“Nowhere to live safe”: Moving to Peace and Safety · exposure to violence may be (McLan-ahan)....

Poverty & Race Research Action Council • 1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036202/906-8023 • FAX: 202/842-2885 • E-mail: [email protected] • www.prrac.org

Recycled Paper

Children and Violence .1Ferguson: No Surprise .3The Making of

Ferguson...................3Charter Schools ...........5PRRAC’s 25thAnniversary .................7HOME Program.......... 10PRRAC Update...........13Resources .................. 15Index Vol. 23 .............. 18

CONTENTS:

November/December 2014 Volume 23: Number 6

(Please turn to page 2)

“Nowhere to live safe”:Moving to Peace and Safety

Barbara Samuels

Barbara Samuels ([email protected]) is director of the Fair Hous-ing Project at the ACLU of Maryland.An earlier version of this article ap-peared in the Rooflines blog, www.rooflines.org.

We all experience stress in ourdaily lives, whether financial worriesor problems at work or at home. Fewof us escape some exposure to “ad-verse childhood experiences.” Butmany low-income families have tolive, day in and day out, with corro-sive fear for their children’s basicsafety.

A new policy brief, authored byresearchers from Princeton Universityand published by the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation, offers soberingdata on just how prevalent children’sexposure to violence may be (McLan-ahan). The brief summarizes findingsfrom RWJF’s “Fragile FamiliesStudy,” involving 5,000 children bornin U.S. cities in 2000, and a longitu-dinal examination of a range of fac-tors known to be associated withchildren’s health and development.

Nearly a quarter of the mothers inthe study reported witnessing or hav-ing been the victim of violence. Butthis figure masks wide racial and eth-nic disparities in neighborhood condi-tions. More than 40% of black moth-ers reported exposure to neighborhood

violence, almost three times the levelreported by white mothers and immi-grant Latina mothers.

As though the prevalence of vio-lence is not sobering enough, the re-searchers found that exposure to neigh-borhood violence was highest whenchildren were three to five years old.A mounting body of evidence tells usthat children’s exposure to chronicadversity and toxic stress during criti-cal periods of early childhood years isharmful to cognitive development andlifelong health. “What happens in earlychildhood can matter for a lifetime.”(Center on the Developing Child)

In very disadvantaged and oftenviolent neighborhoods, all three of thebuilding blocks needed for the healthydevelopment of children are compro-mised: 1) stable, responsive relation-ships; 2) safe supportive environments;and 3) appropriate nutrition (NationalScientific Council on the DevelopingChild). In these environments, fooddeserts are the norm, families live inunstable and often dilapidated hous-ing, and parents and children mustnavigate past abandoned buildings andstreet corner drug dealers while walk-ing to and from school. Less obviousperhaps is the toll these conditions takeon the ability of parents to provide thestable, caring relationships thought tobuffer children in disadvantaged neigh-borhoods from adversity and to buildresiliency. Mental health experts warn

that parents who are unable to protecttheir children from violence experiencestress, depression, helplessness andhopelessness that they communicate totheir children (Osofsky).

That is what the research shows,but what do low-income families haveto say about the stress they experienceliving in some of the most disinvestedneighborhoods in America? A “Fam-ily Health and Wellness” survey thatthe ACLU of Maryland is administer-ing to participants in the BaltimoreHousing Mobility Program offers ahuman voice to match the researchfindings.

The Baltimore Housing MobilityProgram was launched in 2003 as aresult of a public housing desegrega-

Poverty & Race (ISSN 1075-3591)is published six times a year by the Pov-erty & Race Research Action Council,1200 18th Street NW, Suite 200, Wash-ington, DC 20036, 202/906-8023, fax:202/842-2885, E-mail: [email protected] Hartman, Editor. Subscriptionsare $25/year, $45/two years. Foreignpostage extra. Articles, article sugges-tions, letters and general comments arewelcome, as are notices of publications,conferences, job openings, etc. for ourResources Section. Articles generallymay be reprinted, providing PRRACgives advance permission.

© Copyright 2014 by the Poverty &Race Research Action Council. Allrights reserved.

2 • Poverty & Race • Vol. 23, No. 6 • November/December 2014

(PEACE AND SAFETY: from page 1)


tion lawsuit, Thompson v. HUD, andis expanding to serve up to 4,400 fami-lies by 2018. In our role as counselfor the Thompson plaintiff class, weare surveying families that moved frompublic housing, or nearby Baltimoreneighborhoods, at least three yearsago, and are now living in low-pov-erty, racially integrated communitiesin the city and surrounding region. Anopen-ended question asks participantsto identify their “biggest sources ofstress” before moving through theMobility Program. The responsesoverwhelmingly point to neighborhoodviolence. Their words begin to pro-vide a sense of just how toxic the stressthat violence causes can be in the livesof families forced to endure it:

“Praying me and my kids don’t getshot going or coming home.”

“Coming in house with people allout front and drugs being sold andpolice sirens all the time.”

“Rodents + violence + crime.”“Keeping my kids safe, guns,

people getting killed.”“Being around gun fire, fights and

drugs each day.”“Violence and education for my

kids.”“The crime rate in the neighbor-

hood and keeping my children safe.”“Neighborhood, children, safety.”“Nowhere to live safe.”“Violence in neighborhood, safety,

They feel less stress andmore at peace.

no good food markets, no car, drugdealers.”

“Letting my kids play outside with-out getting hurt.”

“Was my kids okay, where was mylife going?”

“Living in an area that wasn’t goodfor my son or myself.”

“The neighborhood. Raising mychild in those neighborhoods.”

“Living environment. Children notbeing able to experience positive life.”

“Finding a safe family environmentfor us.”

“Giving my kids a good life in asafe environment.”

Reflecting on their lives three ormore years after moving to a saferneighborhood, families typically saytheir quality of life has improved. They

feel less stress and more at peace. Asone mother put it: “I think movingsaved my family’s lives. My childrenare happier, they want more out oftheir lives, they have less stress.”

Housing Vouchers, MobilityCounseling

For these families, exposure to vio-lence is no longer an everyday event.A housing voucher and mobility coun-seling offered a way to protect theirchildren from the accumulation ofharm.

This is not to say that moving hasremoved all stress from the lives ofthese parents and their children. Nordoes it mean they no longer face themany challenges of low income, lackof education and past trauma. Somehave had to deal with unfriendly neigh-bors, racism or anti-Section 8 senti-ments. But when we asked mobilityprogram families to identify their big-gest sources of stress currently, theirresponses will be familiar to many ofus: finances, jobs, children and trans-portation:

“Making sure my bills are paid.”“[Gas and electric] bill.”“Unemployment.” “I need a car.”“Can’t afford childcare.”“Finding permanent employment

and going back to school.”“My 15 year old son.”“Bills, preparing my 2 children for

college this year,”“Bettering myself so I can buy my

home.”

Free of the debilitating stress andfear that so often accompanies livingin the shadow of abandoned buildingsand violence, parents say they feelmore motivated and hopeful. Askedto describe their hopes for the future,they talk about making a positive lifefor their children: going back toschool, getting into a “career” and notjust a job, becoming a homeowner andhelping their kids reach their poten-tial. In the words of one mother, “Iwant to live my life to the fullest andwatch my children grow and realizethat they deserve the best and they canhave it.”

Public health experts consider com-munity violence in distressed neigh-borhoods to be a public health epi-demic. The burden of this epidemichas fallen almost exclusively uponAfrican-American families who, asdescribed by Patrick Sharkey, havelived in our nation’s most distressedand segregated urban neighborhoodsfor multiple generations. There theyconfront adversity and stressors of adepth and persistence that few othersexperience, while struggling to makeends meet and to keep their kids physi-cally safe and engaged in school, of-ten against improbable odds.

Public Policy Response

Why then, has relatively little at-tention been given to the impact onchildren of living in environments ofchronic violence? And why has ourpublic policy response been so focusedon costly remediation, with so little

Poverty & Race • Vol. 23, No. 6 • November/December 2014 • 3


Ferguson: Nobody Should Be SurprisedGregory D. Squires

It is important tochange the rules of thegame.

Gregory D. Squires (squires.gwu.edu), a member of PRRAC’s SocialScience Advisory Board, is a Profes-sor of Sociology & Public Policy &Public Administration at George Wash-ington University. A shorter version ofthis article appeared as an op-ed in theSt. Louis Post-Dispatch, Oct. 8, 2014. (Please turn to page 13)

Recent events in Ferguson, MOconstitute the logical outcome of forcesthat were spelled out in 1968 by theNational Advisory Panel on Civil Dis-orders, better known as the KernerCommission. In its report, the Com-mission observed that “What whiteAmericans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply impli-cated in the ghetto. White institutionscreated it, white institutions maintainit, and white society condones it.” Thereport then warned of a “permanent

division of our country into two soci-eties: one, largely Negro and poor,located in the central cities; the otherpredominantly white and affluent, lo-

cated in the suburbs and outlying ar-eas.”

