kanacker@gmu.

edu

Context: Suburbs
Over the past several decades some suburban
picture windows in the United States have
developed cracks []. Many suburbs are no
longer places with high proportions of
homeowning non-Hispanic Whites and native
borns with relatively high household incomes,
high levels of education, and without any
problems []. Indeed, some suburbs have never
had these characteristics []. Interestingly
perception has been lagging behind []
(Anacker, 2015, 1).

Context: Suburbs
(contd)
changes in demographics, socioeconomics, and
housing stock; focus: U.S. suburban decline and
poverty

Context: Suburbs
(contd)

changes in demographics, socioeconomics, and

housing stock; focus: U.S. suburban diversity

Context: Suburbs
(contd)

changes in demographics, socioeconomics, and

housing stock; focus: suburbs in the international
context

Five Key Themes

1. Suburban poverty;
2. Racial, ethnic, and nativist change;
3. Suburban Decline or not?
4. Suburban foreclosures;
5. Suburban policy.

Table of Contents
Introduction (Katrin B. Anacker)
Section I: Suburban Poverty
The Resurgence of Concentrated Poverty in America:
Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s (Elizabeth
Kneebone and Carey Anne Nadeau)
Debunking the Cookie-Cutter Myth for Suburban
Places and Suburban Poverty: Analyzing their Variety
and Recent Trends (Karen Beck Pooley)

Table of Contents
(contd)

Section II: Racial, Ethnic, and Nativist Change

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region Traditional No
More? (Carolyn Gallaher)
Local Immigration Legislation in Two Suburbs: An
Examination of Immigration Policies in Farmers Branch,
Texas, and Carpentersville, Illinois (Bernadette Hanlon and
Thomas J. Vicino)

Section III: Suburban Decline or Not?

Beyond Sprawl: Social Sustainability and
Reinvestment in the Baltimore Suburbs (Bernadette
Hanlon)
Metropolitan Growth Patterns and Inner-Ring
Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the 100
Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas (Sugie Lee, Nancey
Green Leigh, and Andrew McMillan)

Table of Contents
(contd)

Section IV: Suburban Foreclosures

Responses to Foreclosure and Abandonment in

Clevelands Inner Suburbs: Three Case Studies (W.
Dennis Keating)
Punctuated Equilibrium: Community Responses to
Neoliberalism in Three Suburban Communities in
Baltimore County, Maryland (Gregory Smithsimon)

Section V: Suburban Policy

Revitalizing Distressed Older Suburbs: Case Studies in
Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (Kathryn W.
Hexter, Edward W. (Ned) Hill, Benjamin Y. Clark, Brian A.
Mikelbank and Charles Post)
The Response of the Nonprofit Safety Net to Rising
Suburban Poverty (Benjamin J. Roth and Scott W. Allard)

Section I:
Suburban Poverty

The Resurgence of Concentrated Poverty in

America: Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s
(Elizabeth Kneebone and Carey Anne Nadeau)
Findings:
The Resurgence of Concentrated Poverty in the
United States;
Regional Impacts;
City and Suburban Trends;
Demographic Shifts;

The Resurgence of Concentrated Poverty in

America: Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s
(Elizabeth Kneebone and Carey Anne Nadeau)
Table 2.5: Change in Extreme-Poverty Neighborhoods in Cities and
(contd)
100 Metro Areas, 1990 to 2005-09: Suburbs
Extreme 1990
Poverty
Tracts

2000

20052009

Change:
1990 to
20052009

Change:
2000 to
20052009

Total
Populatio
n

900,842

907,928

1,240,79
1

37.7%

36.7%

Poor
Populatio
n

429,081

405,856

570,729

33.0%

40.6%

262

223

344

31.3%

54.3%

Share of
Total
Populatio
n

0.9%

0.8%

0.9%

0.0%

0.2%

Share of

5.1%

5.1%

4.5%

-0.6%

0.5%

Tracts

The Resurgence of Concentrated Poverty in

America:
Metropolitan
Trends in Neighborhoods
the 2000s by Suburban
Table 2.6: Change
in Extreme-Poverty
2000 to 2005-2009
(Elizabeth
Kneebone and Carey Anne Nadeau)
Type
Tot
%
Poor
Poor
%
(contd)Tot
of
Subur
b

