Racial and Ethnic Integration in US Metropolitan Neighborhoods

Racial and Ethnic Integration in U.S. Metropolitan Neighborhoods: Patterns, Complexities and Consequences

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Diana Leilani Karafin, B.A., M.A.

Graduate Program in Sociology

The Ohio State University

2009

Dissertation Committee:

Lauren J. Krivo, Advisor

Vincent J. Roscigno

Rachel E. Dwyer

Diana Leilani Karafin

2009

Abstract

In my dissertation, I problematize the current framing and understanding of U.S. racial and ethnic neighborhood integration in an increasingly heterogeneous society.

Research questions and analyses are shaped by contemporary race theories which emphasize how societal systems, structures, and racial ideologies condition institutions, outcomes, and a shifting U.S. racial order (Bonilla-Silva 2004; Mills 2004; Omi and

Winant 1994). I examine the often implied, yet rarely empirically validated, proposal that long-term racial and ethnic neighborhood integration is a primary remedy for the inequities and deleterious consequences associated with racial residential segregation. I construct a descriptive and analytical national portrait of the patterns and socioeconomic consequences of metropolitan neighborhood integration between 1980 and 2000. I extend existing research by illuminating national patterns that account for Latinos as well as Blacks and Whites, and by directly comparing neighborhood and group-level socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage for a range of integrated and homogenous neighborhood types. Most importantly, I explicitly examine whether Blacks and Latinos residing in durable integrated contexts appear to be significantly more advantaged than those situated in long-term, predominantly minority communities.

Using data for neighborhoods embedded within metropolitan contexts from the

Neighborhood Change Database I first assess descriptive patterns of the frequency and ii durability of integration in metropolitan neighborhoods over two decades. I employ a

racial/ethnic neighborhood integration typology which more fully incorporates

differential combinations of Latinos, Blacks, Whites, and Others in neighborhoods than heretofore employed. I find vast differentiation in the frequency, stability, and paths of

change among various types of integrated and homogenous contexts. White, Black, and

Latino neighborhoods remained the norm across the two decades, though the share of

two-group neighborhoods increased from 17.3% to 29.2% (in particular, White-Black,

White-Latino, and Latino-Black neighborhoods). Regarding the question of stability,

White, Black, and Latino neighborhoods were significantly more stable than the

integrated areas. These patterns were further characterized by the concentration of

Whites in White neighborhoods across the two decades, and substantial flux in the

population composition of all neighborhood types.

I then use hierarchical multinomial models to evaluate the relationship between

neighborhood advantage/disadvantage and the odds a neighborhood remained integrated

or became integrated. The results demonstrate that, net of various metropolitan and

neighborhood population and housing characteristics, the most advantaged integrated

contexts were the least stable and the most likely to transition to all White contexts. In

contrast, the most disadvantaged integrated contexts were the most stable, with those that

do change being more likely to transition to predominantly Black or Latino contexts.

When examining the odds a homogenous neighborhood in 1980 became integrated in

2000, the results indicate that more disadvantaged neighborhoods were significantly more

likely to become integrated than less disadvantaged communities.

iii The final portion of the research asks whether long-term integrated areas, and the

group-members in them, are significantly more advantaged compared to homogenous and

transitioning contexts (and their group members). The central finding is that while racially stable White-Black areas were significantly less disadvantaged than racially

stable Black areas, the average level of Black advantage in stable White-Black

neighborhoods was significantly less than the average level for those in long-term Black

neighborhoods. In contrast, Latinos had higher levels of advantage in racially stable

White-Latino neighborhoods compared to those in stable majority Latino neighborhoods

(and stable White-Latino contexts as a whole had less disadvantage than long-term Latino

communities). Overall, my results underscore the problematic nature of making a single

generalization of stable racial and ethnic integration as a “success story.” Situating my

findings within the broad urban stratification and race theory literatures, I discuss the

theoretical implications of my findings for understanding the shifting U.S. racial order

and inequality across the residential landscape.

DEDICATION Dedicated to Nobuo

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to acknowledge the person who has played the most important

role in my growth and development during my graduate school tenure, my adviser Lauren

J. Krivo. I would absolutely not be where I am today without Laurie’s willingness to

stand by an eager, yet sometimes wayward and confused, graduate student. My path to

complete graduate school has been neither linear nor traditional, yet Laurie has remained

a steadfast source of support throughout. Along with serving as my adviser, Laurie has provided me with numerous opportunities that have enriched my experience at Ohio

State. These include hiring me as a research assistant, collaborating with me on a research project, introducing me to scholars outside of OSU, and inviting me to join the

Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network (with Ruth Peterson).

Regardless of the particular nature of the struggles, questions, or dilemmas I have faced, Laurie has been reliable in her wisdom, honesty, and encouragement. Laurie demands excellence in her own work, and does not compromise her standards despite her many, constant, competing obligations. Laurie is incredibly present in her meetings and in the level of detail and thought she puts into her feedback. I am grateful for her willingness to dedicate so much time to my development. She has left an indelible mark on my life, both personally and professionally. I remain inspired by Laurie’s passion,

vi generosity, and kindness for those less fortunate than herself. For my dissertation project specifically, I am thankful for Laurie’s insight, direction, and patience. Laurie has read countless drafts that have moved the project forward substantially. Thank you, Laurie, for the sacrifices you have made to help this undeserving graduate student complete her dissertation.

I am also especially thankful for the opportunity to work with Vincent Roscigno in the contexts of committee member, collaborator, and informal adviser. In all of these roles, Vinnie has demonstrated to me the significance of placing research questions and findings within bigger and broader theoretical contexts. He has challenged me to never lose sight of the “so what” question regardless of what I am working on. His creativity, enthusiasm, and willingness to ask the tough questions have played an important role in shaping this project. I am also grateful for the countless occasions in which Vinnie shared advice with me about the field and a work-life balance. Thank you, Vinnie, for your dedication all these years. Thank you, also, for helping me to see that there is a place for all in sociology (even someone like me).

Rachel Dwyer, also a member of my committee, has played an important role in the development of my dissertation project. Her insight early on helped me to better conceptualize my questions, approach, and contributions. Rachel has a keen awareness of the most relevant theoretical and methodological debates characterizing the residential segregation and urban sociology literatures. She has graciously shared her insight with

vii me, prompting me on numerous occasions to re-consider how my own work should

evolve.

I am also extraordinarily indebted to two professors who are not committee

members, Ruth Peterson and Devah Pager. Many years ago, Ruth hired me as a Research

Assistant to work on her edited volume (with Laurie Krivo and John Hagan) The Many

Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America (2006). Ruth also kindly invited me to join the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice network of scholars

(with Laurie Krivo). I was lucky to have the opportunity to work closely with Ruth. Her uncompromising demand for quality, her sharp wit, and her ability to do the impossible

(squeeze 24 hours of work into 8) continue to motivate me. I am thankful Ruth took a risk and trusted me to work on such an important project so dear to her and Laurie and

John. I continue to benefit from the cumulative advantages resulting from this early experience. I remain a permanent and proud member of the multitude of “Ruth fans.”

I am incredibly thankful that Devah Pager also took a risk several years back, and hired me (with Bruce Western) to work as a Research Assistant on a study of discrimination in the New York City low-wage labor market. I am grateful for the research skills garnered through this project. I am inspired by her passion in conducting the most rigorous work and disseminating findings in an accessible fashion to a broad spectrum of audiences. I am also thankful that Devah graciously provided me with a

“home,” while I worked away from Ohio State for several years, by inviting me to talks,

viii workshops, and seminars at Princeton, and providing me with office space. I am grateful that Devah continues to serve as an informal adviser, and has shared thoughtful and pointed feedback on my own work on numerous occasions. Anyone who has met Devah instantly recognizes her remarkable energy and zeal for sociology – and it is impossible not to be impacted for the better.

I would also like to acknowledge Professors Bob Kaufman, Townsand Price-

Spratlen, Korie Edwards, Bruce Western, Miles Hewstone, Diana Kendall, Sharon

Collins, Larry Felice, Edward Crenshaw, Robin Batemen-Driskell, and Larry Lyon. Each played an instrumental role at various points on my journey, starting with my first exposure to sociology in Larry Lyon’s introductory course back in 1998. Additionally, I am appreciative of the group of scholars associated with the Racial Democracy, Crime, and Justice Network. Your passion in the important agenda-setting work you engage in, and your commitment to helping engender growth for junior scholars, is much appreciated. You are a remarkable group, and I consider myself a direct beneficiary of your dedication to the network and its larger cause. I also wish to thank Colin Odden,

Rob Feldman, Jane Wilson, Michelle Blackwell, and Matthew Moffitt for their kindness in offering technical help and administrative support on many occasions. In particular, each generously offered assistance often outside of the boundaries of their specific roles in the department. It was a challenge to manage progress in the program while living in

New York City, and it would not have been possible without them.

ix In addition to the support of the faculty and staff I have acknowledged above, I am grateful for my past and present grad school colleagues. First, I am especially appreciative of the support of Susan Ortiz and Marguerite Hernandez, who formed a dissertation support group with me. I can’t imagine how I would have ever finished without their insight and shared resources. In fact, important and dramatic shifts in my dissertation stemmed directly from conversations from some of our meetings. Second, I am extremely thankful for Eileen Bjonstrom, who has constantly been there for me this past year - whether to answer a question, provide a hug, talk through anxious feelings, or solve a statistical problem. Thank you also to Priyank Shah, Lori Burrington, Valerie

Wright, Heather Washington, Darlene Saporu, Danielle Kuhl, Shelley Pacholok, Sherry

Mong, Melanie Hughes, Jill Harrison, Lisette Garcia, Reggie Byron, and Ryan Light.

Your many smiles, words of encouragement, advice, and generosity made a difference in my life.

Finally, I wish to personally thank my friends and family. Your affirmation played a critical role in helping me to keep plugging along during the rough parts of the process. I love and admire each of you. Thank you to my dear friends Griff Tester,

Alicia Abernathy, Chad Schone, Jack Karner, Aaron Pickering, Kristin Blakely-Kozman,

Scott Dewitt, Anna Zimdars, Dave Reirson, Dave Jacobs, Lucas Mire, Jen Tennant, Sarah

Picard-Fritsche, and Kelly O’Keefe. I also wish to thank Scott Karafin and Mary

Karafin, who have remained enthusiastic, from the beginning, of my goal to earn a Ph.D.

x Finally, thank you to my parents, Dagmar and Nobuo, for their constant and unconditional love.

xi Vita

1996………………………………….. Hawaii Baptist Academy

2000………………………………….. B.A. Sociology, Baylor University

2002………………………………….. M.A. Sociology, Baylor University

2003 to 2005………………………… Graduate Research and Teaching Associate,

Department of Sociology, The Ohio State

University

2005 to 2009………………………… Graduate Research Associate,

Department of Sociology, Princeton University

2007 to 2008………………………… Senior Research Associate, The Center for Court

Innovation, New York, NY

2008 to present……………………… Graduate Research Fellow, Department of

Sociology, The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

Roscigno, Vincent, Diana L. Karafin, and Griff Tester. 2009. AThe Complexities and Processes of Racial Housing Discrimination.@ Social Problems 56:49-69.

Pager, Devah and Diana L. Karafin. 2009. ABayesian Bigot? Statistical Discrimination, Stereotypes, and Employer Discrimination.@ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 621:70-93.

xii Karafin, Diana L. 2008. AHousing Audits@ in Richard T. Schaefer (ed.) Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Karafin, Diana L. 2008. ACommunity Courts Across the Globe: A Survey of Goals, Performance Measures, and Operations@ Prepared for and Published by Open Society Institute for South Africa. http://www.osf.org.za/File_Uploads/docs/community_court_world_text_web.pdf

Karafin, Diana L. and Vincent J. Roscigno. 2007. AThe Contexts of Housing Discrimination.@ Pp.153-170 in The Face of Discrimination by Vincent J. Roscigno. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Roscigno, Vincent, Diana L. Karafin, and Griff Tester. 2007. AThe Multidimensional Nature of Housing Discrimination.@ Pp. 171-186 in The Face of Discrimination by Vincent J. Roscigno. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Krivo, Lauren J., Ruth D. Peterson, and Diana L. Karafin. 2006. "Perceptions of Crime and Safety in Racially and Economically Distinct Neighborhoods." Pp. 237-255 in The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America, edited by Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J. Krivo, and John Hagan. New York: New York University Press.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Sociology

xiii Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... v

Acknowledgments...... vi

Vita ...... xii

List of Tables ...... xv

List of Figures ...... xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2 Research and Theory on Race, Residence, and Inequality ...... 17

Chapter 3 Data and Methods...... 53

Chapter 4 Patterns and Sources of Change in Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Integration ...... 78

Chapter 5 Advantage and Integration for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos ...... 112

Chapter 6 Conclusion ...... 155

References ...... 171

xiv List of Tables

Table 3.1 Operationalization of All Variables ...... 73

Table 3.2 Mean and Standard Deviation for All Variables ...... 76

Table 4.1 Distribution of U.S. Metropolitan Racial/Ethnic Neighborhoods 1980-2000* ...... 102

Table 4.2 Total Percentage of Individual Whites, Blacks, and Latinos Represented in Each Neighborhood Type -1980 and 2000 ...... 103

Table 4.3 Transition Matrix: U.S. Neighborhood Racial Composition 1980-2000...... 104

Table 4.4 Median Metropolitan Neighborhood Population Size and Change in Racially Stable Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 ...... 105

Table 4.5 The 1980 Socioeconomic Classification of Racially Durable Neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000 ...... 106

Table 4.6 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan Black-White Integrated Neighborhood Change (Remained integrated is the reference category) ...... 107

Table 4.7 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan Latino-White Integrated Neighborhood Change (Remained integrated is the reference category) ...... 108

Table 4.8 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan White Homogenous Neighborhood Change (Remained White is the reference category) ...... 109

Table 4.9 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan Black Homogenous Neighborhood Change (Remained Black is the reference category) ...... 110

xv Table 4.10 Full Transition Matrix: U.S. Neighborhood Racial Composition 1980-2000...... 111

Table 5.1 Socioeconomic Stability and Change for Racially Durable Neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000 ...... 139

Table 5.2 Coefficients and Standard Errors for Key Independent Variables from Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 Concentrated Disadvantage for 1980 White, Black, Latino, White-Black, White-Latino, and Latino-Black Neighborhoods ...... 140

Table 5.4 Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 White Advantage in Stable Homogenous and Integrated Neighborhoods between 1980-2000 ...... 146

Table 5.5 Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 Black Advantage in Stable Homogenous and Integrated Neighborhoods between 1980-2000 ...... 147

Table 5.6 Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 Latino Advantage in Stable Homogenous and Integrated Neighborhoods between 1980-2000 ...... 147

Table 5.7 Coefficients Estimated for Hierarchical Linear Models with Varying Reference Groups – Predicting 2000 White Advantage ...... 152

Table 5.8 Coefficients Estimated for Hierarchical Linear Models with Varying Reference Groups – Predicting 2000 Black Advantage ...... 153

Table 5.9 Coefficients Estimated for Hierarchical Linear Models with Varying Reference Groups – Predicting 2000 Latino Advantage ...... 154

xvi List of Figures

Figure 2.1 An Institutional-Level Framework of Racial Stratification ...... 51

Figure 2.2 A Critical Race Framework of Racial Stratification ...... 51

Figure 2.3 Map of Tri-Racial System in the United States ...... 52

Figure 5.1 Levels of 2000 Concentrated Disadvantage for Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 ...... 138

Figure 5.2 Predicted Levels of 2000 Concentrated Disadvantage for Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000 ...... 142

Figure 5.3 Levels of 2000 White Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000...... 143

Figure 5.4 Levels of 2000 Black Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000...... 144

Figure 5.5 Levels of 2000 Latino Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000...... 145

Figure 5.6 Predicted Levels of 2000 White Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 ...... 149

Figure 5.7 Predicted Levels of 2000 Black Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 ...... 150

Figure 5.8 Predicted Levels of 2000 Latino Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 ...... 151

xvii Chapter 1

Introduction

“The problem of the twenty-first century will be the problem of color-blindness-the refusal of legislators, jurists, and most of American society to acknowledge the causes and current effects of racial caste and to adopt remedial policies to eliminate them.” – Bryan Fair 1997

“It is paradoxical to say it, but the success of Barack Obama frightens Black people almost as much as it excites us… If America really is so bad, then one has to ask: How does a Black man get to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States? What Black folks fear is that a monumental success for one Black man might simultaneously become a setback for the whole race…If Obama becomes the president, every remaining, powerfully felt Black grievance and every still deeply etched injustice will be cast out of the realm of polite discourse. White folks will just stop listening.” – Lawrence Bobo 2008

1.1 An Historic Moment

Following the recent election of Barack Obama as the the 44th president of the

United States, a reporter for the New York Times declared Obama’s victory “…[swept]

away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its

first Black chief executive” (Nagourney 2008). In the ensuing months, a similar

sentiment was expressed across massive amounts of print and virtual space dedicated to

commentary of the 2008 election results and 2009 inauguration. Television, newspapers, and internet blogs portrayed a clear message - the election of an African American for the

highest office in the land was a historic event symbolizing the strides made in race 1 relations in the post-civil rights era. Even David Allan Grier, the host of the comedy

central show Chocolate News, exclaimed in his opening monologue following the

election, “Holy shit! Did we just elect Barack Obama President of the United States? I've

got to be honest America, I didn't think you had it in you.” Amidst the speculation and ultimate celebration of the Obama win dominating U.S. media, a contrasting conversation

was concurrently taking place with a markedly different tone. Though receiving much

less media attention, a group of individuals, academics, and leaders in the Black

community expressed deep concern over potential negative consequences of Obama’s

victory for race relations and the fight for racial justice (Bonilla-Silva 2008; Swarns

2008). In particular, they predicted an Obama win would cement an already widely held

belief in the minds of the majority of the public and the political elite that racial injustice

and discrimination no longer serve as major barriers for Blacks in America, and any

remaining inequality must be attributed to the individual (Hunt 2007). In turn, this would

further hinder ongoing efforts to silence academic and activist calls for recognition of the

consequences of historic, current, and evolving structural and institutional forms of

racism embedded in the organizations, policies, systems, neighborhoods, and institutions

that characterize the United States (Mills 2004; Bonilla-Silva 2003; Omi and Winant

1994; Krysan and Lewis 2004). As one voice representing this perspective, Harrison, a

sociologist at Howard University, stated on the eve of the Obama inauguration, “Historic

as this moment is, it does not signify a major victory in the ongoing, daily battle” (cited

in Swarns 2008). How can meaningful progress in the “daily battle” of racial injustice

take place if the American public and the political elite see the Obama victory as

2 confirmation that race no longer matters in America? And what exactly is this “daily

battle?”

We know from decades of social science research that both the celebratory and

concerned conversations over the Obama win took place and continue within a broader

U.S. social context characterized by tremendous racial and ethnic inequality. Racial and

ethnic groups experience differential access to jobs, housing, wealth accumulation,

health, neighborhoods, education, the administration of justice, and punishment (e.g.,

Krivo and Peterson 1996; Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Massey and Denton 1993; Western

2005; Pager 2008; Pager and Karafin 2008; Yinger 1995). It is clear that civil rights

legislation alone did not eradicate the historical remnants, nor prevent new and evolving

forms, of racial injustice in the United States. Though scholars continue to debate

whether the sources of these inequities are rooted in individual or structural processes, a

prominent argument is that one of the most critical sources of racial inequality in the

United States is racial residential segregation (e.g., Du Bois 1903/1990; Myrdal

1944/1972; Pettigrew 1979; Bobo 1989; Massey and Denton 1993; Cutler and Glaeser

1997; Yinger 1995; Ellen 2000; Charles 2003, 2006). Although theoretical reasons vary

as to why racial residential segregation is the crucial link,1 the underlying assertion is the

same – racial inequality in housing, employment, education, and the like are all important

consequences of a highly racially and ethnically segregated U.S. residential landscape.

1 Some see the problem with residential segregation as rooted in social-psychological processes – that physical separation breeds prejudice and contempt for outgroups. Demographic integration is seen as necessary to foster more meaningful social integration between groups (e.g., DuBois 1903/1990; Smith 1998; Ford 1972; Helper 1979; Williams 1964; Demarco and Galster 1993; Galster 1992; Pettigrew 1973; Allport 1954). Others emphasize the disparity in social characteristics and resources associated with various racially segregated neighborhoods as the real problem – in particular those with large proportions of African Americans (e.g., Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1987,1996; Cutler and Glaeser 1997; Krivo and Peterson 1996; Crane 1991). 3 Given such a connection, substantial reductions in racial and ethnic residential

segregation, or increases in racial and ethnic integration, are expected to serve as the

catalyst for reductions in inequality across employment, health, housing, education, and

other domains. Not surprisingly then, a push for steady neighborhood integration is the de facto public policy solution suggested in a large number of studies (e.g., Massey and

Denton 1993; Yinger 1995; Charles 2003, 2006; Galster 1987; Ellen 2000; Smith 1998;

Maly 2000; Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Nyden, Maly, and Lukehard 1994; Cutler and

Glaeser 1997; Farley et. al. 1979).

In this dissertation, I problematize the assertion that racial and ethnic residential integration will solve the problem of U.S. racial inequality. I question the validity of the presumed positive relationship between racial residential integration and greater racial and ethnic equality. Specifically, I empirically assess the assumption that stable2

racially/ethnically integrated neighborhoods provide socially and economically superior

contexts, compared to homogenous and transitioning contexts, for historically

subordinated group members such as Blacks and Latinos. Furthermore, I assess group

levels of advantage and disadvantage across transitioning and non-transitioning

neighborhood contexts. My key hypothesis is that Blacks and Latinos in racially durable

integrated neighborhoods may not always have significantly higher mean levels of

advantage compared to Blacks and Latinos in other homogenous or transitioning areas.

2 In this and subsequent chapters, I use the terms “stable” or “durable” or “non-transitioning” to describe neighborhoods that maintain similar proportions of various racial and ethnic groups over time. Conversely, I use the term “transitioning” or “unstable” to refer to neighborhoods that experience a high proportion of change in representation of one or more racial or ethnic groups (so much so, that the neighborhood “color” changes). These concepts are developed and explicated further in Chapters 2 and 3. 4 This contention draws from theoretical arguments about the nature of racial inequalities,

which I explain below.

Some recent race theory posits that processes shaping demographic, economic,

and social change are conditioned by a system of White supremacy characterizing the

larger society (Bonilla-Silva 2001, 2004; Bobo 1997; Omi and Winant 1994). They

argue that while the nature of how race operates in the U.S. has changed over time, its

role in the racialized social order remains the same – to maintain White privilege.

Furthermore, racial theorists describe the current U.S. racial ideology as “laissez-faire

racism” (Bobo 1997; Bobo 2004) and “color-blind racism” (Bonilla-Silva 2004; Omi and

Winant 1994). A central point is that the current ideology denies the presence of

systemic, institutional, and structural forms of racism that continue to create and maintain

racial inequality. These systems and structures promote a hierarchical privileging of

Whites over non-White groups in differential ways across space and time (e.g., Bobo

2004; Bonilla-Silva 2001; Iceland and Nelson 2008; Sharkey and Sampson 2008; Zhou

1997; Alba and Nee 1997; White and Sassler 2000).

The ideology also rejects racism and discrimination as contemporary barriers for historically subordinated groups. Rather, an emphasis on individualism is the norm. The larger public sentiment is that racially targeted policies are inappropriate and unfair in an

era where race no longer matters (Bobo and Kluegel 1993; Omi and Winant 1994).

Indeed, a majority of Americans provide individualist responses when asked to explain

why racial and other forms of inequality exist (Hunt 2007; Schuman and Krysan 1999;

Kluegel and Smith 1995; Bobo 2004).

5 The key problem is that significant racial inequalities remain, yet within a societal context where race is no longer recognized as salient in the lives of individuals and groups (Bonilla-Silva 2004). Racial hierarchies are thus maintained without direct acknowledgment of race, in a political climate that silences racial discourse (Bonilla-

Silva 2004). My dissertation problem stems directly from these theoretical arguments as they pertain to race and residence in the urban landscape. Specifically, processes such as residential segregation and integration and their associated patterns and consequences, occur within a racialized context of colorblind ideologies and structural, systemic racism.

In light of this broader context, an empirical validation is necessary of the assumption that stable neighborhood integration is more beneficial, compared to other contexts, for historically subordinated group members such as Blacks and Latinos. Regardless of the racial or ethnic composition of neighborhoods and how this changes (or not) over time, I expect patterns to largely reflect the advantaging of Whites over Latinos and Blacks.

Patterns of social and economic disparities across neighborhoods and the groups within and across them will likely mirror the larger racialized social order of the United States with Whites the most advantaged, Blacks the most disadvantaged, and Latinos somewhere in between. If this is the case, singular emphasis on policies to promote racial and ethnic integration as a mechanism to diminish inequality may be misguided.

1.2 Race and Residence in America

Since the landmark publication of Massey and Denton’s American Apartheid in

1993, racial residential segregation between Blacks and Whites has been a defining facet of urban, race, and poverty scholarship. The substantial literature on this topic delineates

6 demographic patterns, causes, and consequences of racial residential segregation in the

United States (Massey and Denton 1993; Lee et. al 2008; Iceland 2004; Farley and Frey

1994; Wilkes and Iceland 2004; Fischer et. al. 2004; Krivo et. al. 1998; Charles 2003).

Despite on-going discussions about the measurement of segregation (see Lee et. al. 2008;

White, Kim, and Glick 2005), a general picture of patterns and shifts in levels of

residential segregation between Whites, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians is clear.

By and large, scholars concur that levels of segregation between Blacks and

Whites are modestly declining but remain disproportionately high (Iceland 2009; Charles

2003). Segregation levels between Latinos and Whites and Asians and Whites are lower yet are modestly increasing (Charles 2003). Despite on-going debates about the relative

significance of mechanisms perpetuating segregation (Dawkins 2004; Charles 2003;

Quillian 2002), processes related to group preferences, housing discrimination, and

economic inequalities are posited as responsible for these patterns (Charles 2003; Yinger

1995; Massey and Denton 1993; Krysan 2000; Farley and Frey 1994).

Most importantly, sociology has implicated residential segregation as a primary

barrier to racial and ethnic equality in housing, education and economic status, and as a

source of prejudice, stereotypes, and out-group hostility (Du Bois 1903; Myrdal 1944;

Pettigrew 1979; Farley et. al. 1979; Bobo 1989; Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1987;

Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Cutler and Glaeser 1997; Charles 2003; Allport 1954; Pettigrew

1973; Blau 1977; Smith 1998; Massey et. al. 1999; Quillian and Pager 2005). Scholars

have paid particular attention to the negative consequences of racial residential

segregation for Blacks in highly segregated Black neighborhoods. Black contexts are

often severely disadvantaged, and many argue this significantly impacts the life chances

7 of residents given the serious social problems within these contexts (Charles 2003; Cutler

and Glaeser 1997; Krivo and Peterson 1996; Massey and Denton 1993; Crane 1991;

Wilson 1987). Cutler and Glaeser (1997) estimate that just a one standard deviation drop in levels of racial residential segregation between Blacks and Whites would reduce by one-third Black-White inequality in high school completion rates, single-parenthood, employment, and income. Some recent research suggests the consequences of segregation may extend beyond segregated neighborhoods themselves. Krivo, Peterson, and Kuhl (2009) use violent crime as a case in point and demonstrate that all neighborhoods within highly segregated cities are impacted by deleterious consequences associated with high levels of city wide segregation.

It is not surprising then that desegregation and a push for stable neighborhood integration is the public policy solution suggested in the conclusion and discussion sections of many studies (e.g., Massey and Denton 1993;Yinger 1995; Charles 2003,

2006; Galster 1987; Ellen 2000; Friedman 2007). Some explicitly frame integration as the policy goal. For example Charles refers to integrated neighborhoods as “success stories” and advocates programs that “support stable integration” and encourage Whites to enter diverse neighborhoods and Blacks to enter White neighborhoods (2003:200).

Others indirectly suggest integration is the obvious solution to problems emanating from segregation. For example, Quillian (2002) argues that eliminating discrimination alone will not entirely reduce segregation, as White avoidance of integrated neighborhoods is also a key process in perpetuating Black-White segregation (see also Ellen 2000).

Though he never directly states that integration should be a goal, his emphasis on the

8 need to understand all the processes at play that prevent declines in segregation may

imply this is the case.3

In proposing stable racial and ethnic integration as a policy solution, whether

explicitly or indirectly, the presumption is that the quality of previously segregated

minority neighborhoods will improve as segregation and its associated consequences

disappear. Most importantly, individual life chances for historically subordinated group

members are expected to improve given the compelling research indicating

neighborhoods affect individual health, family structure, labor-market outcomes,

participation in crime, and so on (e.g., Sampson et. al. 2002; Duncan and Raudenbush

2001).

With the common framing of neighborhood integration as a primary solution for

the racial inequality problem, a burgeoning interest to study neighborhood integration has emerged over the last few decades. However, in stark contrast to the residential segregation scholarship, the current state of knowledge pertaining to the magnitude of

U.S. neighborhood integration is not characterized by any kind of consensus. The

handful of existent studies provides conflicting conclusions. Though most agree racial

and ethnic neighborhood integration is increasing to some degree, there is no agreement

about how much it has increased and to what degree integrated neighborhoods ultimately

transition or remain integrated over the course of several decades. Some conclude that

integration is increasingly stable (Ellen 2000; Rawlings et. al. 2004), while others

3 I believe indirect framing of integration as a goal is quite common in the residential segregation literature. Whether examining patterns of segregation over time or specific processes that perpetuate patterns, it is extremely common for researchers to claim their work is important because of all the negative consequences associated with segregation (for example, see Farley and Frey 1994; Charles 2003; Logan, Stults, and Farley 2004; Crowder and South 2008). 9 conclude integrated contexts are predominantly unstable and likely to transition to

homogenous contexts over time (Friedman 2007; Swaroop 2005). Furthermore,

significant emphasis in this literature is placed on identifying factors that seem to foster racial and ethnic stability in integrated neighborhoods (e.g., Nyden, Maly, and Lukehart

1997; Peterman and Nyden 2001; Ellen 2000; Swaroop 2005) instead of first assessing

the consequences associated with integration for majority and subordinated group

members. This is surprising, as it would make sense to understand the particular

outcomes and consequences associated with a process before focusing on the factors that

will help support the process, and that may ultimately shape social policies.

Our current understanding of basic patterns and consequences of racial and ethnic

neighborhood integration in the United States remains hazy. It is clear that we need an assessment of national patterns of integration, and the consequences of these patterns for

majority and subordinate group members over time. Furthermore, the existent work does

not consider how macro patterns are situated within a racialized societal context. Both theoretical and empirical consequences result. Theoretically, this is consequential as neglecting the broader racialized context in which processes and outcomes occur may mean both our questions and answers pertaining to the sources, costs, and solutions for

inequality lack validity. Empirically, this is consequential as we continue to fail to understand how actual patterns, processes, and consequences of neighborhood integration play out. This is especially problematic if scholars and politicians continue to advocate for policies that promote racial and ethnic neighborhood integration as one mechanism to reduce inequality between majority and subordinated groups. This dissertation seeks to take an initial step to add clarity to our understanding by detailing a national portrait of

10 patterns and consequences of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration that addresses

some of the major weaknesses characterizing the current literature. I detail the specific

gaps below, and identify the three major dissertation questions and associated analyses

employed to expand our understanding of inequality across the racial residential United

States landscape.

1.3 Dissertation Questions

Patterns of Neighborhood Racial Integration and Change

Current estimates of national patterns of neighborhood integration are not reliable

given a handful of empirical shortcomings. First, I am aware of only four national

studies of neighborhood integration. However, these range in scope from a focus on between just 10 and 69 metropolitan areas (Friedman 2007; Rawlings et. al. 2004;

Fasenfest et. al. 2004; Ellen 2000). The majority of neighborhood integration studies focus on much smaller samples, such as communities within a single metropolitan area, a dozen neighborhoods, or even a single neighborhood (e.g., Maly 2002; Peterman and

Nyden 2001; Smith 1998; Nyden, Maly, and Lukehart 1997; Galster 1998). Furthermore,

all of these studies vary in the time period in which patterns are examined (from a cross- sectional approach to an examination of patterns over two decades). This geographic and temporal variation makes comparisons across studies virtually impossible. To further

complicate matters, the use of divergent definitions of integration is quite common across

these studies. Many focus on just Whites and Blacks, lumping Latinos and Asians and all others with Whites, or sometimes as a separate “Other” category. I argue these

11 definitions are overly-simplistic and lack specificity by failing to differentiate Latinos

from other groups. This problem, coupled with the other gaps highlighted above, means

that conclusions across these studies lack generalizability, and we do not yet have a clear

understanding of basic, national patterns of racial and ethnic integration in the United

States.

