} would be larger in TX/MT than VT isn't really relevant because you're not going to help them whether you go to TX/MT or not.

About the only circumstance where it would really make sense to move would be if there are so few poor people for you to help that you spend a lot of time at work just twiddling your thumbs or playing Candy Crunch.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:01 AM on November 30, 2013 [4 favorites]

If you're wondering whether your volunteering will do more good in a red state, it will, probably. At the very least, the data out there suggests that there will be more people for you to help and support. But, there are some caveats.

Poverty rates
See this data about the percentage of citizens living below the federal poverty level in each state. The lowest ranking "blue state" is New York, at 38. Only three blue states have more citizens living in poverty than the national average: Maine, California, and New York. (I normally wouldn't link Wikipedia, but it accurately culls together all of these categories- I double checked and the data is good). The highest ranking "red state" is Utah, at 7. The bottom ranking states are all "red," and all in the Southeast and Southwest.

Spending rates
This federal study from 2004 surely still holds true today. In shorthand, it concludes that the poorest states per capita also spend the least amount of money per needy citizen. Not surprisingly, as we saw above, the poorest states who spend the least money are almost all red states. Some wealthier states spend very little on social welfare programs too, though.

Volunteering rates
Volunteering doesn't really follow a strict "red state/blue state" pattern, but it's close. It's pretty interesting. I found this data first, and other sources I've tracked down correlate the same pattern. Essentially, states in the Midwest and Great Plains are where more citizens volunteer. States in the South and Southwest have much lower rates. Something to note, though- other data I have found suggests that the more "red" the state, the more religious that volunteering will be. That's something to keep in mind.

Caveats
Please remember that the whole "red state/blue state" thing is a false dichotomy. Every state has lots of variety. You should know this already though, since you grew up in Austin, which is quite a different city than even somewhere like Waco or Temple. Same goes for areas even within cities in "red states." In Phoenix, Arizona, I currently live in "North Central," which is a Phoenix neighborhood that is probably the most "liberal" part of the city. I've also lived in Gilbert, which is Arizona at its most "red."

Finally, let me give you one last piece of advice. Please don't be "Jim." I work with a guy that I'll call Jim. Jim is a very liberal guy. He comes from a Northeastern state. He volunteers a lot, and does some great things to help important social causes. Here in Phoenix, he is really active in providing support to people in need in our LGBTQ population. He really does some great work.

Jim is also impossible to work with, and lots of people are not very eager to help him. Jim spends too much time talking about how shitty Arizona is, about all the bad things he sees here, about how it's "all too conservative," about how much better his home state is, about how rotten people are here in Arizona, et cetera.

A number of my coworkers and I can't stand Jim. We don't need to hear it, and we are annoyed with the fact that he came to our state and our city with all kinds of preconceived notions. We want to tell him that if he hates it that badly, just go home to New England.

Plus, if he would just stop running his mouth long enough to talk to me about my views, he'd realize that my social and political views are very similar to his. But, he assumes that as an Arizonan, I must be some sort of evil tea partier who hates immigrants and wants to steal money from poor people, so I get talked down to.

Bad move, Jim. I'm not interested in working with him unless I have to. Jim could be a lot more helpful and successful in his volunteering if he had a more open, accepting, positive attitude. He'd get further if he actually embraced Phoenix and tried to love living here, but he makes no effort to do that. As a result, his actions smack of being a self-righteous person here to help the peons in this pitiful city. He's not a very likeable guy.

Wherever you go, be looking for positive opportunities, and don't be Jim. I can see a little bit of Jim in your post... your entire idea of leaving your current post in a great liberal "blue state" to go to help people in some underprivileged crappy "red state" smacks of Jim, so just keep that in mind.
posted by Old Man McKay at 8:46 AM on November 30, 2013 [8 favorites]

RED: Playing off the point that you have a maximum caseload wherever you are, you can also think of who your work reaches. If both BLUE and RED have 100 people needing the sort of help they need from you and before you came along 10 people were getting that help in RED and 80 in BLUE and you're useful to 10 people in RED and 10 people in BLUE, then in a sense your service has more of an impact in RED. In RED you would have doubled the assistance available and in BLUE those 20 people may have more of a social safety net in other ways. For instance, I bet there are more bike lanes in BLUE than RED. And bike lanes means it's safer to travel by bike, which you're more likely to have to do if you're low-income. Safer to travel by bike means maybe fewer bicyclists with hospital bills. And many other assorted minor day to day social safety net things that are small individually but that add up. So in this sense your work will go further in the RED state.

BLUE: Also there's volunteer burnout to consider. If you are feeling burnt out, you aren't as useful. Are you more likely to burn out if you don't have a socialist wonderland to inspire you from day to day?
posted by aniola at 9:22 AM on November 30, 2013

Or what Old Man McKay said much more eloquently. That's what I was going for as well bit what pecking away at a smartphone and didn't see the comment.
posted by aniola at 10:41 AM on November 30, 2013