Pop in
Extre
me
Povert
y
Tracts
2000

Pop in
Extre
me
Povert
y
Tracts
200509

Suburb
an Total

907,92
8

1,240,7
91

High
Density

304,74
5

Mature
Emergi

Chang
e

Pop in
Extre
me
Povert
y
Tracts
2000

Pop in
Extre
me
Povert
y
Tracts
200509

Chang
e

36.7%

405,85
6

570,72
9

40.6%

342,37
5

12.3%

132,62
8

158,88
3

19.8%

450,09
5

629,55
7

39.9%

204,84
2

288,46
0

40.8%

121,60

193,43

59.1%

56,089

93,353

66.4%

Section II:
Racial, Ethnic, and Nativist
Change

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region

Traditional No More? (Carolyn Gallaher)
goal: comparing the Washington Metropolitan
Area to the Traditional [suburban] Model (Hanlon
et al., 2006);

Black/African American population;

Latino population;
Non-Hispanic White population;
Young workers.

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region

Traditional No More? (Carolyn Gallaher) (contd)

Figure 4.3: Census Tracts with Proportion Black/African American Population G

Than One Positive Standard Deviation from Mean, Washington DC Metropolita
2010

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region

Traditional No More? (Carolyn Gallaher) (contd)

Figure 4.4: Census Tracts with Proportion Black/African American Population

Two Positive Standard Deviations from Mean, Washington DC Metropolitan Ar

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region

Traditional No More? (Carolyn Gallaher) (contd)
Figure 4.7: Census Tracts with Latino Proportion of the Population Greater
One Positive Standard Deviation, Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, 2010

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region

Traditional No More? (Carolyn Gallaher) (contd)
Figure 4.8: Census Tracts with Latino Proportion of the Population Greater
Two Positive Standard Deviations, Washington DC Metropolitan Area, 2010

The Washington DC Metropolitan Region

Traditional No More? (Carolyn Gallaher) (contd)
Washington MSA departs from Traditional Model
(Hanlon et al. (2006);
clusters of Black/African Americans are more likely
to be located in suburban locates than inside city
limits (86.81% located in Prince Georges County);
clusters of Latinos are located in the inner
suburbs;
non-Hispanic White share of population in many
DC tracts grew very rapidly 2000 2010;
young workers cluster in DC and in inner/first
suburbs (Arlington, VA; Alexandria, VA)

Section III:
Suburban Decline or
Not?

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for
the 100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
(Sugie Lee, Nancey Green Leigh, and Andrew
examine patterns of inner-ring suburban change
McMillan)
for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas,
focusing on metropolitan growth patterns and
urban containment policies;

Figure 7.1: Transformation of the Metropolitan Spatial Structure and Inner-Rin

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the
100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
(Sugie7.2:
Lee,
Nancey Green
Leigh,
andand
Andrew
Figure
Metropolitan
Growth
Patterns
Inner-Ring Suburban
McMillan) (contd)

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the
100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
(Sugie7.3:
Lee,
Nancey
GreenPer
Leigh,
and
Andrew
Figure
Trends
of Relative
Capita
Income
(PCI) for the 100 L
by
Subarea (1970
2007)
McMillan)
(contd)

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the
100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
Figure 7.4:
in the
Poverty
Rate
for Andrew
the 100 Largest CSBAs
(Sugie
Lee,Trends
Nancey
Green
Leigh,
and
by Subarea (1970 2007)
McMillan)
(contd)

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the
100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
Figure 7.6:
of the
College-Educated
(Sugie
Lee,Ratio
Nancey
Green
Leigh, and Population
Andrew to the Averag
for the 100 Largest CBSAs by Subarea (1970 2007)
McMillan)
(contd)

