DETROIT REGION Detroit is a region with no gentrification and staggering levels of poverty concentration and neighborhood abandonment. Nearly 55 percent of the region’s residents live in a strongly declining neighborhood, including 74 percent of low-income residents and 80 percent of black residents. In Detroit proper, 86 percent of all residents live in a strongly declining area. In the city of Detroit, decline has been so severe that virtually no new poverty concentration is taking place. Instead, huge numbers of former residents are leaving as neighborhoods are abandoned. Declining areas lost 217,000 residents on net since 2000, including 180,000 black residents. Tens of thousands of housing units in these areas have also been converted to vacant units. In Detroit suburbs, poverty concentration is much more common. Nearly half suburban residents, and 67 percent of low-income suburban residents, live in a strongly declining area. Even while the overall population of these areas has dropped by 110,000, the low-income population has increased by 266,000. Racial transition is also taking place in these suburban neighborhoods, as, on net, 261,000 white residents have departed, and 115,000 black residents have arrived. Regional Total Population: 4,296,731 Regional Low-Income Population: 1,393,039 Regional Nonwhite Population: 1,414,997 Central City Population: 683,155 Central City Low-Income Population: 432,291 Central City Nonwhite Population: 617,950 NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016) Central City: No net displacement (+288) Suburbs: No net displacement (+787) NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016) Central City: 11,301 Suburbs: 265,910 1 DETAILS ON TABLES The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are: • Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share of population has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents see the area as an attractive place to live). • Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low- income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents do not see the area as an attractive place to live). Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are: • In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have a change of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non- low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with only small changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also the measure used in the accompanying maps. • In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change that meet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies more neighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. In addition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error, this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure can provide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline. Three sets of tables are provided. They are: • Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables. • Figures for central cities. • Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city. This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities. Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category. • 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live in expanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share. • 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding or declining census tracts. • Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tracts since 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type of change. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates net displacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purple indicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes. * For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less. 2 DETAILS ON MAPS Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above. The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories: • Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive. • Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving. • Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring. • Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area. The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts. The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes. 3 TABLES FOR METROPOLITAN AREA - Detroit Region ECONOMICALLY EXPANDING NEIGHBORHOODS ECONOMICALLY DECLINING NEIGHBORHOODS Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion Experiencing Strong Economic Decline (Detroit Metro) (Detroit Metro) 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 2016 Share 2016 Total Net Change Since 2000 TOTAL 0.9% 37,821 91.4% +18,064 TOTAL 54.8% 2,352,545 -12.2% -327,430 Low-Income 0.4% 5,605 23.7% +1,075 Low-Income 73.5% 1,023,675 37.1% +277,211 Poverty 0.4% 2,748 34.6% +707 Poverty 77.1% 531,859 54.3% +187,267 Extreme Poverty 0.5% 1,535 80.0% +682 Extreme Poverty 77.3% 242,944 45.0% +75,386 American Indian 0.8% 86 59.3% +32 American Indian 65.1% 6,592 -30.7% -2,915 Asian 2.4% 4,001 905.3% +3,603 Asian 36.8% 61,067 19.9% +10,132 Black 0.4% 3,938 47.9% +1,276 Black 79.2% 757,772 -7.7% -63,148 Hispanic 0.7% 1,210 308.8% +914 Hispanic 66.7% 120,364 31.4% +28,729 White 1.0% 27,742 73.6% +11,762 White 46.7% 1,345,553 -18.1% -296,446 College-Educated 1.3% 11,334 289.4% +8,423 College-Educated 38.8% 335,439 10.5% +31,738 Non-College 0.7% 13,620 36.4% +3,638 Non-College 60.2% 1,242,704 -13.2% -189,443 Families 1.0% 5,180 85.3% +2,384 Families 53.9% 274,412 -25.6% -94,571 Families in Poverty 0.4% 370 -5.6% -22 Families in Poverty 80.0% 80,667 46.9% +25,770 Non-Poor Families 1.2% 4,810 100.1% +2,406 Non-Poor Families 47.5% 193,745 -38.3% -120,341 Single Mothers 0.4% 280 -9.7% -30 Single Mothers 80.7% 51,598 35.5% +13,513 Children (Under 18) 1.1% 10,509 87.0% +4,890 Children (Under 18) 55.6% 548,478 -23.2% -165,949 Young Adults (18-34) 0.7% 6,310 36.5% +1,687 Young Adults (18-34) 58.7% 535,811 -15.7% -99,809 Adults (35 to 64) 0.9% 16,649 103.2% +8,457 Adults (35 to 64) 52.9% 933,355 -6.2% -61,501 Seniors (65 and up) 0.7% 4,353