Black access to suburban housing in America s most racially segregated metropolitan area: Detroit

Black access to suburban housing in America s most racially segregated metropolitan area: Detroit Joe T. Darden Michigan State University Department of Geography 314 Natural Science Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Tel: 517-432-1843 Fax: 517-432-1671 Key words: Blacks, Suburban housing, Segregation Analysis of 2000 census data revealed that blacks in Metropolitan Detroit are the most racially segregated population group in the United States. Blacks in Metropolitan Detroit reside overwhelmingly in central city housing while whites reside overwhelmingly in suburban housing. The objective of this paper is to determine whether the low representation of blacks in suburban housing and the lower socioeconomic status of blacks compared to whites are related to the extremely high level of black-white residential segregation in metropolitan Detroit. This paper has implications for the ecological theory that a racial minority group s level of residential segregation is related to the group s level of socioeconomic status.

Theoretical Framework In the year 2000, the black population of Metropolitan Detroit was the most residentially segregated population group in the United States. It has been a long tradition among social scientists to employ the ecological theory to explain the residential location of racial and ethnic minority groups in metropolitan areas. The ecological theory has argued that the residential location of groups is linked to the group s socioeconomic status (Burgess, 1923). Thus, when ethnic and racial residential segregation occurs in metropolitan areas between groups, it has been attributed to differences in the levels of education, occupation, and income of the groups (Massey, 1979). Related to the ecological theory is the spatial assimilation model. Spatial assimilation is a process whereby an increase in a minority group s socioeconomic status leads the group to move into communities with greater advantages and amenities and opens the way for residential desegregation with the majority group (Massey and Mullan, 1984). In the United States, the process of spatial assimilation generally involves the spatial movement outward of minority groups from established inner-city racial and ethnic neighborhoods to the suburbs. According to the concept of spatial assimilation, the suburbanization of blacks is an important step toward the residential integration within mainstream American society (Massey and Denton, 1985). Because blacks have historically been concentrated in central cities and excluded from suburbs, theoretically, suburbanization is an indicator that blacks are leaving their lower-status, black-concentrated, residential neighborhoods and achieving residential integration in higherstatus suburbs. In this sense, black suburbanization can be viewed within the context of the ecological theory. Implicit in ecological theory is the idea that a group s social and economic status strongly influences its ability to obtain access to housing within the suburbs of metropolitan areas (Darden, 1990). Some researchers have found limitations with the class-based spatial assimilation concept when applied to certain racial groups. This has led to the introduction of the place stratification concept (Alba and Logan, 1991). According to this concept, movement to the suburbs does not necessarily lead to residential integration, equal access to resources, or racial equality. This is because the more powerful, white-majority group maintains its advantaged position by keeping less advantaged minority groups out of the most desired municipalities. This behavior results in racial and ethnic groups being sorted by each group's relative standing in society. The outcome is a hierarchy of places within metropolitan areas, including places within the suburbs. Disadvantaged groups may remain segregated in undesirable neighborhoods or entire places even within the suburbs. This structural inequality in residential locations occurs through public and private discrimination in the housing market (Fong and Shibuya, 2000). Thus, a minority group may attain income, education, and occupational status equal to that attained by the white majority group and still face difficulties in purchasing a suburban home in certain places. The place stratification concept implies that some groups, especially blacks, may not be able to convert socioeconomic gains into the quality of suburban neighborhoods occupied by whites who have comparable socioeconomic status (Alba and Logan, 1993). In other words, regardless of their 2

socioeconomic status, blacks may be steered away from certain suburban places or neighborhoods or face discrimination in obtaining mortgages from financial institutions (Turner et al., 1999). Therefore, because of racial steering and limited mortgage financing, blacks in the suburbs may experience as much residential segregation as blacks in the city (Darden and Kamel, 2000a, 2000b). Moreover, greater black movement to the suburbs may not necessarily reduce racial residential segregation within the metropolitan areas. Objective The objective of this paper is to determine whether the representation of blacks in suburban housing and the differential socioeconomic status of blacks compared to whites are related to the extremely high level of black-white residential segregation that has made metropolitan Detroit the most residentially segregated area in the United States. Data and Method Data were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census of population and housing for 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002). The method of analysis used was the index of dissimilarity. The index measures residential segregation that is defined as the overall unevenness in the spatial distribution of two racial groups. The index of dissimilarity can be stated mathematically as: k D = 100 (1/2 Σ x i y i ) i=1 where x i = the percentage of a total area s white population living in a given subarea y i = the percentage of a total area s black population living in the same sub-area k = the number of sub-areas D = the index of dissimilarity. It is ½ the sum of the absolute differences (positive and negative) between the percentage distributions of the black population and white population in the total area (Darden and Tabachneck, 1980). The index value may range from 0, indicating no residential segregation to 100, indicating complete residential segregation. The higher the index, the greater is the degree of residential segregation. The total area may consist of the entire metropolitan area (city of Detroit and the suburban areas outside the city) or each suburban municipality. Regardless of the total area chosen for study, the index of dissimilarity has a certain limitation. This limitation is caused by the fact that the index is sensitive to the size of the spatial units or sub-areas used (Darden and Haney, 1978). Since census tracts were chosen as the spatial units or sub-areas for this study, the degree and magnitude of segregation by block could not be determined. Therefore, it is worth mentioning that the dissimilarity indices in this study take into account 3

