Growing Together to Expand Opportunity for All in the Portland Region
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Growing Together to Expand Opportunity for All in the Portland Region






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 8 6 2



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Growing Together to Expand Opportunity for All in the Portland Region Growing Together to Expand Opportunity for All in the Portland Region Presentation Transcript

  • Growing Together to Expand Opportunity for All in the Portland Region Making the most of the Sustainable Communities Initiative john a. powell Executive Director, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity Williams Chair in Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Moritz College of LawMetroPortland, ORAugust 3, 2010
  • IntroductionHow do you build livable, sustainable communities that workfor, and are inclusive of, everyone?
  • The Portland WayA leader in regional, sustainable development 40 years of progressive land use planning
  • Quality of Life in regionSource: Public Opinion Research Survey, DHM Inc.2009.
  • HUD Livability Principles(1) Provide More Transportation Choices. Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our Nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.(2) Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location - and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility, improve access to jobs, expand educational opportunities, and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.(3) Enhance Economic Competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs of workers, as well as expanded business access to markets.(4) Support Existing Communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities— through strategies like transit-oriented, mixed-use development, and land recycling—to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and to safeguard rural landscapes.(5) Coordinate Policies and Leverage Investment. Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices, such as locally generated renewable energy.(6) Value Communities and Neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walk able neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban.
  • HUD Mandatory Outcomes(1) Creation of regional transportation, housing, water, and air quality plans that are deeply aligned and tied to local comprehensive land use and capital investment plans.(2) Aligned federal planning and investment resources that mirror the local and regional strategies for achieving sustainable communities.(3) Increased participation and decision-making in developing and implementing a long range vision for the region by populations traditionally marginalized in public planning processes.(4) Reduced social and economic disparities for the low-income, minority communities, and other disadvantaged populations within the target region.(5) Decrease in per capita VMT and transportation-related emissions for the region.(6) Decrease in overall combined housing and transportation costs per household.(7) Increase in the share of residential and commercial construction on underutilized infill development sites that encourage revitalization, while minimizing displacement in neighborhoods with significant disadvantaged populations.(8) Increased proportion of low and very low-income households within a 30-minute transit commute of major employment centers.
  • QuestionWhat are the strategies and activities needed to reach theseoutcomes?
  • Understanding OpportunityUnderstanding the geography of opportunity can make ourregional investments more effective.
  • Opportunity Matters…. “Opportunity” is a situation or condition that places individuals in a position to be more likely to succeed or excel. Opportunity structures are critical to opening pathways to success:  High-quality education  Healthy and safe environment  Stable housing  Sustainable employment  Political empowerment  Outlets for wealth-building  Positive social networks
  • How does Portland compare to the nation? Portland city, OR USA 2006-2008 2006-2008 Select characteristics 2000 ACS 2000 ACS Median HH Income (1999) $40,146 $48,993 $41,994 $52,175 % population 25+, HS Graduate or Higher 85.7 89.2 80.4 84.5 % Population 25+, Bachelors Degree or Higher 32.6 39.6 24.4 27.4 Families Below Poverty 8.5 10.5 9.2 9.6 Median value SF Home $154,900 $293,300 $119,600 $192,400Source: Census data
  • Collective Concerns for the Region Housing Affordability Educational Attainment Poverty Recession & Unemployment
  • Housing: Affordability Housing affordability is a region- wide issue: • Declining affordability of SF homes • By 2005, median household income was less than 1/3 of housing price • In 2008 in Multnomah County, • 52% of renters and 43% of owners paid more than 30% on housing • Compared to 50% of renters and 37.5% of owners nationallySource: Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010 Figure c/o Coalition for a Livable Future, Regional Equity Atlas.