Dissertation Question 1: What are the patterns of neighborhood level racial/ethnic integration and change in the United States between 1980 and 2000?

The answer to the first dissertation question will provide a simple portrait of

patterns of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration. I examine the proportion of

neighborhoods in 1980, 1990, and 2000 that were racially homogenous, racially- ethnically integrated, and the degree to which these neighborhoods remained

homogenous or integrated across the decades. For transitioning neighborhoods, I also

assess which forms of change were most common. Finally, I contextualize the neighborhood-level patterns by examining the proportion of individuals from racial and

ethnic groups that reside in the neighborhoods, and the degree to which population shift

occurred within the neighborhoods.

I improve upon existent “national” studies by assessing patterns across the full

spectrum of metropolitan census tracts in the United States, incorporating a truly national

sample.. Furthermore, I develop and employ a 15-group racial and ethnic neighborhood

typology that allows for greater specificity in variation of patterns and outcomes across

groups than allowed for in other definitions used in previous research. This typology is a

first step in moving the literature forward by differentiating among Latinos, Whites,

12 Blacks, and Others, and the multiple possible ways these groups may or may not share

neighborhood space.

Social and Economic Consequences of Racial and Ethnic Integration

The second set of dissertation questions seek to address the theoretical

shortcoming of the current segregation/integration work articulated in the sections above.

Namely, the existent work fails to acknowledge how demographic, social, and economic

neighborhood patterns related to integration and change occur within a larger racialized

U.S. social order. The current work operates from an implicit assumption that

neighborhood integration in and of itself is more beneficial for Blacks and Latinos than

segregated or transitioning contexts. Instead of asking whether or not this is the case,

researchers bypass these questions, and emphasize the need to identify factors that foster

long-term racial and ethnic neighborhood integration. This theoretical limitation is

serious in light of the largely uncontested push for greater racial and ethnic neighborhood

integration in the United States. I contend it is premature to frame all cases of stable

integration as a success.4 When people refer to stable integration as a “rare success

story,” I argue they are assuming that stable racial/ethnic integration translates into socially and economically superior neighborhood contexts for residents. We do not know if, how, and when various integrated neighborhoods with historically subordinated group

4 Certainly, some may argue that racial and ethnic neighborhood integration should be a goal for society regardless of associated consequences or outcomes. These arguments can stem from a philosophical standpoint, that racial and ethnic neighborhood integration is morally right. Additionally, the potential social psychological benefits of neighborhood integration for inter-group relations may be emphasized. Some argue that spatial integration fosters greater social integration and social cohesion between groups (e.g., see Smith 1998) - via inter-group contact within shared space in neighborhoods –and that these interactions may help diminish prejudice and stereotypes held by Whites (Deutsch and Collins 1951; Ford 1973; Hamilton and Bishop 1976; Roginson and Preston 1976; Sigelman and Welch 1993; Smith 1994; Wilson 1996). Along these lines, Ellen (2000:159) argues that even if the negative consequences associated with segregation disappeared, “the simple fact of racial isolation may be detrimental in that it fosters racial prejudice.” 13 members (those more likely to experience the negative consequences of residential segregation) offer more advantaged social and economic climates than other homogenous or integrated alternatives. I address these issues through two additional research questions.

Dissertation Question 2: Are neighborhoods that are racially/ethnically stable over the 1980 to 2000 period more advantaged contexts for historically subordinated groups than alternative homogenous and transitioning contexts?

This question seeks to ascertain how racially/ethnically stable integrated neighborhoods compare with homogenous and transitioning areas along indicators of social and economic advantage and disadvantage. Descriptive analyses delineate the most advantaged and disadvantaged contexts for majority and subordinated groups.

Analytical models estimate the relationship between racial and ethnic stability and advantage and disadvantage, net of important metropolitan and neighborhood level factors. The key question of interest is an assessment of the assumption that long-term integrated neighborhoods are more advantaged contexts than minority homogenous or transitioning areas. This question fills a significant gap in the current literature by explicitly comparing concrete social and economic outcomes between integrated and homogenous contexts across two decades.

Dissertation Question 3: Are historically subordinated group members in racially/ethnically stable integrated neighborhoods more advantaged than members of subordinate groups in homogenous and transitioning contexts?

The third major dissertation question shifts the empirical focus to the social and economic characteristics of majority and subordinated group members as opposed to neighborhoods. Here, I assess descriptively and analytically whether economic and

14 social characteristics for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos are higher in 2000 in stable

racially/ethnically integrated contexts compared with transitioning integrated contexts

and stable homogenous contexts.

1.4 Organization of Dissertation

The goal of this project is to move forward our understanding of how neighborhood characteristics and change are conditioned by the larger racialized social order of the United States, and specifically how this may be differentially consequential for neighborhoods with Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. While I cannot test directly how the racialized system and dominant racial ideology impact neighborhoods and groups, I can take a first step in accruing empirical evidence of these processes. In Chapter 2, I review the urban and race literatures as they pertain to racial residential segregation and neighborhood change. I assess the empirical and theoretical shortcomings of this work.

I also delineate pertinent race theory to develop a critical race account of neighborhood

racial and ethnic composition and change that is situated within the context of a racialized

society. Chapter 3 consists of a detailed explication of data, operationalization of

measures, and overall discussion of my analytic strategy. I develop a 15-group

neighborhood typology which more fully incorporates differential combinations of

Latinos, Blacks, Whites, and Others than heretofore employed. Chapter 4 presents a detailed portrait of overall national patterns of integration and change in the United States

between 1980 and 2000. In Chapter 5, I compare the social and economic features of

integrated and homogenous neighborhoods, examining whether or not integrated

neighborhoods with Blacks and Latinos are more advantaged than homogenous and

15 transitioning contexts. I also assess whether race-specific indicators of social and economic advantage and disadvantage are higher in stable integrated neighborhoods.

Finally, in Chapter 6, I summarize the findings and discuss their implications for

sociology and public policy. More broadly, I situate my findings within the broad urban stratification and race theory literatures, discussing the theoretical implications of my findings for understanding the shifting U.S. racial order and inequality across the residential landscape.

16 Chapter 2

Research and Theory on Race, Residence, and Inequality

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I review existent scholarship on race and residence in America, focusing specifically on work pertaining to patterns, sources, and consequences of racial and ethnic segregation and integration in neighborhoods. The overarching purpose of the chapter is to develop my dissertation problem – the research questions and my theoretical expectations - through a discussion of the empirical and theoretical shortcomings in our current knowledge.

I begin by reviewing the extensive racial residential segregation literature; the patterns, sources, and consequences of the spatial grouping of individuals in the metropolitan urban landscape by color and class. Next, I show how racial and ethnic neighborhood integration is consistently framed in the segregation literature as an obvious solution for the problems associated with high levels of segregation between

Blacks and Whites, and Latinos and Whites. I discuss a small yet burgeoning literature aimed at identifying trends and stabilizing factors for the long-term integration of racial and ethnic minorities and Whites in neighborhoods. I highlight the serious empirical and theoretical shortcomings of this work, as a result arguing that the framing of integration

17 as a solution, may be premature. I contend that we must first acquire a comprehensive

understanding of the patterns and consequences associated with cases of long-term

neighborhood integration, as they actually play out nationally, in neighborhoods that are

situated within a broader racialized social order. What are the processes responsible for

fostering or dismantling integration? What are the associated social and economic

consequences for groups residing in long-term racially/ethnically integrated neighborhoods?

I draw on contemporary race theory, in particular the work of scholars such as

Mills (2004), and Bonilla-Silva and Glover (2004), to set forth a critical race approach to the examination of patterns and consequences of neighborhood integration. According to this orientation, prime social goods, resources, and rewards continue to be allocated to

Whites given structures set in place by a broader system of White supremacy (Mills

1997; Bonilla-Silva 2001; Bonilla-Silver and Glover 2004). This system shapes all major societal social structures and institutions. Though the structures and institutions shift dramatically over time in appearance and form, their function remains the same - to create and protect White privilege regardless of the consequences for other racial and ethnic groups. Within the context of the institution of housing, and with regard to racial and ethnic integration specifically, I argue that this means that the advantaging of Whites over non-Whites will be apparent, regardless of the racial or ethnic make-up and durability (or not) of the particular neighborhood context. If true, this may cast serious doubt on the potential role of long-term racial and ethnic integration in neighborhoods as a promising solution to the inequitable consequences associated with racial residential segregation.

2.2 Historical and Contemporary Patterns of Race and Residence in America

Racial and ethnic residential segregation, particularly between Blacks and Whites, remains a persistent feature of U.S. society, despite passage of the Fair Housing Act over

40 years ago. A substantial literature delineates demographic patterns and causes of racial residential segregation in the United States (Massey and Denton 1993; Lee et. al

2008; Iceland 2004; Farley and Frey 1994; Wilkes and Iceland 2004; Fischer et. al. 2004;

Krivo et. al. 1998; Charles 2003). The most recent analyses of 2000 Census data reveal that, though Black-White segregation has decreased modestly between 1990 and 2000, for the most part, Blacks and Whites remain highly residentially segregated from each other. Indeed, in 25 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., Blacks are extremely segregated from Whites (Iceland 2009; Wilkes and Iceland 2004; Charles 2003).

Metropolitan areas that have experienced the greatest declines in Black-White segregation tend to be younger, located in the South or West, have growing housing markets, and smaller Black populations (Iceland 2009; Farley and Frey 1994). Latino-

White and Asian-White residential segregation rates actually increased between 1990 and

2000, though they are still significantly lower than those between Blacks and Whites

(Charles 2003). Why are neighborhoods in the United States predominantly racially segregated? Scholars have grappled for some time with explanations of the patterns noted above, ranging from arguments about economic constraints of groups, to residential preferences, and persistent discrimination in the housing market (for a helpful review of this literature and the competing evidence, see Charles 2003, 2006; Dawkins 2004;

Quillian 2003; Iceland 2009). Others have focused on continuing to work toward

19 methodological advances in measuring segregation (see Lee et. al. 2008; White, Kim, and

Glick 2005).

Why are these patterns and questions important for social scientists to consider?

First, we know that Black segregated neighborhoods are often severely disadvantaged compared to other contexts, and that this may significantly impact the life chances of residents given the serious social problems associated with residence in disadvantaged contexts (Charles 2003; Cutler and Glaeser 1997; Krivo and Peterson 1996; Massey and

Denton 1993; Crane 1991; Wilson 1987). Some recent research suggests the consequences of segregation may extend beyond segregated neighborhoods themselves.

For example, Krivo, Peterson, and Kuhl (2009) use violent crime as a case in point to demonstrate how all neighborhoods within highly segregated cities are impacted by deleterious consequences associated with the most segregated neighborhoods in those cities.

Second, persistent patterns of racial residential segregation and their associated consequences are considered important because social scientists have argued for decades that racial residential segregation is the “structural lynchpin” that maintains racial and ethnic inequality (Charles 2006:39). Segregation is seen as the final, primary barrier to racial and ethnic equality across economic, housing, education, wealth, and health domains, and as a source of prejudice, stereotypes, and out-group hostility (Du Bois

1903; Myrdal 1944; Pettigrew 1979; Farley et. al. 1979; Bobo 1989; Massey and Denton

1993; Wilson 1987; Oliver and Shapiro 1995; Cutler and Glaeser 1997; Charles 2003;

Allport 1954; Pettigrew 1973; Blau 1977; Smith 1998; Massey et. al. 1999; Quillian and

Pager 2005). As a result, of the negative consequences associated with segregation, and

20 the theoretical arguments about its role in perpetuating other forms of inequality beyond those related to housing, it is not surprising that a push for long-term neighborhood integration is the de facto public policy solution suggested in the conclusion and discussion sections of many segregation studies (e.g., Massey and Denton 1993;Yinger

1995; Charles 2003, 2006; Galster 1987).

2.3 The Framing of Integration as a Public Policy Solution

To address the problems that arise from segregation, some explicitly frame integration as an obvious goal (e.g., Friedman 2007; Ellen 2000; Nyden, Maly, and

Lukehart 1997; Rawlings et. al. 2004). For example Charles refers to integrated neighborhoods as “success stories” and advocates programs that “support stable integration” and encourage Whites to enter diverse neighborhoods and Blacks to enter

White neighborhoods (2003:200). Similarly, in a recent research note on neighborhood integration, Samantha Friedman (2007:12) states:

Future research should be devoted to learning exactly what makes a mixed-race neighborhood remain that way over a span of several decades. Only when we have that kind of information can we establish policies that will help us replicate such success stories. It is then that we can have real optimism for the future of racial integration.

Others indirectly imply integration is the obvious goal when discussing how their work is useful in understanding how to curtail segregation. For example, Quillian (2002) argues that eliminating discrimination alone will not entirely reduce segregation, as

White avoidance of integrated neighborhoods is also a key process in perpetuating Black-

White segregation (see also Ellen 2000). Indirect framing of integration as a goal is quite common in the residential segregation literature. Whether examining patterns of

21 segregation over time or specific processes that perpetuate patterns, it is common for

researchers to claim their work is important because of all of the negative consequences

associated with segregation (for example, see Farley and Frey 1994; Charles 2003;

Logan, Stults, and Farley 2004; Crowder and South 2008). Whether they mention

integration or not, to state that we need to diminish segregation because of the negative

consequences may be equivalent to saying we need to increase integration because of the

positive consequences. However, first we need to have a clear sense of whether or not

these positive consequences exist, as I argue in the remainder of this chapter. It is

important to be very clear that I am not simply arguing for maintaining segregation.

Rather, as I explain in the remainder of the chapter, I am skeptical that just diminishing segregation within the racialized society as it exists would not necessarily have the positive outcomes implied.

Why has it become so common for much of the residential segregation scholarship to imply, whether explicitly or implicitly, that integration is the solution?1 I

argue this stems from the overwhelming tendency of this literature to predominantly

focus on one part of the segregation story in the United States – aggregate patterns, consequences and causes of Black-White segregation over time.2 A tendency to focus on

1 However, several recent studies do highlight potential problems with framing neighborhood integration as a universally beneficial process for neighborhoods and/or individuals. For example, Dawkins argues public policies that encourage neighborhood integration should only be pursued when “the social costs associated with living in segregated contexts exceeds…..the perceived benefits from having same-race neighbors” (2004:396). Fasenfest, Booza, and Metzger (2004) suggest that integrated neighborhoods should be encouraged as long as they are economically viable, and indicate many gaps remain in our understanding of the true nature of integration across the diverse residential landscape of metropolitan America. Farley et. al. argue integration should be a policy focus as long as “residential segregation impedes equal access to educational and employment opportunities” (1979:98). 2 Some may argue this is understandable, if not necessary. We know segregated Black contexts are extremely disadvantaged relative to Latino, Asian, and White segregated contexts. Given the contention, and accumulated evidence, that Black-White segregation in particular remains a dominant force that maintains Black-White inequality, a focus on the causes and consequences of Black-White segregation 22 the most disadvantaged form of segregation and its role in maintaining broader inequality naturally encourages a de facto push for integration. Other portions of the segregation story receive much less attention. For example, we rarely focus on wealthy Whites who presumably benefit from segregation (Dwyer 2007). More generally, discussions of racial residential segregation rarely fully incorporate the diverse spectrum of benefits and consequences of segregation for groups across differential settings.

Why is it important to think about how integration is framed in the literature? In proposing stable racial and ethnic integration as a policy solution, the presumption is that the quality of neighborhoods and individual life chances will improve as segregated contexts and their associated consequences disappear. Largely absent is the question:

What are the benefits and consequences of integration for groups and neighborhoods, and how does this vary across space and time? Without knowing more about the nature of the various contexts that remain integrated (as well as those that change), it is premature to frame stable integration as a success. Perhaps some integrated communities are characterized by improved neighborhood conditions and life chances for groups of residents (relative to segregated contexts), while others are not? But we currently lack empirical evidence of these assertions, and we are not often asking these questions.

In the next section, I review in more detail the existent scholarship on neighborhood integration, summarizing the current state of knowledge. I highlight the empirical limitations of this work and the resulting lack of confidence in our present

remains critical. At the same time, studies that move beyond a focus on Black-White segregation are increasingly important given huge demographic shifts in the U.S. population over the last few decades - if we are to understand complex changes involving other groups across space and time (and how these changes impact Black-White inequality). 23 understanding of basic national patterns and consequences of racial and ethnic

integration.

2.4 Neighborhood Integration Studies - Definitions, Patterns, and Examining

Change

Defining Integration and Stability

The first issue of concern in the burgeoning array of integration studies pertains to

how to define racial and ethnic neighborhood integration. Some scholars, examining

racial and ethnic heterogeneity in neighborhoods, construct diversity indices such as the

Herfindahl concentration index or the index of polarization (e.g., Putnam 2007; Graif

2007; Okediji 2005; Garcia-Montalvo and Reynal-Querol 2005; Sampson 2008). These

indices typically represent the odds that any two individuals randomly chosen from a

neighborhood will be from the same group or category. Diversity indices are powerful in

their capability to capture single or multiple forms of diversity of different groups in

neighborhoods in a single measure – such as language, ancestry, ethnicity, race,

immigration, and so forth. They are also beneficial for capturing within group diversity

(see Graif 2007; White et. al. 2005). In general, they allow for sophisticated comparisons in levels of diversity across neighborhoods.

Diversity indices are not commonly employed in the integration literature. This may be because they are designed to provide insight on the characteristics of neighborhoods (e.g., diversity), but are not as useful in serving as definitional constructs for neighborhoods. The indices typically produce a score (typically a probability), with a higher number reflecting greater diversity and a lower number less diversity. It would be

24 difficult to construct a meaningful typology of racial and ethnic integration solely with

some type of diversity index. A typology classifying neighborhoods of varying degrees

of diversity in general would be possible with index scores, but this would not

differentiate the specific racial/ethnic contents of the various neighborhoods. For

example, a segregated Black context and a segregated White context would feasibly be

categorized together, as both would not appear “diverse” with this type of calculation.

Scholars more often employ relative or absolute definitions of integration. First, relative definitions are characterized by the explicit consideration of the proportional representation of different groups in a neighborhood relative to their proportional

representation within a larger context in which the neighborhood is located, such as a state, metropolitan area, or county (Maly 2000; Galster 1998; Smith 1998). Typically, these definitions produce a score which indicates the degree to which the racial composition in a smaller geographic unit (i.e., neighborhood) diverges from the racial composition in a larger geographic unit in which the smaller unit is located (i.e., county,

metropolitan area, state, etc.). The primary benefit of a relative definition is that it

accounts for the supply of racial and ethnic groups living in a city or metropolitan area.

Some argue relative approaches are problematic when examining integration over

multiple decades because the supply of racial and ethnic groups across the decades will

vary- making comparisons difficult (Friedman 2007). A further potential problem, as

Ellen (2000) persuasively argues, is that neighborhoods defined as integrated through a

relative approach may in some cases conflict with a meaningful understanding of

demographic integration. For example, a neighborhood located in a metropolitan area with 1% Blacks would be considered integrated with a relative approach if the

25 neighborhood itself had at least 1% Black representation. Can we really consider a neighborhood comprised of 99% White residents and 1% Black residents integrated

(Ellen 2000)?

Absolute definitions of neighborhood integration are significantly more common in the integration literature. Typically a researcher using an absolute approach will devise a mutually exclusive neighborhood typology with specific threshold requirements for each category in the typology. These definitions are typically based on the proportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups within neighborhoods, with neighborhoods classified as integrated when they meet the threshold requirements for integration in the particular typology employed (e.g., Friedman 2007; Rawlings et. al.

2004; Fasenfest et. al. 2004; Ellen 2000, Swaroop 2005, Denton and Massey 1991). For example, Ellen (200) considers a neighborhood integrated when between 10 and 50% of the neighborhood is Black.

Absolute definitions of integration are sometimes criticized as arbitrary and atheoretical (Smith 1998). Integration is purely based on thresholds set by the researcher, which may or may not have a sound theoretical or empirical basis. Furthermore, absolute definitions fail to account for potential mathematical constraints determined by the available proportion of different racial and ethnic groups in the larger context in which cities are located.

Amongst scholars using an absolute approach in defining integration, significant variation exists in the racial and ethnic groups included as well as the criteria for a neighborhood to be considered integrated. In particular, the current set of national studies all focus primarily on definitions that differentiate between either Blacks and

26 Whites only (Ellen 2000; Rawlings 2004), or Blacks, Whites, and Others (Fasenfest et. al.

2004; Friedman 2007). Notably, in both types of definitions, Latinos are lumped with

either Whites (Ellen 2000; Rawlings 2004), or in a general “Other” category with all non-

Blacks and non-Whites (Friedman 2007; Fasenfest et. al. 2004). Not differentiating

Latinos from other groups is a serious limitation/distortion, especially since the Latino population is now larger than the Black population (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). These decisions may potentially considerably hamper our ability to understand how varied and complex forms of neighborhood integration unfold. These definitions lack face validity in that they do not accurately represent patterns of racial and ethnic settlement and change across neighborhoods by glossing over variation in patterns. From the assimilation and segregation literatures, we know that distinct residential patterns between Latinos, Asians, Whites, and Blacks exist (Charles 2003; Iceland and Nelson

2008; Lee et. al. 2008). Definitions of neighborhood integration should account for this reality.

Further problems with the current definitions of integration stem from differential criteria required of group representation, within various definitions of integration, for a neighborhood to be considered integrated. For example, Ellen considers a neighborhood integrated when Blacks comprise between 10 and 50 percent of the neighborhood (2000).

Rawlings and colleagues define neighborhoods with less than 5% Blacks as exclusively

White, between 5 and 10% Black as predominantly White, between 10 and 50% Black as mixed-majority White, 50-90% Black as mixed-majority Black, and greater than 90%

Black as predominantly or exclusively Black (2004). Fasenfest and colleagues devise a typology, also adopted by Friedman (2007), consisting of three single-race neighborhood

27 types (White, Black, or other), and four mixed-race neighborhood types (mixed White and other, mixed White and Black, mixed Black and other, and mixed multiethnic).

According to their typology, a single race neighborhood exists where one group predominates and no other group has greater than 10% representation. A mixed-race neighborhood requires more than one group having 10% representation.

Finally, studies in the neighborhood integration literature also vary in their operationalization of what constitutes long-term integration, or stability, across two points in time. For example, Lee and Wood (1991) define stability as a no more than five percentage point change in a groups representation in a neighborhood over two points in time. Ellen (2000) defines less than a 10 percentage point change in a groups representation over two decades as stable. Friedman develops a typology distinguishing between neighborhoods that became more White, more non-White, or remained in the same category over time (2007).

Patterns of Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Integration

In addition to the problems associated with varied definitions of integration employed in the literature, as described above, the literature is further limited in the lack of a sufficient number of studies of integration on a national scale. I am aware of only four published studies on integration that include a national sample of neighborhoods in the United States (Friedman 2007; Rawlings et. al. 2004; Fasenfest et. al. 2004; Ellen

2000). This provides limited evidence regarding generalizations about national patterns of this outcome. An additional set of studies have examined patterns within a smaller sample of locales (Smith 1998; Maly 2000; Saltman 1990; Lee and Wood 1991; Nyden,

Maly, and Lukehart 1997; Peterman and Nyden 2001).

28 Of the four published studies examining national patterns of neighborhood

integration between the 1970’s to 2000, all conclude that there has been an increase in racial and ethnic neighborhood integration. However, the studies report varying levels of growth over the different time periods. For example, Ellen (2000, 1998) finds that between 1980 and 1990, integrated contexts increased from 25% to 35.1% of neighborhoods in her sample. On the other hand, Friedman reports that integrated contexts actually became more common (increasing from 31.6% in 1980 to 53% in 2000) than contexts with only one racial or ethnic group (from 68% in 1980 to 47% in 2000).

Fasenfest et. al. (2004) conclude that integrated contexts increased from 45% to 52% of

metropolitan neighborhoods between 1990 and 2000.

The case of White-Black neighborhoods provides a lucid example of the disparate

conclusions emerging from these studies. While some conclude that the proportion of

Black-White neighborhoods has increased over time (Rawlings et. al. 2004; Ellen 2000), others claim that this proportion has significantly decreased (Friedman 2007; Fasenfest et. al. 2004). Ellen (2000) claims that Black-White neighborhoods represented 9% of all neighborhoods in 1980, compared to Friedman’s (2007) claim of 7%. In 1990, Ellen

(2000) notes Black-White neighborhoods increased to 10.4% of all neighborhoods, while

Fasenfest et. al. (2004) state the proportion is 6%. In 2000, Rawlings et. al. (2004) conclude that Black-White neighborhoods represent fully 33% of all U.S. neighborhoods, compared to Fasenfest et. al.’s (2004) finding of 4% and Friedman’s (2007) finding of

5.4%. It is very difficult to discern which of these findings most closely represents actual

patterns in the U.S. residential landscape.

29 Though all of the national studies assert some kind of increase in the prevalence

of overall neighborhood integration in the United States between 1970 and 1990 and/or

2000, the durability of these neighborhoods is widely contested. Rates of stability for

integrated neighborhoods in this literature range from 28.4% to 80% depending on the

study. For example, on one extreme, Rawlings et. al. (2004) found that 80% of integrated

neighborhoods in 1980 remained so in 1990 and in 2000. Ellen (2000) found that more

than 56% of integrated neighborhoods in 1970 remained stably integrated in 1990. In

contrast, Friedman (2007) is much less optimistic about the stability in her sample, concluding that only 28.4% of integrated neighborhoods in 1980 remained integrated in

2000.

Conflicting conclusions in the levels and stability of integration outlined above likely are the result of two factors. First, to my knowledge, no published studies examine

neighborhood integration over the same period of time with the same geographic focus.

In examining trends between 1980 and 2000, Friedman (2007) restricts her sample to

metropolitan areas with populations of over one million in 2000, resulting in a sample of

32,911 tracts in 61 metropolitan areas. Fasenfest, Booza, and Metzger (2004) examine

patterns between 1990 and 2000 in the ten largest metropolitan areas, resulting in a

sample of 12,447 tracts. On the other hand, Rawlings et. al. (2004) limit their sample to

metropolitan areas where Latinos represent no more than 20% of the population and

Blacks are not the dominant minority. This results in a final sample of 25,134 tracts in 69

metropolitan areas. Finally, Ellen examines cross-sectional patterns of integration in all

metropolitan areas in 1970 (42,412 tracts), but limits her analysis of stability in these

neighborhoods between 1970 and 1990 to the 34 metropolitan areas (17,179) with over

30 one million people, at least 5% of whom are Black and less than 30% who are Latino.

The smaller scale integration studies similarly are characterized by divergent sample and geographic foci. For example, Maly (2000) focuses on 833 tracts in 77 Chicago community areas between 1980 and 1990, Smith examines patterns between 1980 and

1990 in 1637 tracts in Florida. Finally, Nyden, Maly and Lukehart conduct a cross- sectional case study analysis of integration in 14 stable integrated neighborhoods in 9 cities.

A second and perhaps more influential source of the conflicting conclusions pertains to the use of differential definitions of integration employed. In contrast to the sophisticated and widely accepted measures of segregation found in the literature

(Massey and Denton 1988; Charles 2003), and on-going advances in this area (Lee et. al.

2008; Lee et. al. 2006; White, Kim, and Glick 2005) no consensus about accepted measures of integration exists.

Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Change

A final important component of the integration literature entails attempting to understand the factors that foster long-term integration in neighborhoods. Scholars have mainly focused on White loss from integrated neighborhoods as a primary barrier to maintaining integration over a long period of time (Ellen 2000; Swaroop 2005).

Sociologists often highlight the movement of Whites as a central mechanism of neighborhood racial transition. An emphasis on White-loss is rooted in theories of invasion-succession (Park 1936; 1952; Park and Burgess 1925; Alinsky 1941; Hawley

1950; McKenzie 1968), “White flight,” (Crowder 2000; Galster 1990; Quillian 1999; Lee and Wood 1991; Massey and Denton 1993) and neighborhood “tipping points” (Clark

31 1991; Goering 1978; Schelling 1971, 1972; Grodzins 1958) as underlying patterns of

racial and ethnic transition. In general, this body of work emphasizes the volatile and

unstable nature of racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods-most often referring to

Black-White neighborhoods. Accordingly, White neighborhoods which experience even

a modest influx of Black residents are expected to inevitably transition to segregated

Black contexts.

In debates about persistent high levels of Black-White segregation in the United

States, processes of White-flight (Massey and Denton 1993; Galster 1990; Massey et. al.

1994; South and Crowder 1998), and more recently White-avoidance (Quillian 2002;

Ellen 2000; South and Crowder 2000) are portrayed as central mechanisms. This is further reiterated in examinations of Whites’ neighborhood racial composition preferences and the potential role of racial prejudice and race-associated stereotypes in

White exit from integrated neighborhoods (Krysan and Bader 2007; Krysan 2002; Harris

2001; South and Crowder 2000; Charles 2000).

A substantial literature points to the saliency of the White-flight hypothesis in understanding neighborhood transition in Black-White neighborhoods in past decades

(Crowder 2000; Galster 1990; Goering 1978; Quillian 1999; Schelling 1971, 1972).

However, a separate body of work questions the generalizability of the White-flight hypothesis, uncovering significant regional, temporal, and spatial variation in the relevancy of the hypothesis (Lee 1985; Lee and Wood 1991; Denton and Massey 1991;

Massey and Mullan 1984; Massey 1983; Frey 1979; Marshall and O’Flaherty 1987;

Molotch 1969). Additionally, Massey (1983) and Massey and Mullan (1984), in examining the applicability of processes of ecological invasion-succession for the

32 assimilation of Latinos in metropolitan neighborhoods, conclude that the model does not

fit.

Processes of White-flight do not represent the full spectrum of forms of change

across the U.S. residential landscape. For example, Friedman demonstrates that more

than a negligible amount of cases of neighborhood racial transition between 1980 and

2000 directly contradicts outcomes expected by the White-flight hypothesis (2007). She finds that while 14.8% of Black-White neighborhoods in 1980 transitioned to segregated

Black contexts in 2000, 8.2% transitioned to predominantly White neighborhoods and

21.6% to multiethnic contexts.3 While this is certainly not a new idea, research in this

area has yet to aggressively move beyond a White-loss focus.4 With a few exceptions, using proportion White-loss as a dependent variable in models of change (e.g.,Friedman

2007; Ellen 2000, 1998, 1996; Swaroop 2005; Smith 1998) remains the norm - providing only limited insight into actual processes of neighborhood transition.

Both Ellen (2000) and Friedman (2007) adamantly argue that the focus on Whites in both conceptualizing “integration” and modeling change is warranted given the greater

resources, amenities, and outlets for mobility tied to White neighborhoods. Ellen further states that “fleeing Whites are typically considered the greatest threat to integration.”

(2000:18). However, some race theorists may contend that this argument reinforces the idea that Blacks and other subordinated groups must live in White neighborhoods to access quality homes, schools, jobs, and so forth. Some may see this logic alluding to a superiority of White and White neighborhoods as “natural,” thus serving as one more

3 Though her typology of integration is limited in that it includes an overly general “Other” category to capture Latinos, Asians, and Other non-White or non-Black groups.

33 example of the perpetuation of White supremacy in our social scientific framing of social

problems (Piven and Cloward 1980; Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva 2008; Bonilla-Silva 2001).

Additionally, some race scholars may contend this focus also potentially hinders

theoretical advancement in the study of racial inequality. They argue that a singular

emphasis on White movement as a barrier to neighborhood integration follows another

firmly entrenched tradition in the social sciences – a focus on “assimilation as the

solution to America’s (and the world’s) racial problems” (Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva

2008:331). According to these theorists, as long as race “determine[s] the structures that

organize the distribution of life chances and well-being,” only “radical and fundamental

changes to the social order” (Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva 2008:330) are effective in

eliminating “the color line” (Du Bois 1903).

2.5 Research Questions

In Sections 2.3 and 2.4 above, I have outlined the theoretical and empirical problems characterizing the current neighborhood integration literature. I contend that the central problem is the failure to grapple theoretically with the question of whether or not durable racial and ethnic integration can serve as a meaningful solution for the consequences associated with segregation. We have not considered theoretically why this may or may not be the case, nor asked questions about potential consequences of integration for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos.

