ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION MAKING CONNECTIONS INITIATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTS: ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION CITIES G. Thomas Kingsley and Kathryn L.S. Pettit December 2003 THE URBAN INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, DC
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTS: ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION CITIES G. Thomas Kingsley and Kathryn L.S. Pettit, The Urban Institute December 2003 THIS PAPER Uses and census data to compare conditions and trends in neighborhoods selected as the focus for Foundation support in 10 Making Connections Cities and 3 Civic Sites Looks at selected key indicators on: Age composition Racial/ethnic composition Population growth/decline and mobilitiy Employment and wealth Poverty and family risk factors Housing market and reinvestment PURPOSE In addition to core results, need to understand conditions and trends defining the neighborhood context that will influence those results. Context indicators can influence how you design your strategy. For example, need different approaches for neighborhoods with high population growth vs. high loss rate; for those with tight housing markets and threatening gentrification vs. disinvestment and deterioration. Risk factors, other than core results can also give clues for strategy. For example, different approaches where parents are mostly high school graduates vs. mostly not; where most families with children are female headed vs. not. Need to know past trends (-) to understand trends in the intervention period. For example, a 5 percent rate of improvement in the intervention period means something very different if the trend in the earlier period was 2 percent or +10 percent.
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 2 Exhibit 1 HIGHER PERCENT OF CHILDREN THAN METRO AVERAGE -- ALL CASEY NEIGHBORHOOODS 50 MILW Pct population < 18, 40 30 OAKL DENV SANAN INDI HART PROV ATL BALT SEAT DESM WASH LOUIS 20-6 -4-2 0 2 4 Pct point change in share of children, On scatter-plot: above the line means higher percentage of children than average for 100 largest metro areas; left of line means percent children declining; right of vertical line means percent children increasing. In large metro areas on average children and youth (population under 18) make up 26 percent of the population. In contrast, the Casey neighborhood in is a true outlier with the under 18 share at 46 percent. But the range for other Casey neighborhoods is also higher than average: from 27 percent () to 35 percent (). Selected neighborhoods indeed consistent with Foundation priorities. Share of children decreased in the s most notably (drop of 2-4 percentage points) in,, and. Share of children increased most notably (by 3-4 points), in,, and.
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 3 Exhibit 2 CASEY NEIGHBORHOODS -- COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, BUT WIDE DIVERSITY IN RACIAL/ETHNIC COMPOSITION 110 100 WASH BALT Pct. non-hispanic black 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 ATL MILW LOUIS INDI DESM HART PROV OAKL 10 0 0 20 SEAT 40 60 DENV 80 SANAN 100 Pct. non-black minority Scatter-plot shows metros with high black populations in upper left, high concentrations of Hispanic and other non-black minorities in lower right; predominantly white in lower left. All Casey neighborhoods above average minority populations One cluster predominantly African American (75 percent or more) with low share of other minorities (,,, ) Another cluster predominantly (over 60 percent) other minorities, with comparatively low shares black (,,, and although the latter two are somewhat above metro average re black share) truly mixed with 49 percent black and 41 percent other minorities Although above metro averages,, and have comparatively low minority shares.