only differences in the spatial distribution of groups between census tracts and reveal nothing about the distribution of the same groups between blocks. The index was used in three ways. First, it was used to examine the extent to which blacks are disproportionately concentrated in the city of Detroit. A city-suburb dissimilarity index was computed. A positive value of this index ranges from zero (indicating that blacks are spatially distributed between the city and its suburbs exactly the same as whites) and 100 (indicating that all blacks reside in the city of Detroit and all whites reside in the suburbs). The index value indicates the percentage of blacks who would have to relocate to the suburbs to have the same spatial distribution as whites (Frey, 2001). Second, the index of dissimilarity was used to assess the extent of residential segregation between blacks and whites who live in suburban municipalities of 10,000 population or more. A suburb is defined as an incorporated place located within the boundary of a metropolitan area but outside of its central city (Stahura, 1988). Historically, blacks have been excluded relative to whites from this geographic portion of the metropolitan area. However, recent census data suggests an increase in black suburbanization (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002). Suburban municipalities within the three-county Detroit metropolitan area (Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb) were divided into two categories. The first category consisted of municipalities where the black population residing there had a higher income and educational status than the white population. The second category consisted of suburban municipalities where the black population had a lower income and educational status than the white population. Mean dissimilarity indexes were then computed to determine whether or not blacks experienced different levels of residential segregation from whites in the two categories of municipalities. Third, the dissimilarity index was used to determine the extent of residential segregation between blacks and whites with comparable incomes and levels of educational attainment. The two groups were examined in both parts of the metropolitan area (that is, the city of Detroit, and the suburbs). Past Research Research on black suburbanization and black-white residential segregation and their relationship to socioeconomic status differences has been the focus of study by several social scientists since the 1960s (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1965; Farley, 1977; Frey, 1984; Darden, 1987a; Stahura, 1988; Massey and Denton, 1993; Schneider and Phelan, 1993; Farley, 1995). That research, conducted prior to the 2000 census, has shown that most blacks face barriers when they attempt to move to the suburbs, regardless of their level of socioeconomic status. In other words, the black overrepresentation in central cities is primarily because of racial discrimination in housing. Researchers have also found that the patterns of segregation in central cities are being repeated in the suburbs. Blacks who move to the suburbs are confined to a few deteriorating inner suburbs (Alba and Logan, 1993). Also, blacks with a high socioeconomic status were found to be much less likely than whites with the same status to move to the suburbs (Fielding, 1990). This lack of spatial mobility occurs in spite of the fact that blacks are dissatisfied with public services in central cities (Darden, 1987b; Welch, Combs, Sigelman and Bledsoe, 1997). However, when blacks do manage to move to the suburbs, the municipalities open to them are more likely to include those with a poor tax base, low service expenditures, and a high population density. On the other hand, whites, Asians, and Hispanics usually live in suburban 4

