Urban Neighborhoods and the Persistence of Racial Inequality

Urban Neighborhoods and the Persistence of Racial Inequality Patrick Sharkey New York University February 17, 2015

Outline for the talk: 1) The end of progress toward racial equality 2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality 3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality 4) Implications for urban policy 5) A hopeful conclusion

The end of progress toward racial equality: Family income Pew Research, Social and Demographic Trends: http: //www. pewsocialtrends. org/2013/08/22/race-demographics/

The end of progress toward racial equality: Economic mobility

The end of progress toward racial equality: Absolute mobility

Outline for the talk: 1) The end of progress toward racial equality 2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality 3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality 4) Implications for urban policy 5) A hopeful conclusion

Continuity in racialized neighborhood inequality

Continuity in racialized neighborhood inequality 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 -0. 5 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 3 -1 1 Average neighborhood disadvantage Average level of neighborhood disadvantage, by race/eth and income group Sharkey, in press. “Spatial segmentation and the black middle class. ” American Journal of Sociology

% of all parent/child pairs living in poor neighborhoods over consecutive generations Sharkey 2008. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Context. ” American Journal of Sociology.

% of individuals in poor neighborhoods whose parent was also raised in a poor neighborhood Sharkey 2008. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Context. ” American Journal of Sociology.

Outline for the talk: 1) The end of progress toward racial equality 2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality 3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality 4) Implications for urban policy 5) A hopeful conclusion

School Exposure to violence Peers Mental health CHILD’S NEIGHBORHOOD Standard theoretical model of “neighborhood effects” CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT

Education Occupation Income Mental health Parenting style PARENT’S NEIGHBORHOOD School Exposure to violence Peers Mental health CHILD’S NEIGHBORHOOD Multigenerational model of “neighborhood effects” CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT

The consequences of multigenerational neighborhood disadvantage: Economic mobility Sharkey 2009. “Neighborhoods and the black-white mobility gap. ” Economic Mobility Project.

The consequences of multigenerational neighborhood disadvantage: Educational aspirations Sharkey, Stuck In Place.

The consequences of multigenerational neighborhood disadvantage: Cognitive skills Adjusted score on cognitive assessment Adjusted reading/language scores of children, by neighborhood poverty over two generations 106 105 102 101 100 97 95 Never in poor Parent in poor Child in poor Always in poor neighborhood Sharkey and Elwert. 2011. “The Legacy of Disadvantage: Multigenerational Neighborhood Effects on Cognitive Ability. ” American Journal of Sociology.

Outline for the talk: 1) The end of progress toward racial equality 2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality 3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality 4) Implications for urban policy 5) A hopeful conclusion

“Durable urban policy” Policy with the capacity to: • Disrupt multigenerational patterns of neighborhood inequality • Generate transformative changes in places and in families’lives • Confront neighborhood inequality on a national scale and withstand fluctuations in the political mood and the business cycle

What does “durable” mobility look like? Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity Map from De. Luca and Rosenblatt (2008). “Can poor black families escape segregated neighborhoods? ” Sampson 2010. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure. ” American Journal of Sociology.

The long-term impact of Gautreaux on participating families’ neighborhoods Keels et al. 2005. “Fifteen years later: Can residential mobility programs provide a long -term escape from neighborhood segregation, crime, and poverty? ” Demography.

The structure of residential mobility in Chicago: Evidence from MTO Sampson 2010. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure. ” American Journal of Sociology.

The long-term impact of MTO on participating families’ neighborhoods Ludwig et al. 2012. “Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low. Income Adults. ” Science.

What does “durable” investment look like? Purpose Built Communities

What does “durable” investment look like? Harlem Children’s Zone

What does “durable” policy look like? Inclusionary Zoning

“Durable urban policy” • Mobility policies that promote dramatic, sustained changes in families’ environments – Example: Gautreaux; Baltimore Mobility Program

“Durable urban policy” • Investments that reach multiple generations – Examples: New Hope (Milwaukee); Harlem Children’s Zone

“Durable urban policy” • Investments with the potential to create permanent or transformative change in communities – Example: Mandatory inclusionary zoning; Purpose Built Communities

“Durable urban policy” • Investments/programs/policies implemented on a national scale with the potential to withstand shifts in economy and political mood – Example: ?

