Minneapolis Opportunity Mapping Project
Executive Summary
| The neighborhood atlases and analyses produced by the Institute on Race and Poverty at the request of The Minneapolis Foundation (TMF) are designed to perform several functions important to the effectiveness of the Building Better Futures Initiative providing TMF and its neighborhood partners with key information on the well-being of each of the neighborhoods. The atlases will facilitate at least four important levels of comparison. The first is comparisons made spatially within a given neighborhood showing how the key indicators vary from block to block. A second comparison will be between the BBF neighborhoods. Third, the atlases will allow for some comparison between the neighborhoods and the city of Minneapolis as a whole. These comparisons will be somewhat fewer and at a grosser level than the inter-neighborhood comparison, however, because the city is not analyzed and mapped with the level of refinement that the neighborhoods themselves are. Finally, the atlases will enable the comparison of a neighborhood to itself over time, identifying positive and negative trends. This first set of atlases provides a baseline for each of the neighborhoods, detailing current conditions and providing a frame of reference for subsequent updates. As the BBF initiative moves forward, the updated atlases will also provide a mechanism for evaluating the impact of particular projects upon the neighborhood. A comprehensive assessment of the well-being of the seven BBF neighborhoods and thorough identification of those resources available to their residents may ultimately warrant supplementing the atlases with regional data and analyses. Methodology There are several useful ways to measure the well-being of a neighborhood. These atlases are designed around the concept of opportunity structures and the mapping of opportunity. Specifically, they focus upon assessing the way that markets and institutions within the BBF neighborhoods affect the options and choices of their residents. As George Galster points out, opportunity structures are those structures which have a strong determinative effect upon both individual decisions and the results of those decisions. The atlases emphasize opportunity because institutions, such as education and social service organizations, and markets, such as employment and day care, significantly limit or enhance an individual's potential for social stability and advancement. Although many factors affect the well-being of a neighborhood, a central component is the ability of its residents to achieve stability and to effectuate their aspirations. The indicators included measure opportunity within the neighborhoods, individual well-being, and those characteristics, such as race and language, that mediate the way in which individuals interact with opportunity structures. Mapping is key to this endeavor because of the way that opportunity and opportunity structures vary across communities and regions. All of the BBF neighborhoods experience some degree of concentrated poverty. Concentrated poverty is problematic because it is a condition in which the high levels of poverty among individual residents have a strongly negative effect upon the neighborhood as a whole. Residents of concentrated poverty exist within opportunity structures that are significantly weaker than those of other areas. There tend to be poorer schools, sparser employment markets, unstable housing markets, and so on. By mapping the presence and viability of these key institutions and markets within the BBF neighborhoods, we are able to see where the strengths of each neighborhood lie and where needs are the greatest. Maps make it possible to engage in analysis at the sub-neighborhood level, revealing key differences among blocks and block groups. They provide a more accurate portrait of neighborhood conditions by showing internal variations, and allow for a more refined analysis of how different trends are affecting different areas of the neighborhood. Reading Maps As indicated above, maps expand the use of data in several key ways. One is that they facilitate easy comparison across space. Most of the maps in the atlases (including all of the Census maps) are "chloropleth" maps. These maps use shading and variations in color intensity to convey differences of degree in data (see, for example, the maps "Percent of Total Population in Poverty"). They are an easy visual tool for identifying variations in the intensity of a particular indicator over space. Each of these maps contains a legend depicting the range of values represented by each shade of color. When drawing comparisons between two different chloropleth maps, one must be attentive to difference in the numerical scales. For example, the scale of the Asian population in most BBF neighborhoods is considerably smaller than that of the African American population because of differences in population size. Consequently, the same color shade will represent quite different proportions of the population on each of the two maps. Where possible and desirable, the maps are supplemented with raw numbers which help make these differences explicit and which provide absolute, rather than relative, information. Maps are also useful because they enable the pinpoint location of different events, institutions, and other information. This is done through the use of "point symbols" such as triangles and circles. For example, the "Neighborhood Environmental Maps" provide a detailed landscape of toxic waste sites within each neighborhood. Knowing the point locations enables the reader to determine where the most severe environmental hazards are located within a neighborhood and whether a given site is located in a residential or industrial area. Findings of the Baseline Atlases The Baseline