Posted by: Richie Bernardo

In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., shared with the world his dream of a colorblind society — one that focuses on his children’s character, not on their complexion. America has certainly come closer to realizing Dr. King’s vision though segregation and discrimination persist.

But prominent incidents of police brutality against blacks in recent years have threatened to reverse decades of social progress. And Donald Trump’s presidential triumph has invited a more negative outlook on U.S. race relations today. According to the results of a survey by the Pew Research Center, “Nearly half of U.S. voters (46%) expect Trump’s election to lead to worse race relations... By contrast, after Obama’s election eight years ago, 52% of voters expected race relations to improve.”

Nonetheless, it’s important to emphasize the racial harmony we’ve achieved — in our workplaces, in our schools, in our voting booths. In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, WalletHub’s analysts measured the gaps between blacks and whites in 16 key indicators of equality and integration for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our data set ranges from “median annual income” to “standardized test scores” to “voter turnout.” Continue reading below for our findings, expert commentary and a full description of our methodology.

1. Racial Integration Ranking
2. Racial Progress Ranking
3. Ask the Experts
4. Methodology

Racial Integration Ranking

This ranking measures the current integration level of whites and blacks. We have also constructed a separate ranking of the states’ level of racial progress achieved over time.

Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/18428/geochart-racial1.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2qHNPyn;  

Overall Rank	State	Total Score	‘Employment & Wealth’ Rank	‘Education & Civic Engagement’ Rank	‘Health’ Rank
1	Hawaii	73.59	1	8	44
2	Idaho	69.29	19	6	1
3	Kentucky	67.11	11	7	13
4	Texas	66.66	5	5	34
5	Delaware	66.05	2	22	26
6	Nevada	65.91	13	9	16
7	West Virginia	65.73	18	1	15
8	Oklahoma	64.79	24	3	17
9	Montana	64.63	9	4	40
10	Tennessee	64.43	10	13	27
11	Maryland	64.38	4	16	35
12	New Mexico	63.83	3	2	50
13	Alaska	63.79	7	35	12
14	Arizona	63.56	6	21	25
15	Georgia	63.49	14	12	39
16	Wyoming	63.34	26	11	6
17	California	62.74	17	10	32
18	Virginia	61.44	8	28	30
19	Utah	61.06	22	25	10
20	North Carolina	60.84	16	17	38
21	Florida	59.73	15	37	21
22	Rhode Island	59.70	21	41	5
23	Oregon	59.32	28	26	14
24	New Jersey	59.25	29	19	28
25	Alabama	59.07	25	18	42
26	New Hampshire	58.74	41	15	3
27	Washington	58.73	12	47	9
28	North Dakota	58.52	38	32	4
29	Arkansas	58.32	31	24	22
30	South Carolina	58.24	20	36	29
31	New York	57.77	30	34	20
32	Indiana	57.77	37	14	37
33	Massachusetts	57.56	27	44	7
34	Missouri	57.46	32	20	41
35	Colorado	56.99	23	48	8
36	Connecticut	55.72	34	39	18
37	Louisiana	55.68	36	31	31
38	Mississippi	55.43	35	33	36
39	Nebraska	53.39	39	40	11
40	Pennsylvania	53.34	40	29	33
41	Vermont	51.23	43	27	24
42	Kansas	51.09	33	43	43
43	Ohio	50.86	42	23	49
44	Illinois	48.10	45	30	48
45	Michigan	47.79	44	38	46
46	Maine	46.50	49	42	2
47	Iowa	45.94	46	46	23
48	South Dakota	41.24	47	49	45
49	Minnesota	40.72	48	50	19
50	Wisconsin	39.91	50	45	47
51	District of Columbia	30.37	51	51	51

 

Racial Progress Ranking

This ranking measures the level of racial progress achieved over time. We have also constructed a separate ranking of the states’ current racial integration level.

Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/18428/geochart-racial2.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2qHNPyn;  

Overall Rank	State	Total Score	‘Employment & Wealth’ Rank	‘Education & Civic Engagement’ Rank	‘Health’ Rank
1	Georgia	67.56	1	10	37
2	New Jersey	66.71	4	4	19
3	Maryland	66.30	2	19	10
4	Mississippi	65.70	5	3	30
5	Wyoming	64.92	21	9	N/A
6	New Mexico	63.78	6	8	46
7	North Dakota	63.70	11	50	1
8	Texas	63.20	3	11	43
9	North Carolina	62.68	13	12	27
10	Louisiana	61.25	20	18	17
11	New York	61.23	14	22	20
12	Alabama	61.22	7	17	40
13	Arizona	61.20	24	2	21
14	Virginia	61.06	8	23	25
15	Delaware	61.00	16	6	42
16	California	60.76	15	15	34
17	Arkansas	59.62	18	21	28
18	Tennessee	59.48	17	30	16
19	Florida	59.03	19	16	39
20	Connecticut	58.88	10	32	29
21	Rhode Island	58.69	22	33	23
22	South Carolina	57.29	9	37	35
23	Massachusetts	56.79	23	29	31
24	Idaho	56.62	39	5	2
25	Hawaii	55.67	12	43	44
26	Illinois	55.54	25	26	13
27	Oklahoma	53.58	27	25	33
28	Pennsylvania	53.00	31	36	6
29	Nevada	52.88	28	1	45
30	Missouri	52.79	26	35	24
31	Oregon	52.45	35	13	11
32	District of Columbia	52.01	34	34	9
33	Kansas	51.73	37	7	32
34	Washington	51.53	29	46	4
35	Michigan	50.39	43	27	12
36	Indiana	50.20	42	20	22
37	New Hampshire	50.03	32	49	3
38	Kentucky	49.82	30	39	36
39	Alaska	49.33	38	24	18
40	Colorado	49.22	33	42	7
41	West Virginia	49.05	36	38	15
42	Utah	48.27	41	14	41
43	Ohio	47.47	40	40	26
44	Montana	46.60	44	31	N/A
45	Nebraska	45.04	46	28	38
46	Wisconsin	44.90	45	44	14
47	Minnesota	41.05	50	45	5
48	Iowa	41.00	49	41	8
49	Vermont	37.69	48	47	N/A
50	South Dakota	34.24	47	51	47
51	Maine	33.12	51	48	N/A

 

Ask the Experts

The harsh realities of racial segregation and discrimination are no longer as visible in America as they once were — but they persist. In order to understand the driving forces behind such problems and possible solutions, we asked a panel of experts to share their thoughts and ideas. Click on the experts’ profiles to read their bios and responses to the following key questions:

1. What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households?
2. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment and education?
3. Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how?
4. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities?

