DOCSLIB.ORG

Concentrated Rural Poverty and the Geography of Exclusion Daniel T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Concentrated Rural Poverty and the Geography of Exclusion Daniel T POLICY BRIEF, FALL 2008 Concentrated Rural Poverty and the Geography of Exclusion DANIEL T. LICHTER AND DOMENICO PARISI ost middle-class and affluent Americans have Measuring Concentrated Poverty little or no real contact with the poor—in neigh- borhoods, schools, or communities. The poor are We use sub-county data (at the block-group level) from Mliterally and figuratively separated from mainstream soci- the 1990 and 2000 decennial census summary files. Our ety, living in economically distressed places that often seem analyses include information on 225,115 block groups 1 worlds apart from most Americans. In fact, poor neighbor- in 1990 and 207,611 block groups in 2000. Block groups hoods are places to avoid; rightly or not, they are perceived are the smallest geographical units for which data on as different, dangerous, and dirty. They are “out of sight, out poverty and other socioeconomic characteristics are of mind.” made available by the Census Bureau. A block group Economically distressed communities often lack ade- is a cluster of census blocks. These aggregated block- quate institutional support services (e.g., health care and group data can then be linked to other salient county educational programs), good jobs that pay a living wage, social and economic characteristics from the decennial and a stable middle-class population that provides role censuses for analyses. Census tracts are larger than models and active networks to jobs and opportunities. block groups and typically serve as useful proxies for Opportunities for upward mobility in poor places are lim- neighborhoods in U.S. metro cities and suburbs. How- ited, and poverty is often passed along from generation to ever, they are generally ill-suited for defining housing generation. Poor people are seemingly trapped in place—in markets or fields of social interaction in rural America. poor places. Here we document changes over the 1990s in the micro- Poverty debates typically center on the urban poor, scale concentration of poverty in the United States. particularly those in the inner city. Much less research Specifically, we estimate recent changes in the share of and policy attention have focused on the rural poor. As a high-poverty block groups as well as the share of poor result, the rural poor are often left behind and forgotten and nonpoor people who live in them. Like other stud- in economically distressed small towns in Appalachia, the ies, we define high-poverty block groups as those with Mississippi Delta region, colonias along the border in Texas poverty rates of 20 percent or more. We also document and New Mexico, on Indian reservations, and in other the ghettoization of poor rural minorities and their geo- pockets of rural poverty throughout the country. graphical segregation from the rural white population This policy brief provides new empirical evidence on and the nonpoor. Individuals are defined as poor if they concentrated rural poverty. We find that one-half of all live in families with incomes below the official poverty rural poor are segregated in high-poverty areas. The rates income line for a family of their size and configura- are even more striking for minorities. Three-fourths of tion as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and rural blacks and two-thirds of rural Hispanics are segre- Budget. Family income is measured in the year before gated from America’s more affluent, largely white popula- the census enumeration (i.e., 1989 for the 1990 census tions. Clearly, the rural poor, like those in cities, are often and 1999 for the 2000 census). Individuals living alone physically and socially isolated from most middle-class or with unrelated individuals are regarded as a one- Americans. These findings call for targeted public policies person “family” for purposes of defining poverty. that address inequalities based on place and the geography of exclusion in America. 2 CARSEY INSTITUTE Why Concentrated Poverty Matters Table 1: Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Poverty Concentrations across Census Block Patterns of concentrated poverty highlight the changing Groups, 1990 and 2000 geography of opportunity in American society and barriers to upward mobility. Evidence of concentrated rural poverty 1990 2000 also suggests the need for place-based policies (rural devel- Metro Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro opment strategies, for example) that focus on structural conditions rather than individual deficiencies. Percentage of block groups with Poverty frequently grips America’s minorities, many of poverty greater than 20% 22.1 32.0 21.0 24.4 whom live and work in isolated rural areas. Rural blacks living in small towns in the South, for example, face long- Percentage of block groups with standing traditions of racial discrimination and economic poverty greater than 40% 6.9 6.0 5.0 3.5 oppression. More recently, Hispanics have dispersed from gateway cities into new rural destinations in the Midwest Percentage of overall population in high-poverty areas 19.5 32.1 18.9 23.5 