urban neighborhoods and the persistence of racial inequality patrick sharkey new york university...
TRANSCRIPT
Urban Neighborhoods and the Persistence of Racial Inequality
Patrick SharkeyNew York University
February 17, 2015
Outline for the talk:
1) The end of progress toward racial equality
2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality
3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality
4) Implications for urban policy
5) A hopeful conclusion
Outline for the talk:
1) The end of progress toward racial equality
2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality
3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality
4) Implications for urban policy
5) A hopeful conclusion
The end of progress toward racial equality:
Family income
Pew Research, Social and Demographic Trends:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/08/22/race-demographics/
The end of progress toward racial equality:
Economic mobility
Black White Black WhiteHigher income quintile than parents Lower income quintile than
parents
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
35%
45%
53%
41%
The end of progress toward racial equality:
Absolute mobility
Outline for the talk:
1) The end of progress toward racial equality
2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality
3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality
4) Implications for urban policy
5) A hopeful conclusion
Continuity in racialized neighborhood inequality
Bla
ck
His
pa
nic
Wh
ite
Bla
ck
His
pa
nic
Wh
ite
Bla
ck
His
pa
nic
Wh
ite
Bla
ck
His
pa
nic
Wh
ite
Less than $30,000 $30,000-$49,999 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 and above
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Average level of neighborhood disadvantage, by race/eth and income group
Ave
rag
e n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d d
isad
van
tag
e
Sharkey, in press. “Spatial segmentation and the black middle class.” American Journal of Sociology
Continuity in racialized neighborhood inequality
Sharkey 2008. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Context.” American Journal of Sociology.
% of all parent/child pairs living in poor neighborhoods over consecutive generations
Sharkey 2008. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Context.” American Journal of Sociology.
% of individuals in poor neighborhoods whose parent was also raised in a poor neighborhood
Outline for the talk:
1) The end of progress toward racial equality
2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality
3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality
4) Implications for urban policy
5) A hopeful conclusion
CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT
CHILD’S NEIGHBORHOOD
SchoolExposure to violence
PeersMental health
Standard theoretical model of “neighborhood effects”
CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT
CHILD’S NEIGHBORHOOD
SchoolExposure to violence
PeersMental health
Multigenerational model of “neighborhood effects”
EducationOccupation
IncomeMental health
Parenting style
PARENT’S NEIGHBORHOOD
The consequences of multigenerational neighborhood disadvantage: Economic mobility
Sharkey 2009. “Neighborhoods and the black-white mobility gap.” Economic Mobility Project.
Sharkey, Stuck In Place.
The consequences of multigenerational neighborhood disadvantage: Educational aspirations
Ne
ve
r in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Pa
ren
t in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Ch
ild in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Alw
ay
s in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Ne
ve
r in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Pa
ren
t in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Ch
ild in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Alw
ay
s in
po
or
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Child does not aspire to graduate from 4-year college Child does not expect to graduate from 4-year college
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
23%
54%
35%
44%
32%
58%
44%
53%
Sharkey and Elwert. 2011. “The Legacy of Disadvantage: Multigenerational Neighborhood Effects on Cognitive Ability.” American Journal of Sociology.
Never in poor neighborhood
Parent in poor neighborhood
Child in poor neighborhood
Always in poor neighborhood
95
100
105
106
101
102
97
Adjusted reading/language scores of children, by neighborhood poverty over two generations
Ad
just
ed s
core
on
co
gn
itiv
e as
sess
men
t
The consequences of multigenerational neighborhood disadvantage: Cognitive skills
Outline for the talk:
1) The end of progress toward racial equality
2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality
3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality
4) Implications for urban policy
5) A hopeful conclusion
Policy with the capacity to:
• Disrupt multigenerational patterns of neighborhood inequality
• Generate transformative changes in places and in families’lives
• Confront neighborhood inequality on a national scale and withstand fluctuations in the political mood and the business cycle
“Durable urban policy”
What does “durable” mobility look like? Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity
Sampson 2010. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology.
Map from DeLuca and Rosenblatt (2008). “Can poor black families escape segregated neighborhoods?”
Keels et al. 2005. “Fifteen years later: Can residential mobility programs provide a long-term escape from neighborhood segregation, crime, and poverty?” Demography.
The long-term impact of Gautreaux on participating families’ neighborhoods
The structure of residential mobility in Chicago: Evidence from MTO
Sampson 2010. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology.
The long-term impact of MTO on participating families’ neighborhoods
Ludwig et al. 2012. “Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults.” Science.
What does “durable” investment look like? Purpose Built Communities
What does “durable” investment look like? Harlem Children’s Zone
What does “durable” policy look like? Inclusionary Zoning
• Mobility policies that promote dramatic, sustained changes in families’ environments– Example: Gautreaux; Baltimore Mobility Program
“Durable urban policy”
• Investments that reach multiple generations– Examples: New Hope (Milwaukee); Harlem Children’s Zone
“Durable urban policy”
• Investments with the potential to create permanent or transformative change in communities– Example: Mandatory inclusionary zoning; Purpose Built
Communities
“Durable urban policy”
• Investments/programs/policies implemented on a national scale with the potential to withstand shifts in economy and political mood– Example: ?
