THIS IS IT

Running head: PROGRESSIVE POVERTY IN CHARLOTTE
The Progressive State of Poverty in Charlotte, North Carolina
Lauren Allen
Winthrop University

PROGRESSIVE POVERTY IN CHARLOTTE 2
Abstract
The focus of this writing is to uncover why high levels of concentrated poverty exist
within America’s urban areas, and how that concentration developed and continues to persist in
Charlotte, North Carolina. There have been many factors, both historical and contemporary, that
have kept urban populations in a perpetual state of poverty. First, I will uncover and analyze
these key factors, some of which include: historic housing policies, minimum wages that result in
poverty-level income, inadequate access to income equality, and the rise of higher-paying jobs in
suburban areas that are out of urbanites’ reach. Then, the focus will switch to Charlotte, North
Carolina, its current economic status, and the concentration of poverty that exists within its
borders. I will focus on how the historical and current economic, social, and political factors
previously identified apply to Charlotte specifically, and how these disadvantages target certain
demographics differently by design. Contemporary research will analyze the most recent
statistics in regards to the Black to White poverty level and the educational attainment levels of
prominent counties in North Carolina, Mecklenburg included. Finally, I will discuss various
attempts at improving conditions for the impoverished populations of urban areas in general, and
Charlotte specifically.

Introduction
Poverty plagues persons of all demographics across all regions of the world; however,
poverty in heavily populated cities has historically been maintained by politically driven polices
and factors. Poverty is defined qualitatively as, “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially
acceptable amount of money or material possessions,” and is a condition that fervently plagues
citizens of the United States (Merriam-Webster.com). The International Monetary Fund adds to
this definition and states, “that poverty usually entails deprivation, vulnerability and
powerlessness” (Bridget Tobin). The Federal Poverty Level is issued every year by the
Department of Health and Human Services as a quantitative measure of income, either on the
basis of the individual, or families of varying sizes. As of 2015, this poverty level was set at
$11,880 for the individual, and grew to only $24,300 for a family of four. These income levels
are small and only appear to be shrinking annually, as the percentage of people living under
these lines continue to grow.
The growth in poverty occurs throughout all regions of the country; rural, urban and
suburban areas. A shift in the early 2000’s saw more residents of suburban areas living in
poverty than those in cities or rural communities; however, “the concentrated poverty rate
remains highest in big cities, where almost one in four poor residents (23 percent) lived in
distressed neighborhoods in 2008-2012, compared to 6.3 percent in suburbs,” as Elizabeth
Kneebone of the Brookings Institute writes. It was also during this time period that suburban
communities experienced the fastest pace growth in concentrated poverty, almost three times the
pace of growth in cities. Therefore, between 2008 and 2012, high-poverty in cities grew by 21
percent to reach 5.9 million, while in suburbs it more than doubled, growing by 105 percent to
reach 4.9 million. Thus, the turn of the 21st century saw a substantial increase in high-poverty

suburban neighborhoods as they trailed behind urban regions by a mere one million (Tobin). As
for rural poverty, the International Monetary Fund states that, “63 percent of the world’s
impoverished live in rural areas. Education, health care and sanitation are all lacking in rural
environments. This causes many of the rural poor to move to cities, which often leads to a rise in
urban poverty” (Kneebone). These statistics show that the distribution of poverty throughout
specific regions of the country is not isolated, but has an effect on other areas as well.
Nonetheless, inner cities have historically maintained the highest levels of concentrated
poverty. The purpose of this paper, then, is to identify why such high levels of concentrated
poverty exist within the United States urban areas, an adequate explanation of which will include
an analysis of concentrated poverty within the city of Charlotte, North Carolina specifically.
While there is a well-known set of negative consequences associated with poverty in general,
Judy Baker and Nina Schuler further explain specific disadvantages of the concentration of urban
poverty in their article, “Analyzing Urban Poverty: A Summary of Methods and Approaches.”
These specific characteristics include: overcrowded living conditions (slums), social
fragmentation, crime and violence, commoditization, and environmental hazard (3). These
problems are just a few of many that provide justification for further research in this area.
My analysis will include both historical and current social, economic, and political
policies that have driven and maintained such high levels of concentrated poverty amongst
America’s urban populations. The specific factors of importance include, the economic effects of
the Great Recession, minimum wages that result in poverty-level income, historic housing
policies that created lasting racially segregated urban areas, increasing levels of income
inequality, inadequate access to premium education, the rise of higher paying jobs in suburban
areas, out of urbanite reach, and the structural design of the capitalist system that results in an

imprisoned market system. These mechanisms have strategically lead to urban decline and have
also been the engine maintaining its descent.
The effect of these mechanisms within the sunbelt city of Charlotte have resulted in an
increase in concentrated poverty, despite the substantial amounts of investment money and
growth in new job opportunity the state as a whole experienced throughout the 1990’s. This
resulted in what James H. Johnson Jr defined as a poverty paradox in his article, “The Changing
Face of Poverty” where the state experienced a rate indicative of a full-employment economy,
while simultaneously experiencing an increase in the poverty rate by 15.5 percent (Johnson 14).
Moreover, Charlotte specifically has been subject to the alarmingly low intergenerational
mobility of 4.4 percent, made evident by the city’s low performance amongst various
opportunity indicators to be discussed (Charlotte Mecklenburg Opportunity Task Force).
Finally, my analysis will conclude with an extended discussion of the lack of adequate
educational opportunity as one of the leading disadvantages affecting the youth and perpetual
poverty in Charlotte, despite recent programs aimed at improving education. Additionally, I will
look at the impact of other policies such as affordable housing, progressive taxes, increasing
benefits to the poor, and the short-lived War on Poverty and Great Society programs that have
attempted to decrease poverty throughout the U.S. in general.
The National Situation
Concentration of Poverty in Urban Areas
As of 2015, the official poverty rate in the United States stood at 43.1 million people.
This equates to 13.5 percent of the population (Census.gov). While this poverty rate is currently
slightly higher in rural areas than cities, there remains a significantly high concentration of
impoverished individuals living within metropolitan areas. This is discussed by James H.

