1 / 16

Concentrated Poverty and Regional Equity

This analysis examines the trends and disparities in concentrated poverty and regional equity using data from the 2000 Census to the 2005/09 ACS. It explores the conditions in low-income neighborhoods and the changes in composition over time. The analysis also looks at the disparities between low- and higher-income neighborhoods and discusses potential policy implications.

villalobosm
Download Presentation

Concentrated Poverty and Regional Equity

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. Concentrated Poverty and Regional Equity PORTLAND NNIP MEETING March 1, 2012 Tom Kingsley and Rob Pitingolo National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership

  2. NNIP SHARED INDICATORS • The Shared Indicators agenda • Completed framework paper, indicator selection • Have national data now; plan assemble local data next few years • Chicago/Minneapolis partners working on system & protocols for collection (McKnight grant) • Using national data for first analysis • National analysis 100 largest metros (UI) • Analysis for individual metros by partners

  3. THIS ANALYSIS • 2000 Census to 2005/09 ACS • Imperfections: period and sample size • Concentrated poverty • Low income neigh. defined as >20% poverty • Conditions low-income neighborhoods • Taking into account composition change • Regional equity (disparity gaps) • Between low- and higher-income neighborhoods

  4. Stark contrasts – low- and higher- income neighborhoods

  5. Concentrated Poverty Went Up 48 47 24 21 Tracts Poor Population

  6. Huge variation across metros – level and change in concentrated poverty

  7. Except for income, indicators in low income neigh. improved modestly

  8. But composition changed – some tracts improved, some worsened

  9. Overall condition changes, in part due to shifts in composition

  10. In Cleveland, city tracts more likely to improve, suburban tracts more likely to worsen

  11. Similar Pattern in Baltimore

  12. Changes in tracts that stayed low income throughout the period – modest differences in results

  13. Large disparities (gaps): low- vs. higher-income neighborhoods

  14. Small changes to gaps, 2000-2005/09Some narrowed, some widened Ave Income ($000) % Homeowners % Access to Car % LF Employed % College Degree

  15. Regional disparity, not closely correlated with concentrated poverty

  16. Next Steps • Analyze/present standard errors • Examine variations with metro size • Explore developing an overall disparity index • More indicators; z-scores to normalize • Examine contrasts between metros • More maps – varying change trajectories • Consider policy implications

More Related