There are also important empirical problems that need to be addressed, as described above. The handful of published integration studies with national samples provide conflicting conclusions about the prevalence and stability of neighborhood

34 integration in the United States, partly because some of them are not fully national in scope. Their divergent conclusions likely are the result of the use of varied geographic and temporal contexts examined, and differential definitions of long-term integration employed. Furthermore, the definitions that are employed often lack face validity when failing to differentiate Latinos from other groups. Finally, studies that attempt to understand the factors associated with stability in integrated neighborhoods focus almost exclusively on the factors associated with White loss, potentially ignoring the full range of possible processes associated with racial and ethnic change in neighborhoods. As a result of these problems, I believe we lack a sufficient understanding of basic, national patterns of the prevalence, durability, and consequences of neighborhood integration.

In an effort to begin to address some of these problems, and to move our understanding of national patterns forward, I will address the following research questions in my dissertation:

Research Question 1:

What are the patterns of racial/ethnic neighborhoood integration and change in the United States between 1980 and 2000? Why do neighborhoods become integrated? Why do integrated neighborhoods remain integrated or change to another racial/ethnic type?

Research Question 2:

Are racially/ethnically stable integrated neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000 more advantaged contexts than alternative homogenous and transitioning contexts?

Research Question 3:

Are historically subordinated group members in racially/ethnically stable integrated neighborhoods more advantaged than group members in alternative homogenous and transitioning contexts?

2.6 A Critical Race Approach to the Study of Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Integration

I have outlined above the research questions to be addressed in my dissertation project. In this section, I seek to draw on contemporary race theory to develop a theoretical approach to the study of integration which accounts for the broader societal context in which processes of neighborhood racial and ethnic change are situated.

Specifically, I set forth a critical race perspective on processes of racial and ethnic change

in the urban residential landscape. This perspective is explicitly shaped by consideration

of the broader racialized social order in which all institutions, including housing, operate.

Further, I develop theoretical expectations about the research questions to be addressed.

These relate to expectations about the prevalence and durability of integration, as well as the potential (or not), of long-term neighborhood racial and ethnic integration in helping to ameliorate negative consequences associated with racial residential segregation.

White Supremacy, Institutions, and Racial and Ethnic Inequality

Figure 2.1 depicts an institutional approach to the study of racial stratification

which some scholars adopt. The large dotted box represents the collectivity of

institutions that make up society. The five boxes, with solid lines, in the middle of this

larger rectangle, represent some of the most important institutions, including housing,

labor, education, government, and family. The box on the far right of the figure, labeled

“racial/and ethnic inequality,” represents the aggregate patterns of inequitable outcomes

along racial and ethnic lines that are associated with the various institutions. The arrows

connecting the institutions to the racially stratified outcomes on the right represent the

mechanisms, or how, the institutions cause the observed inequality.

36 With this approach, some scholars focus on examining levels of inequality

associated with various institutions. Others focus on understanding the mechanisms

within, or associated with, these institutions that are responsible for creating and/or maintaining these inequitable patterns. Mechanisms identified may range from structural practices, policies, and procedures characterizing institutions, to interactional processes between actors, which are conditioned by the structures in which they are situated (e.g.,

Blau 1964; Parkin 1979;Tomaskovic-Devey 1993; Roscigno 2007). In recent years, a growing number of stratification scholars have advocated for a renewed focus on identifying the mechanisms responsible for the creation of inequitable outcomes (e.g.,

Reskin 2003; Charles 2003; Massey 2005; Sampson 2002). This is clearly important for understanding the complex and nuanced ways in which these patterns are created.

Yet, regardless of the focus on the outcomes themselves or the mechanisms at play, as well as the specific institution in which these processes unfold, the underlying theoretical approach and resulting implications for reducing inequality as depicted in

Figure 2.1 are the same – understanding levels and causes of racially inequitable outcomes within institutions will provide us with the necessary information to craft new, or alter existent policies, necessary to reduce the racially stratified patterns. The key point is that this approach presumes appropriate shifts at the institutional level – social policies, organizational procedures, legislation, structural changes to engender interactional changes, etc. – are the central mechanisms to ultimately reduce inequality for historically subordinated racial and ethnic group members. Key examples of these kinds of historical shifts include introduction of the Fair Housing Act, the Voting Rights

Act, Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity laws and policies, and the like.

37 Cultural and/or individual explanations are sometimes proffered - by the general public,

politicians, and some in the academy - when racial and ethnic inequality persists despite

these changes.

Within the context of housing specifically, a clear example of this type of

approach can be found in the long-standing debate about the role of discrimination, group preferences, or economic constraints in perpetuating racial residential segregation.

Scholars who view housing discrimination as a primary cause of segregation continue to advocate improved policies to diminish new and evolving forms of discrimination forty years after the Fair Housing Act (Massey 2005; Ross and Turner 2005; Charles 2003;

Yinger 1995; Roscigno, Karafin, and Tester 2009). Others emphasize divergent racial housing preferences, in addition to discrimination, as central to understanding housing outcomes for different groups. In addition to continued efforts to eliminate discrimination in the housing markets, they argue their scholarship should inform strategies/policies that may be employed to reduce institutional and individual prejudice toward Blacks and Latinos in the context of housing (Charles 2006) and to stem White aversion to integrated neighborhoods (Krysan and Bader 2007; Friedman 2007; Krysan

2002; Emerson, Chai, and Yancey 2001; Ellen 2000).

However, some critical race scholars may contend that the approach portrayed in

Figure 2.1 is ultimately deficient, as it fails to recognize the larger racialized system impacting the institutions and how they operate. Figure 2.2 depicts what can be considered a critical race model of the relationship between institutions and racial and ethnic stratification. The key difference between the two figures is the recognition in

Figure 2.2 of a larger system of White supremacy; an exogenous force ignored in Figure

38 2.1. This force shapes and conditions the institutions, practices, policies, procedures, and interactions that create and reify racial and ethnic inequality in the society.

But what exactly is “White supremacy?” The philosopher Mills defines White supremacy as a “political, economic, and cultural system in which Whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas

of White supremacy are widespread, and relations of White dominance and non-White

subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutional and social settings”

(Mills 1997:37).5 Bonilla-Silva describes White supremacy as “racially based political

regimes that emerged post fifteenth century” (2001:15) that is similar in function for race

theory, to the constructs of patriarchy in feminist theory or capitalism in Marxist theory

(Mills 1998; 2004; Bonilla-Silva 2001). White supremacy operates to reproduce

structures of domination that guarantee the allocation of resources in such a way as to

maintain White advantage, whatever the cost to others, and independently of beliefs,

whether they are racially or otherwise constructed (Mills 2004; Omi and Winant 1994;

Jensen 2005). As such, the system of White supremacy is not an anomaly in an otherwise

largely egalitarian liberal democracy; rather, it has been and remains the normative

system shaping the institutions within the social structure (Mills 2004).

In my dissertation, and as I further develop the ideas implied in Figure 2.2 below,

it is important to explain clearly how I use the term “White supremacy” in relation to

other scholars and how the term is used in race theory in general. While race theorists

5 Mills concedes that the term “White supremacy” may be considered extremist, and that many associate the term with slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, and a past era of legally mandated discrimination (Mills 2004). Yet, I believe he builds a strong case for philosophers and scientists working on race to work to advance the theoretically development of White supremacy to better address “the crucial reality that the normal workings of the social system continue to disadvantage Blacks in large measure independently of racist feeling” (Mills 2004:241). 39 often use the general term “racial system” to refer to the way in which structures in a

society are aligned to hierarchically arrange and reward groups along racial lines, I confer

with Mills (2004, 1998) and Bonilla-Silva (2001), that all racial systems are characterized

by White supremacy. As such, I use the term “White supremacy” in the context of this

dissertation to refer explicitly to the past and present racial system in the United States.

This perspective may be construed as radical, as it contrasts sharply with those in

fields such as sociology, philosophy, or political science, that frame racism and

contemporary inequality as irrational and incongruent with the larger philosophy and

structure of the society (Bonilla-Silva 2001). Some focus predominantly on how inequality results from particular policies or interactions within institutions. The

problems are understood to be institutional, and not in accordance with the dominant

philosophy, in support of racial and ethnic equality, characterizing the larger society.

Though some readily admit the centrality of a system of White supremacy in the “Old

World,” they frame contemporary manifestations of inequality as anomalies within a social structure in the “New World” that is largely liberal and egalitarian. (Mills 2004).

It is not surprising then, that both pragmatically and in relation to the theory itself,

that the presence and role of the system as a whole is sometimes ignored, and hence

operates somewhat invisibly (Goar 2008; Bonilla-Silva 1999). However, some race

scholars do contend the system of White supremacy has an identifiable “face.” The

“face” of the system can be interpreted as the dominant racial ideology characterizing the

society. A racial ideology “provides the rationalization for social, political, and

economic interactions among the races” (Bonilla-Silva 2001:43). It may shift

dramatically over time in shape and form. Historically, the ideology has been

40 characterized by overt prejudice and racism toward those considered non-White

(reflective of the more overt racist regimes of earlier periods in American history). In recent decades, some prominent race scholars have described the ideology as

“colorblind” (Bonilla-Silva 200 ; Forman 2004), a “new racism” (Bonilla-Silva 2008,

2001), or “laissez-faire racism” (Bobo 2004; Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith 1997).6

Irrespective of the chosen label, these scholars argue that the current ideology is

characterized by more subtle, covert, or institutional forms of racism that are difficult to

detect, and operate within a larger context in which race and racial concerns are seen as irrelevant and inconsequential (Bonilla-Silva 1999). This is especially problematic as the racial stratification system continues to operate amidst a climate where race is no longer recognized as relevant (Bonilla-Silva 1999; Bonilla-Silver and Glover 2004).

Moreover, in a similar fashion to the evolution of the “face” of White supremacy over time, institutions, the intervening variables in Figure 2.2, also adapt in ways congruent with the current racial climate. Omi and Winant describe this process as a constant political contestation, with a vast interplay of racial projects that determine

historical and contemporary institutional depictions of the larger racial climate (1994).

However, while Omi and Winant argue that the process of racial formation is constantly

evolving (1994), the purpose of the system of White supremacy itself is always the same;

to promote the advantaging of Whites over others. However, how the system impacts

institutions and inequality changes over time. Furthermore, who is considered White may

change, as the fluidity of Whiteness, race, and ethnicity has been extensively documented

by historians and sociologists (e.g., Lee and Bean 2007; Ignatiev 1995; Warren and

6 Subtle differences do exist between these theoretical constructs. See Forman 2004, for a helpful discussion delineating these differences. 41 Twine 1997; Gans 1999). The implication, given the fixed purpose of the system of

White supremacy, is that strategies to reduce stratification through policy changes at or within the institutional level may not always be significantly effective in diminishing inequality. Polices may effect some change, but other mechanisms may emerge to

reinforce the hierarchy. Regardless of their particular characterization at any one time,

according to this perspective, institutions and their associated practices and policies are

shaped by a system of White supremacy and its associated racial ideology, that ensures

mechanisms are in place to protect White privilege.

The final critical component of Figure 2.2 is the feedback loop connecting

racial/ethnic inequality to the system of White supremacy. This signifies how the patterns of inequality, for which the larger system of White supremacy is ultimately responsible, also reinforce the system itself. This may entail the aggregation of the interpretation by actors, of observed racial/ethnic differences, as confirmation of their beliefs which are congruent with the current racial ideology. As Bonilla-Silva (2001) argues, this is important as the ideology is not simply “(a mere reflection of the racialized system) but becomes the organizational map that guides actions of racial actors in society). This component of the framework highlights the important interplay between structure and agency in the study of stratification.

It is important to qualify that I am not arguing that significant strides in reducing inequality never come about through institutional change, such as those resulting from legislation following the Civil Rights Movement. I am also not claiming that the study of social mechanisms is unnecessary or unimportant. On the contrary, it is imperative to

continue to work to understand the processes that create and maintain inequality,

42 especially as they shift in form and function over time (see Gross 2009 for an excellent recent theoretical discussion on the current practice and limitations of social mechanism

inquiry in the social sciences). These processes are the key means through which the

system of White supremacy works in maintaining White advantage. However, the key

point I am making is that new mechanisms to ensure perpetual racialized outcomes will form as others fade, so long as the system of White supremacy persists as the dominant context in which our dominant institutions operate. If the system of White supremacy is

not dismantled, regardless of how the institutions and all of their associated practices,

policies, organizations, groups, and individuals change over time, part of their core

function will entail maintaining a racial order in which Whites receive the most desirable

social positions, goods, and resources.

What are the implications of this model for the potential role of neighborhood

integration as a remedy for the inequality associated with racial residential segregation

for Blacks and Latinos? And how can the model, which is somewhat abstract, help

inform how we consider theoretically and analytically the significance of neighborhood

racial and ethnic composition? The general implication, of course, is that patterns of

long-term neighborhood integration, and their associated consequences, are conditioned

by the system of White supremacy in the same way that patterns and consequences of

residential segregation are conditioned. Thus both segregation and integration will

similarly be associated, overall, with White advantage and non-White disadvantage. Yet,

this seems overly general relative to the complex, intricate, and ever changing racial

order in the United States. Research questions to test hypotheses generated from the

model require more explicit consideration and incorporation of this racial order, beyond a

43 general description of the advantaging of Whites over others across time and space.

Bonilla-Silva and Glover’s (2004) recent theoretical proposition of an emerging tri-racial,

Latin American-like racial system in the United States may be especially helpful in

crafting more nuanced, and testable, research questions pertaining to the success (or not) of long-term racial and ethnic integration in reducing the inequality associated with racial residential segregation. These authors build a compelling case that this tri-racial system of stratification is emerging as a new hierarchy that exists within the current racial order.

In the next section, I outline Bonilla-Silva and Glover’s (2004) theory and discuss the specific expectations the theory might predict about outcomes pertaining to long-term racial and ethnic neighborhood integration in the United States. I conclude with a discussion of the limitations of my approach.

A Tri-Racial System of Stratification

Bonilla-Silva and Glover (2004) argue that a new U.S. racial system is emerging that is becoming Latin-American like. The racial system is characterized in Latin

American countries by a denial of the saliency of race, and views of inequality between groups as non-racial. It is also characterized by a movement to adopt a national identify, such as “We are all Brazillians,” even amidst a context of marked inequality by color.

This system maintains racial hierarchies, yet does so under conditions in which race is increasingly not recognized (and this acts to further reinforce the system itself). Most troubling, the authors argue, is that this system exists despite the fact that racial minorities in these countries are often far worse off compared to racial minorities in

Western nations.

44 What does the new racial order, emanating from the system, look like? The new order is tri-racial in nature, consisting of three hierarchically arranged groups. Figure 2.3 provides a heuristic map of the tri-racial system, as presented by Bonilla-Silver and

Glover (2004:150-151). The first group, at the top, is “Whites”; which consists of

Whites, new Whites, assimilated White Latinos, Some White-looking multiracials, assimilated (urban) Native Americans, and a few Asian-origin people. The second group, labeled “Honorary Whites,” is considered the intermediary group; light-skinned Latinos,

Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, Asian Indians, Chinese Americans, Middle

Eastern Americans, and most multiracials comprise this category. Finally, the third group, at the bottom, is referred to as the “Collective Black” which includes Filipinos,

Vietnamese, Hmong, Laotians, dark-skinned Latinos, Blacks, new West Indian and

African immigrants, and reservation-bound Native Americans. The composition of the three groups is not fixed, and the position of some groups both within and between the strata may change over time. For the most part, phenotype and cultural characteristics determine where particular groups are classified. Patterns in the distribution of societal resources, goods, and rewards will mirror the hierarchy of the system, with Whites the most advantaged, honorary Whites slightly less advantaged, and the Collective Black the least advantaged.

The most important part of the tri-racial system is that the intermediary group,

“Honorary Whites” is seen as a buffer between the top and bottom group, serving to diffuse potential conflict between “Whites” and the “Collective Black” and helping further cement color-blind racism. This is accomplished as Honorary Whites grow in size, play a more important social role in the society, and develop unique interests

45 separate from the Collective Black and Whites. Bonilla-Silva and Glover (2004) contend

the function of this intermediary group in diffusing conflict is similar to “a complex class

stratification system…whereas class polarization leads to rebellion, a multiplicity of classes and strata leads to diffused social conflict” (2004:153).

Why is a tri-racial order emerging in the United States? Bonilla-Silva and Glover contend the new order is a direct response of the White elite to the impending reality of a

“darkening of America” where racial minorities are projected to outnumber Whites as early as 2050 (2004:157).7 How can an understanding of the tri-racial system help

formulate theoretical expectations about the promise of racial and ethnic neighborhood

integration in the United States as a solution to the consequences associated with racial

residential segregation? My argument is that patterns and outcomes associated with

neighborhood integration are conditioned by this racialized system of White supremacy.

Housing as an institution is no different from other institutions in that it is conditioned by

the system, and ultimately is structured in such a way as to produce outcomes that are

advantageous to Whites and less so for non-Whites. As such, regardless of where groups

tend to reside, with the system of White supremacy firmly in place, I would expect

patterns that reflect the advantaging of Whites. I hypothesize that the evidence will not

show that historically subordinated group members are substantially more advantaged in

long-term integrated contexts when compared to group members in segregated or areas

7 The authors argue this response contrasts with past strategies to further Whiten the population, such as immigration or fluidity in who is considered White. They argue the new system is the more likely response now given an amalgamation of factors: 1. large demographic shifts and greater heterogeneity in the United States - a “rapid darkening of America” (Bonilla-Silva and Glover 2004:155) 2. the emergence of a new form of racism characterized by practices that are covert, institutional, and seemingly nonracial (resulting in a color-blind ideology) 3. the globalization of race relations, 4. the multiracial movement in America resulting in the elimination or dilution of the collection of racial data, and 5. the decline (or end) of race- based policies in the United States.

46 undergoing transition. The theoretical justification, as I have outlined above, is that the

processes responsible for creating and maintaining long-term integration are influenced

by the same system that perpetuates racial residential segregation.

More specifically, if the tri-racial system proposed by Bonilla-Silva and Glover

(2004) is representative of the current racial order in the United States, I would expect

patterns and outcomes to largely mirror the hierarchical structure of the tri-racial system.

In the assessment of the overall prevalence and durability of neighborhood integration,

the first set of research questions to be addressed, I would expect cases of integration

involving groups from different strata in the tri-racial system to be less likely to remain

integrated over time (compared to neighborhoods with groups from the same strata in the

hierarchy). I would also expect integration between Whites and Honorary Whites to be

more common and potentially more stable than forms involving Whites and the

Collective Black. When examining the economic and social characteristics of

homogenous and integrated contexts in the United States over time, the second set of

research questions to be addressed, I would similarly expect stratified outcomes that

mirror the tri-racial system, with Whiter contexts most advantaged, collective Black

contexts least advantaged, and contexts with Honorary Whites somewhere in between. A

theoretically interesting and important question pertains to the cases, if any, of long-term

integration between groups from different strata in the tri-racial system, such as between

Whites and Honorary Whites or Whites and the Collective Black.8 Will the social and

economic character of these neighborhoods and the groups in them support the ideas

8 However, I am limited in conclusions I can make about Honorary Whites, as I rely on pan-ethnic definitions which do not differentiate between Latino group members that would be considered White, Honorary White, or part of the Collective Black, according to the hierarchy (see Chapter 3). 47 promulgated in the literature about their superior status relative to segregated minority areas? Or will the evidence suggest minorities in these contexts are not significantly more advantaged relative to those in other areas, supporting the critical race perspective outlined above?

2.7 Limitations

Before proceeding to Chapter 3, in which I detail the data and methods used to address the research questions explicated in Chapters 1 and 2, it is important to discuss the limitations of my approach to the dissertation problem. First, I must highlight that I cannot directly test the theoretical models depicted, nor do I claim to do so. My approach is limited in that I can only seek to produce evidence consistent with the view point that a push for neighborhood integration, as any social policy, is limited in its potential to significantly diminish inequality given a larger, powerful system of White supremacy. I cannot directly test this argument, nor make any causal claims in relation to my findings.

Though this is a significant limitation, I see this work as an important first step, in relation specifically to the segregation/integration issue, in challenging other scholars to grapple with the larger context in which racialized patterns unfold. I see this as a direct response to Mills’ call for social scientists to “challenge the mainstream liberal ‘anomaly’ framing of race by developing the concept of White supremacy” (2004:240).

Second, my theoretical approach focuses predominantly on one aspect of racial and ethnic inequality, that pertaining to levels of advantage and disadvantage in neighborhoods and the groups residing in them. Other significant forms of inequality, such as interactional forms, are not considered. Stewart (2004) provides a cogent critique of this common tendency in race stratification scholarship, in that it assumes that human

48 capital is equally valuable for all racial and ethnic groups (and genders and classes) in the larger society. This is equated with the idea, in the study of mean levels of race-specific advantage, for example, that Whites and Blacks with equal levels of advantage receive the same benefits attached to that level of advantage in the larger society. Or, for neighborhoods, that a neighborhood considered middle-class and White is largely identical in access to resources and benefits, as is a neighborhood that is middle-class and

Black. A significant literature has documented that this is often not the case for groups such as African-Americans and Women in the labor and housing markets, the criminal justice system, perceptions of safety; the neighborhoods in which groups reside, and so forth (e.g., Patillio 1999; Pager 2003; Yinger 1995; Tester 2008; Krivo, Peterson, and

Karafin 2006).

Stewart states that a significant consequence of this tendency is the misplaced emphasis on “interpreting the unique characteristics of outliers as the keys to racial uplift” (2004:112). Stewart explains that outliers uncovered in quantitative research of racial and ethnic inequality, the cases where no inequality is found, are often viewed as possessing some special or unique set of characteristics which must be uncovered and emphasized in policy decisions to reduce inequality. In the segregation and integration scholarship, this translates into an approach in which the character of cases of long-term integration (the outliers) are assessed to shape policies to better foster long-term integration. However, the problem with this approach, as Stewart argues, is that it ignores the significant role of interactive processes in perpetuating racial inequality. This effect cannot be readily detected in quantitative models, and policy efforts based solely on quantitative models will not account for this.

49 In conclusion, I have outlined theoretical and empirical gaps in our current

understanding of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration in this chapter. I have

drawn from recent race theory to set forth a critical race approach to the study

neighborhood integration, and explicated three research questions to expand our current

understanding. In the next chapter, I provide detailed information on the data and methods employed to address the 3 primary research questions comprising this dissertation.

Institutions

Housin g

Labo r

Education Racial/Ethnic Inequality

Governmen t

Famil y

Figure 2.1 An Institutional-Level Framework of Racial Stratification

Institutions

Housin g

Labo r

White Education Racial/Ethnic Supremacy Inequality

Governmen t

Famil y

Figure 2.2 A Critical Race Framework of Racial Stratification 51

“Whites”  Whites  New Whites (Russians, Albanians, and so on)  Assimilated White Latinos  Some (White-looking) multiracials

 Assimilated (urban) Native Americans

 A few Asian-origin people

“Honoarary Whites”

 Light-skinned Latinos  Japanese Americans  Korean Americans  Asian Indians  Chinese Americans  Middle Eastern Americans  Most multiracials

“Collective Black”  Filipinos  Vietnamese  Hmong  Laotians  Dark-skinned Latinos  Blacks  New West Indian and African immigrants

 Reservation-bound Native Americans

Source - Bonilla-Silva and Glover (2004)

Figure 2.3 Map of Tri-Racial System in the United States

52 Chapter 3

Data and Methods

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I detail the data and methods used in subsequent chapters to examine national patterns and consequences of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration. First, I discuss the source and characteristics of the data. Next, I outline the process of selecting the sample of metropolitan neighborhoods to be used in the analysis.

Third, I elaborate on operationalizations of the measures used in the analysis. Finally, I explain the analytic strategy I employ to address each of the research questions guiding the project.

3.2 Data and Sample Selection

Data The primary source of data for this study is the Neighborhood Change Data Base

(NCDB) (Tatian 2003). The NCDB provides selected long-form census data at the tract- level from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. censuses. The dataset is especially helpful for tract-level comparative analysis of population, housing, and economic characteristics over time. This is because the data for all years are normalized to 2000 census tract boundaries, as shifting tract boundaries are common between annual census counts, making comparisons across decades difficult. Through a process of normalizing census 53 boundaries with GIS software to account for these boundary changes, accurate

comparisons of tract-level characteristics over time are made possible (see Tatian 2003)

for a more specific explanation of the methodology used). This correction ensures that analysts interested in longitudinal comparisons are indeed comparing the same geographic unit over time. To supplement data available in the Neighborhood Change

Data Base, a few variables were retrieved from the 1980 short and long form U.S. Census

Data in 2000 boundaries (Geolytics 2007).

It is important to note that I use the census tract, the smallest unit of analysis in the NCDB, as a proxy for neighborhood. The neighborhood, according to classic urban sociological theory, is understood to be a distinct ecological unit nested within a larger unit, and influenced by both internal and external ecological, political, and cultural forces

(Park 1916; Suttles 1972; Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley 2002). Many

researchers use tracts to represent neighborhoods in studies of urban sociology,

neighborhood effects, and crime (e.g. Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley 2002;

Krivo, Peterson, and Kuhl 2009) because they offer an extensive array of data collected

by the Census Bureau not available at other smaller levels of aggregation. In theory,

census tracts are comprised of an average of 4,000 residents, and are considered

homogenous across population, economic, and living characteristics (U.S. Census

Bureau). Though convenient, scholars continue to debate the use of census tracts as

meaningful representations of neighborhoods (e.g., Lee et. al. 2008; Grannis 1998;

Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). For example, census tract boundaries are often

constructed without consideration for physical boundaries, such as major highways or rivers or railroad tracks, which significantly alter how neighborhoods are divided.

53 Though the use of tracts is not ideal, no other source of data exists for making longitudinal comparisons of neighborhoods across several decades.

The NCDB data are particularly fitting for the research questions guiding this project, as they allow for a national assessment of patterns of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration by making possible the comparison of shifting racial and ethnic compositions in census tracts over time. Furthermore, the population, housing, and economic information available in the data allows for an examination of the socioeconomic character of long-term integrated neighborhoods compared with homogenous and transitioning contexts, taking into account important neighborhood and metropolitan factors.

Sample Selection

The primary focus of my dissertation project entails assessing national patterns and socioeconomic consequences of long term racial and ethnic neighborhood integration. Hence, I draw from the NCDB to construct a national sample of metropolitan neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000. While data for tract characteristics in 1970 are available in the NCDB, I opt to exclude these data given severe limitations.

First, the 1970 data are limited because fewer metropolitan areas were tracted in 1970.

Further, the racial and ethnic classifications (particularly in relation to options for Latino respondents) used in the 1970 census are incongruent with those used in subsequent censuses.

The NCDB consists of a total of 65,443 census tracts. I include a subset of all tracts based on several criteria. First, I include only tracts located in metropolitan areas in 2000, eliminating tracts located in rural areas. This equates to a total of 51,467 tracts.

54 Next, I exclude tracts: with less than 300 people,1 metropolitan areas (and the associated

tracts) that did not qualify as metropolitan in 1980,2 tracts where less than 90% of the tract was covered in 1980,3 and tracts with greater than 50% of the population in group

quarters such as dormitories, jails, or prisons. After eliminating these tracts, the final

sample includes 40,047 tracts in 325 metropolitan areas, which is 61% of the cases

available in the NCDB.

3.3 Measures

Defining Long Term Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Integration

Table 3.1 provides a summary of the operationalizations of all the measures, and

Table 3.2 presents the means and standard deviations of these measures for the complete

sample of metropolitan neighborhoods examined in this study. In the current study, I

seek to address some of the limitations discussed in Chapter 2 regarding definitions of

racial and ethnic neighborhood integration employed in the literature to date. I use an

absolute conceptualization of neighborhood integration comprised of a mutually

exclusive 15-category typology of neighborhood racial and ethnic type for multiple

combinations of White, Black, Latino, and Other groups. An absolute typology is a useful tool to classify neighborhoods by racial and ethnic type according to theoretically

1 I use 300 persons as a cut-off for excluding very small tracts in accordance with the National Neighborhood Crime Study (Krivo and Peterson 2007) 2 In all, six 2000 metropolitan areas were not considered metropolitan areas in 1980. These are Barnstable- Yarmouth, MA, Flagstaff, AZ-UT, Greenville, NC, Jonesboro, AR, Myrtle Beach, SC, and Punta Gorda, FL. 3 The U.S. was not 100% tracted until 1990. There are numerous cases of tracts that were not at all or only partially tracted in 1980. The NCDB includes a flag for these cases, as well as a variable which indicates the percentage of the tract that was tracted in 1980. I use a relatively conservative standard for inclusion of partially tracted neighborhoods. Alternative standards for inclusion would only increase the sample slightly (e.g., with a requirement that 70% of the tract was covered, I would only gain 954 cases). A careful analysis of the “excluded” tracts that were less than 90% tracted revealed that the majority were located in outlying areas of MA’s with considerable growth and expansion in the 80’s and 90’s, such as Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Houston. 55 justified threshold requirements (as reviewed in Chapter 2). This typology improves on those currently employed by differentiating between Whites, Latinos, and Blacks.

Though an improvement in terms of specificity compared to past studies examining neighborhood integration, the reliance on the broad pan-ethnic categories of Black,

Latino, White, and Other means that potentially important within-group heterogeneity is ignored. This may be particularly important for Latinos, for whom there is considerable variation in national origin, immigration and nativity statuses. Nonetheless, pan-ethnic categories are useful for the current analysis seeking to uncover broad, national level patterns of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration, and they are commonly employed in the literature.

The overarching premise of the typology is that multiple groups must reach some critical threshold for integration to be achieved. Prior work has typically required only

10% representation from two or more groups for a neighborhood to be considered integrated when using an absolute approach (e.g., Ellen 2000; Swaroop 2005). Although any absolute approaches to defining integration could be considered arbitrary, there is no specified empirical or theoretical bases for the 10% cut-off. Further, this small representation lacks face validity because it does not represent the conceptualization of neighborhood integration as a significant portion of two or more groups sharing community space. In choosing a threshold requirement for the definition of integration I employ, I instead draw on recent scholarship on racial and ethnic neighborhood preferences. This literature suggests that the majority of Whites are comfortable with up to a 20% representation of Blacks, Latinos, or Asians in their neighborhood (e.g., Charles

56 2006; Krysan 2000). However, beyond this threshold, Whites are known as a group to

avoid or flee neighborhoods perceived to be integrated.

As a result, requiring neighborhoods to contain more than a 20% representation of

two or more racial and ethnic groups to be considered integrated reflects preferences

known of Whites; a group with a well-documented historical tendency to live primarily

with other Whites. Blacks and Latinos maintain different conceptualizations of what

“integrated” means and what they are comfortable with (Charles 2006; Bobo and Charles

1996; Krysan and Bader 2007). However, well before the integration Blacks and Latinos

are comfortable with is achieved, Whites either move out or avoid these neighborhoods.

Furthermore, Blacks and Latinos do not enjoy the same degree of freedom as Whites to

always pursue the neighborhoods they prefer and can afford, given continued

discrimination in the housing markets (Ross and Turner 2005; Yinger 1995).

Following this basic logic, single-race neighborhoods (White, Black, Latino, and

Other) are defined as those with more than 80% of the population of one group, with less

than a 20% representation of any other group. Two-group neighborhoods include those

with two groups each having between 20 and 80% representation, and any other group

having less than 20% representation. The typology includes six two-group

neighborhoods: Black-White, Latino-White, Black-Latino, White-Other, Latino-Other,

and Black-Other.4 Similarly, three group neighborhoods require three groups to comprise

between 20 and 80% of the neighborhood, with no other group having more than 20% representation. In the typology, these are the following four types of neighborhoods:

White-Black-Latino, White-Black-Other, Black-Latino-Other, and White-Latino-Other.

4 Throughout the dissertation, the ordering of the groups for integrated neighborhoods are interchangeable. For example, a Latino-White neighborhood is equivalent to a White-Latino neighborhood. 57 Finally, 4-group neighborhoods, a form of neighborhood integration I expect to be quite

rare, requires between 20 and 80% representation of four distinct racial or ethnic groups.

In the typology, this is a neighborhood classified as White-Black-Latino-Other. 5

It is important to note that this typology provides improved specificity, and

greater face validity, relative to those commonly seen in the literature for several reasons.

