Discussion Questions Jargowsky and Yang celebrate the "profound" effect of 1990s policies which reduced neighborhood-level social distress ("underclass") and the concentration of poverty. Among many, they cite decentralized forms of assistance such as mixed income developments, Section 8 vouchers and scattered-site public housing. Given our discussions of housing policy in previous classes, why do you think that "successful" housing policies of the past are (or are not) working now? Do you think that reducing the concentration of poverty does indeed reduce social problems? In Reversal of Fortune, Kneebone and Berube suggest that “policies that foster strong national and regional economic growth -- together with targeted efforts to create and protect neighborhoods of choice and connection-- may offer the best route to longer- term progress against concentrated poverty.” In terms of this strategy, what specific actions can be taken, for example, to address de-investment in high-poverty neighborhoods? Who has the primary responsibility to implement them? What other strategies can be applied to address concentrated poverty effectively? What is the best way to engage citizens into anti-poverty action? 

What is Poverty? Relative Deprivation Individual Geographic Income Poverty (2007: 13.2%) Absolute, Relative Asset Poverty (2004-2005: 22.4%) insufficient net worth to subsist at the federal poverty level for three months in the absence of income.  Shelter Poverty (2001: 30%) residual income approach meet non-housing needs at some minimal adequacy after paying for housing. Qualify for Subs Housing At or below 80% Area Median Inc (AMI) Underclass neighborhood High Rates of Out of wedlock child bearing Teen high school drop out Joblessness men Welfare dependency Concentrated Poverty 40% or more of the census tract is below the poverty line High or Moderate Poverty? 20-40% Working poor concentration Percent EITC filers Poverty in the United States is officially and historically defined as the minimum amount of annual income a household requires in order to meet basic needs.  As a measure of economic well-being, it is antiquated since it is based on a household budget from the 1960s and is calculated as three times the cost of food.  Additionally, the federal poverty guidelines do not take into account modern household expenses like child care.  By focusing solely on income, income poverty tells only part of the story of family financial security because it ignores other sources of welfare, such as homeownership, business equity, or retirement savings.  Measuring wealth and assets, in addition to income, provides a more long-term and encompassing view of economic security and mobility.  Comparing the 2004-2005 data on income poverty with asset poverty shows that twice as many households are asset poor than are income poor (22.4% vs. 10.2%).   And in spite of the 1990’s economic boom in which incomes of the poor rose enough to reduce income poverty by 3%, asset poverty actually increased by 3% during that same period.  Household data on income poverty also shows that only 8.7% of white households and 21.3% of minority households are income poor.  Yet, the data on asset poverty shows not only greater prevalence but also but also greater concentration of asset poor households.  Nationally,  minority households are more than twice as likely as white households to be asset poor (38.1% vs. 16.7%). 

Health and Human Services Guidelines How is Poverty Defined? What does the poverty guideline/level measure? Health and Human Services Guidelines http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml

Spatial Stratification Within U.S. Metro Areas How would you characterize spatial stratification?

Update 2000 In 2000 , the poverty rate in central cities (18.4%) was more than twice that in the suburbs. The overall poverty rate in central cities dropped slightly in the 1990s, while the rate in suburbs edged up, narrowing the poverty “gap” by half a percentage point. 49% of all poor people resided in suburbs in 2000, up from 46% in 1990. Poverty rates declined most in midwestern and southern cities, while poverty increased in cities and suburbs throughout New England, New York, and Southern California. No clear relationship between population changes and poverty changes.

Puget Sound Poverty 2000 1990 Change 1990-2000 Source: urbanpoverty.net

Puget Sound Race 1970 1990 2000 Source: urbanpoverty.net

Puget Sound House Value 2000 Source: urbanpoverty.net

Discussion Questions Jargowsky and Yang celebrate the "profound" effect of 1990s policies which reduced neighborhood-level social distress ("underclass") and the concentration of poverty. Among many, they cite decentralized forms of assistance such as mixed income developments, Section 8 vouchers and scattered-site public housing. Given our discussions of housing policy in previous classes, why do you think that "successful" housing policies of the past are (or are not) working now? Do you think that reducing the concentration of poverty does indeed reduce social problems? In Reversal of Fortune, Kneebone and Berube suggest that “policies that foster strong national and regional economic growth -- together with targeted efforts to create and protect neighborhoods of choice and connection-- may offer the best route to longer-term progress against concentrated poverty.” In terms of this strategy, what specific actions can be taken, for example, to address de-investment in high-poverty neighborhoods? Who has the primary responsibility to implement them? What other strategies can be applied to address concentrated poverty effectively? What is the best way to engage citizens into anti-poverty action?