Which Factor Is Not a Challenge to Working Families in the Cities of Middle/south America?

Editor's Notation:

Testimony before the House Ways and Ways Committee, Subcommittee on Human Resources, February 15, 2017

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before y'all today. In my testimony, I will provide data on the changing geography of poverty in the United States (including the rapid rise of poverty outside of urban and rural communities in recent years), key factors that have driven these shifts likewise as challenges raised past them, and implications for efforts to effectively accost poverty and promote opportunity beyond different kinds of communities.

While these problems accept been the subject of my research at the Brookings Establishment'south Metropolitan Policy Program, the views expressed in this testimony are my ain. The Brookings Institution does non take institutional positions on policy bug.

Recent Trends

The number of people living beneath the federal poverty line in the United States has only recently begun to subside from the historic highs reached in the wake of the Keen Recession. In 2015, the well-nigh recent twelvemonth for which we have information, 43.1 1000000 people (or 13.5 percent of the population) were poor. Fifty-fifty subsequently years of a sustained economic expansion, that number remains v.8 million higher than before the recession began in 2007, and 11.5 meg more than than in 2000.

Poverty in the United states of america has long been associated with large urban centers or rural communities, where it has historically been most concentrated. Every bit poverty grew in the 2000s, it continued to climb in those places: Both large cities and rural counties experienced an uptick in their poor populations of roughly 20 percent between 2000 and 2015 (see chart).¹ But the rapid rising of poverty in the 2000s touched a wide swath of communities across the land, moving well across its celebrated homes.

Betwixt 2000 and 2015, the poor population in smaller metropolitan areas grew at double the pace of the urban and rural poor populations, outstripped only by poverty's growth in the nation'southward suburbs. Suburbs in the state's largest metro areas saw the number of residents living below the poverty line grow by 57 percent between 2000 and 2015. All together, suburbs accounted for nearly one-half (48 percent) of the full national increment in the poor population over that time period. ²

These increases pushed the poverty rate up by roughly 3 pct points in suburbs and small metro areas between 2000 and 2015, compared to a two percentage-point uptick in both cities and rural counties. Even with these increases, poverty rates in urban and rural areas remained higher on boilerplate than elsewhere: The 2015 poverty rate was nineteen.6 percent in big cities, 17.2 percent in rural areas, 16 pct in small metro areas, and 11.2 percent in the suburbs.

Notwithstanding, the rapid stride of growth in the suburban poor population during the 2000s fueled a significant "tipping betoken" in the geography of the nation'southward poor. For the start time, suburbs became home to more poor residents than cities. In 2015, 16 meg poor people lived in the suburbs, outnumbering the poor population in cities by more than iii 1000000, small metro areas past more than than vi million, and rural areas by more than than 8 1000000.

Given the (literal) space that suburbs occupy, bridging urban and rural America, some of the challenges raised by the growth of poverty in the suburbs may find parallels in urban areas (e.grand., the growing prevalence of distressed neighborhoods) or in rural communities (due east.g., the complexities of bringing services to a population spread over greater distances), and some may be unique (due east.g., perceptions of abundance that complicate responses to growing poverty). Because poverty in the suburbs, at least at these levels, is a newer phenomenon, much of the residue of this testimony volition focus on exploring the contempo and rapid rise of suburban poverty. (Annotation that, while much of the research summarized below has largely focused on cities and suburbs inside the nation'due south 100 largest metro areas, many of the aforementioned drivers, challenges, and implications related to growing suburban poverty as well apply in the small metro area context.)

The Broad Reach of Suburban Poverty

A key feature of the growth of suburban poverty in the 2000s is that it was non isolated to detail regions or parts of the country. Near every major metro area experienced a significant increment in the suburban poor population between 2000 and 2015, and two-thirds of those regions now discover the majority of the poor population in the suburbs. Some of the steepest upticks occurred in fast-growing metro areas in the Sun Chugalug and Intermountain West, like the Cape Coral (151 percent), Austin (129 pct), Atlanta (126 percent), and Las Vegas (139 per centum) metro areas, each of which saw its suburban poor population more than than double.

Many older, historically manufacturing-oriented regions in the Midwest also experienced higher up-boilerplate increases in their suburban poor populations, including metro Detroit (87 percent), Chicago (84 percent), and Cleveland (62 pct). While those regions have long been associated with the challenges of urban poverty, each now counts more than poor residents outside their cardinal cities than in them.