Outline for the talk: 1) The end of progress toward racial equality 2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality 3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality 4) Implications for urban policy 5) A hopeful conclusion

Our nation’s urban policy agenda • Since the early 1970 s, federal urban policy has been dominated by a narrative linking cities/race/violence • The Great American Crime Decline has weakened these connections and opened space for a new model of urban policy

0 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 The Great American Crime Decline 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

Violence has dropped the most in the most violent cities 80 2009 homicide rate per 100, 000 70 points above line = crime rose from 1993 -2009 60 New Orleans Detroit 50 St. Louis 40 Baltimore Newark Oakland 30 22. 73333332 Philadelphia 20. 1 20. 06666667 Cincinnati Buffalo 17. 3 20 Chicago Pittsburgh. Milwaukee 12. 2333333 11. 55 11. 4 Houston Dallas 11. 5333333 11. 16666667 10. 3 9. 76666667 9. 5 9. 3333333 Tucson 9. 1 9. 03333333 8. 73333332 7. 26666666 8. 06666666666667 Los Angeles 7. 5 7. 36666667 7. 13333333 10 6. 23333334 San Francisco 6. 33333333333333 New York City 5. 56666667 Denver 5. 3 5. 03333334 4. 93333334 44. 54. 3 3. 94. 1 3. 76666667 San Jose 3. 5 3. 63333333 3. 5 3. 3333333 2. 86666667 Fort Worth 2. 2 2 1. 8 1. 13333333 1. 26666667 4. 73333334 4. 93333334 Atlanta Washington, DC points below line = crime dropped from 1993 -2009 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 1993 homicide rate per 100, 000 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 60 70 80

Violence has dropped the most in the most violent neighborhoods City Time Period Absolute Change Relative Change Highest Quintile Remainder Chicago 2001 -2012 -109. 67 -32. 31 -28. 92 -32. 57 Cleveland 1990 -2010 -175. 83 19. 27 -43. 28 18. 39 Denver 1990 -2010 -95. 42 -10. 77 -47. 54 -20. 32 Philadelphia 1998 -2009 -62. 65 -2. 00 -22. 91 -2. 95 Seattle 1996 -2007 -67. 32 -10. 47 -28. 54 -23. 80 St. Petersburg 2000 -2012 -202. 31 -41. 31 -42. 94 -46. 72

550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Highest Quintile 4 Quintile 3 Quintile 2 Year 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Lowest Quintile 2000 Violent Crimes per 10, 000 Residents Violence has dropped the most in the most violent neighborhoods

Exposure to neighborhood violence by poverty status 300 Violent Crimes per 10, 000 Residents 250 200 Poor, Initial Year 150 Poor, Final Year Non-Poor, Initial Year Non-Poor, Final Year 100 50 0 Chicago 2001 -2012 Cleveland 1990 -2010 Denver 1990 -2010 Philadelphia 1998 -2009 Seattle St. Petersburg 1996 -2007 2000 -2012

Exposure to neighborhood violence by race/ethnicity 350 Violent Crimes per 10, 000 Residents 300 250 Whites, Initial Year 200 Whites, Final Year Blacks, Initial Year 150 Blacks, Final Year Hispanics, Initial Year 100 Hispanics, Final Year 50 0 Chicago 2001 -2012 Cleveland 1990 -2010 Denver 1990 -2010 Philadelphia 1998 -2009 Seattle St. Petersburg 1996 -2007 2000 -2012

Our nation’s urban policy agenda • Since the early 1970 s, federal urban policy has been dominated by a narrative linking cities/race/violence • The Great American Crime Decline has weakened these connections and opened space for a new model of urban policy The central question is: What will the next model of urban policy look like?

Thanks to Richard Parks, Gary Painter and Jessica Booker for invitation and organization of the visit. Thanks also to: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation William T. Grant Foundation