  • Housing + Transportation, Housing Costs, % income % income Yellow: Less than 30% Yellow: Less than 45% Blue: 30% and Greater Blue: 45% and GreaterSource: Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2010
  • Portland - Central cityEducation Percent of Persons 25+ by Highest Educational Vancouver, OR - WA of: Portland Suburbs Attainment PMSA city, ORWhen compared to 1970 37.6 39.6 36.3the region and 1980 22.0 24.2 20.6 Did notsuburbs: Graduate HS 1990 15.7 17.1 14.8•Portland has higher 2000 12.8 14.3 11.9percent of people 1970 35.4 33.4 36.7who did not graduate 1980 36.4 32.2 38.3 HS GraduateHS, 1990 26.9 24.9 27.6• and a higher 2000 23.8 22.2 24.3percent of people Some 1970 14.5 14.6 14.3with advanced/ College or 1980 22.1 21.5 22.4college degrees Associate 1990 34.2 32.0 35.1 Degree 2000 34.5 30.8 35.9 1970 12.5 12.4 12.7 College Graduate or 1980 19.6 22.1 18.7 Advanced 1990 23.3 25.9 22.5 DegreeSource: SOCDS Census data 200 28.8 32.6 27.9
  • Increasing poverty in the region and Portland Portland - Vancouver, Central city of: Poverty Rate Suburbs** OR - WA PMSA Portland city, OR (Percent) 1969 9.7 12.6 8.0 1979 9.0 13.0 7.2 1989 9.9 14.5 7.6 1993 Estimated* 11.2 15.9 8.9 1995 Estimated* 9.9 14.5 7.8 1997 Estimated* 9.2 12.6 7.8 1998 Estimated* 9.4 12.8 8.1 1999 9.5 13.1 7.6 2003 Estimated* 10.4 13.4 8.8Source: SOCDS Census data*Estimated poverty rates for 1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2003 are derived from the Census Bureaus Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates.** Suburb data are defined as the total for the Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA PMSA less the sum of data for these cities:Portland city, OR ; Vancouver city, WA ;
  • Effects of the Recession… Portland - Vancouver - Unemployment City of: Portland city, OR Suburbs Beaverton, OR Rate (%) -WA MSA Average Annual 2000 4.4 4.7 4.3 Average Annual 2005 5.9 6.1 6.0 Average Annual 2006 5.0 5.2 5.1 Average Annual 2007 4.8 4.9 4.9 Average Annual 2008 5.9 5.8 6.1 Average Annual 2009 10.6 10.4 11.2Source: SOCDS Census data
  • But, opportunity is also….Racialized… Spatialized… Globalized…• In 1960, African- • marginalized people of • Economic American families in color and the very poor poverty were 3.8 times globalization have been spatially more likely to be isolated from concentrated in high- opportunity via • Climate change poverty neighborhoods reservations, Jim Crow, than poor whites. Appalachian mountains, ghettos, • the Credit and• In 2000, they were 7.3 barrios, and the Foreclosure crisis times more likely. culture of incarceration.
  • Neighborhoods Matter… Neighborhoods are critical to understanding access to opportunity For example, research shows that living in a neighborhood of concentrated disadvantage is equivalent to missing a full year of school (Sampson 2007) Does your neighborhood provide pathways to opportunity and success?  Safe environment, good schools, positive peers and role models, employment, accessible transportation options to amenities and jobs Or does your neighborhood present you with barriers to opportunity and success  Unsafe environment, failing schools, poor peers and role models, no employment
  • Our opportunity context mattersSome people ride the “Up” Others have to run up theescalator to reach “Down” escalator to get thereopportunity
  • The Cumulative Impacts of Spatial, Racial andOpportunity Segregation Segregation impacts a number of life-opportunities Impacts on Health School Segregation Impacts on Educational Achievement Exposure to crime; arrest Transportation limitations and other inequitable public services Neighborhood Job segregation Segregation Racial stigma, other psychological impacts Impacts on community power and individual assetsAdapted from figure by Barbara Reskin at:
  • Why do some people have access to the“good life” while others do not? It’s more than a matter of choice….
  • Historic Government Role A series of federal policies have contributed to the disparities we see today  School Policy  Suburbanization & Homeownership  Urban Renewal  Public Housing  Transportation22
  • Today,Institutions continue tosupport, not dismantle, thestatus quo. This is why wecontinue to see raciallyinequitable outcomes even ifthere is good intent behindpolicies, or an absence ofracist actors. (i.e. structuralracialization)
  • Example: Redline Mapping andAnalysisHow historic redlining practices helped shape today’s opportunitylandscape
  • A snapshot of opportunity in Portlandtoday
  • A snapshot of opportunity in Portlandtoday, contd.
