The Path of Urban Decline. the Twin Cities and Ten Other US
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 392 871, UD 030 833 AUTHOR Adams, John S.; And Others TITLE The Path of Urban Decline. The Twin Cities and'Yen Other U.S. Metropolitan Areas. What the 1990 Census Says aboot Minnesota. INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. REPORT NO CURA-95-4 PUB DATE 95 NOTE 137p.; For a related document, see UD 030 832. PUB TYPE Reports 7.valuative/Feasibi1ity (142) Statistical Data (110) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Census Figures; Comparative Analysis; Inner City; *Labor Force; Low Income Groups; *Poverty; Resource Allocation; Tables (Data); *Tax Allocation;*Urban Areas; Urban Demography; Urban Problems;*Welfare Recipients IDENTIFIERS Census 1990; Minnesota (Minneapolis); Minnesota (Saint Paul); *Minnesota (Twin Cities) ABSTRACT This report is the second in a series on What the 1990 Census Says about Minnesota. A group of urbanspecialists gathered to examine a set of metropolitan areas thatshare important features that were thought to be related to central-citydecline as evidenced in Minnesota's Twin Cities, Minneapolis andSaint Paul. Six cities were identified as substantially similar to theTwin Cities, and four others were identified as substantiallydifferent. Variables studied in all 10 cities included one direct measure of povertyand 4 other characteristics considered indicators of weak laborforce attachment: (1) the proportion of persons in each census tractliving in households below the poverty levEl;(2) the proportion of households receiving public assistance; (3) the proportionof families and subfamilies headed by females;(4) the proportion of persons 16 to 19 years of age not in schooland not working; and (5) the proportion of males 16 and older unemployed or underemployed. Examination of census and other data in these areas indicates that the Twin Cities area is in better shape than many comparablecities. While the inner-city cannot be said to be risk-free, troubled areas in the core cover only a fraction of the total city area. Thefiscal disparities law that redistributes tax revenues in the area is excellent, but tax-base sharing alone cannot address allthe inner city's needs. (Contains 7 tables, 70 figures, and 30references.) (SLD) ******************************, )************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** The Path of Urban Decline t at the 1990 Census Says Aboutinnesota U B DEPARTMENT OF EDUCAT1ON OfIce of Educahoosi Research end Improvement By John S. Adams, EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) fhis documont Ms been reproduced es Barbara jVanDrasek, recemed from the person or organization onomeang 0 Mmor changes have bean mude to improve and Laura j Lambert reproducton duality Pont* of vete, or opmons stated in trus docu- mant do not oeceSaeray rePreeent (Awl 4-'$(.#&!,4 GERI Manion or poecy ^ , PERMISSION TOREPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HASBEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER(ERIC)." BEST COPY AVAILABLE The Path of Urban Decline The Twin Cities and Ten Other U.S. Metropolitan Areas John S. Adams, Barbara J. VanDrasek, and Laura J. Lambert Th6 second in a series on: What the 1990 Census Says About Minnesota A publication of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 330 HHH Center, 301 19th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55455. The content of this report is the responsi- bility of the authors and isnot necessarily endorsed by CURA. 1995 Publication No. CURA 95-4 This report is not copyrighted. Permission is granted for reproduction of allor part of the material, except that acquired with permission from other sources. Acknow- ledgment would, however, be appreciated and CURA would like to receivetwo copies of any material thus reproduced. Edited by Ruth Hammond This report is the second ina series on What the 1990 Census Says About Minne- sota. Others in the series are: Income and Poverty by John Tichy and William J. Craig. li i i kr Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures iv Acknowledgments vii Executive Summary 1 Introduction 7 Part I.Background: Perspectives on Urban Poverty 9 The Decline of American Central Cities 9 The Local Case of the National Problem 14 Concers of Poverty and the Underclass 16 The Urban Institute Under Class Data Base, 1970-90 19 Part II.The Case Studies: The Twin Cities Compared with Ten Other Metropolitan Areas 23 Site Selection and Methodology 23 Poverty in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 30 Househ-1lds Receiving Public Assistance in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 50 Female-headed Families and Subfamilies in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 19;'0-90 71 High School Dropouts in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 87 Unemplo yed and Underemployed Males in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 104 Summary: Eleven Metropolitan Areas Compared 121 Poverty 121 Public