Volume 12, Issue 2 June 2014
Connections Journal of the Coalition for a Livable Future
In this Issue: Suburbanization of Poverty in the Portland Metro Region
clfuture.org
CONTENTS
3
20th Anniversary Gala
4
What’s New at CLF
6
Columbia River Crossing
• Recently Released Equity Atlas Maps • CLF in the News • Introducing New CLF Members
It’s Over!... We think. What should come next? Photo: (AP Photo/The Columbian)
7
12th Annual Regional Livability Summit Save the Date! October 3rd, 2014
8
Equity White Paper Series The Suburbanization of Poverty in the PortlandVancouver Metropolitan Region By: Brendon Haggerty, MURP
22
A Look Back into the 20 Year History of CLF
23
Meet Elizabeth Williams CLF’s New Transportation Advocate
2
20GALA th
Anniversary
COALITION FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE
Celebrating two decades of working towards a more sustainable & equitable region
3
What’s New at CLF Newly Released Equity Atlas Maps CLF has released 37 new demographic maps, available on our website. These maps offer an indepth look at where populations live across the region, including individual races & ethnicities, ages, household types, and income level. The maps enhance our understanding of regional equity by examining changes in demographic patterns over the past decade and showing where different groups are concentrated. For example, the map to the right shows a marked increase in the Hispanic/Latino population throughout the region. You can view these maps on the Additional Maps page of our website.
Hispanic/Latino Population Percent Change (2000 - 2010)
4
Introducing New CLF Members We are thrilled to welcome five new members to the Coalition for a Livable Future:
! e m o c l We
CLF in the News The latest articles highlighting CLF’s work.
Stay connected with what CLF is working on by visiting our News Release page.
•
Equity Mapping and the Geography of Opportunity
•
Coalition for a Livable Future highlights Equity Atlas 2.0
Author: U.S. Housing and Urban Development Date: April 22nd, 2014
Author: Multnomah County Community Wellness and Prevention Program Date: April 17th, 2014
5
Columbia River Crossing It’s over! ... We think. As of the end of May, the CRC I-5 freeway expansion project has officially shut down. The Coalition for a Livable Future spent nine years advocating for a better approach to the CRC because it didn’t reflect the type of innovative planning that would leave a positive legacy for the region. The Oregonian called the demise of the CRC “an enormous victory for environmental and urban planning groups.” It’s an exciting victory, though bittersweet because it came after nearly $200 million in public dollars spent, and years of time and energy sunk into a fundamentally misguided plan. Imagine what could happen when we put that much energy into sustainable, innovative solutions that build toward people’s aspirations. For 20 years, that’s what CLF has been about. Through our litigation we know that the state still hopes the project will be revived next year with funding from Washington state. We will continue to follow CRC to make sure it’s really dead and litigation is no longer necessary.
What Should Come Next? CLF has always supported effective, economically and environmentally responsible transportation investments, including on the I-5 corridor. The first step is to look holistically at issues in the corridor – merging traffic, travel options, seismic safety, etc. - and consider cost effective solutions to the most pressing problems. But the question shouldn’t just be about strategies for I-5. While it’s tempting to ask what the next big project will be, it’s wiser to step back to consider how we think about infrastructure and plan our cities. We should start with our regional priorities, including safety; fixing the roads we already have; improving transit, walking and biking; cutting climate pollution; creating equal access to vibrant communities; and supporting a strong local economy. Projects can then be prioritized to achieve those goals. 6
12th Annual Regional Livibility Summit
Save the Date 12th Annual Regional Livability Summit Friday - October 3rd, 2014 @ Portland State University Keynote Speaker: Antwi Akom, Ph.D. Antwi Akom, Ph.D., an Associate Professor of Environmental Sociology, Public Health, and STEM Education at San Francisco State, is co-founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Sustainable Economic, Educational, and Environmental Design (I-SEEED). A social change activist within low-income and communities of color for over 20 years, he is world renowned as an educational, environmental and economic justice leader. Dr. Akom’s research focuses on the links between race, environmental health, and educational equity in cities and schools; the role of the green economy in facilitating pathways out of poverty for vulnerable populations; and the role of local knowledge in the production of environmental health and educational equity. Professor Akom is a 2010 recipient of a RIMI Investigator Award in Health Disparities Research from the National Center on Minority and Health Disparities.