Relatively strong regional economies like the Washington, DC and Seattle metro areas likewise shared in these trends, posting above-boilerplate upticks in the number of suburban residents living in poverty between 2000 and 2015 (66 and 63 percent, respectively).

Nor was this trend confined to older, distressed inner-ring suburbs that take a longer history of poverty. Poverty also grew in farther out suburbs, in bedroom communities, traditionally more than affluent communities, and in exurban communities on the metropolitan fringe, underscoring the increasing achieve of poverty into a broader assortment of places.ⁱⁱⁱ

Characteristics of the Urban and Suburban Poor

The biggest difference betwixt the urban and suburban poor populations in the nation'south largest metro areas lies in their racial and ethnic makeup. Non-Hispanic whites account for 44 percent of the poor population in suburbs, compared to just 24 percentage in large cities. That gap largely reflects differences in the overall racial and ethnic composition of cities and suburbs, although that has been irresolute over time as people of color, including poor people of color, have suburbanized at a faster clip. Still, the poor white population remains the most suburbanized amongst major racial and ethnic groups: seventy pct of poor whites in the nation'due south largest metro areas live in the suburbs compared to 52 pct of poor Asians, 47 percent of poor Hispanics, and 41 percentage of poor African Americans.

The suburban poor are as well more than likely to own their own habitation than their urban counterparts (36 versus 20 percent, respectively). Notwithstanding those differences, the urban and suburban poor population is quite similar. Near poor families are working families (roughly two-thirds in both cities and suburbs). Like shares of individuals have a disability (roughly 15 percent in both cases). The suburban poor skew slightly older—in part because poor seniors are slightly more suburbanized on average—only more than a third of the poor in both cities and suburbs are children. A hitting share of the poor lives in deep poverty (less than half the federal poverty line) in both cities (46 percent) and suburbs (44 percent).^four

Growing Concentrations of Poverty

Differences are less striking across the urban and suburban poor populations as a whole than they are across neighborhoods at different levels of poverty, regardless of where they are located. Poor neighborhoods tend to cluster disadvantages that create a drag on upwardly mobility and the long-term prospects of residents getting out of poverty over time.^v

That is especially concerning considering, after making gains in the 1990s toward de-concentrating poverty (i.eastward., reducing the number of very poor neighborhoods and the share of the poor living in them), the 2000s marked a rapid re-emergence of concentrated disadvantage, particularly in the mail-recession menstruum, that essentially erased earlier progress.^{half dozen}

The number of extremely poor neighborhoods (demography tracts with poverty rates of 40 percentage or more than) in the United States more than doubled between 2000 and 2010-14, as did the share of poor residents living in them. While concentrated poverty (i.e., the share of poor residents living in extremely poor neighborhoods) historically has been a largely urban challenge, the fastest growing concentrations of poverty in the 2000s emerged beyond the urban cadre. Suburbs saw the number of poor residents living in distressed neighborhoods grow by 188 percent, ahead of small metro areas (172 per centum), rural communities (103 pct), and cities (80 pct).

Urban residents remain unduly likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty: In 2010-xiv, cities posted a full-bodied poverty charge per unit of 25.5 pct, compared to xiii.7 percent in minor metro areas, and 7.1 percent in both suburbs and rural communities. But the pace of growth in concentrated disadvantage, and the rapid emergence of high-poverty neighborhoods, outside of city centers underscores the significant shifts and expansions the map of poverty in the U.s.a. has undergone in recent years, and the increasingly shared claiming it represents.

Drivers

The growth of poverty in the suburbs reflects a combination of contributing factors that saw both low-income individuals and families motility to the suburbs and more long-time suburban residents fall into poverty over time. These factors include:

• Growing and diversifying populations in the suburbs . Notwithstanding the recent resurgence of large metropolis populations, suburbs take grown at a faster pace overall than cities since 2000. Equally suburbs have connected to add together population, they have also increasingly captured a more diverse cross section of the nation. Office of that growth and growing diversity reflects shifting immigration patterns, equally more immigrants in recent years have bypassed cities to move to the suburbs of the nation's largest metro areas. However, as Roberto Suro and his colleagues plant, while immigrants accounted for 30 pct of suburban population growth in the 2000s, they contributed just 17 percent to the growth in the poor population in suburbs, pregnant native-born Americans largely collection the poverty tendency.^seven

