The Impact of Gentrification on K-12

Student Racial Diversity: Perceptions, Metrics, and

Advocacy

Alison Atkins DentonFinal Oral Review

Fielding Graduate UniversitySchool of Educational Leadership and Change

June 12, 2010

2

Presentation Overview

Context of the Study

Review of the Literature

Research Questions

Methodology

Findings

Discussion

3

Context of the Study

4

Summary of the Study

Two-part study investigating the impact of redevelopment of garden apartments on K-12 student racial diversity

Action research study undertaken in 2 parts: GIS analysis (2004 to 2008) and Survey of 93 adults “stakeholders”

5

Review of the Literature

Gentrification: definitions, indicators, debate around displacement

Geographic information systems (GIS) as an analysis tool Past studies Student enrollment data

Study Area Student Generation Factor Garden Apartment: Student Demographics

County and School System Advocacy

6

GentrificationDefinition has evolved

Ruth Glass (1964) 2 elements: class transition and housing redevelopment

Smith & LeFaivre (1984); Palen & London (1984) include vital, suburban neighborhoods

Bostic & Martin (2003) add racial element

Rent gap -- Smith (1984)

Indicators Census data on race, income compare to MSA median

(Bostic & Martin, 2003; Freeman, 2009; Wyly & Hammel, 1996)

Method problematic (Glick, 2008)

Debate around Positive and Negative Aspects Freeman & Braconi (1984); Levine 2004 Lipman, 2002; Moses 2006; Slater 2004

7Geographic Information Systems

Allows layering data together spatially

Few studies use GIS to study relationship between gentrification and displacement

Important studies Freeman & Braconi 2004 Vigdor 2002

Need for a “sharper lens” Wagner (1995) and Bostic & Martin (2003)

Student enrollment data more timely and aggregated at any level

8

Study Area

Demographic basics

Redevelopment of garden apartments

Student generation factor

9

Setting

Suburban jurisdiction in the mid-Atlantic

Population over 200,000; approx 20,000 public school students

Wealthy, diverse

Geographically closed system with limited amount of opportunity for new building

Growth opportunities generally restricted to redevelopment

10

Summary of K-12 Civil Rights StatisticsFall 1979 to 2008

Arlington Public Schools

9.4 11.7 14.3 14.8 14.9 14.3 14.5 13.8 13.1 12.2 11.3 10.6 10.5 10.3 9.9 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 9.8 10.1 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.3 10.9 10.8 10.7

16.016.0

15.5 15.7 15.9 16.2 16.2 15.8 16.4 16.6 16.5 17.3 17.4 17.4 17.7 17.8 17.5 17.2 17.2 16.7 15.7 14.9 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.4 14.1 13.8 13.5 12.9

6.57.1

8.2 9.7 11.1 13.2 14.7 17.2 18.4 19.7 22.0 23.4 25.0 27.1 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.8 31.2 32.4 32.4 33.2 33.9 33.9 32.3 30.9 29.0 27.2 26.4 26.7

68.065.1

61.9 59.7 58.0 56.2 54.5 53.1 52.0 51.4 50.1 48.6 47.1 45.1 44.2 42.7 42.3 42.1 41.4 41.1 41.6 41.5 41.8 41.7 42.7 44.0 45.8 47 47.9 48.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%19

79

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Asian Black Hispanic White

11

Student Generation Factor

Housing TypeStudents

% Students by Type

Countywide Units

% of County Housing Type

Generation Factor 08-09

Single Family Detached 10933 57% 27521 28% 0.40

Apartment - Garden 4017 21% 15316 15% 0.26

Apartment - Elevator 1483 8% 25725 26% 0.06

Duplex 1008 5% 2231 2% 0.45

Condo - Garden 794 4% 10726 11% 0.07

Condo - Elevator 499 3% 14845 15% 0.03

Townhouse 413 2% 3371 3% 0.12

TOTAL 19147 100% 99735 100.00% 0.19

12

Housing Type by Race

Housing Type by Race

Asiann=201

6

Blackn=237

2

Hispanic

n=5270

American

Indiann=24

Notspecifie

dn=398

Whiten=906

7

Apartment - Garden 25.4% 38.0% 43.4% 25.0% 17.1% 2.7%

Apartment - Elevator 15.7% 12.7% 8.5% 4.2% 11.6% 4.1%

Single Family Detached 39.0% 29.2% 28.1% 54.2% 53.5% 85.4%

Duplex 6.2% 10.2% 9.8% 8.3% 4.5% 1.2%

Townhouse 3.4% 2.8% 1.5% 0.0% 2.0% 2.1%

Condo - Garden 4.9% 4.6% 4.9% 0.0% 6.8% 3.3%

Condo - Elevator 5.4% 2.4% 3.9% 8.3% 4.5% 1.2%

Total 100.0%100.0

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

13

Housing Type

Asian/Pacific

Islander Black Hispanic

American Indian/

Alaskan Native Unspecified White Total

Apartment - Garden 513 902 2286 6 68 242 4017

Percent 12.8% 22.5% 56.9% 0.1% 1.7% 6.0%100.0

%

Apartment - Elevator 317 302 448 1 46 369 1483

Percent 21.4% 20.4% 30.2% 0.1% 3.1% 24.9%100.0

%

Single Family Detached 787 693 1481 13 213 7746 10933

Percent 7.2% 6.3% 13.5% 0.1% 1.9% 70.8%100.0

%

Duplex 124 242 515 2 18 107 1008

Percent 12.3% 24.0% 51.1% 0.2% 1.8% 10.6%100.0

%

Townhouse 69 67 78   8 191 413

Percent 16.7% 16.2% 18.9% 0.0% 1.9% 46.2%100.0

%

Condo - Garden 98 110 259   27 300 794

Percent 12.3% 13.9% 32.6% 0.0% 3.4% 37.8%100.0

%

Condo - Elevator 108 56 203 2 18 112 499

Percent 21.6% 11.2% 40.7% 0.4% 3.6% 22.4%100.0

%

Total 2016 2372 5270 24 398 9067 19147

14

County Advocacy

County leaders have stated commitment to a diverse, inclusive community

No public housing authority, provides direct financial subsidy assistance through grants