First, the typology includes Latinos as a distinct group. Second, a more encompassing

range of two, three, and four group forms of integration (eleven in all) provides more

detail over past work that typically focuses on between just two to seven neighborhood

types. Finally, with fifteen total categories, the typology provides greater detail on

potential trajectories of neighborhood transition and change over time, such as transition

from one form of integration to another.

The final component to discuss pertaining to the definition of integration I use in

this dissertation pertains to the conceptual distinction between neighborhoods that are integrated long-term versus those that are integrated at one point in time, but not in the long-term. This is important, as the research questions I address focus on assessing claims in the segregation literature about the benefits ascribed to meaningful cases of long-term, racially stable integrated neighborhoods. To differentiate between long-term racially integrated neighborhoods and those in flux, I define a neighborhood as stably integrated if it is classified in the same category in the typology over a period of twenty

5 In her dissertation, Swaroop (2005) develops a similar typology to measure integration. However, our definitions differ in their threshold requirements of group representation for neighborhoods to be considered integrated. 58 years.6 The twenty year requirement promotes a conservative approach to defining

stability in that neighborhoods must avoid major fluctuations in race and ethnic

composition over a significant period of time to be considered stably integrated.

Before proceeding to a description of the dependent and independent variables

included in the analyses, it is important to address the issue of multiracial reporting in the

2000 census, and how this is addressed in the NCDB and impacts my typology. In the

2000 census, respondents were provided with the opportunity to self-identify as more

than one race for the first time, and 1 in 40 elected to do so (Lee and Bean 2007). The

NCDB follows a specific strategy developed to bridge racial and ethnic classifications

from earlier censuses with the 2000 census. The strategy is comprised of an algorithm

used to prioritize the classification of those who check two or more races (see Taitian

2003 for explanation of the bridging definitions used and the logic and rules of the

algorithm). For example, the first step in the algorithm is the classification of anyone who identified as Black (in addition to any other race in which they also self-identified),

as Black. Someone who identified as White and Black would then be classified as Black

according to this rule. A set of additional hierarchically arranged rules in the algorithm

determine the single racial classification of all possible cases of multiracial reporting

(Taitian 2003).

Dependent Variables

All of the dependent variables in the analysis are comprised of outcomes or values

in 2000, while the independent and control variables represent values in 1980 or change

6 Throughout my dissertation I use the terms “stable” “long-term” and “non-transitioning” to refer to integrated or homogenous neighborhoods in 1980 that are classified in the same racial/ethnic neighborhood category in 2000. 59 between 1980 and 2000, in order to maintain appropriate time ordering in models. The

first four dependent variables reflect multinomial categorical neighborhood change

variables for analyses in Chapter 4. In examining neighborhood racial change here, I diverge from past work that often predicts a continuous dependent variable of White-loss

from White-Black neighborhoods. The specific transitions examined follow descriptive

patterns of change outlined in Chapter 4. Therefore, they are spelled out in more detail at

that point.

The second set of dependent variables are all continuous, and represent 2000

neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and race-specific advantage for Whites, Blacks,

and Latinos in 2000. These variables and the associated analyses are included in Chapter

5. Concentrated Disadvantage 2000 is an index (α=.91) comprised of average z-scores

for five variables representing disadvantage in neighborhoods; the extent of female-

headed households, percent of residents below poverty, proportion of households that

received public assistance, joblessness, and the proportion of persons in professional or

managerial occupations (reverse coded). This index is comparable to others used in

urban and crime studies (e.g. Krivo, Peterson, and Kuhl 2009; Krivo and Peterson 2008).

White Advantage 2000 is an index (α=.78) which consists of average z-scores for the

proportion of White residents who have a bachelors or advanced/professional degree, the

proportion of White households with an annual income that is equal to or greater than

$75,000, and the proportion of White persons in the tract below the poverty rate last year

(reverse coded).

Black Advantage 2000 is an index (α=.81) which consists of average z-scores for the

proportion of Black residents who have a bachelors or advanced/professional degree, the

60 proportion of Black households with an annual income that is equal to or greater than

$75,000, and the proportion of Black persons in the tract below the poverty rate last year

(reverse coded).

Latino Advantage 2000 is an index (α=.73) which consists of average z-scores for the

proportion of Latino residents who have a bachelors or advanced/professional degree, the

proportion of Latino households with an annual income that is equal to or greater than

$75,000, and the proportion of Latino persons in the tract below the poverty rate last year

(reverse coded).

For the three race-specific measures of advantage outlined above, it is important

to note that z-scores were calculated using the mean and standard deviations for the

average values for the combined populations of Whites, Blacks, and Latinos.7 This

allows for comparisons of the advantage indices across Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. If

the indices were constructed with the z-scores calculated independently using average values specific to each group, the mean index value for each group would approximate 0, masking significant differences among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos in levels of advantage.

Key Independent Variables

The primary independent variables in the first set of multivariate analyses

(Chapter 4) pertain to the socioeconomic character of neighborhoods. I include a measure for racial/ethnic inequality in poverty in neighborhoods (a measure of the Black

7 The means and standard deviations used to calculate the z-scores for the various factors in the White, Black, and Latino advantage indices were as follows: College (mean 21.94 and standard deviation 21.65); Affluent (mean 22.33 and standard deviation 23.12), Poverty (mean 88.74 and standard deviation 13.47). These means and standard deviations represent the average values for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos combined. 61 or Latino poverty rate in 1980 divided by the White poverty rate in 1980). Some argue

that class differences are the driving force behind neighborhood change, and that when

economic inequality between minorities and Whites is negligible, neighborhood stability

is much more likely (Allport 1954). In contrast, Nyden, Maly, and Lukehart (1997)

contend that economic heterogeneity fosters stable integration. Others find no evidence

of the significance of economic inequality between Blacks and Whites in the stability of

mixed-race neighborhoods (Galster and Keeney 1993) or in impacting the relationship

between neighborhood diversity and social capital (Putnam 2007).

I also include a concentrated disadvantage index for 1980 (α=.897) comprised of

measures of female-headed households, poverty, public assistance, joblessness, and

professional occupations (reverse coded).8 Racially segregated Black neighborhoods are often contexts with high levels of concentrated disadvantage (Krivo et. al. 1998).

Disadvantaged neighborhoods may foster stability for segregated contexts because highly disadvantaged areas may be seen as less desirable places to enter, and current residents may have fewer resources to leave.

In predicting racial/ethnic change between 1980 and 2000, I also include a measure of the change in median income in a tract between the two decades. For Latinos

and Asians, the literature suggests increases in socioeconomic status are associated with

higher levels of integration with Whites (Charles 2003: Alba et al. 1999). Furthermore, significant growth in the median income in inner city segregated neighborhoods is

8 The variable professional occupations represents the proportion of persons 16 and older who are employed in professional, technical occupations or as managers, executives, or administrators. I reverse- code this variable to ensure the direction of the outcome is the same substantive direction as the other measures included in the disadvantage index. This means larger values across all the included variables are equated with higher levels of disadvantage. 62 sometimes associated with processes of gentrification (Freeman 2005; Freeman and

Braconi 2004; Crowder and South 2005).

The primary independent variables for the second set of multivariate analyses

(Chapter 5)

are racial/ethnic neighborhood stability dummy variables. Remained White is a dummy

variable where 1=A White neighborhood in 1980 remained predominantly White in 2000.

Remained Black is a dummy variable where 1=A Black neighborhood in 1980 remained

predominantly Black in 2000. Remained Latino is a dummy variable where 1=A Latino

neighborhood in 1980 remained predominantly Latino in 2000. Remained White-Black

is a dummy variable where 1=A White-Black neighborhood in 1980 remained predominantly White-Black in 2000. Remained White-Latino is a dummy variable

where 1=A White-Latino neighborhood in 1980 remained predominantly White-Latino in

2000. Remained Latino-Black is a dummy variable where 1=A Latino-Black neighborhood in 1980 remained predominantly Latino-Black in 2000. Finally,

Transitioned is a dummy variable where 1=A homogenous or integrated neighborhood in

1980 transitioned to some other racial/ethnic neighborhood type 2000.

Neighborhood Control Variables

An extensive literature documents metropolitan and neighborhood factors associated with residential segregation and urban inequality (Farley and Frey 1994;

Massey and Denton 1993; Charles 2003; Iceland 2009). This literature serves as a useful reference in thinking about why integrated neighborhoods housed in metropolitan areas may remain stable or transition over time, as well as the factors that are important in considering why neighborhoods and groups are more or less disadvantaged than others.

63 In particular, key demographic, economic, and housing indicators of neighborhoods and

the structuring of neighborhoods in metropolitan areas are especially important for these

outcomes. It is important to note that I detail below all of the neighborhood and

metropolitan controls used in the analyses in the analytical chapters. However, not all of

the variables are included in all of the models specified.

Demographic Factors

Neighborhood change may be influenced by several key demographic factors.

We know that central city neighborhoods are often disadvantaged and characterized as

highly segregated Black contexts (Massey and Denton 1993; Wilson 1987). We also

know that neighborhoods with a high proportion of immigrants may be less stable given

Whites’ relatively low threshold of comfort with minority neighbors (Charles 2006;

Krysan and Bader 2007; Charles 2001). To control for potential central city and

immigrant effects, I include a dummy variable, central city, signifying that 90% or more

of a tract is located in a central city. The 90% threshold is necessary because tracts are

often split across central city and suburban lines. To account for immigration, I include a

measure of the proportion foreign born, which represents the proportion of the tract population that is foreign born. Additionally, I include a control for population size and population change for tracts in the sample.

Socioeconomic Factors

For the models in Chapter 5 predicting race-specific advantage in 2000, I include

a set of socioeconomic controls for the neighborhoods in 1980. Specifically, I control for

median income, adjusted to 2000 dollars, and the % change in median income between

1980 and 2000. Both variables are continuous, with the change variable calculated by

64 constructing a proportion change variable comparing 1980 neighborhood median income

(in 2000 dollars) with 2000 neighborhood median income.

Housing

Several neighborhood housing characteristics are important to consider. I include

controls for growth in the housing market in a tract, which represents the percentage

change in the number of housing units in a tract between 1980 and 2000. It is plausible

that patterns of neighborhood racial transition and stability are constrained by the state of

the housing stock within neighborhoods (Brueckner and Rosenthal 2005; Rosenthal

2006). A growing housing market may provide more opportunities for stable integration

while stagnation is characteristic of metropolitan areas with high segregation (Farley and

Frey 1994). However, a growing housing market may also provide Whites with more

opportunities to flee integrated neighborhoods for more homogenous, predominantly

White areas.

Homeowners in a neighborhood may promote stability, as they have more

financial and emotional investments in their neighborhoods. They may be less likely to leave, compared to renters, given the constraints tied to owning a home. Neighborhoods with a high degree of renters may be less stable. Renters have greater flexibility to move, are less financially invested in their homes, and are less likely to have strong ties to the community compared to homeowners. An alternate interpretation would indicate that higher levels of homeownership in integrated contexts may predict neighborhood transition because of prejudice or negative stereotypes homeowners have about Blacks, and because of the greater consequences they perceive in staying given their financial investment (Harris 2001; 1999; Ellen 2000). To control for the potential effect of the rate

65 of homeownership in a tract, I include a measure for proportion owner occupied, which represents the proportion of housing units in a tract that were owner-occupied in 1980.

Neighborhoods with many long-term residents have larger proportions of inhabitants involvement in community activities and closer bonds in the neighborhood

(Lee et. al 1994). Logan and Sterns argue that a high degree of population turnover is associated with less cohesiveness among residents and a greater likelihood of racial change (1981). To account for the effect of residential instability, I include a control of

the proportion of households in 1980 who did not live in the census tract in the last five

years.

Metropolitan Controls

The segregation literature demonstrates the significant variation in patterns of

segregation across metropolitan areas that differ along various demographic, economic, and housing characteristics. As such, I include controls for key metropolitan factors.

Newer metropolitan regions in the West and South are less segregated than those in the

Northeast and Midwest (Iceland 2009; Farley and Frey 1994). To control for regional

effects, I include dummy variables for neighborhoods located in metropolitan areas in the

Northeast, South, and Midwest (with West as the reference category).

Large and growing metropolitan areas are less segregated (Glaeser and Vigdor

2001). Logically, this would suggest that they would have increasing levels of

integration in neighborhoods compared with smaller or stagnant metropolitan areas. As

such, I include a measure of the % of population change between 1980 and 2000 in the

metropolitan area.

66 Metropolitan areas with higher levels of Hispanic and Asian immigration have

been associated with reductions in Black-White segregation (White and Glick 1999),

perhaps because some of the primary immigrant destinations are not heavily populated

with Blacks and are characterized by less racial tension (Farley and Frey 1994). Others

argue the effect of immigration may be due to Hispanics and Asians serving as a “buffer”

group (Iceland 2004, 2008) between Whites and Blacks. Krivo and Kaufman argue that

the influx of Asian and Latino immigrants in metropolitan areas could push Whites past a

fixed tolerance for minority contact, thus making Black-White desegregation less likely

(1999). Additionally, some argue that immigration of Latinos and Asians may bolster

segregated immigrant and ethnic enclaves (Glaeser and Vigdor 2001; Iceland 2004). I include an aggregate measure of the metropolitan proportion foreign and the change in

proportion foreign born to control for these possible effects.

Decreased levels of segregation are associated with decreases in Black-White income inequality, and this has been extensively examined in the literature (e.g., Krivo and Kaufman 1999; Charles 2003; Farley and Frey 1994). I include a measure of racial/ethnic inequality in poverty, calculated by constructing a ratio of Black to White

poverty (or Latino to White or Black to Latino) for the metropolitan area in 1980.

To account for the potential effect of varying levels of population growth for

groups in metropolitan areas for the outcomes examined, I include a measure of the

racial/ethnic growth difference in the metropolitan area. This is comprised of the ratio of

Black population growth in the metropolitan areas between 1980 and 2000 and White

population growth in the metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 (a similar logic is

used to calculate Latino-White growth difference). White (1984) links changes in racial

67 composition in neighborhoods to the rate of increase of the Black and White populations in the city. Denton and Massey (1991) find a significant correlation between the Latino-

White growth difference in a metropolitan area and White loss in neighborhoods.

Finally, I include a control for residential segregation in the metropolitan area – the Index of Dissimilarity, which represents the proportion of residents who would have to move to a different tract to achieve absolute integration. Depending on the particular analyses, the Index of Dissimilarity will measure segregation between Whites and

Blacks, Latinos and Whites, or Blacks and Latinos.

3.4 Analytic Strategy

Descriptive

Prior to examining the outcomes described in section 3.3, I conduct descriptive analyses to begin to construct a national portrait of patterns of racial and ethnic neighborhood integration in the United States between 1980 and 2000. I describe the prevalence of homogenous and integrated neighborhoods in 1980, 1990, and 2000. I examine the durability of integrated and homogenous neighborhoods over the two decades by constructing a transition matrix which presents the distribution and nature of change or stability for the sample of neighborhoods. I also contextualize these patterns by examining the proportion of Latinos, Whites, and Blacks in metropolitan America that live in the various neighborhoods, and the average amount of neighborhood and race- specific population change within long term integrated neighborhoods.

The second set of descriptive analyses are comprised of an assessment of patterns of disadvantage associated with racially stable and transitioning neighborhoods, and

68 levels of advantage for the group members living in them. I examine patterns of mean

levels of concentrated disadvantage in 2000 for racially stable neighborhoods between

1980 and 2000. Next, I assess the degree of economic flux across the racially stable neighborhoods over the two decades. Are the same integrated neighborhoods that are advantaged in 1980 also advantaged in 2000? And for those that experience socioeconomic flux, which neighborhoods improved and which declined? Finally, I shift the unit of analysis from neighborhoods to race-specific mean levels of advantage. I compare mean levels of advantage for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos residing in racially stable and transitioning integrated contexts.

Analytical

I use multilevel models (Raudenbush, Bryk, and Congdon 2007; Raudenbush and

Bryk 2002) to conduct the analyses for the project.9 This method is particularly well

suited for the research questions I address, because I am examining outcomes for

neighborhoods that are nested within larger metropolitan areas. With multilevel models,

I am able to simultaneously assess the influence of both neighborhood (level-one units)

and metropolitan (level-two units) predictors and controls on each of the various

outcomes of interest. This is especially important for a study of neighborhood integration, as the segregation literature indicates patterns of segregation and integration

are likely to be constrained by the nature of the metropolitan area within which

neighborhoods are housed (e.g., Farley and Frey 1994; Massey and Denton 1993; Iceland

2009). An additional feature of multilevel models is the correction of any problems with

independence of error terms and heteroskedasticity (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).

9 I estimate all models with HLM 6.04 software. 69 I conduct three major sets of analyses. It is important to note that all binary variables are uncentered, and all continuous variables are grand-mean centered to facilitate ease of interpretation of results. Grand-mean centering is a technique in which the continuous independent variables are scaled to change the meaning of the intercept from a value of 0, to the expected outcome value when all of the predictors equal the grand mean value. This ensures that coefficients can be interpreted as meaningful effects on the neighborhood-level outcomes, within the metropolitan areas, net of the neighborhood characteristics included in the models (Raudenbush and Bryk 2002).

Preliminary unconditional models were estimated to test for significant variation in the outcomes. The variance component and chi-square tests for all of the unconditional models are significant at p<.05. Finally, I examined the correlation of all the variables in the models to ensure there were no problems associated with multicollinearity that would bias the estimates.

First, to examine how neighborhood disadvantage, net of important housing and demographic factors, is associated with stability and change for homogenous and integrated neighborhoods, I estimate separate multinomial multilevel models for White,

Black, White-Black, and White-Latino neighborhoods in 1980. The dependent variables for each of these models is categorical, with stability serving as the reference group. A multinomial model is necessary because the dependent variable is comprised of three nominal categories. Effects estimated are compared to the chosen omitted category for the dependent variable. For example, for the Black-White model, I simultaneously estimate the likelihood that a Black-White neighborhood in 1980 1. Became Black instead of remaining White-Black in 2000, and 2. Became White instead of remaining

70 White-Black in 2000. Results for the other models predicting stability and change are interpreted in a similar fashion, as an estimated likelihood that a neighborhood changed in a particular way instead of remaining stable (the reference category). Results for these models are presented in Chapter 4.

Second, to examine how long term racial and ethnic stability in homogenous and integrated neighborhoods is related to concentrated disadvantage in 2000, I estimate a hierarchical linear model with a sample of neighborhoods in 1980 that were classified as

White, Black, Latino, White-Black, White-Latino, and Latino-Black, regardless of their classification in 2000. I regress 2000 concentrated disadvantage on various 1980 neighborhood and metropolitan controls, and the key variables of interest, dummy variables for racially stable neighborhoods across the two decades (with one dummy variable serving as the omitted reference group). I fit separate models, alternating the dummy variable omitted, in order to test the significance of the difference in the effects of racial/ethnic stability on concentrated disadvantage between all possible comparisons of racial/ethnic trajectories for the neighborhoods. I conclude this section by calculating predicted values for mean levels of concentrated disadvantage in 2000 based on the mean observed neighborhood and metropolitan factors in the data. Results for this model are presented in the first half of Chapter 5.

Third, to examine how long term racial and ethnic stability in homogenous and integrated neighborhoods, net of controls, is related to race-specific advantage in 2000, I estimate separate models for neighborhoods with Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. The sample for each model includes the neighborhoods where the groups are represented in large proportions. The key independent variables are the racial/ethnic stability dummies

71 in the first set of rows in each table (with only the relevant dummies included for each of

the separate models). As with the neighborhood-level analysis outlined in step 2 above, I

fit separate models with each racial/ethnic trajectory serving as the omitted reference

category. Doing so tests the significance of the difference in the effects with each other

in predicting mean levels of advantage for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. Finally, I

calculate predicted values for mean levels of race-specific advantage in 2000 based on the mean observed neighborhood and metropolitan factors in the data. Results for these models are presented in the latter half of Chapter 5.

72 Table 3.1 Operationalization of All Variables Variable Operationalization

DEPENDENT VARIABLES Black-White Neighborhood 0=Became Black 1=Became White 2=stable (reference Change 1980 to 2000 category) Latino-White Neighborhood 0=Became Latino 1=Became White 2=stable (reference Change 1980 to 2000 category) White Neighborhood Change 0=Became White-Black 1=Became White-Latino 1980 to 2000 2=Remained White (reference category) Black Neighborhood Change 0=Became White-Black 1=Became Latino-Black 1980 to 2000 2=Remained Black (reference category) Concentrated Disadvantage – Average of z-scores for: 2000 -Female-headed households with children in (α=.91) tract divided by total households in tract -Proportion of persons in tract below poverty rate last year (1979) -Proportion of households in tract with public assistance income last year (1979) -Proportion of persons 16+ who are in civilian labor force and not employed -Reverse coded proportion of persons 16+ who are employed in professional, technical occupations or as managers, executives, or administrators White Advantage – 2000 Average of z-scores for: (α=.78) -Proportion of White residents 25+ who have a bachelors or advanced/professional degree -Proportion of White households with an annual income over $75,000 -Reverse coded White persons in tract below the poverty rate last year (1999) divided by total White tract population

Black Advantage – 2000 Average of z-scores for: (α=.81) -Proportion of Black residents 25+ who have a bachelors or advanced/professional degree -Proportion of Black households with an annual income over $75,000 -Reverse coded Black persons in tract below the poverty rate last year (1999) divided by total White tract population Latino Advantage – 2000 Average of z-scores for: (α=.73) -Proportion of Latino residents 25+ who have a bachelors or advanced/professional degree -Proportion of Latino households with an annual income over $75,000 -Reverse coded Latino persons in tract below the poverty rate last year (1999) divided by total White tract population Continued 73 Table 3.1 Continued KEY INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Socioeconomic Black-White poverty inequality Black poverty rate in 1980 divided by White poverty rate in 1980 Latino-White poverty inequality Latino poverty rate in 1980 divided by White poverty rate in 1980 Concentrated disadvantage Average of z-scores for: (α=.90) -Female-headed households with children in tract divided by total households in tract -Persons in tract below poverty rate last year (1979) divided by total tract population -Proportion of households in tract with public assistance income last year (1979) -Proportion of persons 16+ who are in civilian labor force and not employed -Reverse coded proportion of persons 16+ who are employed in professional, technical occupations or as managers, executives, or administrators Median Income Median income 1980 – adjusted to 2000 dollars % Change in median income % of change in median household income 1980 to 2000 Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Stability 1980 to 2000 Transitioned 1=Neighborhood classification changed between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood classification did not change between 1980 and 2000 Remained White 1=Neighborhood remained predominantly White between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood did not remain predominantly White between 1980 and 2000 Remained Black 1=Neighborhood remained predominantly Black between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood did not remain predominantly Black between 1980 and 2000 Remained Latino 1=Neighborhood remained predominantly Latino between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood did not remain predominantly Latino between 1980 and 2000 Remained White-Black 1=Neighborhood remained predominantly White-Black between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood did not remain predominantly White-Black between 1980 and 2000 Remained White-Latino 1=Neighborhood remained predominantly White-Latino between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood did not remain predominantly White-Latino between 1980 and 2000 Remained Latino-Black 1=Neighborhood remained predominantly Latino-Black between 1980 and 2000 0=Neighborhood did not remain predominantly Latino-Black between 1980 and 2000 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTROLS Demographic Central city 1=90% or more of tract located in central city 0=Less than 90% of tract in central city Proportion foreign born Proportion of tract population foreign born Population Tract population size in 1980 Continued 74 Table 3.1 Continued Population Change Percentage change in tract population size between 1980 and 2000 Socioeconomic Median Income Median income 1980 – adjusted to 2000 dollars % Change in median income % of change in median household income 1980 to 2000 Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to Percentage change in number of housing units in tract 2000 Proportion owner occupied Proportion of housing units in tract that are owner- occupied Proportion recent mover Proportion of households who did not live in tract in the last five years (1975-1980) METROPOLITAN CONTROLS Region – Northeast 1=Northeast 0=Not in Northeast - South 1=South 0=Not in South - Midwest 1=Midwest 0=Not in Midwest - West 1=West 0=Not in West Population change % of population change in the metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 Black-White growth difference Ratio of Black population growth in metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 and White population growth in metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 Latino-White growth difference Ratio of Latino population growth in metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 and White population growth in metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 Proportion Foreign Born Proportion of persons who were foreign born in the metropolitan area in 1980 Change in proportion foreign % change in the proportion of persons foreign born in the born metropolitan area between 1980 and 2000 Black-White poverty inequality Ratio of the Black-White poverty rate difference in neighborhoods in the metropolitan area in 1980 Latino-White poverty inequality Ratio of the Latino-White poverty rate difference in neighborhoods in the metropolitan area in 1980 Black-White dissimilarity index Proportion of Black or White residents who would have to move to a different tract to achieve absolute integration Latino-White dissimilarity Proportion of Latino or White residents who would have index to move to a different tract to achieve absolute integration Latino-Black dissimilarity index Proportion of Latino or Black residents who would have to move to a different tract to achieve absolute integration

75 Table 3.2 Mean and Standard Deviation for All Variables Variable Mean Standard Deviation DEPENDENT VARIABLES Black-White neighborhood change -- -- 1980 to 2000 Latino-White neighborhood change -- -- 1980 to 2000 White Neighborhood Change 1980 to -- -- 2000 Black Neighborhood Change 1980 to -- -- 2000 Neighborhood Concentrated Disadvantage – 2000 .000 .856

White Advantage – 2000 .440 .492

Black Advantage – 2000 -.130 .937

Latino Advantage – 2000 -.143 .831

Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Stability

1980 to 2000 Transitioned .276 .447 Remained White .574 .494 Remained Black .053 .225 Remained Latino .013 .112 Remained White-Black .039 .195 Remained White-Latino .033 .178 Remained Latino-Black .009 .002

Demographic Central city .365 .481 Proportion foreign born 6.911 7.868 Population 3486.171 1669.164 Population Change 61.158 166.786 Socioeconomic Concentrated disadvantage 1980 .000 .841 Median Income 1980 – adjusted to 41703.278 14446.062 2000 dollars % Change in median income 18.924 30.356 Black-White poverty inequality 1.451 4.162 Latino-White poverty inequality 1.376 2.681 Black-Latino poverty inequality 1.052 2.614 Continued

76 Table 3.2 Continued Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 68.588 165.457 Proportion owner occupied 68.227 22.906 Proportion recent mover 54.122 16.010

Region - Northeast .230 .421 - South .311 .463 - Midwest .235 .424 - West .224 .417 Population change 30.031 27.912 Black-White growth difference -6.644 30.883 Latino-White growth difference -14.393 44.748 Black-Latino growth difference .836 4.990 Proportion Foreign Born 7.120 6.268 Change in proportion foreign born 87.524 84.163 Black-White poverty inequality 3.262 1.137

Latino-White poverty inequality 2.543 1.202

Black-Latino Poverty Inequality 1.422 .712 Black-White dissimilarity index 69.714 12.821 Latino-White dissimilarity index 44.206 12.345 Latino-Black dissimilarity index 60.306 13.117

77 Chapter 4

Patterns and Sources of Change in Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Integration

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I begin the process of assessing the suitability of long-term racial ethnic integration as a policy initiative given theoretical arguments about the racialized context of the U.S. social order. Prior to examining the character of long-term integrated neighborhoods (i.e., their associated social and economic outcomes), we must first understand the degree to which long-term racial/ethnic integration actually occurs, and the factors that significantly impact the odds that a neighborhood will become or remain integrated. The extent to which long-term racial integration is possible, given broader societal factors and constraints, plays a substantial role in determining the range of potential impact (positive, negative, or negligible) on neighborhood and group-level racial inequality. I begin by providing a descriptive portrait of patterns and changes in racial and ethnic neighborhood integration in U.S. metropolitan areas between 1980 and

2000, followed by results for models that specify the significant factors responsible for promoting or maintaining integration. The questions I ask in this chapter are simple, yet provide detailed information about national trends in metropolitan neighborhood integration. How many neighborhoods were racially integrated during the two decades?

Who actually lived in these neighborhoods? What happened to these neighborhoods –

did they stay the same or change over time? And finally, why did some stay the same

and others change?

To address these questions, I employ both descriptive and analytic methods.

First, I describe the prevalence of homogenous and integrated neighborhoods in 1980,

1990, and 2000. Second, I examine the degree to which these neighborhoods transition or remain similar in racial/ethnic composition over the two decades. Throughout the chapter, I place particular emphasis on the necessity to ensure the results are interpreted within the broader context of where individuals live and how much individual-level change occurs within neighborhoods. I do this by including an individual-level assessment of the proportion of Latinos, Whites, and Blacks in metropolitan America that

live in the various neighborhoods. Additionally, I assess overall neighborhood

population and race-specific population change within long term integrated

neighborhoods. Finally, I specifiy multinomial hierarchical models to estimate the odds

an integrated or homogenous neighborhood in 1980 remained the same or transitioned to

some other type of neighborhood in 2000.

4.2 The Prevalence of Racial and Ethnic Neighborhood Integration – 1980 to 2000

How common was integration?

Table 4.1 presents frequency distributions of racial and ethnic neighborhood types for 1980, 1990, and 2000. It is immediately clear that racial/ethnic integration was not particularly common. The vast majority of neighborhoods were homogonous across the two decades. However, the proportion of neighborhoods dominated by a single group declined from 82.7% of all tracts in 1980 to 77.9% in 1990 and decreased again to 70.8%

79 in 2000. This is due exclusively to a large decline in the proportion of White areas.

While three-quarters of neighborhoods were predominantly White in 1980, this is the case for just 58% of areas in 2000. At the same time, Latino dominated areas increased

substantially, with the number nearly tripling across the two decades, from 570 to 1649.

The percentage and overall number of predominantly Black and Other neighborhoods

also increased slightly during this period.

It is also clear that the proportion of integrated neighborhoods grew over time. In

2000, almost 30% of neighborhoods were integrated compared to just under 17% in

1980. Neighborhoods comprised predominantly of two groups were the most common form of integration, increasing from just 16.4% of neighborhoods in 1980 to 26.4% in

2000. In both decades, Latino-White and Black-White were the most numerous by a large margin. The prevalence of each also increased over the decades, with this growth being particularly sizeable for White-Latino areas. The percentage of White-Latino areas increased from 6.9% to 10.9%. White-Black neighborhoods increased from 7.5% to

9.4%. Black-Latino (2.6%) and White-Other (2.6%) neighborhoods were much less

common, though both more than doubled in number over the two decades. Though relatively rare as a whole, the percentage of three-group neighborhoods grew substantially from .9% to 2.8% of all neighborhoods. There were virtually no four-group

neighborhoods throughout the twenty year period.

Who Lived in These Neighborhoods?

The results in Table 4.1 show the distribution of neighborhoods by race-ethnic

type for the three decades. It is important to contextualize these patterns by assessing

where individuals actually lived. In this section, I address the question of what

80 percentage of individuals overall, and Blacks, Latinos, and Whites specifically, actually

lived in each of these neighborhood types.

Table 4.2 presents frequency distributions of the percentage of individuals, overall and by

race/ethnicity, living in each of the homogenous and integrated contexts for 1980 and

2000. Not surprisingly, the overall individual-level patterns largely mirror the neighborhood-level results. The results in columns 1 and 5 indicate that the majority of individuals lived in the most common forms of homogenous and integrated contexts in

1980 and 2000 – White, Black, Latino, White-Latino, White-Black, and Latino-Black. In

1980, fully 98.1% of all individuals in the sample resided in one of these six

neighborhood types. In 2000, fully 92.9% of all individuals were represented in one of

these types of neighborhoods.

Second, the majority of individuals lived in single-group neighborhoods in both

decades, though the proportion dropped somewhat over time. In 1980, 82.5% of

individuals lived in homogenous neighborhoods and 17.5% lived in integrated

neighborhoods. In 2000, the proportion of individuals living in homogenous

neighborhoods dropped to 70.4%, and the proportion living in integrated neighborhoods

grew to 29.6%.

When examining the racial/ethnic distribution of individuals across the areas,

located in columns 2-4 and 6-8 of the table, several noteworthy patterns emerge. First,

all racial/ethnic groups were more likely to reside in integrated neighborhood types in

2000 than they were in 1980. However, Whites were substantially less likely than Blacks

and Latinos to reside in integrated contexts, with just 10.8% in 1980 and 19.4% in 2000

located in integrated neighborhoods. In contrast, 35.2% of Blacks in 1980 and 44.2% in

81 2000 lived in integrated neighborhoods. Latinos were the most likely in 1980 and 2000 to live in an integrated neighborhood (50.8% and 53.2%, respectively).