The increasing segregation of oldersuburbs like Ferguson does not pre-cisely fit the pattern described by theKerner Commission, but it is a natu-ral outgrowth of the policies docu-mented by their report. The reality ofuneven development documented inthe Kerner report persists to this dayin metropolitan areas throughout theU.S. By “uneven development,” Ishare the definition offered by Kevin

Fox Gotham and Miriam Greenbergin their 2014 book Crisis Cities, wherethey refer to:

“unequal patterns of metropolitan

growth that reproduce racial and

class-based inequalities and segre-

gation, inner-city disinvestment,

suburban sprawl, interurban compe-

tition for investment, and dispari-

ties both within and between cities.”

To understand recent events inFerguson, and similar tensions in com-munities around the US, we need togo beyond an understanding (accurateor inaccurate) of individual or culturalcharacteristics (e.g., work ethic of ra-cial minorities, culture of povertyamong the urban poor, racial preju-dice on the part of police) and exam-ine the institutions that shape the con-

School desegregationrequires housingdesegregation.

The Making of FergusonRichard Rothstein

It is a familiar story. Policeviciously assault or kill an unarmedAfrican American man or boy. Theblack community rises up in protest,often in violent riots. Among manyothers, it is a 1919 story (Chicago), a1943 story (Detroit, Harlem), a 1967story (Newark and over a hundredmore), a 1992 story (Los Angeles) andnow a contemporary one in St. Louis.

Following the 1967 riots, PresidentLyndon Johnson appointed an inves-tigatory commission headed by IllinoisGovernor Otto Kerner. The commis-sion concluded that unprovoked po-lice attacks on black men was perva-sive nationwide. It found that hous-ing discrimination had locked blackfamilies into overcrowded ghettos

where municipal services were deniedand rents were exorbitant. It observedthat federal financial support was

available for housing only if it was seg-regated. It concluded that the nationwas “moving toward two societies, oneblack, one white—separate and un-equal.”

Although we have made someprogress since then, it is most remark-able how little has changed, and howmuch we have forgotten about the un-

Richard Rothstein is a Research As-sociate of the Economic Policy Insti-tute and Senior Fellow at the ChiefJustice Earl Warren Institute on Lawand Social Policy at the Univ. of Cali-fornia, Berkeley.

The conclusions in this article arebased on a review of the specific race-conscious policies that segregated theSt. Louis metropolitan area, as re-ported in the author’s “MakingFerguson, Public Policies at the Rootof Its Troubles,” published by the Eco-nomic Policy Institute (http://s2.epi.org/files/2014/rothstein-mak-ing-ferguson.pdf). Questions or com-ments should be addressed to the au-thor at [email protected].



We won’t consider suchremedies if we remainblind to how Fergusonbecame Ferguson.

(ROTHSTEIN: Continued from page 3)

My P&R ColleaguesIt is my pleasure to acknowl-

edge the great help I get in put-ting out Poverty & Race:

Teri Grimwood for manyyears has done a first-rate job lay-ing out each issue;

Modern-Litho, our long-timeprinter/mailer, is a pleasure towork with— Ed Zagorac and JillRackers are my contacts there;

Michael Hilton regularly addsitems for our Resources Section;

Sarah Clayman assists me inorganizing the Resources section;

Michelle Vinson managesP&R’s mailing list and database;and

Philip Tegeler does his usualhelpful work supervising detailsof the publication.

derlying causes of segregated neigh-borhoods where police play an almostcolonial role of keeping black men andboys in their place, and of the AfricanAmerican rage that follows. Most evenreasonably well-informed people findit curious that once-urban ghetto con-ditions have now migrated to inner-ring suburbs like Ferguson.

Media explanations of segregation’sorigins in Ferguson and the St. Louismetropolitan area have been limited.Journalistic accounts have describedhow suburbs once barred AfricanAmericans, by private agreementsamong white homeowners (restrictivecovenants), by discriminatory practicesof private realtors, and by racially neu-tral zoning rules that restricted outer-ring suburbs to the affluent. Inner-ringsuburbs, according to these accounts,have flipped from white to black be-cause of “white flight.” Modern seg-regation, in other words, is attribut-able to private prejudices of whitehomeowners who abandoned neighbor-hoods when blacks arrived, and to theinability of African Americans to af-ford communities restricted to single-family homes on large lots.

No doubt, private prejudice andsuburbanites’ desire for homogenousmiddle-class environments contributedto segregation in St. Louis and othermetropolitan areas. But these expla-nations are too partial, and they tooconveniently excuse public policyfrom responsibility. A more power-ful cause of metropolitan segregationnationwide, and of the occupying po-lice forces needed to regulate it, wasthe explicit intents of federal, state andlocal governments to create raciallysegregated metropolises. In the caseof St. Louis, these intents were ex-pressed in mutually reinforcing fed-eral, state and local policies that in-cluded:

a) Racially explicit zoning thatdesignated specific ghetto boundarieswithin the city of St. Louis, turningblack neighborhoods into slums: In

1916, St. Louis voters adopted anordinance prohibiting black familiesfrom moving onto blocks withwhites. When the Supreme Courtprohibited such ordinances, the city’sPlan Commission developed zoningpolicies that protected exclusive whiteneighborhoods from commercial andindustrial uses, but assigned pollut-ing industries, taverns and houses ofprostitution to black neighborhoods,all with open racial justification.

b) Segregated public housingprojects that separated blacks fromwhites: The St. Louis and federalgovernments used public housing toundermine working-class integrationin the central city by razing inte-grated neighborhoods and placinghousing for blacks-only in the city’snorth side and for whites-only in thecity’s south side.

c) Exclusion of African Ameri-cans from white areas by restrictivecovenants that began as private agree-ments, but then were adopted as ex-plicit public policy: The FederalHousing Administration (FHA) is-

sued mortgages in St. Louis and itssuburbs to whites conditional on theadoption of pacts that imposed mu-tual obligations on neighbors neverto sell a home to blacks; the St. LouisReal Estate Exchange used model lan-guage provided by the FHA for thesecovenants.

d) Government-subsidized subur-ban development for whites only,with blacks explicitly excluded: TheFHA financed builders throughoutSt. Louis County to construct subdi-visions to draw white lower- andmiddle-class families from the city,on explicit condition that no blackfamilies be permitted to participatein this suburban expansion.

e) Boundary, annexation, spotzoning and municipal incorporationpolicies designed to remove AfricanAmericans from residence near whiteneighborhoods, or to prevent themfrom establishing residence nearwhite neighborhoods: Several St.Louis suburbs reacted to attempts ofAfrican Americans to purchasehomes by condemning their proper-ties (for example, for park use) orby adopting sudden zoning rules tomake construction of integrated hous-ing impossible.

f) Denial of adequate municipalservices in ghettos, thereby convert-ing black neighborhoods to slums andhelping to convince whites that“blacks” and “slums” were synony-mous: Because few neighborhoods inSt. Louis were open to black resi-dence, neighborhoods where AfricanAmericans were permitted became soovercrowded that slum conditionsbecame inevitable.

g) Urban renewal and redevelop-ment programs to shift ghetto loca-tions, in the guise of cleaning up thoseslums: The famed Gateway Arch wasbuilt on a razed neighborhood ofAfrican-American families, many ofwhom were forced to relocate to othersegregated neighborhoods or inner-ring suburbs like Ferguson.

h) Regulatory policy in the realestate and financial sectors that ex-plicitly promoted residential segre-gation: As for so-called “private” dis-


A Smarter Charter

Richard D. Kahlenberg & Halley Potter


Please contribute to PRRAC’s25th Anniversary campaign!

November, 2014

Dear friend of PRRAC,

At our recent 25th Anniversary celebration (see box on page 7), PRRACBoard member Sheryll Cashin asked three of our founders how PRRAC’swork was still relevant today. The answers were fascinating—and em-powering. Yes, there are still substantive divides to be crossed, and inter-disciplinary social science work to be translated and communicated toadvocates and policymakers, and vigilant civil rights policy advocacy isstill needed, more than ever, at the federal agency level. All of this workis reflected in our recent annual reports (www.prrac.org/annual_reports.php) —and this past year has been no exception. We aremaking slow but steady progress in moving our federal and state policiesin the direction of justice, inclusion and equality.

Even if you haven’t donated to PRRAC before, please consider mak-ing a generous donation this year. Your donations will go directly towardour programmatic work in housing, education, environmental justice, trans-portation and health (see www.prrac.org/currentprojects.php). You canmail your tax-deductible contribution to PRRAC at 1200 18th Street NW,#200, Washington, DC 20036, or simply donate online at our website,www.prrac.org.

Many thanks,

Philip TegelerExecutive [email protected]

Richard D. Kahlenberg ([email protected]) is a Senior Fellow at TheCentury Foundation and author ofTough Liberal: Albert Shanker and theBattle Over Schools, Unions, Race,and Democracy (Columbia Univ.Press, 2007)

Halley Potter ([email protected]) is aFellow at The Century Foundation andformer charter school teacher.

Portions of this article were drawnfrom A Smarter Charter: Finding WhatWorks for Charter Schools and PublicEducation, by Richard D. Kahlenberg& Halley Potter (Teachers CollegePress, 2014).