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the
100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
(Sugie
Lee, Nancey
Leigh, policy
and Andrew
hypothesis:
urban Green
containment
or the level
McMillan)
of urban(contd)
sprawl plays a role in the decline of
inner-ring suburban communities;
34 metropolitan areas with urban containment
policies
66 metropolitan areas non-urban containment
policies
sprawl index: 0 (lowest sprawl) to 100 (highest
sprawl)

Metropolitan Growth Pattern and Inner-Ring

Suburban Decline: A Longitudinal Analysis for the
100 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas
Table
7.7: Sprawl
Index Trends
Containment
Type for the 100 Larg
(Sugie
Lee, Nancey
GreenbyLeigh,
and Andrew
(1970 2007), abbreviated by editor for presentation (0 = lowest spr
McMillan) (contd)
Year

Containment
Type

1970

Containment

33

46.9

NonContainment

66

43.9

Containment

34

50.3

NonContainment

66

50.1

Containment

34

50.4

NonContainment

66

52.5

Containment

34

51.4

NonContainment

66

54.3

1980

1990

2000

Number of
CBSAs

Mean Sprawl
Index

Section V:
Suburban Policy

The Response of the Nonprofit Safety Net

to Rising Suburban Poverty (Benjamin
Roth and Scott Allard)
Three research questions:
What is the demand for social services in the
suburbs, and how is it changing?
What challenges do service providers encounter to
operating programs in the suburbs?
How do nonprofits respond to these challenges?

Three case studies:

Chicago;
Los Angeles;
Washington, DC.

The Response of the Nonprofit Safety Net

to Rising Suburban Poverty (Benjamin
Roth and Scott Allard)
Tables 11.7, 11.8: Poverty Rates, 2000-2005-09, Los Angeles and
(contd)
County/Municipality

Poverty Rate, 2000

Poverty Rate, 200509

Los Angeles County

17.9%

15.4%

Riverside County

14.2%

12.3%

San Bernardino County

15.8%

14.3%

Cook County

13.5%

15.1%

DuPage County

3.6%

5.3%

Kane County

6.7%

8.8%

Lake County

5.7%

6.7%

McHenry County

3.7%

5.6%

Will County

4.9%

6.4%

The Response of the Nonprofit Safety Net

to Rising Suburban Poverty (Benjamin
Roth and Scott Allard)
Table 11.9: Poverty Rates, 2000-2005-09, Washington, DC MSA
(contd)
County/Municipality
Washington, DC

Poverty Rate, 2000

Poverty Rate, 200509

20.2%

18.3%

Montgomery County,
MD

5.4%

5.3%

Prince Georges
County, MD

7.7%

7.4%

Alexandria, VA

8.9%

7.1%

Arlington, VA

7.8%

7.2%

Fairfax County, VA

4.5%

5.1%

Loudon County, VA

2.8%

2.8%

Prince William County,

VA

4.4%

5.1%

The Response of the Nonprofit Safety Net

to Rising Suburban Poverty (Benjamin
Roth and Scott Allard)
Changes, Demands, and Challenges for Social
(contd)
Service Providers

Increased and Shifting Demand;

Immigrant Communities;
The Search for Affordable Office Space;
Funding

The Response of the Nonprofit Safety Net

to Rising Suburban Poverty (Benjamin
Roth and Scott Allard)
Table 11.11: Type of Coping Strategy Being Considered for Coming
(contd)
Percentage
of
Organizatio
ns
Prioritizing Clients by Degree of Need

50.0%

Referring a Greater Number of Clients Out

45.6%

Reducing FT and/or PT Staff

41.7%

Reducing Overhead Costs

41.3%

Expanding Waitlist

35.6%

Reducing Services Available

33.3%

Reducing Number of Clients Served

27.5%

Reducing Salaries

16.1%

Reducing Hours of Operation

14.1%

Merging with Another Organization

8.6%

www.ashgate.com
50BMK14N (order code)

kanacker@gmu.
edu