Equity White Paper Series By sponsoring a series of white papers by local issue experts, CLF hopes to promote dialogue and discussion about a range of regional equity issues. The papers explore issues addressed in the Regional Equity Atlas 2.0 in greater depth, placing the Equity Atlas within a broader policy context. The paper in this issue of Connections is part of a series that is being released on a rolling basis. All of the papers released so far are available at CLF’s website: The Suburbanization of Poverty in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Region by Brendon Haggerty, discusses the
Series Sponsors
recent demographic shift of people in poverty moving away from central cities and into American suburbs. The paper highlights the implications of this trend for the Portland-Vancouver region and outlines potential policies and programs to alleviate suburban poverty and its impacts.
The opinions expressed in the white papers are those of the papers’ authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of CLF, its members, or funders. Proposals for papers are welcome. Interested authors should contact Scotty Ellis at scotty@clfuture.org
8
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
The Suburbanization of Poverty in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Region Brendon Haggerty, MURP Printable Version
Introduction
Where people in poverty live has shifted dramatically in America’s metro areas over the past decade. For much of the last century, poverty has been concentrated in central cities. Although central cities continue to have high poverty rates, the balance has shifted such that there are now more people living in poverty in America’s suburbs than in its central cities. This shift raises questions about equity, especially as our region strives to ensure access to resources that support health and prosperity. Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube of the Brookings Institution synthesized these trends in their 2013 book, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America. Among their compelling findings is that the growth rate of populations in poverty is higher – in some cases many times higher – in suburbs compared to central cities. The authors found that from 2000 to 2011, the population in poverty increased 29% in central cities in the US, compared to 64% in suburbs. This paper examines the suburbanization of poverty in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region and the implications of these changes for achieving an equitable region. Geographic patterns in the distribution of poverty are illustrated using the Coalition for a Livable Future’s Regional Equity Atlas 2.0 and US Census data. 1
To provide a framework for understanding the statistical trends related to poverty, it is important to first define the measures of poverty that will be used in this paper: • “Poverty” is defined by the federal poverty threshold.1 The 2014 poverty threshold for a family of four was $23,850. • “Number of persons in poverty” refers to the number of individuals whose income is below 100% of the federal poverty threshold. • “Absolute measure of poverty” refers to the number of persons living in poverty. • “Poverty rate” refers to the percent of the population living in poverty. • Poverty growth rate is a measure of change over time, such as the five-year rate of increase in the number of persons in poverty. It is the increase or decrease of a measure of poverty over a defined period of time.
TABLE 1 Poverty in the Portland Metro Regioni Number of persons in poverty Poverty rate Change in the number of persons in poverty 2007-2012
316,515 14% 32.7%
The methodology used to set the federal poverty threshold is widely criticized as outdated and is believed to underestimate the number of people living in poverty. Despite these limitations, this paper relies on the federal poverty data because it is the only data available that enables us to map poverty across the region in a consistent and comprehensive manner. For more information on the federal poverty threshold, see http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
As indicated in Table 1, over 300,000 people in our region lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty threshold in 2012. This number represents 14% of the region’s population, and this group grew in size by more than 30% in five years.
As Kneebone and Berube point out, the impacts of growing suburban poverty go far beyond a shift in our ideas about cities. Suburbs tend to lack the infrastructure and services that are typically available in more urban areas. The absence of these services makes the burden of living in poverty particularly challenging. For example, access to public transit is typically much better in central cities than in suburbs. Nationwide, an estimated 23% of low-income suburban areas have no transit service at all, and only 25% of jobs are accessible within a 90-minute transit trip. iii Similarly, the nation’s anti-poverty policies and programs tend to focus on central cities, making it more difficult for suburban residents to access the services and resources necessary to assist them in meeting their basic needs. Awakening to the suburbanization of poverty therefore means not just changing our understanding of the distribution of poverty, but also changing the policies and programs aimed at alleviating it.
