View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

MIDWEST INFRASTRUCTURE

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF CHICAGO

JUNE 2003
NUMBER 190b

Chicago Fed Letter
Understanding isolation and change in urban neighborhoods:
A research symposium
by Richard Mattoon, senior economist

Policymakers have been concerned about a spatial mismatch between job location and
residence for years, particularly as manufacturing jobs have left urban centers for suburban
and exurban locations. A recent Chicago Fed conference highlighted a number of public
policy options—breaking down housing discrimination and segregation, improving public
transit, and providing development subsidies to blighted neighborhoods.

1. Population by income, 1980–2000
100
9.2%

17.3%

8.7%
80
23.2%
30.9%
60
13.9%
40

20

0

On April 13, 2003, over 90 academics,
public policymakers, and community
leaders came to the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago to discuss key trends
affecting the nation’s metropolitan areas. This conference, the sixth in the
Bank’s Midwest Infrastructure Project, focused on
22.8%
access to employment for
urban residents who may
15.4%
have limited housing options, or spatial mismatch.
22.4%

Curt Hunter, senior vice
president and director of
30.6%
21.1%
23.5%
research at the Chicago
Fed, opened the conference by noting that public
20.6%
24.4%
15.8%
policymakers have been
1980
1990
2000
concerned about a spatial
Mid
Low
High
mismatch between job loMid-low
Mid-high
cation and residence for
years, particularly as manSOURCE : Bryan Samuels, 2003, paper presented at a research
symposium, “Understanding isolation and change in urban
ufacturing jobs have left
neighborhoods,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 13.
urban centers for suburban
and exurban locations.
He noted that in Chicago over the past
25 years, manufacturing jobs in the central city have declined at an average
rate of 10,000 a year, while remaining
essentially stable in the suburbs. The
concern is that manufacturing has

traditionally been an important vehicle
by which households climb from low income to the middle class. Barriers to
job access in the suburbs may worsen the
employment prospects of some innercity residents.
Spatial mismatch and
suburbanization

Bryan Samuels of Chicago Metropolis
2020 discussed the organization’s 2003
report on the six-county Chicago metro
region, which has a population of eight
million.1 By 2000, the top three quintiles
of the income distribution included
60.6% of the population versus 48.8%
in 1980 (see figure 1). The minority
population had expanded from 30.4%
in 1980 to 42.2% in 2000. Hispanics now
rival African Americans as the largest minority group in the region. There has also
been movement of minorities out of the
central city. The Asian population has
begun to move north, and the Hispanic
population has moved west. The African
American population is still concentrated
on Chicago’s south side but has spread
somewhat farther south.
Samuels noted that Chicago’s Hispanic
population is somewhat unusual—78%
of the Hispanic population in Chicago
has ethnic roots in Mexico versus 58%
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

1

of the national Hispanic population. He
added that by 2030 Hispanics are anticipated to comprise 33% of the region’s
population. Finally, he cited a troubling
recent trend—the growth in property
values exceeding the growth in household income.
Joe Persky of the University of Illinois
Chicago presented joint work with
Dan McMillen on the possibility that a
skills mismatch is developing in metro
Chicago. Persky presented evidence
from the 2000 Census on the residence
of different ethnic groups based on education. In general, for all races without a high school degree, the population
has moved somewhat more to the south
and out to the northwest around O’Hare
airport. The black population without
a high school degree has continued to
concentrate on the south side. For college graduates, the movement has clearly been to the suburbs. Persky noted that
the suburbs are also the source of job
growth, with particular concentrations
developing in the west and northwest.
Persky presented results from a series
of gravity indexes designed to measure
job accessibility, as well as an index that
adjusts for the competing labor supply.
Across all gravity measures, Hispanics
appear to have better access to jobs than
blacks. This holds for both unskilled
and professional positions, as well as if
the gravity index is adjusted for the competing labor supply. Persky’s findings
provide evidence of geographic and
spatial mismatch.
Janice Madden of the University of
Pennsylvania presented her work on income dynamics and the possible causes
of suburbanization. She considered four
possible causes: land preferences (people
want larger yards and homes); house filtering (as the housing stock ages, more
affluent residents leave for the suburbs
and less affluent residents move into the
available housing); “white flight” (white
residents abandon neighborhoods as
the ethnic composition changes); and
finally, local public finance choices.
Examining these theories in 31 large
central cities for the 1970s, 1980s, and
1990s, Madden found that the poor
2

(regardless of geographic
2. Changes by race/ethnicity, U.S. metro areas
location) are not generally suburbanizing. Income
percentage point change in spatial mismatch
index, 1990–2000
differences based on ge2
ography appear to be
driven by the non-poor
0.9
moving out. Exceptions
0
are Detroit and Milwaukee,
–0.4
where white flight ap–2.5*
peared to drive income
-2
segmentation. Madden
found similar dynamics
–3.2*
driving income segmenta-4
tion in the midwestern
Total employment
and northeastern portions
of the country. Race tend-6
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic
ed to trump income, with
*Statistically
significant
change.
poor blacks moving to simSOURCE : Steven Raphael, 2003, paper presented at a research sympoilar locations as non-poor
sium, “Understanding isolation and change in urban neighborhoods,”
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 13.
blacks. A similar pattern
holds for whites. Madden
found little evidence to
support the house filtering or land
such as Minneapolis–St. Paul and
preference theories. More of the eviPittsburgh, showed a decline in spatial
dence pointed to white flight, along
mismatch between residence and job
with limited evidence of public finance locations for blacks. The largest factor
preferences.
contributing to the modest decline in
spatial mismatch during the decade
Steven Raphael of the University of
was the movement of black households
California at Berkeley presented joint
within metro areas, with black houseresearch with Michael Stoll (UCLA)
holds showing some tendency to move
on the location of people and jobs in
closer to places of employment within
U.S. metro areas in the 1990s. Raphael
a metro area (see figure 3). While this
reported that blacks had made modest is somewhat promising, the study does
not consider the socioeconomic status
progress during the decade, reducing
the gap in spatial mismatch
between blacks and whites
3. Improvement for blacks
by 13% (see figure 2).
percentage point change in spatial mismatch
Nonetheless, no group
index, 1990–2000
was more physically isolat4
ed from jobs than blacks
Within metro area change
by 2000. Improvements
Between metro area movement
for blacks were the small3
2.8
est in metro areas in the
Northeast and where blacks
2
represent a relatively large
share of the population.
Raphael also reported that
metro areas with high levels of black–white residential segregation exhibited a
higher degree of spatial
mismatch. Conversely,
more integrated metros,

Chicago Fed Letter Midwest Infrastructure June 2003

1
0.4
0
Total black employment
SOURCE :

Steven Raphael, 2003, paper presented at a research
symposium, “Understanding isolation and change in urban neighborhoods,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 13.

of the blacks choosing to move. If residential mobility is concentrated among
middle- and upper-income blacks, it is
possible that spatial mismatch conditions have failed to improve for the
low-income black population.
While the study suggests that residential
mobility may be most effective in reducing spatial mismatch, the authors suggest that improving transportation access
can also be beneficial. In some cases,
car ownership has helped inner-city
blacks find jobs in employment rich
suburbs. Also inner-city job development
efforts might help.
Crime and urban housing issues

Keith Ihlanfeldt presented his work relating male youth employment to neighborhood crime in Atlanta. It is clear
that some central city neighborhoods
have crime rates that are vastly higher
than those found in most suburban areas. The question is: Does job access
influence this? There are several theories to explain crime patterns. First,
the decision to engage in crime appears
to be affected by an individual’s peer
group. Second, crime tends to occur
in the local neighborhood of the criminal. In the case of burglaries, 52% occur within one mile of the burglar’s
residence. Third, young males between
16 and 24 commit most crime. The employment opportunities of this group
have a direct effect on their tendency
to commit crime.
Finding employment for this age group
often requires job openings being close
by. In high crime areas, employment
opportunities are often on the decline.
The lack of access to jobs appears to
explain a significant portion of the
spatial variation in crime. Ihlanfeldt
suggests that peer effects also play a
significant role (see figure 4).
Ihlanfeldt concluded that the variation
in net job growth across a metro area
matters. In particular, when poor innercity neighborhoods increase job availability, an improvement in job access
for young males will reduce neighborhood crime.