atlases reveal several key characteristics for each of the BBF neighborhoods and raise several issues that warrant further investigation and consideration. These are discussed at length in the individual analyses for each of the neighborhoods. What is presented here is a synopsis of these analyses which highlights key findings within each neighborhood and makes cross-neighborhood comparisons. Elliot Park Elliot Park is one of the smaller BBF neighborhoods and it is located adjacent to downtown Minneapolis. Like Stevens Square, Elliot Park has a high proportion of apartment buildings (27.5% of buildings are apartment buildings) and the average value of these buildings is considerably higher than those of the other BBF neighborhoods. It also has a large proportion of commercial buildings with similarly high average values (34% of buildings are commercial). These phenomena are most likely attributable to its proximity to downtown Minneapolis. Elliot Park is less residential in character than most of the other BBF neighborhoods and it is more likely to have large apartment buildings than most neighborhoods. Its commercial viability is undoubtedly enhanced by its accessibility to downtown. Elliot Park is also one of the least racially segregated of the BBF neighborhoods with a population whose racial demographics are similar to those of the city of Minneapolis as a whole. As of 1990, 71.6% of Elliot Park residents were white. The largest minority population was African Americans at 20.8% of the total population (all other racial and ethnic groups were less than 4%). In 1996, public school students from Elliot Park showed a much different demographic profile. 65.4% were African American, only 8% were white, and American Indians, Asians, and Hispanics all had populations at or near 10%. In addition, the total number of students from Elliot Park was disproportionately low. Despite an overall population of 5,156 in 1990, Elliot Park's public school population was only 240. By comparison, Harrison and Sumner-Glenwood had total populations in 1990 that were nearly 2,000 lower than Elliot Park, and 1996 public school populations that were approximately four times higher. This disparity between school and Census populations suggests a couple of noteworthy dynamics in Elliot Park. One is that whites in Elliot Park tend not to have children. Given its high proportion of apartment buildings and proximity to downtown, it is likely that Elliot Park is home to a population of young, white renters who work downtown. Elliot Park also has a substantial proportion of residents aged 65 and over and it is possible that the majority of this population is white. The disparity also suggests that Elliot Park is undergoing a racial/ethnic transformation. Such changes tend to manifest themselves in the school system before the overall population. Elliot Park, according to 1990 Census data, also has a very low proportion of female-headed households (4.1% as compared to a Minneapolis average of 7.7%). Again, however, the 1996 school data suggests that this number has increased and that it is not representative of all sectors of the population. 65% of Elliot Park public school students in 1996 came from female-headed homes. Although we are not yet able to determine the race/ethnicity of these students, it is likely that most of them are of color. Poverty in Elliot Park also varies across racial and ethnic groups. Its overall rate in 1990 was 35% (compared to a Minneapolis rate of 17.8%). Whereas the majority of blacks and American Indians in Elliot Park were poor, however, slightly more than one-fourth of whites and Asians and only one-fifth of Hispanics were poor. The school population of Elliot Park was also considerably poorer than the overall rate might suggest. In 1996, 84% of Elliot Park students qualified for free lunch, indicating that they came from families with incomes at or below 135% of the poverty line. What these data suggest for Elliot Park is that aggregate indicators of well-being will not tell the whole story because of these internal variations. They also suggest that remedial actions should target its disproportionately poor populations of color. One area of need for Elliot Park is day care. As of December of 1996, 205 households received AFDC or MFIP. As most of these households move into the workforce, there will be a dramatically increased need for day care. Currently, there is only one day care provider in or nearby Elliot Park with a capacity of 20 children. Stevens Square Stevens Square resembles Elliot Park in several ways. It, too, is located near the downtown area (just across I-94) and possesses a high proportion of apartment buildings (36% of 428 buildings). It evidences similar levels of integration as well. 73.5% of Stevens Square residents in 1990 were white, and African Americans were the largest minority at 17.6% of the population (no other group was over 4%). Like Elliot Park, Stevens Square also has a small, disproportionately minority school population. In 1996, 55% of Elliot Park students were black, only 15% were white, and Asians, American Indians, and Hispanics accounted for approximately 10% of the population each. Stevens Square had 4,459 residents in 1990, but its 1996 public school population was only 135. This suggests that Stevens Square also has a large population of white renters without children, many of whom are either college students or recent graduates. Elderly whites do not account for a significant proportion of this disparity, however, as Stevens Square's elderly population is small. Stevens Square had an overall poverty rate of 30% in 1990 with significant disparities between racial and ethnic groups. Hispanics, American Indians, and blacks experienced poverty at rates far higher than whites and Asians. As of 1994, 74% of