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 4 Exhibit 3 DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN POPULATION GROWTH/DECLINE -- HIGH MOBILITY EVERYWHERE 20 SEAT DENV Pct. change in population, - 10 0-10 -20 SANAN WASH OAKL ATL LOUIS INDI HART PROV DESM MILW BALT -30 30 40 50 60 70 Pct pop age 5+ who lived in different house 5 yrs ago, On scatter-plot, higher up is population growth and lower down is decline. To the left is lower mobility and to the right is higher mobility (mobility = percent of population age 5 or over that lived in a different house in 1995). Cluster of 4 Casey neighborhoods suffered serious population decline (15 percent or more) in s:,,,. At the other extreme, 3 saw population growth of 10 percent or more:,,. Neighborhoods in and gained more modestly while those in,,, and declined, but by less than 5 percent. All Casey neighborhoods experienced considerable mobility in the late s. In 10 of them, the share of the population that had moved over the past five years ranged from 50 percent () to 60 percent (). Three were significantly more stable (,, and ) but even there, large shares had moved in the past five years (36 to 40 percent range)
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 5 Exhibit 4 EMPLOYMENT RATES IN CASEY NEIGHBORHOODS ALL LOWER THAN METRO AVERAGE MANY EXPERIENCED DECLINES IN S 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PERCENT OF POPULATION 18-64 EMPLOYED Note: On all bar charts, sites listed in order by population change in s ranging from most rapid neighborhood growth at top () to most rapid decline at bottom () Employment rate (percent of population age 18-64 employed) fairly high (59-67 percent) in 4 neighborhoods:,,,. But quite low (45-49 percent) in 7 others:,,,,, and. Employment rate declined in 10 neighborhoods: most rapidly in (-11 percentage points); fairly rapidly in 3 others, and (- 5 to -8 points); and only modestly in 6 others,,,,, and (all by less than 2.5 points). Employment rate gained modestly in the 3 others,, and (all by less than +2 points).
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 6 Exhibit 5 HOME OWNERSHIP RATES (KEY INDICATORS OF WEALTH HOLDING) VARIED GREW IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS IN S 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE HOMEOWNERS Rates highest by far in 4 neighborhoods: (highest at 62 percent), and, and (all at 51-52 percent). Other 9 neighborhoods range from a high of 35 percent () to a low of 15 percent () Reductions in homeownership rate in only 4 neighborhoods: (-7 percentage points); (-2.4 points); (-2.1 points) and (-0.1 points). Homeownership rate increased in 9 neighborhoods: increases ranging from less than 1 percentage point in to 6 points in. (Generally a good sign but important to remember this rate can go up just because the number of occupied renter units declines).
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 7 Exhibit 6 POVERTY RATES HIGHEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH PREDOMINANTLY BLACK POPULATIONS AND POPULATION DECLINES POVERTY DECLINED IN ALL BUT THREE CASEY NEIGHBORHOODS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 POVERTY RATE Highest poverty in 5 neighborhoods: (highest at 47 percent), and,,, and (range of 39 to 44 percent) Lowest poverty in (15 percent), (24 percent), and (27 percent). Biggest declines in poverty in s in neighborhoods of (-12 percentage points), and, and (-8 to -10 points) Poverty rates increased in s only in,, and
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 8 Exhibit 7 FEMALE HEADED SHARE OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ALSO GREATEST IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH PREDOMINANTLY BLACK POPULATIONS AND POPULATION DECLINES 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PERCENT OF FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN WITH A FEMALE HEAD Highest rate in (75 percent), followed by,,, and (range from 67 to 71 percent) Lowest rates in (28 percent), (33 percent) and (and (at 36 percent) These rates did not change much in the s for the 7 neighborhoods on the bottom of the chart (those with population losses) Notable improvements (rate declines of 5-10 percentage points) in,,, and.
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 9 Exhibit 8 EDUCATION DEFICITS MOST SERIOUS IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH LARGE HISPANIC POPULATIONS INDICATOR IMPROVED IN ALMOST ALL CASEY NEIGHBORHOOD IN S 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 PERCENT OF POPULATION OVER 25 WITHOUT A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE Share of population over 25 without a high school degree in was highest in (55 percent), followed by,,, and (44-50 percent range). Rates were lowest in (26 percent), followed by and (34-35 percent). Largest improvements (drop of 12 percentage points or more) in and ) followed by,, and (drop of 5-10 points)
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 10 Exhibit 9 LOW RATIO OF MALES TO FEMALES, AGE 18-34, IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITH PREDOMINANTLY BLACK POPULATIONS (LIKELY INDICATOR THAT MANY YOUNG MEN IN PRISON) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 NUMBER OF MALES PER 100 FEMALES, AGE 16-34 Only 74-79 males per 100 females in Casey neighborhoods in,,, and. This is likely explained by the imprisonment of a sizeable share of males from these neighborhoods. Significant decline in this ratio in the s in and (not much change for the others). At the other extreme, several sites have many more males than females in this age group. The ratios are 123 in, 121 in, 115 in, and 109 in. Suspect this is explained by concentrations of immigrants which typically have high percentage of males, still supporting families in their home country.