National Trends The year 2000 marked the first time in at least 30 years that the number of people living in poverty in America’s suburbs was greater than the number living in poverty within central cities (see Figure 1).ii This change is important because it upends archetypical images of urban America. For years, the cultural narrative of America’s central cities focused on the process of “white flight,” the mid-century exodus of wealthy white households that left a concentration of people of color and poor households in urban areas. While elements of the traditional image remain, data on the growth of suburban poverty over the past decade challenge this cultural narrative. Figure 1
Urban and Suburban Poverty Growth in US Metropolitan Areas 1970 - 2010 Cities
15.3
Suburbs 12.8
Millions
9.6 8.3 7.4
10.0
8.4 7.1
6.4
1970
10.4
1980
1990
10
2000
2010
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
The causes of these demographic shifts are complex, but Kneebone and Berube hypothesize that there are four primary factors driving the suburbanization of poverty over the past decade: 1. Population The overall population in suburbs has grown faster than that in central cities. From 2000 to 2010, the population of central cities nationally grew by about 4.5%, compared to over 14% in suburbs.iv Even if the poverty rate in suburbs remained stable, we would expect the absolute number of persons in poverty to increase faster in the suburbs than in the cities because of this difference. 2. Immigration Newly arriving immigrants and refugees are increasingly settling in the suburbs. In stark contrast to the historic tendency for immigrants to be concentrated in cities, about half of all immigrants now live in suburbs. Challenges like limited English proficiency, discrimination, and lack of professional networks in the local job market contribute to disproportionately high poverty levels within the immigrant population. 3. Housing Another driver of the shifting distribution of poverty is housing dynamics. In metropolitan areas with healthier housing markets, central city neighborhood rents are rising faster than those in suburbs, leading more low-income residents to move to the suburbs. Federal policy changes in the 1990s also made it easier for Housing Choice Voucher (commonly known as “Section 8”) recipients to move to areas outside of central cities, and roughly half of recipients now locate in suburbs.
2 3
The foreclosure crisis of the late 2000s may have exacerbated the trend of growing suburban poverty. Analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that many suburban neighborhoods had higher rates of foreclosure than urban neighborhoods.v The same study observed a correlation between high foreclosure rates and high poverty growth rates in suburbia. 4. Economy A final driver of the suburbanization of poverty is the structure of the economy. The recession of 2007-2008 hit suburban areas particularly hard, and high unemployment persists in many suburban areas. Furthermore, much of the job growth in suburban areas has focused on lowwage job sectors such as retail and hospitality, and suburban residents who fill these jobs often don’t earn enough to exit poverty. Metro-Area Trends The shifting demographics of poverty in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan region are largely consistent with the national trends. Kneebone and Berube compare the region’s two most populous cities -- Portland and Vancouver -to the rest of the metropolitan area. Portland and Vancouver had a combined 2011 poverty rate of 19.5%, well above the 12.8% found in the region’s suburbs. However, from 2000-2011, the growth rate of the population in poverty in the region’s suburbs was substantially higher than in Portland and Vancouver: the poor population in suburban areas grew by 99% during this time frame, compared to only 71% in Portland and Vancouver.
Single year estimates for 2011 are available only for geographies with populations of 65,000 or more. This analysis therefore uses American Community Survey 5-year estimates. American Community Survey data for small areas tend to have large margins of error. This analysis follows Census Bureau guidance, omitting data in cases where the coefficient of variation ≥ 0.30. Municipalities with large margins of error include Banks, Barlow, Durham, Gaston, Happy Valley, Johnson City, Maywood Park, North Plains, Rivergrove, La Center, Ridgefield, and Yacolt. Additionally, the municipality of Damascus was not yet incorporated in 2000 and therefore could not be included in the comparative analysis.
