Saturday, June 21, 2008

You Can Take the Poor People Out of the Blighted Neighborhood...

A very interesting--and pretty depressing--piece on what happens when you relocate concentrated groups of poor people to neighborhoods where poverty and crime are less concentrated. Answer: those neighborhoods get poorer and more violent.
If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute. In this study, volunteers were also moved into low-poverty neighborhoods, although they didn’t move nearly as far as the Gautreaux families. Women reported lower levels of obesity and depression. But they were no more likely to find jobs. The schools were not much better, and children were no more likely to stay in them. Girls were less likely to engage in risky behaviors, and they reported feeling more secure in their new neighborhoods. But boys were as likely to do drugs and act out, and more likely to get arrested for property crimes. The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”

Researchers have started to look more critically at the Gautreaux results. The sample was tiny, and the circumstances were ideal. The families who moved to the suburbs were screened heavily and the vast majority of families who participated in the program didn’t end up moving, suggesting that those who did were particularly motivated. Even so, the results were not always sparkling. For instance, while Gautreaux study families who had moved to the suburbs were more likely to work than a control group who stayed in the city, they actually worked less than before they had moved. “People were really excited about it because it seemed to offer something new,” Popkin said. “But in my view, it was radically oversold.”

Ed Goetz, a housing expert at the University of Minnesota, is creating a database of the follow-up research at different sites across the country, “to make sense of these very limited positive outcomes.” On the whole, he says, people don’t consistently report any health, education, or employment benefits. They are certainly no closer to leaving poverty. They tend to “feel better about their environments,” meaning they see less graffiti on the walls and fewer dealers on the streets. But just as strongly, they feel “a sense of isolation in their new communities.” His most surprising finding, he says, “is that they miss the old community. For all of its faults, there was a tight network that existed. So what I’m trying to figure out is: Was this a bad theory of poverty? We were intending to help people climb out of poverty, but that hasn’t happened at all. Have we underestimated the role of support networks and overestimated the role of place?”
When I read this, I immediately thought of some friends in Houston. Houston received a huge number of Katrina victims, many of whom have now permanently relocated to the city. Crimes rates have skyrocketed and the strain on social services is almost at the breaking point.

The bottom line: Relocating families away from poverty-stricken areas doesn't appear to be sufficient to lift those families out of poverty. With cities re-gentrifying and pricing the poor out of their neighborhoods, we're looking at some nasty demographic shifts that we don't really understand. We ought to be thinking very carefully about things like the Paris "suburbs," where the poor have been tossed out of a city that is increasingly affluent.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I studied sociology in Chicago during the Gautreaux implementation period, when reformers were full of enthusiasm about breaking up the big projects, and it all sounded good but I wondered in the back of my mind how they could be sure they would not just end up metastisizing the cancer. If this new research is right, moving people with no skills or job habits to a new place is not going to magically better their coping skills. It relieves certain strains (not getting shot is helpful, for instance, as is not getting shaken down on a regular basis), gives their kids a bit more opportunity and better role models, but apparently that by itself is not enough.

Conclusion: breaking up the slums is a necessary but far from sufficient answer. Worse, in this day of nationwide gangs, spreading out gangster families into new territory may simply spread the gangs. We need to take the next step: active social services to help the parents get jobs and help the kids break the cycle.

Hmm, my google id isn't working for some reason. Oh, well, I'll publish anonymously.