Winter 1999
Message from the Executive Director
john a. powell

Several areas of our research point to the persistent and destructive forces of segregation. Yet segregation is seldom mentioned in today's conversation, and when it is, there is a noted ambivalence. For example, the only African American on the United States Supreme Court recently voiced this ambivalence by asking rhetorically whether it’s racist to assume that a black child must sit next to a white child in order to learn.

Some may dismiss this important comment of Justice Clarence Thomas by simply assuming that he is not in synch with most African Americans or "liberals" on the issue of racial justice. But there is more to his question than that. A number of civil rights advocates have started to publicly and privately express ambivalence about segregation and integration. In the Minnesota Legislature, there is a pending rule that would seize on this ambivalence by making only intentional segregation a matter of public concern. This approach is counter to overwhelming data that shows that segregation is a destructive reality in America.

Racial segregation of minority students is almost always socioeconomic segregation too. And there have been several recent studies that show that concentrated poverty in school depresses student learning. Segregation of minorities is never just putting people of darker hue in areas different than white people. It is almost always about segregating people from what our Advisory Board Member George Galster calls the "opportunity structures" in society. And while some will overcome this barrier, many will not.

Many are lukewarm about solving the problems of segregation due to the only obvious solution: integration. Integration has been confused with assimilation. Assimilation is another way to claim both the superiority of the ideology of whiteness and the inferiority of the "racial other". But the problem of segregation cannot be solved by assimilation. It requires transformative integration, which would afford all access to the structure of opportunity, as well as input into developing those structures.

We must not slip into a neo-segregationist position. And the evils of segregation do not simply turn on the fine distinction of intent. If we understand the way that segregation works, we will not have difficulty answering the question of why true integration is necessary to advance racial justice in our society.

We plan to publish the IRP newsletter on a quarterly basis to keep you abreast of the issues we feel are most critical in addressing the intersections of race and poverty. You can find out more by visiting our updated Web site at http://www.umn.edu/irp. We appreciate your support of our initiatives and invite you to update us on related efforts by calling, writing or mailing information to Lynn Nelson, 612-625-1580 or nelso355@tc.umn.edu. She also can be reached at the usual IRP mailing address.

Welfare to Work Summit looks at welfare reform in Minnesota

On Oct. 2, 1998, the Institute on Race & Poverty and Minnesota Public Radio’s Civic Journalism Initiative convened a summit of more than 115 policymakers, social services professionals, and current and former welfare recipients from around Minnesota at Sabathani Community Center in Minneapolis to evaluate the state’s welfare-to-work efforts.

The Welfare to Work Summit raised many questions about improving our current system. Although the solutions to many of the questions are still out of reach, the day-long summit allowed knowledgeable participants time to consider daunting issues. Conference attendees recommended developing an overarching framework for welfare to work. They suggested creating a mission statement for the families affected, recognizing that what is at stake is far more important than just getting more women into the workforce. The statement would embrace the goal of sufficiency, as well as the mental and physical health and security of the families affected. In addition, a strategy should be crafted to address the needs of the hard-to-employ: immigrants, the chemically dependent, the unmotivated and the mentally ill.

More training is required to meet the needs not only of participants but employers who desperately need new employees, but lack understanding of some of the issues involved in employing adults with little work experience and challenging home lives. Cultural diversity and systemic racism should be addressed, according to summit attendees. Minorities are having a harder time getting off welfare than whites. Special challenges faced by minorities must be acknowledged and addressed if welfare to work is going to be successful for everyone.

Summit participants also recommended continuing to educate the public about the issues participants face and work to change the vision from merely "welfare to work" to a more encompassing vision of "economic growth and community stability," which offers a win/win opportunity for everyone.

Since the summit, MPR ran a week-long series on welfare reform; excerpts from the series can be found on the station’s Web site at www.mpr.org. A panel of summit participants organized by IRP shared results with the National Association of Counties at its annual meeting in the Twin Cities in November 1998. A similar panel presented summit findings at a Senate Subcommittee on Family Health and Security Meeting on Dec. 18, 1998.

john powell leads Minneapolis Affordable Housing Task Force

During the fall of 1998, there was much public controversy about how the City of Minneapolis should deal with a severe shortage of affordable housing. In September, the City Council appointed a task force composed of funders, developers and advocates to develop affordable housing principles and recommendations. Recommendations will be reviewed by the Minneapolis City Council during the first half of this year. IRP Executive Director john powell has been appointed as chair of the Minneapolis City Council’s Affordable Housing Task Force. We will keep you posted on the task force’s recommendations.

