concentrated poverty and regional equity kathy pettit tom kingsley november 15,2012 1
TRANSCRIPT
Concentrated Poverty and Regional Equity
Kathy Pettit
Tom Kingsley
November 15,2012
1
National NeighborhoodIndicators Partnership (NNIP)
Collaborative effort since 1995 Urban Institute & local partners; now 37 cities
Local partners build and operate neighborhood information systems for their communities
UI coordinates network and plans joint activities
Local success required three innovations
1. Data and technology
2. Institutions
3. Using information for change
National Neighborhood Indicators Partners
AtlantaAustinBaltimoreBostonCamdenChattanoogaChicagoClevelandColumbusDallasDenverDes MoinesDetroitGrand RapidsHartfordIndianapolisKansas CityLouisvilleMemphisMiami MilwaukeeMinneapolis-St. PaulNashvilleNew HavenNew OrleansNew York City
OaklandPhiladelphiaPinellas County PittsburghPortlandProvidenceSacramentoSaint LouisSan AntonioSeattleWashington, DC
Data from Local Sources
Neighborhood level
Employment Births, deaths Crimes TANF, Food Stamps Child care Health Schools
Parcel level
Prop. sales, prices Prop. ownership Code violations Assessed values Tax arrears Vacant/abandoned City/CDC plans
Data from Other Sources
National Data Sources
American Community Survey
Local Employment Dynamics
Housing + Transportation Costs
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
Original Data Collection
Property conditions Asset/deficit mapping Community/school surveys Program service data Client surveys Focus groups Ethnography Community journalism
New Types of Institutions
Mostly outside of local government Nonprofits, university centers, alliances
Four include metropolitan planning councils
But partner with resident groups, nonprofits, government, and other stakeholders
Long-term and multifaceted interests
Positioned to maintain trust of data providers and users
Shared Mission: Information for Change
“Democratizing Information” Facilitate the direct use of data by stakeholders
Data serves many varied audiences and purposes
But a central focus on strengthening and empowering low-income neighborhoods
Information promotes collaboration Acts as a bridge among public agencies, nonprofits,
businesses
NNIP Web Site
www.neighborhoodindicators.org
10
NNIP SHARED INDICATORS
The Shared Indicators agenda Completed framework paper, indicator selection
Have national data now; plan assemble local data over next few years
Partners now working on system/protocols for collection
Neighborhood needs are urgent Devastating effects - foreclosure crisis, great
recession
Metro conditions vary widely
11
THIS ANALYSIS (100 largest metros)
2000 Census to 2005/09 ACS Imperfections: period and sample size
Concentrated poverty Low income neigh. defined as >20% poverty
Conditions low-income neighborhoods Taking into account composition change
Regional equity (disparity gaps) Between low- and higher-income neighborhoods
12
Concentrated Poverty Went Up
Tracts Poor Population
2124
47 48
13
Huge variation across metros – level and change in concentrated poverty
McAllen, TX 94 Colorado Springs, CO 28 El Paso,TX 80 Greensboro, NC 28 Fresno, CA 75 Denver, CO 18 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 72 Scranton, PA 18 Bakersfield, CA 69 Greenville, SC 18
Bradenton, FL 23 Bradenton, FL (7) Washington, DC-MD-VA 23 Los Angeles, CA (9) Palm Bay, FL 19 Sacramento, CA (9) Portland, ME 18 Stockton, CA (11) Santa Rosa, CA 6 New Orleans, LA (12)
Lowest 5 Lowest 5
Concentrated Poverty, 2005/09 Percentage Point Change in
(Pct. of poor in 20%+ poverty) Conc.Poverty, 2000-2005/09
Highest 5 Highest 5
14
But composition changed – some tracts improved, some worsened
Census Tracts With Poverty Rates Above/Below 20% (100 largest metro areas, 2000 and 2005/09)
Total Primary(No. of tracts - thous.) metro city Suburbs
Total 41.3 14.3 27.1
Low-inc. start and end 6.9 4.9 2.0 Low-inc. start not end 1.6 1.0 0.6 Low-inc. end not start 2.9 1.4 1.5
Total low-inc. 2000 8.5 5.9 2.6 Total low-inc. 2005/09 9.8 6.3 3.5
15
In Cleveland, city tracts more likely to improve, suburban tracts more likely to worsen
16
Similar Pattern in Baltimore
17
Large disparities (gaps): low- vs. higher-income neighborhoods
18
Small changes to gaps, 2000-2005/09Some narrowed, some widened
Ave Income ($000) % LF Employed % Homeowners % Access to Car % College Degree
19
Regional disparity, not closely correlated with concentrated poverty
Highest Third Lowest Third
Memphis El PasoDetroit BakersfieldMilwaukee SpringfieldSan Antonio Baton RougeCleveland YoungstownToledo Lansing
Richmond Boise CityVirginiaBeach HonoluluBridgeport BradentonSanFrancisco Palm BayOxnard Portland MEWashington Santa Rosa
Rank, Disparity in Neighborhood Income, 2005/09
Rank,
Concentr
ate
d P
overt
y,
2005/0
9
Hig
hest
Third
Low
est
Third
20
FROM DATA TO INFLUENCE
Partners: analyses that make a difference
Dallas – “Wholeness Index” Disparities, north vs. south Dallas Leaders commit to change, accountability (Pulitzer Prize)
Boston – Metropolitan Equity Analysis Showed pattern of disparities across the metro Hard to ignore in later policy/budget decisions
Building from examples across cities A more accurate, compelling, national story
For more information
Web site:www.neighborhoodindicators.org
Tom Kingsley: [email protected], (202) 261-5585
Kathy Pettit: [email protected], (202) 261-5670