Supporters of charter schools,which are publicly funded but inde-pendently managed, often argue thatsuch schools embody the promise ofBrown v. Board of Education becausethey can provide new opportunities tolow-income and minority students.Evidence suggests, however, thatmany charter schools are even morehighly segregated than traditional pub-lic schools, and on average the char-ter sector performs only about as wellas traditional public schools do. In anew book, A Smarter Charter: Find-ing What Works for Charter Schoolsand Public Education, we suggest thatit’s time to return to the original vi-sion of charter schools as vehicles forintegrating students—and empoweringteachers—in order to improve out-comes for kids and fulfill the demo-cratic promise of public education.

The Early Vision forCharter Schools

Education reformer and teacherunion leader Albert Shanker proposedthe creation of a new group of “char-ter schools” in 1988. In Shanker’sformulation, teachers would be em-powered to draw on their expertise to

create educational laboratories fromwhich the traditional public schoolswould learn. Moreover, liberated fromtraditional school boundaries, Shankerand other early charter advocates sug-gested, charters could do a better jobthan the regular public schools of help-ing children of different racial, eth-nic, economic and religious back-grounds come together to learn fromone another.

Shanker’s proposal was based inpart on a formative October 1987 visitto an innovative teacher-led middle andhigh school educating a diverse popu-

lation in Cologne, Germany. TheHolweide Comprehensive School staffwas divided into teams of 6–8 teach-ers who were given enormous latitudeon what subjects would be taught,when and by whom, so long as stu-dents were prepared to meet commonstandards. The school’s student bodyof 2,000 was highly diverse, withTurkish and Moroccan immigrant pu-pils learning alongside native Germans.Unlike most other German schools,where students were rigidly tracked,the Holweide school employed mixed-


(CHARTER: Continued from page 5)

Minority and low-income students areconcentrated in raciallyand economically iso-lated charter schools.


ability groupings. “The results,”Shanker wrote, “are impressive,” withunexpectedly large numbers of studentsgoing on to college.

The idea of charter schools receiveda boost in November 1988, when theCitizens League, a community policyorganization in Minnesota, issued aninfluential report, Chartered Schools= Choices for Educators + Qualityfor All Students. Like Shanker, thecommittee that authored the report ar-gued that charter schools should beguided by two central tenets: empow-ering teachers and promoting diversity.The report specified that charterschools would enroll students of allraces and achievement levels. Charterschools would be required to have “anaffirmative plan for promoting inte-gration by ability level and race,” andfailing to meet this requirement couldbe grounds for revoking the charter.Minnesota would soon thereafter be-come the nation’s first state to pass acharter school law.

Social Science Support

The early vision of racially and eco-nomically integrated charter schoolswas supported by a wide body of so-cial science research that suggest bothcivic and cognitive benefits. Ameri-can public schools—whether districtschools or charter schools—are notonly about raising academic achieve-ment and promoting social mobility;they are also in the business of pro-moting an American identity, socialcohesion and democratic citizenship.

Research finds that segregation byrace and class undercuts those goals byincreasing the risk of students havingdiscriminatory attitudes and preju-dices. Children are at risk of develop-ing stereotypes about racial groups ifthey live in and are educated in raciallyisolated settings. By contrast, whenschool settings include students frommultiple racial groups, students be-come more comfortable with peopleof other races, which leads to a dra-matic decrease in discriminatory atti-

tudes and prejudices. As JusticeThurgood Marshall noted in one de-segregation case, “Unless our childrenbegin to learn together, then there islittle hope that our people will everlearn to live together.”

In addition to offering importantcivic advantages, integrated schools—particularly those that bring togetherstudents of different socioeconomicbackgrounds—on average producestronger academic outcomes for stu-dents of all backgrounds. On the 2011National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) given to 4th-grad-ers in math, for example, low-incomestudents attending more affluentschools scored substantially higher thanlow-income students in high-povertyschools. The gap in their average scoresis roughly the equivalent of almost twoyears’ learning.

One of the most methodologicallyrigorous studies on the effects of so-cioeconomic integration is a 2010 lot-tery-based study by Heather Schwartzof the RAND Corporation. Schwartz’scarefully controlled study examinedstudents and families who were ran-domly assigned to public housing unitsin Montgomery County, Maryland, adiverse and high-achieving district out-side Washington, DC. This researchtook advantage of a rare opportunityto compare two education approaches.On the one hand, the MontgomeryCounty school district has invested sub-stantial extra resources (about $2,000per pupil) in its lowest-income schoolsto employ a number of innovative edu-cational approaches. On the other hand,the county also has a longstandinginclusionary housing policy that en-ables low-income students to live inmiddle- and upper-middle-class com-munities and attend fairly affluentschools. The study controls for the factthat more motivated low-income fami-

lies may scrimp and save to get theirchildren into good schools by com-paring students whose families wereassigned by lottery into higher-pov-erty and lower-poverty schools.Schwartz found very large positiveeffects on student learning as a re-sult of living in lower-povertyneighborhoods and attending lower-poverty elementary schools, eventhough students in higher-povertyschools received additional com-pensatory spending.

Charter Schools andRising Segregation

As charter school legislation wasenacted in states, however,Shanker’s vision of schools that em-power teachers and integrate studentswas largely abandoned. Over time,concerns about diversity have oftenbeen eclipsed by efforts—well-meaning in nature, to be sure—thathave the effect of concentrating mi-nority and low-income students inracially and economically isolatedcharter schools. Rather than empha-sizing diversity and the possibilityfor breaking down segregation,charter school supporters began ad-vocating for schools to target mi-nority and low-income group mem-bers, who are demonstrably in needof better schools. According to a2010 study by the Civil RightsProject, for example, almost halfof low-income students in charterschools attended schools wheremore than 75% of students are low-income, compared to about a thirdof low-income students in tradi-tional public schools. In addition,36% of all students in charterschools attended schools where 90%or more of students are from mi-nority households, compared with16% of all students in regular pub-lic schools.

How did a policy that began withthe idea of promoting diversity endup exacerbating racial and eco-nomic concentrations? Fundamen-tally, charter school advocates sug-

(See more pictureson our website,www.prrac.org)

And thanks also to our event sponsors: AFL-CIO · Amalgamated Bank · ampersand graphic design · Betsy Julian · Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good · Charles HamiltonHouston Institute · City First Bank · Center for Law and Social Policy · California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. · Demos · Don Nakanishi· Doug Massey · Equal Justice Society · Fair Share Housing Center · Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society · Helen Hershkoff · Inclusive Communities Project · Insight Center for Community Economic Development · John Goering · Judith Liben · Ken Kimerling ·Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity · Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law · Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy& Welch, P.C. · NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund · Nancy McArdle · National Collaborative for Health Equity · National FairHousing Alliance · Open Society Foundations · Race Forward · Sheila Crowley & Kent Willis · UNC Center for Civil Rights

PRRAC Board Chair Jack Boger with Leslie Proll of theNAACP Legal Defense Fund and Jim Gibson of the Center for the Study

of Social Policy

PRRAC Board members Gabriela Sandoval andDavid Hinojosa and friends

The Langston Room atBusboys and Poets

25thAnniversary CelebrationOctober 16, 2014 6:00PM

Thanks to everyone who joined us last month for a great party at Busboys and Poets (our first fundraising dinner ever!)

Panel discussion with PRRAC founders Alan Houseman, Jack Boger, andjohn powell, moderated by PRRAC Board member Sheryll Cashin


(CHARTER: Continued from page 6)

gested, integration and school qualityare unrelated and distinct priorities, andquality matters more. When con-fronted by research finding higher lev-els of racial and economic segregationin charter schools, for example,Nelson Smith, then-president and chiefexecutive of the National Alliance forPublic Charter Schools (NAPCS),said, “We actually are very proud ofthe fact that charter schools enroll morelow-income kids and more kids ofcolor than do other public schools.”He continued: “The real civil rightsissue for many of these kids is beingtrapped in dysfunctional schools.”

In fact, however, the best researchevidence suggests that students in mostcharter schools perform about thesame—not significantly better and notsignificantly worse than students incomparable public schools. A 2010analysis by Peter C. Weitzel and Chris-topher A. Lubienski concludes: “Therecord on achievement is mixed, withmost of the best evidence showing re-sults similar to or somewhat belowthose of other public schools.”

A 2013 study by Stanford’s Centerfor Research on Education Outcomes(CREDO), the most comprehensiveresearch on charter school performanceto date, found students in most char-ter schools performed the same orworse than those in district schools.One bright spot in the CREDO studywas the finding that low-income stu-dents, English language learners, Blackstudents and Hispanic students didsomewhat better in charter schools;however, the study was not able tocontrol for the possibility of self-se-lection bias among the students whoapplied for charter schools versus thosewho did not—or the possibility that thepeer environment is stronger in schoolswhere students must apply to attend.

Charters that Integrate

The good news is that although char-ter schools today tend to be more ra-cially and economically segregatedthan traditional public schools— and

the sector as a whole has mediocre re-sults—there is great potential for char-ters to reverse this trend. Charterschools, like public magnet schools,are uniquely suited to create integratedstudent bodies. As schools of choice,they are not as constrained by residen-tial segregation as are most publicschools. And as schools created fromscratch, with particular visions, theyhave the potential to draw interest fromdiverse income, racial and ethnicgroups.

