1. A Geographic Analysis of Making Connections Movers: Preliminary Results Ned English, Colm O’Muircheartaigh, Cathy Haggerty, and Erika Garcia Presented at the Urban Institute 09/07/06

2. 2 Introduction Making Connections collects longitudinal data Households move often  33% renters moved in previous year (2003 CPS) What are the implications for Making Connections and subsequent policy decisions?  Who, how many move?  Where, how far do they go?  Do Making Connections residents move to similar areas?  What do movers tell us?

3. 3 Analytical Approach Compare original location to destination  Examine distance  Analyze neighborhood characteristics of each Use quex data to examine categories of movers: 1. Race/Ethnicity 2. Housing tenure (renter or not) 3. Nativity (born in US or not)  Derive information beyond questionnaire  Implications for survey operations and future research interests

4. 4 Methodology Making Connections maintains addresses for both waves  From list in wave 1  Located in wave 2 Employ GIS software to:  Geocode locations based on address  Calculate distance between both points  Append census boundaries to each location Merge census data and run comparisons using statistical software

5. 5 Background- Scale of Movement SiteNo-Child HHds Moved Child HHds moved Overall HHds Moved Denver51.2%64.6%57.2% Indianapolis43.0%68.2%55.6% Des Moines45.6%55.0%50.4% San Antonio27.4%53.5%43.6% 42.9%59.8%51.7%

6. 6 Urbanicity of Destinations Site% Metro All Completes % Metro All Completes Beyond County Denver97.8%89.7% Indianapolis99.1%91.7% Des Moines93.8%64.7% San Antonio100.0% 97.7%83.1%

7. 7 Child Mover Complete Destinations Site% Neigh% City% County% Beyond Denver21.3%47.2%NA28.9% Indianapolis25.5%58.5%5.2%12.4% Des Moines34.0%43.3%5.2%17.5% San Antonio55.9%39.8%3.1%1.0% 34.0%47.5%3.4%15.1%

8. 8 Poverty in Origin vs. Destination by Site SiteMedian % Poverty by Tract Wave 1 Median % Poverty by Tract Wave 2 Denver (n = 89)47.7 %17.6 % Indianapolis (n = 106)27.1 %17.9 % Des Moines (n = 97)25.7 %12.0 % San Antonio (n = 93)33.4 %28.1 %

9. 9 Poverty in origin vs. Destination by Mover Characteristics CharacteristicsMedian % Poverty Wave 1 Median % Poverty Wave 2 Within Neighborhood (n =131) 30.2%28.1% Within City (n =183)28.1%13.8% Within County (n =13)25.6%4.8% Beyond (n = 58)29.6%8.2%

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12 Movers in Denver County, CO and Surrounding Area

13. 13 Movers in Polk County, IA and Surrounding Area

14. 14 Movers in Marion County, IN and Surrounding Area

15. 15 Movers in Bexar County, TX and Surrounding Area

16. 16 All Distances- by Category SiteMedian Complete (mi) Median NIR (mi) Median Aged- Out (mi) Denver2.68.33.4 Indianapolis3.19.13.2 Des Moines2.43.32.7 San Antonio2.57.712.5 2.57.83.9

17. 17 All Distances- by Race/Ethnicity Race/EthnicityMedian Complete (mi) Median NIR (mi) Median Aged- Out (mi) White non-Hispanic3.96.12.9 Asian non-Hispanic2.83.7NA Other2.512.62.3 Hispanic2.37.85.4 African American non- Hispanic 2.28.36.6 2.57.83.9

18. 18 Results- % Minority in origin vs. Destination Tract by Site SiteCity Percent Minority Median % Minority Wave 1 Median % Minority Wave 2 Des Moines (n = 97)20.1 %47.0%19.5% Indianapolis (n = 109)32.5 %71.3%35.8% Denver (n = 89)48.0 %88.9%63.5% San Antonio (n = 93)68.2 %97.7%94.1%

19. 19 Results- % Minority in origin vs. Destination by Mover Characteristics CharacteristicsMedian % Minority by Tract Wave 1 Median % Minority by Tract Wave 2 Within Neighborhood (n = 131) 92.3% Within City (n = 183)88.9%48.7% Within County (n = 13)50.3%14.2% Beyond (n = 58)77.0%16.7%

20. 20 Compare origin and Destination Race/Ethnicity Race/EthnicityWave 1 Poverty Wave 2 Poverty Wave 1 Minority Wave 2 Minority White non- Hispanic (n = 92) 26.0%10.2%39.4%13.7% African American non-Hispanic (n = 95) 27.5%20.8%88.9%59.5% Hispanic (n= 163)32.9%25.7%94.1%84.1% Asian non-Hispanic (n = 6) 17.0%9.6%69.2%21.0% Other (n = 29)29.6%16.0%92.3%71.4%

21. 21 Compare origin and Destination by Housing Tenure Housing TenureWave 1 Poverty Wave 2 Poverty Wave 1 Minority Wave 2 Minority Own (n = 46)26.3%10.4%76.9%26.1% Other (n = 339)30.2%21.2%88.9%60.9%

22. 22 Compare origin and Destination by Nativity Country of BirthWave 1 Poverty Wave 2 Poverty Wave 1 Minority Wave 2 Minority US (n = 314)29.6%19.6%88.9%55.6% Other (n = 71)27.5%22.0%88.9%61.0%

23. 23 Wave 2 Percent Poverty by Distance Moved- Denver

24. 24 Wave 2 Percent Poverty by Distance Moved- Des Moines

25. 25 Wave 2 Percent Poverty by Distance Moved- Indianapolis

26. 26 Wave 2 Percent Poverty by Distance Moved- San Antonio

27. 27 Poverty by distance moved

28. 28 Wave 2 Percent Minority by Distance Moved- Indianapolis

29. 29 Wave 2 Percent Minority by Distance Moved- Martindale-Brightwood

30. 30 Wave 2 Percent Minority by Distance Moved- Southeast Indianapolis

31. 31 Wave 2 Percent Minority by Distance Moved- Indianapolis

32. 32 Next Steps Additional Directions: 1. Remaining sites Neighborhood level 2. Block Group-level data 3. Data beyond Census 2000 Crime data Schools characteristics and test scores 4. Integration with neighborhood sketches Did people leave their drawn neighborhoods? How do drawn neighborhoods compare to tract-level measures? 5. Analysis of other questionnaire data e.g. hardship, economic sections 6. Literature review of theory 7. Thinking ahead to wave 3