urban neighborhoods and the persistence of racial inequality patrick sharkey new york university...

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