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
To supplement Kneebone and Berube’s analysis, I examined US Census poverty data for each of the region’s incorporated municipalities for the same time period (2000-2011).2 Whereas Kneebone and Berube treat Portland and Vancouver as a combined central city, my analysis treats each municipality separately. There are 41 municipalities in the region, but poverty estimates for some smaller municipalities are not reliable enough to include in this analysis due to sample size issues.3 The remaining 28 municipalities were home to about 1.4 million people in 2011. My analysis of poverty trends in these 28 municipalities indicates that the growth rates of populations in poverty have been dramatic throughout the region over the past decade. This trend alone is worrisome, but the markedly uneven spatial distribution of this growth in poverty rates is also concerning. Figure 2 compares the growth rates of the overall populations (shown in gray) and the populations in poverty (shown in black) for each of the municipalities.vi Figure 2 Growth rates of overall population and populations in poverty 2000-2011
As Figure 2 demonstrates, from 2000 to 2011, overall population growth among metro-area municipalities ranged from a slight decline of -3% in Milwaukie, OR to a high of 85% in Battle Ground, WA. Portland’s population grew 9%, and Vancouver’s grew 13%. In every municipality but one, the population in poverty grew at a faster rate than the population as a whole. Fairview was the only suburb to lose poor residents, in stark contrast to places such as Troutdale, Wood Village, and King City, which each saw their population in poverty more than double. At the extreme, King City’s poor population grew by 456%. Notably, in smaller municipalities such as King City, this growth rate represents relatively few people, in this case an increase of about 220 poor residents. But in larger suburbs, such as Tualatin (which saw an increase of 150%) and Wilsonville (which saw an increase of 157%), such large increases represent thousands of residents living in poverty.
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
TABLE 2 Population Change by Poverty Status, 2000-2011 Municipality Change, Non-Poverty Population
Battle Ground Beaverton Camas Canby Cornelius Estacada Fairview Forest Grove Gladstone Gresham Hillsboro King City Lake Oswego Milwaukie Molalla Oregon City Portland Sandy Sherwood Tigard Troutdale Tualatin Vancouver Washougal West Linn Wilsonville Wood Village Woodland
6,709 8,458 5,498 2,027 1,541 99 1,316 1,507 -774 7,313 15,864 785 365 -1,607 1,951 4,554 20,764 3,477 5,215 5,078 639 1,383 10,686 4,255 2,614 2,506 267 1,091
Change, Population in Poverty
1,006 4,827 675 586 491 297 -273 1,826 1,064 6,328 4,189 219 1,146 1,024 480 1,771 27,282 400 456 1,361 1,347 1,876 7,439 926 146 1,229 800 492
Total Population Growth Rate
85% 18% 49% 20% 21% 17% 14% 20% 3% 15% 29% 50% 4% -3% 45% 26% 9% 73% 47% 16% 15% 14% 13% 61% 12% 27% 41% 43%
Population in Poverty Growth Rate
118% 83% 99% 61% 32% 102% -19% 77% 107% 57% 66% 456% 97% 66% 92% 82% 40% 93% 142% 50% 211% 150% 43% 112% 17% 157% 367% 123%
municipalities, identified in Table 2, include Portland, Milwaukie, Forest Grove, Lake Oswego, Estacada, Gladstone, Tualatin, Troutdale and Wood Village. Portland alone added about 27,000 new residents living in poverty, whereas the rest of the region had a combined addition of about 42,000.