and South, often to work for low wages in meatpack- ing plants, agriculture, or construction. Poverty rates in Percentage of poor people in America’s Indian reservations are exceedingly high. More high-poverty areas 54.6 58.3 50.9 46.7 than one-half of residents in some reservation communities are poor. Social exclusion and isolation in poor communities often reinforce racial and class inequality. Indeed, geographic and social mobility often go hand in hand. To get somewhere in life often means you have to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, rural minorities, elderly people, and the uneducated poor have few residential options that represent a step forward. Those who move often circulate between poor neighbor- hoods, communities, or regions. Figure 1: U.S. Nonmetro Block Groups with Poverty Rates Greater than 20 Percent CARSEY INSTITUTE 3 Figure 2: Share of Population in Poor Areas, Metro and Nonmetro, 2000 80 70 60 50 40 Percentage 30 20 10 0 Total Metro Total Nonmetro Poor Metro Poor Nonmetro White Black Hispanic Patterns of Concentrated The Good News: Concentrated Rural Poverty Rural Poverty Eased The good news of the 1990s is that many rural areas, includ- The share of rural block groups with poverty rates exceed- ing isolated populations in Appalachia and the South, ing 20 percent declined from 32 to 24 percent in the 1990s experienced unexpectedly large declines in poverty during (see Table 1). Declines were even greater in block groups the decade’s economic boom. Nonmetro poverty rates with extremely high poverty rates (40 percent or more). dipped to record lows (13.4 percent in 2000) before inching The share of poor areas clearly is declining, as is the share up again with the early 2000s recession. Whether recent of rural people who live in them. In fact, the share of rural poverty declines have been broadly shared across rural poor people in high-poverty block groups declined from communities and neighborhoods is much less clear. 58.3 to 46.7. The rural poor became less concentrated in Figure 1 shows that poverty remains highly concen- poor areas during the 1990s. trated in Appalachia; the “Black Belt” crescent that extends from Arkansas to North Carolina; the Mississippi Delta; the Lower Rio Grande River Valley along the Mexico-U.S. The Bad News: Persistent Racial border; and Indian reservations in the desert Southwest and Differences in Concentrated Poverty the upper Great Plains states (mostly South Dakota). The map also clearly indicates a broad geographical spread Despite recent declines in concentrated poverty, these of “pockets of poverty.” Obviously, high-poverty regions results nevertheless dramatize the continuing high geo- like Appalachia, for example, are not uniformly poor, and graphic concentration of rural poor people in poor areas. perhaps more importantly, there are many pockets of poverty About 50 percent of the rural poor live in high-poverty even within affluent counties. In fact, more than one-half of block groups. The common assumption that the rural poor the nation’s rural high-poverty block groups were located in and nonpoor are living in the same neighborhoods or com- counties with poverty rates less than 20 percent in 2000. (For munities clearly needs revising. a definition of block groups, see sidebar.) The implication is Poor racial minorities are much more geographically clear: Rural pockets of poverty are often hidden by apparent concentrated than rural whites. Only 37 percent of poor prosperity, which gives a misleading impression of the extent nonmetro whites lived in high-poverty block groups in of concentrated poverty in America. 2000 (Figure 2). For blacks, 75 percent lived in high-poverty 4 CARSEY INSTITUTE areas. Perhaps surprisingly, rural blacks are even more Table 2: Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan “ghettoized” than blacks living in metro areas. Segregation, 2000 Hispanics are slightly less concentrated than blacks in high-poverty areas. Approximately six in 10 poor Hispanics Segregation Index* Segregation Index* lived in high-poverty block groups in 2000. These figures Metro Nonmetro are similar to those in metro areas, where 66.4 percent lived % % in “ghetto” neighborhoods. The worry is that this concen- Total Population 30.7 20.6 tration may limit opportunities for upward mobility and reinforce inequality from generation to generation. Poor White vs. Nonpoor White 30.1 20.6 Poor Black vs. Nonpoor Black 50.4 54.9 Segregation of the Poor Poor Hispanic vs. Nonpoor Hispanic 60.1 58.2 Poor White – Poor Black 67.0 69.3 Concerns about concentrated poverty also raise obvious Poor White – Poor Hispanic 63.0 61.8 questions about the putative lack of exposure to main- stream institutions and middle-class role models.2 When Poor Hispanic – Poor Black 71.2 75.2 families are socially isolated in poor parts of town, they Nonpoor White – Nonpoor Black 57.9 63.6 may not learn about job openings, discover positive outlets Nonpoor White – Nonpoor Hispanic 46.5 47.8 for their children, or be exposed to the many small and seemingly innocuous dealings of everyday life that shape Nonpoor Hispanic – Nonpoor Black 59.3 67.8 one’s opportunities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Poverty and Place in the Context of the American South by Regina