municipalities with higher socioeconomic characteristics than those occupied by blacks (Logan and Alba, 1993; Logan, Alba, and Leung, 1996). Prior research on blacks in metropolitan Detroit has revealed extreme inequality in the neighborhoods occupied by blacks and those occupied by whites (Darden, Hill, Thomas, and Thomas, 1987). However, the residential locations of blacks in the central city could not be explained by differences in the housing values and rents between blacks and whites. Other studies using 1990 census data have found similar results. Indeed, Darden and Kamel (2000a) specifically examined the question: Does socioeconomic status matter in the level of residential segregation and isolation between blacks and whites in the city and suburbs of Detroit? Also, were blacks in the city of Detroit more segregated and isolated (as commonly believed) than blacks in the suburbs, when socioeconomic status was controlled for? The authors used data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 4 (1993). The methods employed consisted of the index of dissimilarity and the isolation index P*. The spatial units included census tracts within the city and suburbs, while controlling for income, education, and occupation. The results revealed that socioeconomic status has little influence on the high level of black residential segregation and isolation in the city of Detroit or its suburbs. Blacks remained highly segregated and isolated from whites at all socioeconomic levels. Furthermore, blacks in the suburbs were more segregated and isolated from whites than blacks in the city of Detroit at each educational, occupational, and income level (Darden and Kamel, 2000a). In another approach, the significance of class in residential segregation was further assessed (Darden and Kamel, 2000b). The authors determined whether or not blacks with higher socioeconomic status than whites were living in suburban municipalities that were less residentially segregated than blacks with lower socioeconomic status who lived in other suburban municipalities. The study area consisted of suburban municipalities located within the Detroit tri-county metropolitan area (Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb). The data were obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census s 1990 Summary Tape File 3A that was analyzed on the census tract level. The results revealed that the socioeconomic status of blacks mattered little in explaining suburban residential segregation of blacks. In a recent book by Farley, Danziger, and Holzer (2000), the authors concluded that blacks and whites in Detroit differ greatly in both their economic status and their neighborhoods. However, differences in income, occupational achievement, and educational attainment account for only a small fraction of residential segregation in Detroit. The authors came to the conclusion after examining census data about income of all households living in a block group and the incomes of all blacks and whites throughout metropolitan Detroit. The method used involved assigning households to block groups on the basis of their income and the incomes of households enumerated there in 1990. That is, in this model, everyone was assigned to a neighborhood on the basis of household income, not on the basis of skin color. The results revealed that if household income alone determined where people lived, the index of dissimilarity would have been 15 instead of what it actually was--88 in 1990. If households had been assigned based on occupation, the index of dissimilarity would have been 5, and if they had been assigned based on education, the index of dissimilarity would have been 6. Thus, the authors concluded that residential segregation is a matter of skin color, not income, occupation, or education (Farley, Danziger, and Holzer, 2000). In Detroit, income, education, and occupation did not explain why blacks and whites were so highly segregated in 1990. 5

However, several socioeconomic and demographic changes have occurred in the Detroit metropolitan area since 1990. Whatever changes occurred, the outcome resulted in blacks in the Detroit metropolitan area becoming the most racially segregated minority group in the United States. Since a continual debate exists over whether or not class is more important than race in explaining residential segregation (Clark and Ware, 1997), the remainder of this paper will examine the socioeconomic and demographic changes in metropolitan Detroit over the last decade, and analyze 2000 census data to determine whether or not class, rather than race, is the primary reason in 2000 for the high level of residential segregation of blacks in metropolitan Detroit. Socioeconomic and Demographic Changes in Metropolitan Detroit, 1990-2000 The Detroit metropolitan area experienced slow growth over the last decade. In 2000, the Detroit metropolitan area (Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties) consisted of 4,043,467 people. Of this total, 2,720,689 were white or 67.2%, while 1,000,853 were black or 25%. Of these, 96% of all whites lived in the suburbs and only 4.3% resided in the city, as whites continued to move out of the city of Detroit to the suburbs over the decade. This made an already predominantly black city even blacker. By 2000, the city of Detroit had declined in population from one million people in 1990 to 951,270 by 2000. It had also become 81.3% black, which is up from 75% in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002). Indeed, over the decade, Detroit lost 44.5% of its white population. On the other hand, the decline of the black population was less than 1%. In 2000, at least 77% of all blacks in the metropolitan area lived in the city. The Detroit metropolitan area s socioeconomic condition improved sharply between 1990 and 2000. Indeed, improvements in per capita income, median household incomes, and a reduction in poverty improved Detroit s ratings among the 50 largest metropolitan areas from 36 to 21 (Logan et al., 2002). Much of the improvement in Detroit s socioeconomic condition may be related to the decline of high poverty neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods where the poverty rate is 40% or higher. Most are disproportionately black. Metropolitan Detroit s decline in high poverty neighborhoods was substantially larger than that of any other metropolitan area (Jargowsky, 2003). As a result, the concentrated poverty rate among blacks in metropolitan Detroit declined from 53.9% in 1990 to 16.4% in 2000, a drop of 37.5 percentage points. According to Jargowsky (2003), this reduction in the concentrated poverty rate between 1990 and 2000 changed metropolitan Detroit s ranking from the number one metropolitan area in 1990 for blacks in concentrated poverty to a rank lower than that of Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Tampa, Houston, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. The city of Detroit also improved over the decade, although it still suffers from high poverty and unemployment. The poverty rate dropped from 32.4% in 1990 to 26.0% in 2000, showing a difference of 6.4 percentage points. The unemployment rate declined slightly from 14.3% in 1990 to 13.8% in 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992; 2002). In addition, the median household income of blacks increased from $17,767 to $29,647. The median household income of whites increased from $21,120 to $29,402 over the 1990s decade. Thus, the racial inequality income ratio increased from 0.84 in 1990 to 1.00 in 2000. Equally important is the fact that the percentage of middle-class blacks (that is, blacks earning 6

