Cities and suburbs play a clearly defined role in discussions of poverty, opportunity, and social welfare policy in America’s largest cities. Studies examining poverty issues have typically focused on central urban areas, where poverty and unemployment are most concentrated. As a result, place-based anti-poverty policies in the United States have focused primarily on ameliorating poverty concentrated in urban (and sometimes rural) areas. In contrast, suburbs are seen as destinations for quality schools, safe neighborhoods, or good job opportunities.
Several recent trends have begun to upend this familiar urban-suburban narrative of poverty and opportunity in America’s largest cities. In 1999, large U.S. cities and their suburbs had roughly the same number of poor residents, but by 2008, the number of poor people in suburbs exceeded the number of poor people in central cities by 1.5 million. Although poverty rates are still higher in central cities than in suburbs (18.2 percent versus 9.5 percent in 2008), poverty rates are increasing at a faster pace in suburban areas.
Watch a video of co-author Scott Allard explaining the report’s findings » (Video provided by University of Chicago)
The report examines data from the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as well as in-depth interviews and new research with social service providers in suburban communities around Chicago, Illinois. Los Angeles, California. Washington, D.C. and the administration will work together to assess the challenges that rising suburban poverty poses to local safety nets and community-based organizations. As a result, we find the following:
Suburban jurisdictions other than Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, vary widely in levels of poverty, recent poverty trends, and racial/ethnic profiles within and within these metropolitan areas. Several suburban counties outside of Chicago increased their poor residents by more than 40 percent from 2000 to 2008, as did some counties in suburban Maryland and northern Virginia. However, poverty rates declined in suburban counties in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Several Los Angeles suburbs have a majority Hispanic population, a few Chicago suburbs have significant Hispanic populations, and many Washington DC suburbs also have black and Asian populations. There are many.
Suburban safety nets rely on a relatively small number of social service organizations and tend to spread their operations across much larger service areas than urban safety nets. Thirty-four percent of nonprofits surveyed operate in more than one suburban county, and 60 percent reported serving more than one suburban municipality. The size and capacity of the nonprofit social services sector varies widely by suburb, with Montgomery County, Maryland having 357 poor residents per nonprofit provider compared to 1,627 in Riverside County, California. Place of residence can have a significant impact on access to certain types of assistance.
The Great Recession has significantly increased demand for typical suburban providers, with nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of suburban nonprofits having never previously connected to a safety net program. We are gaining more customers. Needs have changed as well, with nearly 80 percent of suburban nonprofits surveyed saying they see families in need of food more often than they did a year ago, and nearly 60 percent saying they are struggling with mortgage or rent debt. report asking for help paying their bills more frequently.
Nearly half (47%) of suburban nonprofits surveyed reported losing a major source of income last year, and expect further funding cuts next year. Largely due to this difficult financial situation, more than 1 in 5 suburban nonprofits have reduced available services since the start of the recession, and 1 in 7 are actively reducing caseloads. . Nearly 30% of nonprofits have laid off full-time and part-time staff due to loss of program grants and reduced operating costs.