• Regional housing market trends. The distribution of affordable housing options (oft determined by a mix of market trends, zoning decisions, and housing policy) as well affects the geography of the poor population over time. For instance, in some regions reinvestment in the urban core has translated to climbing housing costs that have led some residents to search for affordable options outside the city. In some cases, sure suburban communities have become more affordable to lower-income households over time as older, post-war housing stock has anile. The number of portable Housing Choice Vouchers also grew in the suburbs during the 2000s. Kenya Covington and her colleagues found that by the end of the decade most half of Housing Choice Voucher recipients in the nation's largest metro areas lived in suburbs.⁸ In improver, the subprime lending boom in the mid-2000s and the foreclosure crisis that followed tilted heavily toward the suburbs. In the nation's 100 largest metro areas, nearly three-quarters of the subprime loans that were originated betwixt 2004 and 2008 were located in suburban communities, as were nearly three-quarters of foreclosures that followed the collapse of the housing market.⁹

• The continued suburbanization of jobs. Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll take plant that poor residents tend to exist more suburbanized in regions where employment is more decentralized.^x Almost every major metro expanse saw the residual of employment shift away from downtown during the 2000s. By the end of the decade 43 percent of jobs in the nation'south largest metro areas were located more than than 10 miles from downtown—nearly twice the share of jobs located within 3 miles of a fundamental business commune (23 per centum). The manufacturing, structure, and retail services industries were among the most suburbanized, with the bulk of jobs in each industry located more than 10 miles away from downtown.¹¹

• Downturns in the economy. Both of the recessions that bookended the 2000s led to increases in poverty. However, the 2nd, much deeper recession hitting suburbs harder than previous downturns, pushing suburban unemployment rates up by margins on par with urban increases.¹² The housing-led nature of the Great Recession helps explain the impact on suburbs, every bit does the geography of the job losses that followed the collapse of the housing marketplace. Between 2007 and 2010, manufacturing, construction, and retail deemed for 60 percent of job losses in the 100 largest metro areas, and half of those chore losses occurred more 10 miles away from downtown.¹³

• The prevalence of low-wage piece of work. Although the Great Recession intensified the growth of poverty in the suburbs, information technology only accelerated a shift that was already well underway. The recovery, even several years on, shows no sign of undoing that shift, in function because of longer-running structural changes in the labor market place—including the growing prevalence of low-wage work—that volition keep to affect suburban communities aslope urban and rural America. According to U.Due south. Bureau of Labor Statistics projections, many of the occupations expected to generate the well-nigh job growth in the adjacent decade will be in the service sector, including occupations like personal care aides, dwelling house health aides, nursing assistants, retails salespersons, and restaurant cooks that offer typical annual earnings betwixt $twenty,000 and $25,000.¹⁴ Simply as lower-wage jobs are more probable to locate in suburbs than higher-skilled employment, most workers (67 percent) employed in lower-wage occupations (e.g., sales, food preparation and service, and building and grounds cleaning and maintenance) live in the suburbs.¹⁵

No one cistron alone was responsible for the widespread growth of poverty in the suburbs. While the multiple dynamics described above intersect in different ways depending on the community, they also underscore the complex assortment of factors that piece of work together to shape both poverty's trajectory and its distribution across places.

Challenges

The rapidly irresolute geography of poverty begs the question: is the rise of poverty in the suburbs necessarily a bad thing? Popular perceptions of suburbia would suggest that being poor in the suburbs affords access to the kind of opportunities—schools, jobs, networks—that provide a better platform for poor residents to eventually piece of work their manner out of poverty. (Indeed past public policies—similar the Moving to Opportunity experiment—have been premised on exactly that assumption.)

Only the answer to that question is: it depends. America'due south suburbs are a various collection of places that, as the recent increases in concentrated poverty might advise, do not uniformly offer access to such opportunities. And whether flush, centre grade, blue collar, or distressed, or whether they fall in the urbanized inner-ring or the more rural exurban fringe, many of the suburbs that experienced the steepest upticks in poverty in contempo years are now dealing with it at levels they were not built, nor are they now equipped, to address.