“Durable urban policy”
Outline for the talk:
1) The end of progress toward racial equality
2) A multigenerational perspective on neighborhood inequality
3) The consequences of persistent neighborhood inequality
4) Implications for urban policy
5) A hopeful conclusion
• Since the early 1970s, federal urban policy has been dominated by a narrative linking cities/race/violence
• The Great American Crime Decline has weakened these connections and opened space for a new model of urban policy
Our nation’s urban policy agenda
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
The Great American Crime Decline
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
19.6333333333333
1.26666666666667
12.2333333333333
3.54.93333333333334
9.5
33.5666666666665
9.2
20.0666666666667
5.033333333333346.23333333333334
15.1
48.7333333333333
10.6666666666667
20.9333333333332
34.0666666666665
3.6
11.1666666666667
53.9
17.6666666666667
4.93333333333334
11.5510.3
27.0333333333333
22.733333333333220.1
15.1333333333333
7.133333333333337.366666666666677.5
38.6333333333333
17.3
11.5333333333333
3.76666666666667
8.066666666666679.333333333333339.033333333333339.19.76666666666667
24.54
11.4
16.8
1.133333333333334.73333333333334
8.066666666666676.833333333333337.26666666666667
5.56666666666667
10.6666666666667
20.6
4.3
8.7333333333333211.9
3.95.5
3.633333333333334.13.51.8
6.333333333333333.33333333333333
7.733333333333346.33333333333333
2.22.866666666666676
17.7666666666667
6.866666666666675.3
1993 homicide rate per 100,000
20
09
ho
mic
ide
ra
te p
er
10
0,0
00
points below line = crime dropped from 1993-2009
points above line = crime rose from 1993-2009
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports
Violence has dropped the most in the most violent cities
City Time Period Absolute Change Relative Change
Highest Quintile
Remainder Highest Quintile Remainder
Chicago 2001-2012 -109.67 -32.31 -28.92 -32.57
Cleveland 1990-2010 -175.83 19.27 -43.28 18.39
Denver 1990-2010 -95.42 -10.77 -47.54 -20.32
Philadelphia 1998-2009 -62.65 -2.00 -22.91 -2.95
Seattle 1996-2007 -67.32 -10.47 -28.54 -23.80
St. Petersburg 2000-2012 -202.31 -41.31 -42.94 -46.72
Violence has dropped the most in the most violent neighborhoods
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Highest QuintileQuintile 4Quintile 3Quintile 2Lowest Quintile
Year
Vio
len
t C
rim
es p
er 1
0,00
0 R
esid
ents
Violence has dropped the most in the most violent neighborhoods
Chicago
2001-2012
Cleveland 1990-2010
Denver
1990-2010
Philadelphia 1998-2009
Seattle 1
996-2007
St. Petersb
urg 2000-20120
50
100
150
200
250
300
Poor, Initial YearPoor, Final YearNon-Poor, Initial YearNon-Poor, Final Year
Viol
ent C
rimes
per
10,
000
Resid
ents
Exposure to neighborhood violence by poverty status
Chicago
2001-2012
Cleveland 1990-2010
Denver
1990-2010
Philadelphia 1998-2009
Seattle 1
996-2007
St. Petersb
urg 2000-20120
50
100
150
200
250
300
Poor, Initial YearPoor, Final YearNon-Poor, Initial YearNon-Poor, Final Year
Viol
ent C
rimes
per
10,
000
Resid
ents
Exposure to neighborhood violence by poverty status
Chicago
2001-2012
Cleveland
1990-2010
Denver
1
990-2010
Philadelphia
1998-2009
Seattle
1996-2007
St. Petersb
urg 2
000-20120
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Whites, Initial YearWhites, Final YearBlacks, Initial YearBlacks, Final YearHispanics, Initial YearHispanics, Final Year
Viol
ent C
rim
es p
er 1
0,00
0 Re
side
nts
Exposure to neighborhood violence by race/ethnicity
Chicago
2001-2012
Cleveland
1990-2010
Denver
1
990-2010
Philadelphia
1998-2009
Seattle
1996-2007
St. Petersb
urg 2
000-20120
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Whites, Initial YearWhites, Final YearBlacks, Initial YearBlacks, Final YearHispanics, Initial YearHispanics, Final Year
Viol
ent C
rim
es p
er 1
0,00
0 Re
side
nts
Exposure to neighborhood violence by race/ethnicity
• Since the early 1970s, federal urban policy has been dominated by a narrative linking cities/race/violence
• The Great American Crime Decline has weakened these connections and opened space for a new model of urban policy
The central question is:
What will the next model of urban policy look like?
Our nation’s urban policy agenda
Thanks to Richard Parks, Gary Painter and Jessica Booker for invitation and organization of the visit.
Thanks also to:
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
William T. Grant Foundation