NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD CHANGECHANGE inin UrbanUrban AmericaAmerica URBAN INSTITUTE www.urban.org/nnip No. 2, May 2003 Concentrated Poverty: AChange in Course G. Thomas Kingsley and Kathryn L. S. Pettit From the late 1960s through the 1980s, the Ⅵ An increasing share of high-poverty trends seemed inexorable. Poverty became tracts are in the suburbs of the largest more and more concentrated in inner city 100 metropolitan areas (15 percent in neighborhoods and conditions in those 2000, up from 11 percent in 1980), but neighborhoods got worse and worse. Data central cities of those metros still retain from the 2000 Census show that the 1990s a dominant if decreasing share (62 per- Poverty became broke those trends: cent, down from 67 percent in 1980). The share in the nation’s 230 other met- notably less Ⅵ Poverty became notably less concen- ropolitan areas remained about the same concentrated in the trated in the 1990s. The share of the met- over this period (22–23 percent). ropolitan poor who live in “extreme- 1990s; the share of poverty neighborhoods” (census tracts Ⅵ The share of all high-poverty tracts with metropolitan poor who with poverty rates of 40 percent or more) predominantly (more than 60 percent) had jumped from 13 to 17 percent in the African-American populations has de- live in extreme-poverty 1980s but dropped all the way back to clined markedly since 1980 (dropping from 48 percent to 39 percent), while neighborhoods dropped 12 percent in 2000. The share in “high- poverty neighborhoods” (poverty rates those that are predominantly Hispanic back to 12 percent in of 30 percent or more) increased from went up from 13 to 20 percent and those 25 to 31 percent in the 1980s but with no predominant race grew from 2000. dropped back to 26 percent in 2000. 21 to 26 percent. The absolute number of poor people in Ⅵ high-poverty neighborhoods grew Changes in concentrated poverty are not from 4.9 million in 1980 to 7.1 million primarily due to population growth or in 1990, but then decreased to 6.7 million decline in a fixed set of neighborhoods. in 2000. Asurprising number of tracts move in and out of high-poverty status each Ⅵ Compensating increases in the 1990s decade. A full 27 percent of all high- occurred in neighborhoods with middle- poverty tracts in 1990 saw reductions in range poverty levels rather than in low- poverty that took them out of the cate- poverty areas. The share of all poor gory by the end of the decade. This was people in tracts with poverty rates in the partially offset by tracts equal to 23 per- 20–30 percent range increased from 18 to cent of the 1990 total moving into the 21 percent and that in the 10–20 percent category, yielding a net loss of 4 percent. range from 27 to 29 percent, while that Even in the preceding decade, 17 percent in the 0–10 percent range grew by less of the 1980 total saw sufficient declines than 1 percent. in poverty to move them out of the cate- The Neighborhood Change in Urban America Series gory by 1990. But that was offset ilies with children headed by support networks that, among other by tracts equal to a disturbing women improved from 2.3 to 2.0, things, help people access new job 58 percent of the total moving in, and that for the share of women opportunities and do a better job of largely explaining the sizeable net over 16 who were working im- parenting. gain in concentrated poverty in proved from 0.7 to 0.8. Paul Jargowsky (1997) also that decade. underlines how this “spatial concen- Purpose and Approach tration of poor people acts to magnify Ⅵ There was a nontrivial number poverty and exacerbate its effects” That conditions in urban neighbor- of exceptions to the general trend (p. 1). His thorough analysis of the hoods can have important effects on in the 1990s. Poverty became phenomenon revealed a dramatic the lives of their residents has been more concentrated in 17 of the increase in the share of the poor liv- suspected for a very long time 100 largest metropolitan areas: ing in census tracts with poverty rates (Burgess 1925) and confirmed by eight in the Northeast (most were of 40 percent or more from 1970 researchers in a variety of ways over predominantly white metros, such through 1990. But what has happened as Albany, Hartford, and Worces- the years (Ellen and Turner 1997). The since then? The release of data from ter), one farther south (Wilming- most vivid accounts are those of the the 2000 Census permits researchers ton, DE), and eight in the West extreme poverty neighborhoods in to answer that question, and this brief (mostly areas with large immigrant America’s largest cities in the last few takes on part of that job. populations, such as Los Angeles, decades of the 20th century, most Jargowsky (2003) has examined Bakersfield, and Stockton). Why prominently by William J. Wilson the new data, again looking at these places did not do better (1987). Wilson’s story began by high- warrants more study. The biggest lighting how global trends led to sig- changes in the “extreme-poverty reductions in concentrated poverty nificant changes in the U.S. economy neighborhoods.” Our orientation is in the 1990s took place in the in the 1970s and 1980s. Manufactur- somewhat different. While we recog- Midwest (which had experienced ing jobs, which had offered the most nize that the problems of the poor are the biggest increases in the 1980s) promising career paths for lower- most serious in such neighborhoods, and in the South. skilled inner-city residents, dropped they account for a very small propor- significantly as a share of all employ- tion of the nation’s poor (only 12 per- Ⅵ Conditions in neighborhoods in ment nationwide and, in absolute cent in 2000). We think that we need the high-poverty category in 1990 terms, in many central cities. to learn more about the challenges generally improved in the 1990s. In addition, rising incomes and faced by the poor in other types of For example, the share of adults the passage and enforcement of fair neighborhoods as well. As a start, we without a high school degree housing laws allowed large numbers note how the distribution of the poor dropped from 48 to 43 percent, the of middle-income families of color to in metropolitan areas has shifted over share of families with children move out of the central cities to find the full range of poverty categories in headed by women dropped better housing in the suburbs. As a the past two decades. from 53 to 49 percent, the share result, the poor of racial and ethnic We then present most of our find- of women over 16 who were work- minorities wound up much more ings in relation to “high-poverty ing went up from 40 to 42 percent, concentrated and isolated from main- neighborhoods,” defined as tracts and the share of households stream society. The families that with poverty rates of 30 percent or receiving public assistance was moved included most of those who more. They account for more than cut in half, from 24 percent to had run businesses in the old neigh- twice the poor population of the 12 percent. borhoods or were otherwise regularly extreme-poverty tracts alone (6.7 mil- Ⅵ However, conditions in other parts employed in jobs with reasonable lion vs. 3.1 million), and they also of most metropolitan areas also wages. They were also those who had have scores on most indicators of improved, so gaps in conditions been the mainstays of traditional social and economic distress signifi- did not diminish much, if at all. community institutions and social cantly above metropolitan averages.1 For example, the share of adults networks. After their departure, the For example, the share of adults with- without a high school degree in young people left behind were grow- out a high school degree is 45 percent high-poverty neighborhoods was ing up in a different world, deprived for the extreme-poverty tracts and 2.1 times the metropolitan average of the role models that healthy com- 43 percent for the high-poverty tracts, in 1990 but went up to 2.3 times in munities inherently rely on to guide compared with the all-metropolitan 2000. On the other hand, the com- future expectations for children. Their average of 19 percent. The share of parable ratio for the share of fam- parents were deprived of the natural all families with children headed by 2 The Neighborhood Change in Urban America Series single females is 54 percent for the defined at the time of the 2000 Census, the two intermediate categories. extreme poverty tracts and 49 percent but we sometimes contrast conditions The share of all poor people in tracts for the high poverty tracts, compared in the 100 largest metropolitan areas with poverty rates in the 20–30 per- with an all-metropolitan average of (listed in appendix table A1, available cent range increased from 18 to 24 percent. But this is just a start. at http://www.urban.org) with those 21 percent and that in the 10–20 per- Special conditions and challenges for in the other 230.3 cent range from 27 to 29 percent. the poor in neighborhoods with even The overall poverty rate in U.S. lower poverty rates also warrant Poverty: Spreading into the metropolitan areas remained virtually future study. Middle Ranges constant (11–12 percent range) from After answering the basic ques- 1980 to 2000, but with increasing total tion (Did poverty get more or less The data show that the 1990s brought population, the absolute number of concentrated overall in the 1990s?), a sharp reversal in the poverty con- poor people increased from 19.3 mil- this paper looks at three other ques- centration trend (figure 1).