1 / 15

Tom Kingsley and Kathy Pettit The Urban Institute

THE 2000 CENSUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE Sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s: A Change in Course. Tom Kingsley and Kathy Pettit The Urban Institute. Some differences in approach. Data for census tracts in all metropolitan areas

redford
Download Presentation

Tom Kingsley and Kathy Pettit The Urban Institute

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE 2000 CENSUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGESponsored by the Rockefeller FoundationConcentrated Poverty in the 1990s:A Change in Course Tom Kingsley and Kathy Pettit The Urban Institute

  2. Some differences in approach • Data for census tracts in all metropolitan areas • Constant neighborhood boundaries over time • Allows comparison of changing conditions in same places • Interest in different poverty ranges • Focus on poverty rates of 30% or more

  3. Similar findings: major reductions in concentrated poverty- Share of poor: down in high categories up in middle categories

  4. Reductions in:- High poverty tracts (>30% poor) - Extreme poverty tracts (>40% poor)

  5. High poverty tracts - shifting compositionSuburbs gaining share, but central cities of largest metros still dominant High-Poverty Tracts by Location Central cities, 100 largest metros All other metros Central cities, 100 largest metros All other metros 22% 23% 67% Suburbs, 100 largest metros 62% 11% 15% Suburbs, 100 largest metros 1980 2000

  6. High poverty tracts - shifting compositionPredominantly black tracts losing share; gains for Hispanic & mixed tracts High-Poverty Tracts by Predominant Race/Ethnicity Other/Mixed Other/Mixed Black 21% Black 27% 48% 39% 13% Hispanic 20% 18% 14% Hispanic White White 1980 2000

  7. Concentrated poverty in the Northeast- New York region, high but decreasing- Increasing concentration in 8 metros

  8. Concentrated poverty in theMidwest- Worst increases in the 1980s- Largest, most pervasive decreases in the 1990s

  9. Concentrated poverty in the South- Consistent, pervasive improvements- Two special cases: Wilmington, Washington

  10. Concentrated poverty in the West- Serious increases in Melting Pot metros- Major contrasts in California (best and worst)

  11. Conditions in high-poverty tracts Improvements, but big gaps remain 1990 2000 2000 1990 2000 2000 1990 2000 2000 High Poverty Metro Tracts Avg. High Poverty Metro Tracts Avg. High Poverty Metro Tracts Avg. % Adults without High School Degree % Families w/ Children, Female Headed % Females Employed, age 16 and over

  12. Implications of national review • Reduction in concentrated poverty – important sign of hope for cities - Booming economy, supportive policies can make a difference - “Culture of Poverty” not the barrier some alleged • But no reason for complacency - 2000 was peak of boom – problems since - Even in 2000, major gaps in conditions remained • Research needed, neighborhoods that improved - 1,461 tracts moved out of high-poverty in 1990s - Need to learn how they did it (role of gentrification)

  13. Concentrated Poverty in the District of Columbia

  14. Change in Poverty Categories in District of Columbia, 1990-2000

  15. THE 2000 CENSUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGEConcentrated Poverty in the 1990s:A Change in Course The Urban Institute http://www.urban.org/nnip/ncua/index.htm

More Related