1. The Impact of Gentrification on K-12 Student Racial Diversity: Perceptions, Metrics, and Advocacy Alison Atkins Denton Final Oral Review Fielding Graduate University School of Educational Leadership and Change June 12, 2010

2. 2 Presentation Overview Context of the Study Review of the Literature Research Questions Methodology Findings Discussion

3. 3 Context of the Study Perceived problem: Redevelopment of garden apartments resulting in less students Education field: Acknowledgement that racial diversity and housing are two sides of the coin Housing and gentrification studies: debate on positive and negative attributes of gentrification; partially due to inconclusive displacement studies

4. 4 Summary of the Study Two-part study investigating the impact of redevelopment of garden apartments on K-12 student racial diversity Action research study undertaken in 2 parts: GIS analysis (2004 to 2008) and Survey of 93 adults “stakeholders”

5. 5 Review of the Literature Gentrification: definitions, indicators, debate around displacement Geographic information systems (GIS) as an analysis tool Past studies Student enrollment data Study Area Student Generation Factor Garden Apartment: Student Demographics County and School System Advocacy

6. 6 Gentrification Definition has evolved Ruth Glass (1964) 2 elements: class transition and housing redevelopment Smith & LeFaivre (1984); Palen & London (1984) include vital, suburban neighborhoods Bostic & Martin (2003) add racial element Rent gap -- Smith (1984) Indicators Census data on race, income compare to MSA median (Bostic & Martin, 2003; Freeman, 2009; Wyly & Hammel, 1996) Method problematic (Glick, 2008) Debate around Positive and Negative Aspects Freeman & Braconi (1984); Levine 2004 Lipman, 2002; Moses 2006; Slater 2004

7. 7 Geographic Information Systems Allows layering data together spatially Few studies use GIS to study relationship between gentrification and displacement Important studies Freeman & Braconi 2004 Vigdor 2002 Need for a “sharper lens” Wagner (1995) and Bostic & Martin (2003) Student enrollment data more timely and aggregated at any level

8. 8 Study Area Demographic basics Redevelopment of garden apartments Student generation factor

9. 9 Setting Suburban jurisdiction in the mid-Atlantic Population over 200,000; approx 20,000 public school students Wealthy, diverse Geographically closed system with limited amount of opportunity for new building Growth opportunities generally restricted to redevelopment

10. 10

11. 11 Student Generation Factor Housing TypeStudents % Students by Type Countywide Units % of County Housing Type Generation Factor 08-09 Single Family Detached1093357%2752128%0.40 Apartment - Garden401721%1531615%0.26 Apartment - Elevator14838%2572526%0.06 Duplex10085%22312%0.45 Condo - Garden7944%1072611%0.07 Condo - Elevator4993%1484515%0.03 Townhouse4132%33713%0.12 TOTAL19147100%99735100.00%0.19

12. 12 Housing Type by Race Asian n=2016 Black n=2372 Hispanic n=5270 American Indian n=24 Not specified n=398 White n=9067 Apartment - Garden25.4%38.0%43.4%25.0%17.1%2.7% Apartment - Elevator15.7%12.7%8.5%4.2%11.6%4.1% Single Family Detached39.0%29.2%28.1%54.2%53.5%85.4% Duplex6.2%10.2%9.8%8.3%4.5%1.2% Townhouse3.4%2.8%1.5%0.0%2.0%2.1% Condo - Garden4.9%4.6%4.9%0.0%6.8%3.3% Condo - Elevator5.4%2.4%3.9%8.3%4.5%1.2% Total100.0%

13. 13 Housing Type Asian/ Pacific IslanderBlackHispanic American Indian/ Alaskan NativeUnspecifiedWhiteTotal Apartment - Garden51390222866682424017 Percent12.8%22.5%56.9%0.1%1.7%6.0%100.0% Apartment - Elevator3173024481463691483 Percent21.4%20.4%30.2%0.1%3.1%24.9%100.0% Single Family Detached787693148113213774610933 Percent7.2%6.3%13.5%0.1%1.9%70.8%100.0% Duplex1242425152181071008 Percent12.3%24.0%51.1%0.2%1.8%10.6%100.0% Townhouse696778 8191413 Percent16.7%16.2%18.9%0.0%1.9%46.2%100.0% Condo - Garden98110259 27300794 Percent12.3%13.9%32.6%0.0%3.4%37.8%100.0% Condo - Elevator10856203218112499 Percent21.6%11.2%40.7%0.4%3.6%22.4%100.0% Total20162372527024398906719147

14. 14 County Advocacy County leaders have stated commitment to a diverse, inclusive community No public housing authority, provides direct financial subsidy assistance through grants By-right and site plan development Working with profit and non-profit housing developers to create affordable housing (rental units) through financial incentives