4. Importance of job access in explaining crime difference
Property
crime rate

Violent
crime rate

Drug
crime rate

Mean high poverty

0.120

0.077

0.025

Mean low poverty

0.073

0.019

0.002

Difference

0.047

0.058

0.023

28.3

10.3

30.9

Percent of difference
due to job access

SOURCE: Keith Ihlanfeldt, 2003, paper presented at a research symposium, “Understanding isolation and change in urban
neighborhoods,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 13.

Stuart Rosenthal of Syracuse University presented his work describing the
relationship between older homes and
poor neighborhoods and the process
of urban decay and urban renewal. Is
the process of urban decay and renewal inevitable? Also, can policy forestall
decay and accelerate renewal and, if
so, how and for how long?
Rosenthal found that change in economic status is the norm for urban
neighborhoods (see figure 5). Based
on samples from 29 major U.S. cities,
the income profiles of neighborhoods
changed significantly over the 40-year
period from 1950 to 1990. Rosenthal
offered three explanations: filtering,
neighborhood externalities, and impediments to in- and out-migration.
Filtering occurs when wealthier residents
move out of older homes that are subsequently occupied by families of lower
income status. Rosenthal emphasized

that much of the housing stock, for example, is not built to last forever and
is of insufficient quality and historical
interest to justify rehabilitation.
Neighborhood externalities include
Tiebout-type sorting processes, whereby people vote with their feet by moving to neighborhoods that provide
their preferred public services. More
generally, externalities arise when
people care about the characteristics
of their neighbors, as with race. This
can lead to “tipping,” in which a small
change can lead to cascading effects
that dramatically change the neighborhood’s economic status. Homeownership can also impart positive spillover
effects on a neighborhood to the extent that homeowners invest in their
local communities and have a vested
interest in pursuing activities that enhance the neighborhood’s economic
status.

5. Transition probabilities of census tract relative income, 1950–90
Low income
in 1950

Lower-middle
income in 1950

Upper-middle
income in 1950

High income
in 1950

Low income in 1990

47.07

25.94

16.27

10.59

Lower-middle income
in 1990

16.40

27.01

32.24

24.48

Upper-middle income
in 1990

17.72

25.34

28.83

28.61

High income in 1990

18.81

21.71

22.67

36.33

100

100

100

100

Total percent

NOTES : Column probabilities sum to 1. Estimates are based on 6,758 census tracts from a balanced panel for 29 metropolitan
statistical areas. Tracts with median income less than the city-wide 25th percentile in the given year are defined as low income.
Tracts with median income between the 25th and 50th percentiles are defined a lower-middle income. Tracts with median
income between the 50th and 75th percentiles are defined as upper-middle income. Tracts with median income above the
75th percentile are defined as upper income. Columns may not total due to rounding.
SOURCE: Stuart Rosenthal, 2003, paper presented at a research symposium, “Understanding isolation and change in urban
neighborhoods,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 13.

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

3

Finally, impediments to migration, both
into and out of the neighborhood,
might affect the rate and manner in
which neighborhood economic status
evolves. To this end, place-based public housing programs that target lowincome families tend to deter upward
movement of low-income neighborhoods, while accelerating downward
movement of higher-income neighborhoods. In addition, higher homeownership rates appear to entrench the
status quo for middle-income neighborhoods—reducing the tendency for the
neighborhood either to rise or fall. This
may reflect the tendency of homeownership to be associated with local zoning
ordinances or the fact that homeowners tend to be less mobile than renters.
Homeownership appears to elevate the
future economic status of low-income
neighborhoods, possibly because homeowners invest in their neighborhoods
and have incentives to pursue activities
that enhance property values. Rosenthal
also noted that homeownership is being considered as a development tool
in some cities.
Keynote