Not surprisingly then, Whites were substantially more likely to reside with

residents of their same racial/ethnic background than both Blacks and Latinos. In 1980, close to 90% of Whites lived in predominantly White contexts, and nearly 80% did so twenty years later. The patterns for Blacks and Latinos contrast sharply with those for

Whites. Nearly 50% of Blacks in 1980 and about 37% in 2000 lived in mainly Black areas. Latinos were the least likely of the three groups to live in same-group neighborhoods, with just 16.4% in 1980 and 26.1% in 2000 living in predominantly

Latino areas. However, though least likely to live in same-group neighborhoods compared to Blacks and Whites, Latinos were the only group in which the percentage likely to do so increased between 1980 and 2000. This pattern may not be surprising in light of evidence of growth in Latino-White residential segregation during this time period (Iceland 2009; Charles 2003).

It is important to note the significance of the above results in relation to those presented in Table 4.1. They suggest the decline in the number and percentage of predominantly White neighborhoods revealed in Table 4.1, from 74.8% to 58.5%, is not

necessarily indicative of a substantial decline in the concentration of Whites over the two

decades. The shift in the percentage of Whites living in integrated neighborhoods did not

match the shift in the declining percentage of primarily White neighborhoods. While the

change in the number of primarily White neighborhoods was -27.8%, the change in the

number of individual Whites living in mainly White areas was only -11.6%; a difference

of over 16%. This is significant, as despite the increase in the number of integrated

82 neighborhoods shared by Whites and Blacks and Latinos, most Whites continued to live

primarily with other Whites in both 1980 and 2000. Similarly, though the figures in

Table 4.1 also suggest a slight increase in the number and percentage of Black neighborhoods (from 6.3% to 7.7%), the results in Table 4.2 show a decline in the percentage of Blacks who live in neighborhoods comprised primarily of Blacks (from

48.8% to 36.8%).

Another important pattern in Table 4.2 pertaining to homogenous neighborhoods involves the presence of the small but notable percentage of Blacks and Latinos who lived in predominantly White areas. While a negligible portion (less than 1%) of Whites

lived in Black or Latino neighborhoods, a considerable percentage of Blacks and Latinos

lived in predominantly White areas in both decades. Specifically, almost 16% of Blacks

lived in White neighborhoods in 1980 and over 17% did so in 2000; 30% of Latinos in

1980 and 19% in 2000 lived in White contexts. It is unclear though, whether this is

indicative of White neighborhoods on the path to future integration, or instead, the long-

term presence of a “token” representation of Blacks or Latinos in these neighborhoods.

A final noteworthy pattern in Table 4.2 is the concentration of Whites in a few

neighborhood types, and the spread of Blacks and Latinos across more types of areas.

Columns 2 and 6 in Table 4.2 show that over 98% of Whites in 1980 and nearly 95% in

2000 lived in just three neighborhood types - White, White-Latino, and White-Black. In

contrast, nearly 99% of Blacks in 1980 and over 94% in 2000 were spread across six

neighborhood types – Black, White-Black, White, Latino-Black, White-Latino, and

White-Black-Latino. Latinos were spread across the largest number of contexts. In

1980, 97.2% of Latinos, were spread more heavily across seven contexts - White-Latino,

83 White, Latino, Latino-Black, White-Black, Black, and White-Black-Latino. The percentage increased slightly to 97.8% in 2000.

While Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show a clear increase between 1980 and 2000 in the proportion of integrated neighborhoods and the number of individuals living in them, they do not indicate whether or not neighborhoods integrated in 1980 remained so in

2000. In the next section, I address this question, asking: how have the neighborhoods transitioned across the decades?

4.3 Racial and Ethnic Stability and Change in Metropolitan Neighborhoods

How common was long-term integration?

Table 4.3 presents a transition matrix of U.S. racial and ethnic neighborhood change between 1980 and 2000. Neighborhoods examined include only those that were one of the six most common neighborhood types in 1980 – White, Black, Latino, White-

Latino, White-Black, and Latino-Black.1 These neighborhoods represent fully 98.1% of all metropolitan neighborhoods and 98.1% of all individuals in 1980.2 All potential trajectories of change are considered for these six neighborhood types, as represented in the fifteen distinct categories in the columns of the matrix. Each cell represents the proportion of neighborhoods that were a particular type in 1980 (the row category) and a particular type in 2000 (the column category). The values in bold along the diagonal represent long-term stability, indicating the proportions of neighborhoods in 1980 that were classified the same way in 2000. The values in the off diagonal represent the

1 The additional tables section at the end of Chapter 4 presents a full transition matrix inclusive of all 15 neighborhood types. 2 These percentages are calculated from results presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2. 84 proportions of transitioning (or unstable) neighborhoods in 1980 that took one of fourteen other possible trajectories.

It is immediately clear from the table that there is considerable variation in whether different types of neighborhoods in 1980 remained stable in type or transitioned to another type in 2000. When comparing single-group and integrated neighborhoods as a whole, integrated neighborhoods appear significantly less stable than single-group neighborhoods. Namely, 88.6% of Latino, nearly 85% of Black, and over 76% of White neighborhoods in the sample in 1980 remained single-race neighborhoods in 2000. For integrated neighborhoods, patterns of stability depended on the neighborhood type, ranging from 47.3% to 72.1% in the sample of two-group neighborhoods. Only about half of White-Latino (47.3%) and White-Black neighborhoods (52.4%) in 1980 remained integrated in 2000. Of all the two-group neighborhoods, Latino-Black contexts experienced the least amount of transition, with 72.1% remaining stable (just 5% less than White only neighborhoods).

While the results above suggest great variation in the odds of maintaining racial/ethnic stability across two decades, depending on the type of neighborhood, we do not know from these tables how much, if any, population and racial/ethnic change occurred within racially stable neighborhoods. Table 4.4 presents the median proportional and numeric neighborhood population change in racially and ethnically stable neighborhoods. As a whole, substantial flux – either growth or decline - is evident across all the neighborhood types. Black and White-Black contexts declined in population size, while all other contexts experienced growth. Among the stable integrated contexts with Whites, White-loss occurred in both White-Black (25% on

85 average) and White-Latino (19% on average) areas. The impact of this loss, coupled with

concurrent growth of Blacks and Latinos, was not sufficient to alter the classification of

these neighborhoods as stable. However, these patterns support the depiction of

integrated neighborhoods in the urban literature, even seemingly stable ones, as characterized by White-loss.

What happened to unstable neighborhoods?

For those neighborhoods that experienced sufficient growth or decline in representation of racial and ethnic groups to alter the classification of the neighborhood over time, what happened? Specifically, what were the most common forms of change for previously homogenous and integrated areas? Cells off of the diagonal in Table 4.3

show the many paths unstable neighborhoods took. Unstable White neighborhoods were

most likely to become either White-Latino (9.9%) or White-Black (7.0%). The majority

of Black neighborhoods that transitioned between 1980 and 2000 became Latino-Black

(10.7%) with the next most common change being to White-Black contexts (3.3%).

Unstable Latino neighborhoods most likely became either White-Latino (4.9%), Latino-

Black (3.2%), or Latino-Other (2.6%).

Among the sample of two-group neighborhoods, the majority of change was

characterized by transition from an integrated to a single-group context, though in several

cases more than a negligible number of areas transitioned from one integrated context to

another. For unstable Latino-White neighborhoods, a large proportion became Latino

(32.5%), though about 5% become White or White-Other. While the most common form

of change for formerly Black-White neighborhoods was to become Black (24.3% of

86 cases), over 10% became White. The majority of unstable Latino-Black neighborhoods

that transitioned became Latino (17.9%), while just 3.3% became Black.

4.4 Why Did Neighborhoods Become Integrated, Become Homogenous, or Stay the Same?

The first three sections of Chapter 4 examined the prevalence and stability of homogenous and integrated neighborhoods from 1980 to 2000, as well as the population distribution and change within them. The results showed that integrated neighborhoods were quite unstable compared to homogenous neighborhoods – particularly White-Black and White-Latino areas which had a near 50% chance of transitioning to a homogenous neighborhood over the period. On the other hand, homogenous neighborhoods were primarily stable, with just a small proportion transitioning to integrated contexts. The question that remains is what explains the variation in the durability of these integrated and homogenous neighborhoods? Why did some of these communities experience racial and ethnic flux, while others remained racially ethnically stable? What factors increased

the odds that an integrated neighborhood remained so over time? Were there meaningful

differences between those integrated neighborhoods able to remain constant over the long

haul compared to those that changed?

In the second half of this chapter, I address these questions by examining the

neighborhood and metropolitan characteristics associated with stability and instability

between 1980 and 2000 for the most common homogenous and integrated

neighborhoods. In particular, I assess whether the socioeconomic characterization of

these communities played a significant role in predicting their likelihood to change or

87 stay the same. If the socioeconomic characterization of a neighborhood is important net

of other factors, how does it matter for the different communities?

First, I examine the socioeconomic distribution of racially stable neighborhoods, both integrated and homogenous, in 1980. Next, the analytical analyses are comprised of multinomial hierarchical linear models to assess the demographic, housing, and soceioeconomic factors that predict the likelihood that neighborhoods remained racially and ethnically stable over time. My primary goal is to determine the relationship between disadvantage/advantage and neighborhood racial/ethnic stability and change, net of other factors. Here, I focus on the most common forms of integrated and homogenous neighborhoods across the two decades – White, Black, White-Black, and White-Latino neighborhoods. The first set of models examines the relationship between advantage/disadvantage and stability between 1980 and 2000 for neighborhoods that were integrated in 1980, net of important demographic and housing factors at the metropolitan and neighborhood level. The second set of models examines the relationship between advantage/disadvantage and transitioning from a homogenous

neighborhood in 1980, to an integrated neighborhood in 2000, net of important demographic and housing factors at the metropolitan and neighborhood level.

4.5 The Socioeconomic Character of Racially/Ethnically Durable Neighborhoods

Table 4.5 presents a frequency distribution of the economic classification in 1980

of the neighborhoods that were racially/ethnically durable between the two time points.

Middle Advantaged neighborhoods are those within one standard deviation below or

above the mean disadvantage level of all metropolitan neighborhoods in the U.S. in 1980.

88 Disadvantaged neighborhoods are those with disadvantage scores at or below one

standard deviation from the mean for all neighborhoods. Advantaged neighborhoods are

considered as those with disadvantage scores at or above one standard deviation from the

mean for all neighborhoods.3

The first three rows in the table look at patterns for homogenous White, Black,

and Latino neighborhoods. The bottom three rows examine the patterns for integrated

White-Latino, White-Black, and Latino-Black neighborhoods. As a whole, results follow

theoretical expectations. The first row of Table 4.5 shows that nearly 99% of White

neighborhoods were moderately or highly advantaged in 1980. For all other neighborhoods, a hierarchical patterning of advantage is clear, with those partially comprised of Whites at the top, and neighborhoods with few Whites at the bottom.

Specifically, in both decades, the majority of integrated neighborhoods with many Whites

(White-Latino and White-Black) were substantially more advantaged than neighborhoods comprised mainly of Latinos or Blacks. For example, 83.8% of White-Latino neighborhoods in 1980, and 70.9% of White-Black neighborhoods in 1980, were middle or highly advantaged. In stark contrast, the majority (63.7%) of Latino neighborhoods were disadvantaged in 1980, as were over four fifths of Black neighborhoods (81.5%).

Finally, integrated Latino-Black neighborhoods were the most disadvantaged in 1980;

91.9% had very high levels of disadvantage.

These patterns suggest that integrated neighborhoods, so long as they are comprised partially of Whites, do appear to be more socioeconomically advantageous environments for Blacks and Latinos compared to predominantly Black and Latino

3 See Chapter 3 for more detail about how the disadvantage index and scale was constructed. 89 neighborhoods. However, Table 4.5 also suggests a racially hierarchical patterning of the

relationship between advantage and disadvantage for racially stable neighborhoods. As

predicted by the race theory explicated in Chapter 2, neighborhoods with Whites are the most advantaged, neighborhoods with Blacks the least advantaged, and neighborhoods with Latinos situated somewhere in the middle. The presumed economic advantage for

integrated neighborhoods with Blacks and Latinos compared to their homogenous

counterparts holds, as long as a large proportion of Whites are also present in these

integrated settings. The case of Latino-Black neighborhoods, which were the most stable

both racially and economically in terms of disadvantage, further demonstrates this is the

case.

Yet, conclusions from these descriptive analyses are limited for several reasons.

It is important to remember that, as revealed in Chapter 4, only approximately 47% of

White-Latino and 52% of White-Black neighborhoods in 1980 remained so in 2000. To completely understand the relationship between advantage/disadvantage and neighborhood racial stability and change, we must assess whether the neighborhoods included in the descriptive table are meaningfully different from those not included - transitioning contexts. Specifically, we must examine how advantage/disadvantage is associated with neighborhoods with Blacks, Whites, and Latinos that remain homogenous, become integrated, remain integrated, or become homogenous. It is possible that, controlling for important neighborhood and metropolitan demographic and housing factors, the presumed advantage associated with stable White-Black and stable

White-Latino neighborhoods, may disappear. In the next section, I address this issue

90 through analytical models predicting stability and change for White-Black, White-Latino,

White, and Black neighborhoods.

4.6 Integrated Neighborhoods, Advantage/Disadvantage, and Racial/Ethnic Stability and Change

Table 4.6 presents results from the hierarchical multinomial logit analyses predicting White-Black neighborhood change between 1980 and 2000. The table is comprised of two columns of results, as the dependent variable is a categorical change variable where 0=became Black, 1=became White, and 2=remained stable (the reference category). The coefficients in column 1 specify the likelihood that a Black-White neighborhood in 1980 became Black in 2000 instead of remaining Black-White. The coefficients in column 2 specify the likelihood that Became White neighborhood in 1980 became White in 2000 instead of remaining Black-White.

The multivariate analyses reveal several interesting patterns. First, net of demographic, housing, and metropolitan characteristics, integrated Black-White neighborhoods in 1980 with lower levels of disadvantage were more likely to transition to White neighborhoods than remain integrated. More disadvantaged Black-White neighborhoods were more likely to transition to Black neighborhoods than remain integrated. Black-White neighborhoods with more racial inequality in poverty rates were more likely to remain integrated than become Black. This supports Nyden, Maly, and

Lukehart’s (1997) argument that greater economic heterogeneity may foster stable integration.

In terms of other neighborhood factors, White-Black neighborhoods were more likely to become Black and less likely to become White (than remain integrated) when

91 located in the central city. Black-White neighborhoods with more homeowners and less

population turnover were more likely to become Black than to remain stable. While this

may contradict the idea that homeownership fosters stability, some argue that White

homeowners may feel particularly sensitive to diversity in their neighborhood if they are

prejudiced or hold stereotypical views associated with Black neighbors (Harris 1999,

2001; Ellen 2000). Whites may actually be more likely to leave integrated contexts

because of perceived concerns over their financial investment (Ellen 2000). Finally,

Black-White neighborhoods with more housing growth were more likely to become

White than remain stable.

Results for the metropolitan controls show that Black-White neighborhoods

located in the Northeast, Midwest, and South were less likely to become White and more

likely to become Black than remain stable than those neighborhoods in the West. For

neighborhoods in the South, it is possible that this may be a simple function of the lower

proportion of Black residents in Southern metropolitan areas (see Krivo and Kaufman

1999).4 Black-White neighborhoods situated in metropolitan areas with higher levels of

racial inequality in poverty and Black-White segregation were more likely to become

Black than remain stable. Higher levels of immigrants in 1980 as well as increases in the

flow of immigrants in metropolitan areas are both positively associated with Black-White

neighborhoods becoming Black as opposed to remaining integrated. This contradicts the

argument that Latino and Asian immigrants may serve as a buffer between Blacks and

Whites in metropolitan areas, fostering less segregation (Iceland 2009), and supports the

4 I was not able to control for proportion Black at the metropolitan level because of insufficient variation across the metropolitan areas in the sample of Black-White neighborhoods that became White, Black, or remained integrated between 1980 and 2000. 92 argument that increases in Latino and Asian immigrants may actually impede integration as Whites are pushed past their fixed tolerance for minority contact (Krivo and Kaufman

1999). Finally, as expected, Black-White neighborhoods were more likely to transition to

Black contexts as opposed to remaining stable when located in more segregated metropolitan areas.

Table 4.7 presents results from the same model for neighborhoods that were

Latino-White in 1980. The dependent variable represents the most common racial/ethnic trajectories for Latino-White neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000 – remaining Latino-

White, becoming Latino, or becoming White. Results for the Latino-White sample largely mirror those for the Black-White sample, with a few exceptions. Most importantly, as with Black-White neighborhoods, disadvantage seems to undermine integration while integration is reinforced by economic inequality between Whites and

Latinos. More highly disadvantaged Latino-White neighborhoods were more likely to become Latino than remain stable. Those with lower levels of disadvantage were more likely to become White. Neighborhoods with more residential instability were also more- likely to become Latino than remain integrated. However, in contrast to Black-White neighborhoods, Latino-White neighborhoods in the central city were no more likely to transition to Latino or White contexts than remain integrated. Also, neighborhoods with more immigrants were more likely to become Latino than remain integrated. Those with relatively fewer immigrants in 1980 were more likely to remain integrated than become

White. Finally, neighborhoods with a higher proportion of homeowners were more likely to become Latino or remain integrated than become White.

93 Metropolitan level controls for Latino-White neighborhood change differed somewhat from those important for Black-White neighborhoods. Similar to the Black-

White models, higher levels of segregation increased the likelihood that a Latino-White neighborhood became Latino. Unlike Black-White neighborhoods, racial/ethnic poverty inequality at the metropolitan level had no effect on neighborhood transition for Latino-

White neighborhoods. Additionally, region is mostly not significant for the Latino-White models in contrast to the Black-White models. Surprisingly, the proportion of immigrants in the metropolitan area had no significant effect on the likelihood that a neighborhood became Latino or remained Latino-White (though change in immigration is significant).

4.7 Homogenous Neighborhoods, Advantage/Disadvantage, and Racial/Ethnic Stability and Change

Table 4.8 presents results from the multivariate analyses predicting White neighborhood change between 1980 and 2000, with stability as the reference category.

Column 1 presents coefficients for neighborhoods that became White-Black versus remaining stable, and column 2 presents coefficients for neighborhoods that became

White-Latino versus remaining stable. Coefficients have the same type of meaning as in the previous two tables; coefficients specify the likelihood that a neighborhood remained homogenous or became integrated over the two decades.

The multivariate analyses reveal several important patterns. Most importantly, net of demographic, housing, and metropolitan factors, White neighborhoods were more likely to become integrated White-Black or White-Latino than remain White, if they were more disadvantaged in 1980. Conversely, less disadvantaged White neighborhoods were

94 more likely to remain White than become integrated. Additionally, White neighborhoods

in the central city with fewer homeowners and more Black-White poverty inequality were

more likely to become White-Black than remain White. White neighborhoods were also more likely to become White-Latino than remain White if they were located in the central

city with fewer homeowners and more Latino-White poverty inequality. Neighborhoods with more racial inequality in poverty rates, less homeownership, and less growth in the housing market, were more likely to become White-Black than remain White. Finally, neighborhoods with a growing housing market were more likely to remain White than become integrated.

At the metropolitan level, neighborhoods in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely to become White-Black than remain White, but less likely to become White-

Latino than remain White than those in the West. White neighborhoods in the South were also more likely to become White-Black than remain White compared to those in the West, but were no more or less likely than those in the West to become White-Latino or remain White. White neighborhoods in metropolitan areas with declining population, more Black-White poverty inequality, more Black-White growth difference, and more

Latino-White growth difference were more likely to become Black-White than remain

White. Finally, White neighborhoods in metropolitan areas in 1980 with more population growth, more immigrants in 1980 and growth in immigrants over the two decades, more

Latino-White segregation, and more Latino-White growth difference, were more likely to become Latino-White than remain White.

Table 4.9 presents results from the multivariate analyses predicting Black neighborhood change between 1980 and 2000, with stability as the reference category.

95 Column 1 presents coefficients for neighborhoods that became White-Black versus

remaining Black, and column 2 presents coefficients for neighborhoods that became

Latino-Black versus remaining Black. Most importantly, results indicate a clear

relationship of disadvantage being associated with greater odds of a neighborhood

remaining Black or becoming Latino-Black.

Furthermore, neighborhoods outside of the central city, with a greater share of

immigrants, growth in housing units, and less homeowners were more likely to become

White-Black than remain Black. It is possible, given the larger share of immigrants, that

these neighborhoods are not African American but Black immigrant neighborhoods.

Black neighborhoods in metropolitan areas in the West were more likely to become either

White-Black or Latino-Black than those in any other region. Neighborhoods in metropolitan areas with more immigration were more likely to remain Black than become

White-Black.5

4.8 Discussion and Conclusion

The analyses in this chapter delineate the complicated nature of patterns of

neighborhood integration and change in metropolitan America between 1980 and 2000.

As a whole the story of metropolitan neighborhood racial and ethnic change appears to be

characterized best by one of flux. Table 4.4 showed that even seemingly stable

neighborhoods experienced marked fluctuations in population size and character. All of

these findings cast doubt on the simple conclusion that metropolitan neighborhoods are

increasingly racially and ethnically diverse; they may be, but potentially only for a period

5 As a result of lack of significant variation in outcomes and several level-2 controls, it was not possible to fit models for Latino and Latino-Black neighborhoods. 96 of time. This signifies potentially serious problems with simple assertions about the rise

of neighborhood integration and associated benefits for Blacks and Latinos.

Even so, at the most basic level, single-group areas remained the norm, with over

two-thirds characterized as such during the time period, it appears that a greater

proportion of neighborhoods were integrated in 2000 (29.2%) than in 1980 (17.3%).

However, when these patterns are further deconstructed and interpreted within the

broader context of the subsequent analyses presented in the chapter, a more complicated

story begins to emerge.

First, it may appear, from the drop in the proportion and number of largely White

neighborhoods in Table 4.1, that White concentration has also similarly sharply declined.

However, the results in Table 4.2 show otherwise. Whites continued to remain

significantly more likely to reside mostly with other Whites in 2000; the small rate of

change in the distribution of Whites in predominantly White neighborhoods did not

match the larger rate of change in the number and proportion of White neighborhoods.

Interestingly, a considerable proportion of Blacks and Latinos were also likely to

reside in homogenous neighborhoods. However, unlike the patterns for Whites, this

includes same-group as well as different-group (White) homogenous contexts. While

slightly over 50% of Blacks and 46% of Latinos lived in single-group neighborhoods in

2000, a substantial proportion of these individuals (over 17% of Blacks and over 25% of

Latinos) lived in predominantly White neighborhoods. Table 4.4 also indicates that, on average, long-term White neighborhoods were characterized by Black population growth and Latino population growth. While the segregation literature has understandably

focused on segregated Black or Latino neighborhoods in studies of neighborhood

97 inequality and the consequences of long-term residential segregation for minorities, Table

4.2 shows that nearly 74% of Latinos and over 63% of Blacks lived in contexts other

than same-group neighborhoods in 2000. These findings highlight the necessity of

accounting for the actual neighborhoods where large portions of historically subordinated group members reside when studying group or neighborhood-level inequality. For my dissertation specifically, this finding highlights the necessity to compare the social and economic character of the full range of homogenous and integrated settings where these group members are likely to reside.

One of the most important findings from the chapter, when contemplating the larger dissertation question about the validity of stable integration as a beneficial policy initiative, pertains to the odds an integrated neighborhood in one decade will remain so two decades later. Though more neighborhoods became integrated, homogenous neighborhoods as a whole were significantly more stable than integrated neighborhoods.

Approximately 50% of the most common integrated areas in 1980, Black-White and

Latino-White neighborhoods, remained so in 2000. Latino-Black neighborhoods, increasing in number and proportion but still only 2.6% of all neighborhoods in 2000, were significantly more stable than Black-White and Latino-White areas; over 72% remained Latino-Black over the two decades. These findings suggest that both stability and instability are nearly equally likely in cases of integration of non-Whites with Whites in neighborhoods, and that cases of integration between non-White groups are much more likely to remain stable than cases with Whites and non-Whites.

It is difficult to know how to interpret the implication that Black-White and

Latino-White neighborhoods, the most common form of neighborhood integration in the

98 United States, likely have a fifty-fifty chance of remaining integrated long-term. Is this a

positive finding (a fifty percent chance) or negative (only a fifty percent chance). The multivariate results in the second half of the chapter help to begin to answer this question

by assessing how levels of advantage/disadvantage, one important feature of neighborhood quality, predicted whether or not neighborhoods remained stable or transitioned.

Collectively, the multivariate results in Tables 4.6-4.9 present a clear association between advantage and the presence of Whites in neighborhoods. This is not surprising.

The analyses revealed a striking pattern for both Latino-White and Black-White neighborhoods: more advantaged integrated neighborhoods were more likely to transition to predominantly White contexts than remain stable, and the more disadvantaged contexts were more likely to transition to Latino or Black contexts. These findings suggest neighborhood advantage may undermine integration and maintain White segregation.

Disadvantage may foster integration for previously homogeneous White neighborhoods, and maintain segregation for homogenous Black neighborhoods. Despite the higher mean levels of advantage revealed in the descriptive tables for racially stable White-

Black and White-Latino neighborhoods compared to Black and Latino neighborhoods,

the statistical models call into question any generalized assertion of a positive

relationship between socioeconomic advantage and long term racial/ethnic integration.

Simply put, these patterns contradict the framing of integration as a means of reducing

the deleterious consequences associated with segregated Black and Latino

neighborhoods, as integrated neighborhoods that are more advantaged are less likely to

remain integrated over time.

99 The analysis in this chapter provides a useful starting point to assess the

socioeconomic and social consequences associated with integration for Blacks, Whites,

and Latinos. The results demonstrate that advantage may undermine stability for Black-

White and Latino-White neighborhoods, and foster stability for White neighborhoods.

However, the multivariate analyses are limited in several ways. First, they only focus on

four of the six most common racial/ethnic neighborhood types in the United States in

1980 and 2000; I was unable to estimate odds that Latino and Latino-Black

neighborhoods remained the same or changed because of data limitations.

Second, how do we interpret the finding that at least one form of integration, that

between Blacks and Latinos, is incredibly durable? Are long-term Latino-Black

neighborhoods the “success story” simply in that they are so likely to remain integrated

compared to White-Black and Latino-White neighborhoods? We must learn more about

the social and economic character of these neighborhoods before any such assertions can

be made.

Finally, and most importantly, the analyses do not indicate how neighborhoods

with Blacks, Latinos, and Whites, as well as the group members themselves in these

neighborhoods, actually fare, when compared to transitioning and homogenous contexts.

To address these issues, a different analytical strategy must be employed, in which the dependent variable must shift from neighborhood change to some type of measure of advantage or disadvantage at a particular point in time (with independent controls for

earlier points in time). Chapter 5 adopts this approach, and explores these questions, by

comparing the 2000 socioeconomic characterization of racially stable neighborhoods and

100 their group members (between 1980 and 2000) with racially unstable neighborhoods and their group members.

101

Table 4.1 Distribution of U.S. Metropolitan Racial/Ethnic Neighborhoods 1980-2000*

1980 1990 2000 N % N % N % White 29953 74.8 27344 68.3 23439 58.5 Black 2514 6.3 2721 6.8 3092 7.7 Latino 570 1.4 1043 2.6 1649 4.1 Other 77 0.2 94 0.2 183 0.5 Homogenous subtotal 33114 82.7 31202 77.9 28363 70.8

White & Latino 2765 6.9 3303 8.2 4367 10.9 White & Black 3014 7.5 3372 8.4 3764 9.4 Latino & Black 476 1.2 740 1.8 1048 2.6 White & Other 267 0.7 580 1.4 1023 2.6 Latino & Other 26 0.1 152 0.4 310 0.8 Black & Other 8 <.01 31 0.1 43 0.1 Integrated two-group subtotal 6556 16.4 8178 20.3 10555 26.4

White, Black, & Latino 220 0.5 315 0.8 579 1.4 White, Black, & Other 32 0.1 44 0.1 79 0.2 Black, Latino, & Other 6 <.01 25 0.1 65 0.2 White, Latino, & Other 117 0.3 271 0.7 391 1.0 Integrated three-group subtotal 375 0.9 655 1.7 1114 2.8

White, Black, Latino & Other 2 <.01 12 <.01 15 <.01

Total 40047 100 40047 100 40047 100 *White, Black, and Other refer to non-Latino White, non-Latino Black, and non-Latino Other

102

Table 4.2 Total Percentage of Individual Whites, Blacks, and Latinos Represented in Each Neighborhood Type -1980 and 2000 1980 2000 Total % % % Total % % % %

% All Whites Blacks Latinos All Whites Blacks Latinos White 74.06 88.47 15.62 30.09 59.49 79.36 17.36 19.01 Black 6.68 0.48 48.80 2.65 5.71 0.51 36.78 1.53 Latino 1.53 0.21 0.43 16.44 4.75 0.67 1.50 26.13 Other 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.46 0.08 0.11 0.24

White & Latino 6.76 4.52 2.11 35.00 11.81 8.65 5.17 31.58 White & Black 7.73 5.31 25.91 3.62 8.61 6.73 24.76 3.27 Latino & Black 1.26 0.11 4.85 7.00 2.61 0.28 8.23 8.04 White & Other 0.70 0.42 0.25 0.74 2.58 2.06 0.84 1.61 Latino & Other 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.44 0.88 0.15 0.36 2.63 Black & Other 0.02 <.01 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.25 0.08

White, Black, & 0.60 0.25 1.54 2.40 1.54 0.79 3.31 3.20 Latino White, Black, & 0.07 0.03 0.19 0.09 0.19 0.11 0.41 0.13 Other Black, Latino, & 0.02 <.01 0.04 0.07 0.19 0.03 0.40 0.38 Other White, Latino, & 0.32 0.15 0.13 1.32 1.05 0.55 0.43 2.13 Other

At least 20% All 0.01 <.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.06

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

103

Table 4.4 Median Metropolitan Neighborhood Population Size and Change in Racially Stable Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 (N=28851)

1980 population Racially Stable ΔTotal ΔWhite ΔBlack ΔLatino (1) Neighborhoods (2) (3) (4) (5)

14% 6% 286% 205% 3342 White (479) (203) (47) (73)

Black -22% -62% -21% -12% 3503 (-743) (-46) (-667) (-1) 104 15% -48% -16% 22%

… 3688 Latino (530) (-138) (-1) (648)

25% -19% 123% 107% 3322 White-Latino (853) (-309) (50) (1088)

-5% -25% 13% 107% 3310 White-Black (-155) (-391) (153) (39)

9% -53% -16% 37% 3348 Latino-Black (231) (-71) (-231) (512)

ⁿ N=28,851 τ The top values reported in the cells in columns 2-5 represents the Median % population change for the specified group between 1980 and 2000. The bottom values reported in the cells is the median numeric change in the population size for the specified group between 1980 and 2000.

