Fostering Inclusion in American Neighborhoods

Jonathan Spader CHAPA Brown Bag March 14th, 2018

Panel 1: Defining objectives and the rationale for action • Xavier Briggs, Ford Foundation • Sheryll Cashin, Georgetown University • Dolores Acevedo Garcia, Brandeis University • Jennifer Hochschild, Harvard University Panel 2 – What would it take… To promote residential choices that result in greater integration? • Justin Steil, Massachusetts Institute of Technology • Ralph McLaughlin, Trulia • Maria Krysan, University of Illinois at Chicago • Tarry Hum, City University of New York Panel 3 – What would it take… To make new and remake old neighborhoods so that regions move decisively toward integration? • Rolf Pendall, Urban Institute • Willow Lung-Amam, University of Maryland • Marisa Novara, Metropolitan Planning Council • William Fulton, Rice University Panel 4 – What would it take… For the HUD AFFH rule to meaningfully increase inclusion? • Katherine O'Regan, New York University • Raphael Bostic, University of Southern California • Michael Allen, Relman, Dane, & Colfax LLC • Elizabeth Julian, Inclusive Communities Project Panel 5 – What would it take… For housing subsidies to overcome affordability barriers to inclusion in all neighborhoods? • Marge Turner, Urban Institute • Mercedes Marquez, Marquez Community Strategy • Stephen Norman, King County Housing Authority • Chris Herbert, Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies Panel 6 – What would it take… For cities experiencing gentrification pressures to foster inclusion rather than replacement? • Ingrid Ellen, New York University • Malo Hutson, University of California, Berkeley • Colvin Grannum, Bedford Stuyvesant Redevelopment Corporation • Vicki Been, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development Panel 7 – What would it take… To foster residential outcomes that support school integration, and vice versa? • Anurima Bhargava, Harvard University • Amy Stuart Wells, Columbia University • Rob Breymaier, Oak Park Regional Housing Center • Phil Tegeler, Poverty & Race Research Action Council

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Black-White Hispanic-White Asian-White Source: Logan and Stults (2011)

Average Share of Neighborhood Residents (Percent) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% All White Black Hispanic Asian Other Individuals % White % Black % Hispanic % Asian % Other/multiethnic Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2011-2015 American Community Survey

0.22

0.2

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 Overall 10th Percentile 90th Percentile Source: Bischoff and Reardon (2014)

Average Share of Neighborhood Residents (Percent) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% All <$20,000 $20,000- $50,000- $100,000- $150,000 or Households $49,999 $99,999 $149,999 more % <$20,000 % $20,000-$49,999 % $50,000-$99,999 % $100,000-$149,999 % $150,000+ Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2011-2015 American Community Survey

© PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE Subpopulation Trends May Not be Captured in National Figures • Concentrated Poverty – The number of census tracts with poverty rates above 40 percent increased from 2,510 in 2000 to 4,412 in 2009-2013 ACS.

• Integration – The share of the population living in ‘no-majority’ tracts increased from 8.0% in 2000 to 12.6% in 2011- 2015 – The share of the population living in ‘shared’ tracts increased from 23.9% in 2000 to 30.3% in 2011-2015

© PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE A Majority of Integrated Neighborhoods in 2000 were Stably Integrated in 2011-2015. Number of Census Tracts 18000 18000 16000 16000 14000 14000 12000 12000 10000 10000 8000 8000 6000 6000 4000 4000 2000 2000 0 0 No Majority Shared Neighborhoods Stably Integrated Became Non-Integrated Became Integrated Source: JCHS tabulations of the 2011-2015 American Community Survey

• Discrimination in housing markets

• Neighborhood preferences of home seekers

• Affordability barriers

• Geographic population flows

• Residents of neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage incur disproportionate costs – Educational outcomes: Lower school performance, high school completion, college attendance – Economic outcomes: Lower employment and economic mobility – Health outcomes: adult and infant mortality; physical health and mental health

• Residential Segregation also has detrimental effects for society at large: – Increased prejudice and reduced trust – Erosion of faith and participation in democracy – Reduced economic growth

• The costs for individuals and society lead to both equity and efficiency rationales for public action.

• The path forward… – …is really multiple paths. The symposium is designed with the understanding that there is no single silver bullet. • The ideas explored are not mutually-exclusive options. Responding to the challenges of residential segregation requires efforts on multiple fronts. • Nor are they exhaustive.

1. Enforce anti-discrimination laws 2. Support efforts to improve understanding and reduce prejudice 3. Remove exclusionary barriers 4. Preserve and increase the stock of affordable units 5. Invest in neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage