|
|||
 |
|||
|
![[Image: Compass Rose]](/art/CompassRoseSmall.jpg)
|
|
|
|
Chapter 4 POVERTY, RACE AND GENDER IN CINCINNATI
The concepts of race and ethnicity as used in the decennial census present some complex issues. For example, separate questions are asked about whether a respondent is black and whether a respondent is Hispanic. This means one can be enumerated as both black and Hispanic. Moreover, the 2000 census for the first time offered respondents the option of listing more than one race. This means, for instance, one could be multiracial (e.g., white and black) as well as Hispanic.
For the purposes of this report, we have defined as African American all non-Hispanic respondents to the 2000 census who listed themselves as being of one race, black. We have done this to maintain comparability with the previous editions of the Social Areas Report, and to avoid confounding ethnicity with race. This is not just a pragmatic decision, however. The social science literature indicates that within American society, multiracial people tend to adapt to the general white population to the extent they are able, while Spanish-speaking blacks do not readily assimilate into the resident African American population.
Poverty in Cincinnati In 2000, the median percent of Cincinnati families in each census tract with incomes below poverty level was 18 percent. The median income for Cincinnati families was $37,500. Figure 3 shows tracts that have poverty rates higher than 18 percent (gray areas) and incomes below the median incomes (striped areas). Most of these income indicators overlap. However, there are five areas on the map that are striped but not shaded. These five tracts have family incomes below the overall city median, but do not have high percentages of families below poverty. Two tracts (26 and 32) have high percentages of college students. The other three are blue collar Appalachian (61) and African American (41 and 63) sections. Table 4a reveals the numbers behind the map in figure 3.
Women and Poverty Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between poverty and female headed households in Cincinnati census tracts. Note that the relationship between poverty and female-headed households is not consistent. Several predominantly Appalachian areas and the three tracts in the University of Cincinnati area have high poverty rates but not high percentages of female headed households. Other areas, some heavily African American, have high percentages of female headed households but not high rates of poverty. Excluding the atypical area around the University, figure 4 makes clear that even within the African American and Appalachian communities there are a variety of neighborhood patterns. Clearly, poverty and female headed households are not synonymous. Furthermore, there are several low income heavily white Appalachian areas in which traditional family structure is fairly intact. Table 4b provides the numbers and percentage of female headed households in poverty. Looking at all 48 neighborhoods, in 41 neighborhoods the majority of these families with incomes below poverty are female headed. In fact over 70 percent of the families in poverty are headed by a female. Table 4b reveals the majority of female headed families in poverty live in Over-The-Rhine, West End, Fay Apartments, College Hill, North Fairmount-English Woods, Winton Hills, Avondale, East Price Hill, and Westwood. Avondale and Westwood have the highest numbers.
Poverty and Race Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between poverty and race. The two types of shading show that while the heart of Cincinnati's African American core area is also an area of high poverty, there are numerous tracts in which there are more than the median number of African Americans but poverty rates are not above average. Excluding the University area (tracts 27, 29, and 30) poor white areas are shown in the gray unstriped areas. These tracts are heavily Appalachian.
African American Middle Class Neighborhoods After viewing the 1990 census we were able to write that, One of the more dramatic and hopeful findings of this report is that the neighborhoods which have become home to the vast majority of Cincinnati's African American middle class have reversed a long trend of declining social indicators and are either stable or improving (Table 4c and Table 9).
Avondale, College Hill, Evanston, Kennedy Heights, Bond Hill, and Madisonville are beginning to stabilize after two decades of decline." Walnut Hills and Mt. Auburn have not only reversed their pattern of decline but, as of 1990, were improving. North Avondale - Paddock Hills, an SES IV neighborhood, not only reversed its pattern of decline, it also stabilized in terms of racial change (Table 4e).
Table 4a Cincinnati Neighborhoods' Median Family Incomes
Table 4a (continued) Cincinnati Neighborhoods' Median Family Incomes
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
