.
|
Research Update
|
|
Employment and Training Institute research has focused on labor market issues for African Americans, Hispanics and other non-white populations as critical to addressing housing integration and economic concerns in local communities. The Institute has prepared a series of report cards on hiring practices and challenges for Milwaukee area companies and governments, provides customized tables showing diversity (and non-diversity) of employment by place-of-work and residence for every U.S. census tract, and offers critiques of the paradigms imbedded in academic measures of segregation in housing. Note: To review the racial make-up of all census tracts in the U.S. (based on 2005-2009 American Community Survey data), see the New York Times Mapping America: Every City, Every Block.
|
|
Discussion (LQ)
In her nuanced 2004 book on The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Are Undermining the American Dream, Sheryll Cashin still embraces the dissimilarity index as the primary measure of "integration," leading her to such puzzling observations as, "Communities with few blacks integrate better than those with many blacks. Of the nation's five most integrated urban areas, none is more than 3 percent black." (p. 90) Far more promising are her observations about the diverse urban landscape, writing: "Predominately minority neighborhoods, in particular, offer rich, interesting opportunities for class mixing, even of the one-race kind. They also offer a context for learning that will be sorely needed in the majority-minority America of the future. Whites who choose such environments will have the opportunity to test and stretch their capacity for being among, and outnumbered by, people of other races and, hence, for adjusting to and participating in our nation's emerging demographic reality. When millions of whites learn that the sky does not fall when they or their children are outnumbered racially, we will have finally begun to render the metaphor of America's melting pot a reality." (pp. 327-328) A 2007 study on Stable Integrated Communities in Cincinnati by Charles F. Casey-Leininger and Erinn L. Green defined integrated neighborhoods using both the dissimilarity index (requiring a score of 65 or less) and a racial percentage (requiring an African American population between 10% and 60%). Casey-Leininger explained in part: "Although we sought to solve some of the problem of how to define integration, we recognize that our criteria for racial integration has limitations. Not the least of these is that it excludes neighborhoods like Kennedy Heights that have a larger percentage of blacks than our upper limit of 60%, but that are in fact stably racially integrated at the block level. Moreover, it privileges as integrated those neighborhoods between about 40% and 90% white, but not neighborhoods between 60% and 90% black. However, the definition we chose has some merit in that it is a rough representation of the range of black/white ratios that many whites will tolerate in racially mixed neighborhoods.... [emphasis added]" (p. 13) A subsequent 2010 update on Hamilton County: Stable Integrated Communities used an African American population between 10% and 80% as the standard for measuring integration. A 2012 report on America's Racially Diverse Suburbs: Opportunities and Challenges by Myron Orfield and Thomas Luce of the University of Minnesota Law School Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity defines municipalities (and census tracts) as "integrated" or "racially diverse" if their non-white population is between 20 and 60 percent. The authors refer to communities as "predominately white" if they are over 80% white, but "predominately non-white" if they are over 60% non-white. No explanation is given for the discrepancy in the standards used -- apparently any place less than 40% white in America is considered non-diverse by the standards imposed. The Quinn-Pawasarat analysis of African American-white integration considered residential blocks black-white integrated if they were at least 20% white and at least 20% African American, regardless of which population was in the majority. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| Block groups with at least 20% white and 20% African American populations | Block groups with more than 80% African American populations | Block groups with more than 80% white populations, Census 2000 |
|
Related Studies
|
|
Discussion (LQ) John T. Metzger has a useful working paper on Clustered Spaces: Racial Profiling in Real Estate Investment, which offers a detailed history of the evolution of the firms specializing in clustering data and explores the racial aspects of several ranking systems. In 2001, after Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist criticized Claritas and CACI for using misleading information that discouraged business expansion in innercity neighborhoods, the president and CEO of Claritas reported to the press that his marketing company would remove references to gambling or use of tobacco and alcohol in characterizing neighborhoods. The new stereotypes subsequently posted on the Internet, however, described central city Milwaukee African Americans as "inner city strugglers" who "watch a lot of television and listen to a lot of radio." A major concern is that marketing firms will remove overtly racist descriptions and labels from their cluster reports while continuing to downgrade neighborhoods because they are predominately minority. For another example of anti-urban marketing stereotypes, see the Congress for the New Urbanism coverage, Beware! Data-fudgers from Detroit Might "Steal" Your Car in Milwaukee, following up on Michael Horne's examination of use of data demographics to "estimate" auto thefts in an unknown "Triangle Neighborhood" of Milwaukee. |
Background History
|
Direct comments to: eti@uwm.edu