IRP News and Views

The following is an excerpt from a commentary by john powell, which appeared in the Star Tribune on Jan. 23, 1999.

To address the lack of affordable housing: Without a broad approach, efforts can worsen problem

We must address the problem [of concentrated poverty] on a regional level. We need to make sure that we increase housing availability that also affords meaningful opportunity. We should consider plans like that adopted by Montgomery County in Maryland, one of the richest counties in the country where affordable housing is built in every neighborhood throughout the county. We must also insist that as the region grows, housing opportunities are considered integral to job and school opportunities. For our central cities and older suburbs, they must not simply push low-income people out, but strive to create mixed-income housing that supports stable neighborhoods and exercise leadership in expanding low-income housing opportunities.

We must be careful not to only focus on where low-income affordable housing exists but also to look at where there is and will be a need throughout the region. Success must be measured not simply by reducing concentrated poverty in one community while it is increasing in another, but by increasing housing opportunities and supporting stable neighborhoods, while addressing the need to reduce the concentration of poverty and increasing opportunity throughout the region.

We need informed leadership on this issue from our city council members and staff, state legislators, community advocates and our new governor. To do this right will require a change in the way we address the issue of affordable housing, and there will be some costs involved. But it will be a small price to pay compared to doing the wrong things or nothing at all.

Neighborhood schools threaten integration progress [headline]

The following article is an excerpt from a commentary written by john powell and IRP Senior Researcher Marguerite Spencer; it was published by the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Feb. 4, 1999.

The Department of Children, Families and Learning (DCFL) wants us to believe that voluntary choices made by parents and students will lead to integration. Although this reflects the rhetoric behind the current push for "neighborhood schools," it is not true. Neighborhood schools will not be integrated unless the neighborhoods themselves are integrated. Although a 1996 survey of Twin Cities residents completed by the Institute on Race & Poverty showed that a majority of individuals of all races desire more integrated housing and schools, our metropolitan area remains one of the 10 most segregated in the United States, with 65 percent of persons of color residing in the two center cities.

If the new rules are adopted, schools would be considered "segregated" in Minnesota only if racial imbalances occurred as a result of "intentional" acts by a district. For example, a school that was made up of 100 percent students of color or 100 percent white students would be "segregated" only if the district had acted in a discriminatory manner to achieve such an outcome. But if parents made these choices, or if it was a result of other forces, such as "housing, jobs, and transportation" that are "beyond the control of the...districts," it would not be considered "segregated."

This is absurd for two reasons. First, the Department assumes that if the state did not sponsor segregation, it must have come about voluntarily. Yet, even when school administrators are not directly involved, there are all kinds of public and private, unintentional and intentional acts that make segregation far from voluntary. And second, the very real and substantially harmful effects of segregation -- effects which have been conclusively established by years of educational research -- occur whether the segregation is intentional or unintentional. Either way, it is real and our students suffer because of it. And either way, the state must act to remedy this harm so that all students can obtain the best possible education.

Rather than shrugging its shoulders at regional remedies that involve fair-share housing and tax-base sharing, the DCFL must pursue educational and housing solutions together and must aggressively articulate the need for them to the Legislature. In the meantime, it needs to rely upon a retooled mandatory, metropolitan-wide desegregation plan -- one that does not simply rely on the good will of parents and districts. Finally, it must push for educational research on everything from district restructuring to classroom dynamics, and strive to implement changes accordingly.

We urge the DCFL to advance rules that will serve all children in a multicultural and multiracial society – not just a select few. After all, quality education for all is essential to the health of a democratic society. As the Legislature considers the Department’s proposed rules during the upcoming legislative session, we must let our representatives know that we expect policies that ensure all of our citizens have access to high quality, integrated education.

