Race and Suburbanization: Shifting the Opportunity Paradigm
RACE AND SUBURBANIZATION: SHIFTING THE OPPORTUNITY PARADIGMjohn a. powellExecutive Director, The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and EthnicityWilliams Chair in Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Moritz College of LawThe Diverse Suburb: History, Politics, and Prospects ConferenceOctober 22-24, 2009Hempstead, NY
• Different communities are situated differently with regards to institutions• Institutions mediate opportunity• Structural Inequality – Example: a Bird in a cage. Examining one wire cannot explain why a bird cannot fly. But multiple wires, arranged in specific ways, reinforce each other and trap the bird.
STRUCTURES PERPETUATE ANDACCELERATE SEGREGATION Not just segregation based on phenotype Segregation from opportunity Segregation embedded in our institutions and in our geography
EXAMPLE: RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION “SEGREGATION AS A CONSEQUENCE” Suburbanization = Federal Policies Private Institutions Institutionalized red-lining“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 1947FHA underwriting manual
EXAMPLE CONTD. : “SEGREGATION AS A CAUSE”SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS INFORMED BY THE SPACE WE INHABIT Suburbs= white Cities= black
STRUCTURAL RACIALIZATION Context: The Dominant Consensus on Race White privilege National values Contemporary culture Current Manifestations: Social and Institutional Dynamics Processes that maintain racial Racialized public policies and hierarchies institutional practices Outcomes: Racial DisparitiesRacial inequalities in current levels of Capacity for individual and community well-being improvement is undermined 6 Ongoing Racial InequalitiesAdapted from the Aspen Roundtable on Community Change. “Structural Racism and Community Building.” June 2004
SYSTEM INTERACTIONS 7Source: Barbara Reskin. http://faculty.uwashington.edu/reskin/
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 8 individual assets Adapted from figure by Barbara Reskin at: http://faculty.washington.edu/reskin/
THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE:WE ALL LIVE IN OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES CALLED “NEIGHBORHOODS” A TALE OF HIGH AND LOW OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES Low Opportunity High Opportunity • Less the 25% of students in • The year my step daughter Detroit finish high school finished high school, 100% of the students graduated and • More the 60% of the men will 100% went to college spend time in jail • Most will not even drive by a jail • There may soon be no bus service in some areas • Free bus service • Relatively easy to attract capital • It is difficult to attract jobs or private capital • Very safe; great parks • Not safe; very few parks • Easy to get fresh food • Difficult to get fresh food
NEIGHBORHOODS MATTER! Example: Educational Outcomes Sampson et.al.: Verbal ability and concentrated poverty: “living in a severely disadvantaged neighborhood reduces the later verbal ability of black children on average by 4 points, a magnitude that rivals missing a year or more of schooling.” Racial segregation and concentrated poverty: the poverty of a school, more than the poverty of the individual, determines students’ educational outcomes
HOUSING IS AN OPPORTUNITY ANCHOR AND KEYLEVERAGE POINT Health Employment Childcare Housing Effective Education Participation Transportation 11
INADEQUATE RESPONSES So far, policies have not been adequate in scope: they have not moved people into opportunity De-concentration is not the same as moving people to opportunity More complex landscape, policy must reflect reality
REFLECTING REALITY: RETIRING THE OLD DICHOTOMY No longer city vs. suburbs Some groups have had modicum of success, but patchwork, and now new dynamic Exurbs, older suburbs, and what’s going on in the cities? Gentrification, A New Form of Exclusion?
MOVIN’ ON UP…?CHANGING DYNAMICS OF SEGREGATION…. “African Americans and Latinos who reside in the suburbs are much more likely than suburban whites to live in fiscally stressed jurisdictions with below average public resources and greater than average public service needs.”Source: Institute on Race and Poverty, “Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change: Stable Integration,Neighborhood Transition,and the Need for Regional Approaches” May 2005. www.irpumn.org
A Patchwork of Suburbanization… Some areas are still off-limitsSource: Institute on Race and Poverty, “Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change: Stable Integration, Neighborhood Transition,and the Need for Regional Approaches” May 2005. www.irpumn.org
CHANGING DYNAMICS OF SEGREGATION…. Dissimilarity School Neighborhood Index Segregation Segregation Metro Region 1989- 1999- 1989- 1999- …School 90 00 90 00 segregation in Cleveland-Lorain- 38.1 71.2 84.3 75.3 some areas Elyria OH increases even as Columbus OH 39.6 65.3 68.1 61.7 residential Milwaukee- 44.2 64.9 78.9 75.2 segregation Waukesha, WI decreases Las Vegas, NV- 20.9 41.1 54.1 42.6 AZ Cincinnati, OH- 36.9 54.1 73.3 64.4 KY-IN Denver, CO 46.3 63.1 69 64.5Source: Lewis Mumford Center, “Choosing Segregation: Racial Imbalance in American Public Schools, 1990-2000 .” March 2002. http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/SchoolPop/SPReport/page1.html
PREVIOUS RESPONSES Romney and Nixon: the first and last attempt at including suburbs in an urban policy Gautreaux: successful in regional mobility, race conscious (i.e. de-segregation), but court-ordered Improved outcomes in social, educational, and economic indicators MTO: ignored race, focused on class (i.e. de- concentration), 1-year pilot demonstration Baltimore suburbs backlash Less successful, why? Did not change the geography of residents!