$75,000 or more) who were living in Detroit increased from 4% in 1990 to 14% in 2000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992 and 2002). Despite these demographic and socioeconomic changes over the 1990s, blacks and whites in metropolitan Detroit continued to live in separate neighborhoods, resulting in an index of dissimilarity for the metropolitan area of 85%. The index for blacks and whites was higher than the index for any other group in America's large metropolitan areas. The remaining sections of this paper analyze 2000 census data on race, residential location, income, and education to determine whether or not differences in the class status of blacks and whites can be considered the primary factor for the low representation of blacks in the suburbs and the high level of black-white residential segregation in metropolitan Detroit. Black Suburban Representation Findings Analysis of the spatial distribution of blacks and whites within the Detroit metropolitan area over the city and its suburbs revealed that blacks and whites live disproportionately in separate parts of the metropolitan area. Indeed, 95.7% of whites reside in the suburbs, and only 4.3 % of whites reside in the city. On the other hand, 77% of blacks reside in the city of Detroit and only 23% live in the suburbs. Thus, the city-suburb dissimilarity index in 2000 was 72.7%. This was the second highest city-suburb dissimilarity index among metropolitan areas of 500,000 or more people. Only metropolitan Gary, Indiana, had a higher index. It was 76% (Frey, 2001). The index for metropolitan Detroit indicates that 72.7% of all blacks in the Detroit metropolitan area would have to relocate to the suburbs to be spatially distributed the same as whites. Residential Segregation of Blacks in the uburbs: Does Income Matter? This analysis involves a comparative measurement of residential segregation between blacks and whites who reside in suburban municipalities where blacks and whites have different levels of income and education. One group of suburban municipalities consists of places where blacks have a higher income or educational level than whites. The other group involves municipalities where blacks have a lower income or educational level than whites. Since it is less common for blacks to have a higher status than whites, such municipalities are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows those suburban municipalities and the level of residential segregation where blacks have a higher median household income than whites. There were 21 suburban municipalities of 10,000 population or more where the black median household income exceeded the median household income of whites. These municipalities consisted of 81,258 blacks and 686,466 whites. The level of black-white segregation ranged from 19.8% in Southfield Township to 71.6% in Lyon Township. The mean level of residential segregation was 39.5% (Table 1). There were 50 suburban municipalities of 10,000 or more population where the black median household income was lower than the white median household income. Combined, these places consisted of 70,698 blacks and 555,373 whites. The level of black-white residential segregation ranged from 3.4% in Woodhaven City to 63.5% in Washington Township. 7

However, the mean level of black-white residential segregation was 37.3%, which was 2.2 percentage points lower than the level of segregation in suburban municipalities where blacks had incomes that exceeded the incomes of whites. Residential Segregation of Blacks in the Suburbs: Does Educational Level Matter? Table 2 shows those suburban municipalities and levels of residential segregation where blacks have a higher level of educational attainment than whites. Educational attainment is measured here by the percentage of blacks and whites who have earned a bachelor degree or higher level of education. The key question was whether or not blacks were less residentially segregated on average in those suburban municipalities where their level of education exceeded the level for whites in the same municipality. There were 36 suburban municipalities of 10,000 population or more where the black population's level of educational attainment exceeded the level of educational attainment of whites. There were 1,220,293 whites and 123,747 blacks who resided in these areas. The mean level of residential segregation was 39.9%. There were 34 suburban municipalities of 10,000 population or more where the black population s level of educational attainment was lower then the level of whites. Combined, these areas consisted of 1,076,315 whites and 93,861 blacks. The level of black-white segregation ranged from 3.4% in Woodhaven City to 74.8% in Northville Township. The mean level of residential segregation for the 34 municipalities where blacks had a lower level of educational attainment than whites was 36.8%. On the other hand, in the 36 suburban municipalities where the black educational attainment level exceeded the level for whites, the mean index of dissimilarity was 39.9% or 3.1 percentage points higher. Table 3 presents a summary of suburban municipalities where blacks had a higher and lower socioeconomic status than the status of whites, as well as the respective mean indexes of dissimilarity. The results suggest that blacks were slightly more segregated from whites in these suburban municipalities where the socioeconomic status of blacks was higher than the socioeconomic status of whites. Further analysis of the relationship between black residential segregation and black-white socioeconomic status is presented in the next section. Residential Segregation Between Blacks and Whites with Comparable Incomes The analysis which follows is designed to answer the question: Are blacks and whites with the same incomes residentially integrated in the same neighborhoods? Table 4 examines blacks and whites in the city of Detroit at comparable income levels ranging from less than $14,999 to $75,000 or more. The results revealed that blacks and whites earning less than $14,999 had an index of dissimilarity of 63%. These groups can be considered poor blacks and whites. The results also revealed that blacks and whites earning $75,000 or more (that is, middle-class blacks and whites) were no less segregated. In fact, these groups had an index of dissimilarity 64.2%. When blacks and whites at each income level are examined, the results suggest that blacks and whites in the city of Detroit are residentially segregated when the two groups have the same incomes. Regardless of having comparable incomes, blacks and whites have, on average, an index of dissimilarity of more than 60. Poor blacks and poor whites are residentially segregated and so are middle-class blacks and whites (Table 4). On average, 63.6% 8