In A Smarter Charter, we highlightnine high-achieving charter schools ornetworks that consciously integratedstudents from different racial and eco-

nomic backgrounds:• Blackstone Valley Prep Mayoral

Academy, Cumberland and Lincoln,RI

• Capital City Public CharterSchool, Washington, DC

• City Neighbors, Baltimore, MD• Community Roots Charter

School, Brooklyn, NY• DSST Public Schools, Denver,

CO• E. L. Haynes Public Charter

School, Washington, DC• High Tech High, San Diego, CA• Larchmont Charter School, Los

Angeles, CA• Morris Jeff Community School,

New Orleans, LA

The charter school leaders we in-terviewed found that it was relativelyeasy to attract families from many dif-ferent backgrounds as long as they hada high-quality program. Bill Kurtz ex-plained that the academic success ofDSST Public Schools attracts familiesfrom across the Denver area. DSSTopened in 2004 as a single school—the Denver School of Science andTechnology. Early buzz about theschool focused on the state-of-the-artfacilities and extensive use of technol-

ogy. By its 3rd year, the school wasdrawing applications from students inmore than 65 schools across the Den-ver area—including many private andout-of-district public schools. “We’rereally proud of the fact that we havekids from all over the city in ourschools who feel comfortable in ourschools [and] who see us as not a schoolserving this population or that popula-tion,” Kurtz explained. “We have par-ents literally pulling kids from themost elite private schools in Denver tocome to our schools, and we havehomeless kids who are coming to ourschools. It’s really phenomenal.”

Karen Dresden, founding principaland head of school at Capital CityPublic Charter School in Washington,DC, said that different parents choosethe preschool–12 school for differentreasons, which is possible becauseCapital City offers a rich academicprogram. Capital City is an Expedi-tionary Learning school, which is awhole-school model (including recom-mendations for curriculum, pedagogyand professional development) thatfocuses on project-based learning. Forsome parents, Expeditionary Learningis the biggest draw at Capital City,and, according to Dresden, these par-ents are more likely to be middle-classand white. But other parents are drawnto the school’s social curriculum, artsand fitness programs, or after-schoolactivities. “People like that it feels likea well-resourced school,” she ex-plained. For other families, in particu-lar many of the school’s Latino fami-lies, a nurturing environment is thepriority.“There’s a sense of safetythat’s really important,” Dresdennoted. “We’re a small school. We re-ally care about kids.”

City Neighbors Charter School, aK–8 school that is part of a family ofthree charter schools in Baltimore,similarly attracts parents through avariety of channels. Like Dresden,Bobbi Macdonald, the school’sfounder, noted that middle-class fami-lies were more likely to be attracted tothe school’s instructional model, whichfollows a progressive philosophy thatemphasizes project learning, the artsand student empowerment. Other par-

We support the creationof new socioeco-nomically integratedcharter schools.


ents find the school because they’relooking for a safe environment, theylive nearby, or they hear from othersthat City Neighbors is a good school.City Neighbors works hard to involveparents and explain the school’s phi-losophy. “Those people who might nothave understood [our instructionalmodel] at the beginning become themost passionate ambassadors for CityNeighbors because they see the differ-ence,” Macdonald explained.

Public Policies to Encour-age Integrated Charters

We can encourage more integratedcharter schools like DSST, CapitalCity, and City Neighbors by chang-ing public policies in a number of im-portant ways. States should allow char-ter schools to enroll students fromacross a region and fund transporta-tion to charter schools, at least for alllow-income students. The federalCharter Schools Program (CSP) of theElementary and Secondary EducationAct of 1965 should adjust competitivepreferences to encourage integratedcharter schools. And federal grant pro-grams and state laws should allow char-ter schools to use a variety of weightedlotteries to promote integration.

Albert Shanker’s ideas for charterschools, formulated more than twodecades ago, turn out to be a powerfulvision for educational innovation in anew century. Charter schools can ad-dress the educational demands of a 21st

Century society by giving students thechance to work with a diverse groupof peers and treating teachers as 21st

Century professionals engaged in col-laboration, critical thinking and prob-lem-solving. Teacher voice and stu-dent diversity, largely forgotten goalsfrom the earliest ideas about charterschools, may hold the best hope forimproving charter schools—andthereby illuminate a path for strength-ening our entire system of publiceducation.❏

What About the Effect of IntegratedCharter Schools on Traditional

Public Schools?

In advocating economically mixed charter schools (which we define asthose with 30-70% low-income students), we recognize that in high-pov-erty districts, the result could be a marginal increase in the proportion oflow-income students in the traditional public schools. For example, creat-ing a 50% middle-class charter school in an 80% low-income district mightmean the other schools rise on average to 81% or 82% low-income. Anyrise in district school segregation is a legitimate concern, as Khin MaiAung and David Tipson note in “School Integration Requires Coopera-tion: Some Lessons from New York City” (Poverty & Race, May/June2013). We have long advocated for integration of traditional public schools,which continue to educate the vast majority of students nationally. Wesuggest three ways to minimize any adverse impact that integrated chartershave on district schools.

First, wherever possible, integrated urban charter schools should recruitmiddle-class students from neighboring middle-class districts, rather thansiphoning off middle-class students from urban district schools. Second,integrated charters should keep an eye on the impact recruitment effortshave on the demographic balance of nearby traditional public schools andadjust marketing to avoid negative effects. Third, integrated charter schoolsshould follow Aung and Tipson’s suggestion to set up mechanisms to workwith district schools “to avoid destabilizing the diversity of surroundingschools.” Implementing a single admissions process for district schools andcharter schools, like the systems that have been implemented in Washing-ton, DC and Denver, CO, is a first step towards better coordination. Aswe argue more generally in A Smarter Charter, the charter and districtsectors need to build bridges and cooperate with one another to improveoutcomes for all students.

Where these protections can be put in place, we support the creation ofnew socioeconomically integrated charter schools, just as we support inte-grated magnet schools that marginally increase poverty concentrations intraditional public schools, for two reasons.

To begin with, we believe there are strong benefits to creating a net plusin the number of socioeconomically integrated options available to stu-dents. We do not believe it is justified, educationally or morally, to holdlow-income students hostage in an 80% low-income district, preventingthem from attending an economically integrated school just because otherswill go from 80% to 81% or 82% low-income.

Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the creation of a subset ofstrong, economically integrated charter or magnet schools can have theeffect, over time, of creating additional middle-class interest in the publicschools in higher-poverty districts. The demographic make-up of the pub-lic school population in a district is not fixed. If successful integrated schoolsare created in mixed-income areas, it is possible that the success of theseschools will change the calculations of some middle-class parents, makingthem more willing to use the public schools than to exit to the privateschool system or move to more affluent areas. In the DSST lottery for2006, for example, only 36% of student applications came from districtschools in Denver, while 40% came from private or out-of-district public

schools.


Is the HOME Program AffirmativelyFurthering Fair Housing?

Excerpt from a PRRAC Program Review report

The HOME Investment Partner-ship Program was created in 1990 fol-lowing findings from Congress that theUnited States “has not made adequateprogress towards the national housingpolicy goal [to] provide decent, safe,sanitary, and affordable living envi-ronments for all Americans.” TheHOME program became one of thefour block grant programs adminis-tered by the U.S. Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development (HUD).HOME is distinguished from the othermajor block grant program (the Com-munity Development Block Grant pro-gram) by its primary focus onhomeownership assistance and afford-able rental housing development.However, as with other affordablehousing development programs, sitingof affordable HOME units—particu-larly low-income family rental hous-ing—has the potential to concentratelow-income housing units in low-op-portunity neighborhoods, restrictinghousing choices and promoting hous-ing segregation. This review attemptsto explore the question of whether theHOME program, as currently admin-istered, is achieving HUD’s fair hous-ing goals.

Although the HOME program isone of the largest affordable housingprograms with an annual appropriationof $1 billion to $1.5 billion, siting andoccupancy of these HOME-fundedunits has rarely come into the spot-light. This report takes up a part ofthis challenge and attempts to reviewthe program’s record, not just in pro-viding housing but also in expandingquality housing opportunities to the

low-income families it serves.One basic way of assessing the fair

housing impact of a low-income hous-ing program is to compare project lo-cations with the race and poverty de-mographics of the neighborhood thedevelopment is located in. This is thebasis for the HUD “site and neighbor-hood standards,” a version of whichis applied to the HOME program.Using this approach, we can assess the

This excerpt was taken from a newPRRAC report by Ebony Gayles andSilva Mathema, “Is the HOME Pro-gram Affirmatively Furthering FairHousing?” available at www.prrac.org/pdf/HOME-AFFH.pdf.

locations of HOME low-income rentalunits.

Like other federally funded low-income housing programs, HOMErental subsidies have been largely lo-cated in neighborhoods that are raciallyand economically concentrated.

Almost 40% of total occupied hous-ing units in the US are located in areasthat have less than 10% of the fami-


(PEACE AND SAFETY: from page 2)

attention paid to helping parents taketheir children out of damaging envi-ronments? The fact that families arepoor need not mean that it is naturalor inevitable that their children mustgrow up in poor neighborhoods. Af-ter all, the “double jeopardy” of grow-ing up poor in a high-poverty neigh-borhood very rarely falls on poor whitechildren and their families.