EXAMPLE: MTO DEMONSTRATION 5- city pilot program, based on de-concentration strategy; race was not explicit indicator in recipient neighborhoods Outcomes: improvements in physical and mental health, perceptions of safety, BUT limited or no improvements in educational, economic, and employment outcomes Why limited effects? MTO families were more likely to move to areas of transition, and predominantly minority within the central city Geography of opportunity did not change: nearly ¾’s of moves were within the same school district
A BETTER EXAMPLE: GAUTREAUXA court-ordered de-segregation strategy of Chicago public housing residents into white suburbs Key Difference: race-conscious, larger geographic area Outcomes: Improved school attendance rates More likely to be in college-track programs and attend a 4-year college If not attending college, then employed Reporting earnings greater than $6.50/hour Receiving employer benefits
POTENTIAL RESPONSES “AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING” What does this mean? Not just fair housing/anti- discrimination policies, but affirmatively linking people with opportunity Physical proximity to social institutions/resources is not enough Social connections/infrastructure matter too Deliberate, Multi-disciplinary, & Regional
A “BEST” RESPONSE:A ROBUST DEFINITION OF “OPPORTUNITY COMMUNITIES” THOMSON V. HUD FAIR HOUSING LITIGATION Proposed Remedy: Used 14 indicators of neighborhood opportunity to designate high and low opportunity neighborhoods in the region • Neighborhood Quality/Health Poverty, Crime, Vacancy, Property Values, Population Trends • Economic Opportunity Proximity to Jobs and Job Changes, Public Transit • Educational Opportunity School Poverty, School Test Scores, Teacher Qualifications 21
…COMMUNITIES HAVE DIFFERENT RESOURCES, AND THESE RESULT IN DIFFERENTIAL OUTCOMES…Even where we have universal goals, we have different paths Example: Universal Health care? Resource-rich(er) Resource-poor One community has Another community no health insurance, has no health but a hospital down insurance and no the street. hospital.
RESPONSES CONTD.: MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EXAMPLE: LIHTC AND SEGREGATED SCHOOLS Cumulative effects of segregation and isolation, no single-issue policy response will be adequate Figure 8: Percentage of LIHTC Population Currently, LIHTC within Proximity to Segregated Schools: development is conflicting Population in with efforts to desegregate > household by 50 to 100% 90% schools. household Students of Color White Nearly ¾’s of African race: American and Hispanic American 16.8% 18.7% LIHTC residents are located Indian in segregated schools. Asian 6.9% 71.3% Black 6.0% 69.6% Hispanic 8.4% 74.3% Other Race 33.5% 23.2% 23 White 32.5% 17.0%
EXAMPLE: CONNECTING MULTIPLE DOMAINS HOUSING AND SCHOOLS HOW CAN WE REVERSE THIS PATTERN? Low Opportunity High Opportunity 24
SOME PROGRESS… Federal Responses Administrations Urban Agenda HUD’s “Sustainable Communities Initiative” Westchester Court Decision New Jersey Regional Contribution Agreements Repealed“The Legislature finds that the use of regional contribution agreements, which permits municipalities to transfer a certain portion of their fair share housing obligation outside of the municipal borders, should no longer be utilized as a mechanism for the creation of affordable housing by the council.” (A-500)
POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES: STATE, REGIONAL,LOCAL What about foreclosures in non-segregated neighborhoods for affordable housing? What about strategic reuse of abandoned properties in distressed neighborhoods?Different communities will havedifferent structural needs
27 Questions or Comments: www.kirwaninstitute.org Visit www.kirwaninstitute.org