Johnson, Jr. throughout his article, “The Changing Face of Poverty in North Carolina.” Johnson
points to the fact that attempts to alleviate poverty within the United States have been unevenly
distributed, and this has, subsequently resulted in unevenly disadvantaged demographic and
geographic populations. Johnson states that as the United States became more urbanized, so did
the poor population and “…today a majority of the U.S. poor live in metropolitan areas, with
significant concentrations both inside and outside central cities” (Johnson 18).
An analysis of the concentration of poverty in central cities will also consist of focusing
on the uneven effects on such poverty of different demographics, primarily targeting ethnic and
racial minorities. Douglas S. Massey discusses a more historical composition of concentrated
poverty throughout his article, “The Ecology of Inequality: Minorities and the Concentration of
Poverty, 1970-1980” with his analysis of income inequality, distributional structure of income,
and the degree of spatial segregation by income. He emphasizes that these factors have resulted
in concentrated urban poverty primarily among blacks and Hispanics. He states, “The occurrence
of rising poverty under conditions of high racial/ethnic segregation explains the growing special
isolation of poor blacks and Hispanics in U.S. urban society” (Massey 1153). William Wilson
provides a more recent analysis of these trends in his article, “Combating Concentrated Poverty
in Urban Neighborhoods.” He specifically emphasizes how unemployment has
disproportionately affected minorities within urban American. “The black/white unemployment
ratio seemed essentially fixed at 2.0 or greater, which means that even through economic upturns
and downturns, the black unemployment rate has been at least twice that of the white
unemployment rate” (Wilson 136). Disproportional employment opportunities between race
serve as just one factor constructing concentrated urban poverty.

Worth Bateman and Harold M. Hochman provide further background on the status of the
urban crisis throughout their article, “Social Problems and the Urban Crisis: Can Public Policy
Make a Difference?” They pinpoint and analyze some of the factors that have led to the urban
crisis and the dissatisfaction of those whom have been classified the “lower class.” They suggest
that the critical poverty problem is urban for two key reasons: 1) The poor tend to be more
heavily concentrated within urban areas and 2) the disparities between income and wealth are
more readily visible within urban areas where the rich and poor are within relatively close
physical proximity to one another (Bateman and Hochman 346).
Factors Leading to Concentrated Urban Poverty
Historical and current social, economic, and political policies have both driven and
maintained the high levels of concentrated poverty within urban areas. Bateman and Hochman
proceed to analyze such specific factors, stating, “discrimination in unemployment and housing
persists; public education is in shambles in many urban school systems; wide disparities are
evident in the quality and availability of such basic public services as fire protection, police, and
sanitation; the evidence of poverty is high; and for generations the distribution of income has
remained much the same” (Bateman and Hochman 347). These are just a few of the factors that
magnify the perpetual urban crisis.
The structural design of the capitalist economy in which the United States operates
contributes substantially to the urban crisis. Throughout her book, Radical Possibilities, Jean
Anyon discusses how following the Great Recession, the U.S economy became heavily
financialized. She states, “While investment in industry and services spreads jobs and income
around, financial speculation propels income upwards, to the relatively small handful of
investors with sufficient wealth to investment in the private equity markets” (Anyon 15). This

system results in very few people owning a great deal of the wealth, while the majority of the
population is left with substantially less. Subsequently this results in the rise of large banks and
wealthy businesses that have historically swayed the democratic process to maximize their own
profits. This results in the privileged position of business that keeps the democratic political
system in prisoned to the market system, as Charles Lindbolm would suggest throughout his
article, “The Market as a Prison” (Allen 3). The consequences of a market beholdened to big
business is examined statistically by Hilary Hoynes, Douglas L. Miller, and Jessamyn Shaller in
their article, “Who Suffers During Recessions?” They draw attention to the unemployment rate
that increased from 5 percent in 2007 to 9.5 percent in 2009, only dropping to 8.3 percent in
2013, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Additionally, their statistics
show that the median family income fell by 6 percent while the poverty rate increased from 12.5
percent to 15.1 percent between the years of 2007 and 2010 (Hoynes, Miller, and Schaller 27).
Income inequality is another factor leading to the concentration of urban poverty. Sean F.
Reardon and Kendra Bischoff discuss the extent to which income inequality and segregation has
grown over the last four decades throughout their article, “Income Inequality and Income
Segregation” stating that The Gini Coefficient has increased from .394 to .462 from 1980 to
2000 (Reardon and Kendra 1092). Other problems analyzed by Reardon and Bischoff include;
income segregation that correlate with racial segregation as a result of discriminatory housing
policies, practices and preferences that keep low-income families separate from the higher
income spectrum. Alexander Kent and Thomas Frohlich of the Huffington Post reiterate this
point in their article, “The Nine Most Segregated Cities in America” as they emphasize that
black families have historically been excluded from affordable housing options across many of
the nation’s suburbs. This resulted in a majority of the black population concentrated within