< >

• Theresa Davidson Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Samford University
• Jeffrey-Green Associate Professor of Political Theory and Director of the Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Science
• Elizabeth Korver-Glenn Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of New Mexico
• Jerry Z. Park Associate Professor of Sociology and Affiliate Fellow of the Institute for Studies on Religion at Baylor University
• Brian L. Turner Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Xavier University of Louisiana
• James Russell Lecturer in Public Policy in the Department of Political Science at Portland State University & Author of “Double Standard: Social Policy in Europe and the United States and Class and Race Formation in North America”
• Irving Joyner Professor of Law at North Carolina Central University School of Law
• Michael S. Rodriguez Associate Professor of Political Science and Campus Liaison for the Washington Internship Program at Stockton University
• Kevin D. Brown Richard S. Melvin Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Theresa Davidson Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Samford University What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? The two key reasons for the wealth gap between black and white households are the history of housing discrimination and the persistence of racial residential segregation in this country. Discriminatory housing practices in the pre-Civil Rights era included awarding low-interest and low-down payment FHA loans almost exclusively to whites in the years following World War II. Less than 2 percent of these funds were given to black families. This relegated black families to a rental market, and homeownership is the way most Americans build their wealth. Another discriminatory practice included redlining (denying mortgage loans) neighborhoods that were predominantly black or racially diverse. Finally, “blockbusting” tactics (buying homes from white families and reselling them, often at a higher price, to black families) were used to profit from white homeowners’ fear of blacks, thus creating predominantly black neighborhoods with declining property values. These processes ensured whites could grow wealth through homeownership, and blacks were left behind in rental markets, or, as homeowners in neighborhoods that would not see value increases. In addition, these processes created segregated neighborhoods that persist today. Neighborhoods that are predominantly black see lower property values, smaller property taxes to contribute to their schools, and they experience disinvestment by businesses that could contribute to the tax base. Whites generally will not buy homes in predominantly black neighborhoods; thus, the cycle of segregation continues. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? Authorities can uphold Civil Rights-era legislation regarding desegregation. For example, in Alabama, a suburb named Gardendale (predominantly white), has attempted to separate from the larger (predominantly black) county school district. This would shrink the tax base for the schools left behind if Gardendale should exit. This would ensure that the city of Gardendale would have a stronger and more concentrated tax base for their students. Many cities around the south have attempted or completed this process. This reinforces segregation and solidifies the inequalities that come with it. Regarding employment, racial residential segregation also negatively impacts opportunities and outcomes. Researchers have identified something called “place stigma,” whereby individuals who reside in neighborhoods that are known to be largely minority, low-income, and high-crime are marked as unemployable. Your address becomes a proxy for your reliability and trustworthiness. This is a problem. Add this to the fact that there are fewer good job opportunities in predominantly black and lower-income areas, and you’ve got additional layers of disadvantage. Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how? In short, yes. And as stated previously, upholding Federal desegregation laws. In addition, builders and contractors should consider mixed-income housing. Affordable housing is at a crisis in our country, and this can provide an opportunity for those in the private sector to meet a need. So, developments could offer higher- and lower-priced housing opportunities that would encourage families from different backgrounds to live and socialize together. This could meet a desperate need for affordable housing for families, while facilitating social interactions that can build social capital and break down stigma and stereotypes. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities? This is a complex question that likely involves a lot of factors. For example, there may be less racial inequality in some states simply because white income and wealth is lower in general, thus reducing the gap. Another possibility is that some states may be more vigilant about enforcing desegregation than other states. Another possibility is disproportionate incarceration rates by race from one state to another. Incarceration profoundly impacts racial minorities, in particular blacks. Incarceration lowers wages and leads to employment and housing discrimination. Yet another factor is access to health care. Some states extend health care more expansively. Good health is correlated with continued and stable employment. Many states in the south with a history of racial hostility have not expanded Medicaid. This directly affects blacks. All of these factors, and many more, can negatively affect wealth accumulation. While I think financial literacy and human capital investment are positive efforts that should be pursued, I do not think these things will have an impact on wealth inequality. Racial wealth inequality is largely the result of public policies and decades of systemic discrimination. Until we tackle inequities at the structural level, little will change. Jeffrey-Green Associate Professor of Political Theory and Director of the Andrea Mitchell Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Science What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? This is a profound and serious topic, especially as it pertains to divergences between African Americans and white Americans, with the mean white family having seven times the wealth of the mean African-American family, and median white family having twelve times that of the median African American family. While much of this gap is a result of a long and sad tradition of racism in America, I would also understand