Table 4.4 Median Metropolitan Neighborhood Population Size and Change in Racially Stable Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000 (N=28851)

1980 population Racially Stable ΔTotal ΔWhite ΔBlack ΔLatino (1) Neighborhoods (2) (3) (4) (5)

14% 6% 286% 205% 3342 White (479) (203) (47) (73)

Black -22% -62% -21% -12% 3503 (-743) (-46) (-667) (-1) 105 15% -48% -16% 22%

… 3688 Latino (530) (-138) (-1) (648)

25% -19% 123% 107% 3322 White-Latino (853) (-309) (50) (1088)

-5% -25% 13% 107% 3310 White-Black (-155) (-391) (153) (39)

9% -53% -16% 37% 3348 Latino-Black (231) (-71) (-231) (512)

Table 4.5 The 1980 Socioeconomic Classification of Racially Durable Neighborhood between 1980 and 2000

1980 Socioeconomic Classification

Racially Stable Disadvantaged Middle Advantaged Neighborhoods (1) (2) (3)

White 1.3% 85.5% 13.2%

Black 81.5% 18.4% .1%

Latino 63.7% 36.3% .0%

White-Latino 16.1% 81.1% 2.7%

White-Black 29.0% 69.8% 1.1%

Latino-Black 91.9% 8.1% .0%

106 Table 4.6 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan Black-White Integrated Neighborhood Change (Remained integrated is the reference category) ⁿτ Became Black Became White

Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Characteristics Socioeconomic Concentrated disadvantage 0.584 0.126** -0.697 0.163** Black-White poverty inequality -0.129 0.061* 0.018 0.020

Demographic Central city 1.018 0.280** -1.136 0.212** Proportion foreign born 0.018 0.022 -0.036 0.024

Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 -0.004 0.002 0.006 0.002* Proportion Owner Occupied 0.033 0.004** 0.001 0.004 Proportion Recent Mover 0.035 0.007** 0.006 0.008

Metropolitan Characteristics Region – Northeast 1.744 0.473** -1.425 0.513* Region – South 2.630 0.471** -1.330 0.479** Region – Midwest 1.390 0.476** -1.554 0.517** (West - ommitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth -0.011 0.005* 0.000 0.005 Proportion Foreign Born 0.160 0.030** 0.046 0.038 Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980- 0.003 0.001* 0.002 0.001 2000 Black-White poverty inequality 0.421 0.110** -0.143 0.142 Black-White growth difference 0.015 0.009 0.017 0.015 Black-White dissimilarity index 0.045 0.010** -0.012 0.010

Intercept -4.382 0.524 -.325 0.476 Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics τ Neighborhood level N=2616; Metropolitan level N=192

107 Table 4.7 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan Latino-White Integrated Neighborhood Change (Remained integrated is the reference category)ⁿτ

Became Latino Became White

Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Characteristics Socioeconomic Concentrated Disadvantage 2.057 0.313** -1.344 0.252** Latino-White poverty -0.379 0.103** 0.129 0.078

Demographic Central city 0.382 0.274 -0.425 0.408 Proportion Foreign Born 0.065 0.015** -0.057 0.018**

Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 -0.001 0.001 0.004 0.001** Proportion Owner Occupied 0.038 0.007** -0.050 0.008** Proportion Recent Mover 0.016 0.007* -0.012 0.017

Metropolitan Characteristics Region – Northeast 0.931 0.845 0.680 0.664 Region – South 1.190 0.328** -.904 0.525 Region – Midwest 1.054 0.768 2.625 0.778** (West - ommitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth 0.011 0.006 0.002 0.007 Proportion foreign born 0.040 0.039 0.023 0.033 Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980- 2000 0.010 0.003** 0.003 0.003 Latino-White Poverty Difference -0.029 0.258 0.509 0.339 Latino-White growth difference 0.082 0.058 0.111 0.110 Latino-White dissimilarity index 0.077 0.023** -0.047 0.029

Intercept -2.404 0.357** -3.479 0.480** Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics τ Neighborhood level N=2338; Metropolitan level N=98

108 Table 4.8 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan White Homogenous neighborhood Change (Remained White is the reference category) ⁿτ

Became White-Black Became White-Latino

Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Characteristics Socioeconomic Concentrated disadvantage 1.252 .143** 3.179 .213** Black-White poverty inequality .016 .004** .011 .008 Latino-White poverty inequality .020 .010* .024 .010*

Demographic Central city 1.138 .152** .501 .129** Proportion foreign born .029 .023 .047 .028

Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 -.002 .001** -.002 .000** Proportion Owner Occupied -.009 .003** -.006 .004 Proportion Recent Mover .022 .004** .004 .004

Metropolitan Characteristics Region – Northeast 1.181 .462* -2.651 .618** Region – South 3.175 .385** -.798 .487 Region – Midwest 1.704 .435** -1.934 .619** (West - omitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth -.015 .004** .028 .007** Proportion Foreign Born -1.470 4.079 20.947 4.344** Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980-2000 .001 .001 .007 .002** Black-White poverty inequality .500 .102** -.222 .188 Latino-White poverty inequality .109 .096 .357 .184 Black-White growth difference .045 .014** .029 .015 Latino-White growth difference .008 .002** .005 .002* Black-White dissimilarity index -.015 .008 .011 .015 Latino-White dissimilarity index -.008 .010 .073 .021**

Intercept -6.526 .436** -4.286 .488** Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics τ Neighborhood level N=28029; Metropolitan level N=323

109 Table 4.9 Multinomial Hierarchical Linear Model Predicting 1980 to 2000 U.S. Metropolitan Black Homogenous Neighborhood Change (Remained Black is the reference category) ⁿτ

Became White-Black Became Latino-Black

Coeff. Std. Err. Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Characteristics Socioeconomic Concentrated disadvantage -.733 .190** .240 .199

Demographic Central city -.810 .375* -.332 .328 Proportion foreign born .032 .016* .004 .028

Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 .026 .003** .007 .004 Proportion Owner Occupied -.049 .008** -.031 .013 Proportion Recent Mover -.018 .013 -.016 .016

Metropolitan Characteristics Region – Northeast -2.583 .897** -2.276 1.091* Region – South -3.466 .947** -4.077 .959** Region – Midwest -2.573 1.013* -4.091 1.258** (West - omitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth .001 .012 .021 .012 Proportion Foreign Born -18.155 6.499** 3.246 4.648 .002 .004 Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980-2000 -.003 .003 Black-White poverty inequality -.405 .281 -.811 .469 Latino-Black poverty inequality .699 .415 -1.407 .751 Black-White growth difference -.011 .011 .009 .015 Latino-Black growth difference -.020 .090 .464 .391 Black-White dissimilarity index .009 .038 .048 .045 Latino-Black dissimilarity index -.024 .025 -.045 .042

Intercept .658 .915 .116 .839 Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics τ Neighborhood level N=2484; Metropolitan level N=138

110

ADDITIONAL TABLES Table 4.10 Full Transition Matrix: U.S. Neighborhood Racial Composition 1980-2000 2000 Neighborhood Type 1980 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Neighborhood Total w b l o w-l w-b l-b w-o l-o b-o w-b-l w-b-o b-l-o w-l-o w-l-b Type white 76.8 0.6 0.3 0.0 9.9 7.0 0.3 2.8 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.0 100.0 black 0.1 84.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 latino 0.0 0.0 88.6 0.0 4.9 0.2 3.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0

other 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

white and latino 4.7 0.3 32.5 0.3 47.3 0.1 2.8 0.8 5.1 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.3 3.8 0.0 100.0 white and black 10.1 24.3 0.5 0.0 1.4 52.4 4.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 4.7 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 100.0 111 latino and black 0.4 3.4 17.9 0.0 0.6 0.4 72.1 0.0 1.5 0.4 1.9 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 100.0 … white and other 1.9 0.0 0.0 29.6 1.5 1.1 0.0 53.9 3.0 0.7 0.0 2.2 0.4 5.2 0.4 100.0 latino and other 0.0 0.0 23.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 100.0 black and other 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 37.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 white, black, and 0.9 3.6 18.6 0.0 9.1 3.2 44.5 0.9 3.6 0.5 10.5 0.0 4.1 0.5 0.0 100.0 latino white, black, and 6.3 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 6.3 0.0 18.8 9.4 18.8 0.0 9.4 9.4 0.0 3.1 100.0 other black, latino, and 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 other white, latino, and 0.0 0.0 7.7 4.3 6.0 0.9 0.0 2.6 65.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 12.0 0.0 100.0 other white, latino, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 black, other

Chapter 5

Advantage and Integration for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos

5.1 Introduction

A primary objective of my dissertation is to examine the contention that residence in long term racially/ethnically integrated neighborhoods is more beneficial for Blacks and Latinos than in transitioning or homogenous minority contexts. Results from

Chapter 4 appear to support a critical race skepticism toward those who frame neighborhood integration as a panacea for Blacks and Latinos and the larger inequality problem characterizing neighborhoods in the United States. Specifically, regarding the question of prevalence, Chapter 4 showed that long-term racial/ethnic integration between Whites and Blacks or Latinos is simply not that common. Chapter 4 also examined how neighborhood advantage and disadvantage predicted the likelihood that integrated neighborhoods remained integrated or changed over time, and the likelihood that homogenous neighborhoods became integrated. The results showed that while integrated neighborhoods appear to have higher mean levels of advantage relative to homogenous minority neighborhoods (so long as Whites are also present in the neighborhood), increased advantage seems to undermine integration of Whites and minorities in the long term. The less disadvantaged an integrated context was, the more

112 likely it was to transition to a White neighborhood than remain integrated, or remain a

White neighborhood to begin with. The more disadvantaged an integrated neighborhood

was, the more likely it was to remain integrated or become predominantly Black or

Latino. These findings call into question the claims by some integration proponents that

long-term racial/ethnic integration will ameliorate the problems for Blacks and Latinos that are attributed to consequences associated with racial residential segregation. If long term neighborhood integration decreases the consequences associated with segregation for Blacks and Latinos, it seems the relationship between the socioeconomic character of neighborhoods and likelihood of remaining integrated found in Chapter 4 should be in the opposite direction. Specifically, for neighborhoods and residents to benefit from long- term integration, increased advantage in integrated neighborhoods should ideally bolster long-term stable integration for neighborhoods with Blacks, Latinos, Whites, and Others.

The problem is that several scholars and public officials have argued that our analytical focus should entail understanding the forces (demographic, social, etc.) that contribute to instability and stability in integrated neighborhoods without an adequate exploration of the hypothesized benefits of integration for those of color. They argue that doing so will help us to better understand how to shape practices and policies that might foster long term racial and ethnic stability in integrated neighborhoods. However, research has not yet demonstrated whether maintaining integrated neighborhoods is an

appropriate goal. This is because we have not sufficiently explored whether

neighborhoods that remain racially/ethnically constant over a long period of time are

significantly more socioeconomically advantaged than those that transition or are

113 homogenous and constant, particularly for neighborhoods with historically subordinated

group members.

I contend that analytical models are necessary that predict levels of advantage for

cases of long-term integration relative to cases of instability or long-term racial/ethnic

homogeneity, which will be the focus of this chapter. I believe this is the most important component of my dissertation, in that it directly asks if long-term integrated neighborhoods are in fact significantly different than transitioning and durable

homogenous neighborhoods. As such, the central purpose of this chapter is to

empirically assess whether or not racially/ethnically stable integrated neighborhoods are more advantageous contexts for areas with historically subordinated group members, compared to unstable and homogenous alternatives.

To address this question, the analyses in this chapter are comprised of both descriptive and analytical elements. First, I examine patterns of mean levels of concentrated disadvantage in 2000 for racially stable neighborhoods between 1980 and

2000. Next, I assess the degree of economic flux across the racially stable neighborhoods over the two decades. Are the same integrated neighborhoods that are advantaged in

1980 also advantaged in 2000? And for those that experience socioeconomic flux, which neighborhoods improved and which declined? I then specify multilevel models to examine whether, net of important metropolitan and neighborhood controls, long term integrated neighborhoods were significantly less disadvantaged than alternative contexts.

The dependent variable for these models is concentrated disadvantage in 2000.

With a clear sense of the economic characterization and socioeconomic flux/stability of racially stable neighborhoods between the two periods, in the second

114 analytical portion of the chapter, I seek to narrow the focus of the analysis to levels of

advantage for group members themselves (as opposed to neighborhoods). Though a

focus on group-level concentrated disadvantage would be ideal to maintain consistency

with the first sets of analyses (which focused on neighborhood level concentrated

disadvantage), data limitations make this difficult. 1 Specifically, the data do not contain

all of the same race-specific measures used to construct the neighborhood disadvantage

index. However, the social and economic race-specific measures that are readily

available for a group-level socioeconomic index are a better conceptual fit with the construct advantage; affluence, college education, and poverty (reverse-coded).

The key question with these analyses, is whether historically subordinated group members display meaningfully higher levels of advantage in neighborhoods that remained racially/ethnically integrated in the preceding two decades compared with members in neighborhoods that transitioned or remained homogenous. First, I compare mean levels of advantage for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos residing in racially stable and transitioning integrated contexts. Finally, I specify separate multilevel models for neighborhoods with Whites, Blacks, and Latinos between 1980 and 2000. The key dependent variables for the three models are 2000 race-specific advantage indices. In these models, I seek to ascertain how, net of metropolitan and neighborhood controls, mean levels of White, Black, and Latino advantage in long-term integrated neighborhoods compare with those in transitioning or long-term homogenous areas.

1 See Chapter 3 for greater detail about the data limitations, construction, and validation of the neighborhood-level disadvantage and group-level advantage indices. Chapter 3 also provides information pertaining to efforts to validate the indices, including results from exploratory factor analysis and alpha reliability statistics. 115 5.2 Long-Term Racial/Ethnic Stability and Concentrated Disadvantage

How do racially stable and transitioning neighborhoods compare along mean

levels of neighborhood disadvantage? Figure 5.1 presents a bar chart displaying levels of

concentrated disadvantage in 2000 for transitioning and racially stable homogenous and

integrated contexts between 1980 and 2000. The horizontal axis represents the mean level of concentrated disadvantage for the complete sample of metropolitan neighborhoods which is an index value of zero. Values above the horizontal axis represent higher levels of disadvantage relative to the sample, while values below the horizontal axis represent lower levels of disadvantage relative to the sample.

The second bar in the figure shows the disadvantage score in 2000 for stable predominantly White neighborhoods across the two decades. Stable predominantly

White areas were the least disadvantaged in 2000 of all the racially stable neighborhoods and the transitioning neighborhooods, with an index score of -.433. The remaining bars in the figure, to the right of the column for Whites, represent the other five neighborhood types. The column to the left of the bar for White neighborhoods represents unstable neighborhoods. Each of these index scores are above the index mean of zero. This shows that aside from the White areas, all other neighborhood types that were racially stable or unstable had higher average levels of concentrated disadvantage compared to metropolitan neighborhoods as a whole.

Another important pattern to note in Figure 5.1 is that stable integrated neighborhoods with numerous Whites had lower levels of disadvantage than those without many Whites (both homogenous and integrated). Specifically, the White-Black neighborhoods had an average index score of .455 and the White-Latino neighborhoods

116 had an average score of .285; Latino-Black neighborhoods, in contrast, had a

significantly higher mean score of 2.111.

Finally, in line with theoretical expectations about the hierarchical privileging of

Whites over Latinos over Blacks, neighborhoods with many Latinos (both integrated and

homogenous) had lower levels of disadvantage than those with Blacks (both integrated

and homogenous). Latino-Black neighborhoods are the one exception to this pattern.

These neighborhoods had, by a wide margin, the highest levels of concentrated

disadvantage (2.111) of all of the groups in 2000, even stable predominantly Black areas

(with an index score of 1.673). This is somewhat surprising, as this contrasts theoretical

expectations that long-term predominantly Black neighborhoods would be the most

disadvantaged of all contexts.

What do the findings revealed in Figure 5.1 mean for the larger assessment of

potential socioeconomic benefits of long-term racial ethnic stability in neighborhoods?

One may deduce from Figure 5.1 that stable White-Latino and White-Black neighborhoods are clearly more likely to be advantageous contexts for Blacks and

Latinos given their remarkably lower mean levels of concentrated disadvantage in 2000

compared to consistently Black and Latino neighborhoods. However, Figure 5.1 is a

snapshot of levels of concentrated disadvantage in 2000; one point in time for the sample

of neighborhoods with longevity in their racial/ethnic makeup. What is the relationship

between racial/ethnic stability and socioeconomic stability, growth, or decline?

Table 5.1 provides detailed information about the direction of economic stability

and change for the racially durable neighborhoods in the sample. Each row in the table

represents one of the six most common single and two-group neighborhoods that

117 remained racially stable between 1980 and 2000. The first three columns report the

percentage of each of the neighborhood types that remained or became economically

advantaged across the two decades. The fourth and fifth columns show the percentage of

each of the racially stable neighborhoods that remained or became economically

disadvantaged. To assess patterns of change in the economic characterization of these

neighborhoods, I rely on the same advantage scale used in Chapter Four to classify

neighborhoods as disadvantaged, moderately advantaged, or advantaged.2 However, in

this table, advantaged and moderately advantaged are combined into a single category.

The results indicate that the majority of all of the racially stable neighborhoods,

both homogenous and integrated, were also economically stable, though there are

important discrepancies in the type of economic stability. Overall, consistent with results

in Table 4.5, patterns in Table 5.1 show a clear racial hierarchy of neighborhoods that are

mainly or partially White being significantly more advantaged than those with few

Whites. White neighborhoods were overwhelmingly stably advantaged (nearly 87%).

When factoring in the White neighborhoods that declined but remained advantaged

(4.4%), and those that improved and became advantaged (7.7%), nearly 99% of White neighborhoods across the two decades were advantaged.

For neighborhoods partially comprised of Whites, nearly three-quarters of White-

Latino (73.3%) and over half of White-Black (60.3%) areas were consistently advantaged. Though a greater overall proportion of White-Latino neighborhoods were advantaged (whether became, declined, or improved) than White-Black neighborhoods

2 See Chapter 3 for more detail about how the disadvantage index and scale was constructed. 118 (85.4% compared to 73.7%), a greater proportion of White-Black neighborhoods became advantaged (12.7%) than White-Latino neighborhoods (9.8%).

In stark contrast to neighborhoods with numerous White residents, the majority of neighborhoods in which Latinos, Blacks, or both predominate were consistently disadvantaged. Integrated neighborhoods with Latinos and Blacks were the most stably disadvantaged (nearly 90%), followed by those that are predominantly Black (76.3%) or

Latino (55.2%). Though a greater overall proportion of Black than Latino neighborhoods remained or became disadvantaged (82.8% and 74.5%, respectively), significantly more

Latino than Black neighborhoods became disadvantaged. As a whole, racially stable

Latino neighborhoods were the most economically unstable of all the neighborhood types.

Collectively, the results presented in Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1 suggest that long- term integrated or homogenous neighborhoods, so long as a significant proportion of

Whites are present, are more advantaged than homogenous or integrated contexts without

Whites (such as predominantly Black, Latino, or Latino-Black neighborhoods).

However, do these patterns hold when important metropolitan and neighborhood demographic, housing, and social factors are taken into account? For Blacks and Latinos specifically, are long-term racially integrated neighborhoods significantly different in neighborhood advantage/disadvantage relative to homogenous and transitioning alternatives?

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present results from a series of multivariate models predicting

2000 neighborhood concentrated disadvantage for the most common neighborhood types.

The sample includes all neighborhoods that were White, Black, Latino, White-Black,

119 White-Latino, or Latino-Black in 1980. The key independent variables are the seven

variables presented in the rows in Table 5.2 – dummy variables for each the racial/ethnic

neighborhood trajectories of the neighborhoods in the sample. The various coefficients reported in each of the columns in Table 5.2 are from seven separate models specified; each differs only in terms of the racial/ethnic neighborhood trajectory dummy omitted as the reference category. It was essential to run the separate models in order to test the significance of the difference in the effects of racial/ethnic stability on concentrated disadvantage between each possible comparison of racial/ethnic trajectories for the neighborhoods. Each column in the table is labeled with a number and identifies the omitted category for that particular model; transitioning neighborhoods, remained White, remained Black, remained Latino, remained White-Black, remained White-Latino, and remained Latino-Black. Table 5.3 presents the coefficients and standard errors for each of the neighborhood and metropolitan characteristics that served as controls in the seven

models. It is important to note that these effects remain the same, regardless of the

racial/ethnic category chosen to serve as the reference group.3

Statistical significance for any of the neighborhood dummies in Table 5.2, net of

the neighborhood and metropolitan controls presented in Table 5.3, would indicate a

significant relationship (positive or negative depending on the sign) between a

neighborhood remaining racially/ethnically stable between 1980 and 2000 and its 2000

level of concentrated disadvantage. To support the assertions made in the segregation

literature about the advantages of stable neighborhood integration for minorities, the

coefficients for integrated neighborhoods should be significant and smaller than the

3 The intercepts for each of the seven models are different. 120 effects for neighborhoods that remained Black or remained Latino. This would indicate that stable integrated neighborhoods have lower levels of concentrated disadvantage than those that transitioned.

For integrated neighborhoods which include a large number of Whites, the results in Table 5.2 suggest significantly lower mean levels of disadvantage relative to predominantly minority contexts. Specifically, the coefficients comparing White-Black with Black neighborhoods (column 3) and White-Latino with Latino neighborhoods

(column 4) are negative and significant. This means that both integrated neighborhoods had significantly lower levels of disadvantage compared to their homogenous minority counterparts in 2000. However, both White-Black and White-Latino neighborhoods were not significantly different in mean levels of disadvantage from neighborhoods that transitioned over the two decades, as seen in column 1. This suggests that racially/ethnically stable White-Black and White-Latino neighborhoods had no higher or lower levels of disadvantage than all types of unstable neighborhoods.

Several other patterns are important to highlight in Table 5.2. First, the coefficients in column 2 are all significant and positive, indicating that all neighborhoods have significantly higher levels of disadvantage in 2000 than long-term White areas.

Additionally, the size of the effects mirror the racialized hierarchical patterns revealed in the descriptive Figures and Tables preceding this analysis. Specifically, neighborhoods with only small numbers of Whites, such as Latino, Black, and Latino-Black areas, have higher levels of disadvantage than the integrated areas with a large representation of

Whites. Finally, also in line with the descriptive analyses, Latino-Black neighborhoods

121 have significantly higher levels of disadvantage compared to all other neighborhoods, net of the controls.

The coefficients for neighborhood controls in Table 5.3 are predominantly significant and in the expected direction. Neighborhoods have higher levels of concentrated disadvantage if they are in the central city, have fewer immigrants, are smaller, have more overall population growth, lower median income, less growth in the housing market, fewer home owners, and more recent movers. The coefficients for metropolitan controls indicated that neighborhoods in metropolitan areas in the West

(compared to the South and Midwest), characterized by less population growth, more immigrants, and more Black-White and Latino-Black segregation have higher levels of concentrated disadvantage.

What do these results mean? Figure 5.2 displays a bar chart which visually displays the results presented in Table 5.2 net of the controls; the hierarchical, racialized

relationship between racial/ethnic neighborhood stability/change and concentrated

disadvantage. The chart provides predicted levels of concentrated disadvantage in 2000.

Predicted values stem from a hypothetical scenario that assumes all the neighborhoods

have characteristics identical with the average characteristics for the sample as a whole.

By a wide margin, stable White neighborhoods have the lowest mean predicted level of

disadvantage, followed by White-Latino, White-Black, and unstable neighborhoods. In

contrast, Latino-Black, Black, and Latino neighborhoods (in that order), have the highest

predicted levels of disadvantage. The results in Table 5.2 show that the unstable, long-

term White-Black, and long-term White-Latino neighborhoods are not significantly

different from each other, as well as the stable Black and Latino areas. However, this

122 does not affect interpretation of the larger pattern of lower levels of disadvantage associated with the presence of a large number of Whites whether in a homogenous or integrated context.

5.3 Descriptive Patterns of Black, White, and Latino Advantage in Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods

The findings above are mixed regarding the validity of the claim that long-term integrated neighborhoods reap social and economic benefits for minorities relative to other homogenous and unstable alternatives. It is clear that stable White-Black and

White-Latino neighborhoods are significantly less disadvantaged compared to long-term

Black and Latino communities. However, Latino-Black neighborhoods are significantly more disadvantaged than long-term Black and Latino areas.

However, conclusions from the analyses above must be cautiously interpreted, as

they do not actually differentiate how group-members themselves fare in the long-term integrated versus homogenous communities. Though the long-term White-Black and

White-Latino areas are less disadvantaged than the stable Black and Latino areas, are

Blacks and Latinos residing in these integrated neighborhoods meaningfully more

advantaged than those situated in the stable, predominantly minority communities? A

more precise method to answer this question is to examine race-specific advantage levels

within stable integrated neighborhoods compared to homogenous and transitioning

alternatives. As discussed in the introduction of this chapter, data limitations prevent the

use of a race-specific disadvantage index congruent with the one used in the

neighborhood-level analysis. As such, the outcome for the remainder of the analysis

shifts to a race-specific index of advantage for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos.

123 How do Whites, Blacks, and Latinos fare in mean levels of advantage in 2000 in

the communities where they were most likely to reside between 1980 and 2000? Figures

5.3 through 5.5 present charts displaying patterns in levels of White (Figure 5.3), Black

(Figure 5.4), and Latino (Figure 5.5) advantage in the respective kinds of neighborhoods

where the majority of group members resided in the two decades (as revealed in Chapter

4). It is important to note that the horizontal axis in all three charts represents a

standardized mean level of advantage for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos, allowing for

comparison of absolute levels of advantage across the different groups.4 It is also

important to note that the category “Transitioned” in the figures refers to the neighborhoods in 1980 (represented in the particular figure), that transitioned to some other type of community over the two decades. For example, for Figure 5.3, Transitioned neighborhoods represented in the first bar in the chart are neighborhoods that were White,

White-Latino, or White-Black in 1980 but differentially classified in 2000 as a result of

significant change in the racial or ethnic makeup of the neighborhood over the two

decades.5

Several important patterns emerge when examining patterns first within and then

across the groups. When examining patterns for White advantage in 2000 in Figure 5.3,

it is striking that average levels of White advantage are well above the mean, regardless

of the particular type of context. Second, mean White advantage is substantially higher

for group members that resided in long-term White neighborhoods, with an advantage

4 See Chapter 3 for a more detailed explanation of the method employed to produce these calculations. 5 Transitioned neighborhoods included in Figure 5.3 had to be White, White-Latino, or White-Black in 1980 (the three neighborhood types represented in the Figure), and to have transitioned to some other context in 2000 (one of fourteen possible trajectories as defined in the typology constructed in Chapter 3). The same logic applies to the transitioned classification in Figures5.4, 5.5, and the multivariate analysis. 124 index score of .533. Interestingly, average levels for residents in Transitioning, White-

Latino, and White-Black neighborhoods were very similar (.27, .31, and .27 respectively).6

Patterns for Blacks contrast sharply with those for Whites. Figure 5.4 shows that, aside from those residing in predominantly White areas in 2000, mean levels of Black advantage in all other contexts were below the mean. The lowest levels of Black advantage in 2000 were in stable Latino-Black and Black areas, with index scores of -

1.074 and -.884, respectively. Average levels of Black advantage were surprisingly only slightly lower in stable White-Black areas (index score of -.682) compared to the average in stable predominantly Black areas (index score of -.884). This is somewhat surprising given the large disparity in neighborhood levels of concentrated disadvantage when comparing racially stable White-Black and Black neighborhoods in 2000; long-term

Black neighborhoods in 2000 had significantly higher levels of concentrated disadvantage than White-Black neighborhoods (see Figure 5.1). Finally, neighborhoods in flux between 1980 and 200 with a large representation of Blacks, represented in the first bar in Figure 5.4, have a mean 2000 advantage index score of -.37, which is much lower than the scores for the stable neighborhoods (aside from the stable White context).7

6 Though not presented here, I also examined mean levels of White advantage across the varying transitioning contexts between 1980 and 2000. Not surprisingly, neighborhoods that became more White had higher average levels of White advantage than those that transitioned from White to integrated contexts. In fact, areas that transitioned from White-Latino to White and Black to White-Black had higher average levels of White advantage than the average for those in long-term predominantly White neighborhoods. Conversely, areas with the lowest levels of White-advantage (though all still above the mean for all groups) were those that transitioned from integrated to predominantly minority (such as White- Latino areas that became mostly Latino, and White-Black areas that became mostly Black). 7 Though not presented here, I also examined mean levels of Black advantage across the varying transitioning contexts between 1980 and 2000. Neighborhoods with a large share of Blacks in 1980 that transitioned to or from a Latino-Black area had significantly lower levels of Black advantage than other transitioning contexts. However, there were not that many Latino-Black neighborhoods in both 1980 and 2000, which explains why the average for transitioning neighborhoods as a whole presented in Figure 5.4 125 Similar to the patterns for Blacks, those for Latinos, presented in Figure 5.5, show

that only Latinos in stable predominantly White areas in 2000 had a higher average index

score of Latino advantage compared to the mean. Additionally, Latinos in long-term

Latino-Black neighborhoods had the lowest levels of advantage compared to group

members in other stable and transitioning contexts, with a score of -1.215. Finally,

Latino advantage in 2000 appeared to be much higher in long-term integrated White-

Latino neighborhoods (-.582) and Transitioning neighborhoods (-.45) compared to stable

Latino neighborhoods (-.99).8

When comparing the relationship between racial/ethnic neighborhood stability

and race-specific advantage across the groups, as presented in Figures 5.3-5.5, several

patterns are important to note. First, Whites are the only group to have average White

advantage index scores above the average for all groups regardless of the specific type of context (even those areas with large White representation in 1980 that ultimately became

Latino or Black in 2000). Second, Latinos appear to be more negatively impacted in terms of average advantage scores, compared to Blacks, when they do not reside in neighborhoods with a large proportion of Whites. Specifically, Latinos had a lower mean level of advantage in stable Latino communities (an index score of -.998) in 2000 compared to the average for Blacks residing in stable Black communities (index score of

would not be heavily impacted by the extremely low scores for areas that transitioned to or from Latino- Black. Areas that transferred to or from White or White-Black neighborhoods had much higher average levels of Black advantage in 2000 compared to the other areas that transitioned. Regardless of the type of transition though, all average scores for Black advantage were significantly below the mean for all groups. 8 Though not presented here, I also examined mean levels of Latino advantage across the varying transitioning contexts between 1980 and 2000. Compared to other transitioning contexts, the highest scores for Latino advantage were in neighborhoods that transitioned from White-Latino to White, by a wide margin. Any transition involving Latino-Black contexts, whether to or from, had significantly lower index scores, approaching the level for stable Latino-Black areas. Finally, those areas that transitioned from White-Latino to Latino or Latino to White-Latino had much lower average levels of Latino advantage compared to those areas that transitioned from White to White-Latino or White-Latino to White. 126 -.884). Similarly, Latinos in stable Latino-Black areas had a lower mean advantage score compared to Blacks in stable Latino-Black areas (-1.22 compared to -1.074). However, while Latinos may experience greater consequences in terms of group-level advantage when not residing with Whites compared to Blacks, they also appear to benefit slightly more than Black in average advantage scores when they reside in long-term integrated neighborhoods with Whites. Specifically, in Figure 5.5 we see that the Latino advantage index score in 2000 in long term White-Latino neighborhoods was -.58; slightly higher than the average index score in Figure 5.4 for Blacks residing in long term White-Black neighborhoods, -.68.

The final important pattern to note when examining collectively the results in

Figures 5.3-5.5 is that when comparing mean levels of advantage for the groups represented in integrated contexts with Whites, Whites always have significantly higher index scores compared to Black or Latino average scores in the same stable contexts (see

Figure 5.9 in the Additional Tables section at the conclusion of the chapter for a chart which displays the patterns and associated scores). Though not presented here, the same pattern holds for all types of transitioning integrated contexts involving a large proportion of Whites, regardless of the type of transition.

5.4 Modeling Black, White, and Latino Advantage in Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods

The descriptive patterns presented above provide an initial answer to the larger question driving the analyses in this section of the chapter; are Blacks and Latinos residing in integrated neighborhoods meaningfully more advantaged than those situated in stable, predominantly minority communities? It appears that mean levels of Latino

127 advantage in stable White-Latino neighborhoods are in fact substantially higher in 2000

than levels for those residing in stable Latino neighborhoods. Mean levels of Black

advantage in 2000 in stable White-Black communities are slightly higher than levels for

those residing in stable Black communities. However, do these relationships hold when

important metropolitan and neighborhood demographic, housing, and social factors are

taken into account?

Tables 5.4-5.6 present results from multilevel multivariate models which

separately predict 2000 advantage for Whites (Table 5.4), Blacks (Table 5.5), and Latinos

(Table 5.6). The sample for each model includes the neighborhoods where the groups are

represented in large proportions. The key independent variables are the racial/ethnic stability dummies in the first set of rows in each table (with only the relevant dummies included for each of the separate models). As with the neighborhood-level analysis predicting concentrated disadvantage levels in the first section of this chapter, I run separate models with each racial/ethnic trajectory serving as the omitted reference category. This is necessary in order to test the significance of the difference in the effects with each other in predicting mean levels of advantage for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos.

However, I only include the coefficients in each of the tables in which the stable homogenous neighborhood for the group in which advantage levels are predicted serves as the omitted reference category. This makes theoretical sense given the larger purpose of the analysis; assessing if minorities in long-term integrated neighborhoods have

meaningfully higher levels of advantage compared to those in long-term homogenous

contexts. The coefficients estimated for all of the other models for each group are

presented in the Additional Tables section at the end of the chapter, in Table 5.7 for

128 White advantage, Table 5.8 for Black advantage, and Table 5.9 for Latino advantage.

However, the results of these tests are incorporated into the interpretation and discussion

of results in Tables 5.4-5.6. Interpretation of the key independent variables in each of the

models, the neighborhood trajectory dummies, is similar in logic to that employed for the

multivariate analysis in the first section of the chapter.