    Poverty and Place in the Context of the American South by Regina Smalls Baker Department of Sociology Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ David Brady, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Linda M. Burton, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Eduardo Bonilla-Silva ___________________________ Kenneth C. Land Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Sociology in the Graduate School of Duke University 2015 ABSTRACT Poverty and Place in the Context of the American South by Regina Smalls Baker Department of Sociology Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ David Brady, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Linda M. Burton, Co-Supervisor ___________________________ Eduardo Bonilla-Silva ___________________________ Kenneth C. Land An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Sociology in the Graduate School of Duke University 2015 Copyright by Regina Smalls Baker 2015 Abstract In the United States, poverty has been historically higher and disproportionately concentrated in the American South. Despite this fact, much of the conventional poverty literature in the United States has focused on urban poverty in cities, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. Relatively less American poverty research has focused on the enduring economic distress in the South, which Wimberley (2008:899) calls “a neglected regional crisis of historic and contemporary urgency.” Accordingly, this dissertation contributes to the inequality literature by focusing much needed attention on poverty in the South. Each empirical chapter focuses on a different aspect of poverty in the South. Chapter 2 examines why poverty is higher in the South relative to the Non-South.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Asian and Pacific Cities 2015 Urban Transformations Shifting from Quantity to Quality
    The State of Asian and Pacific Cities 2015 Urban transformations Shifting from quantity to quality The State of Asian and Pacific Cities 2015 Urban transformations Shifting from quantity to quality © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), 2015 © The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), 2015 Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme or its Member States. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes do not imply their endorsement by the United Nations. Excerpts from this publication, excluding photographs, may be reproduced without authorisation, on condition that the source is indicated. All photos courtesy of dreamstime.com other than pp. 19, 23, 28, 31, 44, 66, 73, 120, 133, 135, 152, 164, 165 and 172 where copyright is indicated. HS Number: HS/071/15E ISBN: (Volume) 978-92-1-132681-9 Cover image: A bridge on the Pearl River, Guangzhou © Lim Ozoom/Dreamstime Design and Layout
    [Show full text]
  • Black, Poor, and Gone: Civil Rights Law's Inner-City Crisis
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLC\54-2\HLC204.txt unknown Seq: 1 21-JUN-19 10:37 Black, Poor, and Gone: Civil Rights Law’s Inner-City Crisis Anthony V. Alfieri* In recent years, academics committed to a new law and sociology of pov- erty and inequality have sounded a call to revisit the inner city as a site of cultural and socio-legal research. Both advocates in anti-poverty and civil rights organizations, and scholars in law school clinical and university social policy programs, have echoed this call. Together they have embraced the inner city as a context for experiential learning, qualitative research, and legal-political ad- vocacy regarding concentrated poverty, neighborhood disadvantage, residential segregation, and mass incarceration. Indeed, for academics, advocates, and ac- tivists alike, the inner city stands out as a focal point of innovative theory-prac- tice integration in the fields of civil and criminal justice. Today, in the post-civil rights era, new socio-legal research on the inner city casts a specially instructive light on the past, present, and future work of community-based advocacy groups, anti-poverty and civil rights organizations, and law school clinical programs. That light illuminates the socioeconomic con- ditions that cause and perpetuate poverty, and, equally important, the govern- ment (federal, state, and local) policies and practices that spawn mass eviction and reinforce residential segregation. Widely adopted by municipalities, those displacement-producing and segregation-enforcing policies and practices— neighborhood zoning, land use designation, building condemnation and demoli- tion, and housing code under- or over-enforcement—have caused and will con- tinue to cause the involuntary removal of low-income tenants and homeowners from gentrifying urban spaces and their forced out-migration to impoverished suburban spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Concentrated Poverty: Achange in Course G
    NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD CHANGECHANGE inin UrbanUrban AmericaAmerica URBAN INSTITUTE www.urban.org/nnip No. 2, May 2003 Concentrated Poverty: AChange in Course G. Thomas Kingsley and Kathryn L. S. Pettit From the late 1960s through the 1980s, the Ⅵ An increasing share of high-poverty trends seemed inexorable. Poverty became tracts are in the suburbs of the largest more and more concentrated in inner city 100 metropolitan areas (15 percent in neighborhoods and conditions in those 2000, up from 11 percent in 1980), but neighborhoods got worse and worse. Data central cities of those metros still retain from the 2000 Census show that the 1990s a dominant if decreasing share (62 per- Poverty became broke those trends: cent, down from 67 percent in 1980). The share in the nation’s 230 other met- notably less Ⅵ Poverty became notably less concen- ropolitan areas remained about the same concentrated in the trated in the 1990s. The share of the met- over this period (22–23 percent). ropolitan poor who live in “extreme- 1990s; the share of poverty neighborhoods” (census tracts Ⅵ The share of all high-poverty tracts with metropolitan poor who with poverty rates of 40 percent or more) predominantly (more than 60 percent) had jumped from 13 to 17 percent in the African-American populations has de- live in extreme-poverty 1980s but dropped all the way back to clined markedly since 1980 (dropping from 48 percent to 39 percent), while neighborhoods dropped 12 percent in 2000. The share in “high- poverty neighborhoods” (poverty rates those that are predominantly Hispanic back to 12 percent in of 30 percent or more) increased from went up from 13 to 20 percent and those 25 to 31 percent in the 1980s but with no predominant race grew from 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • A Contextual Definition of the Underclass by Martha Van Haitsma
    A contextual definition of the underclass by Martha Van Haitsma Spatial concentration of poverty in and of itself need not constitute a problem distinct from general poverty. The neighborhoods in which people live do alter the mix of Martha Van Haitsma is a graduate student in the Department opportunities and difficulties they face, but not everyone in of Sociology at the University of Chicago. This article is the an area of concentrated poverty belongs to the same socio- revised and edited section of a paper presented at the 1989 economic class. Spatial concentration cannot be ignored, Midwest Sociological Association Meetings in St. Louis, however, as it constitutes part of the mechanism that links Missouri, April 5-10, 1989. nonnormative3 patterns of income generation and family formation to chronic poverty. When an area is largely popu- lated by chronically poor persons, the opportunities for climbing out of poverty are dimini~hed.~Residents of such Assessing whether or not an underclass exists, how it came areas have weak links to job networks, and therefore find to be, and what policies are likely to affect it all turn on how alternate means of generating income. Higher rates of infor- the term "underclass" is defined. The underclass has been mal and illegal means of accruing income, as well as welfare variously defined by any or all of four characteristics: use, strengthen networks of information tied to these ave- chronic poverty; nonnormative behavior with respect to nues rather than to formal work. With few visible career income generation and family formation; spatial concentra- prospects and few "marriageable" (i.e., stably empl~yed)~ tion of such poverty and/or behavior; and intergenerational men, young women are more likely to opt for single mother- transmission of such poverty and/or behavior.? The manner hood as a route to adulthood.
    [Show full text]
  • Concentrated Poverty Being Worse Off When Their Neighbors Are Work
    Q&A with Paul A. Jargowsky An associate professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, Jargowsky directs the Bruton Center for Development Studies, which researches urban and regional development policies and trends, and the Texas Schools Project, which studies educational issues. His research interests center on the geographic concentration of poverty and residential segre- gation by race and class. His award-winning book, Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City, comprehensively examines poverty at the neighborhood level. How did the term concentrated poverty being worse off when their neighbors are work. First, we used to push people into come about? also poor, compared with those living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty by mixed-income neighborhoods. constructing large-scale public housing Before the 1960s, people generally projects. Now we do the flip side of that. thought that poverty was related to Very large tracts of land are developed place. For example, they would refer to Why is it relevant to talk about con- just for higher-income households. By rural, Skid Row or Appalachian poverty. centrated poverty instead of poverty building housing for only one income level Then in the 1960s, Molly Orshansky at in general? in a neighborhood, we segregate people. the Social Security Administration It is important to care about the total Second, increasing crime, such as at the invented the official poverty line, which number of poor people. However, a poor time of the riots in the 1960s and 1970s, was an estimate of how much it costs a child who goes to a failing school, whose pushed the white middle class from the family to cover basic necessities.