America’s city centers, while whites were more heavily concentrated on the outer edge of most
cities. These discriminatory practices may take the form of; redlining, racial steering, rental
discrimination, and gentrification. All of this means that black and white families may have
identical assets and incomes, but very different residential options (Reardon, Kendra 1098).
The Charlotte Situation
Historical Background
Throughout his book, Sorting Out the New South City, Thomas Hanchett discusses the
historical status of Charlotte. He asserts, much like Jean Anyon, that historical forces from
varying directions; social, economic, and political have caused the deterioration of Urban
America throughout the years, specifically Charlotte. He begins by stating that the staunch
divisions between blacks and whites, what he refers to as “a pie cut in wedge-shaped slices” (3)
is not a timeless characteristic of the city. To currently define these divisions puts a predominant
amount of whites in Charlotte’s southeast side and a predominant amount of blacks opposite, on
the northwest side. Historically, however, these divisions were not so sharply defined. Hatchett
states, “As late as the 1920’s the city’s leading black neighborhood existed not northwest but
southeast of downtown, close by the town’s most elite white districts” (3). This is not to suggest
that division did not exist, the point is merely that separation between low-income blacks and
more affluent whites has grown throughout the years. In fact, to emphasize this point, Hatchett
reflects back as far as the 1870’s in Charlotte, where blacks and whites of all status lived side by
side one another. The progression from a salt and pepper community, to a quilt-like pattern
separating individuals amongst racial and economic lines, to eventually much larger quadrants of
separated demographics carries on as a theme of Hatchett’s writing.

The gradual transition of Charlotte, resulting in heavily concentrated poverty within the
northwest regions was originally ignited by economic factors, according to Hatchett. Throughout
the mid-1800’s Mecklenburg’s ability to profit was largely dependent upon their fertile soil that
bolstered agricultural gain and resulted in an unusually large amount of slaveholders. This also
resulted in a social structure that resembled a pyramid, with the planters at the top composing
less than 1 percent of Mecklenburg families, just below them were the merchants and smaller
farmers, then were non-slaveholding whites, and finally at the bottom, making up the greatest
percentage of the population, were the African Americans. Thus, by the 1850’s the percentage of
slaves within Mecklenburg county had increased from 14 percent in 1790 to 40 percent. While
the African American population comprised the majority of the population, social and political
power rested at the top (Hanchett 17-18). Following the Civil War era federally administered
Reconstruction began with the intent of improving social relations in the south. This
administration that took the right to vote from Confederate officers, ended slavery, and extended
full citizenship rights to African Americans was met by extreme distain and opposition from
those at the top of the pyramid. However, the Reconstruction was short live and as the Federal
troops moved out the the South, the elites rose back to their seat of influence and power. “The
Charlotte economy might grow and change, it seemed, but color, wealth, and position would
continue to define the social order just as they always had” (Hanchett 28). This social order laid
the foundation of the future composition of Mecklenburg.
The next large economic shift for Charlotte began in the 1880s with the construction of
large textile mills that attracted significantly more laborers than the smaller scale industries that
were preexisting. As a plethora of new laborers moved in and the workplace environment shifted
from small and close knit to large and distant, new housing appeared for the factory employees

in the outskirts of Charlotte. With the influx of mill workers came a rise in the Populist party.
Factory workers, small farmers, African Americans, and other traditionally lower income
individuals grew in numbers and became a threat to the more affluent whites as the rights of
these individuals were increasingly championed. The affluent Democrats met this attack with
disenfranchisement of African Americans, a circumstance that plagued many cities across the
country. This came in the form of amendments to the state constitution that specifically barred
blacks from voting through the establishment of literacy tests. These amendments were blatantly
aimed at disadvantaging the African American population, made evident by the Grandfather
Clause that allowed illiterate individuals to vote only if their ancestors had acquired the right to
vote. “With black citizens disfranchised, the Fusion coalition would no longer muster enough
votes to effectively challenge Democratic control” (Hanchett 86). With seemingly easy strokes
of manipulation, the Democratic party was able to maintain their higher position of power
through written legislation.
Fast-forward to the early 1900s with the Progressive government reform in urban
America making noticeable improvements in a majority of Northern cities; however, the
disenfranchisement of minorities that characterized previous decades in the South made it
difficult for similar improvements in Southern cities. “In short, the South lacked the political
dialogue between blue-collar and white-collar interests that shaped Progressivism elsewhere in
the United States” (Hanchett 210). Thus, with lower class, disadvantaged citizens casting few
votes, politicians felt little urgency to spend money improving the conditions of those at the
bottom. With the close of the 1920s the social structure of Charlotte was conservative, with well-
understood class distinctions, as Economist Edgar Thompson stated. Furthermore, government
officials refused to offer social services that would improve conditions of lower class individuals

