The advancement of race equity is often described and discussed as a legal or moral imperative. In this issue, we explore equity in terms of economics, specifically, its potential as an economic driver and stabilizer. In the first article, PolicyLink presents its recently launched framework for thinking about equity and America’s and California’s economic future: Equity is the Superior Growth Model. In the second article, we are treated to an excerpt from Chris Benner’s and Manuel Pastor’s new book, Just Growth: Inclusion and Prosperity in the New Economy, in which the authors determine, based on an analysis of 192 metropolitan regions in the U.S. that strategies and measures that reduce social, geographic, and other disparities actually correlate with broad economic success. Finally, in the third article, we look at how one metropolitan planning agency–the Mid-America Regional Council based in Kansas City, Missouri–is striving to achieve equity in all aspects of its planning with the goal of achieving a sustainable, just and economically vibrant future.

California Tomorrow: Equity is the Superior Growth Model–By Sarah Treuhaft and Angela Glover Blackwell of PolicyLink and Manuel Pastor of the University of Southern California

Just Growth and the Future of the Next Economy–By Chris Benner of the University of California at Davis and Manuel Pastor of the University of Southern California

Regional Planning in the Heartland: Mid-America Regional Council Works Toward a Sustainable and Equitable Future–By Mona Tawatao featuring David Warm and Dean Katerndahl of the Mid-America Regional Council

Recent posts:

• Bias and the death penalty
• Public Comment on US EPA’s Model Civil Rights Program Open until February 17, 2012
• Study shows majority of states fail to teach the civil rights movement
• Health care equality, it’s more than law
• Digital divide draws lines by color, class, geography
• Latinos disproportionately harmed by air pollution

An article in The Washington Post discussing the study’s findings notes that people were deemed downwardly mobile if they fell below the 30^th percentile in income, had an income ranked 20 or more percentiles below their parents’ rank, or if they earned at least 20 percent less than their parents.  The article also notes that the study does not cover the time of economic woes Americans have faced since 2007.

The study found that significant factors contributing toward downward mobility are marital status, lack of education, drug use, and low Armed Forces Qualification Test scores (measuring “reading comprehension, math knowledge, arithmetic reasoning and word knowledge”).

According to the study, being married makes people better off economically.  This is especially true for women, who are more likely than men to decline in economic status if they are divorced, widowed, or separated.

When looking at race, Hispanics are slightly more likely to fall out of the middle-class than non-Hispanic Caucasians.  However, African-Americans fall down the “economic ladder” at nearly double the rate of non-Hispanic Caucasians.  According to the report, this vast disparity primarily comes from comparing men in African-American and non-Hispanic Caucasian racial groups.  Interestingly, only among whites are women more downwardly mobile than men.

Mac Donald criticizes government social service programs, including “after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs”, suggesting that they are not effective in decreasing crime.

Is Mac Donald’s analysis too simplistic? Does a decrease in some crimes really demonstrate that crime is not linked to poverty, race, or social injustice? Even if one were to accept Mac Donald’s arguments, is it really better for individuals and society for the government to eliminate needed social service programs?

As many in the civil rights and housing advocacy world are happily aware, on March 25, U.S. District Court Judge Helen Berrigan, struck down an ordinance passed by the St. Bernard Parish Council which placed a 12-month moratorium on housing developments of more than five units in St. Bernard Parish, New Orleans. Plaintiffs, including Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, brought action again the Council on the grounds that the moratorium violated an existing consent decree under which the Council had agreed not to engage in further violations of the federal Fair Housing Act following the Council’s adoption of a series of racially discriminatory housing ordinances. The Court found that enactment of the subject ordinance indeed violated the Fair Housing Act under both a discriminatory effect standard and discriminatory intent standard and thus violated the decree. The opinion provides a good primer on applying the Arlington Heights factors to support a finding of intentional discrimination, an unfortunately exceedingly rare occurrence. For example, the opinion noted that a proposal for mixed-income multi-family developments slated for St. Bernard Parish precipitated enactment of the moratorium. The opinion also cites to decisions that found that the terms “crime” and “blight” and concerns about personal safety due to “new” people, references made in a newspaper editorial opposing prior to imposition of the ordinance, are camoflaged racial expressions. The court relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Calvin Bradford, housing discrimination expert, regarding the disproportionate negative impact the moratorium had on African-Americans because African-Americans in the relevant geographic area are disproportionately lower-income and disproportionately renters, and Kalima Rose, Gulf Coast region affordable housing policy expert with PolicyLink regarding, among other things, the irregularity of enacting a such a moratorium following a development application consistent with the zoning of the subject area. Relman & Dane served as lead counsel for plaintiffs and the full opinion is available on its website.

As reported on Reznet, the stimulus funds will be directed first to federal agencies and other institutions serving tribal governments.  These agencies will then distribute the funds to tribes mostly through existing federal grant programs.  In a number of these programs, tribes will have to compete against one another, as well as state and local governments.

Unfortunately, the playing field is far from even.  In his February 26 post “An Open Letter to Barack Obama,” Kevin Abourezk highlights the problems posed by a competitive grant process for many tribes that historically have been shut out of competitive grants due to lack of grantwriting resources.  Wealthier tribes build capital through economic development and gaming, putting them in better positions to compete for grants, which over time helps forge good connections with state and federal agencies, giving them a further edge on the competition.  Many tribes lacking gaming facilities or other resources for economic development are shut out, and without some reform of the competitive funding process this pattern appears unlikely to change.

Mr. Abourezk, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, points out that his tribe suffers from a 34% unemployment and an 80% poverty rate; indicators, he suggests, of the tribe’s historical difficulty winning competitive grant funding. The nationwide American Indian / Alaskan Native poverty rate is slightly over 25% [U.S. Census report, 2005].

To help ensure that more of the stimulus funding to tribes can reach the places that need it most, Abourezk proposes that the Obama administration offer “technical and financial support in applying for stimulus money to those tribes most in need and require federal agencies to prioritize the needs of those same tribes.”