The Social-Policy Conundrum of the Left Behind
The last three years have seen a substantial uptick in violent crimes, particularly homicides, and declining K-12 academic performance, concentrated in poorer black neighborhoods. Many of these communities have become more poverty concentrated over the last few decades, as many middle-class families have move out. As a result, since 1990 the number of neighborhoods nationally with more than 30 percent poverty has doubled. The conundrum is: if we allow some people to selectively escape, what does that do for those who are left behind?
For many, this conundrum is highlighted when children from high-poverty neighborhoods are able to escape the local public schools. The Hechinger Report highlighted one such situation: the impact of a school choice lottery initiative in Charlotte (NC) that enable some students to attend highly regarded middle schools outside their poor neighborhoods.
The lucky ones, who won a seat to their first-choice middle school, were less likely to be arrested or end up in prison between the ages of 16 and 22. But the students left behind in a neighborhood school were much more likely to be arrested or imprisoned as adults. The increase in criminal activity among the 8,000 boys who hadn’t participated in the school lottery was greater than the decrease in criminal activity for the lottery winners.
Researchers claimed those who entered the lottery came from families that placed a greater value on their child’s education. Moreover, those who won the lottery “were no longer interacting with the neighbor kids.” By contrast, “with fewer positive influences at school, [non-lottery winning] kids who might not otherwise have participated in crime were more likely to join in.”
Similar dynamics occurred when children who applied for admissions to charter schools. Los Angeles public-school leader occurred Sacks wrote, “Whether applying to a magnet or a charter, pursuit of a school of choice is powerful evidence of a student’s and family’s commitment to education.” He acknowledged that studies consistently find that those who won the lottery performed better than those who did not. Sacks explains that “the group that did not win the admissions lottery and is back in the public school will have less expected of them [sic]. These students, as a whole, will not feel as challenged by nor as interested in school and will not perform as well.” When asked about the selection process, educational researcher John Pondiscio argued “If you demand that engaged and committed parents send their children to school with children of disengaged and uncommitted parents, then you are obligated to explain why this standard applies to low-income black and brown parents—and only to them.”
One potential solution could be housing policies that subsidize the movement of poor families living in high-poverty neighborhoods to low-poverty neighborhoods. Five years ago, supporters of this approach pointed to new studies that seemed to indicate that these movements improve children’s school performance and employment. When evidence accumulated that these benefits did not accrue to black families in the study, these advocates shifted to another expensive initiative that helped no more than a sliver of poor residents exit high-poverty neighborhoods.
The conundrum will persist as long as we do not improve struggling communities and turn them into desirable neighborhoods. Crucial to these transformations is overcoming the gun violence that persists in many high-poverty neighborhoods. This requires identifying and isolating the subset of violent-prone individuals. Thomas Abt has championed focused deterrence — which brings law enforcement together with community members and social service providers to offer both a legal warning and community resources to high-risk people. It has been linked to a 43% decline in homicides in Oakland and major violence reductions elsewhere.
Containing gun violence, however, is only a beginning: housing and support institutions must follow. Some of these communities are suitable for gentrification, especially if there are vacant sites suitable for new construction. Despite fears, studies consistently demonstrate that gentrification does not force out poor renters but instead provides benefits for legacy residents.
Others have suitable housing for Section 8 home ownership initiatives. That is, while the bulk of Section 8 funding goes to subsidize rents, funds can also be used to enable renters to gain ownership, helping to stabilize poorer neighborhoods by giving more families a vested interest in improving the environment. In addition, some communities can qualify for funding from the Warren Buffett Purposed Built initiatives: funds are used to replace deteriorating public housing units, as well as increased substantially the total number of subsidized housing units. Crucially, these communities are anchored by well-performing charter schools, youth services that counsel students through high school, and healthcare facilities.
The evidence provided points to two sets of policies. On the one hand, we have to accept the risks when we allow children to attend non-neighborhood schools. Just as some families are lucky enough to be able to move to better neighborhoods, just as some are rich enough to afford to send their kids to private schools, poor families should be allowed to opportunity to send their kids to better schools outside their neighborhoods. But we must also try to find ways to improve the neighborhoods so that it doesn’t remain a zero-sum game: with winners at the expense of losers. These are the visions that we must pursue.
Robert Cherry is a recently retired Brooklyn College economics professor and an American Enterprise Institute affiliate.
