15
THE 2000 CENSUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE Sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s: A Change in Course Tom Kingsley and Kathy Pettit The Urban Institute
THE 2000 CENSUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGESponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation
Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s:
A Change in Course
Tom Kingsley and Kathy Pettit
The Urban Institute
Some differences in approach
Data for census tracts in all metropolitan areas
Constant neighborhood boundaries over time - Allows comparison of changing conditions in same
places
Interest in different poverty ranges- Focus on poverty rates of 30% or more
Similar findings: major reductions in concentrated poverty- Share of poor: down in high categories up in middle categories
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
<10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40+Tract Poverty Rate
Perc
ent o
f Poo
r Pop
ulat
ion
1980
1990
2000
Reductions in:- High poverty tracts (>30% poor) - Extreme poverty tracts (>40% poor)
1980 1990 2000
Poverty Rate 30 % or More
Number of Tracts 3,856 5,433 5,224
Poor Population (thous.) 4884 7,104 6,701
Pct. of poor population 25 31 26
Poverty Rate 40 % or More
Number of Tracts 1,662 2,791 2,222
Poor Population (thous.) 2,439 3,968 3,088
Pct. of poor population 13 17 12
High poverty tracts - shifting compositionSuburbs gaining share, but central cities of largest metros still dominant
Suburbs,100 largest metros
High-Poverty Tracts by Location
1980 2000
Central cities,100 largest metros
All other metros
67%Suburbs,100 largest metros
Central cities,100 largest metros
All other metros
22%
11% 62%
23%
15%
High poverty tracts - shifting compositionPredominantly black tracts losing share; gains for Hispanic & mixed tracts
High-Poverty Tracts by Predominant Race/Ethnicity
48% 39%
18%
13%
21%
20%14%
27%Black Black
WhiteWhite
Hispanic
Hispanic
Other/Mixed Other/Mixed
1980 2000
Concentrated poverty in the Northeast- New York region, high but decreasing- Increasing concentration in 8 metros
No. of metro areas
Percent of poor population
in high poverty tracts
Increase
conc. pov.
Top 100 Metros Total 1990s 1980 1990 2000
Melting Pot 4 1 47 44 41
Largely White 15 6 17 23 23
Largely White-Black 1 1 36 36 39
Concentrated poverty in the Midwest- Worst increases in the 1980s- Largest, most pervasive decreases in the 1990s
No. of metro areas
Percent of poor population
in high poverty tracts
Increase
conc. pov.
Top 100 Metros Total 1990s 1980 1990 2000
Melting Pot 2 0 37 38 27
Largely White 13 0 21 33 23
Largely White-Black 5 0 30 46 33
Concentrated poverty in the South- Consistent, pervasive improvements- Two special cases: Wilmington, Washington
No. of metro areas
Percent of poor population
in high poverty tracts
Increase
conc. pov.
Top 100 Metros Total 1990s 1980 1990 2000
Melting Pot 10 0 25 33 22
Largely White 8 0 19 23 18
Largely White-Black 19 1 32 32 25
Concentrated poverty in the West- Serious increases in Melting Pot metros- Major contrasts in California (best and worst)
No. of metro areas
Percent of poor population
in high poverty tracts
Increase
conc. pov.
Top 100 Metros Total 1990s 1980 1990 2000
Melting Pot 18 8 15 24 27
Largely White 5 0 10 14 7
Conditions in high-poverty tracts Improvements, but big gaps remain
1990 2000 2000
High Poverty Metro Tracts Avg.
% Adults withoutHigh School Degree
% Families w/ Children,Female Headed
% Females Employed,age 16 and over
1990 2000 2000
High Poverty Metro Tracts Avg.
1990 2000 2000
High Poverty Metro Tracts Avg.
Implications of national review Reduction in concentrated poverty – important sign of hope for cities - Booming economy, supportive policies can make a difference - “Culture of Poverty” not the barrier some alleged
But no reason for complacency - 2000 was peak of boom – problems since
- Even in 2000, major gaps in conditions remained
Research needed, neighborhoods that improved - 1,461 tracts moved out of high-poverty in 1990s - Need to learn how they did it (role of gentrification)
Concentrated Poverty in the District of Columbia
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000
Tracts Total Population Poor Population
Pe
rce
nt
in h
igh
po
ve
rty
>40% poverty
30-40% poverty
Change in Poverty Categories in District of Columbia, 1990-2000
THE 2000 CENSUS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE
Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s:
A Change in Course
The Urban Institute
http://www.urban.org/nnip/ncua/index.htm