    [Show full text]
  • Concentrated Poverty Neighborhoods in Los Angeles
    Concentrated Poverty Neighborhoods in Los Angeles Michael Matsunaga Economic Roundtable Executive Summary Poverty adversely affects the lives of Los Angeles residents as well as the City as a whole. Among other things, poverty has a direct financial impact on local government because of above-average per capita costs for municipal services related to police and fire protection, courts, education, and other services in poor neighborhoods. Nationally, the number of neighborhoods marked by concentrated poverty and the number of people living in such acutely poor neighborhoods has declined. Los Angeles is one of only two major U.S. metropolitan areas in which concentrated poverty became more prevalent between 1990 and 2000. This analysis of concentrated poverty (census tracts in which 40 percent or more of households were below the poverty level in 2000) found that neighborhoods with concentrated poverty are clustered in a corridor extending from downtown-adjacent neighborhoods to South Los Angeles. Eight percent of the tracts in the City have concentrated levels of poverty. These tracts are home to 15 percent of all the City’s households in poverty. Residents of concentrated poverty neighborhoods (CPNs) are disproportionately Latino and Black. They also are largely foreign-born and face language barriers. The proportion of residents in CPNs who are working-age is comparable to that in the City as a whole, but residents of CPNs are less likely to be employed and more likely to be out of the labor force. The wide-spread impacts of concentrated poverty are revealed by a variety of indicators of social well being. CPNs are 63 percent more adversely impacted than the City as a whole as measured by: à Housing insecurity à Young adults at-risk à Immobility à Maternal health outcomes à Educational attainment à Public safety à School performance There is a much higher concentration of construction workers among CPN residents than in the overall City or County of Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of Inner-City Poverty: Eight Hypotheses in Search of Reality
    The Causes of Inner-City Poverty: Eight Hypotheses in Search of Reality The Causes of Inner-City Poverty: Eight Hypotheses in Search of Reality Michael B. Teitz Public Policy Institute of California and University of California, Berkeley Karen Chapple University of California, Berkeley Abstract Over the past 40 years, poverty among the inhabitants of U.S. inner cities has remained stubbornly resistant to public policy prescriptions. Especially for African Americans and Latinos, the gap between their economic well-being and that of the mainstream has widened despite persistent and repeated efforts to address the prob- lem. At the same time, a continuing stream of research has sought to explain urban poverty, with a wide variety of explanations put forward as the basis for policy. This paper reviews that research, organizing it according to eight major explanations or hypotheses: structural shifts in the economy, inadequate human capital, racial and gender discrimination, adverse cultural and behavioral factors, racial and income segregation, impacts of migration, lack of endogenous growth, and adverse conse- quences of public policy. We conclude that all of the explanations may be relevant to urban poverty but that their significance and the degree to which they are well supported varies substantially. It is now more than 12 years since the publication of William J. Wilson and Robert Aponte’s (1985) survey of urban poverty in the United States. That report still stands alone as an effort to produce “a state of the art review of research and theoretical writing on urban poverty” (Wilson and Aponte, 1985). However, in the intervening years, there has been much work on and even more debate about the nature and causes of poverty in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigrants and Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty: Assimilation Or Stagnation?
    National Poverty Center Working Paper Series #06‐44 November, 2006 Immigrants and Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty: Assimilation or Stagnation? Paul A. Jargowsky, University of Texas at Dallas This paper is available online at the National Poverty Center Working Paper Series index at: http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_papers/ Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Poverty Center or any sponsoring agency. Immigrants and Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty: Assimilation or Stagnation?* Paul A. Jargowsky University of Texas at Dallas October 28, 2006 * Presented at “Local Contexts and the Prospects for the Second Generation,” West Coast Poverty Center, Seattle, Washington, October 20, 2006. The West Coast Poverty Center supported and encouraged this research. Helpful comments and suggestions have been provided by Kurt Beron, Marie Chevrier, Kyle Crowder, Helen Ladd, Magnus Lofstrom, Yoonhwan Park, and Alejandro Portes. I am very grateful to Jean Roth and the National Bureau of Economic Research and John Schmitt at the Center for Economic Policy Research for useful programs and utilities related to the Current Population Survey. Comments and suggestions are welcome; direct them to [email protected]. Immigrants and Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty: Assimilation or Stagnation? Abstract Immigrants and their children often live, at least for a time, in neighborhoods that have high concentrations of fellow immigrants. Typically these neighborhoods also have high poverty levels are located near concentrations of the native-born poor. The conventional wisdom is that living in extremely poor neighborhoods leads to “concentration effects” that exacerbate the problems of poverty and limit economic opportunity (Wilson 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities Across the U.S