Stevens Square's predominantly minority public school population qualified for free lunch, indicating high poverty rates among the neighborhood's children of color. Stevens Square's welfare population is small relative to the other BBF neighborhoods, excluding Elliot Park. As of December 1996, 187 residents received AFDC or MFIP. Welfare reform will undoubtedly push a significant number of these recipients into the work force, creating a need for day care. Currently there is one day care provider in Stevens Square, a Montessori school, with the capacity for 75 children. This will undoubtedly be inadequate to meet the volume and types of day care needed by former welfare recipients. As mentioned earlier, Stevens Square also has a relatively small number of commercial buildings, suggesting that job seekers will need to look outside the neighborhood. This will create the need for transportation and support services designed to provide information about, and access to, employment. Phillips Located in South Minneapolis, Phillips has the largest total population of any BBF neighborhood according to the 1990 Census (17,067; Whittier is second largest at 12,951). The great majority of buildings in Phillips are residential (77%). Because of its size, however, Phillips also has a substantial number of commercial and residential buildings (363 and 318 respectively). Phillips' minority population is slightly over half of the total population, and American Indians, located predominantly in the eastern portion of the neighborhood, comprise its single largest population of color (23.1%; this is the largest concentration of American Indians in the Twin Cities). As is the case with the other BBF neighborhoods, Phillips public school population in 1996 is considerably more segregated than its overall population in 1990. This suggests that Phillips is in the midst of a demographic transition with white families moving out. As of 1990, Phillips had a very high overall rate of poverty (48%). Furthermore, all racial and ethnic groups experienced levels of poverty substantially higher than those for whites, and the American Indian poverty rate was a staggering 70.7%. As is the case with most poor communities of color, Phillips also has a disproportionately high number of female-headed households according to both the 1990 Census and the 1996 school data (20.6% of households in 1990 were female-headed and 59.6% of school children in Phillips in 1996 came from female-headed households). Phillips possesses similar needs for day care and employment support as Elliot Park and Stevens Square do. Phillips is also plagued, however, by a declining housing stock. Residential market values have been declining fairly steadily in Phillips over the last decade, and Phillips also possesses a high number of boarded-up and recently demolished units. Phillips also has a very high number of toxic waste sites within its borders. Whittier Whittier is also located in South Minneapolis along the western border of Phillips. Like Phillips, it is largely residential, but Whittier possesses twice the number of apartment buildings and nearly the same number of commercial buildings as Phillips, despite its smaller size. Furthermore, Whittier's residential properties are considerably more valuable than Phillips, and this gap is increasing as Whittier's residential property is increasing in value while Phillips' is declining. Whittier is somewhat segregated, but not nearly at the level of Phillips. Its American Indian population is much smaller (note that American Indians in Phillips tended to live in the east of the neighborhood, away from Whittier), but its African American population is proportionately larger than Phillips' and they are the predominant minority group in Phillips at 26%. Like Elliot Park and Stevens Square, Whittier's 1996 public school population shows much higher levels of segregation and only 9.4% of students are white. 1990 Census data also show a high level of internal segregation in Whittier, far more noticeable than any other BBF neighborhood. People of color are concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of Whittier closer to Phillips. Conversely, whites are most populous in the western and northern portions of the neighborhood closer to Uptown. Poverty is similarly distributed in Whittier with the highest levels being in found in the south and east. Whittier's greatest asset appears to be its housing. Intra-neighborhood disparities, however, raise the question of whether this asset benefits the neighborhood as a whole or just those areas with high white and low poverty populations. Otherwise, Whittier possesses many of the same needs as the other BBF neighborhoods. For example, it is, and will continue to be, greatly impacted by welfare reform (1,892 residents received AFDC or MFIP in December of 1996) with a need for greater day care and employment options. What the atlas suggests, however, is that resources and energy directed at Whittier may be put to best use if they are focused on the areas of the neighborhood that manifest the highest levels of segregation and poverty, and the social ills that tend to accompany them. Near North As its name indicates, Near North is located on the north side of Minneapolis adjacent to the BBF neighborhoods of Harrison and Sumner-Glenwood. It is predominantly residential but has a sizable industrial area in the east near the river. Housing values in Near North are in the middle of the road for BBF neighborhoods, but the market appears to be much more stable than neighborhoods such as Phillips, and values have been increasing over the last few years. Perhaps the most noticeable characteristic of Near North's population is its high proportion of African Americans. According to the 1990 Census, Near North is 68% black, considerably higher