Brkgsonglcsurvey.3

Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy The Trajectory of Poor Neighborhoods in Southern “In 2000, a poor California, 1970-2000 Shannon McConville and Paul Ong1 individual was Findings An analysis of poor neighborhoods in the Los Angeles region between 1970 and 2000 indi- more likely to live cates that: ■ The poor population in the Los changes. The Latino proportion of the in a poor or very Angeles region has become more population living in very poor neighbor- geographically concentrated over the hoods—with neighborhood poverty past three decades. The proportion of rates of at least 40 percent—increased poor neighbor- the region’s poor individuals who live more than threefold between 1970 and in poor neighborhoods—with poverty 2000, while the black share of the pop- rates of at least 20 percent—doubled ulation living in very poor neighborhood in the over 30 years, from 29 percent in 1970 hoods declined dramatically. to 57 percent in 2000. ■ More of the region’s neighborhoods Los Angeles ■ Areas outside inner-city Los Angeles became poor in the 1990s than in experienced the most rapid prior decades. International migration increases in poor neighborhoods, to the Los Angeles region played a region than in especially during the 1990s. Between major role in the development of poor 1970 and 2000, the percentage of poor neighborhoods in the 1970s and neighborhoods in suburban Los Ange- 1980s, but contributed far less to their the rest of the les County quadrupled; it tripled in growth in the 1990s. surrounding counties, and remained relatively constant in inner-city Los ■ Employment in very poor neighbor- country.” Angeles. hoods increased considerably in the 1980s and 1990s, while single par- ■ The racial-ethnic and immigration enthood declined. The labor force characteristics of poor neighbor- participation gap between very poor hoods changed markedly over the and non-poor neighborhoods shrank by three decades, reflecting regionwide one-half over the three decades. In the past three decades, the Los Angeles region has witnessed a large-scale spatial reor- ganization of poverty. Where once concentrated poverty was confined to neighborhoods in the inner-city, it has since spread to the suburbs. This shifting concentration of poor neighborhoods is driven mainly by immigration and broader changes in the regional economy. Increasing economic mobility for second and subsequent generations of immigrants through education is the region's key challenge. November 2003 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 1 I. Introduction ing on trends in Los Angeles, Orange, Substantial racial-ethnic Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ven- diversity rowing economic inequality tura counties. We examine the loca- In contrast to metropolitan areas in remains one of the nation’s tion of poor neighborhoods across the the Northeast and Midwest that are most pressing problems. five-county region between 1970 and characterized by largely white and After controlling for the 2000, and pinpoint where poor neigh- black populations, Southern California Geffects of the business cycle, there is a borhoods have grown the most quickly. has significant numbers of Latinos and clear, long-term trend of a “widening We explore the changing demographic Asians, as well as whites and blacks. divide” between rich and poor.2 Several characteristics of poor neighborhoods, Roughly 40 percent of the five-county factors have contributed to this trend, including the factors associated with population identifies as Latino, 39 including global competition, rapid changes to neighborhood poverty lev- percent as white, 10 percent as Asian, technological change, industrial els. We also investigate the extent to and 7 percent as black. Although resi- restructuring, increasing returns to which continued immigration to the dential segregation levels are high, the education, and demographic shifts in region is associated with the emer- region’s suburban areas (those outside the workforce, including high levels of gence of concentrated poverty over the the City of Los Angeles) are home to immigration. period. By better understanding the similarly high proportions of ethnic The impact of rising inequality has characteristics and dynamics of poor Latinos and Asians. As a result, in not affected people and places evenly. neighborhoods in greater Los Angeles, 1980 and 1990, poverty was less con- Residential and economic segregation the region’s policymakers and commu- centrated in the urban core than in in most metropolitan areas often result nity leaders can formulate more effec- other major metropolitan areas, and in the poor being constrained to high- tive interventions to address the poor neighborhoods were more ethni- poverty neighborhoods—with poverty problems facing residents of disadvan- cally diverse. rates greater than 20 percent—and taged neighborhoods.5 often disproportionately composed of