By-right and site plan development

Working with profit and non-profit housing developers to create affordable housing (rental units) through financial incentives

15

School System Advocacy

Primary focus of schools have been internal

Shift in culture to focus on external issues such as housing

Relationship between housing and schools plays major role in who enrolls in schools

Segregation/integration are current topics in literature

No work to date found on gentrification, displacement studies and K-12 students

16

Developing new metrics

17

Research Questions

18

Methodology

Two-part study investigating the impact of redevelopment of garden apartments on K-12 student racial diversity

Part One: GIS Analysis

Part Two: Survey

Action research framework

19

Part One – GIS Analysis

Data sourcesBase unit: 142 block groups from US Census2004 and 2008 student data2004 and 2008 parcel information from County

ProceduresData gatheringAnalysis

Four case studies

20

21

Part One – Surveys

Participants Recruited 3 groups of participants:

Residents of garden apartments Housing advocated County and School System staff

Procedures Online and hard copy 20 question survey Spanish and English Multiple choice, open-ended, Likert-scale questions

Pilot study

Data analysis

22

Findings – GIS Analysis

RQ: What is the impact of the redevelopment of garden apartments (through renovation, conversion, or demolition) on student enrollment and racial diversity in the study area?

Block group data characteristics:Mean number of students per BG: 137.2741.5% of block groups contain at least one GA parcelGAPA = garden apartment parcel area

23

Changefrom

2004to 2008

Increased GAPA Block Groups

n=12

Decreased GAPA Block Groups

n=18

No Change GAPA Block Groupsn=112

Totaln=142

Sum M SD Sum

M SD Sum M SD Sum M SD

Change inTotalStudents

469 39.08 70.32 -715 -39.72 101.43 1179 10.53 21.76 933 6.57 48.73

Change inNon-WhiteStudents

356 29.67 68.10 -852 -47.33 102.45 -6 -.05 16.49 -502 -3.54 46.80

Change inWhiteStudents

71 5.92 14.27 100 5.56 9.38 952 8.50 12.27 1123 7.91 12.09

Change inRace Un-specifiedStudents

42 3.50 2.88 37 2.10 2.18 233 2.08 2.13 312 2.20 2.22

24

Correlation Analysis

Strong, positive correlations found between change in percent GAPA of block group and change in total number of students from 2004 to 2008, r = .51, n= 142, p < .001

and between the change in the percentage of garden apartment parcel area (GAPA) of the block group and the change in the total number of non-White students from 2004 to 2008, r = .51, n= 142, p < .001

Also found correlations that suggested that the number of non-White students increases and that the number of White students decreases with the percentage of garden apartment parcels in a block group

25

GIS Case Studies

1. Conversion of GA to Condominium GAPA loss of 30% in a single parcel conversion Reduced total students in BG by 53% (256 students) 94.1% of students in 2004 were non-White (Black,

Hispanic, Asian, interracial, or unspecified)

2. Renovation of GA by for-profit developer Facility improvements of 435 apartment units led to

increase of $500+/month in rent Largest reduction in non-White students (-339)

26

GIS Case Studies - 2

3. Renovation of GA by non-profit developer 465 rental unit complex renovated in 5 phases Families relocated onsite during construction Partnership with County govt – financial package 75% of units preserved as long-term affordable Increase of 54 students, 51 were non-White

4. Demolition of GAs; rebuild of new structure Highly desirable neighborhood with metro access Several small GA complexes demolished Replaced with condo worth $1M each Total students decreased 7, non-White 9

27Survey Findings – Demographics

93 responses analyzed

Mean age: 37; range 19 – 75

62% Female, 32% Male

RaceLatino 47.3%White 46.2%Black 3.2% Interracial 2.2%Other 1.1%

28Survey Findings – Demographics

Income

Home Ownership

29

Survey Findings - Perceptions

RQ: How do school staff, County and community housing experts, and residents who are directly affected by garden apartment redevelopments view housing changes and their relationship to diversity in the County? Do significant differences exist between the participant groups or groups based on demographic variables such as race, income level, or age?

Open-ended question100 comments, grouped into 16 categories7 categories were defined as gentrification “indicators”78% of comments were indicators

30

Survey Findings - Perceptions

If you have observed changes in [County X's] housing market, do you consider those changes to be positive, negative, neutral, or both positive and negative?

Significant differences found betweenSurvey GroupsWhite vs. Non-WhiteFamily Income

31

Survey Findings - Perceptions

Gentrification has been defined as "the process by which higher income households displace lower income residents of a neighborhood, changing the essential character and flavor of that neighborhood" (Kennedy & Leonard, 2001, p. 6). Do you believe that [County X] is experiencing gentrification

32

Conclusions

These results confirm that for gentrifying neighborhoods in the area under study, “the main costs [of gentrification] will be borne almost exclusively by ethnic minorities” (Bostic & Martin, 2003, p. 2429).

33

Significance of Study

Responds to a need defined in the literature Sharper lensMore timely datasetsCreates a new indicator for gentrification (GAPA

changes)Creates method for quantifying displacement; seeing

impacts immediately