The emerging evidence from boththe biological and social sciences ofthe harmful toll that prolonged expo-sure to extreme poverty and chronicviolence takes on families, and espe-cially young children, should be agame changer. Housing mobility pro-grams don’t attempt to offer a pana-cea to solve all problems for all people,but they could be a critical option formany families living in conditions thatcall for urgency. If we can offer fami-lies a real chance to get their childrenout of harm’s way, by moving to ar-eas with better schools and health out-comes, how can we fail to act? ❏


References and Resources

McLanahan, Sara et al., An Epidemiological Study of Children’s Exposure toViolence in the Fragile Families Study, Policy Brief, Woodrow Wilson School,Princeton Univ. (August 2014), available at www.rwjf.org

Center on the Developing Child, In Brief: The Impact of Early Adversity onChild Development, Harvard Univ., available at http://developingchild.harvard.edu

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child et al., In Brief: TheFoundations of Lifelong Health, available at http://developingchild.harvard.edu.

Osofsky, Joy D. “The Impact of Violence on Children, The Future of Chil-dren,” Vol 9, Domestic Violence and Children, Princeton Univ. (Winter 1999),available at www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications

Philip Tegeler & Salimah Hankins, “Prescription for a New Neighborhood”Shelterforce (Spring 2012), available at www.shelterforce.org.

Conference proceedings: “After Thompson: Implications for the Wellbeing ofChildren” (Baltimore, February 6-7, 2014), available at www.prrac.org/projects/after-thompson.php.

Barbara Sard & Douglas Rice, Creating Opportunity for Children: How Hous-ing Location Can Make a Difference (Center on Budget & Policy Priorities,October 2014), available at www.cbpp.org.

“The need for stable housing for pregnant women and babies in Baltimore,”B’more for Healthy Babies, available at http://healthybabiesbaltimore.com.

Are you a federalemployee?

Please considercontributing to PRRAC

through the CombinedFederal Campaign (CFC).

Our CFC designationcode is 11710.

We appreciate yoursupport!

crimination—the Missouri stateagency responsible for regulation ofreal estate agents deemed selling ahome in a white neighborhood to ablack family to be professional mis-conduct that could lead to loss of li-cense.

i) A government-sponsored duallabor market that made suburbanhousing less affordable for African

Americans by preventing them fromaccumulating wealth needed to par-ticipate in homeownership.That the government through ac-

tions like these, not mere private preju-dice, was responsible for segregatinggreater St. Louis was once conven-tional informed opinion, discussed notonly by the Kerner Commission, butby policymakers and the courts. WhenSecretary of Housing and Urban De-velopment (1969-1972) George Rom-ney proposed to do something aboutthe “white noose” that federal policyhad created around black central cit-ies, he was forced out of the job byPresident Nixon. In 1974, a three-judge panel of the federal Eighth Cir-cuit of Appeals concluded that “seg-regated housing in the St. Louis met-ropolitan area was… in large measurethe result of deliberate racial discrimi-nation in the housing market by thereal estate industry and by agencies ofthe federal, state, and local govern-ments.” Similar observations accu-

rately describe every other large met-ropolitan area; in St. Louis, the De-partment of Justice stipulated to thistruth but took no action in response.In 1980, a federal court order includedan instruction for the state, county andcity governments with responsibilityfor St. Louis to devise plans to inte-grate schools by integrating housing.Public officials ignored this aspect ofthe order, devising only a voluntarybusing plan to integrate schools, butno programs to combat housing seg-regation.

Although policies to impose segre-gation are today rarely explicit, theireffects endure in neighborhoods seg-regated by race in the North, South,East, and West. When we blame pri-vate prejudice and snobbishness forcontemporary segregation, we notonly whitewash our own history, butavoid considering whether new poli-cies might instead promote an inte-grated community.





Resources

Davis v. St. Louis Housing Authority, Civ. No. 8637 (U.S. District Court,E.D., Missouri, 1955). Reported in Race Relations Law Reporter 1 (1956),353–355.

Gordon, Colin. 2008. Mapping Decline. St. Louis and the Fate of the Ameri-can City. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

Hirsch, Arnold R. 1983, 1998. Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housingin Chicago, 1940-1960. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Mohl, Raymond A. 2002. The Interstates and the Cities: Highways, Housing,and the Freeway Revolt. Urban Expressways and the Central Cities in Post-war America. Research Report. Poverty and Race Research and Action Coun-cil (PRRAC). http://www.prrac.org/pdf/mohl.pdf

Rothstein, Richard. 2012. “Race and Public Housing: Revisiting the FederalRole” Poverty & Race 21(6), Nov./Dec. 2012. http://prrac.org/newsletters/novdec2012.pdf

Rothstein, Richard. 2014. Making Ferguson, Public Policies at the Root of ItsTroubles. The Economic Policy Institute. http://s2.epi.org/files/2014/rothstein-making-ferguson.pdf

Satter, Beryl. 2009. Family Properties: How the Struggle over Race and RealEstate Transformed Chicago and Urban America. New York: Henry Holt.

Sugrue, Thomas J. 1996, 2005. The Origins of the Urban Crisis. Race andInequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

United States v. City of Black Jack, Missouri. 508 F. 2d 1179 (8th Cir. Courtof Appeals 1974).

Once rules of residential segrega-tion were firmly in place, other pub-lic policies, race-neutral, had a dispar-ate impact, reinforcing the segrega-tion. For example, the federal incometax system, permitting the deductionof home mortgage interest, subsidizesthose who move to single-familyhomes in white suburbs and in conse-quence imposes a relative penalty onthose who remain renting in urbanAfrican-American neighborhoods.

The federal highway system has hadboth a racially explicit impact, and animplicit one. For explicit impact, therouting of highways through urban ar-eas was often designed to eliminateblack neighborhoods that were closeto downtowns. For implicit impact,the generous financing of interstatehighways relative to efficient publictransportation facilitated the commutesof white suburbanites to office jobs inthe city, while creating barriers to theaccess of urban dwellers (dispropor-tionately black) to good industrial jobsin the suburbs.

But the disparate impact of themortgage interest deduction or trans-portation priorities should not distractus from the underlying reality. Thesepolicies would have had no racial im-pact if African Americans had beenpermitted to suburbanize along withwhites.

A century of evidence demonstratesthat St. Louis was segregated by in-terlocking and racially explicit publicpolicies of zoning, public housing andsuburban finance, and by publicly en-dorsed segregation policies of the realestate, banking and insurance indus-tries. These governmental policies in-teracted with public labor market andemployment policies that denied Af-rican Americans access to jobs thatcomparably skilled whites obtained.When these mutually reinforcing pub-lic policies conspired with privateprejudice to turn St. Louis’s African-American communities into slums,public officials razed those slums todevote acreage to more profitable (andless unsightly) uses. African Ameri-

cans who were displaced then relocatedto the few other places available, con-verting towns like Ferguson into newsegregated enclaves.

St. Louis’s residential pattern (andthat of other U.S. metropolitan areas)of white middle-class suburbs sur-rounding black ghettos cannot easilybe explained without taking accountof the myriad public policies that, withrace-conscious intent, encouraged andsupported this particular distributionof population by race. After all, asColin Gordon has noted, in Europe,the opposite pattern prevails—middle-class whites reside in the center cit-ies, and low-income immigrants settlein the suburbs, where public housingis located as well. Today, as whitesin St. Louis and elsewhere findgentrifying urban neighborhoodsmore attractive, and displaced Afri-can Americans relocate in heavy con-centrations to specific suburbs, we

may be replicating segregation on theEuropean model.

As the federal court observed morethan 30 years ago, school desegrega-tion requires housing desegregation.Some schools in Ferguson today are90% African-American; performanceof students this isolated is inadequate.

Litigation has revealed that in the2000s, federally supervised banks mar-keted exploitative subprime loans toAfrican-American communities likeFerguson. When the loans’ explodinginterest rates combined with the col-lapse of the housing bubble, blackneighborhoods’ devastation com-pounded. Half of Ferguson homes to-day are underwater, with owners ow-ing more than their homes are worth.

Many practical programs and regu-latory strategies can address problemsof Ferguson and communities likethem nationwide. One example is a ruleprohibiting landlords from refusing to

tinuing uneven development of thenation’s metropolitan areas. Key forcesare persisting racial segregation andrising economic inequality.

While nationwide most measures ofsegregation peaked in the 1970s, inthose older industrial cities where theAfrican-American population is con-centrated (what Brown University so-ciologist John Logan refers to as theghetto belt including Baltimore,Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis andmany others), segregation remains athypersegregated levels. Segregation ofHispanics and Asians, though muchlower than is the case for blacks, hasremained basically unchanged duringthese years.

