Where should the
next service go?

The starting question was simple: if we began with community conditions, where would the evidence suggest looking for unmet need?

Our Southern California demonstration explored the relationship between neighborhood need and an existing network of fixed and mobile medical services. The purpose was to inform a resource-planning conversation: where might an additional service make a difference, and what would need to be checked before acting?

First, recognize the work already happening.

The analysis showed substantial alignment between the service network and neighborhoods with higher need. This mattered. An independent view of place can help an organization understand where service locations align with neighborhood need, as well as where it should look next.

Then, look closely at the exception.

One neighborhood emerged as an area worth investigating further. Community conditions suggested substantial need, while the mapped service network indicated a potential gap in nearby access.

For a household with a car, a few miles may feel manageable. For a household without one, reaching a service can become a much larger undertaking. That difference changes the question from “How far away is it?” to “Can the people who need it actually get there?”

The finding starts a conversation about a place. It does not make the decision for the people who know it.

A second lesson: some needs remain less visible.

The demonstration also showed why a low neighborhood-level estimate of need does not necessarily mean a service is misplaced. A mobile stop serving people experiencing homelessness may be meeting an important need that household surveys capture poorly.

The right response is to bring local knowledge into the analysis and understand the population actually served.

From a finding to a useful next step.

The next step would be a focused test: check the local context, assess the services already available, assess a feasible service location, and define an outcome to follow. Aggregated operational information and community feedback would help establish whether the proposed change reaches people who are currently missed.

The broader lesson extends beyond mobile medical services. Food assistance, outreach, transportation, and public investment all benefit from a deeper understanding of the places where people live.

This is an anonymized planning demonstration. The analysis identifies questions for further investigation; it does not establish improved outcomes or endorsement by a service organization. Geographic proximity is a screening signal, not a measure of travel time, eligibility, capacity, or actual service use.

Evidence behind the demonstration.

The demonstration compared 64 census tracts using six indicators: uninsured adults, diabetes and transportation barriers from CDC PLACES 2025; and poverty, households without a vehicle and limited English from the Census ACS 2020–2024 five-year estimates. A tract received one point for each indicator on which it ranked among the highest-need 25% of study tracts. Fixed-service locations and mobile stops from June–August 2026 were compared using one-mile straight-line proximity.

This is a screening approach for places to investigate, not a measurement of travel time, eligibility, capacity, actual access or improved outcomes. Sources: CDC PLACES and American Community Survey.