In absolute terms, nine municipalities gained more new poor residents than non-poor residents. In other words, for each new resident not in poverty, these municipalities gained more than one resident living in poverty. For example, Troutdale gained about 700 more people living in poverty than people not living in poverty. These 13
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
While the numbers in Table 2 show that Portland had the largest increase of any municipality in absolute terms, the growth rate of the population in poverty was relatively small compared to other jurisdictions. From 2000 to 2011, Portland’s population in poverty grew by 40%. The only municipalities in the region with lower poverty growth rates were Cornelius, West Linn, and Fairview. In all other suburban municipalities, the poverty growth rate was much higher. For example, the poverty rate grew by 66% in Milwaukie, 83% in Beaverton, 97% in Lake Oswego, and 150% in Tualatin. Across all the suburban municipalities in the metropolitan region, the population in poverty grew by an average of 115%, nearly three times the growth rate in Portland. Figure 3 displays the poverty growth rates by municipality.
These data are indicative of a regional trend that is consistent with national trends: the suburban poor population is growing at a much faster rate than that in central cities. It is important to note that this analysis is limited to populations within incorporated municipalities, and therefore excludes residents of unincorporated areas. This is a significant limitation, but one that is unlikely to affect the overall finding that poor populations are growing faster outside of central cities than within them, since there are sizeable low-income populations in some of the region’s unincorporated areas as well. Implications of the Regional Trends
The implications of this trend from an equity perspective become clear when we combine this analysis with data from CLF’s Regional Equity
Figure 3 Populations in Poverty: Percent Change (2000 - 2011) 2000 US Census and 2007-2011 ACS 5-year Estimates
14
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
Figure 4 displays the spatial differences in transit access to jobs within the region. Visually, this map indicates that transit access to jobs is worse in areas farther from the central city, in many of the places with the fastest poverty growth rates. Low-income transit riders are more likely to depend on transit for transportation, so the combination of low levels of service and high poverty growth is concerning.
Atlas. A key theme that emerges from the Equity Atlas maps and the accompanying commentary on the equityatlas.org website is that access to resources is unevenly distributed across our region. Research from across the country shows that these conditions can contribute to negative outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunity, and quality of life.vii, viii Neighborhoods that provide access to jobs, opportunities for safe physical activity, healthy food options, and places for social interaction support health and prosperity. Conversely, neighborhoods that lack these features can exacerbate existing disadvantages among vulnerable populations. The following maps from the Equity Atlas display data on access to jobs, physical activity, healthy food, and public services across the region.
Figure 5, which displays geographic variations in access to opportunities for active living, shows a similar pattern. The map demonstrates that proximity to factors that contribute to active living -such as sidewalk density, transit service, proximity to recreational facilities, and proximity to parks -- tends to be best in areas closest to Portland and worst in many suburban areas farthest from the central city.
Figure 4 Family Wage Jobs Accessible by Transit (up to 60 minutes transit travel time)
Vancouver
Camas
Washougal
Portland Forest Grove
Cornelius
Hillsboro
Troutdale Gresham Beaverton Milwaukie Tigard
Demascus
Lake Oswego
Tualatin Sherwood Oregon City
Density of family wage jobs accessible via transit within 60 minutes of travel time
Newberg
Wilsonville
15
Happy Valley
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2 Figure 5 Vancouver
Access to Opportunities for Active Living
Camas
Washougal
Cornelius Forest Grove
Troutdale
Hillsboro Portland
Gresham Beaverton Milwaukie Tigard
Lake Oswego
Happy Valley
Demascus
Tualatin Composite Score • • • • • •
Walkability - Sidewalk Density Transit Access Proximity to Farmers’ Markets and Produce Stands Proximity to Supermarkets and Grocery Stores Proximity to Recreation Facilities Proximity to Publicly Accessible Parks
Oregon City Wilsonville
The pattern is less visually obvious for some other measures of access, shown in Figures 6 through 8, but a statistical analysis of the data underlying the maps, as reflected in the maps’ composite scores, demonstrates a consistent pattern for these measures as well.4 Areas outside of Portland have significantly lower access to healthy food, key financial and retail services, and public and human services. To help illustrate this difference in access, Table 3 compares the average composite scores for the census tracts within the city of Portland to the census tracts beyond the Portland city limits. For each measure of access, tracts within Portland averaged much higher, and statistical tests confirm that these differences are significant. The greatest difference between the two groups is in access to jobs, with Portland tracts having vastly greater transit access to family wage jobs. Measures of access to key financial and
retail services, as well as human services, show a less dramatic difference in access to those services, although tracts outside of Portland still score substantially lower on those measures.
