The Impact of Gentrification on K-12
Student Racial Diversity: Perceptions, Metrics, and
Advocacy
Alison Atkins DentonFinal Oral Review
Fielding Graduate UniversitySchool of Educational Leadership and Change
June 12, 2010
2
Presentation Overview
Context of the Study
Review of the Literature
Research Questions
Methodology
Findings
Discussion
3
Context of the Study
4
Summary of the Study
Two-part study investigating the impact of redevelopment of garden apartments on K-12 student racial diversity
Action research study undertaken in 2 parts: GIS analysis (2004 to 2008) and Survey of 93 adults “stakeholders”
5
Review of the Literature
Gentrification: definitions, indicators, debate around displacement
Geographic information systems (GIS) as an analysis tool Past studies Student enrollment data
Study Area Student Generation Factor Garden Apartment: Student Demographics
County and School System Advocacy
6
GentrificationDefinition has evolved
Ruth Glass (1964) 2 elements: class transition and housing redevelopment
Smith & LeFaivre (1984); Palen & London (1984) include vital, suburban neighborhoods
Bostic & Martin (2003) add racial element
Rent gap -- Smith (1984)
Indicators Census data on race, income compare to MSA median
(Bostic & Martin, 2003; Freeman, 2009; Wyly & Hammel, 1996)
Method problematic (Glick, 2008)
Debate around Positive and Negative Aspects Freeman & Braconi (1984); Levine 2004 Lipman, 2002; Moses 2006; Slater 2004
7Geographic Information Systems
Allows layering data together spatially
Few studies use GIS to study relationship between gentrification and displacement
Important studies Freeman & Braconi 2004 Vigdor 2002
Need for a “sharper lens” Wagner (1995) and Bostic & Martin (2003)
Student enrollment data more timely and aggregated at any level
8
Study Area
Demographic basics
Redevelopment of garden apartments
Student generation factor
9
Setting
Suburban jurisdiction in the mid-Atlantic
Population over 200,000; approx 20,000 public school students
Wealthy, diverse
Geographically closed system with limited amount of opportunity for new building
Growth opportunities generally restricted to redevelopment
10
Summary of K-12 Civil Rights StatisticsFall 1979 to 2008
Arlington Public Schools
9.4 11.7 14.3 14.8 14.9 14.3 14.5 13.8 13.1 12.2 11.3 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.9 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 9.8 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.3 10.9 10.8 10.7
16.016.0
15.5 15.7 15.9 16.2 16.2 15.8 16.4 16.6 16.5 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.7 17.8 17.5 17.2 17.2 16.7 15.7 14.9 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.1 13.8 13.5 12.9
6.57.1
8.2 9.7 11.1 13.2 14.7 17.2 18.4 19.7 22.0 23.4 25.0 27.1 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.8 31.2 32.4 32.4 33.2 33.9 33.9 32.3 30.9 29.0 27.2 26.4 26.7
68.065.1
61.9 59.7 58.0 56.2 54.5 53.1 52.0 51.4 50.1 48.6 47.1 45.1 44.2 42.7 42.3 42.1 41.4 41.1 41.6 41.5 41.8 41.7 42.7 44.0 45.8 47 47.9 48.1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%19
79
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Asian Black Hispanic White
11
Student Generation Factor
Housing TypeStudents
% Students by Type
Countywide Units
% of County Housing Type
Generation Factor 08-09
Single Family Detached 10933 57% 27521 28% 0.40
Apartment - Garden 4017 21% 15316 15% 0.26
Apartment - Elevator 1483 8% 25725 26% 0.06
Duplex 1008 5% 2231 2% 0.45
Condo - Garden 794 4% 10726 11% 0.07
Condo - Elevator 499 3% 14845 15% 0.03
Townhouse 413 2% 3371 3% 0.12
TOTAL 19147 100% 99735 100.00% 0.19
12
Housing Type by Race
Housing Type by Race
Asiann=201
6
Blackn=237
2
Hispanic
n=5270
American
Indiann=24
Notspecifie
dn=398
Whiten=906
7
Apartment - Garden 25.4% 38.0% 43.4% 25.0% 17.1% 2.7%
Apartment - Elevator 15.7% 12.7% 8.5% 4.2% 11.6% 4.1%
Single Family Detached 39.0% 29.2% 28.1% 54.2% 53.5% 85.4%
Duplex 6.2% 10.2% 9.8% 8.3% 4.5% 1.2%
Townhouse 3.4% 2.8% 1.5% 0.0% 2.0% 2.1%
Condo - Garden 4.9% 4.6% 4.9% 0.0% 6.8% 3.3%
Condo - Elevator 5.4% 2.4% 3.9% 8.3% 4.5% 1.2%
Total 100.0%100.0
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
13
Housing Type
Asian/Pacific
Islander Black Hispanic
American Indian/
Alaskan Native Unspecified White Total
Apartment - Garden 513 902 2286 6 68 242 4017
Percent 12.8% 22.5% 56.9% 0.1% 1.7% 6.0%100.0
%
Apartment - Elevator 317 302 448 1 46 369 1483
Percent 21.4% 20.4% 30.2% 0.1% 3.1% 24.9%100.0
%
Single Family Detached 787 693 1481 13 213 7746 10933
Percent 7.2% 6.3% 13.5% 0.1% 1.9% 70.8%100.0
%
Duplex 124 242 515 2 18 107 1008
Percent 12.3% 24.0% 51.1% 0.2% 1.8% 10.6%100.0
%
Townhouse 69 67 78 8 191 413
Percent 16.7% 16.2% 18.9% 0.0% 1.9% 46.2%100.0
%
Condo - Garden 98 110 259 27 300 794
Percent 12.3% 13.9% 32.6% 0.0% 3.4% 37.8%100.0
%
Condo - Elevator 108 56 203 2 18 112 499
Percent 21.6% 11.2% 40.7% 0.4% 3.6% 22.4%100.0
%
Total 2016 2372 5270 24 398 9067 19147
14
County Advocacy
County leaders have stated commitment to a diverse, inclusive community
No public housing authority, provides direct financial subsidy assistance through grants
By-right and site plan development
Working with profit and non-profit housing developers to create affordable housing (rental units) through financial incentives
