Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s

1. Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s Paul A. Jargowsky University of Texas at Dallas May 19, 2003

2. The Spatial Dimension of Poverty • Poverty at individual/family level vs. geographical distribution of poverty • High-poverty neighborhoods • Spill over to schools • Negative influences, lack of positive role models • Networks and information flows • Public policy issues • Neighborhood effects, esp. kids • Alienation from mainstream of society

3. Methodology • Census “long form” data from 1990 and 2000 • Census tracts are proxies for neighborhoods • Family poverty measured using federal poverty rate • A high-poverty neighborhood is a census tract with a poverty rate of 40% or higher • Metropolitan areas are the key unit of analysis

4. The 1970 to 1990 Story (Previous Research) • Huge increases in size of ghettos and barrios • % of poor in neighborhoods with poverty rate of 40% or more • Census tracts as proxies for neighborhoods • Economy has huge effect, but it was flat to positive over 1970 to 1990 • Racial segregation also matters, but improving over this time period. • There must be something else....

5. Suburban Development • Outer ring suburbs growing rapidly • Highest income persons move out, middle income fill in behind. • Process filters down, with poor left behind in central cities. • Suburbs and slums are the most visible manifestations of a development dynamic that favors rapid, highly-exclusionary patterns of housing development.

6. What about 2000 Census? • Strong economy, peaked in April 2000 (so the 2000 Census is already out of date!) • Policies to deconcentrate poverty (Hope VI, Section 8, etc., maybe even welfare reform) • Expected declines in percentage of poor living in high-poverty neighborhoods. • Didn’t expect much real change in the number of census tracts above 40% poverty • Expected some gentrification, but expected it would it be “islands of renewal in seas of decay” • Sometimes it’s good to be wrong!

7. Poverty Became Less Concentrated • Nationwide, the number of high-poverty neighborhoods declined by 27 percent, from 3,417 in 1990 to 2,510 in 2000 (out of about 60,000 total neighborhoods). • The population of high-poverty areas declined by 24 percent, from 10.4 million to 7.9 million.

9. Most Residents of High-Poverty Areas are Members of Minority Groups

11. > 50% Decrease 25% to 50% Decrease 0% to 25% Decrease 0% to 25% Increase 25% to 50% Increase > 50% Increase Percentage Change in Population of High-Poverty Neighborhoods by State, 1990-2000 Change, 1990-2000

12. The Advance and Retreat of Detroit’s High-Poverty Ghetto • The animation on the following page shows the high-poverty zone in Detroit from 1970 to 2000. • Red tones indicate high-poverty areas – census tracts with poverty rates above 40 percent. • Green tones are low or moderate poverty areas. • After decades of increases, Detroit had a dramatic reduction in the size and population of the high poverty area.

13. Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods 1970-2000 1970

14. Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods 1970-2000 1980

15. Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods 1970-2000 1990

16. Poverty Level: Detroit Neighborhoods 1970-2000 2000

17. 1970 Poverty Level: Milwaukee Neighborhoods 1970-2000

18. 1980 Poverty Level: Milwaukee Neighborhoods 1970-2000

19. 1990 Poverty Level: Milwaukee Neighborhoods 1970-2000

20. 2000 Poverty Level: Milwaukee Neighborhoods 1970-2000

21. 1990 2000 Chg Tracts 56 137 +81 Concentration White 4.3 5.1 +0.8 Black 17.3 21.3 +4.1 Hispanic 9.1 16.9 +7.8 Los Angeles: a different story 2000 1990

22. Washington,D. C. 1990

23. Washington,D. C. 2000

24. The Concentration of Poverty • Until now, looking at total population of high-poverty neighborhoods • Much concern about specific effects of concentration on the poor • Concentration of poverty defined as the percent of the total poor in an area that resides in high-poverty neighborhoods

26. “Suburbs” had the Smallest Improvements 1990 2000 Change Black Poor Central Cities 39.6 25.9 -11.8 Suburbs 10.6 5.7 -4.9 Non-Metro 20.7 9.9 -10.8 Hispanic Poor Central Cities 27.2 13.8 -7.4 Suburbs 10.6 8.0 -2.6 Non-Metro 18.3 7.0 -11.3

27. Returning to Detroit MSA, Poverty in 2000

28. Change in Poverty Rates, 1990 to 2000, Detroit MSA

29. Change in Poverty RatesChicago, 1990-2000

30. Change in Poverty Rates St. Louis 1970-1990 1990-2000

31. Change in Poverty Rates Cleveland 1970-1990 1990-2000

32. Change in Poverty Rates Dallas 1970-1990 1990-2000

33. Conclusions • A strong economy with low unemployment is incredibly powerful. • Both the size and population of high-poverty neighborhoods have declined substantially in most of the country. • More work needs to be done to assess the relative contribution of the economy, public policies, gentrification, and other factors. • Central cities have the infrastructure and amenities to withstand and even defeat the sprawl/blight cycle – at least when the economy is strong and policies are supportive. • The inner-ring of suburbs continue to decline, so rapid exclusionary forms of suburban development are still a concern.

34. Interactive Web Site:www.urbanpoverty.net Makes creation of poverty and demographic maps easy for the general public.