Editor’s Note: These commentaries in their entirety can be accessed via the IRP Web site, www.umn.edu/irp, under the "Announcements" heading, or contact the IRP at irp@tc.umn.edu for more information.

Opportunity Mapping for the Minneapolis Foundation ‘Building Better Futures’ Initiative

Looking at some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods using mapping technology raises some interesting questions. What can be done to protect daycare centers, which are frequently located in high crime areas? And why, on a block-by-block basis, does minority status and poverty correlate so strongly? What can we do about these issues? These and other questions that will be useful for city and neighborhood planners to probe further are being raised in Institute presentations to funders, elected officials, community groups, media representatives and neighborhood leaders.

IRP was hired by The Minneapolis Foundation to help evaluate one of its funding initiatives called Building Better Futures. IRP has developed a diagnostic tool called Opportunity Mapping to increase the understanding of the opportunities and barriers facing all kinds of Minneapolis neighborhoods. In 1997, the Institute was selected by the Foundation to evaluate the impact of Building Better Futures, a 10-year, $20 million initiative undertaken by the Foundation in 1995. The goal of Building Better Futures is to improve quality of life for children and families in the seven Minneapolis neighborhoods that have child poverty rates of 60 percent or higher.

Using data on poverty, racial/ethnic populations, education, employment, housing, crime, etc., IRP developed detailed atlases of these maps for the Elliot Park, Harrison, Near North, Phillips, Stevens Square-Loring Heights, Sumner Glenwood and Whittier neighborhoods -- all partners in The Minneapolis Foundation’s 10-year, Building Better Futures initiative. This innovative mapping technique pinpoints problems and opportunities on a block-by-block basis, allowing more effective use of resources and measurement of impact. Mapping of BBF neighborhoods will be done on an annual basis to determine whether Foundation initiatives are paying off by improving the lives of neighborhood residents.

Concentrated Poverty: Causes, Effects and Solutions

IRP will release a new report on concentrated poverty in June. Entitled "Concentrated Poverty: Causes, Effects and Solutions," the report summarizes the most recent and compelling local and national research on this topic. It will be available upon request and via the IRP Web site at http://www.umn.edu/irp. Research for the report was done by IRP Fellow S.P. Udayakumar, who also wrote the report.

Jargowsky joins IRP’s Advisory Council

Paul Jargowsky, an assistant professor of political economy at the University of Texas, Dallas joined the Institute’s Advisory Board in November. He is the author of Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios and the American City, which was published in 1997 by the Russell Sage Foundation in New York.

Four full-time staff members join IRP
During the fall of 1998, four full-time staff members were hired by the Institute. Patrice (Patti) Tetta was hired in November as director in charge of development and administration. She was formerly director of development and communication at Hmong American Partnership in St. Paul. Prior to that she was executive director of the West Bank School of Music and manager of grants and sponsorships for Public Radio International. She has a master’s in technical communications from the University of Washington at Seattle.

Lynn Nelson was hired in October as director of public education. She oversees communications from the Institute, including this newsletter, the Web site and media relations. Lynn has been a communications consultant for five years. Prior to that she was director of public relations for IDS Financial Services, now American Express Financial Advisors in Minneapolis. She has a master’s in social policy from the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota.

Mark McArdle and Rachel Callanan were hired in December as research associates. Mark was test and outreach coordinator for Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In that position, he established a HUD-funded testing program for home lending and insurance discrimination. He has a master’s degree in urban and regional planning from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Rachel was most recently a volunteer attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis. She has also worked as a law clerk for the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project. She obtained her law degree from Hamline University in St. Paul.

IRP funders for fiscal-year 1999 include Northwest Area Foundation, which contributed $75,000, and the Otto Bremer Foundation, which contributed $80,000, for general operating expenses. IRP received $111,000 from The Minneapolis Foundation to fund opportunity mapping for its Building Better Futures neighborhoods, $223,000 from the Joyce Foundation for a study of desegregation and integration initiatives in U.S. metro areas, and $20,000 from Applied Research Center to provide support and consultation for the Grass Roots Innovative Policy Program, also known as GRIPP.