15
School System Advocacy
Primary focus of schools have been internal
Shift in culture to focus on external issues such as housing
Relationship between housing and schools plays major role in who enrolls in schools
Segregation/integration are current topics in literature
No work to date found on gentrification, displacement studies and K-12 students
16
Developing new metrics
17
Research Questions
18
Methodology
Two-part study investigating the impact of redevelopment of garden apartments on K-12 student racial diversity
Part One: GIS Analysis
Part Two: Survey
Action research framework
19
Part One – GIS Analysis
Data sourcesBase unit: 142 block groups from US Census2004 and 2008 student data2004 and 2008 parcel information from County
ProceduresData gatheringAnalysis
Four case studies
20
21
Part One – Surveys
Participants Recruited 3 groups of participants:
Residents of garden apartments Housing advocated County and School System staff
Procedures Online and hard copy 20 question survey Spanish and English Multiple choice, open-ended, Likert-scale questions
Pilot study
Data analysis
22
Findings – GIS Analysis
RQ: What is the impact of the redevelopment of garden apartments (through renovation, conversion, or demolition) on student enrollment and racial diversity in the study area?
Block group data characteristics:Mean number of students per BG: 137.2741.5% of block groups contain at least one GA parcelGAPA = garden apartment parcel area
23
Changefrom
2004to 2008
Increased GAPA Block Groups
n=12
Decreased GAPA Block Groups
n=18
No Change GAPA Block Groupsn=112
Totaln=142
Sum M SD Sum
M SD Sum M SD Sum M SD
Change inTotalStudents
469 39.08 70.32 -715 -39.72 101.43 1179 10.53 21.76 933 6.57 48.73
Change inNon-WhiteStudents
356 29.67 68.10 -852 -47.33 102.45 -6 -.05 16.49 -502 -3.54 46.80
Change inWhiteStudents
71 5.92 14.27 100 5.56 9.38 952 8.50 12.27 1123 7.91 12.09
Change inRace Un-specifiedStudents
42 3.50 2.88 37 2.10 2.18 233 2.08 2.13 312 2.20 2.22
24
Correlation Analysis
Strong, positive correlations found between change in percent GAPA of block group and change in total number of students from 2004 to 2008, r = .51, n= 142, p < .001
and between the change in the percentage of garden apartment parcel area (GAPA) of the block group and the change in the total number of non-White students from 2004 to 2008, r = .51, n= 142, p < .001
Also found correlations that suggested that the number of non-White students increases and that the number of White students decreases with the percentage of garden apartment parcels in a block group
25
GIS Case Studies
1. Conversion of GA to Condominium GAPA loss of 30% in a single parcel conversion Reduced total students in BG by 53% (256 students) 94.1% of students in 2004 were non-White (Black,
Hispanic, Asian, interracial, or unspecified)
2. Renovation of GA by for-profit developer Facility improvements of 435 apartment units led to
increase of $500+/month in rent Largest reduction in non-White students (-339)
26
GIS Case Studies - 2
3. Renovation of GA by non-profit developer 465 rental unit complex renovated in 5 phases Families relocated onsite during construction Partnership with County govt – financial package 75% of units preserved as long-term affordable Increase of 54 students, 51 were non-White
4. Demolition of GAs; rebuild of new structure Highly desirable neighborhood with metro access Several small GA complexes demolished Replaced with condo worth $1M each Total students decreased 7, non-White 9
27Survey Findings – Demographics
93 responses analyzed
Mean age: 37; range 19 – 75
62% Female, 32% Male
RaceLatino 47.3%White 46.2%Black 3.2% Interracial 2.2%Other 1.1%
28Survey Findings – Demographics
Income
Home Ownership
29
Survey Findings - Perceptions
RQ: How do school staff, County and community housing experts, and residents who are directly affected by garden apartment redevelopments view housing changes and their relationship to diversity in the County? Do significant differences exist between the participant groups or groups based on demographic variables such as race, income level, or age?
Open-ended question100 comments, grouped into 16 categories7 categories were defined as gentrification “indicators”78% of comments were indicators
30
Survey Findings - Perceptions
If you have observed changes in [County X's] housing market, do you consider those changes to be positive, negative, neutral, or both positive and negative?
Significant differences found betweenSurvey GroupsWhite vs. Non-WhiteFamily Income
31
Survey Findings - Perceptions
Gentrification has been defined as "the process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood" (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001, p. 6). Do you believe that [County X] is experiencing gentrification
32
Conclusions
These results confirm that for gentrifying neighborhoods in the area under study, “the main costs [of gentrification] will be borne almost exclusively by ethnic minorities” (Bostic & Martin, 2003, p. 2429).
33
Significance of Study
Responds to a need defined in the literature Sharper lensMore timely datasetsCreates a new indicator for gentrification (GAPA
changes)Creates method for quantifying displacement; seeing
impacts immediately
Top Related