of black households would have to move to another neighborhood within the city in order to achieve even spatial distribution with white households at the same income level. According to the ecological theory and the spatial assimilation process, when a minority group moves to the suburbs, there is an expectation of a lower level of residential segregation than what was experienced in the city. Yet, Table 5 shows that blacks in the suburbs of Detroit, with the same incomes as whites, are even more segregated than blacks in the city. The average level of segregation is 70.9%, which is 7.4 percentage points higher than the average segregation experienced by blacks in the city. Poor suburban blacks and whites were slightly more segregated, with an index of dissimilarity of 73.3%, while those affluent blacks and whites had an index of dissimilarity of 68.5%. At each comparable income level, blacks and whites in the suburbs of Detroit were more residentially segregated from one another than were blacks and whites in the city of Detroit. Residential Segregation Between Blacks and Whites with Comparable Educational Levels Table 6 shows that most blacks and whites with the same level of education do not share residential neighborhoods in the city of Detroit. The average index of dissimilarity for blacks and whites at all educational levels was 59%. However, the indexes of dissimilarity declined from 66.6% among blacks and whites with no high school to 54.1% among blacks and whites with graduate or professional degrees. More importantly, blacks in the suburbs with levels of education comparable to that of suburban whites (Table 7) experienced higher levels of residential segregation than blacks in the city of Detroit at each comparable educational level. There was some variation in the levels of residential segregation in both the city and the suburbs as socioeconomic status changed. Blacks experienced a decline in the level of segregation as the level of education increased. For example, the index of dissimilarity among blacks and whites with no high school diploma was 72.5%. On the other hand, blacks and whites with graduate or professional degrees had an index of dissimilarity of 65.9%, that is, 6.6 percentage points lower. Overall, however, the average level of residential segregation between blacks and whites with comparable incomes in the suburbs was 69%, compared to 59.1% among blacks and whites in the city, a difference of 9.9 percentage points. Conclusions and Implications This paper has tested the validity of ecological theory and the spatial assimilation model in the most racially segregated metropolitan area in the United States. Both the ecological theory and the spatial assimilation model imply that the socioeconomic status of a racial minority group is inversely related to the group s degree of suburbanization and residential segregation. The theory and model were tested using two approaches. One approach examined blackwhite residential segregation within two groups of suburban municipalities--first, those municipalities where blacks had a higher income and education than whites and, second, those suburban municipalities where blacks had a lower income and education than whites. The analysis revealed that the socioeconomic status of blacks matters little in explaining suburban residential segregation of blacks. In fact, blacks were more segregated from whites in those 9