Continued immigration minority groups and immigrants. II. Background Southern California emerged as a new These poor neighborhoods may have “Ellis Island” in the latter half of the few institutional and social resources, here are several factors that twentieth century. From 1970 to 2000, and neighborhood poverty may have distinguish Southern Califor- the number of immigrants in greater deleterious effects on a number of nia from other parts of the Los Angeles increased by more than 4 health and social outcomes.3 United States. The following million, and by 2000, 31 percent of Researchers have documented that Tfive factors drive our interest in the region’s population was foreign- concentrated poverty in metropolitan poverty trends in this region.6 born, compared with 11 percent America—that is, the number and nationally. As of 2000, one-third of population of neighborhoods where at Significant population growth foreign-born individuals in the five- least 40 percent of people live below Unlike many metropolitan areas in the county area had lived in the United the poverty line—increased during the Northeastern and Midwestern United States for fewer than 10 years. 1970s and 1980s, but declined dra- States, the five-county Los Angeles matically in the 1990s.4 Southern region experienced significant popula- Increasing poverty California, however, failed to share in tion growth between 1970 and 1990. Although the national poverty rate has this recent improvement. Most studies Greater Los Angeles grew by 46 per- remained relatively steady over the that examine poor neighborhoods are cent during that time, more than twice past 30 years, at between 12 and 14 based on metropolitan areas in the the rate of population growth nation- percent, the poverty rate in Southern Northeast and Midwest. Given the ally, and roughly 10 times that in the California rose from 10 percent in very different physical and economic Northeast and Midwest. Growth in the 1970 to over 15 percent in 2000. This growth trends that prevail in the region slowed somewhat in the 1990s, translates to 1.5 million more people Western United States, these analyses although it still kept pace with the in poverty in the five-county region likely fail to capture the dynamics of nation’s 13 percent growth over the since 1970. Los Angeles County drove neighborhood poverty in the greater decade. Today, more than 16 million much of this rise; home to 60 percent Los Angeles region. people live in greater Los Angeles, of the region’s total population, the With these differences in mind, our more than in the entire state of FL. county saw a substantially higher study analyzes the changing spatial poverty rate from 1980 onward than distribution of poverty in greater Los other counties in the region (Table 1). Angeles over the past 30 years, focus- 2 November 2003 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Table 1. Poverty Rates, Los Angeles region versus California and Nation, 1970–2000 County 1970 1980 1990 2000 Los Angeles County 10.7% 13.4% 15.1% 17.9% Orange County 6.4% 7.3% 8.5% 10.3% Riverside County 13.2% 11.4% 11.5% 14.2% San Bernardino County 11.7% 11.1% 12.6% 15.8% Ventura County 9.0% 8.0% 7.3% 9.2% Southern California 10.4% 11.8% 13.1% 15.6% California 11.1% 11.4% 12.5% 14.2% U.S. 13.7% 12.4% 13.1% 12.4% Increasing concentration of population characteristics, economic sis. We refer to the remainder of the poverty status and living conditions.” Census region’s neighborhoods as non-poor, As noted earlier, although the share of tracts in urban areas typically contain although nearly all contain at least the nation’s poor who live in high- about 4,000 to 5,000 people, and some people living below the poverty poverty neighborhoods declined rather although tracts do not always replicate line. dramatically during the 1990s, this neighborhoods as they are understood Other research uses composite was not the case in the Los Angeles by urban dwellers, they serve as good measures that combine poverty with region. In fact, Los Angeles and Wash- approximations.8 several other indicators, such as job- ington, DC, were the only two major lessness and welfare receipt, to catego- U.S. areas in which poverty became Measuring poverty rize neighborhoods.12 Rather than more concentrated over the decade. We use poverty rates to classify neigh- using these factors to construct the California’s trend may be explained, in borhoods. A neighborhood’s poverty measure of distress, we examine simi- part, by the protracted recession that rate is defined as the total number of lar outcomes within poor neighbor- the region suffered during the early persons living in families and nonfami- hoods over time. 1990s, when closures in the aerospace lies with annual incomes below the If poor individuals were evenly dis- industry resulted in the loss of many federal poverty level, as a percentage tributed across the region, there would high paid, blue-collar jobs.

Load more