TABLE 3 Mean Composite Score Among Census Tracts (see footnote 4)
Tracts within Tracts outside Portland of Portland (n=142)* (n=317)
Transit access to jobs Access to key financial and retail services Access to opportunities for active living Access to public and human services Access to healthy food
83.6 23.6 72.2 48.2 62.5 35.1 60.5 36.9 59.1 29.5 *The mean among tracts within Portland is significantly higher (p <0.05) for all measures based on independent t-tests.
The Equity Atlas assigns a score of 1 to 5 to every census tract in the region based on the average proximity of each block in the census tract to specific indicators. A score of “5” indicates proximities within ¼ mile, while a score of “1” or below indicates proximities greater than 1 mile. Composite scores, which are measured using a scale of 1 to 100, combine the scores from each individual indicator within a composite map to create an overall measure of proximity. The higher the composite score, the better the access to the measured indicators. This scoring is explained further at the Regional Equity Atlas website, https://clfuture.org/regional-equity-atlas/how-to-read-atlas-maps. 4
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2 Figure 6 Access to Healthy Food Vancouver
Camas Washougal Cornelius Forest Grove
Troutdale Hillsboro
Portland
Beaverton
Gresham
Milwaukie Composite Score • Proximity to Farmers’ Markets and Produce Stands • Proximity to Supermarkets and Grocery Stores
Happy Valley
Lake Oswego
Tigard
Demascus
Tualatin Oregon City Wilsonville
Figure 7 Access to Retail and Financial Services
Vancouver Camas
Forest Grove
Washougal
Hillsboro Troutdale
Cornelius
Portland
Gresham
Beaverton
Tigard
Lake Oswego
Milwaukie
Tualatin Composite Score • Proximity to Key Retail Services • Proximity to Financial Services
Oregon City Wilsonville
Happy Valley
Demascus
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2 Figure 8 Access to Public and Human Services Vancouver
Camas Washougal Cornelius Forest Grove
Troutdale Hillsboro
Portland
Beaverton
Gresham
Milwaukie Tigard
Composite Score • Proximity to Human and Social Services • Proximity to Public Services
Lake Oswego
Happy Valley
Demascus
Tualatin Oregon City Wilsonville
This analysis suggests that our region’s population in poverty is growing the fastest in the places least equipped to support health and prosperity. Research shows that people’s health is directly influenced by where they live. Figure 9 ix illustrates the relationships between neighborhoods and health. Education and income are among the most powerful predictors of health and economic prosperity, making access to jobs and education critically important.x Neighborhood attributes like the mix of destinations, street connectivity, infrastructure for walking and biking, and transit service, are associated with increased physical activity and decreased obesity, which in turn affect long-term health and well-being. xi, xii Proximity to healthy food retail influences eating habits, another indicator of long-term health.xiii
When some of the region’s residents have better access to these resources than others do, it reinforces existing patterns of inequality. This is especially true when those without access lack the means to overcome these conditions. For example, a lack of active transportation options or inadequate access to parks might not be a significant barrier to good health for people who can afford the time and money to exercise at a gym, but this is not a realistic strategy for people who can’t afford a gym membership or are spending every available hour working.
18
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2 Figure 9 Relationships between neighborhoods and health. Adapted from Diez-Roux and Mair, 2010. Residential segregation by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status
Inequalities in resource distribution
Personal characteristics • Psychosocial resources • Biological attributes
Neighborhood physical environments • Environmental exposures • Food and recreational resources • Built environment • Aesthetic quality/natural space • Services • Quality of housing
Behavior Health
Stress Neighborhood social environments • Safety/violence • Social connections/cohesion • Local institutions • Norms
Conclusions An increasing number of our neighbors aren’t benefiting from our region’s high quality of life. This paper highlights two worrying trends. First, the region’s population in poverty is growing. Second, it is growing fastest in the places that typically offer the least support to people living in poverty. Our region’s central cities continue to have high poverty rates, but poverty is growing the fastest in suburban areas that have limited access to transit, active living, healthy food, and key services. In a region that is internationally recognized for high levels of access to healthy and sustainable environments, it is easy to assume or hope that poor populations share in the benefits of livable neighborhoods. The growth of populations in poverty in suburban areas with lower access to essential resources and opportunities suggests that the region is moving further away from such an ideal.