Statistical significance for any of the dummy variables, net of the neighborhood and metropolitan controls, would indicate a significant relationship (positive or negative depending on the sign) between the particular racial/ethnic neighborhood outcome between 1980 and 2000, and its associated 2000 mean level of race-specific advantage.

To support the assertions made in the segregation literature about the advantages of long term neighborhood integration for minorities (as opposed to residence in unstable or segregated contexts), the coefficients for integrated neighborhoods should be significant and positive for the Black and Latino models. This would indicate that Blacks and

Latinos in long term integrated neighborhoods have higher levels of advantage in 2000 than group members residing in homogenous Black or Latino neighborhoods.

Table 5.4 presents the findings for the hierarchical linear model predicting White advantage in 2000 in stable and transitioning neighborhoods with a large representation of Whites and with long-term White areas serving as the omitted reference category for the neighborhood trajectory dummy variables. In contrast to the patterns in the

descriptive Figure5.3, White advantage was significantly higher in long-term White-

Black areas than in stable predominantly White neighborhoods. Furthermore, White advantage was significantly lower in both Transitioning and stable White-Latino contexts compared to stable White contexts. However, White-Latino and Transitioning

129 neighborhoods were not significantly different from each other in mean levels of White

advantage in 2000.

Results for the neighborhood controls show that White advantage was higher in

2000 in neighborhoods located in the central city, with more immigrants, smaller population change, higher and increasing median income, fewer homeowners, and more recent movers. For the metropolitan controls, the results indicate that White advantage was higher in neighborhoods located in metropolitan areas in the South compared to the

West, with a burgeoning population, and less Black-White segregation.

Table 5.5 presents results for the hierarchical linear model predicting Black advantage in 2000 in stable and transitioning neighborhoods with a large portion of

Blacks and with stable majority Black neighborhoods as the excluded reference category.

The most important finding in the table is the significant and negative coefficients for the

White-Black and Latino-Black dummies. These coefficients indicate that, net of the controls, Black advantage in 2000 was significantly lower in these integrated contexts compared to stable Black contexts. The slightly higher mean level of Black advantage in

White-Black neighborhoods compared to Black neighborhoods in the descriptive Figure

5.4 does not hold once important neighborhood and metropolitan factors are accounted for. Interestingly, there appears to be no significant difference in mean levels of Black advantage in neighborhoods that transitioned and neighborhoods that were stable and mostly White, compared to long-term Black areas.

The full set of models run in the Additional Tables section at the end of the chapter, in

Table 5.8, show that stable Black and White neighborhoods were not significantly

130 different from each other, as well as stable Black and Transitioning areas and long-term

White-Black and transitioning neighborhoods.

The neighborhood level controls for the Black advantage model indicate that

Black advantage is higher in neighborhoods located outside of the central city, with more

immigrants, higher and growing median income, more homeowners, and more recent movers. At the metropolitan level, Black advantage was lower in 2000 in neighborhoods that were located in the South compared to those in the West.

Finally, Table 5.6 presents results for the hierarchical linear model predicting

Latino advantage in 2000 in stable and transitioning neighborhoods with a large portion of Latinos and with stable majority Latino neighborhoods as the omitted reference category. In contrast to Blacks, Latinos residing in stable integrated neighborhoods with a large share of Whites had significantly higher levels of advantage compared to those in long-term Latino neighborhoods; the coefficient for Remained White-Latino is positive and significant. However, similar to the patterns for Blacks, Latino advantage in stable

Latino-Black neighborhoods is significantly lower than for those in long-term predominantly Latino neighborhoods. Finally, Latino advantage was also higher in both

Transitioning and stable predominantly White areas compared to long-term Latino communities. All neighborhoods were significantly different from each other according to the results for the full set of models as reported in the Additional Tables section in

Table. 5.9.

For the neighborhood controls, Latino advantage was higher in 2000 in communities located in the central city, with more immigrants, declining population size, higher and growing median income, growth in the housing market, and more

131 homeowners and less renters. At the metropolitan level, Latino advantage was higher in

neighborhoods located in the South compared to the West, with an expanding population,

and less Black-White segregation.

Figures 5.6 through 5.8 provide a clear visual depiction of the dominant patterns

revealed in the multivariate analyses predicting advantage for Whites, Blacks, and

Latinos. The figures present bar charts displaying predicted levels of advantage for each

of the groups. As such, predicted levels of advantage, particularly for Blacks and

Latinos, will be significantly higher than observed values given the use of averages for

the neighborhood and metropolitan controls of all neighborhoods.

Figure 5.6 shows a clear pattern in which predicted White advantage is highest in

stable White-Black communities, followed by long-term majority White areas. White

advantage in Transitioning and long-term White-Latino areas was lower (though not

significantly different from each other). Figure 5.7, presenting predicted values for Black advantage, shows Black advantage was highest in stable majority White areas.

Interestingly, Black advantage was slightly higher in stable Black communities compared

to transitioning and stable White-Black areas (and the models in Table 5.8 in the

Additional Tables show that Black advantage in stable White compared to stable White-

Black, and stable Black compared to stable White-Black neighborhoods, was

significantly different from each other). Finally, predicted levels of Latino advantage

presented in Figure 5.8 show a clear pattern in which advantage is predicted to be highest

for Latinos in stable White areas, followed by transitioning areas. Predicted levels of

advantage in long-term Latino and White-Latino areas were slightly lower and similar to

132 each other. Finally, as with Black advantage in Latino-Black areas, predicted Latino advantage in stable Latino-Black communities was the lowest of all the contexts.

5.5 Conclusion

The results in this chapter cast serious doubt over presumed benefits, particularly for Blacks, of residence in long-term racially/ethnically integrated neighborhoods. The central finding of the chapter is that while racially stable White-Black neighborhoods are significantly less disadvantaged than racially stable Black areas, the average level of

Black advantage in stable White-Black neighborhoods was significantly less than the average level for those in long-term Black neighborhoods. In contrast, Latinos do appear to have higher levels of advantage in racially stable White-Latino neighborhoods compared to those in stable majority Latino neighborhoods (and stable White-Latino contexts as a whole have less disadvantage than long-term Latino communities).

This differential pattern for Latinos and Blacks is important for several reasons.

First, for the case of Blacks specifically, the finding is a direct challenge to views that espouse that long-term integration between Whites and Blacks will result in improved social and economic outcomes for Blacks (compared to those in segregated Black areas).

Second, the differential findings for the case of Black advantage compared to Latino advantage highlights a dominant theme to emerge from all of the analysis in the chapter; the patterning of neighborhood and group-level advantage for racially stable contexts follows a clear racialized hierarchical privileging of Whites as most advantaged, Blacks as least advantaged, and Latinos as being somewhere in between. Across all the analyses, communities with a large proportion of Whites and the White residents in them

133 were found to be significantly more advantaged than those for Latinos and Blacks. In

turn, stable neighborhoods shared by Latinos and Whites and Whites and Blacks were

significantly more advantaged than neighborhoods with very few Whites.

The case of Latino-Black neighborhoods, in particular, further problematizes the

framing of long-term racial/ethnic integration as a beneficial outcome for minorities.

Specifically, Latino-Black neighborhoods are the most likely to remain stable over time

(almost as likely as predominantly White neighborhoods). However, across all the

analyses examining the socioeconomic character of Latino-Black neighborhoods relative

to other integrated and homogenous contexts, Latino-Black communities were the most

disadvantaged of all other areas. An integrated context with mostly Blacks and Latinos,

that is incredibly disadvantaged and likely to remain as such over time, contrasts sharply

with the conceptual frame of neighborhood integration as positive for minorities. In

essence, the findings in this chapter coupled with those in Chapter 4, indicate that Latino-

Black contexts may actually be no different, or even potentially worse off, than the long- term segregated and extremely disadvantaged segregated Black communities that receive

much attention in the segregation literature. This form of integration in particular would

serve as a poor “poster child” for a campaign aiming to highlight the benefits of long-

term integration for minorities.

The distinct findings for long-term White-Black, White-Latino, and Latino-Black

communities highlight the necessity to avoid making generalizations about integrated

neighborhoods as a whole. The results show that the racial and ethnic composition of the

neighborhood plays a significant role in the social and economic character of the

neighborhood. This is not a new idea in itself, as decades of social science research have

134 demonstrated the link between neighborhood racial composition and various indicators of neighborhood quality. However, when referring specifically to segregation and the need to push for integration, academics quite often refer to integration in a generalized manner, without differentiating the specific form, groups involved, and who will specifically (or not) benefit.

Though the findings in this chapter call into question the assertions by some policy makers and academics that long term integration is beneficial for Blacks and

Latinos, it is important to note the limitations of the analysis and findings. First, only one outcome has been assessed for one point in time – concentrated disadvantage for neighborhoods in 2000 and advantage for group members in 2000 (though the key independent variables and controls span a two-decade period). We know that neighborhood quality or desirability includes many other concrete components beyond those related to the socioeconomic status of residents. These may include crime and safety, the quality of schools and educational resources, employment opportunities, social networks, policing and access to the equitable administration of justice, infrastructure and development, the number and types of organizations available to residents, transportation, political connections and power, social capital, and so on. All of these components of neighborhoods must be considered, and across multiple and longer periods of time, in the larger assessment of the potential benefits of integration for minorities. It is possible that while a positive relationship between long term integration with Whites and socioeconomic advantage cannot be identified for Blacks in this analysis, perhaps there are other meaningful benefits for Blacks residing in long term integrated contexts beyond those examined in this dissertation.

135 A second important limitation is that I am not able to disaggregate the group-level

data to identify which group members in 2000 were also residents of the neighborhood in

1980. This is a potentially serious problem, given my analytical focus on predicting how

group members benefitted (or not), at a later point in time (2000), when residing in

neighborhoods that were stable over the preceding two decades. Though I do control for

residential instability in the neighborhoods, there is no way to verify the degree to which

the specific group members represented in the advantage indices were residents in the

neighborhood in 1980 and/or 1990. If a large proportion of the residents were not living

in the neighborhood for much of the two decades, the models lose significant validity in

testing the relationship between racial/ethnic stability and group-level advantage. Recent

scholarship evaluating the Moving To Opportunity (MTO) experiment is one example of the types of studies which may help address this issue (Sampson 2008).

Finally, an additional potentially significant limitation of the analyses relates to the common concern of any scholarship examining individual or group-level outcomes in geographic locales - selection bias. It is often difficult to identify whether outcomes examined are the result of specific features of the geographic locale, or rather whether some kind of sorting process occurs in which individuals with particular kinds of characteristics end up in specific kinds of neighborhoods. In this particular study, I can make no claims about the potential significance processes of selection bias may play in

determining where Whites, Blacks, and Latinos reside. However, my analytical intention

is not to make causal claims about the relationship between integration and racial/ethnic

inequality. Rather, I seek to document patterns for Whites, Latinos and Blacks in the

metropolitan residential landscape, as they play out in what I contend to be a larger

136 society characterized by a system of White supremacy that impacts housing and all other institutions. As such, the potential role of selection bias for my study is less of concern because I do not address the issue of why particular residents end up where they do, and this is not consequential for the interpretation of my findings. Whatever the particular set of processes that collectively shape patterns of where people live, I seek to uncover and understand the outcomes associated with these patterns to better inform academic and public policy framing of racial residential integration as it actually occurs in metropolitan

America.

137 2.5 2.1111 2 1.6725

1.5 1.2501

0.4549 0.5 0.3346 0.2846

0 Transitioned Remained Remained Remained Remained Remained Remained White Black Latino White-Latino White-Black Latino-Black -0.5 -0.4329

-1

Figure 5.1 Levels of 2000 Concentrated Disadvantage for Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

138

Table 5.1 Socioeconomic Stability and Change for Racially Durable Neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000 Remained or Became Remained or Became Advantaged Disadvantaged Declined – Improved – Declined – Stable – Still Now Stable – Now Advantaged Advantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Disadvantaged (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

White 86.8% 4.4% 7.7% .6% .6%

Black 11.9% .1% 5.2% 76.3% 6.5%

Latino 16.9% .0% 8.6% 55.2% 19.3%

139 Racially Stable 1980-2000 White-Latino 73.3% 2.3% 9.8% 6.8% 7.7% … … White-Black 60.3% .7% 12.7% 17.0% 9.3%

Latino-Black 2.1% .0% 2.1% 89.8% 6.0%

Models With Varying Neighborhood Trajectories Serving As Omitted Reference Group

Remained Remained Remained Remained Remained Remained Transitioned White Black Latino White-Black White-Latino Latino-Black Neighborhood (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Trajectory

Transitioned

-0.43** Remained White (0.02) 140 0.86** 1.29** Remained Black … (0.08) (0.08) … 0.67** 1.09** -0.19 Remained Latino (0.12) (0.13) (0.18)

0.01 0.44** -0.85** -0.66** Remained White-Black (0.03) (0.03) (0.08) (0.14)

-0.05 0.38** -0.91** -0.72** -0.06 Remained White-Latino (0.03) (0.03) (0.10) (0.11) (0.04)

1.19** 1.62** 0.33* 0.53** 1.18** 1.24** Remained Latino-Black (0.09) (0.09) (0.15) (0.06) (0.10) (0.07) τ Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿResults are net of metropolitan and neighborhood level controls presented in Table 5.3. Results for controls remain the same regardless of which neighborhood trajectory is omitted as the reference group for the key independent variables. ± standard errors are in parenthesis below the coefficients in each cell in the table

Table 5.3 Independent Controls and Intercepts for Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 Concentrated Disadvantage for 1980 White, Black, Latino, White-Black, White-Latino, and Latino-Black Neighborhoods ⁿτ Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Controls Demographic Central city .001 .0001** Proportion foreign born -.008 .003** Tract population -.000 .000* Tract population change 1980 to 2000 .001 .0001** Socioeconomic Median Income -.00003 .000001** Change in Median Income 1980 to 2000 - adjusted to 2000 dollars -.008 .0003** Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 -.001 .0001** Proportion Owner Occupied -.001 .0005* Proportion Recent Mover -.001 .0004**

Metropolitan Controls Region – Northeast -.061 .033 Region – South -.148 .027** Region – Midwest -.103 .029** (West - omitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth -.001 .0003** Proportion Foreign Born .012 .002** Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980-2000 -.0001 .0001 Black-White dissimilarity index .004 .027** White-Latino dissimilarity index .001 .001 Latino-Black dissimilarity index -.002 .001*

Intercept – (Transitioned as reference) .177 .027** Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics τ Neighborhood level N=39150; Metropolitan level N=325

141

ⁿτ Levels are predicted holding constant the neighborhood and metropolitan character of the neighborhoods at the mean levels for all neighborhoods.

Figure 5.2 Predicted Levels of 2000 Concentrated Disadvantage for Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000ⁿτ

142 White Advantage 0.75 0.533

0.2695 0.309 0.269 0.25

Transitioned Remained White Remained White-Latino Remained White-Black ‐0.25

‐0.75

‐1.25

Figure 5.3 Levels of 2000 White Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

143

Black Advantage 0.75

0.25 0.05

Transitioned Remained White Remained Black Remained Remained ‐0.25 White-Black Latino-Black

-0.3736

‐0.75 -0.682

-0.884

-1.074 ‐1.25

Figure 5.4 Levels of 2000 Black Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

144 Latino Advantage 0.75

0.25 0.051

Transitioned Remained White Remained Latino Remained Remained ‐0.25 White-Latino Latino-Black

-0.4517 -0.582 ‐0.75

-0.998 ‐1.25 -1.215

Figure 5.5 Levels of 2000 Latino Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

145 Table 5.4 Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 White Advantage in Stable Homogenous and Integrated Neighborhoods between 1980-2000 ⁿ 2000 White Advantage Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Stability 1980-2000τ ** Transitioned -0.101 0.001 ** Remained White-Black 0.0618 0.015 ** Remained White-Latino -0.092 0.0140 (Remained White –reference)

Neighborhood Controls Demographic Central city .117 .010** Proportion foreign born .003 .001** Tract population .00000 .00000 Tract population change 1980 to 2000 -.0002 .0001** Socioeconomic Median Income .00003 .000001** Change in Median Income 1980 to 2000 .008 .0002** Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 .0003 .0001** Proportion Owner Occupied -.006 .0003** Proportion Recent Mover .001 .0003**

Metropolitan Controls Region – Northeast -.002 .024 Region – South .072 .024** Region – Midwest -.006 .026 (West - omitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth .001 .0003* Proportion Foreign Born .0005 .002 Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980-2000 -.00002 .0001 Black-White dissimilarity index -.002 .001** White-Latino dissimilarity index .0001 .001 Latino-Black dissimilarity index .001 .001

Intercept .423 .019** Neighborhood level N 35702 Metropolitan level N 315 Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics

146

Table 5.5 Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 Black Advantage in Stable Homogenous and Integrated Neighborhoods between 1980-2000 ⁿ 2000 Black Advantage Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Stability 1980-2000 Transitioned -0.061 0.036 Remained White 0.035 0.040 * Remained White-Black -0.072 0.035 ** Remained Latino-Black -0.284 0.038 (Remained Black-reference)

Neighborhood Controls Demographic Central city -.067 .013** Proportion foreign born .008 .001** Tract population -.00001 .000003 Tract population change 1980 to 2000 .0001 .0001 Socioeconomic Median Income .00003 .000001** Change in Median Income 1980 to 2000 .007 .001** Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 .0002 .0001 Proportion Owner Occupied .003 .0004** Proportion Recent Mover .003 .001**

Metropolitan Controls Region – Northeast .064 .038 Region – South -.083 .035* Region – Midwest -.067 .042 (West - omitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth -.0002 .001 Proportion Foreign Born .003 .003 Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980-2000 .0002 .0001 Black-White dissimilarity index .0003 .001 White-Latino dissimilarity index .001 .001 Latino-Black dissimilarity index .0003 .001

Intercept -.127 .050 Neighborhood level N 31647 Metropolitan level N 313 Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics

147

Table 5.6 Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting 2000 Latino Advantage in Stable Homogenous and Integrated Neighborhoods between 1980-2000 ⁿ

2000 Latino Advantage Coeff. Std. Err. Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Stability 1980-2000 ** Transitioned 0.171 0.046 ** Remained White 0.353 0.054 ** Remained White-Latino 0.109 0.036 ** Remained Latino-Black -0.102 0.043 (Remained Latino-reference)

Neighborhood Controls Demographic Central city .008 .015** Proportion foreign born .002 .001** Tract population -.000001 .000003 Tract population change 1980 to 2000 -.00003 .0001** Socioeconomic Median Income .00003 .000001** Change in Median Income 1980 to 2000 .008 .001** Housing Growth in housing units 1980 to 2000 .0002 .0001** Proportion Owner Occupied .001 .0004** Proportion Recent Mover -.001 .0005** Metropolitan Controls Region – Northeast .077 .039 Region – South .111 .027** Region – Midwest .072 .035 (West - omitted category) 1980-2000 Population Growth .0001 .0004 Proportion Foreign Born -.001 .002 Change in Proportion Foreign Born 1980-2000 -.0005 .0001 Black-White dissimilarity index -.003 .001** White-Latino dissimilarity index -.0002 .001 Latino-Black dissimilarity index .001 .001

Intercept -.500 .056** Neighborhood level N 31547 Metropolitan level N 315 Source: Neighborhood Change Data Base *p<.05 **p<.01 (two-tailed) ⁿ Unless otherwise noted, all variables represent 1980 characteristics

148

Figure 5.6 Predicted Levels of 2000 White Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

149

Figure 5.7 Predicted Levels of 2000 Black Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

150

Figure 5.8 Predicted Levels of 2000 Latino Advantage in Racially Stable and Transitioning Neighborhoods Between 1980 and 2000

151

ADDITIONAL TABLES

Table 5.7 Coefficients Estimated for Hierarchical Linear Models with Varying Reference Groups - Predicting 2000 White Advantage

Omitted Reference Group

Remained Remained Remained Independent Variable Unstable White White-Black White-Latino

Unstable

Remained White 0.10

Remained White-Black 0.16 0.06

Remained White-Latino 0.01 -0.09 -0.15 **Bolded Coefficients are significant at p<.05 *net of other metropolitan and neighborhood level controls

152

Table 5.8 Coefficients Estimated for Hierarchical Linear Models with Varying Reference Groups – Predicting 2000 Black Advantage

Omitted Reference Group

Remained Remained Remained Remained Unstable Independent Variable White Black White-Black Latino-Black Unstable

Remained White 0.10

Remianed Black 0.06 -0.03

Remained White-Black -0.01 -0.11 -0.07

Remained Latino-Black -0.22 -0.32 -0.28 -0.21 **Bolded Coefficients are significant at p<.05 *net of other metropolitan and neighborhood level controls

153

Table 5.9 Coefficients Estimated for Hierarchical Linear Models with Varying Reference Groups - Predicting 2000 Latino Advantage

Omitted Reference Group

Remained Remained Remained Remained Unstable Independent Variable White Latino White-Latino Latino-Black Unstable

Remained White 0.18

Remained Latino -0.17 -0.35

Remained White-Latino -0.06 -0.24 0.11

Remained Latino-Black -0.27 -0.45 -0.10 -0.21 **Bolded Coefficients are significant at p<.05 *net of other metropolitan and neighborhood level controls

154

Chapter 6

Conclusion

First, as scholars who study ethnicity and race, especially as they relate to modes of state power, we should contribute to a richer theoretical and historically grounded understanding of diversity. Instead of just celebrating diversity, we must theorize it, interrogate it, and actively seek the parallels and connections between people of various communities. Instead of talking about race, we should popularize the public’s understanding of the social processes of “racialization,” that is, how certain groups in U.S. society have been relegated to an oppressed status by the weight of the law, social policy, and economic exploitation. -Manning Marable 2004:227

6.1 Introduction

In 2004, race scholars Maria Krysan and Amanda E. Lewis published an

important edited volume, The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, dedicated to

W.E.B. DuBois “for setting the standard for careful and engaged work on racial dynamics

in the United States.” The volume aims to remind academics that changing racial

dynamics are not necessarily equated with racial progress. Krysan and Lewis frame their

book as setting the stage for a new agenda of race scholarship that accounts for “shifting demographics and meanings” while studying “progress on some fronts and retrenchment on others” (2004:8). The theoretical insights in this volume serve as an impetus for the formulation of my dissertation project.

155 I have sought to problematize the sociological study of racial and ethnic

neighborhood integration by examining how patterns and consequences associated with

neighborhood integration may be conditioned by the larger racialized social structure in

which they occur. I see this project as a direct response to Marable’s charge, presented in

the opening quote to this chapter, to “theorize” and “interrogate” diversity as opposed to

simply celebrating it. I argue for a need to problematize the study of neighborhood

integration. I contend that a careful analysis of the patterns and consequences associated

with integration may result in findings that suggest skepticism that recently reported

declines in segregation at the metropolitan level are translating into long-term integrated

neighborhoods that are serving to significantly diminish racial and ethnic inequality. My

rationale, as explicated in Chapter 2, is that sources and outcomes for observed patterns

in the residential landscape of the United States are situated in a societal context where

structures and systems are in place to protect White privilege and maintain Black

disadvantage (Mills 2004; Bonilla-Silva 2004). The structures, systems, and processes

may shift dramatically over time, yet they continue to ensure advantage for Whites, often

at the cost of Blacks, Latinos, and other subordinated group members. Whether

intentional or inadvertent, the presumption that cases of long-term neighborhood

integration are automatic success stories may be misguided. As social scientists work to

provide greater clarity about the mechanisms that create and maintain stratification, neglecting the racialized context in which these processes are embedded may result in inappropriate research questions and methods of analysis.

In my dissertation, I have sought to extend a small but burgeoning neighborhood integration literature by addressing some of the theoretical and empirical gaps in existent

156 work. First, I provided a detailed national portrait of basic patterns of neighborhood

integration between 1980 and 2000; these showed the prevalence and durability of

integration across the two decades, what happened to integrated and homogenous

neighborhoods over time, and the relationship between advantage and the likelihood that

neighborhoods become integrated or homogenous. Here, I attempted to add greater

nuance to our current understanding of patterns given limitations of the few existing

national studies, as outlined in Chapter 2. I also worked to explicitly interpret patterns

within the context of the actual distribution of racial and ethnic group members across neighborhood types. Second, I examined the contention that long-term integrated neighborhoods are more advantaged contexts for Blacks and Latinos compared to homogenous or unstable communities. Most importantly, I assessed group-specific levels of advantage in cases of long-term integration, to assess whether Blacks and Latinos in stable integrated neighborhoods are significantly more advantaged than those in other types of contexts.

In this chapter, I summarize the key findings from the analyses. I also provide further discussion for some of the most important results as they pertain to the larger question of whether or not integrated neighborhoods are more beneficial contexts for historically subordinated group members than other kinds of communities. I offer specific implications for sociology and public policy, and discuss limitations and suggestions for future research. Finally, I conclude by placing my study and the results within the broader context of race and residence in metropolitan America.

6.2 Summary of Key Findings

157 Below, I summarize the most important findings for the three research questions

comprising the larger project. First, regarding the question of basic patterns of prevalence and stability, I find that predominantly White, Black, and Latino neighborhoods remained the norm across the two decades. The number and proportion of

Black and Latino neighborhoods increased somewhat, while those with predominantly

Whites decreased. This decline in majority White neighborhoods largely drove and increase in the share of two-group neighborhoods. They increased substantially from

17.3% to 29.2% across the two decades (in particular, White-Black, White-Latino, and

Latino-Black neighborhoods). These patterns were characterized by several important details. Whites remained concentrated in White neighborhoods despite the substantial decline in the proportion of predominantly White neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000.

Blacks and Latinos resided in a wider range of neighborhood types than Whites. And, across all racial neighborhood types, whether stable or undergoing transition, substantial

flux in the population composition was apparent.

I also found that homogenous neighborhoods were substantially more stable than

integrated neighborhoods, with the exception of Latino-Black neighborhoods (which were nearly as likely to remain Latino-Black as White neighborhoods were likely to remain White). Approximately half of 1980 Black-White and Latino-White neighborhoods remained integrated in 2000. In contrast, more than 80% of White, Black, and Latino neighborhoods in 1980 remained homogenous in 2000.

The analysis of the relationship between disadvantage and neighborhood change

revealed a striking pattern in which, in all cases, lower levels of disadvantage were

associated with neighborhoods becoming White, and higher levels of disadvantage were

158 associated with neighborhoods becoming Black or Latino (compared to remaining

integrated). This suggests that higher levels of advantage in integrated neighborhoods

may actually undermine integration in the long term.

In assessing the degree to which long-term integrated neighborhoods across the

two decades were more advantaged than homogenous and transitioning contexts, I found

that racially stable integrated neighborhoods with a large share of Whites (White-Black

and White-Latino areas) were significantly less disadvantaged relative to predominantly

Black and predominantly Latino areas. In line with expectations from the segregation

literature, long-term White-Black neighborhoods and White-Latino neighborhoods are significantly more advantaged contexts compared to racially stable Black and Latino neighborhoods. In contrast, racially stable Black-Latino neighborhoods were the most

disadvantaged form of integration. These communities also had higher average levels of

disadvantage than predominantly Black and majority Latino areas. Long-term majority

White areas were significantly less disadvantaged compared to all other contexts,

whether homogenous, integrated, stable, or unstable.

In the final portion of the analysis, I examined whether historically subordinated

group members in durable integrated neighborhoods had higher average levels of

advantage than members in homogenous and transitioning contexts. Net of the controls

in the models estimated, the average level of Black advantage in durable White-Black

neighborhoods was significantly less than the average for those in long-term Black neighborhoods. In contrast, net of the controls in the models, Latinos had significantly

higher levels of advantage in stable White-Latino neighborhoods compared to those in

stable Latino neighborhoods. I also found that average levels of advantage for both

159 Latinos and Blacks residing in long-term Latino-Black neighborhoods were significantly

lower compared to those in all other contexts. Finally, the analysis showed that average

levels of White advantage were significantly higher in long-term White-Black than stable

White contexts.

6.3 Discussion

Several of the findings highlighted above warrant further discussion. First, the most obvious and pressing question from the results pertains to the finding that mean levels of Black advantage in stable White-Black neighborhoods are significantly lower than those in long-term predominantly Black neighborhoods; they are actually significantly lower net of the controls. This is surprising in light of the central findings of decades of residential segregation scholarship. Indeed, considerable research demonstrates that segregated Black contexts are highly disadvantaged as evident in high concentrations of poverty, poor schools, negative role models, high crime, and a lack of economic development (e.g.,Wilson 1987; Massey and Denton 1993; Krivo et. al. 1998).

This finding raises concern over the presumed benefit, for Blacks, of residing in long-term integrated contexts with Whites (though average levels of Black advantage

were higher for group members residing in stable, predominantly White areas). In

contrast, Whites had higher average levels of advantage in stable White-Black

neighborhoods than even stable White areas. This suggests, but certainly cannot prove,

that regardless of how the urban residential landscape shifts over time in form and make-

up, what will remain consistent is the advantaging of Whites over Blacks across

differential neighborhood contexts.

160 I would contend an important related point that should not to be overlooked

pertains to the tremendous inequity in both neighborhood and group-level

disadvantage/advantage between the stable White neighborhoods compared to all other

neighborhoods with large shares of Blacks and Latinos. For the large share of Whites,

and the small overall proportion of Blacks and Latinos, residing in these long-term White communities, there is a clear socioeconomic advantage. The neighborhoods themselves are significantly more advantaged than all others, and the group members in them

(whether White, Black, or Latino), are significantly more advantaged than their counterparts in other communities. This is not surprising overall. However, when placed within the context of the other findings from my analyses, it challenges how we think about the push for integration as a solution to racial and ethnic inequality between

Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. Specifically, the findings show that Blacks are only significantly more advantaged in “integrated” contexts for which we know they are least comfortable – neighborhoods with only a small proportion of other Blacks (Krysan 2000;

Charles 2006).

Additionally, how do these findings fit with our understanding of the negative

consequences associated segregated Black neighborhoods (Massey and Denton 1993;

Wilson 1987)? It is important to be clear that I am not arguing that the deleterious

characteristics associated with segregated Black neighborhoods are not important, or that

we should stop work that addresses the sources and consequences of these features.

Rather, this research highlights the importance of taking a contextualized approach to the study of race and residence which accounts for shifting demographic patterns and the racialized societal context in which they occur. It is evident that Blacks and Latinos are

161 increasingly residing in a greater array of neighborhood types, and the number residing in

predominantly same-group neighborhoods is declining. Racialized, inequitable patterns associated with all of the areas in which Blacks and Latinos reside need to be considered,

including but not solely, segregated Black and segregated Latino neighborhoods. In other

words, my central argument is that the findings suggest scholars should dedicate equal

attention to the raciazlized consequences for Blacks and Latinos residing in integrated

communities, as is currently given to the consequences associated with residence in

segregated Black and Latino neighborhoods. This is a more holistic approach to the

study of race, residence, and inequality, because it considers all of the contexts in which

Blacks and Latinos reside (and how this shifts over time).

A final important point to discuss pertains to the overwhelming conclusion, from

the results, that framing neighborhood integration as a singular construct is inaccurate

and problematic. It is clear that the urban residential landscape is marked by divergent

forms of integration with differential consequences for the neighborhoods and the groups involved. The differential patterns in neighborhood advantage and group level advantage are an important part of the story to emerge, and support theoretical arguments about a shifting hierarchical racial order given shifts in the demographic urban landscape in recent decades (Bonilla-Silva and Glover 2004). While this study is a first step in establishing baseline knowledge of the socioeconomic consequences associated with integration, the striking differential patterns found for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos and the integrated neighborhoods where they reside, highlights the necessity to further theoretically and empirically incorporate this into our discussion and examination of neighborhood integration.

162

6.4 Implications for Sociology and Public Policy

What do these findings collectively mean for our understanding of race, residence, and inequality? What are the implications of the complicated story to emerge

from my research? What do these results mean for how we think about segregation and

its consequences? Do these results imply that we should avoid a push for more racial and ethnic integration in neighborhoods? I discuss these questions below, with a central aim to “interrogate,” as Marable (2004) encourages, the conceptualization of stable neighborhood integration as a significant mechanism to reduce racial and ethnic inequality associated with segregated contexts (Marable 2004:227).

Sociology

The central sociological implication stemming from my research pertains to the question of what this approach and the results imply for how sociologists currently conceptualize racial residential segregation and inequality. As I have highlighted elsewhere, to date, the majority of work on this topic is characterized by a focus on the patterns, sources, and consequences of living in segregated Black neighborhoods. This is not surprising given the view that racial residential segregation is the “structural lynchpin” that maintains racial and ethnic inequality (Charles 2006; Bobo 1994).

