|
Discussion about the State of California’s efforts to advance the affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) objective of increasing access to opportunity have typically framed neighborhood opportunity broadly, in terms of higher and lower levels of “resources,” rather than in terms of the specific characteristics of those neighborhoods. In a new analysis, we “peak under the hood” to better understand one important dimension of neighborhood opportunity: schools. Specifically, we explore how the State’s approach to advancing the specific AFFH objective of increasing access to opportunity has impacted school environments for families living in LIHTC-financed affordable housing.
We find that the State’s opportunity area incentives have led to modest increases in the likelihood that family-serving affordable housing financed with 4% LIHTCs is located in neighborhoods served by schools with higher test scores, lower rates of chronic absenteeism, and higher rates of post-secondary enrollment – as well as more racially integrated schools. However, little corresponding change has occurred in the 9% program.
We also find profound differences between school environments in higher and lower resource neighborhoods on the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. For example, the median 4th grade math proficiency rate is 59% for schools in Highest Resource areas and 21% for schools in Low Resource areas – a troubling gap, given school test scores’ association with long-term economic prospects for children from low-income families. Schools in higher resource areas are also more likely to be racially integrated than schools in lower resource areas, which are typically served by BIPOC-segregated schools with few white students present.
It is important to note that the State’s opportunity area incentives are intended to advance the AFFH objective of increasing access to opportunity, but not other AFFH objectives, such as transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. These other objectives implicate school environments, are critical to the State’s approach to addressing segregation and its negative effects, and deserve the State’s full attention. Both mobility and place-based strategies are critical components of a comprehensive approach to advancing AFFH objectives, as we outlined in a prior policy brief.
To read the full analysis, click here. Detailed summary statistics from the analysis are available in an appendix here.
* * *
This piece was written by Yasmin Givens and Dan Rinzler. Yasmin is a Research Analyst and Dan is Associate Research Director at the California Housing Partnership. Special thanks to Matt Alvarez-Nissen, Senior Research/Policy Associate at the California Housing Partnership, for support in the data analysis of this memo.
| 