suburban municipalities where the socioeconomic status of blacks was higher than the socioeconomic status of whites. The other approach examined the residential segregation between blacks and whites with comparable incomes and educational attainment in the city of Detroit and the area outside the city, that is, the suburbs. The results revealed that most blacks and whites with comparable incomes and education do not live in the same neighborhoods in the city or in the suburbs. Poor blacks and poor whites are segregated and so are middle-class blacks and whites. In fact, blacks in the suburbs of Detroit with the same income and education as whites are even more segregated than blacks in the city of Detroit. Thus, contrary to ecological theory and spatial assimilation, black residential segregation seems to occur independently of socioeconomic status. These findings, based on 2000 census data, present further evidence that ecological theory and spatial assimilation are insufficient in explaining the high level of black residential segregation in America s most racially segregated metropolitan area. Instead, these findings reconfirm the importance of place stratification as defined by Alba and Logan (1993). In this model, it is argued that regardless of socioeconomic status, blacks, because of racial steering and/or discrimination, are not able to fully convert their socioeconomic status into residence in the same neighborhoods as whites. Although beyond the scope of this study, there has been recent evidence of housing discrimination based on paired tests in 20 metropolitan areas, including metropolitan Detroit. The results revealed that housing discrimination against blacks still exists at high levels. Although there have been decreases in the level of discrimination against blacks seeking to purchase or rent a house, geographic steering on the basis of neighborhood racial composition appears to have increased significantly between 1989 and 2000 (Turner, Ross, Galster, and Yinger, 2002). 10

REFERENCES Alba, R. D., & Logan, J. R. (1993, May). Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: An individual-level analysis of segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1388-1427. Alba, R. D., & Logan, J. R. (1991). Variations on two themes: Racial and ethnic patterns in the attainment of suburban residence. Demography 28: 431-453. Burgess, E. W. (1923). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. Proceedings of the American Sociological Society, 18, 547-85. Clark, W. A. V., & Ware, J. (1997). Trends in residential integration by socioeconomic status in southern California. Urban Affairs Review 32(6): 825-843. Darden, J. T. (1990, September). Differential access to housing in the suburbs. Journal of Black Studies 21(1), 15-22. Darden, J. T. (1987a, January-April). Socioeconomic status and racial residential segregation: Blacks and Hispanics in Chicago. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, XXVII(1 & 2), 1-13. Darden, J. T. (1987b, Chapter 1). Choosing neighbors and neighborhoods: The role of race in housing preference. In G. Tobin (ed.) Divided neighborhoods: Changing patterns of racial segregation in the 1980s. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Darden, J. T., & Haney, J. B. (1978, June). Measuring adaptation: Migration status and residential segregation among Anglos, Blacks and Chicanos. The East Lakes Geographer, 13, 30-33. Darden, J. T., Hill, R., Thomas, J., & Thomas, R. (1987) Detroit: Race and uneven development. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Darden, J. T., & Kamel, S. (2000a). Black residential segregation in the city and suburbs of Detroit: Does socioeconomic status matter? Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 1-13. Darden, J. T., & Kamel, S. (2000b, winter). Black residential segregation in suburban Detroit: Empirical testing of the ecological theory. The Review of Black Political Economy, 27(3), 103-123. Darden, J. T., & Tabachneck, A. (1980). Algorithm 8: Graphic and mathematical descriptions of inequality, dissimilarity, segregation or concentration. Environment and Planning A, 12, 227-234. Fong, E. & Shibuya, K. (2000). Suburbanization and homeownership: A recapture of assimilation process in contemporary American society. Sociological Perspectives 43(1), 137-157. Farley, R. (1977, November). Residential segregation in urbanized areas of the United States in 1970: An analysis of social class and racial differences. Demography, 14, 497-518. Farley, R., Danziger, S., & Holzer, H. (2000). Detroit divided. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 11

Farley, J. E. (1995). Race still matters: The minimal role of income and housing cost as causes of housing segregation in St. Louis, 1990. Urban Affairs Review, 31(2), 244-254. Fielding, E. L. (1990, May). Black suburbanization in the mid-1980s: Trends and differentials. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Toronto. Frey, W. (2001). Melting pot suburbs: A census 2000 study of suburban diversity. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Frey, W. H. (1984, December). Life course migration of metropolitan whites and blacks and the structure of demographic change in large central cities. American Sociological Review 49, 803-827. Jargowsky, P. A. (2003). Stunning progress, hidden problems: The dramatic decline of concentrated poverty in the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Logan, J., et al. (2002). Separate and unequal: The neighborhood gap for blacks and Hispanics in metropolitan America. http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/sepuneq/publicseparteunequal.htm Logan, J. R., & Alba, R. D. (1993, May). Locational returns to human capital: Minority access to suburban community resources. Demography 30(2), 243-269. Logan, J. R., Alba, R. D., & Leung, S. (1996, March). Minority access to white suburbs: A multiregional comparison. Social Forces, 74(3), 851-881. Massey, D. S. (1979, December). Effects of socioeconomic factors on the residential segregation of blacks and Spanish Americans in U.S. urbanized areas. American Sociological Review 44, 1015-1022. Massey, D.S., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. (1985). Spatial assimilation as a socioeconomic outcome. American Sociological Review 50: 94-106. Massey, D., & Mullan, B. (1984). Process of Hispanic and black spatial assimilation. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 836-873. Schneider, M., & Phelan, T. (1993, May). Black suburbanization in the 1980s. Demography, 30(2), 269-279. Stahura, J. (1988, March). Changing patterns of suburban racial composition, 1970-1980. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(3), 448-460. Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1965). Negroes in cities: Residential segregation and neighborhood change. Chicago, IL: Aldine. 12

Turner, M., Ross, S., Galster, G., & Yinger, J. (2002). Discrimination in metropolitan housing markets: National results from Phase I HDS 2000. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. http://www.huduser.org/publications/asgfin/hds.html Turner, M. et al. (1999). What we know about mortgage lending discrimination in America. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2002). 2002 Census summary file 3 (SFS). State of Michigan. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993). 1990 Census summary file 4 (SF4). State of Michigan. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). 1990 census of population and housing summary, Tape File 3. Washington, D.C.: Data User Services Division. Welch, S., Combs, M., Sigelman, L., & Bledsoe, T. (1997, September) Race or place? Emerging public perspectives on urban education. Political Science & Politics 30(3), 454-458. 13

Table 1 Black Residential Segregation in Suburban Municipalities where Blacks Have Higher Median Household Income Level than Whites, 2000 Population Municipalities Median Income Whites Blacks Dissimilarity Whites Blacks Total Percent Total Percent Index MACOMB Eastpointe# 45668 65536 31275 91.78 1578 4.63 45.5 Macomb* 72335 90350 48574 96.23 327 0.65 35.3 OAKLAND Clawson# Farmington 50739 65208 12280 96.45 118 0.93 35.9 Hills# 66484 75999 68125 82.97 5743 6.99 21.1 Lyon * 67394 73750 10814 98.12 20 0.18 71.6 Oakland* 100643 110878 12215 93.45 328 2.51 51.2 Oak Park# 43477 54766 14189 47.63 13432 45.08 44.7 Orion* 72055 82164 32054 95.67 482 1.44 37.1 Oxford* 63832 162863 15502 96.74 51 0.32 44.4 Rochester Hills* 74215 75706 60973 88.57 1437 2.09 31.2 Southfield* 43967 57526 30519 38.98 41743 53.31 28.5 Southfield# 97144 105943 13330 92.38 477 3.31 19.8 Springfield* 72244 83000 12842 96.59 74 0.56 36.7 Waterford* 55293 56023 67520 92.29 2193 3.00 32.8 West Bloomfield* 89766 100867 54774 84.52 3234 4.99 26.7 WAYNE Allen Park# 51930 52708 27949 95.14 245 0.83 36.7 Canton* 71691 77291 63836 83.65 3554 4.66 21.1 Grosse Ile* 86603 200001 10378 95.26 57 0.52 34.1 Northville* 80785 107881 18684 88.82 877 4.17 64.8 Plymouth* 74005 120947 25334 91.62 866 3.20 58.5 Redford* 47946 62788 45571 88.28 4402 8.53 51.9 TOTAL 686,466 81,258 MEAN 39.5 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3), State of Michigan, 2002 Note: # = City; * = Township 14

Table 2 Black Residential Segregation in Suburban Municipalities Where Blacks Have a Higher Educational Level than Whites, 2000 Higher Education* Population Dissimilarity Municipalities % Whites % Blacks Total % White Total % Index White Black Black MACOMB Chesterfield* 16 18 34749 92.67 1109 2.96 40.4 Eastpoint# 11 15 31275 91.78 1578 4.63 45.5 Roseville# 7 12 44928 93.35 1217 2.53 75.5 St. Clair Shores# 18 30 60920 96.51 419 0.66 55.1 Shelby* 26 31 61631 94.71 560 0.86 42.7 Sterling Heights# 21 34 112285 90.21 1387 1.11 34.5 OAKLAND Auburn Hills# 29 38 15150 76.51 2487 12.56 24.8 Commerce* 33 59 33995 97.18 168 0.48 44.2 Farmington Hills# 45 48 68125 82.97 5743 6.99 21.1 Hazel Park# 7 8 17284 91.15 253 1.33 21.8 Madison Heights# 15 34 28166 90.56 552 1.77 50.7 Milford* 31 36 14881 97.45 55 0.36 36.7 Oakland# 46 80 12215 93.45 328 2.51 51.2 Oxford* 27 72 15502 96.74 51 0.32 44.4 Rochester Hills# 45 52 60973 88.57 1437 2.09 31.2 Southfield# 35 37 30519 38.98 41743 53.31 28.5 Southfield* 65 71 13330 92.38 477 3.31 19.8 Troy# 46 57 66828 82.55 1831 2.26 21.8 West Bloomfield* 53 61 54774 84.52 3234 4.99 26.7 White Lake* 23 25 27301 96.82 198 0.70 43.9 Wixim# 37 45 11990 90.40 434 3.27 41.4 WAYNE Brownstown* 14 16 20371 88.61 1005 4.37 36.6 Canton* 36 37 63836 83.65 3554 4.66 21.1 Ecorse# 4 5 5685 50.63 4612 41.07 78.6 Garden City# 9 10 28977 96.44 323 1.07 33.7 Inkster# 7 9 7576 25.16 19973 66.32 49.9 Lincoln Park# 7 12 37547 93.85 794 1.98 61.6 Melvindale# 5 7 9291 86.55 559 5.21 45.0 Redford* 15 21 45571 88.28 4402 8.53 51.9 Romulus# 6 12 15041 65.46 6849 29.81 31.7 Southgate# 12 20 27990 92.88 591 1.96 57.9 Sumpter# 9 13 9931 83.76 1511 12.74 4.4 Taylor# 6 9 56536 85.83 5864 8.90 58.2 Van Buren* 18 22 19374 82.22 2715 11.52 24.3 Westland* 14 21 7 5439 87.05 5524 6.37 45.1 Wyandotte# 12 16 26820 95.77 210 0.75 35.1 TOTAL 1,220,293 123,747 MEAN 39.9 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3), State of Michigan, 2002 Note: # = City; * = Township *Educational level was assessed on the % of the population with a bachelor degree or higher. 15

Table 3 Mean Black Suburban Residential Segregation in Municipalities Where Blacks Have Higher, and Lower Status Compared to Whites N Mean Dissimilarity Index Blacks with Higher Socioeconomic Status Median Household Income 21 39.5 Educational Attainment 36 39.9 Blacks with Lower Socioeconomic Status Median Household Income 50 37.3 Educational Attainment 34 36.8 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3). State of Michigan, 2002. N = Number of suburban municipalities 16

Table 4 Residential Segregation Between Blacks and Whites with the Same Levels of Household Income for Detroit City, 2000 No. of % of Total No. of % of Total Dissimilarity Income Level Whites Whites Blacks Blacks Index Less than $14,999 13,288 26.91 74,121 27.42 63.01 $15,000 to $34,999 14,961 30.30 79,108 29.27 63.02 $35,000 to $74,999 15,001 30.38 80,351 29.73 64.10 $75,000 or more 6,121 12.40 36,712 13.58 64.16 Total Households 49,371 100.00 270,292 100.00 Mean 63.57 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3), State of Michigan, 2002. Table 5 Residential Segregation Between Blacks and Whites with the Same Levels of Household Income for the Suburban Area of Detroit, 2000 Income Level No. of % of total No. of % of total Dissimilarity Whites Whites Blacks Blacks Index Less than $14,999 95620 8.97 15766 18.02 73.26 $15,000 to $34,999 213097 19.99 20397 23.32 72.05 $35,000 to $74,999 392788 36.85 29622 33.86 69.93 $75,000 ore more 364339 34.18 21695 24.80 68.53 Total Households 1065844 100.0 87480 100.00 Mean 70.94 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3), State of Michigan., 2002 17

Table 6 Residential Segregation Between Blacks and Whites with the Same Levels of Education for the City of Detroit, 2000 Education Level No. of % of total No. of % of total Dissimilarity Whites Whites Blacks Blacks Index No High School 29,847 35.27 128,512 28.58 66.57 High School 42,759 50.53 278,364 61.90 60.40 College Degree 6,739 7.96 29,321 6.52 55.26 Professional Degree 5,275 6.23 15,918 3.54 54.11 Total 84,620 100.00 452,115 100.54 Mean 59.09 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3), State of Michigan, 2002. Table 7 Residential Segregation Between Blacks and Whites with the Same Level of Education for the Suburban Area of Detroit, 2000 Education Level No. of % of total No. of % of total Dissimilarity Whites Whites Blacks Blacks Index No High School 259,718 14.19 25,812 18.21 72.49 High School Diploma 1,084,640 59.25 84,990 59.96 70.87 College Degree 310,035 16.94 19,180 13.53 66.70 Professional Degree 176,319 9.63 11,763 8.30 65.93 Total 1,830,712 100.00 141,745 100.00 Mean 69.00 Source: Computed by the author from data obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Summary File 3 (SF3), State of Michigan, 2002. 18