John Kain of the University of Texas at
Dallas provided a keynote paper entitled “A pioneer’s perspective on the
spatial mismatch literature.” In it, he
reviewed his role in founding this area
of research with his Ph.D. dissertation
in 1961, which examined a single worker household’s journey to work as a
determinant of residential location.
Kain was interested in seeing if workers would trade off savings in housing
costs against increased commuting time.
Based on data from Detroit, Kain found
that his model did a good job of predicting the location decision of white
households, but had virtually no predictive power for blacks. Only after discriminatory constraints on blacks were
taken into consideration did black households behave similarly to whites with
similar socioeconomic characteristics.
Later, Kain extended his analysis to consider different industry and occupational groups. In the case of blacks, it
appeared that their residency choice

4

was so constrained that it was important
to examine how this fixed residency affected black behavior in the labor market. He found a willingness among blacks
to trade off increased transportation
costs against the probability of employment or higher wages. Importantly,
Kain’s work showed that in Detroit
and Chicago, racial discrimination in
the housing market reduced employment among blacks, as well as altering
its spatial distribution.
In work with Joe Persky, Kain showed
that improving conditions among the
rural poor could help metro areas where
rural migration was hurting urban economies. He argued that investments in
rural economic development might be
more effective than job creation programs aimed at segregated urban neighborhoods, because these jobs programs
failed to recognize that racial separation and isolation was in fact the problem. The goal, Kain suggests, should
be to help black workers seek jobs and
housing elsewhere.
In work with John Quigley, Kain examined house values and rents associated
with discrimination mark-ups. These
early hedonic estimates found that rents
in black neighborhoods were 12% to
19% higher than rents of comparable
units in white neighborhoods. Furthermore, purchase prices were between
5% and 6% higher than in white neighborhoods. Kain argued that much of
the housing price discrimination literature assumes that housing is a homogeneous good. Instead, he suggested,
housing is a bundle of heterogeneous
attributes, and housing bundles available in black neighborhoods are quite
different from those available in the
rest of the metro housing market. For
black households seeking more desirable housing bundles, the search is often limited to predominantly white
neighborhoods where they may encounter harassment. As a result, Kain
found that most black households limited their search to low-income neighborhoods, where they consume less in
terms of neighborhood and housing
unit quality than would be expected

Chicago Fed Letter Midwest Infrastructure June 2003

given their income and other characteristics.
Kain discussed his involvement in the
development of the National Bureau
of Economic Research and HUDS
(Harvard Urban Development Simulations) model. This is a computer simulation model of urban housing markets
that can be used to evaluate a variety
of housing and urban development
policies. The model differs from others
in identifying specific workplaces of
primary workers with an unusually detailed representation of housing bundles
and permitting an explicit treatment
of the ways in which housing market
discrimination affects housing and residential choice. Results from the model indicate that programs that provide
grants to upgrade relatively large numbers of dwelling units in target neighborhoods could induce significant
neighborhood improvements relative
to a baseline where subsidies weren’t
provided. However, the impact of these
subsidies depended on many factors,
including neighborhood location, racial composition and fraction of units
assisted.
Finally, Kain discussed spatial mismatch
as it is manifested in America’s public
schools. He argued that this could be
the most serious type of spatial mismatch
in metro areas with intense concentrations of black children in low-achieving,
inner-city schools.
Public transit and job access

Next, Harry Holzer of Georgetown
University presented joint work with
John Quigley and Steven Raphael (University of California, Berkeley) on the
effects of public transit on labor market
access. This was based on a natural experiment analyzing the effect of the
extension of the San Francisco/Oakland
area public transit rail system to suburban
employment centers. Does the availability of transit improve the employment outcomes of inner-city minorities?
The study used phone surveys to examine entry-level hiring decisions by
firms both prior to and after the opening of the transit facility. The study