(Hanchett 222). With those at the bottom in a perpetual state of turmoil due to political and
economic factors, those at the top sought to distance themselves even more. Black areas became
sharply defined as historic housing policies, such as redlining, created a lasting racially
segregated Charlotte. Segregation that Hanchett illustrates in his comparison of the most racially
segregated cities in the United States between 1940 and 1970. Of the top 20 ranked cities in
1940, Charlotte fell at number 18 with a segregation index of 90.1. This is compared to 1970, as
Charlotte rose to rank 5th, with a segregation index of 92.7 (262). Thus, despite attempts at urban
renewal and the economic boom Charlotte has experienced, concentrated poverty has both
persisted and grown.
Charlotte – The Recent Situation
The North Carolina Justice Center reported that poverty within the state as a whole
remains elevated. The report by Tazra Mitchell emphasizes that poverty disparities target
communities of color, children, and single-parent households. Additionally, she states that both
urban and suburban areas house deep pockets of poverty that erode economic opportunity
(Mitchell). However, despite the poverty present within the state, North Carolina is widely
known as an international commerce and economic supercenter within the United States. The
state has made aggressive attempts toward bringing in multinational corporations and hefty
investments from foreign big business. James H. Johnson, Jr. reports in his article, “The
Changing Face of Poverty in North Carolina” that throughout the 1990’s the state had harnessed
$41 billion in new investment. The statistics he provides go on to explain that with this increase
in investment came a monumental increase in jobs, decreasing the state’s jobless rate to nearly 4
percent during the same decade. Johnson states, “The rate was indicative of a full-employment
economy, one that was creating far more jobs than there were people to fill them” (Johnson 14).

However, a poverty paradox originated despite the seemingly significant increase in economic
and job opportunity with the 2000 census, revealing that poverty had increased within North
Carolina by 15.5 percent during the 1990’s. More recent data released by The Progressive Pulse,
cites an increase in North Carolina’s poverty rate to 18 percent in 2012, with more than 1.7
million North Carolinians living below the federal poverty level (Mitchell). With an increase in
poverty characterizing North Carolina in general, the question then shifts to what this poverty
looks like within the borders of Charlotte specifically.
An overall analysis of the more recent conditions facing Charlotte is offered by Gene
Nichol and Heather Hunt in their report, “Economic Hardship, Racialized Concentrated Poverty,
and the Challenges of Low-wage Work: Charlotte, North Carolina.” They state, “Charlotte’s
economy generates tremendous prosperity. But the tangled confluence of poverty, racial
disparity, segregation in housing and education, neighborhood disadvantage, wage segmentation,
and other forces have relegated many residents to the sidelines” (4). This has resulted in
racialized, concentrated poverty as by 2014, half of all Charlotte black residents lived in high
poverty communities (Nichol, Hunt 4).
Some of North Carolina’s most intense pockets of economic distress belong to the state’s
most vibrant city. The economic disparity becomes increasingly apparent as Charlotte’s top
incomes steadily rise with the simultaneous fall of its lowest incomes. By a quantitative measure
this puts the 95/20 percentile, a division of a household income at the 95th percentile to a
household income at the 20th percentile, at an increase from 6.3 in 1990 to 9.6 in 2014. To
further define the disparities that characterize Charlotte, differences in income by race must be
analyzed. Nichol and Hunt reveal that 70 percent of black households earn less that $60,000 a
year. This is in comparison to 59 percent of whites whom earn at least $60,000 or more annually.

It is not surprise then, that people of color are three times more likely to comprise the one in five
Charlotteans that live below the poverty line (Nichol, Hunt 20-24). More disconcerting still is the
alarming number of children living in poverty throughout Charlotte, as 35 percent of black
children and nearly 40 percent of Hispanic children live below the poverty line (28).
In order to provide a recent analysis of the disparities between blacks and whites within
Charlotte in relation to other prominent counties throughout North Carolina, Dr. Smith obtained
data from the U.S. Census Bureau via American Fact Finder which is displayed in Table 1. The
specified counties for analysis include: Wake, Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, and Durham.
Once the counties were chosen, the estimated percent of both white and black/African Americans
living below the poverty level was collected for each area. From these statistics, Dr. Smith was
able to formulate the ratio of black to white poverty in each county, which I then rounded up to
the nearest tenth.
Table 1
County Percentage of
Blacks living below
poverty level
Percentage of
Whites living
below poverty level
Ratio of Blacks to
White below
poverty
Wake 18.4 8.8 2.10
Mecklenburg 23.9 9.9 2.41
Guilford 27 11.3 2.39
Forsyth 29.5 14.1 2.10
Durham 23.4 12.9 1.81
These statistics support already existing discussion regarding the demographical break up
of poverty levels and income disparities within North Carolina in general. From Table 1 we may
infer that of the five counties analyzed, the percentage of blacks living below the poverty level is