Some of the first-club challenges poor families and individuals in the suburbs face up chronicle directly to those gaps in infrastructure, support systems, and capacity, including:

• Express transportation options and fewer jobs nearby. Perhaps non surprisingly, given the nature of metropolitan transit systems, suburban residents are less probable to accept admission to public transit than their urban counterparts. When transit options exist in the suburbs service is oft less frequent and regional connectivity tends to be weaker. On boilerplate, residents in depression-income suburban neighborhoods that have access to transit tin reach just 25 percent of metro area jobs in a 90-minute commute. The share of jobs reachable drops to 4 percent if the commute time is reduced to 45 minutes.¹⁶ Function of the challenge stems from the fact that many of the traditional hub-and-spoke transit systems designed to connect suburbs to the city exercise non offer the suburb-to-suburb connections that have go increasingly important as jobs have continued to decentralize. The average poor resident in the nation'south largest metro areas saw the number of jobs within a typical commute distance driblet by 17 percent over the class of the 2000s.¹⁷That means that, by and large, suburban residents are dependent on owning and maintaining a automobile—and must bear the associated costs—to reach employment opportunities that are frequently growing in other parts of the region.

• Thinner and patchier nonprofit safety nets. As Scott Allard and Benjamin Roth have documented, the suburban nonprofit safety net tends to be stretched thin, with relatively fewer providers serving larger catchment areas than in cities. The types of services available in suburbs also tend to be patchier than the continuum of services typically institute in urban centers. That means critical services and wraparound supports that could help poor suburban residents atmospheric condition periods of economical instability or find and maintain employment may be harder to access or missing. For instance, among the large suburban municipalities Allard and Roth studied, more than half lacked a food assistance provider, 61 percent had no registered substance abuse service providers, and eighty percent lacked a registered employment services provider.¹⁸

• Limited capacity amidst local governments. Compared to the nation'south larger cities, suburban governments often have fewer resources and less institutional capacity and expertise to bargain with rise demand. The resources and chapters gap is particularly pronounced in smaller suburban communities and those that have seen their overall population counts stagnate or decline, leaving a diminished tax base even equally demand has continued to abound.

A number of additional factors make information technology difficult to span the gaps outlined above to effectively address the geographic calibration and achieve of poverty today, including:

• Jurisdictional fragmentation. The suburbs in whatever given metro area comprise multiple jurisdictions. For example, Allard and Roth count more than 600 cities, townships, and village governments in the 13 counties that make up Chicago's suburban ring.¹⁹ What is more than, jurisdictions frequently overlap in complicated means—municipalities span more than ane county, or schoolhouse districts intersect with multiple municipalities or parts of both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Such a complicated tapestry of jurisdictions, many of which are relatively minor, means individual jurisdiction frequently struggle to mount effective responses to growing need. At the aforementioned fourth dimension, rather than marshaling resource at the calibration needed to address shared challenges, communities often discover themselves compelled to compete against each other for limited resources.

• Lagging philanthropic resources. Sarah Reckhow and Margaret Weir's inquiry has found that, even in regions where the suburban poor population now outnumbers the urban poor, philanthropic resources proceed to disproportionately menstruum to urban centers. Some of the lag stems from the fact that local community foundations are more likely to be located in big cities, while suburban community foundations tend to be relatively newer and smaller in scale and capacity. And some of the imbalance reflects the weaker nonprofit chapters in suburbs that tin get in harder for funders to find potential grantees. Yet, Reckhow and Weir likewise found that funders dedicated relatively little investment in the 2000s to edifice capacity in suburban communities, suggesting that, absent a change in funding priorities, it may bear witness difficult to interruption the cocky-reinforcing chapters/funding gap.²⁰

• A lack of responsiveness in federal programs designed with a different geography of poverty in listen. Forthcoming research from Brookings shows that federal anti-poverty funding streams often exhibit a similar geographic lag, or unduly urban tilt, as philanthropic dollars. Some of that tilt is an artefact of the pattern of place-based anti-poverty programs, many of which were created with the express purpose of serving distressed urban neighborhoods or rural communities and exercise not necessarily or naturally extend to encompass suburbs. For case, program formula or eligibility criteria that prioritize poverty rates (e.g., the process for designating Medically Underserved Areas) may miss struggling suburbs with larger poor populations that spread over greater distances.