Incomplete neighborhoods stack the deck against people who are already struggling. As Kneebone and Berube put it, “there is no good place to be poor, but being poor in the suburbs means facing a unique set of challenges”.xiv This is not to suggest that every place in the region must have urban levels of infrastructure, but the high growth rate of the suburban population in poverty compels us to focus on improving access. We must work to ensure that low-income households are able to live in neighborhoods that offer access to the resources necessary to live a prosperous and healthy life. Suburbs need to adapt. At a minimum, these trends should cause us to examine whether the services and infrastructure that support populations in poverty have grown at a pace
19
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
commensurate with the growth of the population in poverty. That is to say, if the poor population in Troutdale has more than doubled, has the capacity of the services in Troutdale doubled? The human services and public services displayed in Figure 8 are just one part of a broader set of systems and supports that can help alleviate the effects of poverty; they must be complemented by access to resources that represent a complete neighborhood.
About the Author
We can change what we can control. Land use and infrastructure decisions are made at the local level; city councils and county boards control how neighborhoods are developed. We may not be able to affect broad economic trends that increase poverty, but we can make sure that our decisions about how to build and develop don’t exacerbate its effects. We can be thoughtful when we build neighborhoods, ensuring that they include a mix of uses, transit service, access to healthy food, and safe infrastructure for walking and biking. In many cases, neighborhoods are already developed, making it necessary to prioritize investments in retrofitting existing infrastructure.
References
Brendon Haggerty has worked in state and local public health departments in the Portland Metropolitan area since 2010. His work focuses on health and the built environment. He was a member of the Regional Equity Atlas 2.0 Advisory Committee through his previous position as Program Coordinator at Clark County Public Health.
i. Confronting Suburban Poverty in America (2013). 2012 Poverty Data Tables [data files; Brookings Institution analysis of US Census data]. Retrieved from: http:// confrontingsuburbanpoverty.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/05/Data-Appendix.xlsx. ii. Kneebone, E. & Berube A. (2013). Rapid rise in suburban poverty since 1970 [data files]. Retrieved from http:// confrontingsuburbanpoverty.org/actiontoolkit/charts-data/. iii. Tomer, A., Kneebone, E., Puentes, R., & Berube, A. (2011). Missed opportunity: Transit and jobs in metropolitan America. Brookings Institution: Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/ research/files/reports/2011/5/12%20 jobs%20and%20transit/0512_jobs_transit. pdf.
An awareness of how the distribution of poverty is changing should guide our programs and policies. A basic familiarity with these shifting patterns should factor into every public decision affecting populations in poverty. While the poverty rate remains higher in central cities, the suburban population in poverty is larger and is growing faster. Acknowledgement of this fact is a first step in making strategic decisions that can help lift people out of poverty and ensure that they have access to the many benefits of living in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan Region.
iv. Kneebone, E. & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America. Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC.