significantly higher than the percentage of whites living below the poverty level, as of 2014,
when the statistics were tabulated. It is interesting to note that, while the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
is not home to the highest percentage of absolute black poverty, as that belongs to Forsyth
County, it has the highest ratio of black to white poverty. This is a fact that tells a lot about the
unsatisfactory attempts at creating better outcomes for Charlotte’s African American population.
Furthermore, the reality facing Charlotte places it in last place out of 50 major cities in
regards to intergenerational mobility, with a 4.4 percentage rate. Dirk Van D Gaer, Erik
Schokkaert, and Michel Martinez define intergenerational mobility in their article, “Three
Meanings of Intergenerational Mobility” as, “a measure of movement supposed to tell us
something about the extent to which positions are changed from one generation to the next”
(519). The “positions” referred to are often considered to be social or economic. In Charlotte
specifically, intense deprivation, inequality and segregation make moving up the economic
ladder nearly impossible for those held captive to concentrated poverty (Nichol, Hunt 31). It is
critical to determine where Charlotte is lacking in available opportunity, and how this results in
such a low percentage of intergenerational mobility and poverty. The Charlotte Mecklenburg
Opportunity Task Force reveals that Charlotte is challenged in all five major indicators of
economic mobility including; segregation, income inequality, school quality, social capital, and
family structure. While all of these economic mobility indicators play a variety of roles in
explaining the poverty distribution within the city of Charlotte, there is a majority of literature
that has been formulated to explain school quality within the city.
Nichol and Hunt emphasize the prominence of concentrated poverty and racial separation
within Charlotte’s school systems as well. They state, “About 71% of Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools’ approximately 146,000 students are students of color.” Additionally, “Only 23% of

white CMS students attend majority-poverty schools, while 77% of black students and 80% of
Hispanic students do” (28). These statistics are perpetuated and maintained by housing patterns
and racial isolation that keep majority and minority students separated. For perspective, this
separation results in 87% of minority students attending majority nonwhite schools, while 61%
of white students attend majority white schools (28-29). Racially polarized school systems
continue to characterize Charlotte, long after inequalities within the city’s school system resulted
in forced integration in the 1970’s with the Swann vs. The Board of Education Supreme Court
case. Throughout his book, Boom for Whom?, Dr. Stephen Smith discusses the nationally
recognized mandatory busing plans that originated in Charlotte and both its short-term and long-
term consequences. Moreover, he discusses who the true long-term beneficiaries of such plans
were. Smith states, “Generally considered a turning point in desegregation history, the Supreme
Court’s decision in Swann quickly led to the desegregation of numerous school districts
throughout the South” (Smith 3).
Furthermore, he emphasizes that, “During these years, CMS maintained very high levels
of racial balance, received widespread national praise, and also claimed substantial progress in
improving black academic achievement and reducing racial disparities on standardized tests”
(Smith 3-4). However, these are not the lasting successes that Charlotte’s bussing plans may
boast. In fact, as Smith also emphasizes, “a much more lasting consequence of school
desegregation was its crucial contributions to Charlotte’s development and economic boom
whose many benefits black Charlotteans are still a long way from fully sharing” (3). As political
elites championed for desegregated schools alongside prominent black leaders, alliances grew,
allowing for the election of pro-growth mayors and referenda necessary for the development of
roads and infrastructure that would further boost the economic successes of Charlotte. Thus, it

was these successes that bolstered the economy and further increased the status of the elites that
lived on as the true legacy of the bussing plans, long after the re-segregation of most Charlotte
schools (3).
As Nichol and Hunt state, “concentrated race in schools results in concentrated poverty.”
The negative consequences of this are monumental, considering the data to show that parental
socioeconomic status and residential segregation to be the strongest predictors of the academic
achievement gap between races (29). Educational reform throughout urban America is strongly
championed by Jean Anyon throughout her book, Radical Possibilities. Much like Nichol and
Hunt, she recognizes the correlation between educational success and a families’ economic
success. As Nichol and Hunt emphasize, the strongest predictors of the academic achievement
gap are between white students on one side and black and Hispanic students on the other are
socioeconomic status and residential segregation (29). This is especially true when the city
property tax is a major base of funding for education.
Urban areas are heavily plagued with low property tax income and the school systems
become impoverished as a result (Allen 8). Penny Howell and Barbara Miller discuss the
inadequacies of property tax receipts for funding urban schools throughout their article, “Sources
of Funding for Schools.” They state, “In many states, property taxes are still the primary revenue
source for schools. Reliance on property taxes to fund schools has created enormous inequities in
per pupil funding and in local tax rates” (Howell, Miller 42). In Charlotte’s case specifically, the
median home value of one of the poorest urban tracts is $72,000. This is a sharp comparison to
one of the wealthiest tracts where the median home value is $870,500 (Nichol, Hunt 30).
Furthermore, a study by the Education Trust revealed that significantly less money is being spent
on low-income children of color (Anyon82), which in Charlotte’s case means that 36 percent of

black children and 39 percent of Hispanic children are likely receiving less than adequate
educational opportunities (Nichol and Hunt 24).
The housing market crash of 2007 only perpetuated the already dismal situation among
the concentrated poor in Charlotte. Subprime loans disproportionately targeted toward blacks and
Hispanics increased their chances of foreclosure. Subsequently, the median home values dropped
by 14 percent for blacks and 20 percent for Hispanics compared to a mere 8 percent for whites.
Homeownership rates for people of color decreased altogether during the housing crisis with a
drop for African Americans from 48 percent to 43 percent between 2000 and 2014. This is
compared to a rate of 77 percent for whites (Nichol, Hunt 30). This decrease of homeownership
in urban areas within Mecklenburg County serves to worsen educational outcomes. As property
taxes are minimal, there is no financial assistance from big business, and no constitutional
requirement calling for governmental assistance, students confined to these school systems have
little chance of breaking the cycle that have kept generations before them impoverished.
Attempts to Alleviate Urban Poverty – What Can Be Done?
Apart from characterizing the composition of urban poverty, William Wilson also
discusses the concept of “neighborhood effects” throughout his article “Combating Concentrated
Poverty in Urban Neighborhoods.” This concept refers to the impact of various social, cultural,
and demographic neighborhood conditions on the residents. Research on these effects shows
that, beginning in infancy and persisting through adulthood, neighborhood poverty has adverse
effects on one’s life. Such negative effects may include: social isolation from mainstream
institutions, joblessness, dropping out of school, lower educational achievement, involvement in
crime, unsuccessful behavioral development, and delinquency. By this logic, it is not the
neighborhoods that result in poor out comes, but rather, the families and individuals with low job