Meanwhile, economic segregation,like economic inequality generally, issurging. As the Pew Research Centerreported, between 1980 and 2010 theshare of low-income census tracts(where the majority of residents have

PRRAC Update

• Congratulations to two of ourstaff who are moving on to excel-lent policy and government posi-tions in DC—we miss them already!PRRAC Policy Counsel EbonyGayles, who started at PRRAC in2011, is working at HUD as a Hous-ing Program Specialist in the Of-fice of Public and Indian Housing.PRRAC Research Associate SilvaMathema, who joined us in 2012,is now working as a Policy Analystin the Immigration Policy divisionat the Center for AmericanProgress.

• PRRAC Board Member BrianSmedley has also moved on, to anew position as Executive Directorof the National Collaborative forHealth Equity, based in Washing-ton, DC.

• Chester Hartman documenteda 1952 cross burning in HarvardYard in the Sept. 17, 2014 HarvardCrimson, urging the university tomake a public apology for its attemptat censorship by threatening the 11black Class of ’55 freshmen thatthey’d be suspended if they breatheda word of the incident to the Bostonmedia.

• Chester Hartman had a letterin the Aug. 29, 2014 WashingtonPost, supporting the unionization ofadjunct faculty—stemming from hisown experience organizing the 1100George Washington U. part-timefaculty (where he has such an appt.in the Sociology Dept.) into SEIULocal 500.

(SQUIRES: Continued from page 3)

accept tenants whose rent is subsidized—a few states and municipalities cur-rently do prohibit such refusal, butmost do not. Another is to require evenouter-ring suburbs to repeal their ra-cially inspired exclusionary zoning or-dinances. Going further, we could re-quire every community to permit de-velopment of housing to accommodateits “fair share” of its region’s low-in-come and minority populations—NewJersey, for example, has taken a verymodest step towards this requirement.

But we won’t consider such rem-edies if we remain blind to howFerguson became Ferguson. It is im-practical to think that the public andpolicymakers will support remedies toproblems whose causes they don’t un-derstand. We flatter ourselves that theresponsibility is only borne by roguepolice officers, white flight and sub-urbanites’ desire for economic homo-geneity. Prosecuting the officer whoshot Michael Brown, or investigatingand integrating Ferguson’s police de-partment, are certainly necessary, butthey won’t address the deeper obstaclesto racial progress.❏

incomes below two-thirds the nationalmedian) in the nation’s 30 largest met-ropolitan areas grew from 12% to18%. Similarly, the share of upper-income tracts (where the majority hadincomes double the median) grew from3% to 6%. Perhaps more signifi-cantly, the share of poor householdsresiding in poor areas grew from 23%to 28% while the share of rich house-holds in rich areas doubled from 9%to 18%. Poor people and rich peopleare living increasingly apart.

These are not simply cold numbers.A wealth of social science evidence hasdocumented that poor neighborhoodsare communities where schools aremore likely to be failing, where pov-erty and unemployment rates arehigher, where racial profiling and massincarceration turn ordinary citizens intocriminals, banks are few but paydaylenders and other predatory financialservices are prevalent, food desertspersist, and a host of other social prob-lems are concentrated. These disadvan-

tages are now redistributing, unevenly,into the suburbs. As the BrookingsInstitution reported, in Ferguson thepoverty level doubled between 2000and 2012, reaching over 25%, andunemployment jumped from 5% to13%. Context matters.

Another key finding of The KernerCommission was that instances of civildisorder were often triggered by anencounter between the police and or-dinary citizens, in neighborhoodswhere the police had long been viewedas an occupying army rather than thosewho serve and protect. In Ferguson,such an encounter tragically ended inthe death of Michael Brown. We right-fully have many responses to eventsin Ferguson. Surprise should not beone of them.

Needed Next Steps

And there is no great surprise as towhat at least some of the next steps



should be. Improved policing begin-ning by demilitarizing police tacticsand increasing the diversity of the po-lice force are essential. But it is equallyimportant to address the institutionalstructures underpinning the unevendevelopment of our communities.

Elimination of exclusionary zoningordinances in the St. Louis metropoli-tan area (and virtually all metropoli-tan areas nationwide) that keep low-income people out of prosperous com-munities, along with more intensiveinclusionary zoning laws to breakdown these barriers and create moreeconomically and racially integratedneighborhoods would be a good start.

Smart growth policies that fosterbalanced urban communities and dis-courage climate-destroying sprawl maybe essential just to preserve the spe-cies. A national urban policy that putsmore resources into mass transit andless into highway construction wouldbe another place to start. Transit-ori-ented development (where localitiesencourage construction of new homesand businesses near bus and subwaystations) and location-efficient mort-gages (where lenders provide lower-cost loans for those who reside near

New on PRRAC’s website"Creating Opportunity for Children: How Housing Location Can Make aDifference," by Barbara Sard and Phil Tegeler (October 2014)

Is the HOME Program Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing? (PRRACProgram Review, September 2014)

PRRAC Comments on DOT Proposed Rule on Statewide MetropolitanTransportation Planning (October 2014)

National Coalition on School Diversity letter to the Secretary of Educationon consideration of reduction of racial and economic segregation in theNCLB Waiver Renewal Guidance (October 2014)

Civil rights coalition comments on HUD’s proposed rule on Public Hous-ing Agency Consortia (September 2014)

Civil rights coalition comments on HUD’s proposed “Assessment of FairHousing” (November 2014)

mass transit) are just two approaches.A tax system that does not privilege

capital gains over wages would be anext step. The global wealth tax Tho-mas Piketty called for in his celebratedbook Capital in the 21st Century maynot be politically feasible today, butperhaps in just a few years (or electioncycles) it could be.

Uneven development remains thedominant force shaping the social prob-lems that have become all too familiarin the nation’s cities and metropolitan

areas, including most recently inFerguson. More balanced, equitabledevelopment will reduce the numberof distressed neighborhoods and, con-sequently, the stereotypes often at-tached to many urban residents, reduc-ing police/community tensions andmany other problems as well. Whileit is important to understand and de-velop the capabilities of the variousplayers, it is equally important to un-derstand and, where appropriate,change the rules of the game. ❏


(SQUIRES: Continued from page 13)

(HOME Program: Cont. from page 10)

lies living below poverty level. Incomparison, only 25% of the HOMErental units are located in these lowpoverty areas. Almost 28% of theHOME units are located in areas withgreater than 30% family poverty levelcompared to only 14% of all occupiedhousing units. Only 24% of theHOME rental units are in areas withless than 25% non-white population.

These disparities are even strongerwhen we compare the distribution ofHOME rental units in the 50 largestmetropolitan areas, as illustrated bythe charts on page 10. Approximately64% of all occupied housing units arein areas with less than 10% family pov-erty level when compared to 23% ofHOME rental units located in theseareas.

Using a more direct fair housinganalysis, the patterns of HOME rental

housing by neighborhood racial andethnic demographics show a dramatictrend, with more than half or 54% ofthe HOME rental units located in ar-eas that have more than 75% non-whitepopulation. In comparison, only about21% of the total occupied housing and30% of the renter-occupied housingunits are located in a high-minorityarea with 75% or more non-whitepopulation. Only 11% of the HOMErental units are in areas that have lessthan 25% non-white population, com-pared to 37% of all occupied housingunits and 23% of the renter-occupiedhousing units.

However, the available nationalHOME data leave a number of ques-tions unanswered: Which home rentalunits are designated for elderly vs.family housing? Which units are newrental housing vs. moderate rehabili-tation—and what other housing subsi-

dies are being combined in particularbuildings? What is the racial, ethnicand income status of families living inparticular developments? Because ofthe extreme localism and local flex-ibility built into the program (particu-larly the local option to select a prior-ity for homeownership vs. low incomerental housing), the answers to thequestions will vary from jurisdictionto jurisdiction.

To explore these questions, our re-port looks at three selected metropoli-tan areas (Milwaukee, Hartford andBaltimore) and suggests some pro-grammatic explanations, and recom-mendations for HOME program re-form, to better align the program withHUD’s fair housing goals.❏

To read the full report, and recom-mendations for improvements in theHOME program, go to www.prrac.

org/pdf/HOME-AFFH.pdf.


Resources

Most Resources are available directly from the issuingorganization, either on their website (if given) or viaother contact information listed. Materials published byPRRAC are available through our website:www.prrac.org

Prices include a shipping/handling (s/h) charge when thisinformation is provided to PRRAC. “No price listed”items often are free.

When ordering items from PRRAC: SASE = self-ad-dressed stamped envelope (49¢ unless otherwise indi-cated). Orders may not be placed by telephone or fax.Please indicate from which issue of P&R you are order-ing.