AsFistance 121 Female-headed Families and Subfamilies 122 Dropouts and Male Unemployment/Underemployment 122 Conclusions from the Data Analysis 123 Urban Decline and Public Policy 124 Useful Directions for Further Research 125 References 127 ill List of Tables and Figures Tables 1. Number of Census Tracts with Selected Characteristics in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 3 2. Size, Population, and Age of Housing of Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1990 24 3. Census Tracts with Extreme Poverty Rates of 40 Percent or Greater, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 47 4. Census Tracts with 30 Percent or More of Households Receiving Public Assistance, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 70 5. Census Tracts with 40 Percent or More of Families and Subfamilies Headed by Females, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 73 6.Census Tracts with High School Dropout Rates of 50 Percent or Greater for Teenagers Aged 16 to 19, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 103 7.Census Tracts with 60 Percent or More of Male Unemployment/ Underemployment, Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1970-90 106 Figures 1. Poverty Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970 28 2.Persons in Poverty, Atlanta, 1970-90 33 3.Persons in Poverty, Chicago, 1970-90 34 4.Persons in Poverty, Denver, 1970-90 35 5. Persons in Poverty, Indianapolis, 1970-90 36 6. Persons in Poverty, Kansas City, 1970-90 38 7.Persons in Poverty, Milwaukee, 1970-90 39 8. Persons in Poverty, Minneapolis-St. Paul, 1970-90 40 9. Persons in Poverty, Phoenix, 1970-90 41 10. Persons in Poverty, Pittsburgh, 1970-90 43 11. Persons in Poverty, Seattle, 1970-90 44 12. Persons in Poverty, St. Louis, 1970-90 45 13. Poverty Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1980 48 1V 14. Poverty Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1990 49 15. Atlanta Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 52 16. Chicago Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 53 17. Denver Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 54 18. Indianapolis Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 55 19. Kansas City Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 58 20. Milwaukee Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 59 21. Minneapolis-St. Paul Households Receiving PublicAssistance, 1970-90 60 22 Phoenix Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 61 23. Pittsburgh Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 63 24. Seattle Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 64 25. St. Louis Households Receiving Public Assistance, 1970-90 65 26. Public Assistance Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970 66 27. Public Assistance Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1980 67 28. Public Assistance Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1990 68 29. Female-headed Families in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970 72 30. Female-headed Families in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1980 74 31. Female-headed Families in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1990 75 32. Female-headed Famil;es in Atlanta, 1970-90 76 33. Female-headed Families in Chicago, 1970-90 77 34. Female-headed Families in Denver, 1970-90 78 35. Female-headed Families in Indianapolis, 1970-90 79 36. Female-headed Families in Kansas City, 1970-90 80 37. Female-headed Families in Milwaukee, 1970-90 81 38. Female-headed Families in Minneapolis-St. Paul, 1970-90 82 39. Female-headed Families in Phoenix, 1970-90 83 40. Female-headed Families in Pittsburgh, 1970-90 84 41. Female-headed Families in Seattle, 1970-90 85 42. Female-headed Families in St. Louis, 1970-90 86 43. High School Dropout Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970 89 44. High School Dropout Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1980 90 45. High School Dropout Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1990 91 46. High School Dropout Rate in Atlanta, 1970-90 92 47. High School Dropout Rate in Chicago, 1970-90 93 48. High School Dropout Rate in Denver, 1970-90 94 49. High School Dropout Rate in Indianapolis, 1970-90 95 50. High School Dropout Rate in Kansas City, 1970-90 96 51. High School Dropout Rate in Milwaukee, 1970-90 97 52. High School Dropout Rate in Minneapolis-St. Paul, 1970-90 98 53. High School Dropout Rate i.11 Phoenix, 1970-90 99 54. High School Dropout Rate in Pittsburgh, 1970-90 100 55. High School Dropout Rate in Seattle, 1970-90 101 56. High School Dropout Rate in St. Louis, 1970-90 102 57. Male Unemployment/Underemployment Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 1970 105 58. Male Unemployment/Underemployment Rates in Eleven Metropolitan Areas, 19S0 107 59. Male Unemployment/Underemployment Rates in Eleven Metropolitan A !as, 1990 108 60. Male Unemploy ment/Underemployment, Atlanta, 1970-90 110 61. Male Unemployment/Underemployment, Chicago, 1970-90 111 62. Male Unemployment/Underemployment,