skills, education, and social development that are generally more likely to live in these types of
“distressed” neighborhoods (Wilson 136-137). Regardless of what has the greater influence, the
neighborhood on the individual, or the individual on the neighborhood, it is necessary to target
specific ways of improving the negative circumstances characterizing so many urban areas. An
improvement in the urban condition means better opportunities for those living there.
Nichol and Hunt cite research by Raj Chetty with the Equality of Opportunity Project that
shows that where you grow up effects future earnings. A startling statistic translates this concept
to the impoverished in Charlotte specifically. Chetty’s research shows that kids growing up in
low-income families in Mecklenburg are likely to make $3,600 less than the national average.
Furthermore, this puts Mecklenburg “in the bottom 3% of all counties in the United States and
99th out of the 100 largest counties in the nation” (31). This is particularly troubling when, as
Thomas Hanchett emphasizes, “Lines are by no means hard and fast, but in Charlotte, as in many
cities in America today, where you live tells a lot about who you are” (3). Not only does where
you live tell a lot about who you are, it is also quite telling about who you might possibly be in
the future and what kind of opportunities will likely be available to you. Perhaps Nichol and
Hunt said it best, “Poverty is tough. There is a great deal of research to indicate that concentrated
poverty—living in communities where high percentages of residents fall below the poverty
level—is a good deal tougher” (11). Insufficient school systems, low-wage work, racial income
disparity, and unaffordable housing are just a few of the key factors that have led to the high
rates of concentrated poverty in Charlotte. The remaining questions is how to go about
improving the situation.
There have been several attempts throughout the years to improve conditions in
Charlotte, apart from substantially insufficient school reform. An article by Jessica Saxe from the

Charlotte Observer puts matters simply, by suggesting that giving more money to the poor may
be the best way to decrease concentrated poverty. For example, she cites a study by the Institute
for Child Success on the effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which returns tax money to
low-income workers. They estimate that increasing it by $1,000 annually leads to a higher rate of
high school completion and college education in those children. Any extra money invested back
into urban homes has the possibility of relieving a small but meaningful financial burden from
overworked parents. The problem, as Nichol and Hunt put it is that “it is not feasible to pay for
food, rent, power, transportation, health and child care on eight or nine dollars an hour in
Charlotte” and part of the solution, as Saxe suggests, is simply putting more money into the
hands of the impoverished. An increase in money could come from reinstitution of the Earned
Income Tax Credit, an increase in minimum wage, or policy that has yet to be introduced.
Regardless of how it reaches urbanites, the vast majority of research shows that given a little
extra money, the poor are likely to make decisions that promote the well-being of their family
(Saxe).
The Charlotte Observer published an another article by Ely Portillo in which she
discusses the future of affordable housing in Charlotte. Portillo states, “A non-profit group that
buys affordable housing has purchased a 200-unit apartment complex in Pineville for $18
million, and plans to make other acquisitions in the Charlotte area” (Portillo 2016). The goal of
the National Housing Partnership Foundation is to provide housing options for the inner cities’
less fortunate. This is a topic Ann Owens covers as well in her article, “Housing Policy and
Urban Inequality: Did the Transformation of Assisted Housing Reduce Poverty Concentration?”
Throughout this article, Owens analyzes the effects of new assisted housing programs, such as
the National Housing Partnership, to uncover their effectiveness in reducing the concentration of

poverty within metropolitan cities. The national longitudinal data collected revealed that the de-
concentration of assisted housing from 1977 to 2008 only minimally reduced the concentration
of poverty in the 100 largest urban cities. Thus, she comes to the conclusion that, “…even a
substantial shift in housing policy cannot make great strides in deconcentrating poverty given the
existing landscape of durable urban inequality” (Owens 325).
A more recent article published by the Charlotte Observer authored by Steve Harrison,
stated that “The Charlotte City Council has said building affordable housing is one of its highest
priorities; however, the article goes on emphasize that “No affordable units are planned. And the
city and county haven’t made it a requirement – despite a tentative agreement that calls for
taxpayers to give the developer roughly $4.4 million in tax rebates” (Harrison 2016). To make
matters worse, Pam Kelley of the Charlotte Observer an estimated 34,000 additional affordable
housing units are needed in order to meet the demand. A demand that is growing parallel to
Charlotte’s booming population. Kelley writes, “gentrification is pushing up rents in what until
recently were lower-income neighborhoods near the center city.” This elevation of rent is forcing
lower-income residents, many of whom do not receive more than $7.25 an hour, to abandon the
city and move further from town. This may decrease concentrated poverty within urban
Charlotte; however, as Atlanta Housing Authority Director Renee Glover put it, “all we’re going
to do is suburbanize poverty.” At this rate, the problem of poverty does not diminish or even
improve, it just spreads to another environment. In order to avoid this, the solution proposed is to
foster the creation of mixed-income, diverse communities. These communities would close the
racial and socio-economic divide that keeps incomes and opportunities so polarized throughout
Charlotte’s inner city. The goal then, would be to have blacks and whites, wealthy and poor,