Even many anti-poverty or opportunity-oriented programs typically thought of as "people-based" are identify-based in practice because they depend on "bricks and mortar" delivery models. Think of subsidized childcare or task training programs. The funds for these types of programs often are allocated in ways that favor denser, urban settings with higher poverty rates. The lack of nonprofit and local government chapters in many suburban communities can hateful that many eligible suburban residents cease upward missing out on important benefits because they are non bachelor in or reasonably near their community.

• Outdated perceptions. Rapidly growing poverty in the suburbs can often experience "subconscious." Outdated understandings of where poverty is and who it affects shapes an array of important factors—including the charitable giving of individuals; the priorities of philanthropy, service commitment, and policy pattern; and the political will (or lack thereof) to address it—and tin hamper efforts to reply finer to the shifting geography of poverty.

Responses

As more places bargain with poverty at levels non seen earlier, particularly suburbs and smaller metropolitan areas where its presence may be newer, information technology is unrealistic to expect these communities to replicate from whole cloth everything cities or rural communities take done over multiple decades to address poverty. Not only would that take too long given the pressing need, there simply are not plenty public or individual resources to practise and so (and even if in that location were, creating duplicative services and systems in every community would not exist an efficient use of them). Nor is the recognition of poverty's broader reach today meant to trigger an "us-versus-them," zero-sum resource contest with urban and rural communities that have long struggled with poverty and go on to do and so. Instead, today's geography of poverty calls for more crosscutting and responsive approaches that work at a more than constructive scale to address poverty in the context of identify.

Examples of what these approaches could look similar already exist in communities beyond the country, having emerged from local and regional innovation and leadership. In some cases, organizations that already operate at a larger geographic and programmatic scale are taking the lead. With their ability to work across dissimilar types of communities and issue areas and weave together a diverse range of funding sources, these entities—whether high-performing multifaceted social service providers similar Neighborhood Centers in metropolitan Houston or high-capacity community development fiscal institutions like The Reinvestment Fund on the East Coast or IFF in the Midwest—tin often leverage their scale and range of expertise to fill up capacity gaps in underserved communities, whether urban, suburban, or rural.

Beyond these types of entities, many communities across the country are finding ways to achieve scale through collaboration, which tin can accept several forms. These collaborative models may bring together:

• Neighboring suburbs. For case, the West Cook County Housing Collaborative emerged in Chicago's suburbs in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. Rather than compete against each other for limited funds to address shared challenges around housing blight and distress, five jurisdictions—Bellwood, Berwyn, Forest Park, Maywood, and Oak Park—came together to collectively apply for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Recognizing the efficiencies and benefits of coordinating equally a sub-region later successfully attracting funds, the collaborative continues to piece of work together on housing strategies to upgrade distressed properties and foster livable communities that offering admission to transportation options and other amenities.

• Urban and suburban jurisdictions. In Due south King County, where much of the Seattle region's poverty is full-bodied, school districts from six suburbs—Auburn, Federal Mode, Highline, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila—have partnered with schools from the southward side of the Seattle Public School District equally part of the Road Map Project. A Race to the Superlative grantee, the Road Map Project is a collective bear on cradle-to-career initiative that has set measurable benchmarks and brought together a diverse range of stakeholders to improve educational outcomes and close achievement gaps for low-income and minority students.

• Suburban and rural communities. In the Kansas Metropolis region, Affordable Care Human activity funds enabled the Wellness Partnership Clinic in suburban Johnson County to get a federally qualified health center. The funds as well allowed the Clinic to scale upwardly its operations in the canton and, through a partnership with the Elizabeth Layton Center (a mental wellness provider that serves Miami and rural Franklin Counties), expand the number of low-income clients receiving care across a broader swath of communities.

Regardless of the mix of entities or jurisdictions, constructive collaborative models tend to have a "quarterback" or "courage" entity that provides the staff capacity and expertise to organize, maintain, and implement on the collaborative goals.

Only these innovators and quarterbacks face a number of challenges as they attempt to make the often fragmented and inflexible anti-poverty policy and funding mural work in new ways for a broader geography of need. Difficulties in standing up these models can include managing crushing red tape and the increased administrative strain of trying to work across multiple programs that lack alignment in their reporting requirements; pushing up against administrative practices or rules that frustrate efforts to collaborate across jurisdictions; and confronting a lack of defended back up for quarterback chapters building and support.