15. 15 School System Advocacy Primary focus of schools have been internal Shift in culture to focus on external issues such as housing Relationship between housing and schools plays major role in who enrolls in schools Segregation/integration are current topics in literature No work to date found on gentrification, displacement studies and K-12 students

16. 16 Developing new metrics K-12 Education GIS Technology Housing

17. 17 Research Questions How has housing market changed? What is the effect of these changes on non-White residents? PERCEPTIONS What is the impact of garden apartment redevelopment on student enrollment? METRICS Does the school system have a role in advocating for students in regards to housing? ADVOCACY

18. 18 Methodology Two-part study investigating the impact of redevelopment of garden apartments on K-12 student racial diversity Part One: GIS Analysis Part Two: Survey Action research framework

19. 19 Part One – GIS Analysis Data sources Base unit: 142 block groups from US Census 2004 and 2008 student data 2004 and 2008 parcel information from County Procedures Data gathering Analysis Four case studies

20. 20

21. 21 Part One – Surveys Participants Recruited 3 groups of participants: Residents of garden apartments Housing advocated County and School System staff Procedures Online and hard copy 20 question survey Spanish and English Multiple choice, open-ended, Likert-scale questions Pilot study Data analysis

22. 22 Findings – GIS Analysis RQ: What is the impact of the redevelopment of garden apartments (through renovation, conversion, or demolition) on student enrollment and racial diversity in the study area? Block group data characteristics: Mean number of students per BG: 137.27 41.5% of block groups contain at least one GA parcel GAPA = garden apartment parcel area

23. 23 Change from 2004 to 2008 Increased GAPA Block Groups n=12 Decreased GAPA Block Groups n=18 No Change GAPA Block Groups n=112 Total n=142 SumMSDSu m MSDSumMSDSumMSD Change in Total Students 46939.0870.32-715-39.72101.43117910.5321.769336.5748.73 Change in Non-White Students 35629.6768.10-852-47.33102.45-6-.0516.49-502-3.5446.80 Change in White Students 715.9214.271005.569.389528.5012.2711237.9112.09 Change in Race Un- specified Students 423.502.88372.102.182332.082.133122.202.22

24. 24 Correlation Analysis Strong, positive correlations found between change in percent GAPA of block group and change in total number of students from 2004 to 2008, r =.51, n= 142, p <.001 and between the change in the percentage of garden apartment parcel area (GAPA) of the block group and the change in the total number of non-White students from 2004 to 2008, r =.51, n= 142, p <.001 Also found correlations that suggested that the number of non-White students increases and that the number of White students decreases with the percentage of garden apartment parcels in a block group

25. 25 GIS Case Studies 1.Conversion of GA to Condominium GAPA loss of 30% in a single parcel conversion Reduced total students in BG by 53% (256 students) 94.1% of students in 2004 were non-White (Black, Hispanic, Asian, interracial, or unspecified) 2.Renovation of GA by for-profit developer Facility improvements of 435 apartment units led to increase of $500+/month in rent Largest reduction in non-White students (-339)

26. 26 GIS Case Studies - 2 3.Renovation of GA by non-profit developer 465 rental unit complex renovated in 5 phases Families relocated onsite during construction Partnership with County govt – financial package 75% of units preserved as long-term affordable Increase of 54 students, 51 were non-White 4.Demolition of GAs; rebuild of new structure Highly desirable neighborhood with metro access Several small GA complexes demolished Replaced with condo worth $1M each Total students decreased 7, non-White 9

27. 27 Survey Findings – Demographics 93 responses analyzed Mean age: 37; range 19 – 75 62% Female, 32% Male Race Latino 47.3% White 46.2% Black 3.2% Interracial 2.2% Other 1.1%

28. 28 Survey Findings – Demographics Income Home Ownership

29. 29 Survey Findings - Perceptions RQ: How do school staff, County and community housing experts, and residents who are directly affected by garden apartment redevelopments view housing changes and their relationship to diversity in the County? Do significant differences exist between the participant groups or groups based on demographic variables such as race, income level, or age? Open-ended question 100 comments, grouped into 16 categories 7 categories were defined as gentrification “indicators” 78% of comments were indicators

30. 30 Survey Findings - Perceptions If you have observed changes in [County X's] housing market, do you consider those changes to be positive, negative, neutral, or both positive and negative? Significant differences found between Survey Groups White vs. Non-White Family Income

31. 31 Survey Findings - Perceptions Gentrification has been defined as "the process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood" (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001, p. 6). Do you believe that [County X] is experiencing gentrification

32. 32 Conclusions These results confirm that for gentrifying neighborhoods in the area under study, “the main costs [of gentrification] will be borne almost exclusively by ethnic minorities” (Bostic & Martin, 2003, p. 2429).

33. 33 Significance of Study Responds to a need defined in the literature Sharper lens More timely datasets Creates a new indicator for gentrification (GAPA changes) Creates method for quantifying displacement; seeing impacts immediately