elites and laypersons living side by side, with a return to the salt and pepper society Hanchett
refers to when citing the early years of development in Charlotte.
Additionally, there have been attempts to reach passage of a living wage in Charlotte;
however, according to another article released by the Charlotte Observer, such increases in
minimum wages will not be coming to Charlotte. Harrison states, “The General Assembly in
2013 passed a law that specifically prohibits N.C. municipalities from raising the minimum
wage…” (2015). This is particularly startling when one considers, as Fannie Flono of the
Charlotte Observer does that “Fifty-nine percent of the occupations in Mecklenburg County pay
average wages below $35,000. That’s a figure below the living income standard for a family
with one adult and one child.” An income based off of the minimum $7.25 an hour translates to
$14,500 annually. These poverty wages are a result of the low-income jobs that have blossomed
prior to the Great Recession. However, the problem is cyclical, as underpaid employees cannot
afford to reinvest their money back into society. Corporations’ thus lack profit, and subsequently
these businesses remain unable to pay their employees any more than the minimum. The solution
to lack of living wages, other than the obvious increase of the minimum wage, rests in
investments in training and education that grant individuals the opportunity to transition to jobs
of higher earning potential. Unfortunately, as Flono emphasizes, policymakers in North Carolina
have chosen to cut education, health, and social services at a time when they need to be
strengthened the most.
Apart from school reform, tax initiatives, and attempts at affordable housing and a living
wage, Jean Anyon suggests alternative options to improve conditions of the urban poor.
Ultimately, she argues that in order to inflict change against the inequities of governmental
policies on urban populations, those directly affected must channel their rage and energy into

positive social movements that rally for improvements. She mentions various existing social
movements that have spurned a variety of grassroots organizations that push for the justice and
equality in low-income, low-opportunity areas. These organizations advocate for the use of
public resources and finances in progressive ways that pursue the needs of the impoverished,
rather than the municipal leaders and big business elites (Allen 10). Myron A. Levine defines the
purpose of community organizing throughout his book, Urban Politics: Cities and Suburbs in a
Global Age. He states, “Community organizing refers to grassroots efforts by which
neighborhood organizations mobilize residents and discover their power, resources, and other
assets” (Myron 180). One historical leader in the realm of social movements and grassroots
organizations, Anyon describes is the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now
(ACORN). ACORN is historically known for their efforts to improve situations in crowded, low-
income areas. One of the nation’s largest community organizing programs, they rally around
issues such as; affordable housing, public safety, predatory lending, living wage, community
reinvestment, and education (Anyon 151).
In North Carolina and Charlotte specifically, a variety of social and grassroots coalitions
blossomed with the goal of advancing urban reform. The North Carolina Housing Coalition, for
example, is a non-profit membership organization working toward affordable housing and stable
communities for low- and moderate-income North Carolinians. “Our mission is to lead a
movement to ensure that every North Carolinian has a home in which to live with dignity and
opportunity” (nchousing.org). Similarly, the North Carolina Justice Center is a nonprofit, anti-
poverty organization with a mission geared toward reducing and eliminating poverty. This is
done by ensuring that each household gain access to resources and opportunities needed to enjoy
economic equality (ncpolicywatch.com). One last example, is the Common Sense Foundation, a

non-partisan public policy organization that exists to ensure that state government and the
political process attend to interrelated economic, political, social, and cultural needs of the
impoverished (ncpolicywatch.com). These are just a few of North Carolina organizations with
goals and missions geared toward critical to urban revival, and the decrease of concentrated
poverty in inner city Charlotte. In one form or another, they all champion for the rights of
Charlotteans whom are denied by processes of historical and contemporary measures that
maintain concentrated urban poverty.
Economic expansion within Charlotte is extremely one-sided, as those at the top are the
only ones to prosper. Nichol and Hunt sum up the tragedy of the urban situation in Charlotte by
stating, “Amidst great and burgeoning wealth, stunning numbers are locked out. They are denied
meaningful prospects to thrive, as they serve others who prosper” (42). A return to Thomas
Hanchett’s Sorting Out the New South City offers some comforting assurance when
contemplating the future of Urban America, Charlotte in particular. As America struggles with
the battle between separation and diversity, Hanchett suggests we look toward history. He states,
“Separation by race and class has not been constant in urban affairs,” instead, it was a man-made
consequence of historical concerns. In many cities across the nation, and Charlotte specifically, a
rise in Industrialization brought with it a threat to the white-collar elites. Thus an increase in
separation fueled by federal programs. While most of these programs are largely obsolete,
Charlotte remains heavily separated with large amounts of concentrated poverty. It will likely
take a subsequent, man-made decision to reshape inner cities such as Charlotte in a way that
reflect diverse concerns and interests.
It is time that concentrated poverty within Charlotte be acknowledged. Elizabeth
Kneebone from the Brookings Institute writes, “very poor neighborhoods face a host of

challenges that come from concentrated disadvantage –from higher crime rates and poorer health
outcomes to lower-quality educational opportunities and weaker job networks.” Residents of
inner cities such as Charlotte, cannot continue to live under such poor conditions with such poor
future prospects. Cynthia L. of Crisis Assistance Ministries in Charlotte echoes a cry for
assistance that reverberates amongst the impoverished in Charlotte with her statement, “We want
to help our families get ahead, we want to put back into our neighborhoods. God knows they
need it. But none of us can afford to do that.”

