Creating a Different Kind of Neighborhood

A few weeks ago, we explored local action steps that would increase economic mobility at a local level. A study done by Stanford University pointed out that mixed-income communities tend to produce better outcomes for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds and that areas with less income inequality tend to have higher rates of upward mobility overall. Because of these findings, in this week’s blog we take a closer look at the  effects of geographic income distribution, and see what it might mean to Ohioans if there was an increase in mixed-income communities.

The Issue: Economic Segregation & Concentrated Poverty

CityLab’s Florida and Mellander define economic segregation as “the geographical sorting of people by income and socio-economic class.” They go on to explain: “it is not so much the size of the gap between the rich and poor that drives segregation as the ability of the super-wealthy to isolate and wall themselves off from the less well-to-do.” To see this in Ohio, we can take a look at Cleveland as an example. The darkest shade represents those making above $75,000 a year, while the lightest shade is making $35,000 or less annually. You’ll notice in the map, some neighborhoods along the coast and a couple of neighborhoods in the center are significantly wealthier than their surroundings. (If you’re interested in seeing income in your city mapped out by neighborhood click here)

According to the Pew Research Center, residential segregation by income has increased during the past three decades across the United States, and is especially present in 27 of the nation’s 30 largest major metropolitan areas. The report also stated that 2015 was the first year on record when middle-income Americans did not make up the majority of the country. Rather, rich and poor Americans comprised more than half of the population. Furthermore, according to a research report by the Martin Prosperity Institute, the large metro areas where the poor are most segregated are mainly located in the Midwest and the Northeast regions of the United States.

So what happens to these areas of highly concentrated poverty? In the book The Truly Devastated, author William Julius Wilson calls attention to the negative social effects that accompany spatial concentration of poverty, which include “the kinds of ecological niches that the residents of these neighborhoods occupy in terms of access to jobs and job networks, availability of marriageable partners, involvement in quality schools, and exposure to conventional role models.” This aggregate of risk factors associated with living in poverty makes everyday living a struggle; these issues are multifaceted and interwoven, building on and playing off one another.

The Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson highlights the enduring effects that accompany concentrated poverty, noting that: “the stigmatization heaped on poor neighborhoods and the grinding poverty of its residents are corrosive,” leading ultimately to “greater ‘moral cynicism’ and alienation from key institutions,” setting in motion a “cycle of decline.”

It’s well documented that living in poverty affects education success, health, relationships, and most of all it affects the ability for humans to develop to their full potential. According to the book Teaching with Poverty in Mind, compared with well-off children, children who grow up in poverty are disproportionately exposed to adverse social and physical environments. Low-income neighborhoods are likely to have lower-quality social, municipal, and local services, as well as, greater traffic volume, higher crime rates, and less playground safety.

Potential Solution: Mixed-Income Communities

The issue of highly concentrated poverty calls for key information and smarter strategies, not resignation or despair. Luckily, there is a growing body of research that shows that mixed-income neighborhood—the impact of peers, the local environment, neighbors—contribute significantly to success later in life.

We took a look at the research out there and here is what we found as some of the results of mixed-income communities:

• • Residents of mixed-income developments are satisfied with safety. Joseph and Chaskin (2010) report that most low-income and higher-income residents who relocated to mixed-income reported feeling safe.

• • Mixed-income developments promote positive place-based change. In their review of the research on effects of mixed-income housing strategies, Fraser and Nelson (2008) found that previously disadvantaged neighborhoods that gain mixed-income developments experience lower criminal activity and increased property values.

• • Residents who move to less poor neighborhoods have measurably better job outcomes. Kleit‘s (2001) quasi-experimental study of 256 low-income women who either lived in concentrated poverty or moved to scattered-site housing in Montgomery County, Maryland, found that movers had more job contacts, more racially diverse job networks, more job contacts who were men, and higher levels of occupational prestige, measured by type/quality of job.

• • Residents of mixed-income environments realize mental health benefits. Joseph and Chaskin (2010) found that 75 percent of relocated residents in their study reported psychological benefits associated with their move to a mixed-income development; two-thirds mentioned reductions in stress since moving from their old neighborhoods to the new developments.

• • There have been small increases in residents’ understanding of others’ backgrounds, cultures and perceived stereotypes and prejudices. Though not widespread, some residents across income groups in Joseph and Chaskin‘s (2010) study suggested that they benefited from living in the mixed-income developments in terms of learning from and about residents of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Lower-income residents talked about their hope for being better understood while moderate- and higher-income residents spoke of gaining appreciation for the issues low-income families face.

• Children who relocate to income-diverse neighborhoods have fewer behavioral and health problems. Reviewing research on the Gautreaux and MTO programs, Popkin and colleagues (2000) cite findings that children that moved to low- and lower poverty neighborhoods experienced fewer incidences of arrest and convictions, fewer injuries, and fewer episodes of asthma. The children‘s mothers held more positive views of children‘s new schools and teachers.

We need to remember that integration isn’t just about moving around people with low incomes. We can reinvest in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty in ways that improve quality of life and enhance opportunity in place. All of this research points to a hopeful new sign that how we build our cities, and specifically, how good of a job we do at building mixed income neighborhoods that are open to everyone, can help us play a key role in reducing poverty and promoting equity in our communities.

Reflection:

What do you believe causes poverty? Where do your beliefs come from? (For example, your parents, environment, community, media, personal experience, etc?)

Let us know your thoughts! To follow our new research and research of our local media partners, sign up for our weekly news roundup.