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 11 Exhibit 10 RISK FACTOR INDEX 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 RISK FACTOR INDEX, Four risk factor indicators: percent of families with children with female head; percent of population 25+ without high school degree; percent population 16+ not employed; and percent of families receiving public assistance. Created index for each factor separately - range from 1 to 100. Index above, in effect, an unweighted average of the four. A score of 95 means only 5 percent of all census tracts in 100 largest metros have a worse score. All Casey neighborhoods at the high end of the scale: range from 70 () to 98 (), and at 96;,, and in the 91-95 range. Those in the 80s, from highest to lowest, are,, and.
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 12 Exhibit 11 IMPRESSIVE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES INDICATED IN 7 CASEY NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT CONTINUED DISINVESTMENT IN OTHERS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 AVERAGE HOME VALUE Values in Casey neighborhoods all below large-metro average. However, among them there is a band of higher value neighborhoods clearly distinguished from band of lower value neighborhoods. Higher value (average in range $105K-153K) includes (from highest),,,,,,. Low value (average in range $39K-$63K) includes (from highest),,,,,. (Important to note, however, that size and quality of homes not necessarily comparable) Groupings re changes in home value quite different: Largest - increases in (+83 percent) and (+81 percent) from high value group; (+65 percent) and (+52 percent) from low value group. Solid gains also recorded in,, and. Value declines in (-4 percent), (-8 percent), (-9 percent) and, most disturbingly, (-27 percent)
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 13 Exhibit 12 RENTAL MARKETS TIGHTER WHERE STRONGER POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT WITH TRENDS IN HOME VALUES 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 RENTAL VACANCY RATE Rental vacancy rates in below 6 percent (greatest affordability pressure) in neighborhoods of,,,, and. Same places (along with and ) had greatest reductions in vacancy rates in s: drop of 2 percentage points or more. Weakest rental markets in neighborhoods of,, and ( vacancy rates of 10 percent or more, rate increase of 2 points or more in s). This leaves us with the following pattern of housing market strength in Casey neighborhoods - Strong rental and owner markets:,, - Strong rental, weak owner:,, - Moderate rental, strong owner:,, - Weak rental, strong owner: - Weak rental and owner markets:,,
Comparative Analysis of Neighborhood Contexts: Annie E. Casey Foundation Cities 14 IMPLICATIONS The contexts of all Casey neighborhoods pose serious risks for families and children. However, the nature of the risks differ along a number of dimensions. All sites need to work on policy and program improvements in all areas as suggested by Making Connections strategies and theory of change, but these data suggest there are special challenges that vary across sites: Four neighborhoods suffered significant population loss in the s and had scores on family risk factor indicators among the most serious among all sites:,,, and. They also had the lowest employment rates and the lowest ratios of males to females in the 18-34 age group (probably indicating a high share of young men in prison). These neighborhoods warrant intensive and comprehensive strategies to address their needs - strategies that deal with physical revitalization (improvements that will spur reinvestment and provide attractions that will stem population outflow) as well as social revitalization. At the other extreme, six neighborhoods were gaining in population even though they still had poverty rates and family risk factor scores much higher than metropolitan averages. Four of them were experiencing rapid escalation in home prices (,,, and ) but the lack of affordable housing remained a significant problem in the other two ( and ) as well. One feature that stands out in almost all of these neighborhoods is a high rate of population turnover. In ten of them, more than half of their population in had moved at least once over the preceding five years. Strengthening social networks and making the neighborhoods more attractive in other ways may slow this turnover to some extent, but are not likely to eliminate it. A major challenge remains in designing support programs that will work for a mobile population.