Race/Racism• “Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of ThreeStates” [NY, NJ, Calif.] is a 2014 report from TheSentencing Project. Available (no price given) from them,1705 DeSales St. NW, 8th flr., Wash., DC 20036, 202/628-0871, sentencingproject.org [14744]

• Teaching Mississippi: Civil Rights Movement andLabor History in the Classroom is a 2014 project byTeaching for Change, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Fdn.Inf. from [email protected], [14752]

• Title VI Civil Rights News @ FCS [Federal Coordina-tion & Compliance Sec. of USDOJ Civil Rights Div.]. Fall2014 issue available from [email protected][14755]

• Interview with Bryan Stevenson: Terry Gross’ Oct.20, 2014 interview with him is available at http://www.npr.org/2014/10/20/356964924/one-lawyers-fight-for-young-blacks-and-just-mercy [14757]

• Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, byBryan Stevenson (336 pp., 2014), has been published bySpiegel Grau [14764]

• “How Africans Brought Civilization to America,” byGarikai Chengu, appeared in the Oct. 13, 2014CounterPunch. Available (likely free) from author,[email protected] [14758]

• “The Targeting of Young Blacks By Law Enforce-ment: Ben Jealous [NAACP] in Conversation withJamelle Bouie” appeared in the Fall 2014 issue of TheAmerican Prospect [14762]

• “The Racial Wealth Audit: Measuring How PoliciesShape the Racial Wealth Gap,” by Thomas Shapiro,Tatjana Meschede & Laura Sullivan of the Brandeis Inst.on Assets & Social Policy (4 pp., Sept. 2014), is availableat http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/The%20Racial%20Wealth%20%20Audit.pdf [14763]

• Jackson, Mississippi: An American Chronicle ofStruggle and Schism, by John R. Salter, Jr. (2011, 272pp.), has been published by Univ. Nebraska Press.[14784]

• Who We Be: The Colorization of America, by JeffChang (2014, 416 pp.), has been published by St.Martin’s Press. [14786]

Poverty/Welfare• “Bottom 90% Worse Off Than in 1987” was anarticle in the Oct. 10, 2014 Washington Post. [14769]

• “A Window of Opportunity: Media and PublicOpinion on Poverty in America” was an Oct. 29, 2014Webinar from The Opportunity Agenda. Inf. [email protected], 212/334-5977 [14782]

Criminal Justice• “A Plan to Cut Costs and Crime: Curb Bias AgainstEx-Convicts” appeared in the Oct. 23, 2014 NY Times.[14778]

• School-to-Prison Pipeline, a 2014 video by VanessaEnoch, is available at https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=ClkyhMM6450&video_referrer=watch[14779]

• “Beyond Confrontation: Community-CenteredPolicing Tools” is a 2014 series of briefs from PolicyLinkand Advancement Project. Inf. from [email protected] [14785]

• “Limiting Police Use of Force: Promising Commu-nity-Centered Strategies,” PolicyLink & AdvancementProject (Oct. 2014, 26 pp.), available at http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d4c53855e6cc64be47.cdm6bn11.pdf

• “The Targeting of Young Blacks By Law Enforce-ment: Ben Jealous [NAACP] in Conversation withJamelle Bouie,” by Harold Meyerson & Jamelle Bouie,American Prospect, Oct. 2014

Economic/CommunityDevelopment

• “The National Equity Atlas,” “a unique data tool forthose working to transform America’s broken economyinto one that is equitable, resilient and prosperous,” hasbeen launched (2014) by PolicyLink and the Univ. of S.California’s Program for Environmental & RegionalEquity. Inf. at www.nationalequityatlas.orh [14771]


• “Global Governance of Capital: A Challenge forDemocracy,” by Robert Kuttner (Oct. 2014, 80 pp.), fromDemos; available at http://demos.org/sittes/default/files/publications/GlobalGovernance-Kuttner.0.pdf

• “Banking in Color: New Findings on FinancialAccess for Low- and Moderate-Income Communities,”National CAPACD, National Urban League and NationalCouncil of LaRaza (2014, 40 pp.), available at http://iamempowered.com/sites/default/files/bankingincolor_web.pdf

Education• Crossroads: The Intersection of Housing and Educa-tion Policy is a 6-chapter 2014 video from The UrbanInst., available (no price given) from Erika Poethig,[email protected] [14765]

• “Gender Nonforming Youth: Discipline Disparities,School Push-Out, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” byHilary Burdge, Adela C. Licona and Zami T. Hyemingway(2014, 16 pp.), from GSA Network and CrossroadsCollaborative, available at http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/e2d7ec74f895dd5bb.86m6vosva.pdf

• “The Affordable College Compact: A Federal-StatePartnership to Increase State Investment and Return toDebt-Free Public Higher Education,” by Mark Huelsman(September 2014, 31 pp.), from Demos, available at http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/theaffordablecollegecompact.pdf

• “Connecticut’s Great Cost Shift: How HigherEducation Cuts Undermine the State’s Future MiddleClass,” by Robert Hiltonsmith and Mark Huelsman(October 2014, 10 pp.), from Demos, available at http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/GCS-CT.pdf

• “LBQTQ Youth of Color”: Discipline Disparities,School Push-Out, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” byHilary Burdge, Adela C. Lincone & Zami T. Hyemingway(2014, 16 pp.), GSA Network & Crossroads Collaborative,available at http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/4c2f66dee328593478_2zm6vswrx.pdf

Employment/Labor/Jobs Policy• “There Are 870,000 Slaves in Modern-DayAmerica,” by Beth Schwartzapfel (Oct. 22, 2014), isavailable from the author at The Marshall Project. [14766]

• “$10.10 Minimum Wage Would Save Safety NetPrograms $7.6 Billion a Year” (Oct. 2014) is available(no price given) from the Economic Policy Inst., 1333 HSt. NW, Suite 300, E. Tower, Wash., DC 20005 [14776]

• “Policy Basics: The Minimum Wage” (Aug. 2014) isavailable (no price given) from the Ctr. on Budget &Policy Priorities, 202/408-1080, [email protected] [14777]

• “Small Businesses, Big Opportunities: Creating MoreJobs With Technology,” by Hazeen Y. Ashby, ChanelleP. Hardy and Sean E. Mickens (Summer 2014, 36 pp.),available at http://nulwb.iamempowered.com/sites/nulwb.iamempowered.com/files/TWC%20Small%20Business%20Big%20Opportunity%20FULL%20REPORT.pdf

Families/Women/Children• “Preventing Lead Exposure in U.S. Children: ABlueprint for Action” (Oct. 2014), from the Natl. Ctr. forHealthy Housing, is available (no price given) fromRebecca Morley, [email protected] [14772]

• “Work-Family Challenges Facing Women of Color”was an Oct. 20, 2014 event by The Ctr. for Amer.Progress. Inf. from [email protected], 202/682-1611 [14751]

• “Shaping Our Future by Leading Together: Fami-lies, Schools and Communities” is the 2015 Natl. Family& Community Engagement Conf., June 22-24, 2015 inChicago. Inf. from [email protected] [14761]

Health• “Improving the Road to ACA Coverage: LessonsLearned on Outreach, Education, and Enrollment forAsian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific IslanderCommunities” (September 2014, 36 pp.), from the Asian& Pacific Islander American Health Forum, available athttp://www.apaf.org/sites/default/files/2014.10.14_Improving%20the%20Road%20to%20ACA%20Coverage_National%20Report.pdf

• “Closing the Health Care Coverage Gap in Texas: ALatino Perspective,” by Enrique Chaurand (2014, 8 pp.),from the National Council of La Raza, available at http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/ib27_closingthecoveragegap_final.pdf

• “Readiness to Implement the Affordable Care Act inthe Latino Community Among Health Centers andCommunity-Based Organizations,” by ManuelaMcDonough, Clancey Bateman, Christine Barron, RodolfoVega, Susannah Senerchia and Jim Maxwell (2014, 4 pp.),from the National Council of La Raza, available at http://www.nclr.org/images/uploads/publications/readinesstoimplementaca.ib.pdf

Housing• Locational Affordability Housing Policy Debate hasissued a Call for Papers for its forthcoming special issueon Locational Affordability. Dec. 1, 2014 deadline forAbstracts, Full Paper due by March 30, 2015. Detailsfrom Prof. Tom Sanchez, [email protected] [14760]


• “21 Cities Restrict Sharing Food with the Homeless”was an Oct. 21, 2014 account in Al Jazeera. [14770]

Homelessness• “Homeless LGBTQ Youth,” by Mary Cunningham,Michael Pergamit, Nan Astone and Jessica Luna (August2014, 4 pp.), from The Urban Institute, available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413209-Homeless-LGBTQ-Youth.pdf

Immigration• “Supporting Immigrant Families’ Access toPrekindergarten,” by Julia Gelatt, Gina Adams andSandra Huerta (March 2014, 37 pp.), from The UrbanInstitute, available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF413026-Supporting-Immigrant-Families-Access-to-Prekindergarten.pdf

Miscellaneous• “Voter Registration & Health Benefit Exchanges: AToolkit for Easy, Effective Implementation,” fromProject Vote, Demos, and The American Civil LibertiesUnion (2014, 15 pp.), available at http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/NATIONAL-HBEX-TOOLKIT.pdf

• “The State of Transit in New Orleans: The Need fora More Efficient, Equitable, and Sustainable System”(2014, 38 pp.), from Ride New Orleans, available at http://rideneworleans.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/RideNewOrleans_StateOfTransitSystem_071614.FINAL21.pdf

• Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the AmericanPeople is a massive book project, by John M. Murrin(Princeton), Paul E. Johnson (Univ. So. Carolina). JamesM. McPherson (Princeton), Gary Gerstle (Univ. Mary-land), Ellen S. Rosenberg (Macalester) & Normal L.Rosenberg (Macalester). Vol. 1 (737 pp.) to 1877, Vol. 2(1237 pp.), since 1863, Instructor’s Edition (1276 pp.) –all pb + 1 vol. hb edition (1132 pp.) ThompsonWadsworth 2006 – Fourth Ed.