than any other BBF neighborhood and over five times the city average. whites compose the bulk of the remaining population and no other minority group exceeds 5%. Whereas school data for other neighborhoods seem to suggest a move towards very high levels of segregation, Near North is already there, and the African American school population in 1996 is only 10% higher than the overall African American population in 1990. The Asian school population does show a rather dramatic increase, however, (15%, as compared to a Census proportion of 3.9%) and this may portend an influx of Asians into Near North. The vast majority of Asian students do not speak English at home, suggesting that their families have immigrated within the recent past. This increase in Asians in Near North is not surprising as the other north side BBF neighborhoods already have large Asian populations. What it suggests is that there will be an increasing need for support services tailored for Southeast Asian immigrants. At 46%, Near North had a very high poverty rate in 1990 and, as was the case in most of the other BBF neighborhoods, the brunt of this poverty was borne by people of color. Over half of all blacks, Asians, and American Indians were poor in 1990 as compared to about one-fourth of whites and one-third of Hispanics. Not surprisingly, Near North also has a very large welfare population. In December of 1996, 2,127 residents of Near North received AFDC or MFIP. Whereas Near North has a very high day care capacity at 804, this will not be sufficient to accommodate increasing need created by welfare reform. Like Phillips, Near North also has a very high number of toxic waste sites. Many of them are located east of I-94 in the industrial area of the neighborhood, but a substantial number are spread throughout the neighborhood. Because of their proximity to residential areas, these sites may create a serious health risk for neighborhood residents. Furthermore, these sites negatively impact property values and may pose impediments to further development by polluting the ground. Harrison Like its neighbor Near North, Harrison is a predominantly residential neighborhood (81% of taxable records) with industry in its southeast corner. It also has a moderately valued, fairly stable, housing stock. Harrison is also like Near North in that its largest racial group is African Americans who comprise 43% of the total population. This is lower than the 68% of Near North but is substantially higher than any other BBF neighborhood and the city as a whole. The proportion of whites in Harrison is 10% greater than in Near North (36% as opposed to 26%), and Harrison has an Asian population that is much larger (17.1%) than the other BBF neighborhoods with the obvious exception of Sumner-Glenwood. Relatedly, there is a very sizable Asian student population (37% of all students) in Harrison, 95% of whom do not speak English at home. Harrison had a very high overall poverty rate in 1990 of 48%. 56% of African Americans and 74% of Asians were within this large poor population as opposed to only 25% of whites. Harrison also has a very large welfare population for its size. In 1996, 1,391 Harrison residents received AFDC or MFIP, including 302 immigrants. Because of its large Southeast Asian population, Harrison may have a large number of residents who have recently found themselves ineligible for many of the public benefits which they relied upon. Harrison also will have a great demand for adequate day care in the near future. The neighborhood currently has a capacity of 355, an amount insufficient to absorb the increased need that welfare reform will create. Like Near North, Harrison also has a problem with toxic waste sites. Although they are clustered mainly in the southeast portion of the neighborhood where there are fewer residences, several of these sites are in or adjacent to blocks with residential development, including two Superfund sites. These toxic sites may create health hazards for those residents living nearby and they also create a significant impediment to any development of the area. Sumner-Glenwood Sumner-Glenwood is unique among BBF neighborhoods. It is composed almost entirely of public housing, has no private residential or apartment records, and only 17 commercial records. Because of public housing eligibility standards, Sumner-Glenwood has an extremely high poverty rate of 78%, 30% higher than any other BBF neighborhood. Sumner-Glenwood is also the most racially segregated of all seven neighborhoods with a white population of only 2.4%. It has the largest Asian population of any neighborhood at 67%, and African Americans comprise another 29% of the population. These demographics are reflected in its school population where, as of 1996, only 20% of student spoke English at home, and 81% spoke Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese, or Cambodian. As of 1990, poverty was extremely high among all racial groups in Sumner-Glenwood (as would be expected given the income requirements of public housing). Similarly, Sumner-Glenwood had a large population receiving welfare as of December of 1996. 834 Sumner-Glenwood residents were receiving AFDC or MFIP at this time. Conversely, Sumner-Glenwood has very little day care available: its total capacity is 37. It is difficult to accurately assess the needs of Sumner-Glenwood because of the changes that are being brought on by the settlement of the Hollman lawsuit. A significant number of the public housing units in Sumner-Glenwood have been vacated and are scheduled to be destroyed. Many residents will be relocated to housing outside of the neighborhood in an attempt to deconcentrate the high levels of poverty that exists there. It is not yet clear what Sumner-Glenwood's population will consist of when the settlement is finished. |
