Racial Residential Segregation and Exclusion in Illinois
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Racial Residential Segregation and Exclusion in Illinois 34 1 Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton. Racial Residential Segregation and Exclusion American Apartheid: Segregation and the in Illinois Making of the Under - class (Cambridge: By Maria Krysan Harvard University Press, 1998).Under - class. Cambridge: Harvard University etropolitan Chicago remains one of the levels of segregation and exclusion Press. the most residentially segregated throughout the state, we take up the ques - 2 We use the Census Mareas in the United States. According to the tion of what causes these patterns, what geographical desig - 2000 census, black-white segregation in the some of the consequences are and, finally, nation of“place” throughout this Chicago metropolitan area was the fifth what policy steps might be taken to ad - report. Roughly 86 highest in the nation and Latino-white seg - dress them. percent of Illinois regation, although much lower than black- residents live in one Data and Methods of the 1,315“places” white segregation, was relatively high as identified by the well, ranking 11th . 2000 Census. Those not living in places To measure the level of segregation in a are generally charac - In the case of black-white segregation, the location, researchers often rely on some - terized as people levels in Chicago are what two prominent thing called the index of dissimilarity, living in,“small set - tlements, in the sociologists call “hyper-segregated” and which gauges the degree to which two open countryside, or 1 indicative of an “American Apartheid.” groups are evenly distributed throughout in the densely set - tled fringe of large While there is little debate that the levels of an area. Suppose, for example, that a par - cities in areas that segregation in the Chicago metropolitan ticular city had an overall population that were built-up, but area are high, there is considerable debate was 80 percent white and 20 percent not identifiable as places.” (U.S. Bureau about its causes. And there is virtual si - African American. A dissimilarity score of of the Census, Geo - lence about how much segregation there is 75 would mean that 75 percent of whites graphic Areas Refer - ence Manual, p. 9-1). in Illinois places outside the Chicago met - (or African Americans) would have to ropolitan area . move to a different neighborhood in the 3 We rely on OMB and city in order to have all neighborhoods be Census designations to determine what The purpose of this chapter is to provide a 80 percent white and 20 percent black. constitutes a“metro - portrait of racial residential patterns of The dissimilarity index has a theoretical politan statistical area” and note that whites, blacks, and Latinos, throughout range from 0 (no segregation) to 100 its definition means the state of Illinois. We find: (1) there are (complete segregation). In the following that some individual section, we provide the dissimilarity communities that rather few communities with racially/eth - are classified as met - nically diverse populations that can be index scores for black-white and Latino- ropolitan are quite considered integrated; (2) black-white seg - white segregation for three different kinds small and rural. Ac - 2 cording to the Office regation levels are more severe than are of Illinois places: (1) metropolitan places of Management and Latino-white levels; and (3) there are large within the Chicago metropolitan area; (2) Budget, a Metropoli - 3 tan Statistical Area swaths of the state of Illinois that lack other metropolitan places falling outside “ha[s] at least one racial/ethnic diversity of any kind, inte - the Chicago metropolitan area; and (3) urbanized area of grated or segregated. non-metropolitan places in the state of 50,000 or more pop - ulation, plus adja - Illinois. Because it is not possible to calcu - cent territory that Thus, inequality among whites, blacks, late meaningful dissimilarity scores in has a high degree of social and economic and Latinos on the dimension of housing places that lack diversity, we further re - integration with the is not just a problem in the city of Chicago, strict our report of segregation scores to core as measured by but throughout Illinois – in cities and small include only those places that, according commuting ties.” (OMB Bulletin No. towns alike. And housing inequality is to the 2000 census, had (1) at least 500 res - 07-01: Update of marked not only by a question of segrega - idents; (2) at least 10 percent white popu - Statistical Area Defi - nitions and Guid - tion within diverse communities, but also lation; and (3) either at least a 10 percent ance on Their Uses ). by the near-complete lack of diversity in African American population or at least a 35 many communities. After a discussion of 10 percent