it from the perspective of how the poor and impoverished have fared generally over the last generation or two. After all, racial and economic inequality are highly related in America. Blacks and other minorities are disproportionately impoverished. Whereas about 10 percent of whites in America live in poverty, approximately 27 percent of African Americans do, as well as nearly the same percentage of Native Americans and about 23 percent of Hispanics. A crucial problem over the last 40 years has been the inability of the political process to effectively represent the interests of poor, impoverished, and even working-class individuals. This has not arisen simply from abstract market forces, but has been caused by concrete political changes -- like the failure to keep the real minimum wage consistent with 1960 levels (let alone raise it, as it has fallen significantly in real terms since the 1960s); the passage of tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich; and the elimination of estate taxes that likewise has an economic benefit exclusively for the rich -- which have not served the economic welfare of the poorest members of society. Whereas the 1960s witnessed the launch of a “war on poverty,” today we sadly accept poverty as inevitable. When one adds to these politico-economic changes the recent disturbing trends in voter disenfranchisement -- such as a dramatic uptick in gerrymandering and voter suppression over the last decade (both of which disproportionately disadvantage poor minorities) -- there is even more reason to fear that the political system has failed the least advantaged members of society. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? Societies, such as the Nordic countries, that do better in these regards have much more robust welfare systems, less onerous voter registration laws, do not accept poverty as a necessity, regulate campaign finance more aggressively, and aim to be much more egalitarian in the distribution of educational resources. They also have a proportional representative system which incentives voting even for minority parties. To be sure, there is significant (though lesser) economic and racial inequality in these countries as well -- and, as in the U.S., the trend seems to be toward greater inequality -- but their institutions nonetheless suggest reforms which would meaningfully reduce the racial gap in America. Of course, these reforms are so massive that they are unlikely to occur anytime soon. In my recent book, “The Shadow of Unfairness,” I argue that in addition to seeking these more familiar kinds of reforms, liberal democracies would do well to spend greater attention to regulating the most advantaged members of society in the form of a kind of legalized noblesse oblige. Contemporary liberals, whether politicians or philosophers, are much more likely to have a lively notion of the least advantaged than the most advantaged, but this latter group has perhaps an untapped role to play in both redressing inequality and drawing society’s progressive attention to it. Some of the earliest democracies of which we have record -- for example, ancient Athens -- understood that part of the meaning of living in an egalitarian society was that the most advantaged members would be especially regulated, in the form of special taxes on the rich in times of emergency (the eisphora), or special services or liturgies (like building triremes or funding choruses and gymnasia) uniquely paid by the richest families. These regulations were burdens, but they were also honors. Reintroducing compulsory noblesse oblige would be a proper step in the direction of reducing the racial wealth gap and inequality more generally. Elizabeth Korver-Glenn Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of New Mexico What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? Two broad categories of causes contribute to the racial wealth gap between black and white households. First, the history of legal and widespread racial discrimination matters a great deal for contemporary wealth gaps. Unlike income, wealth (and associated inequalities) can be inherited and passed down across generations -- which means that the explicit connections between race and wealth accumulation from the pre-Civil Rights era continue to affect patterns of wealth accumulation today. For example, in the U.S., one of the main drivers of access to wealth among a broader public was increased access to homeownership in the early to mid-20th century. This access was made possible by affordable, federally backed and insured mortgages. During this period, whites were routinely granted access to these mortgages, while equally qualified blacks were routinely denied access. Not only that, but the federal government and other private lenders often refused to issue mortgage loans for homes in black neighborhoods, which were rated as “hazardous” and too risky for such loans. So, for decades, black households were officially, overtly locked out of the institutions that helped generate white wealth. The white wealth accumulation that was jumpstarted during this time continued and continues to be inherited and, in large part, grown. But black wealth accumulation only became more widespread after the Civil Rights movement helped increase black households’ access to homeownership and, even then, black wealth grew in fits and starts for various reasons, including incomplete and unevenly enforced fair housing legislation. If black wealth accumulation continued to grow at its current rate and white wealth were frozen at its current levels, it would take black families more than 220 years to catch up to white families’ current wealth. The second category of causes consists of contemporary processes that may appear to be race-neutral, but end up contributing to ongoing and, in recent years, increasing racial wealth gaps. Here, I’ll describe two that I think matter a great deal. The first, predatory mortgage lending, has its roots in the 1990s, when financial deregulation opened up a new, quite lucrative market for lenders interested in peddling loans to supposedly high-risk populations, often with unfavorable terms, ballooning rates, and so on. Unlike racial guidelines for mortgages in the 1930s and 1940s (for example), there was no official racial “rule” concerning who could access these late-20th/early-21st century subprime loans. Yet there is a large body of recent research documenting not only that subprime loans were disproportionately targeted at minority clients, including those who qualified for prime loans, but that these predatory lending practices intensified