change is gonna come

5/12/2018 Change is Gonna Come - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/change-is-gonna-come 1/25

Manuel Pastor 12/12/

CHANGE IS GONNA COME . . :THE NEW DEMOGRAPHY, THE NEW REGIONALISM,

AND THE FUTURE OF METROPOLITAN AMERICA

Ma nuel Pastor12/ 06/ 2011

4.2%

12.0%

96.3%

53.1%

3.4%

16.2%

50.3%

57.9%

1.2%

11.0%

42.7% 43.0%

White Black API Latino

U.S. Decadal Growth Rates for Population by Race/Ethnicity,

1980-2010

1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010




34%

8%

14%

14%

35%

56%

15%

16%

2%

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980-1990 2000-2010

U.S. Share of Decadal Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity

1980-1990 & 2000-2010

Other

API

Latino

Black

White

-4,310,525

-248,081

4,788,632

781,946 875,683

White Black Latino API Other

U.S. Change in Youth (<18) Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2010




83%80%

76%69%

64%59%

55%50%

46%

11%12%

12%

12%

12%

12%

12%

12%

12%

4%

7% 9%

13%16%

20%23%

27%31%

1% 2% 3%4%

5% 6% 7% 7% 8%

1% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

U.S. Changing American Demographics, 1970-2050

Other

API

Latino

Black

White

Note: Data from the U.S.Cenus Bureau.Projections for 2020 through 2050, which were generated before the 2010 Census, were adjusted basedon the results 2010 Census.

LEADING THE NATIONAL TREND

67%57%

47%

8%

7%

7%

19%

26%

32%

5%9%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 1990 2000

Ca lifornia's Changing De mographics, 19 80-2000

Other

API

Latino

Black

White

Source: California Department of Finance.




IMMIGRATION AS A FACTOR

IMMIGRATION AS A (NON-) FACTOR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

T o t a l i m m i g r a n t s i n t h e U . S .

( m i l l i o n s )

A Leveling Off: Immigrant Share of Total Population

California, Los Angeles, and the U.S.

California

Los Angeles

UnitedStates




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

N o r t h D a k o t a

K e n t u c k y

A l a b a m a

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

D e l a w a r e

M i s s i s s i p p i

N e b r a s k a

I n d i a n a

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

T e n n e s s e e

S o u t h D a k o t a

K a n s a s

W y o m i n g

O k l a h o m a

M i s s o u r i

G e o r g i a

I o w a

M i n n e s o t a

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a

L o u i s i a n a

A r k a n s a s

V i r g i n i a

U t a h

O h i o

W i s c o n s i n

M a r y l a n d

M i c h i g a n

O r e g o n

C o l o r a d o

P e n n s y l v a n i a

I d a h o

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

N e w H a m p s h i r e

W a s h i n g t o n

C o n n e c t i c u t

T e x a s

A l a s k a

A r i z o n a

N e v a d a

W e s t V i r g i n i a

N e w J e r s e y

F l o r i d a

M a i n e

N e w M e x i c o

I l l i n o i s

N e w Y o r k

R h o d e I s l a n d

M o n t a n a

H a w a i i

C a l i f o r n i a

V e r m o n t

California: Among the Most Long-Term of Immigrant Populations

% of immigrants who arrived > 10 years ago, 2009

CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC REALITIES

Alabama

AlaskaArizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

MarylandMassachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

NevadaNew Hampshire New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

OregonPennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South DakotaTennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

WashingtonWest Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

% o f i m m

i g r a n t s w h o a r r i v e d > 1 0 y e a r s a g o

% immigrant

Percent Immigrant by Share Long-TermU.S. States, 2009

CALIFORNIA DEMOGRAPHIC REALITIES




Source: PEREana lysisof 2005 and 2006 ACSda ta

Mexican

40%

Other Latino

10%

Western

European

9%

Chinese

5%

Filipino

5%

Salvadoran

4%

Korean

4%

Eastern European

3%

Armenian

3%

*Other

17%

Ancestry of Long-Term Immigrants (30+ Years)Los Angeles County, 2007-2009

*'Other' includes any group

accountingfor <2% of immigrants

*Data source: 2007‐2009 Pooled ACS,

author's pooled sample.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: Anc estry & Migration

Source: PERE Analysis of 2005, 2006, and 2007 ACS data.