Jobs/Fellowships/Grants• Director of Communications Public Advocates (SFBay Area) is seeking a new Director of Communications.Inf. at [email protected] [14780]

• The Leadership Conference on Civil and HumanRights’ Education Project is seeking a Policy Analyst.Inf. at http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/docs/Policy-Analyst-Education.pdf

• PRRAC has available a Housing Law and PolicyFellowship. Posting at http://prrac.org/pdf/Law_and_Policy_Fellowship_at_PRRAC_2014.pdf

• The Center for Community Change (DC) is seekinga Senior Policy Advisor. Posting at http://www.communitychange.org/contact/careers/senior-policy-advisor/

• Legal Services for Children (SF) isseeking a LegalDirector Inf. from ED Abigail Trillin, 415/780-6333.[14774]

• Fair Share Housing (NJ) has 2 openings: Communi-cations Director & Office Mgr.. Inf. [email protected] [14781]


Poverty & Race Index, Vol. 23 (2014)This Index includes the major articles in the six 2014 issues of Poverty & Race (Vol. 23). The categories used frequently

overlap, so a careful look at the entire Index is recommended. Each issue also contains an extensive Resources Section, notin the Index below, but available in database form for all previous 22 volumes. We can send an Index for any or all of thefirst 22 Volumes of P&R; please provide a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Most issues also contain a “PRRAC Update”column with recent news from/about the organization. Articles are on our website, www.prrac.org.

Race/Racism

“Race Still Matters,” by Girardeau Spann, May/JuneTITLE VI:“Los Angeles’ Civil Rights Movement Anniversary,” by

Robert Garcia, July/Aug.“EPA and Title VI,” July/Aug.“A Title VI Diversity Assessment at the Department of Edu-

cation?,” by Phillip Tegeler, July/Aug.“A Non-Anniversary at the Treasury Department,” July/

Aug.“Reflections on the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964,” by Derek Black, July/Aug.“Title VI of the Civil Rights Act at 50,” by Marianne

Engelman Lado, July/Aug.“Dispatch from Geneva: The UN Reviews U.S. Performance

on Eliminating Racial Disparities,” by Megan Haberle,Sept./Oct.

“Ferguson: Nobody Should Be Surprised,” by Gregory D.Squires, Nov./Dec.

“The Making of Ferguson,” by Richard Rothstein, Nov./Dec.

Poverty/Welfare

“Breaking the Low-Wage Syndrome,” by S.M. Miller, July/Aug.

Criminal Justice

“The NY State Attorney General’s Report on Arrests Aris-ing from Stop-and-Frisk,” Jan./Feb.

Education

“Beyond Admissions,” by Olatunde Johnson, May/June“Within School Segregation,” by Halley Potter, Sept./Oct.“A Smarter Charter,” by Richard D. Kahlenberg & Halley

Potter, Nov./Dec.

Housing

“Autonomy, Mobility, and Affirmatively Furthering FairHousing in Gentrifying Neighborhoods,” by RachelD. Godsil, Jan./Feb.

“Community-Drawn Exclusionary Mapping: Examining theDisparate Impact of Housing Segregation Across Ur-ban, Rural, and Suburban Geographies,” by PeterGilbert, May/June

“A Blueprint for Opportunity: A Look Back at HUD’s Re-gional Housing Mobility Program,” by MeganHaberle, May/June

“’Nowhere to live safe’: Moving to Peace and Safety,” byBarbara Samuels, Nov./Dec.

Transportation

“Transit-based Opportunity – Lessons from Dayton,” byMatthew Martin, March/April

Miscellaneous

“A Different Lens: Applying a Human Rights Frameworkto Disparities in the United States,“ by SalimahHankins & Balthazar Becker, Jan./Feb.

“Disadvantaged Communities Teach Regional Planners aLesson in Equitable and Sustainable Development,”by Richard A. Marcantonio & Alex Karner, Jan./Feb.

“The Challenge of Inequality,” by Justin Steil, March/April“Mindful of Inequality?” by Richard Wilkinson & Kate

Pickett, March/AprilBook flyer for PRRAC’s America’s Growing Inequality: The

Impact of Poverty and Race, March/April“Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor on the Continuing Rel-

evance of Race,” May/June“PRRAC at 25,” by John Charles Boger, Sept./Oct.“PRRAC at 25,” by Florence Roisman, Sept/Oct.


PRRAC'S SOCIAL SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

Dolores Acevedo-GarciaBrandeis Univ.

Raphael BosticUniv. of Southern California

Sol Price School of Public Policy

Xavier de Souza BriggsMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Camille Zubrinsky CharlesDept. of Sociology, Univ. of Pennsylvania

Regina Deil-AmenUniv. of Arizona College of Education

Stefanie DeLucaJohns Hopkins Univ.

Ingrid Gould EllenNew York Univ.

Wagner School of Public Service

Lance FreemanColumbia Univ. School of Architecture,

Planning and Preservation

John GoeringBaruch College, City Univ. of New York

Heidi HartmannInst. for Women’s Policy Research (Wash., DC)

Rucker C. JohnsonUniv. of California-Berkeley

Goldman School of Public Policy

Jerry KangUCLA School of Law

William KornblumCUNY Center for Social Research

Maria KrysanUniv. of Illinois, Chicago

Fernando MendozaDept. of Pediatrics, Stanford Univ.

Roslyn Arlin MickelsonUniv. of No. Carolina-Charlotte

Pedro NogueraNew York Univ. School of Education

Paul OngUCLA School of Public Policy

& Social Research

Gary OrfieldUCLA Civil Rights Project

Patrick SharkeyNew York Univ. Dept. of Sociology

Gregory D. SquiresDept. of Sociology, George Washington Univ.

William TrentUniv. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Margery Austin TurnerThe Urban Institute (Wash., DC)

Margaret WeirDept. of Political Science

Univ. of California, Berkeley

David WilliamsHarvard School of Public Health

If You Are Not Already a P&R Subscriber,Please Use the Coupon Below.

❏ Sign Me Up! ❏ 1 year ($25) or ❏ 2 years ($45)

Please enclose check made out to PRRAC or a purchase order from your institution.

Name _____________________________________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________________________________

Address Line 2 ______________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip _____________________________________________________________________________

Telephone: ____________________________ email: _________________________________________

Mail to: Poverty & Race Research Action Council1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20036

Poverty & Race Research Action Council1200 18th Street NW • Suite 200

Washington, DC 20036202/906-8023 FAX: 202/842-2885

E-mail: [email protected]: www.prrac.org

Address Service Requested11-12/14

NonprofitU.S. Postage

PAIDJefferson City, MO

Permit No. 210

POVERTY & RACE RESEARCH ACTION COUNCILBoard of Directors/Staff

CHAIRJohn Charles BogerUniversity of North Carolina

School of Law

Chapel Hill, NC

VICE-CHAIRJosé PadillaCalifornia Rural Legal

Assistance

San Francisco, CA

SECRETARYjohn a. powellHaas Institute for a

Fair and Inclusive Society

University of California-

Berkeley

Berkeley, CA

TREASURERSpence LimbockerNeighborhood Funders

Group

Annandale, VA

Demetria McCainInclusive Communities

Project

Dallas, TX

S.M. MillerThe Commonwealth Institute

Cambridge, MA

ReNika MooreNAACP Legal Defense Fund

New York, NY

Don NakanishiUniversity of California

Los Angeles, CA

Dennis ParkerAmerican Civil Liberties

Union

New York, NY

Gabriela SandovalInsight Center for

Community Economic

Development

Oakland, CA

Anthony SarmientoSenior Service America

Silver Spring, MD

Theodore M. ShawUniversity of North Carolina

Law School

Chapel Hill, NC

Brian SmedleyNational Collaborative

for Health Equity

Washington, DC

Philip TegelerPresident/Executive Director

Chester HartmanDirector of Research

Megan HaberlePolicy Counsel

Gina ChirichignoCo-Director

One Nation Indivisible

Michael HiltonPolicy Analyst

Sarah ClaymanAdministrative Assistant

David LoesbergLaw & Policy Intern

Kamisha CassidyPolicy Intern

John BrittainUniversity of the District of

Columbia School of

Law

Washington, DC

Sheryll CashinGeorgetown University

Law Center

Washington, DC

Craig FlournoyUniversity of Cincinnati

Cincinnati, OH

Rachel GodsilSeton Hall Law School

Newark, NJ

Damon HewittOpen Society

Foundations

New York, NY

David HinojosaMexican American Legal

Defense and Educational

Fund

San Antonio, TX

Camille HolmesNational Legal Aid &

Defender Assn.

Washington, DC

Olati JohnsonColumbia Law School

New York, NY

Elizabeth JulianInclusive Communities

Project

Dallas, TX

[Organizations listed for

identification purposes only]

“Nowhere to live safe”: Moving to Peace and Safety · exposure to violence may be (McLan-ahan)....

Documents

Transcript of “Nowhere to live safe”: Moving to Peace and Safety · exposure to violence may be (McLan-ahan)....