Latino population. The calcula - The Illinois Report 2009 Figure 1 Chicago Metropolitan Communities: There is virtual Percent Distribution of Low, Moderate and High Segregation silence about Levels how much Table 1 segregation Chicago Metro Places: 70 Black-White Segregation there is in 60 Illinois places Place Name Dissimilarity Index, 50 48 outside the 2000 44 39 40 Chicago Hillside 29.3 34 metropolitan Willowbrook 31.1 30 Berkeley 33.1 area. Bolingbrook 33.3 20 18 17 Dolton 34.0 Forest Park 38.3 10 South Holland 38.5 Riverdale 39.1 0 Low Moderate High Preston Heights 41.8 Segregation Segregation Segregation Olympia Fields 42.7 University Park 42.8 Park Forest 42.9 Black-White Segregation Sauk Village 43.8 Oak Park 45.1 Latino-White Segregation Hazel Crest 46.1 Richton Park 46.2 Burnham 48.2 Source: Figures derived from calculations based on the 2000 Zion 48.6 census and provided by Professor Domenico Parisi, Mississippi State University. Waukegan 50.2 Glenwood 50.7 Flossmoor 50.9 Country Club Hills 50.9 Aurora 50.9 Broadview 52.1 tions are based on the 2000 census and Lynwood 52.4 use data at the block level, thus providing Homewood 53.4 a finer grained measure of segregation Crete 55.7 Calumet City 56.2 than is typical (most studies of metropoli - North Chicago 58.8 tan areas use the larger geographical unit 4 East Hazel Crest 60.9 of the census tract). Blue Island 66.9 What Is Segregation Like in the Chicago Alsip 67.9 Chicago Heights 68.2 Metropolitan Area? Matteson 70.7 Evanston 70.8 Crest Hill 72.6 In Table 1, we show a rank order of the Fairmont 73.0 Joliet 75.0 black-white dissimilarity scores for all Lansing 76.5 places within the Chicago metropolitan Markham 79.3 area that meet the criteria outlined above. Chicago 88.3 Summit 89.3 As a rule of thumb for interpreting the dis - Justice 91.0 similarity scores, researchers typically clas - 4 All index of dissimi - Dixmoor 92.5 larity calculations sify places with scores below 40 as “low,” reported in this Low Segregation between 40-60 as “moderate,” and 60 or chapter were gra - Medium Segregation above as “high.” The table has been color- ciously provided to High Segregation the author by Pro - coded as tan, blue and pink, respectively, fessor Domenico Source: Figures derived from calculations based on the 2000 to reflect these three levels of segregation. Parisi, Mississippi census and provided by Professor Domenico Parisi, Mississippi State University. State University. There are quite a range of segregation levels in metropolitan Chicago, from a low of 29 36 in Hillside to a high of 92 in Dixmoor. The city of Chicago itself is among the most seg - Institute of Government & Public Affairs Table 2 Chicago Metro Places: Latino-White Segregation Place Name Dissimilarity Place Name Dissimilarity regated of the Chicago metropolitan area Index, 2000 Index, 2000 places, with a score of 88. Eighty-two per - Lyons 27.6 Hainesville 42.2 cent of communities are either highly (34 Berwyn 27.6 Round Lake Beach 42.3 percent) or moderately (48 percent) segre - Elmwood P ark 27.7 Highwood 42.8 gated; with 18 percent falling into the “low” Romeoville 28.7 Bensenville 44.0 Stone Park 28.8 Burnham 45.2 category. Figure 1 shows the distribution of Round Lake Heights 29.5 Melrose Park 45.7 communities across these three categories. Schiller Park 29.8 Hanover Park 45.8 Boulder Hill 30.6 Wood Dale 46.1 Ingalls Park 30.8 Carol Stream 47.2 The levels of segregation for whites and Berkeley 31.1 Woodstock 47.4 Latinos in the Chicago metropolitan area Cicero 31.6 Harvard 48.1 Sauk Village 32.0 Marengo 49.3 are quite different from the overall pat - River Grove 32.6 North Aurora 49.6 terns reported for segregation between Park City 33.0 Waukegan 50.4 blacks and whites. Table 2 shows that Bridgeview 33.0 Des Plaines 50.7 Burbank 33.4 Addison 50.8 Latino-white segregation levels range from Glendale Heights 33.5 Genoa 51.0 28 in Lyons, Berwyn and Elmwood Park to Dixmoor 33.6 Fairmont 51.1 80 in Hodgkins. Although the range is Posen 34.5 Warrenville 52.3 Beach Park 34.8 Wheeling 52.3 somewhat similar to that observed for Summit 35.9 Hoffman Estates 53.7 blacks and whites, the distribution of South Elgin 36.0 Elgin 53.9 Forest View 36.1 Wauconda 53.9 places across the three categories of low, Hillside 36.3 Long Lake 55.8 moderate and high are strikingly different. Blue Island 36.4 North Chicago 58.4 Figure 1 illustrates this quite clearly. For Streamwood 36.8 Bolingbrook 36.9 Villa Park 61.0 example, there are twice as many commu - Rockdale 37.8 West Chicago 61.3 nities where black-white segregation falls Round Lake 38.1 Mundelein 61.5 into the “high” category (34 percent) as Northlake 39.7 Joliet 62.0 Aurora 63.0 compared to communities where Latino- Franklin Park 40.0 Chicago Heights 63.3 white segregation is classified as “high” South Chicago Heights 40.2 Chicago 63.5 Plano 40.9 Rolling Meadows 65.1 (17 percent).