If federal policymakers adopted a few mutual principles when making decisions around anti-poverty/pro-opportunity policies, and especially those that are targeted to or delivered in places, it could help ameliorate align resources and accelerate the adoption of more than effectively scaled solutions that work across different kinds of communities to connect residents to economic opportunity. Federal policy could:

• Explicitly encourage collaborative approaches that cutting across jurisdictional boundaries and policy silos. Past offering incentives (e.thousand., through the awarding of points in the awarding procedure), federal programs could reward communities already working collaboratively and encourage more jurisdictions to undertake cooperative strategies. In addition, clarifying where electric current funding streams can already support collaboration, and removing any administrative barriers that prevent collaboration (in practice if not on newspaper), would also help clear the way for these types of initiatives.

• Catalyze regional capacity. By making funds available to build and back up the capacity of entities or organizations that serve as collaborative quarterbacks, federal investments could assist advance activity-oriented collaboration and shut some of the gaps in capacity that hinder the ability of individual jurisdictions to address growing demand.

• Allow for experimentation and evaluation of opportunity-oriented regional strategies. Providing opportunities for loftier-performing, regionally-scaled organizations and cross-jurisdictional collaboratives to experiment—whether through waivers or demonstration projects—and evaluate new models could advance learning around what strategies work all-time to leverage express resources in means that promote access to opportunity and upward mobility across the diverse assortment of communities at present confronting the shared challenges of poverty.

Footnotes

1. For the purposes of this assay, "cities" refer to chief cities in the nation'south 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). A primary city is defined every bit the first named city in the official MSA title and any other city in the MSA name that has a population of 100,000 or more, which means a region could take between i and three master cities. The suburbs are defined as the remainder of the region inside the MSA only exterior of the primary city or cities. Small metro areas comprise all other MSAs outside the top 100, and rural areas include all counties that are not a part of an MSA.
2. For an analysis of how these geographic trends map to different congressional districts, meet: Elizabeth Kneebone, "Poverty Crosses Political party Line," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2016) https://www.brookings.edu/enquiry/poverty-crosses-party-lines/#AL.
3. For a detailed word of the types of suburban communities that experienced increases in poverty, see Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America. (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2013).
4. Ibid.
5. Encounter, e.g., Elizabeth Kneebone, Carey Nadeau, and Alan Berube, "The Re-Emergence of Concentrated Poverty: Metropolitan Trends in the 2000s" (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2011).
6. Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes, "U.Southward. Concentrated Poverty in the Wake of the Great Recession," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2016).
7. Roberto Suro, Jill Wilson, and Audrey Singer, "Immigration and Poverty in America's Suburbs," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2011).
8. Kenya Covington, Lance Freeman, and Michael Stoll, "The Suburbanization of Housing Choice Voucher Recipients," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2011).
9. Chris Schildt and others, "The Subprime Crisis in Suburbia: Exploring the Links between Foreclosures and Suburban Poverty," (Federal Reserve Depository financial institution of San Francisco, 2013).
10. Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll, "Job Sprawl and the Suburbanization of Poverty," (Washington: Brookings Establishment, 2010).
11. Elizabeth Kneebone, "Task Sprawl Stalls: The Dandy Recession and Metropolitan Employment Location," (Washington: Brookings Establishment, 2013).
12. Emily Garr, "The Landscape of Recession: Unemployment and Prophylactic Cyberspace Services Across Urban and Suburban America," (Washington: Brookings Establishment, 2011).
13. Kneebone, "Chore Sprawl Stalls."
14. Encounter https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_104.htm.
15. Jane Williams and Alan Berube, "The Metropolitan Geography of Low-Wage Work," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2014).
16. Adie Tomer and others, "Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2011).
17. Elizabeth Kneebone and Natalie Holmes, "The Growing Distance Betwixt People and Jobs in Metropolitan America," (Washington: Brookings Establishment, 2015).
18. Scott W. Allard and Benjamin Roth, "Strained Suburbs: The Social Service Challenges of Ascension Suburban Poverty," (Washington: Brookings Establishment, 2010).
19. Ibid.
20. Sarah Reckhow and Margaret Weir, "Building a Stronger Regional Prophylactic Net: Philanthropy'southward Part," (Washington: Brookings Institution, 2011).

diezshumbery.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-changing-geography-of-us-poverty/

Share this post