Poverty and the Geography of Opportunity
Jennifer Jellison Holme
Associate Professor
Educational Policy & Planning
Department of Educational
Administration
The University of Texas at Austin
Shifting Focus: A Different Lens
 Examine the problem of poverty through the
geography of opportunity framework
1.
What is the geography of opportunity?
 Why does it matter?
 How did current patterns come to be?
2.
How does the geography of opportunity
change our understanding of the causes of
poverty, and of policy solutions?
Policy and Academic Discussions

Measuring/understanding the dynamics of
poverty:
 Poverty rates
 Income gaps
 “Near poor”

Disparities in outcomes:
 Achievement
 Graduation rates
 College going rates

These measures and relationships, while
important, tend to focus on the symptoms

They tell us little about the causes
Opportunity: Focus on the Causes

Thinking about opportunity helps to focus our
thinking on the causes (Carter & Welner, 2014)

What is opportunity?
 “A set of circumstances that makes it possible to
do something” (google dictionary).
 “A situation or condition that places individuals in
a position to be more likely to succeed or excel”
(Rosenbaum, 1995)

Opportunity is shaped by the opportunity structures in
which we all live (powell, 2008; Briggs, 2005; Squires & Kubrin, 2006).
Opportunity structures are environmental factors that mediate our access to
opportunity
Employment
opportunities
Banks/credit
Transit
Environment
Housing
Education
Fresh food
Opportunity
Structure
Healthcare
They can be physical, social, or cultural, such as stable housing, healthy and safe
environments, high quality education, sustainable employment, political
empowerment, and positive social networks (powell, Heller, Bundalli, 2011)
High Opportunity Neighborhoods
Access to fresh, high quality food
and traditional grocery stores
Access to mainstream banks and
traditional credit
Access to schools with stable and
experienced principal and teachers
Ample employment opportunities
(for low and high wage jobs)
Fresh air/good environment and
access to green space
High quality housing options
Access to medical facilities and
doctors nearby
Low Opportunity Neighborhoods
Limited access to traditional grocers,
fresh food, reliance on corner stores
Limited access to traditional banks,
access to quick cash credit w/high
interest rates
Schools with less experienced
teachers and principal, highly
unstable (turnover)
Employment opportunities limited
Little green space, often low quality
environment
Low quality housing
Limited access to medical facilities
and doctors
What is the geography of opportunity?

The geography of opportunity= how
opportunity structures are distributed
spatially

“Place Matters”

“Whether we are highly skilled
professionals or minimum-wage
workers, place affects our access to
jobs and public services (especially
education), our access to shopping and
culture, our level of personal security,
the availability of medical resources,
and even the air we breathe. The
inequalities across places reinforce
the inequalities among people.” (Drier,
Mollonkopf, & Swanstrom, 2014, p. 4)
(john powell, 2009)
Mapping Opportunity
 Educational indicators
(e.g., access to and quality
of early childhood
education, school poverty
rates, graduation rates)
 Health and environmental
indicators (e.g. proximity
to parks, toxic waste,
vacant housing, and
availability of healthy
food),
 Social and economic
indicators (e.g., poverty,
local unemployment,
public assistance receipt).
Where do people live in relationship to opportunity?
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
r
Where do people live in relationship to
opportunity?
Non-Hispanic White
 African American and Latino/as
disproportionately likely to live in
low opportunity neighborhoods
 Whites disproportionately likely to
live in high opportunity
neighborhoods
 The geography of opportunity is
closely connected to patterns of
racial and economic segregation
How did these patterns come to be?
Origins in federal policy
 Patterns are similar across metro areas: Why?

HOLC: refinanced risky loans

To assess home values and to mitigate risk,
HOLC created a standardized, national real
estate appraisal system to assess
neighborhood quality

In the new system, race played a significant
role in evaluations of neighborhood quality

 1910s/20s (industrialization)
From these neighborhood appraisals, the
HOLC created “Residential Security Maps” to
guide lending
 1920s: Good economy, increase in home building

 Not a result of “natural preferences”
 Origins in policy- primarily federal housing
policy, along with private actors (realtors and
banks)
 Current patterns began in the early 20th century
w/growth of cities
and ownership
 1930s- Depression, default
 Federal government stepped in
 Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) (1933)
 Federal Housing Administration (1934)




Neighborhood risk –Grades A (Green, best);
B (Blue, good); C (low/changing) to D (Red,
undesirable)
Race played a big role in neighborhood
evaluation
Any blacks = red grade
=ineligible for loans
=“Redlining”
Damaging Effects of Federal Housing Policies

HOLC: Refinanced only risky mortgages=smaller market

Residential Security maps/biased appraisal had a much greater impact on the housing
market with the 1934 establishment of the FHA:

Not a lender, it insured banks

Goal was to encourage lending and stimulate housing market

Low cost, fixed rate, long-term mortgages=very affordable to buy a house; home ownership
accessible for middle class

Stimulated a great deal of housing construction, particularly for newly returning vets after
WWII who had VA housing benefits

FHA mandated that private banks adopt biased appraisal system to receive FHA backing =
“Redlining” adopted widely by private lenders

FHA also encouraged use of restrictive covenants to keep neighborhoods racially stable

Prohibited owners from selling property to a family of color, mixed race, or Jewish families
Lasting Effects

Result = Families of color were prevented from buying homes in urban cores/redlined
areas; yet locked out of newly developing, affordable suburbs

Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans.
More than 98% went to white homebuyers (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights)

Effects on cities


Incentivized suburban flight: Made it easier/more affordable to buy in suburbs (for whites)
than to remodel/reinvest in urban core

Fueled disinvestment in cities: Some urban communities (Camden, NJ) received no FHA
backed loans during some years
Effects on wealth of families:

Whites got a part in the American dream and homeownership w/low cost federally backed
loans – asset to pass to children

Blacks & Hispanics were denied loans and opportunity for wealth creation
Effects of these Processes on Geography
of Opportunity
 Results:
 Major gaps in wealth by race (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006)
Median Net Worth Gaps by Race 2013: With and Without Home
Equity
120,000
100,000
$110,500
$89,537
$89,339
$84,680
80,000
60,000
40,000
$33,408
$29,339
$24,044
$22,280
$19,023
20,000
$6,314
$2,124
$7,113
$7,683
$4,010
0
White
Alone
.White Black Alone Asian Alone Other
Alone (Not
(residual)
of Hispanic
Origin)
Hispanic
Origin
Not of
Hispanic
Origin
Effects of these Processes on Geography
of Opportunity
 Results:
 Major gaps in wealth by race (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006)
 Enduring patterns of economic and racial segregation
 … Between city and suburbs-esp. due to ability of suburbs to
incorporate into separate cities
Effects of these Processes on Geography
of Opportunity
 Results:
 Major gaps in wealth by race (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006)
 Enduring patterns of economic and racial segregation
 … Between city and suburbs-esp. due to ability of suburbs to
incorporate into separate cities
 Left urban core cities and urban school systems with increasing need
and declining levels of resources
 (Some inner ring suburbs also racially isolated and even worse off) .
Urban/suburban school district disparities
Why do patterns of economic and racial
segregation matter?
 These patterns affect individual life outcomes: Experimental studies moving
people to higher opportunity neighborhoods yields positive health, employment,
educational outcomes (Turner et al., 2012, Sabonmatsu et al., 2011, Rosenbaum, 1995).
 These patterns affect student achievement: Research has shown that high
poverty schools depress the achievement of even middle and upper income
students; conversely there are documented benefits of moving low income
students to a low poverty school (Caldas & Bankston, 1997; Coleman, 1966; Perry
& McDonney, 2010; Rumberger &Palardy, 2006; Shwartz, 2010; Palardy, 2008).
 These patterns make it very difficult for schools to function effectively. Creating
high performing, high poverty schools exceedingly difficult (Bryk et al., 2010; Harris,
2007)
 Findings on these issues some of the most consistent in educational research,
w/largest effect sizes
Focusing on the Geography of Opportunity =
Reframing Policy Solutions
Geography of Opportunity
Approaches
Current Policy Approaches
Causes
• Individual/family factors
(i.e. parental education,
parental income, culture)
• Low quality schooling
Solutions
• Invest in individuals and
families
• Improve schools and
educators (through
standards, incentives, &
sanctions)
Causes
• Patterns of economic
and racial segregation
that affect families’
access to resources and
ability to achieve
outcomes
Solutions
• Reduce segregation and
poverty concentration
• Change /ameliorate
dynamics of segregation
through intentional
policy
Addressing Poverty by Changing the
Geography of Opportunity

Need is for place-based strategies/investment:



Early education, economic development, family supports, schoolcommunity linkages
And regional strategies to change dynamics of inequality:

Housing mobility/targeted location of affordable housing to give families
access to high opportunity schools and neighborhoods (i.e. Montgomery
County, MD)

School choice: inter-district policies that promote economic diversity in
schools (Learning Community); inter-district magnet schools.

Inter-governmental collaboration to address inequality (i.e. the Learning
Community; Portland Metro Council; Twin Cities Met Council).

Resource sharing (Learning Community; Twin Cities): everyone gains
when the region gains
Results: Increased opportunity within communities and a
strengthened region for all.
Questions?
Jennifer Jellison Holme
The University of Texas at
Austin
jholme@austin.utexas.edu
512-475-9398