  • Historic Government Policies Enforcing Inequity: The FHA and Redlining“If a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes. A change in social or racial occupancy generally contributes to instability and a decline in values.” –Excerpt from the 1947 FHA underwriting manual 27
  • How Have Discriminatory Systems InfluencedPortland today? From Redlining… Original Portland 1938 Redlining Map
  • Historic Redlining Practices and Access to Opportunity in 2010
  • High Interest Rate Loans as Share of Home PurchaseLoans by Race/Ethnicity and Income (2008) Low- Middle- Upper Income Income IncomeHispanic 6.8% 7.0% 3.5%Non-Hispanic White 5.0% 3.2% 3.0% …to ReverseNon-Hispanic Black 1.8% 3.7% 6.2% Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac.Islander 2.1% 1.8% n/a Redlining…High Interest Rate Loans as Share of Home PurchaseLoans by Race/Ethnicity (2008) Metro AreaHispanic 5.9%Non-Hispanic White 3.5%Non-Hispanic Black 4.3%Non-Hispanic American Indian 2.0%Non-Hispanic Asian/Pac. Islander 1.9% Source:
  • 1938 Redlining and Subprime Lending
  • …To Gentrification, a new form of exclusion From 1990 to 1999, the average home price in the Portland region rose 97% from $96,000 to $188,600. In some previously redlined areas prices increased 150 or 200% in five years.Source: K. Gibson and C. Abbott. “City Profile: Portland, Oregon.” Cities Vol.19, No.6 December 2002. Photos c/o WilliamYardley. “Racial Shift in a Progressive City Spurs Talks” The NewYork Times, May 29, 2008
  • Displacement or tenure change?The bluesrepresentdecreases inSF homes forrent. What isunclear iswhether thesedecreasesrepresentdisplacement,or tenurechanges. Someof the darkestblue areasespecially mayindicatedisplacement. Source: Coalition for a Livable Future, Regional Equity Atlas.
  • Key Opportunity Areas There are challenges that are burdening everyone in the community and region, but there are also uneven effects across groups, especially across the following domains:  Education  School poverty  Achievement gaps  Proficiency gaps  Housing  Affordability  Fair credit  Homeownership and wealth  Economic  Income disparities
  • Education Opportunities
  • Education: School poverty  The percentage of students in the region on FRL grew from 27.8% in 1999 to 35% in 2003. The poverty of a school, more than the poverty of the individual, determines students’ educational outcomes The 1966 Coleman Report concluded that concentrated poverty inevitably depresses achievement on a school-wide and a district-wide basis—the effects are not contained within school walls.Data from the Regional Equity Atlas. The Coalition for a Livable Future. Research from Poverty and Race Research Action Council AnnotatedBibliography:The Impact of School-Based Poverty Concentration on Academic Achievement and Student Outcomes.
  • School poverty contd.  In 1999, 86 schools had >50% of students on FRL; in 2003, this increased to 133 schools The “tipping point” is the threshold at which problems spiral beyond the control of the school. Most experts place that point at 50%. At this point, all students’ prospects are depressed  The number of schools where 75.1-100% of students were on FRL doubled between 1999 and 2003 (from 15 to 30) Once the concentration of poverty in a district reaches 60% or above, the district can no longer rely on its own internal efforts to improve outcomesData from the Regional Equity Atlas. The Coalition for a Livable Future. Research from Poverty and Race Research Action Council AnnotatedBibliography:The Impact of School-Based Poverty Concentration on Academic Achievement and Student Outcomes.
  • Education: Attainment GapsGraduation Rates 2009 for 3 largest school districts in Multnomah County:• PPS: 52%• Reynolds: 51%• David Douglas: 62%Source: Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • Education: Proficiency Gaps • Everyone’s proficiency declines over time, but students of color fare much worse and persistent achievement gap; • Is a 59% math proficiency rate OK for tenth graders? We know a 38% is not. •What’s our goal?Source: Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • Housing Opportunity
  • Housing: Affordability • In 2000, nearly 20% of renters spent more than 50% of income on rent. • One study found that for families with children paying more than 50% of their income on rent, they spent 30% less on food, 50% less on clothing, and 70% less on healthcare. Partnership for America’s Economic Success, 2010.“The Hidden Costs of the Housing Crisis: The Impact of Housing on Young Children’s Odds of Success.”Source: Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • Housing: Fair Credit Predatory subprime lending had little to do with sustainable homeownership for families, and more to do with equity stripping. • Black borrowers were also 1.6-2.2 times more likely to refinance through subprime lender, and Latinos were 2.7-3.4 times more likely, than similarly-situated white borrowers. (Regional Equity Atlas)Source: Table from Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • Housing: Homeownership and Wealth • Minority homeownership gap has been increasing over time • In Clark, Multnomah, and Washington counties, homeownership rates for people of color lag not only whites, but national rates for the same racial groups. Disparities in homeownership translate into disparities in wealth. • Homeowners of color are more reliant than white households on housing for wealth, with 95% of wealth for Black households, and 96% of wealth for Hispanic households derived from their primary residence, compared to 70% of white wealth. ( Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • Economic Opportunity
