RACE AND SUBURBANIZATION: SHIFTING THE OPPORTUNITY PARADIGM

john a. powellExecutive Director, The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity

Williams Chair in Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Moritz College of Law

The Diverse Suburb: History, Politics, and Prospects Conference

October 22-24, 2009

Hempstead, 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 AND ACCELERATE SEGREGATION

Not just segregation based on phenotype

Segregation from opportunitySegregation embedded in our

institutions and in our geography

EXAMPLE: RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION“SEGREGATION AS A CONSEQUENCE”

Institutionalized red-lining

Federal Policies Private Institutions

“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

Suburbanization =

EXAMPLE CONTD. :“SEGREGATION AS A CAUSE”

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS INFORMED BY THE SPACE WE INHABIT

Suburbs= white Cities= black

STRUCTURAL RACIALIZATION

6

Adapted from the Aspen Roundtable on Community Change. “Structural Racism and Community Building.” June 2004

SYSTEM INTERACTIONS

7

Source: Barbara Reskin. http://faculty.uwashington.edu/reskin/

8

THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF SPATIAL, RACIAL AND OPPORTUNITY SEGREGATION

Neighborhood Segregation

School Segregation

Racial stigma, other psychological impacts

Job segregation

Impacts on community power and individual assets

Impacts on Educational Achievement

Exposure to crime; arrest

Transportation limitations and other inequitable public services

Adapted from figure by Barbara Reskin at: http://faculty.washington.edu/reskin/

Segregation impacts a number of life-opportunities

Impacts on Health

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE:WE ALL LIVE IN OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES CALLED “NEIGHBORHOODS”

A TALE OF HIGH AND LOW OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES

• Less the 25% of students in Detroit finish high school

• More the 60% of the men will spend time in jail

• There may soon be no bus service in some areas

• It is difficult to attract jobs or private capital

• Not safe; very few parks

• Difficult to get fresh food

• The year my step daughter finished high school, 100% of the students graduated and 100% went to college

• Most will not even drive by a jail

• Free bus service

• Relatively easy to attract capital

• Very safe; great parks

• Easy to get fresh food

Low Opportunity High Opportunity

NEIGHBORHOODS MATTER!

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

Example: Educational Outcomes

Housing

ChildcareEmployment

Education

Health

Transportation

Effective Participation

HOUSING IS AN OPPORTUNITY ANCHOR AND KEY LEVERAGE POINT

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…

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

Some areas are still off-limits

CHANGING DYNAMICS OF SEGREGATION….

…School segregation in some areas increases even as residential segregation decreases

Dissimilarity Index

Metro Region

School Segregation

Neighborhood Segregation

1989-90

1999-00

1989-90

1999-00

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria OH

38.1 71.2 84.3 75.3

Columbus OH 39.6 65.3 68.1 61.7

Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI

44.2 64.9 78.9 75.2

Las Vegas, NV-AZ

20.9 41.1 54.1 42.6

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

36.9 54.1 73.3 64.4

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 demonstrationBaltimore suburbs backlashLess 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: GAUTREAUX

A court-ordered de-segregation strategy of Chicago public housing residents into white suburbs

Key Difference: race-conscious, larger geographic area

Outcomes: Improved school attendance ratesMore likely to be in college-track programs

and attend a 4-year college If not attending college, then employedReporting earnings greater than $6.50/hourReceiving 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…

One community has no health insurance, but a hospital down the street.

Another community has no health insurance and no hospital.

Resource-rich(er)

Resource-poor

Even where we have universal goals, we have different pathsExample: Universal Health care?

RESPONSES CONTD.: MULTI-DISCIPLINARYEXAMPLE: LIHTC AND SEGREGATED SCHOOLS

23

Currently, LIHTC development is conflicting with efforts to desegregate schools.

Nearly ¾’s of African American and Hispanic LIHTC residents are located in segregated schools.

Cumulative effects of segregation and isolation, no single-issue policy response will be adequate

Figure 8: Percentage of LIHTC Population within Proximity to Segregated Schools:

Population in household by household race:

> 90%

White

50 to 100% Students of Color

American Indian 16.8% 18.7%

Asian 6.9% 71.3%

Black 6.0% 69.6%

Hispanic 8.4% 74.3%

Other Race 33.5% 23.2%

White 32.5% 17.0%

EXAMPLE: CONNECTING MULTIPLE DOMAINSHOUSING AND SCHOOLS

HOW CAN WE REVERSE THIS PATTERN?

24

Low Opportunity High Opportunity

SOME PROGRESS… Federal Responses

Administration's 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 have different structural needs

Questions or Comments: www.kirwaninstitute.org

27

Visit www.kirwaninstitute.org