6. Community quality for Settlement Grant recipients who become owners
All
Renter

White
Owner

Renter

Black

Owner

Renter

Owner

Average for all households
Math scoresa

8.1

10.5

13.6

14.2

6.4

9.3

Class sizeb

19.3

19.8

18.1

18.1

19.9

20.5

Murder rate per 1,000
persons

0.42

0.28

0.16

0.11

0.44

0.33

Education levelc

0.09

0.08

0.09

0.08

0.11

0.10

Commercial spaced

0.10

009

0.10

0.08

0.11

0.10

4.4

5.0

5.0

5.3

4.4

5.2

Distance from City Hall
(miles)e
a

Percent of eighth grade students scoring above state median in math tests.

b

Total number of students per teacher.

c

Percent of adults 24 and older who have BAs.

d

Percent of total building area used for commercial space.

e

Miles from center of tract of City Hall.

NOTES : Based on 4,425 households, for whom both previous and current Census tracts are known; 819 white, 2,196 black,
1,171 Hispanic, and 239 other.
SOURCES : Pennsylvania Department of Education; Philadelphia Police Department Homicide Division; 1990 Census; the
Philadelphia Board of Revision and Taxation; Settlement Grant recipient data, The Office of Housing and Community
Development of the City of Philadelphia; and authors’ calculations.

used a “difference-in-difference” methodology, comparing employment growth
at establishments located near the new
subway with those farther away.
An interesting finding is that the new
public transportation had a different
effect on the employment outcomes
for Latinos than for blacks. Employment
effects for Latinos were large in magnitude and statistically significant, but
not for blacks.
Holzer offered several explanations.
First, Latinos tended to live closer to
the new subway line. In general, it seems
as though employment effects are greatest for those residing nearest to the origin of the new transit route. If the line
had been built closer to black populations, the results may have been different. Second, the hiring of Latinos in
suburban locations was already occurring at a faster pace prior to the station
being built. This suggests that Latinos
may have already had better attachments
to suburban employers. It is also possible, Holzer said, that Latinos face less
discrimination than blacks in finding
suburban employment.
Place-based subsidies

Matt Kahn of Tufts University presented his joint work with Jean Cummings

and Denise Di Pasquale (City Research)
on the effects of promoting inner-city
homeownership as an urban development strategy. The work is based on
the Nehemiah program in Philadelphia,
which provides large ($50,000) subsidies to first-time minority buyers willing to purchase new homes in a blighted
neighborhood. Proponents of this approach argued that homeownership
would yield social benefits, such as attracting role models to the community, building neighborhood social capital,
and creating neighborhood stakeholders. This in turn would help anchor
the center city tax base as these homeowners chose urban rather than suburban locations.
The study conducted interviews of the
500 new homebuyers to assess their impressions of their housing choice and
neighborhood. The survey indicates
that most buyers were very satisfied with
the quality of their new housing. The
houses were bigger, had garages, and
had fewer maintenance problems than
their previous residences. There was
also some evidence of improvement in
community quality, with reductions in
the poverty rate from 26% to 21% and
improvement in student performance,
based on scores from standardized state

math tests (see figure 6). However,
Kahn cautioned that the study did not
observe significant neighborhood interaction between the new homeowners and the existing residents. He
termed this a possible “oasis effect” in
which the new homeowners spent little time trying to integrate into the
neighborhood. In that case, the social
benefits to the neighborhood might
not be fully realized.
Kahn noted that a study of a Nehemiah
project in New York has found that social benefits are accruing. He said that
in assessing future Nehemiah projects,
it will be important to establish whether the neighborhood was truly blighted or was already gentrifying prior to
the project.
School segregation and
housing markets

Steve Ross of the University of
Connecticut presented his joint work
with John Clapp on evidence of school
segregation and housing performance in
Connecticut. The work examines the
relationship between house price levels, school performance, and the racial
and ethnic composition of Connecticut
school districts between 1995 and 2000.
Research evidence has suggested that
school quality as reflected in test scores
is heavily influenced by the socioeconomic characteristics of the school and
has a significant influence on property
values in the district. This suggests that
the price of housing and the characteristics of schools are determined simultaneously by a process in which
households sort over the housing stock
and across communities; and communities may intervene in the process by
regulating land use.
This study creates a panel dataset to
assess how the property values, performance, and demographic characteristics of the schools evolve over time. The
major finding is that where Hispanics
and blacks tend to move to is influenced
by the racial and ethnic composition
of the town. Ross noted that this is particularly true for new migrants, which
suggests that migrants may follow a