  • Economic: Income Disparities White families are making about 1.1 times that of families White of colorfamilies aremaking4.6 times that offamiliesof colorSource: Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • Economic: Income Disparities contd. This is a tenfold increaseEveryone inis worse disparity off, but since white 1995; families white still families’making 7 incomes times are 2.2 that of timesfamilies of that of color families of color Source: Coalition of Communities of Color and Portland State University. “Communities of Color in Multnomah County:An Unsettling Profile.” 2010
  • A Closer Look… 1979 2007 White Families Families of Color White Families Families of Color Decile 1 $11,025 $2,400 $5,000 $700 Decile 5 $55,799 $35,998 $55,000 $32,000 Decile 10 $137,409 $122,502 $260,000 $116,500 What’s ourIn Decile 1: goal? How doWhite families experienced a 55% decrease in income make sure allFamilies of Color experienced a 71% decrease families areIn Decile 5 (middle class): sharing in region’sWhite families income essentially remained unchanged, declining by 1.4% prosperity?Families of Color experienced a 11% decrease
  • How do we change this geography?Change our systems and structures
  • Growing Together “Equitable regionalism affirms the need for every community to have a voice in the resource development and future of the region. It builds and sustains region-wide, collaborative institutions with inclusive representation and a common goal: improving the health of the whole and expanding opportunity for all people and communities across the region. Equitable regionalism requires comprehensive and strategic investment in people and neighborhoods.”“Regionalism: Growing Together to Expand Opportunity for All.” 2007. Summary report, pp. 1-2.
  • Strategies for Growing TogetherThink in new waysTalk in new waysAct in new ways
  • Thinking in New Ways: Transformative Thinking transformative thinking to combat structural racialization; we need to find new approaches. personal and social responsibility are important: we should maintain them in our advocacy and analysis approaches should consider the structures and systems that are creating and perpetuating these disparities and work to reform them for lasting change. 51
  • Talking in New WaysI. How do we talk about race?II. Targeted universalism—a new frame for dialogue (beyond disparities)
  • I. How to Talk about Race  Speak on structures and systems rather than explicit individual action/reaction  Speak on the subconscious—the implicit bias that is stored within the mind  Speak on relationships—build collaborations and engage in real discussion53
  • II. Targeted universalism as communication strategy Moves beyond the disparities frame Focuses on the universal goals shared by all the communities while being sensitive to the targeted strategies that are responsive to the situation of marginalized communities
  • Acting in New WaysI. Engagement and inclusionII. Targeted universalism as policyIII. Opening access through people, places, and linkages
  • I. Engagement and Inclusion “That historically disadvantaged communities, especially communities of color and those living in poverty have a voice and are represented in all decision making to assure that the benefits and burdens of growth and change are distributed equitably.” “While this consortium of regional partners is initially designed to develop the Housing Equity and Opportunity Strategy, the intent is to have the consortium develop a governance structure to oversee the implementation of regional housing and equity measures on an on-going basis.” “Grant funding will be used to involve community-based organizations (as well as local governments) in specific tasks and decision-making related to the regional housing strategy with the objective of having increased capacity and capability to engage in decision-making beyond the duration of the grant.”From Vision Statement and Declaration of Cooperation
  • II. Promote Universal Policies in TargetedWays • There is no “one size fits all” • “One vision, many paths” • Process: • What is the goal? • How do we tailor strategies to different groups, who are differently situated, to lift them to that goal?
  • III. Opening AccessKirwan’s Opportunity Communities Model
  • A Multi-faceted Approach:Strategies for Connecting to Opportunity
  • The Sustainable CommunitiesRegional Planning GrantAligning your proposal with HUD
  • Considering people, places, and linkagesActivities should: Affirmative further fair housing and promote affordable housing in high opportunity areas (23) Promote greater transit supportive development (incorporating to the degree possible the full range of housing to all ranges of family incomes)…[provide] improved service for historically marginalized populations and viable alternative to automobile ownership (24) Avoid adverse environmental impacts on neighborhoods through careful planning and siting of housing and community facilities (25) Redress persistent environmental justice concerns in communities (25) Promote inclusion of underrepresented populations in economic sectors…and training to support the full range of workforce and worker needs in the region (26)
  • Discussion Defining universal goals and benchmarks Developing targeted strategies“Applicants will be evaluated on their ability to identify the outcomes they seek to achieve, the clarity with which they articulate the elements of the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development that will help achieve those outcomes, and the specificity of the benchmarks that they establish to measure progress toward a completed product that guides all of the necessary work.”
  • KirwanInstitute on: