This document summarizes a speech given by John A. Powell on the topics of race, suburbanization, and shifting paradigms of opportunity. Powell argues that (1) structural inequality is perpetuated through institutions and geography in ways that trap marginalized groups, (2) residential segregation has historically been institutionalized and leads to segregation from opportunity, and (3) policies to date have not adequately addressed the scope of spatial, racial, and opportunity segregation and their cumulative impacts. He calls for moving beyond dichotomies of city vs. suburb and adopting multi-disciplinary, race-conscious, regional approaches to affirmatively further fair housing and link marginalized groups with high opportunity communities and institutions.

1. RACE AND SUBURBANIZATION:
SHIFTING THE OPPORTUNITY
PARADIGM
john a. powell
Executive Director, The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
Williams Chair in Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, Moritz College of Law
The Diverse Suburb: History, Politics, and Prospects Conference
October 22-24, 2009
Hempstead, NY

2. • Different communities are situated
differently with regards to
institutions
• Institutions mediate opportunity
• Structural Inequality
– Example: a Bird in a cage. Examining
one wire cannot explain why a bird
cannot fly. But multiple wires, arranged
in specific ways, reinforce each other
and trap the bird.

3. STRUCTURES PERPETUATE AND
ACCELERATE SEGREGATION
 Not just segregation based on
phenotype
 Segregation from opportunity
 Segregation embedded in our
institutions and in our geography

4. EXAMPLE: RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION
“SEGREGATION AS A CONSEQUENCE”
Suburbanization =
Federal Policies Private Institutions
Institutionalized red-lining
“If a neighborhood is to retain
stability, it is necessary
that properties shall
continue to be occupied
by the same social and
racial classes. A change
in social or racial
occupancy generally
contributes to instability
and a decline in values.”
–Excerpt from the 1947
FHA underwriting manual

5. EXAMPLE CONTD. :
“SEGREGATION AS A CAUSE”
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS INFORMED BY THE SPACE WE INHABIT
 Suburbs= white  Cities= black

6. STRUCTURAL RACIALIZATION
Context: The Dominant Consensus on Race
White privilege National values Contemporary culture
Current Manifestations: Social and Institutional Dynamics
Processes that maintain racial Racialized public policies and
hierarchies institutional practices
Outcomes: Racial Disparities
Racial inequalities in current levels of Capacity for individual and community
well-being improvement is undermined
6
Ongoing Racial Inequalities
Adapted from the Aspen Roundtable on Community Change. “Structural Racism and Community Building.” June 2004

7. SYSTEM INTERACTIONS
7
Source: Barbara Reskin. http://faculty.uwashington.edu/reskin/

8. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF SPATIAL, RACIAL AND
OPPORTUNITY SEGREGATION
Segregation impacts a number of life-opportunities
Impacts on Health
School Segregation
Impacts on Educational Achievement
Exposure to crime; arrest
Transportation limitations and other
inequitable public services
Neighborhood Job segregation
Segregation
Racial stigma, other
psychological impacts
Impacts on community power and 8
individual assets
Adapted from figure by Barbara Reskin at: http://faculty.washington.edu/reskin/

9. THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE:
WE ALL LIVE IN OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES CALLED “NEIGHBORHOODS”
A TALE OF HIGH AND LOW OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES
Low Opportunity High Opportunity
• Less the 25% of students in • The year my step daughter
Detroit finish high school finished high school, 100% of
the students graduated and
• More the 60% of the men will 100% went to college
spend time in jail
• Most will not even drive by a jail
• There may soon be no bus
service in some areas • Free bus service
• Relatively easy to attract capital
• It is difficult to attract jobs or
private capital • Very safe; great parks
• Not safe; very few parks • Easy to get fresh food
• Difficult to get fresh food

10. NEIGHBORHOODS MATTER!
Example: Educational
Outcomes
 Sampson et.al.: Verbal
ability and concentrated
poverty:
 “living in a severely
disadvantaged
neighborhood reduces the
later verbal ability of black
children on average by 4
points, a magnitude that
rivals missing a year or
more of schooling.”
 Racial segregation and
concentrated poverty:
 the poverty of a school,
more than the poverty of
the individual, determines
students’ educational
outcomes

11. HOUSING IS AN OPPORTUNITY ANCHOR AND KEY
LEVERAGE POINT
Health
Employment
Childcare
Housing
Effective Education
Participation
Transportation
11

12. INADEQUATE RESPONSES
 So far, policies have not been adequate in scope:
they have not moved people into opportunity
 De-concentration is not the same as moving people
to opportunity
 More complex landscape, policy must reflect reality

13. REFLECTING REALITY:
RETIRING THE OLD DICHOTOMY
 No longer city vs.
suburbs
 Some groups have had
modicum of success,
but patchwork, and
now new dynamic
 Exurbs, older suburbs,
and what’s going on in
the cities?
 Gentrification, A New
Form of Exclusion?

14. MOVIN’ ON UP…?
CHANGING DYNAMICS OF SEGREGATION….
“African
Americans and
Latinos who
reside in the
suburbs are
much more likely
than suburban
whites to live in
fiscally stressed
jurisdictions
with below
average public
resources and
greater than
average public
service needs.”
Source: Institute on Race and Poverty, “Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change: Stable Integration,
Neighborhood Transition,and the Need for Regional Approaches” May 2005. www.irpumn.org

15. A Patchwork of Suburbanization…
Some areas are still off-limits
Source: Institute on Race and Poverty, “Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change: Stable Integration, Neighborhood Transition,
and the Need for Regional Approaches” May 2005. www.irpumn.org

16. CHANGING DYNAMICS OF SEGREGATION….
Dissimilarity School Neighborhood
Index Segregation Segregation
Metro Region 1989- 1999- 1989- 1999- …School
90 00 90 00 segregation in
Cleveland-Lorain- 38.1 71.2 84.3 75.3 some areas
Elyria OH
increases even as
Columbus OH 39.6 65.3 68.1 61.7 residential
Milwaukee- 44.2 64.9 78.9 75.2
segregation
Waukesha, WI decreases
Las Vegas, NV- 20.9 41.1 54.1 42.6
AZ
Cincinnati, OH- 36.9 54.1 73.3 64.4
KY-IN
Denver, CO 46.3 63.1 69 64.5
Source: Lewis Mumford Center, “Choosing Segregation: Racial Imbalance in American Public Schools, 1990-
2000 .” March 2002. http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/SchoolPop/SPReport/page1.html

17. PREVIOUS RESPONSES
 Romney and Nixon: the first and last attempt at including
suburbs in an urban policy
 Gautreaux: successful in regional mobility, race
conscious (i.e. de-segregation), but court-ordered
 Improved outcomes in social, educational, and
economic indicators
 MTO: ignored race, focused on class (i.e. de-
concentration), 1-year pilot demonstration
 Baltimore suburbs backlash
 Less successful, why? Did not change the geography
of residents!

18. EXAMPLE: MTO DEMONSTRATION
 5- city pilot program, based on de-concentration
strategy; race was not explicit indicator in
recipient neighborhoods
 Outcomes: improvements in physical and mental
health, perceptions of safety, BUT limited or no
improvements in educational, economic, and
employment outcomes
 Why limited effects?
 MTO families were more likely to move to areas of
transition, and predominantly minority within the
central city
 Geography of opportunity did not change: nearly
¾’s of moves were within the same school district

19. A BETTER EXAMPLE: GAUTREAUX
A court-ordered de-segregation strategy of
Chicago public housing residents into white
suburbs
 Key Difference: race-conscious, larger
geographic area
 Outcomes:
 Improved school attendance rates
 More likely to be in college-track programs and
attend a 4-year college
 If not attending college, then employed
 Reporting earnings greater than $6.50/hour
 Receiving employer benefits

20. POTENTIAL RESPONSES
“AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING”
 What does this mean?
 Not just fair housing/anti-
discrimination policies, but
affirmatively linking people with
opportunity
 Physical proximity to social
institutions/resources is not enough
 Social connections/infrastructure
matter too
 Deliberate, Multi-disciplinary,
& Regional

21. A “BEST” RESPONSE:
A ROBUST DEFINITION OF “OPPORTUNITY COMMUNITIES”
THOMSON V. HUD FAIR HOUSING LITIGATION
 Proposed Remedy: Used 14
indicators of neighborhood
opportunity to designate high and
low opportunity neighborhoods in
the region
• Neighborhood Quality/Health
 Poverty, Crime, Vacancy, Property
Values, Population Trends
• Economic Opportunity
 Proximity to Jobs and Job
Changes, Public Transit
• Educational Opportunity
 School Poverty, School Test
Scores, Teacher Qualifications
21

22. …COMMUNITIES HAVE DIFFERENT
RESOURCES, AND THESE RESULT IN
DIFFERENTIAL OUTCOMES…
Even where we have universal goals, we have different paths
Example: Universal Health care?
Resource-rich(er) Resource-poor
 One community has  Another community
no health insurance, has no health
but a hospital down insurance and no
the street. hospital.

23. RESPONSES CONTD.: MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
EXAMPLE: LIHTC AND SEGREGATED SCHOOLS
Cumulative effects of segregation and isolation, no
single-issue policy response will be adequate
Figure 8: Percentage of LIHTC Population
 Currently, LIHTC within Proximity to Segregated Schools:
development is conflicting Population in
with efforts to desegregate >
household by 50 to 100%
90%
schools. household Students of Color
White
 Nearly ¾’s of African race:
American and Hispanic American
16.8% 18.7%
LIHTC residents are located Indian
in segregated schools. Asian 6.9% 71.3%
Black 6.0% 69.6%
Hispanic 8.4% 74.3%
Other Race 33.5% 23.2% 23
White 32.5% 17.0%

24. EXAMPLE: CONNECTING MULTIPLE DOMAINS
HOUSING AND SCHOOLS
HOW CAN WE REVERSE THIS PATTERN?
Low Opportunity High Opportunity
24

25. SOME PROGRESS…
 Federal Responses
 Administration's Urban
Agenda
 HUD’s “Sustainable
Communities Initiative”
 Westchester Court
Decision
 New Jersey Regional
Contribution
Agreements Repealed
“The Legislature finds that the use of
regional contribution agreements,
which permits municipalities to
transfer a certain portion of their
fair share housing obligation
outside of the municipal borders,
should no longer be utilized as a
mechanism for the creation of
affordable housing by the council.”
(A-500)

26. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES: STATE, REGIONAL,
LOCAL
 What about
foreclosures in
non-segregated
neighborhoods for
affordable
housing?
 What about
strategic reuse of
abandoned
properties in
distressed
neighborhoods?
Different communities will have
different structural needs

27. 27 Questions or Comments: www.kirwaninstitute.org
Visit www.kirwaninstitute.org