    The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities Across the U.S. A JOINT PROJect OF THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM AND THE METROPOLItaN POLICY PROGRAM at THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities Across the U.S. A JOINT PROJect OF THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM AND THE METROPOLItaN POLICY PROGRAM at THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Metropolitan Policy Program at BROOKINGS © 2008 The Federal Reserve System and The Brookings Institution The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America: Case Studies from Communities Across the U.S. EDITORS David Erickson, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Lisa Nelson, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Anne O’Shaughnessy, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Alan Berube, Brookings Institution AUTHORS AND RESEARCHERS Alan Berube, Brookings Institution Courtney Anderson Mailey, Federal Reserve Bank Jeremiah Boyle, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago of Richmond Ana Cruz-Taura, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Carl Neely, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Naomi Cytron, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Lisa Nelson, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Wenhua Di, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Harriet Newburger, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Kelly Edmiston, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Yazmin Osaki, Federal Reserve Bank of New York David Erickson, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Ellen Eubank, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Keith Rolland, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Jeff Gatica, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Anita Sands, ARI Planning & Research, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Overcoming Concentrated Poverty and Isolation
    OVERCOMING CONCENTRATED POVERTY AND ISOLATION LessonsLessons Fromfrom ThreeThree HUDHUD DemonstrationDemonstration InitiativesInitiatives OVERCOMING CONCENTRATED POVERTY AND ISOLATION Lessons from Three HUD Demonstration Initiatives MARGERY AUSTIN TURNER LYNETTE A. RAWLINGS July 2005 THE URBAN INSTITUTE Copyright © 2005. The Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that exam- ines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Research for this report was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Photo by Jim Hubbard. Contents Executive Summary . 1 I Background and Introduction . 5 II The Three Demonstrations . 7 Moving to Opportunity. 7 Jobs-Plus. 15 Bridges to Work . 19 III Ten Lessons for Policy and Practice. 25 Potential for Success . 25 Realities Families Face . 28 Implementing Complex Strategies . 31 Obstacles to Success. 33 IV Opportunities for Action . 37 Executive Summary ow-income families that live in distressed, high-poverty neighborhoods face especially daunting Lchallenges as they attempt to leave welfare, find jobs, earn an adequate living, and raise their children. In these neighborhoods, crime and violence are common, jobs are scarce, schools are often ineffective, and young people see few opportunities for success. An extensive and growing body of social science research indicates that living in these high-poverty communities undermines the long-term life chances of families and children—cutting off access to mainstream social and economic opportunities. Neighborhood dis- tress—and its consequences for families—constitutes a serious, long-term challenge to public policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty in New York City LEAD SPONSOR AUTHORS JP Morgan Chase & Co
    State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods 2016 Focus: Poverty in New York City LEAD SPONSOR AUTHORS JP Morgan Chase & Co. Maxwell Austensen Vicki Been PRINCIPAL SPONSOR Katherine M. O’Regan Citi Community Development Stephanie Rosoff Jessica Yager SUSTAINING SPONSORS Bank of America Santander Bank SUPPORTING SPONSORS Artimus BNY Mellon State of New York City’s The Community Preservation Corporation Housing and Neighborhoods Douglaston Development in 2016 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP M&T Bank MUFG Union Bank, N.A. The State of New York City’s Housing and Muss Development LLC Neighborhoods report, published annually by New York State Association for Affordable Housing the NYU Furman Center, provides a compendium Nixon Peabody LLP of data and analysis about New York City’s housing, Omni New York LLC land use, demographics, and quality of life for each Park Tower Group borough and the city’s 59 community districts. Peter Fass This year’s full report—including citywide analysis Phipps Houses and city, borough, and community district data— Real Estate Board of New York is available at furmancenter.org. Related Companies Two Trees Management Valley National Bank CONTRIBUTING SPONSORS The Arker Companies B&B Urban LLC Dime Community Bank Federal Home Loan Bank of New York Forsyth Street Advisors Goldstein Hall Jonathan Rose Companies LISC NYC Mizuho Bank Monadnock Development Morgan Stanley Seiden & Schein P.C. Signature Bank SKA Marin TF Cornerstone State of New York City’s ON POVERTY FOCUS Housing & Neighborhoods in 2016 Focus on Poverty n New York City in recent years, rents have risen much faster than incomes.1 The pressures of rising housing costs may be greatest on those with the fewest resources—people living in poverty.
    [Show full text]