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

5

7. Black–white differences in successfully completing job search

Predicted weekly hazard (gap = .032)
(evaluated at beginning of search spell)

Black

White

0.038

0.070

Contribution to the gap from racial differences in the following variables:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Job accessibility
Car ownership
Search in job-rich areas
Social network quality
Reservation commute time
Search intensity
Human capital variables
Demographic variables

23.1%
8.0%
5.1%
5.6%
2.8%
9.5%
10.0%
5.1%

Total explained (all variables)
NOTE :

69.3%

Columns may not total due to rounding.

SOURCE : Rucker Johnson, 2003, paper presented at a research symposium, “Understanding isolation and change in urban
neighborhoods,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, April 13.

to be far more constrained in accessing suburban jobs than less-educated
whites. Johnson found that race differences in the distribution of job access
accounted for one-quarter of the black–
white gap in successful job searches.
Conclusion

The symposium found that many barriers continue to constrain urban labor
market access, particularly for innercity minorities. Public policy options are
many. They include focusing on breaking down housing discrimination and
segregation, improving public transit,
and possibly providing significant development subsidies to blighted neighborhoods, as well as subsidizing job
search and access for isolated workers.
1

“beaten path” approach to locating in
towns that mirror their ethnic identity.
This minority sorting process affects
the low-priced housing segment only.
Job access in metropolitan areas

Finally, Rucker Johnson of the University of Michigan discussed access to employment in the suburbs and central
city. He noted that a shift in geographic labor demand to the suburbs has occurred over the past three decades.
This shift has not been uniform, with
suburban job growth concentrated in
specific locations. In light of this trend,
Johnson said that he wanted to investigate whether individuals were expanding the geographic pattern of their job
search in response to decentralized employment and whether the costs and
benefits of the search make longer
commutes and expanded job search
an inefficient response to this trend.

6

In particular, how true is this for black
non-college graduates?
Johnson suggested that black non-college graduates face certain barriers in
conducting larger geographic job searches. To begin with, blacks often face more
residential location constraints because
of discrimination in the suburban housing market. Second, blacks often have
greater job search and commute costs
due to lower car ownership rates. Finally, blacks often have inferior social
networks and information about jobs
(see figure 7).
In research on the metro areas of
Boston, Atlanta, and Los Angeles,
Johnson found that job availability for
less-educated workers was greatest in
predominantly white suburbs and that
these “job rich” areas tended not to be
served by public transportation. In addition, less-educated blacks appeared

Chicago Fed Letter Midwest Infrastructure June 2003

For this purpose, the Chicago region
consists of the following six counties:
Cook, Lake, DuPage, McHenry, Will,
and Kane.

Michael H. Moskow, President; William C. Hunter,
Senior Vice President and Director of Research; Douglas
Evanoff, Vice President, financial studies; David
Marshall, Vice President, macroeconomic policy research;
Daniel Sullivan, Vice President, microeconomic policy
research; William Testa, Vice President, regional
programs and Economics Editor; Helen O’D. Koshy,
Editor; Kathryn Moran, Associate Editor.
Chicago Fed Letter is published monthly by the
Research Department of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago. The views expressed are the
authors’ and are not necessarily those of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal
Reserve System. Articles may be reprinted if the
source is credited and the Research Department
is provided with copies of the reprints.
Chicago Fed Letter is available without charge from
the Public Information Center, Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago, P.O. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois
60690-0834, tel. 312-322-5111 or fax 312-322-5515.
Chicago Fed Letter and other Bank publications
are available on the World Wide Web at http://
www.chicagofed.org.
ISSN 0895-0164