Poverty 3 Flashcards
Who finds no tendency for concentrated poverty rates to be especially elevated in metropolitan areas in which racial segregation and high group poverty rates are combined, contradicting Massey’s key prediction that these conditions combine interactively to concentrate poverty?
Jargowsky (1997)
What does Quillian find wrong with Massey & Fischer (2000)?
Only about half of the paired contrasts (15 sets) (e.g., high versus medium segregation interacted with income or other demographic characteristics such as population size) work out in the correct direction. This is about the number we would expect by chance if there were no interaction.
How does Quillian explain the suppression of the interaction between black segregation (w/in group segregation) and metro black poverty? (Massey expected metropolitan areas with high group poverty rates and high group segregation to have multiplicatively higher rates of concentrated poverty for the segregated minority group.)
In the case of black segregation, the interaction of segregation and the metropolitan black poverty rate is suppressed primarily because segregation based on poverty status (income segregation) among blacks is lower in cities with high black poverty rates. For this reason, rather than the black poor, it is working- and middle-class blacks who absorb the increase in poverty contact and experience the main increase in neighborhood poverty contact in segregated cities with high black poverty rates.
What element helps to explain Hispanics’ high neighborhood poverty concentration according to Quillian (2012)?
Hispanics experience neighborhood poverty concentration that is only a bit below the levels of African Americans. This is impossible to explain via the Massey model, with its focus on racial segregation, because Hispanics have a poverty rate similar to blacks but a significantly lower level of segregation. Yet because Hispanics’ other-race neighbors are often impoverished, their lower segregation only weakly translates into lower neighborhood poverty contact.
Do Crowder & South (2005) find support for Wilson’s argument that declining discrimination has reduced the salience of race in the process of residential attainment?
They find relatively modest changes in the net influence of race and the persistence of pronounced racial disparities in mobility outcomes provide limited support for a key causal claim in Wilson’s argument, namely, that declining discrimination has reduced the salience of race in the process of residential attainment.
Did the net probability of moving from a poor to a nonpoor census tract increase or descrease for both black and white householders between 1970 and 1997?
It increased, but slightly more rapidly for black householders. (Crowder & South 2005)
Has the probability of moving from a nonpoor into a poor neighborhood become more similar or dissimilar for blacks and whites during the period?
More similar, but this convergence has been driven by the increasing probability of whites’ making such a move, a trend broadly consistent with the increasing gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods.
According to Crowder & South (2005), how do blacks and whites compare in moving from a poor to a non-poor neighborhood?
Even as late as the mid-1990s, blacks remained substantially less likely than whites with similar sociodemographic characteristics and facing similar tract and metropolitan conditions to move from poor to nonpoor neighborhoods—and substantially more likely to move in the opposite direction.
What has been the general trend for whites concerning their mobility into poor neighborhoods between 1970 and 1997?
Our results indicate that, among whites, mobility into poor neighborhoods has become decreasingly class selective in recent decades. Although in general, high income provides protection against moving from nonpoor to poor neighborhoods, for whites this effect had nearly disappeared by the mid-1990s, reflecting the increasing propensity for whites with relatively higher incomes to move into such areas. (Crowder & South 2005)
Who maintains that the out-migration of more advantaged African-Americans has been a historically continuous process?
Pattillo-McCoy (2000). She argues that, contrary to Wilson’s (1987) hypothesis, “the post–civil rights era is not distinctive in the inclination of African Americans with means to move to better neighborhoods” (Pattillo-McCoy 2000, p. 226). South & Crowder 2005 find more evidence for this in their paper than for Wilson’s hypothesis of increased class-selectivity.
In 2000, how much higher was the percentage of blacks in high-poverty neighborhoods than whites?
10 times higher than whites (Jargowsky 2003)
What does Desmond (2012) find in regards to women and evictions?
In poor black neighborhoods, eviction is to women what incarceration is to men: a typical but severely consequential occurrence contributing to the reproduction of urban poverty.
How many times more likely is the eviction rate of female renters from black neighborhoods compared to men from those same neighborhoods and to female renters from white neighborhoods? This is in Milwaukee, between 2003 and 2007.
1.87 times that of male renters from those neighborhoods and 5.24 times that of female renters from white neighborhoods. (Desmond 2012).
What are the consequences of an eviction?
One is that those with an eviction on their record often cannot secure decent, affordable housing. A good number of landlords simply will not rent to them.
What type of mobility outcomes typically occur with an eviction?
Eviction almost always leads to increased residential instability, homelessness, a loss of possessions, as well as to a downward move: a relocation to a disadvantaged neighborhoods and/or to substandard housing. Recently evicted tenants also have a difficult time qualifying for affordable housing because need has outpaced the supply of local municipalities. (Desmond 2012)