-------------------------------
20
Connections • June 2014 • Volume 12, Issue 2
v. Schildt, C., Cytron, N., Kneebone, E., & Reid, C. xii. Besser, L. M., & Dannenberg, A. L. (2005). (2013). The Subprime Crisis in Suburbia: Walking to public transit: steps to help meet Exploring the Links between Foreclosures physical activity recommendations. American and Suburban Poverty. Federal Reserve Bank Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(4), 273-280. of San Francisco. Retrieved from: http:// www.frbsf.org/community-development/ xiii. Grimm, K. A., Moore, L. V., & Scanlon, K. S. publications/working-papers/2013/february/ (2013). Access to Healthier Food Retailers— subprime-crisis-suburbs-foreclosures-suburbanUnited States, 2011. CDC Health Disparities poverty/wp2013-02.pdf. and Inequalities Report—United States, 2013, 62(3), 20. vi. US Census Bureau. 2000 Decennial Census and American Community Survey 5-year estimates xiv. Kneebone, E. & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting 2007-2011. suburban poverty in America. Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC. vii. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., Couch, S. C., Zhou, C., Colburn, T., Cain K., Chapman J., & Glanz, K. (2012). Obesogenic neighborhood environments, child and parent obesity: the Neighborhood impact on kids study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(5), e57-e64. viii. Kent, J. L., & Thompson, S. (2014). The Three Domains of Urban Planning for Health and Well-Being. Journal of Planning Literature, 0885412214520712. ix. Diez Roux, A. V., & Mair, C. (2010). Neighborhoods and health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 125-145. x. Beckles, G. L., & Truman, B. I. (2013). Education and Income—United States, 2009 and 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance Summaries (Washington, DC: 2002), 62(SU-3), 9-19. xi. Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Powell, K. E., & Chapman, J. E. (2007). Stepping towards causation: do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity?. Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1898-1914.
21
A Look Back
‘09
CLF preserves Lents park & funding for affordable housing, as the city was considering locating a new baseball stadium there
‘10
CLF and partners protect $15 million for active transportation projects
‘13
Release of the 2nd Regional Equity Atlas, a groundbreaking new tool for assessing access to opportunity
rs
For 20 years, the Coalition for a Livable Future has pushed for smart planning and policy to create a stronger, healthier, and more sustainable region. As we move ahead, we’re continuing to push the envelope so everyone can benefit from the opportunities the region provides.
O n To wa rd th ! e 20 ne xt Ye a
into the 20 Year History of CLF
‘14
CLF’s advocacy contributes to the cancellation of the multi-billion dollar Columbia River Crossing freeway expansion project
‘07
CLF’s Affordable Housing NOW! Advocacy leads to 30% of Portland’s Release of the urban renewal 1st Regional income going Equity Atlas in the US, to affordable leading to major policy housing changes & transforming local conversations
‘06
CLF secures $15 million to improve access to nature in underserved communities as part of a Metro bond measure
‘03
1st Regional Livability Summit, now in its 12th year, brings together hundreds of community members & leaders
‘01
START
‘94 CLF is founded to bring a common voice among organizations that had not traditionally worked together
‘06
2/3 of CLF’s ‘96 recommendations are adopted into the newly created long range plan for the region, Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept
CLF brings forward strategies for development without displacement in Interstate MAX and Urban Renewal Six CLF working groups influence planning policies across the region in natural resources, transportation, affordable housing and other issues
‘98 to Mid-2000’s
Meet Elizabeth CLF’s New Transportation Advocate CONTACT: elizabeth@clfuture.org 503.294.2889
Elizabeth Williams, Transportation Advocate
Elizabeth is a healthy living advocate who has recently relocated to Portland from Long Beach, California. On the national level, Elizabeth serves on the League of American Bicyclists’ Equity Advisory Council and is a League Cycling Instructor (LCI). She works to empower people to walk, bike, and use transit, with a particular focus on the intersection of equity and active transportation. Elizabeth is passionate about connecting underserved communities to healthy, active, cost-effective and green lifestyles. She loves travel and adventure and is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach’s College of Business.
Three Questions with Elizabeth 1. What was the first bicycle that you ever owned? - My first bike was red with a white banana seat, bell and cute red & white tassels that blew in the wind as I rode through the neighborhood.
2. What is one thing about you that might surprise people? - I love french fries!
3. What personal goal do you have for 2014? - A personal goal for 2014 is to be better in all aspects of my life and enjoy the process.
23
Journal of the Coalition for a Livable Future
clfuture.org