However, I argue that macro measures of racial residential segregation (i.e., the

Index of Dissimilarity) are not a comprehensive litmus test for the state of race, residence, and inequality in metropolitan areas in the United States. The racialized patterns of outcomes and consequences associated with segregation and integration are potentially better indicators than levels of segregation and integration alone. If larger

163 systems and structures remain in place to protect White privilege, patterns of racial and ethnic inequality may persist regardless of the particular structuring of groups in

neighborhoods. It is likely that the patterns of inequality will continue to reflect

expectations stemming from the current tri-racial order, with Whites the most

advantaged, Blacks the most disadvantaged, and Asians and Latinos and Others

somewhere in between.

The sociological implication is to move away from a singular focus on one aspect

of race and residence, such as the negative consequences associated with segregated

Black neighborhoods. Rather, I contend we should work to simultaneously study the

consequences for historically subordinated group members across all the residential contexts in which they reside. This is a more theoretically sound approach as it accounts for the racialized patterning, and associated consequences, of groups across all types of

neighborhoods, including all the different types of integrated, segregated, or transitioning

contexts. Patterns and outcomes associated with both integration and segregation are

directly shaped by the larger racialized social structure, and this should be integrated into

our scholarship to move forward our understanding of the link between race, residence,

and inequality.

Public Policy

Several important policy implications emerge from my research, which I briefly

summarize below. It should be clear from the discussion above that I would not advocate

for a simple policy initiative that rests on the assumption that long-term cases of racial

and ethnic integration are always beneficial contexts for Blacks and Latinos. I would

argue, the negative consequences associated with residential segregation, and the

164 racialized patterning of mean levels of advantage/disadvantage in both homogenous and integrated neighborhoods, are unacceptable. Similarly deplorable is the perpetual, and highly color-coded inequitable distribution of resources (socioeconomic, transportation, education, policing, justice,etc.) available to neighborhoods (which are the root of the deleterious consequences associated with segregation). Also, the significant, on-going role of discriminatory practices in the rental and housing markets despite decades-old legislation in place to ensure equal opportunity in housing (Yinger 1995; Ross and Turner

2005; Massey 2005; Galster 1998), which yield segregation, is also highly problematic.

It is evident that Blacks and Latinos do not share the same privilege as Whites in self- sorting into neighborhoods based on desire and economic constraints.

For policy considerations, the central point my findings suggest is that the consequences associated with integration for Blacks and Latinos are more important considerations than a singular focus on arbitrary determinations of ideal racial quotas in neighborhoods. As such, I offer the following policy suggestions in light of the conclusions from my research:

 Avoid policies that seek to achieve or maintain a specific racial quota in

neighborhoods for the sake of integration in and of itself.

 Dedicate resources to improving conditions associated with the most

disadvantaged neighborhoods, whether they are integrated or homogenous. My

research demonstrates these are likely contexts where few Whites reside, such as

Black-Latino, predominantly Black, and predominantly Latino communities.

6.5 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

165 To conclude, I address some of the limitations of my research, and highlight

potential directions for future research. I will discuss limitations here not already

mentioned in the discussion in Chapters 4 and 5 pertaining to the analysis or results in

those chapters.

First, a significant concern with the approach I have taken is the issue of flux in

neighborhoods. My research indicates substantial population flux in neighborhoods that

are characterized as stable according to the typology I employ. This is especially

problematic in my assessment of outcomes in 2000 for neighborhoods that remained

racially stable in the preceding two decades. It is clear that many of the residents in these

neighborhoods were not likely residents across the two decades. Further, it is impossible

to decipher the degree to which this is the case. However, while this is a serious problem,

some assurance can be found in the work of Sharkey (2008) and Sampson and Sharkey

(2008), who find that by and large, the spatial attainment for racial and ethnic group members moving neighborhoods replicates the existent stratified urban landscape. So even if a substantial degree of the residents in the integrated neighborhoods moved across the two decades, they likely moved to a neighborhood very similar in racial and class composition to the neighborhood from which they departed. However, more importantly, this limitation can be better addressed in studies with data similar to that which Sharkey and Sampson (2008) analyze in their work on neighborhoods and the reproduction of racial inequality. Specifically, these data include information about the character of patterns of residential mobility for individuals, groups, and neighborhoods that can be aggregated or disaggregated.

166 A second significant limitation pertains to the use of an absolute typology to define integration. While I contend this typology is an improvement from those currently

employed in the literature, significant limitations remain. First, the typology relies on

thresholds that may be criticized as inappropriate. It is very difficult to make theoretical

claims that requiring 20% representation, as opposed to 15% or 25%, to be considered

integrated is the unquestionably best decision. A worthwhile endeavor to understand the

extent to which divergent thresholds impacts the results would be to replicate the

analyses with the use of divergent threshold level requirements (within some reasonable, theoretically informed boundary, such as 10% to 30%).

An additional limitation with the typology employed is that it relies on a pan-

ethnic approach, failing to differentiate between diverse Latino and Asian groups. This is

particularly important in light of theoretical arguments by Bonilla-Silva and Glover

(2004) that Latinos and Asians may be found across all three of the tri-racial categories in

the current racial order. The patterns revealed in the current analysis for integrated and

homogenous neighborhoods with large shares of Latinos may mask important differences

that would be revealed if Latino diversity was accounted for in the typology. This would

allow for work to actually test Bonilla-Silva and Glovers theory (something I cannot do

here), as the results would indicate if the neighborhoods with Latinos considered Whites

or Honorary Whites were in fact more advantaged than those considered part of the

Collective Black.

A final concern with the typology and the definition of long-term integration

pertains to the decision to define as stable, neighborhoods that remained similarly racially

classified across two decades. It is difficult to know if this is an appropriate length of

167 time in conceptualizing long-term integration. Is there some other source, theoretical or

empirical, to draw from that could inform an appropriate definition of stability? It may

be important to obtain information about the degree to which this is a serious problem or

not by examining the consequences of divergent definitions of stability for the results.

Another limitation pertains to the characteristics of neighborhoods and what makes them desirable contexts to reside. What about other concrete features associated

with the conceptualization of neighborhood quality not included in these analyses,

beyond levels of neighborhood advantage/disadvantage? Do the patterns hold when

examining outcomes such as crime and safety, collective efficacy, school quality, labor,

transportation, and health. Future research should examine these outcomes to further test

the implications and arguments stemming from my theoretical orientation and research.

When we conceptualize important qualities in neighborhoods, mean levels of

advantage/disadvantage are one, but certainly not the only, important factor to consider.

Though the relationship between residence in stable White-Black neighborhoods and Black advantage is negative, there are a host of other concrete features of neighborhoods that may be beneficial for Blacks residing in integrated as opposed to same-group neighborhoods (particularly highly disadvantaged segregated Black areas).

We know that areas with large proportions of Whites have more resources, infrastructure, less crime, and better schools. I do not examine here the possibility that Black residents

in long-term White-Black neighborhoods may in fact benefit, over time, from exposure to potential features associated with White-Black neighborhoods compared to segregated

Black communities. Of course, examining this question will also require assessing how

Whites and Blacks may differentially benefit from the same resources in shared

168 neighborhoods. It is problematic, from a theoretical perspective, to assume that group members experience the same benefits from the contexts in which they simultaneously operate (Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva 2008). Consideration of the interactional mechanisms of inequality production may play a significant role when examining this question. My research is a starting point, and these are questions that need to be addressed as scholars continue to explore the connection among race, residence, and inequality.

Finally, I do not account for the potentially significant influence of surrounding areas in impacting the outcomes I examine. Recent theoretical developments in criminology as well as the study of neighborhood change emphasize the role that characteristics of adjacent neighborhoods play in shaping outcomes (e.g., Krivo and

Peterson 2009; Crowder and South 2008). Future work should incorporate these sophisticated spatial methods to better account for the relationship between integration and disadvantage. This is especially important given the problems associated with reliance on the census tract as a proxy for neighborhoods.

In conclusion, my research challenges the promise of neighborhood integration as a solution for the problems associated with racial residential segregation. The results do not support the conceptualization of long-term integrated neighborhoods as significantly impacting mean levels of advantage for Blacks compared to those in long-term primarily

Black neighborhoods. The findings for Latinos are more promising. Nonetheless, while causal claims are not possible, I hope the theoretical orientation and ensuing analysis and results which characterize this project, serve to inspire other researchers to “interrogate” some of the implications of my findings.

169 Here, I have focused specifically on racial and ethnic neighborhood integration and its associated consequences for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos. However, the larger approach I adopt, which considers how processes and outcomes are conditioned by larger racialized systems and structures, is not limited to the examination of race and residence exclusively. I would argue, following Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva (2008), that all examinations of inequality should consider the role of the larger system of White supremacy in shaping outcomes; regardless of the form of inequality or the level of analysis. Progress remains limited by the questions we ask (or not) and the methods we employ to answer these questions; the difficulty is identifying what is most appropriate and relevant for both endeavors.

170 References

Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 1997. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review 31:826-874.

Alba, Richard D., John R. Logan, Brian J. Stults, Gilbert Marzan, and Wenquan Zhang. 1999. “Immigrant Groups in the Suburbs: A Reexamination of Suburbanization and Spatial Assimilation.” American Sociological Review 64:446-460.

Alinksy, Saul. 1941. “Community analysis and organization.” American Journal of Sociology 46:797-808.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. On the Nature of Prejudice. New York:Basic Books.

Bean, Frank D., and Gillian Stevens. 2003. America’s Newcomers and the Dynamics of Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Blalock, Hubert. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Capricorn Books.

Blau, Peter. 1964. Power and Exchange in Social Life. New York:J.Wiley and Sons.

Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

Bobo, Lawrence D. 2004. “Inequalities That Endure? Racial Ideology, American Politics, and the Peculiar Role of the Social Sciences.” Pp. 13-42 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by Maria Krysan and Amanda E. Lewis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bobo, Lawrence. 1997. “Race, Public Opinion and the Social Sphere.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61:1-15.

Bobo, Lawrence. 1989. "Keeping the Linchpin in Place: Testing the Multiple Sources of Opposition to Residential Integration." Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale2(3): 307-325.

Bobo, Lawrence D. and Camille L. Zubrinsky. 1996. “Attitudes on Residential Integration: Perceived Status Differences, Mere In-Group Preference, or Racial Prejudice?” Social Forces 74:883-909.

171 Bobo, Lawrence and James R. Kluegel. 1993. "Opposition to Race Targeting: Self- Interest, Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes?" American Sociological Review 58: 443-464.

Bobo, Lawrence, James Kluegel, and Ryan Smith. 1997. “Laissez-Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a Kinder, Gentler, Anti-black Ideology.” Pp. 15-42 in Racial Attitudes in the 1990s: Continuity and Change, edited by Steven Tuch and Jack Martin. Wesport: Praeger.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2008. Keynote address at the Association of Humanist Sociologists Annual Meeting in Boston, MA.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy & Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1999. “This Is a White Country: Racial Ideological Convergence among the Western Nations of the World-System.” Sociological Inquiry 70:188- 214.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and Karen S. Glover. 2004. “We Are All Americans: The Latin Americanization of Race Relations in the United States” Chapter 5, p. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by Maria Krysan and Amanda E. Lewis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and Tyrone Forman. 2000. “I’m not a racist, but...: Mapping white college students’ racial ideology in the USA.” Discourse & Society 11:50- 85.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and Gianpaolo Baiocchi. 2001. “Anything but racism: How sociologists limit the significance of racism.” Race and Society 4:117-131.

Cashin, Sheryll. 2004. The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class are Undermining the American Dream. New York: Public Affairs.

Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2006. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? Race, Class and Residence in a Prismatic Metropolis. New York: Russell Sage

Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2003. “The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:167-207.

Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2001. “Socioeconomic Status and Segregation: African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians in Los Angeles.” Chapter 6 in Problem of the Century: Racial Stratification in the United States at Century’s End, edited by Elijah Anderson and Douglas S. Massey. New York: Russell Sage.

172 Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2000. “Neighborhood Racial-Composition Preferences: Evidence from a Multi-Ethnic Metropolis.” Social Problems 47:379-407.

Clark, William. 1991. “Residential preferences and neighborhood racial segregation: A test of the Schelling segregation model.” Demography 28:1-19.

Crane, Jonathan. 1991. “The Epidemic Theory of Ghettos and Neighborhood Effects on Dropping Out and Teenage Childbearing.” American Journal of Sociology 96:1226-59.

Crowder, Kyle. 2000. “The Racial Context of White Mobility: An Individual-Level Assessment of the White Flight Hypothesis.” Social Science Research 29:223- 257.

Crowder, Kyle and Scott J. South. 2008. “Spatial Dynamics of White Flight: The Effects of Local and Extralocal Racial Conditions on Neighborhood Out-Migration.” American Sociological Review 73:792-812.

Crowder, Kyle and Scott J. South. 2005. “Race, Class, and Changing Patterns of Migration between Poor and Nonpoor Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology 110:1715-1763.

Cutler David and Edward Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:827 72.

Dawkins, Casey J. 2004. “Recent Evidence on the Continuing Causes of Black-White Residential Segregation.” Journal of Urban Affairs 26:3; 379-400.

Dawkins, Casey J. (forthcoming). Reflections on Diversity and Social Capital: A Critique of Robert Putman’s ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century, the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.’ Housing Policy Debate.

DeMarco, Donald L. and George Galster. 1993. "Pro Integrative Policy: Theory and Practice." Journal of Urban Affairs 15:2.

Denton, Nancy and Douglas Massey. 1991. “Patterns of Neighborhood Transition in a Multiethnic World: U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1970-1980.” Demography 28:41-63.

Deutsch, Morton and Mary Collins. 1951. Interracial Housing:A Psychological Evaluation of a Social Experiment Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1903. The souls of black folk. New York: Knopf.

173 Duncan, G.J. and Stephen Raudenbush. 2001. “Neighborhoods and adolescent development: How can we determine the links?” Pp. 105-136 in Does it Take a Village? Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families, edited by Alan Booth and Nan Crouter. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Dwyer, Rachel E. 2007. “Expanding Homes and Increasing Inequalities: US Housing Development and the Residential Segregation of the Affluent.” Social Problems 54: 23-46.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 2000. Sharing America’s Neighborhoods: The Prospects for Stable Racial Integration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 1998. “Stable, Racial Integration in the Contemporary United States: An Empirical Overview.” Journal of Urban Affairs 20:27-42.

Emerson, Michael O., Chai, Karen J. and George Yancey. 2001. “Does Race Matter in Residential Segregation? Exploring the Preferences of White Americans.” American Sociological Review 66:922:935.

Fair, Bryan. 1997. Notes of a Racial Caste Baby. New York: New York University Press.

Farley, Reynolds and William H. Frey. 1994. “Changes in the Segregation of Whites from Blacks During the 1980’s: Small Steps Toward a More Integrated Society.” American Sociological Review 59:23-45.

Farley, Reynolds, Suzanne Bianchi, and Diane Colasanto. 1979. "Barriers to the Racial Integration of Neighborhoods: The Detroit Case." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 441: 97-113.

Fasenfest, David, Jason Booza, and Kurt Metzger. 2004. “Living Together: A New Look at Racial and Ethnic Integration in Metropolitan Neighborhoods.” Brookings Institution.

Fischer, Claude S., Gretchen Stockmayer, Jon Stiles, and Michael Hout. 2004. "Distinguishing the Geographic Levels and Social Dimensions of U.S. Metropolitan Segregation, 1960-2000." Demography 41:37-59.

Fong, Eric and Kumiko Shibuya. 2005. “Multiethnic Cities in North America.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:285-304.

Ford, Scott W. 1973. “Interracial Public Housing in a Border City.” American Journal of Sociology 78:426-444.

174 Forman, Tyrone. 2004. “Color-blind Racism and Racial Indifference: The Role of Racial Apathy in Facilitating Enduring Inequalities.” Pp. 43-66 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by Maria Krysan and Amanda Lewis. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Freeman, Lance. 2005. “Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods.” Urban Affairs Review 40: 463-91.

Freeman, L., and F. Braconi. 2004. “Gentrification and displacement in New York City.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (1): 39-52.

Frey, William H. 1979. “Central City White Flight: Racial and Nonracial Causes.” American Sociological Review 44:425-448.

Friedman, Samantha. 2007. “Do declines in residential segregation mean stable Neighborhood integration in metropolitan America? A research note.” Social Science Research 37:920-933.

Galster, George C. 1987. “Residential Segregation and Interracial Economic Disparities: Simultaneous Equations Approach.” Journal of Urban Economics 21:22-44.

Galster, George C. 1990. “White Flight from Racially Integrated Neighborhoods in the 1970’s: The Cleveland Experience.” Urban Studies 27:385-399.

Galster, George C. 1998. “A Stock/Flow Model of Defining Racially Integrated Neighborhoods.” Journal of Urban Affairs 20:43-52.

Galster, George C. 1992. “The Case for Racial Integration.” Pp. 270-285 in The Metropolis in Black and White: Place, Power, and Polarization, edited by George C. Galster and Edward W. Hill. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy and Research, Rutgers University.

Galster, George C. and Heather Keeney. 1993. “Subsidized Housing and Racial Change in Yonkers, New York.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59:172- 181.

Gans, Herbert. 1999. “The Possibility of a New Racial Hierarchy in the Twenty-First Century United States” in The Cultural Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, edited by Michele Lamont, pp. 371-379, 386-390. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Geolytics. 2003. CensusCD Neighborhood Change Database, 1970-2000 Tract Data. New Brunswick, NJ: Geolytics.

175 Glaeser, Edward L. and Jacob Vigdor. 2001. Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News. Census 2000 Series. Washington, D.C.:The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

Goar, Carla. 2008. “Experiments in Black and White.” Pp. 153-162 in White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology, edited by Tukufu Zuberi and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Goering, John M. 1978. “Neighborhood Tipping and Racial Transition.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 44:68-78.

Grannis, Rick. 1998. “The importance of trivial streets: Residential streets and residential segregation.” American Journal of Sociology 103:1530-1564.

Grodzins, Morton. 1958. The Metropolitan Area As a Racial Problem. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Gross, Neil. 2009. “A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review 74:358-379.

Hamilton, David L. and George D. Bishop. 1976. “Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Initial Integration of White Suburban Neighborhoods.” Journal of Social Issues 32:47-67.

Hawley, Amos H. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure. New York: Ronald Press.

Harris, David R. 2001. “Why are Whites and Blacks Averse to Black Neighbors?” Social Science Research 30:100-116.

Harris, David R. 1999. “Property Values Drop When Black Move In, Because...’: Racial and Socioeconomic Determinants of Neighborhood Desirability.” American Sociological Review 64: 461-479.

Helper, Rose. 1979. “Social Interaction in Racially Mixed Neighborhoods.” Housing and Society 6:20-38.

Hunt, Matthew O. 2007. “African American, Hispanic, and White Beliefs about Black/White Inequality, 1977-2004. American Sociological Review 72:390-415.

Iceland, John. 2009. Where We Live Now: Immigration and Race in the United States. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Iceland, John. 2004. “Beyond Black and White: Metropolitan residential segregation in multi-ethnic America.” Social Science Review 33:248-271.

176

Iceland, John and Kyle Ann Nelson. 2008. “Hispanic Segregation in Metropolitan America: Exploring the Multiple Forms of Spatial Assimilation.” American Sociological Review 73:741-765.

Ignatiev, Noel. 1995. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge

Jensen, Robert. 2005. The heart of whiteness: Confronting race, racism, and white privilege. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Kling, Jeffrey, Jeffrey Liebman, and Lawrence Katz. 2007. “Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects.” Econometrica 75:83–119.

Kluegel, James R. and Eliot R. Smith. 1985. Beliefs about Inequality: Americans’ Views of What Is and What Ought to Be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Krivo, Lauren J., Ruth D. Peterson, and Danielle D. Kuhl. 2009. "Segregation, Racial Structure, and Neighborhood Crime." American Journal of Sociology 114:1765- 1802.

Krivo, Lauren J., Ruth D. Peterson, Helen Rizzo, and John R. Reynolds. 1998. “Race, Segregation, and the Concentration of Disadvantage: 1980-1990.” Social Problems 45:61-80.

Krivo, Lauren J., Ruth D. Peterson, and Diana Karafin. 2006. "Perceptions of Neighborhood Problems in Racially and Economically Distinct Neighborhoods." Pp. 237-255 in The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America, edited by Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J. Krivo, and John Hagan. New York: New York University Press.

Krivo, Lauren and Ruth D. Peterson. 1996. “Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime.” Sociological Forces 75:619-648.

Krivo, Lauren J. and Robert L. Kaufman. 1999. “How Long Can It Go? Declining Black- White Segregation in a Multi-Ethnic Context.” Demograhpy 36:93-110.

Krysan, Maria. 2002. “Whites Who Say They’d Flee: Who are They and Why Would They Leave?” Demography 39:675-696.

Maria Krysan and Amanda Lewis (eds.). 2004. The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Krysan, Maria and Michael Bader. 2007. “Perceiving the Metropolis: Seeing the City Through a Prism of Race.” Social Forces 86:699-733.

177 Lee, Jennifer, and Frank D. Bean. 2007. “Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration and America’s New Racial/Ethnic Divide.” Social Forces 86 (2): 561-586.

Lee, Barrett. 1985. “Racially Mixed Neighborhoods During the 1970’s: Change or Stability?” Social Science Quarterly 66:346-364.

Lee, Barrett , and Peter B. Wood. 1991. “Is Neighborhood Racial Succession Place- Specific?” Demography 28:21-40.

Lee, Barrett, Sean F. Reardon, Glenn Firebaugh, Chad R. Farrell, Stephen A. Matthews, and David O’ Sullivan. 2008. “Beyond the Census Tract: Patterns and Determinants of Racial Segregation at Multiple Geographic Scales.” American Sociological Review 73:766-791.

Lee, B.A., R.S. Oropesa, and J.W. Kanan. 1994. “Neighborhood Context and Residential Mobility.” Demography 31:249-270.

Leventhal, T. and J. Brooks-Gunn. 2000. “The Neighborhoods They Live In: The Effects of Neighborhood Residence on Child and Adolescent Outcomes.” Psychological Bulletin 126:309-337.

Logan, John R.. Brian J. Stults, and Reynolds Farley. 2004. "Segregation of Minorities in the Metropolis: Two Decades of Change." Demography 41:1-22.

Logan, John R. and Linda Brewster Sterns. 1981. “Suburban Racial Segregation and Black Access to Public Resources.” Social Science Quarterly 63:762-770.

Ludwig, Jens, Jeffrey B. Liebman, Jeffrey R. Kling, Greg J. Duncan, Lawrence F. Katz, Ronald C. Kessler, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu. 2008. “What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment?” American Journal of Sociology 114 (1).

Maly, Michael T. 2000. “The Neighborhood Diversity Index: A Complementary Measure of Racial Residential Setlement.” Journal of Urban Affairs 22:37-47.

Marable, Manning. 2004. “The Political and Theoretical Contexts of The Changing Racial Terrain.” Pp. 224-234 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by Maria Krysan and Amanda E. Lewis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Marshall, H. and O’Flaherty. 1987. “Suburbanization in the Seventies: The ‘Push-Pull’ Hypothesis Re-Visited.” Journal of Urban Affairs 9:249-262.

Massey, Douglas. 2005. “Racial Discrimination in Housing: A Moving Target” Social Problems 52:148-151.

178

Massey, Douglas. 1983. “A Research Note on Residential Succession: The Hispanic Case.” Social Forces 61:825-833.

Massey, Douglas and B. Mullan. 1984. “Processes of Hispanic and Black Spatial Assimilation.” American Journal of Sociology 89:836-874.

Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Massey, Douglas and Nancy A. Denton. 1988. "The Dimensions of Residential Segregation." Social Forces 67:281-315.

Massey, Douglas, Andrew B. Gross., and Kumiko Shibuya. 1994. “Migration, segregation, and the geographic concentration of poverty.” American Sociological Review 59:425-445.

McKenzie, Roderick. E. 1968. On Human Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mills, Charles. 1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Mills, Charles. 1998. “But What Are You Really?: The Metaphysics of Race.” Pp. 41-66 in Blackness Visible: Essays on Philosophy and Race, edited by Charles W. Mills. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Mills, Charles. 2004. “Racial Exploitation and the Wages of Whiteness.” Pp. 235-262 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by Maria Krysan and Amanda E. Lewis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Molotch, Harvey L. 1969. “Racial Change in a Stable Community.” American Journal of Sociology 75:226-238.

Molotch, Harvey. 1972. Managed Integration: The Dilemmas of Doing Good in the City. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma. New York:Harper and Brothers

Nagourney, Adam. 2008. “Obama Wins Election; McCain Loses as Bush Legacy Is Rejected” New York Times November 4, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05campaign.html?pagewanted=1 &sq=obama%20victory&st=cse&scp=14

179 Nyden, Philip, Michael Maly, and John Lukehart. 1997. "The Emergence of Stable Racially and Ethnically Diverse Urban Communities: A Case Study of Nine U.S. Cities," Housing Policy Debate 8:491-534.

Okediji, Tade O. 2005. “The Dynamics of Ethnic Fragmentation: A Proposal for an Expanded Measurement Index.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 65(2):637-662.

Oliver, Melvin and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.

Pager, Devah. 2007. Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." American Journal of Sociology 108:937-975.

Park, Robert E. 1936. “Succession: An Ecological Concept.” American Sociological Review 2:171-179.

Park, Robert E. 1952. Human Communities: The City and Human Ecology. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick D. McKenzie. 1925. The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Parkin, Frank. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Cambridge: Tavistock.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary E. 1999. Black Picket Fences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Peterman, William and Philip Nyden. 2001. "Creating Stable Racially and Ethnically Diverse Communities in the United States: A Model for the Future" Social Policy and Administration 35:32-47.

180 Peterson, Ruth D. and Lauren J. Krivo. 2009. "Segregated Spatial Locations, Race-Ethnic Composition, and Neighborhood Violent Crime." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 623:93-107.

Pettigrew, Thomas. 1979. “Racial Change and Social Policy.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 441:114-131.

Pettigrew, Thomas. 1973. “Attitudes on Race and Housing: A Social Psychological View.” Pp. 21-84 in Segregation in Residential Areas: Papers on Socioeconomic and Racial Factors in the Choice of Housing, edited by Amos H. Hawley and Vincent Rock. Washington, D.C.:National Academy of Sciences.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1980. “The Case Against Urban Desegregation.” Pp. 112-119 in Housing Urban America, edited by Jon Pynoos, Robert Schafter, and Chester Hartman. New York:Aldine.

Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Table 3: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NC-EST2008-03) http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008-srh.html

Portes, Alejandro and Ruben Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, Calif.:University of California Press and Russell Sage Foundation.

Putnam, Robert. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century” Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2):137-174.

Quillian, Lincoln. 2002. “Why is Black-White Residential Segregation So Persistent?: Evidence on Three Theories from Migration Data.” Social Science Research 31:197-229.

Quillian, Lincoln. 1999. “Migration Patterns and the Growth of High-Poverty Neighborhoods, 1970-1990.” American Journal of Sociology 105-1-37.

Quillian, Lincoln and Devah Pager. 2001. “Black Neighbors, Higher Crime? The Role of Racial Stereotypes in Evaluations of Neighborhood Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 107:717-767.

Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Anthony S. Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.

Raudenbush, Stephen W., Anthony S. Bryk, and Richard Congdon. 2007. HLM 6.04 for Windows. Scientific Software International.

181

Rawlings, Lynette A., Laura E. Harris, and Margery Austin Turner. 2004. “Race and Residence: Prospects for Stable Neighborhood Integration.” Urban Institute.

Reskin, Barbara F. 2003. “Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.” American Sociological Review 68: 1-21.

Roscigno, Vincent J., Diana L. Karafin and Griff Tester. 2009. “The Complexities and Processes of Racial Housing Discrimination.@ Social Problems 56:49-69.

Roscigno, Vincent J. 2007. The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ross, Stephen L. and Margery A. Turner. 2005. “Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan America:Explaining Changes Between 1989 and 2000.” Social Problems 52: 152- 180.

Saltman, Juliet. 1990. A fragile movement: The struggle for neighborhood stabilization. New York:Greenwood Press.

Sampson, Robert J. and Patrick Sharkey. 2008. “Neighborhood Selection and the Social Reproduction of Concentrated Racial Inequality.” Demography 45:1, 1-29.

Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: a Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy." Science 277: 918- 24.

Sampson, Robert J. and Patrick Sharkey. 2008. “Neighborhood Selection and the Social Reproduction of Concentrated Racial Inequality.” Demography 45: 1-29.

Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley. 2002. "Assessing ‘Neighborhood Effects:' Social Processes and New Directions in Research." Annual Review of Sociology 28:443-478.

Sampson, Robert J. 2008. "Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure." American Journal of Sociology 114: 189-231.

Sampson, Robert J. 2002. “Transcending Tradition: New Directions in Community Research, Chicago Style.” Criminology 40: 213-230.

Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. “Dynamic models of segregation.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1:143-186.

182 Schelling, Thomas C. 1972. “The Process of Residential Segregation: Neighborhood tipping.” Pp. 157-184 in Racial Discrimination in Economic Life, edited by Anthony Pascal. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2008. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Context.” American Journal of Sociology 113:4, 931-969.

Sigelman, Lee and SusanWelch. 1993. Black Americans’ Views of Racial Inequality: The Dream Deferred. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Richard A. 1998. “Discovering Stable Racial Integration.” Journal of Urban Affairs 20:1-5.

Smith, Christopher B. 1994. “Back and to the Future: The Intergroup Contact Hypothesis Revisited.” Sociological Inquiry 64:438-455.

South, Scott J. and Kyle D. Crowder. 2000. “The Declining Significance of Neighborhoods? Marital Transitions in Community Context.” Social Forces 78:1067-1099.

South, Scott J. and Kyle Crowder. 1998. “Leaving the ‘hood:’ residential mobility between black, white, and integrated neighborhoods.” American Sociological Review 63:17-26.

Stoll, Michael. 2008. “Race, Place, and Poverty Revisited.” Pp. 201-231 in The Colors of Poverty, edited by Ann Chih Lin and David R. Harris. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Suttles, G. D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Swarns, Rachel. 2008. “Blacks debate civil rights risk in Obama’s rise.” New York Times August 24, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/us/politics/25race.html?pagewanted=1&sq= obama%20blacks%20race%20relations%20concerns&st=cse&scp=1#

Swaroop, Sapna. 2005. The Social Consequences of Racial Residential Integration. Rockville, MD: University Partnerships Clearinghouse.

Tatian, Peter. 2003. “Neighborhood Change Database Data Users’ Guide: Long Form Release.” Urban Institute and Geolytics, Inc.

Taub, Richard, D. Garth Taylor, and Jan Dunham. 1984. Paths of Neighborhood Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

183 Tester, Griff. 2008. “An Intersectional Analysis of Sexual Harassment in Housing.” Gender & Society 22 (3): 349-366.

Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources & Consequences of Job Segregation. Ithaca: Cornell.

Tubergen, Frank van. 2006. Immigrant Integration: A Cross-National Study. New York:LFB Scholoarly Publishing LLC.

Warren, Jonathan and France Winddance Twine. 1997. “White Americans, the new minority?: Non-Blacks and the Ever-Expanding Boundaries of Whiteness.” Journal of Black Studies 28:200-218.

Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

White, Michael J., Ann H. Kim, Jennifer E. Glick. 2005. “Mapping Social Distance: Ethnic Residential Segregation in a Multiethnic Metro.” Sociological Methods and Research 34(2):173-203.

White, Michael J. and Sharon Sassler. 2000. "Judging Not Only By Color: Ethnicity, Nativity, and Neighborhood Attainment." Social Science Quarterly 81:997-1013.

White, Michael J. and Jennifer E. Glick. 1999. "The impact of immigration on residential segregation.” Pp. 345-372 in Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity and Employment in the United States, edited by Frank D. Bean and Stephanie Bell- Rose. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.

Wilkes, Rima and John Iceland. 2004. “Hypersegregation in the Twenty-First Century.” Demography 41:22-36.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Wilson, William Julius 1996. When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage Books.

Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zhou, Min. 1997. “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation.” International Migration Review 31:893-922.

Zuberi, Tukufu and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 2008. “Telling the Real Tale of the Hunt: Toward a Race Conscious Sociology of Racial Stratification.” Pp. 329-342 in White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology, edited by Tukufu Zuberi

184 and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

185