Mexican

32%

Other Latino

9%

Filipino

8%Chinese

7%Guatemalan

6%

Salvadoran

6%

Korean5%

Armenian

4%

Western European

3%

Asian Indian

2%

Other Asian

2%

*Other

16%

Ancestry of Recent Immigrants (<10 Years)Los Angeles County, 2007-2009

*'Other' includes any group

accountingfor <2% of immigrants

*Data source: 2007‐2009 Pooled ACS,

author's pooled sample.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: Anc estry & Migration




46%

38%

38%

30%

27%

22%

21%

18%

18%

16%

13%

13%

12%

12%

11%

11%

11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

New Mexico

Texas

California

Arizona

Nevada

Florida

Colorado

New Jersey

New York

Illinois

Connecticut

Utah

Rhode Island

Oregon

Washington

Idaho

Kansas

Percent Latino by State, 2010

14%

15%

12%

9%

1980 1990 2000 2010

Los Angeles County Share U.S. Latino Population, 1980-2010




58%52%

48%53%

38%

43% 50%44%

3% 3%2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1980 1990 2000 2010

U.S. Change in Racial Identification of Latinos, 1980-2010

API

Black

Other

White




76%69%

64%

81%

72%

65%

12%

12%

12%

7%

9%

10%

9%

13%16%

8%

12%

17%

3%4% 5%

3%5% 6%

1% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010

national profile metro suburbs profile

Portrait of America: The Changing Suburbs

Other

API

Latino

Black

White

South Los Angeles with 2000 U.S. Census Trac t Boundaries

Tota l Popula tion:1990: 802,3712000: 825,4082005-09: 858,773

7% increase

from 1990 to 2005-09




South Central High School Demographics1981-1982 School Year

99%

91% 93%

57%

90%

98%

68%

91%

1%

5% 7%

42%

10%

2%

31%

7%

0%4%

0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%

Crenshaw Dorsey Fremont Jefferson Jordan Locke Manual Arts WashingtonPrep

South Central Los Angeles High School Demography, 1981-82 School Year

Other

Latino

African American

South Central High School Demographics2004-2005 School Year

68%

57%

9% 9%

22%

31%

18%

52%

30%

42%

90% 90%

77%

67%

81%

47%

2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Crenshaw Dorsey Fremont Jefferson Jordan Locke Manual Arts WashingtonPrep

South Central Los Angeles High School Demography, 2008-09 School Year

Other

Latino

African American




42

35

32 32

27

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Non-Hispanic White Asian/Pacific Islander Black Native

American/Alaska

Native

Lati no Ot her or Mixed Race

Median Age by Race/Ethnicity

U.S., 2010

Non-Hispanic White

African-American or black

Latino, U.S.-born

Latino, immigrantAsian, U.S.-born Asian, immigrant

Other or Mixed Race

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 1 2 4 6 8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

2 4

2 6

2 8

3 0

3 2

3 4

3 6

3 8

4 0

4 2

4 4

4 6

4 8

5 0

5 2

5 4

5 6

5 8

6 0

6 2

6 4

6 6

6 8

7 0

7 2

7 4

7 6

7 8

8 0

8 2

8 4

8 6

8 8

9 0 +

Age by Race/Ethnicity/Nativity

1980




Non-Hispanic White

African-American or black

Latino, U.S.-born

Latino, immigrant

Asian, U.S.-born Asian, immigrant

Native American/Alaska NativeOther or Mixed Race

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 1 2 4 6 8

1 0

1 2

1 4

1 6

1 8

2 0

2 2

2 4

2 6

2 8

3 0

3 2

3 4

3 6

3 8

4 0

4 2

4 4

4 6

4 8

5 0

5 2

5 4

5 6

5 8

6 0

6 2

6 4

6 6

6 8

7 0

7 2

7 4

7 6

7 8

8 0

8 2

8 4

8 6

8 8

9 0 +

Millenials Generation X Baby Boomers Pre-Boomers

Age by Race/Ethnicity/Nativity

2005-2009

75%

55%

87%

80%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Growing Generation Gap in the U .S.1975-2010

Share of Youth Who Are Non-Hispanic White

Share of Seniors Who Are Non-Hispanic White

Source: Policylink/PERE analysis of data from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS)

Current Population Survey (CPS) March Supplement.




THE GAP MATTERS

Demographics and State Capital Spending Adjusted for Income

0

50

100

150

200

250

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

percent age/ethnic difference

P e r c a p i t

a s t a t e s p e n d i n g c a p i t a l o u t l a y s a d j u s t e d f o r p e r c a p i t a

i n c o m e ( 1 0 0 = a v e r a g e o f U . S . s t a t e s )

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DCFL

GAHI

ID

IL

INIAKS

KYLA

ME

MDMAMI

MN

MSMO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SDTN TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WIWY

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

P e r

P u p i l S p e n d i n g / P e r C a p i t a

I n c o m e

Difference in % non-Hispa nic white b etwe en the old (>65) and the yo ung (<18)

Inc om e A djusted Per Pup il Spe nd ing on Public Sch ools

&the Generation Gap by State

2007-2008

Source: Policylink/PERE analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) Current Population Survey (CPS) March Supplement.

