Metropolitan Development and Racial Change in American Metropolitan Areas

Institute on Race and PovertyUniversity of Minnesota

This work was made possible by the generous support of the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations

Central Findings of Prior Work: American Metropatterns

The suburbs are diverse By Race By Fiscal Capabilities By Development Patterns

These characteristics correlate to create several suburban community types Stressed/Segregated At-Risk, Developed/Developing Bedroom Developing Affluent

M E T R O P A T T E R N S Resources vs. Need

in the 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas

• In 2000, 86% of the Black population and 77% of the Hispanic population in the 100 largest metropolitan areas lived in the community types showing the greatest stress – Central Cities, Stressed Suburbs, and At-Risk, Developed Suburbs – compared to just 50% of Whites.

• 56% of Blacks and 50% of Hispanics who lived in the suburbs were in Stressed or At-Risk, Developed Suburbs compared to just 30% of Whites.

How Does This Happen?

Pervasive Housing Discrimination Steering Discrimination in sales and rentals Mortgage discrimination

Consequences Whites steered away Housing prices suffer and residents lose home equity

– the main source of wealth for middle-class households

Poor move in Schools lose income and racial diversity Process perpetuates itself

Current Research: Minority Suburbanization and Neighborhood

Change in 15 Metropolitan Areas

The objectives of the research are to investigate:

The geography of African American and Latino migration to the suburbs and how it relates to the movement of economic growth and opportunity

The degree to which these patterns have created stably integrated communities during the period from 1980 to 2000.

The dynamics of racial transition in metropolitan neighborhoods

Metropolitan Areas Included in the Analysis

Atlanta Minneapolis-St. Paul

Boston New York

Chicago Philadelphia

Cleveland Portland

Detroit St. Louis

Houston San Diego

Los Angeles Washington D.C.

Miami

• By 2000, half of the Black population and more than 60 percent of the Hispanic population of these metropolitan areas lived in suburbs.

In contrast, just 26 percent of the Black population in the Detroit metro area lived in the suburbs, the lowest share among the 15 metros.

Neighborhood Typology

Neighborhoods (defined either as census block groups or tracts, depending on the analysis) were categorized according to their racial make-ups and how they changed between 1980 and 2000.

Neighborhood Types:

1. Predominantly White 5. White/Black Integrated2. Predominantly Black 6. White/Hispanic Integrated3. Predominantly Hispanic 7. Multi-Ethnic (White, Black4. Black and Hispanic and Hispanic

Representation)

Distribution of Neighborhood Types, Changes from 1980 to 2000

Distribution of Neighborhood Types, Changes from 1980 to 2000

In the 15 metros as a group, there was a large decrease in the percentage of predominantly White neighborhoods between 1980 and 2000, from 59% to 42%.

In the Detroit metro, the overall % of predominantly White neighborhoods was much higher, and the decrease was much smaller, from 73% to 65%, despite the fact that Detroit had one of the highest overall percentages of Black residents.

Distribution of Neighborhood Types, Changes from 1980 to 2000

In the 15 metros, there was a small increase in the percentage of predominantly Black neighborhoods, from 9% to 11%.

In contrast, in Detroit there was a significant increase from 15% to 23%.

In the 15 metros and in Detroit, there were small decreases in the percentage of White/Black Integrated neighborhoods

Comparing Atlanta and Detroit illustrates many of the differences between the Detroit metro and the other 14 metros.

Both metros showed modest increases in the share of the population that was Black between 1980 and 2000. In Atlanta the share rose from 24% to 29%; in Detroit, it rose from 19% to 22%.

However, in Atlanta, the percentage of tracts that were White/Black integrated rose from 17% to 25% while it fell from just 10% to 9% in Detroit.

This is reflected in both the greater number of stably integrated neighborhoods in Atlanta and in the greater number of neighborhoods that became integrated between 1980 and 2000.

The Geography of Segregation:Comparing Atlanta and Detroit

The dramatic differences can also be seen in the distributions of neighborhoods that remained segregated – either predominantly Black or predominantly White – during the period.

The Geography of Segregation:Comparing Atlanta and Detroit

Other Results: Changes in Where Whites and Blacks Live by Neighborhood Type,

1980-2000

The non-white population share in the 15 metropolitan areas increased between 1980 and 2000 from 27% to 41%; in Detroit the increase was from 22% to 28%.

The share of the White population living in predominantly White neighborhoods decreased from 76% to 63% in the 15 metros; in Detroit, it was constant at 87%.

The share of the Black population living in predominantly Black neighborhoods decreased from 58% to 43% in the 15 metros; in Detroit it fell by much less, from 83% to 80%.