Reference List:
Allen, Lauren. (2016). “The Urban Crisis.” Unpublished paper, Winthrop University.
"Allied Policy Organizations | NC Policy Watch." NC Policy Watch. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
Anyon, Jean. Radical Possibilities: Public Policy, Urban Education, and a New Social
Movement. 2nd ed. New York.
Baker, Judy, and Nina Schuler. "Analyzing Urban Poverty." WorldBank.org. Policy Research
Working Paper Series, Sept. 2004. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.
Bateman, Worth, and Harold M. Hochman. “Social Problems and the Urban Crisis: Can Public
Policy Made a Difference?” The American Economic Review 61.2, Papers and
Proceedings of the Eighty-Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association
(1971): 346-53. JSTOR. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.
"Charlotte Mecklenburg Opportunity Task Force." OpportunityCharMeck. N.p., 17 Feb. 2016.
Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
"Federal Poverty Level (FPL) - HealthCare.gov Glossary." HealthCare.gov. U.S. Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Flono, Fannie. "A Living Wage Is a Benefit to All of Us." Charlotteobserver. Charotte Observer,
9 June 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
Gaer, Dirk Van De, Erik Schokkaert, and Michel Martinez. "Three Meanings of
Intergenerational Mobility." Economica 68.272 (2001): 519-37. JSTOR. Web. 15 Nov.
2016.
Hanchett, Thomas W. Sorting out the New South City: Race, Class, and Urban Development in
Charlotte, 1875-1975. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 1998. Print.

Harrison, Steve. "Affordable Housing Is a City Priority. Developer May Get Millions without
including It." Charlotteobserver. N.p., 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Harrison, Steve. "To Raise Pay, Charlotte Has Only One Option: Its Own
Employees." Charlotteobserver. N.p., 28 July 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Hoynes, Hilary, Miller, Douglas L., and Shaller, Jessamyn. “Who Suffers During Recessions?”
The Journal of Economic Perspectives 26.33 (2012): 27-47. JSTOR Web 20 May
2016
"Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics." Feeding America. Feeding America, n.d. Web. 27
Oct. 2016.
Johnson, James H., Jr. "The Changing Face of Poverty in North Carolina." UNC.edu. School of
Government, 2003. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
Kelley, Pam. "How Do We Solve Charlotte's Affordable Housing Shortage?" Charlotteobserver.
Charlotte Observer, 8 Mar. 2016. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
Kent, Alexander, and Thomas C. Frohlich. "The Nine Most Segregated Cities in
America." Huffingtonpost.com. Huffington Post, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
Kneebone, Elizabeth. "The Growth and Spread of Concentrated Poverty, 2000 to 2008-
2012." Brookings. N.p., 30 July 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Levine, Myron A. Urban Politics: Cities and Suburbs in a Global Age. 9th ed. New York:
Routhledge, 2015. Print.
Lindbolm, Charles E. “The Market as a Prison.” The Journal of Politics 44.2 (1982): 324-36.
Web. 27 March 2016.

Massey, Douglas S. "The Ecology of Inequality: Minorities and the Concentration of Poverty,
1970-1980." American Journal of Sociology 95.5 (1990): 1153-188. JSTOR. Web. 27
Oct. 2016.
Mitchell, Tazra. "NC Budget and Tax Centers, Poverty and Policy Matters." The Progressive
Pulse. The Progressive Pulse, 11 Jan. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Mitchell, Tazra. "Poverty and People in North Carolina." NCJustice. North Carolina Justice
Center, Nov. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Nichol, Gene R., and Heather Hunt. "Economic Hardship, Racialized Concentrated Poverty, and
the Challenges of Low-Wage Work: Charlotte, North Carolina." (n.d.): n. pag. UNC.edu.
2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
"North Carolina Housing Web Site." North Carolina Housing Web Site. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec.
2016.
Ownes, Ann. “Housing Policy and Urban Inequality: Did the Transformation of Assisted
Housing Reduce Poverty Concentration?” Social Forces 94.1 (2015): 325-48.
EBSCOhost. Web. 05 Oct. 2016.
Perlmutt, David, Gavin Off, and Claire Williams. "Poverty Spreads across Mecklenburg, North
Carolina." Charlotteobserver. N.p., 2 Aug. 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Portillo, Ely. "Low-income Housing Group Buys Charlotte Apartments." Charlotteobserver.
N.p., 15 July 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Reardon, Sean F. and Bischoff Kendra. “Income Inequality and Income Segregation.” American
Journal of Sociology 116.4 (2011): 1092-153. JSTOR Web 20 May 2016.
Smith, Stephen Samuel. Boom for Whom: Education, Desegregation, and Development in
Charlotte. Albany, NY: State U of New York, 2004. Print.

"The Definition of Poverty." Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Tobin, Bridget. "Rural Poverty and Urban Poverty - The Borgen Project." The Borgen Project.
N.p., 14 Aug. 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
"U.S. Poverty Statistics." Federal Safety Net. N.p., 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
Wilson, William Julius. "Combating Concentrated Poverty in Urban Neighborhoods." Journal of
Applied Social Science 7.2 (2013). 135-143. Sage Pub. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

THIS IS IT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to THIS IS IT

Similar to THIS IS IT (17)

THIS IS IT