THE GAP MATTERS




THE CHALLENGE OF INEQUALITY

THE CHALLENGE OF INEQUALITY

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Figure 3‐1. U.S. Resident Median Family Income 1947‐2007

(in 2007 Dollars)

Latino

Black

Asian and Pacific Islander

White

Non-Hispanic White




Unequal

Deregulated

Disconnected

Have things c hanged ? Iseq uity key to g row th?

PUTTING IT TOGETHER

USCProgram for Enviro nmental& Regional Equity

WHAT’S THE EVIDENCE?

Utilizing weighted regression approach to341 metro areas in the U.S. 1990-2000

Per capita income as a function of:

(+)regional education

(-) manufacturing concentration

(+)central city presence

(-) previous income

(?)region of U.S.(-) measure of inequity, including ratio of

city to suburb poverty, concentration ofpoverty, income distribution, black-whitesegregation




Federal Reserve of Clevelandstudies almost 120 mid-size regions,looking for factors that predictregional prosperity

Usual suspects: skilled workforce,quality of life, industrial decline

Unusual suspects: income

inequality, racial exclusion,concentration of poverty – andthey’re highly significant

FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Underinvestmentin each othermakes us lesscompetitive as anation

Social tensions over whowill gain and who will losemake us less likely tocohere on what we needto do to thrive

IT’S A BROADER STORY




Metros offer new scalefor doing well and doinggood, fusing competitive-ness and inclusion

Configuration of metropolitanspace and opportunity hasbecome center – from racial

justice to spatial justice

Metros offer newopportunities to bridgedifference face-to-face, race-to-race, space-to-space

WHERE TO BEGIN

JUST GROWTH?

With support from the

Ford Foundation, did

a project combining

quantitative and

qualitative analysis to

uncover when equityand growth come

together




Diversified economy State capital

Public sector employment

Construction

Manufacturing negatively correlated

Regional government/governance

Jacksonville, Nashville City/County Mergers

Kansas City MARC

Small portions of poorly educated population

Better predictor of just growth than high portions ofhighly educated population

Minority Middle Class

JUST GROWTH FACTORS

Like-minded networks ofprofessionals whoseauthoritative claim to consensualknowledge provides them withunique source of power in decision-makingprocesses. Processes of interaction (interpretation,knowledge generation, action) often institutionalizedwhen there’s a need for repeated interactions overextended periods of time

In short: What you know and who you know it with

Exemplary diverse examples

Jurisdictional ties

Leadership Nashville

Jacksonville Community Council Inc.

EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES




Founded in 1975 Multi-faceted community/participatory“think-tank” One of the earliest annual indicator projects

Annual studies on particular topics Volunteer citizen task force, facilitated by

staff Broad consultative process Consensus based recommendations for

action

Broadly shared priorities and sense ofcommon destiny




And we need the concreteworkforce and communitydevelopment policies thatcan make this all real

But equity proponents need toconsider economic realities andconstraints and propose feasible,growth-enhancing approaches

So it’s a challenge for all of us:economic development folks need torethink the role of equity

LEADING THROUGH THE DIVIDE

WORKFORCE

STRATEGIES

TRANSPORTATION

STRATEGIES

Need to promote clusters that have career ladders, integrating

this with neighborhood-based delivery systems and learn from

the local model of community benefits agreements to include

local hiring and other targets in federal spending.

A continuing need to reverse the bias toward highway spending

to public transit, from infrastructure to operations.

Transit-oriented development can offer real possibilities for

neighborhood revitalization.

HOUSING

STRATEGIES

Provide real incentives for inclusionary zoning and acknowledge

that the recovery of urban areas requires protection against

displacement and gentrification.

POLICIES FOR METROPOLITAN EQUITY




ASSET

BUILDING

HEALTHY

COMMUNITIES

Need to consider the financial deserts thatresult from lack of bank services. “Bank

On” programs help banks see the

customer base with new data, help

customers see the banks with financial

literacy, and create systems of

accountability.

Need to consider the lack of fresh food as

well as environmental disparities in both

exposures and opportunities. The

Reinvestment Fund, Policy, and Fresh Food

Financing Initiative are starts; park and

other access is key.

POLICIES FOR METROPOLITAN EQUITY

EDUCATIONAL

IMPROVEMENT

The toughest nut to crack and yetabsolutely essential to retention of families

in cities. There may be many different

strategies but mayors cannot stand apart

from this and there are significant federal

opportunities

Understanding thatcollaboration and conflictcan go together

Understanding the need for policypackages, unexpected alliances,and new collaborations

Understanding that equity and inclusionare no longer luxuries but imperativesfor economic and social sustainability






THE MORE THINGS CHANGE . . .

change is gonna come

Documents