Other Results: Changes in Where Whites and Blacks Live by Neighborhood Type,

1980-2000

However, in the 15 metros, virtually all of the increase in the proximity of Blacks to other racial groups has been with Hispanic populations.

The share of Blacks living in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods rose from 18% to 28%.

The share of Blacks living in neighborhoods with significant White shares was unchanged at 24%.

Other Results: Changes in Where Hispanics Live by Neighborhood Type,

1980-2000

Between 1980 and 2000, the Hispanic share of the population in the 15 metropolitan areas doubled from 9% to 18%, accounting for two-thirds of the non-white population increase.

During the same period, Hispanic persons became less likely to live in proximity to other racial groups, especially Whites. The share of Hispanics living in: Predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods increased from

27% to 39%. Multi-ethnic or Predominantly White neighborhoods

tumbled from 51% to 35%.

Racial Transition: What the Data Say About Integrated Neighborhoods

Many neighborhoods that are racially diverse at one point in time actually are in transition toward a new, less-diverse equilibrium. Between 1980 and 2000: The share of neighborhoods that were predominantly one race

fell from 72% to 60%. Yet a considerable number of neighborhoods that were

integrated in 1980 became segregated by 2000. Integrated neighborhoods where the minority share was above

20-30% in 1980 were more likely to become segregated than to remain integrated.

For Black/White integrated neighborhoods, if the 1980 Black share of the population was greater than 29%, the neighborhood was more likely to re-segregate than to remain integrated.

For Hispanic/White neighborhoods, the turnover point was 24%. For Multi-ethnic neighborhoods, the turnover point (Black plus

Hispanic share) was 23%.

Racial Transition: Regional Approaches to Racial Integration –The Effects of Large-scale Busing

In the 15 metropolitan areas included in the general analysis, Black/White Integrated neighborhoods with Black populations at or above 29% in 1980 were more likely to re-segregate by 2000 than to remain integrated.

In contrast, IRP’s analysis reveals a much different outcome for Black/White Integrated neighborhoods in metropolitan areas that had large-scale busing (region-wide or county-wide in the primary county) during all or most of 1980 – 2000:

Among the 15 U.S. metropolitan areas with large scale busing, essentially all Black/White Integrated neighborhoods were more likely to remain integrated than to re-segregate, regardless of the racial mix in 1980.

Implications

Housing and school desegregation policies must be regional in scope or white flight will undermine them. The Milliken decision essentially prevented regional-scale school integration in Detroit and other metros.

Milliken v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 717 (1974).– In 1973, Detroit’s student enrollment was seventy percent

nonwhite—in a metro region that was only nineteen percent nonwhite.

– Class action suit alleged the racial segregation in Detroit public schools was a result of official policies and actions of the city and state

– In finding for the plaintiffs, the District Court and Court of Appeals ruled that a Detroit-only desegregation plan would be inadequate and ordered a metropolitan wide plan.

Significance of Milliken (cont’d)

• Detroit Board of Education would have had to provide transportation to suburban schools under the court-ordered metro-wide desegregation plan

• Supreme Court overruled this decision, holding that a federal court may not impose an inter-district remedy for segregation violations found within a single district absent evidence segregation violations in other districts.

• Decision limited federal remedies for school segregation to the area within the boundaries of a single school district.

Significance of Milliken (cont’d)

• In 1986, twelve years after Milliken was decided, the

typical black student in Detroit attended a school with white enrollment under twelve percent.

• By the 1990s, Detroit was the nation’s most segregated school district, and white enrollments had fallen to four percent.

What if Milliken had been decided

differently?

• White flight, increased segregation and neighborhood instability might not have happened, or at a minimum, it might have been less pronounced.

• Desegregation remedies with sufficient geographic scope to address segregation would be easier to design.

• It would be easier to consider relevant housing markets that aid in school segregation and the role housing could play in remedies.

• Milliken now makes state-law remedies more important.

Other Implications

Fair share housing laws must be enforced. Real estate practices should be monitored with

proactive testing Sellers and financers must abide by the Fair

Housing Act Private enforcement (lawsuits) is an option

Region-wide public school choice programs designed to be pro-integrative can both enhance opportunities for individuals and increase racial/economic stability in older neighborhoods.

Low-income housing subsidies should not be concentrated in segregated/segregating places or they will accelerate transition.

Low-income housing programs should be pro-integrative in character. Participating units should be largely in stable middle class and affluent areas with low or moderate minority shares in order to maximize real opportunities for individuals and avoid contributing to neighborhood transition (re-segregation).

Other Implications