for blacks and Latinos at higher income levels. Consequently, black and Latino mortgage borrowers, as well as the predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods where they live, were disproportionately burdened by foreclosures and attendant wealth losses accompanying the recent housing crash. Another contemporary process with significant import for the racial wealth gap is that of appraising home value. Let’s go back to the history lesson above for just a moment: when the federal government instituted affordable and insured mortgage loans in the 1930s and 1940s, it also helped elevate and institutionalize the appraisal industry to determine home values and, ultimately, mortgage loan risk. From its inception, the appraisal industry used the racial composition of neighborhoods to assess home value, independent of actual home size and quality. Now fast forward back to the present, post-fair housing era: it is illegal for appraisers to explicitly use the neighborhood racial composition as a factor in its assessments of home value. The Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (Fannie Mae Form 1004) states, “Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors.” Yet, wide disparities in home values across white and black neighborhoods persist. In a study I conducted with my colleague Dr. Junia Howell (University of Pittsburgh), we examined 2015 home values for all tax-appraised single-family homes in Harris County (Houston), Texas and found that homes in white neighborhoods were valued more than two times higher than homes in black and Latino neighborhoods, net of individual home size and quality and neighborhood characteristics, including crime rates, school quality, socioeconomic status, consumer demand, and amenities. In interviews with appraisers, we found that a lack of standardized methods for selecting comparable (“comp”) homes -- the data used to determine home value -- enabled appraisers to rely on racial or racially coded assumptions about buyer or seller characteristics, consumer demand, and neighborhood desirability when making their “comp” choices. In practical terms, this meant that appraisers were choosing “comp” homes from racially similar, and not necessarily house- or geographically similar, areas. Ultimately, contemporary appraisal practices, while ostensibly race-neutral, actively contribute to racial disparities in home values, affecting how much wealth homeowners are able to accumulate, if any. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? In terms of addressing racial inequality, government authorities and researchers have focused on monitoring and intervening in disparate-treatment discrimination, or instances of individuals who are mistreated because of their race (or gender, religious, or other protected identity). But, in the post-Civil Rights era, it has largely become socially unacceptable to use explicit racial prejudice and epithets in more public settings, which makes finding evidence of or proving disparate-treatment discrimination more difficult. Thus, a key strategy that I think can be used to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education is to focus on disparate-impact consequences. Broadly, looking at disparate-impact consequences means measuring whether and to what extent outcomes or consequences vary systematically across racial (or gender, religious, or other protected) groups, and how these distinct outcomes happen. In terms of education, for example, black students are disproportionately disciplined relative to their white counterparts. And, school districts with higher proportions of white students have more funding per student than districts with higher proportions of minority students. Perhaps (contemporary) intentional or conscious racist behaviors are not fully responsible for creating these disparate outcomes. But these disparities are maintained somehow; they are not natural or inevitable (e.g., disciplinary disparities can emerge from differences in school policy and discretion and interpretation of disciplinary policy; school funding disparities can result from unequal tax revenues, which emerge from systematic differences in property values across racially distinct areas). State and local authorities should take these disparate consequences seriously and delve into their causes. With respect to wealth, authorities could standardize the appraisal industry’s comp selection process. Dr. Howell and I also recommend creating an automated software that generates potential comp selections from house- and geographically similar areas, such that appraisers’ (unconscious) racial assumptions do not factor into their comp choices and, thus, the appraised value of homes. If neighborhood racial disparities in home values were addressed, this would also help ameliorate disparities in school funding. Authorities could also examine the funding formulas that lead to racial differences in school resources, and rework these formulas so that all schools receive equitable funding -- a process that would take into consideration family and community economic resources. With respect to employment, systematic differences in wages across racial groups net of key characteristics like education and experience should prompt an examination of the processes that lead to these differences. These processes could include hiring, reviews or evaluations, promotions, or networking opportunities. Overall, state and local authorities should not be content with any evidence of declining disparate-treatment discrimination, or with official or organizational policies that are ostensibly race-neutral. Rather, they should look to ongoing disparate-impact outcomes, ask how these outcomes persist, and investigate whether policies that are apparently race-neutral on paper are actually racially just in practice. Doing so will help them better reduce these stubborn racial gaps in an era when overly racist behavior has largely been submerged (at least in racially diverse, public settings). Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how? Racial residential segregation is one of the main drivers of racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education and, as such, should be a primary focus for state and local authorities interested in cultivating a more just society. Similarly to my recommendations regarding wealth, employment, and education, I think a focus on disparate-impact consequences -- including not only the extent of differences but how they happen -- could be very helpful for addressing racial segregation. In a recently published paper, for example, I examined how real estate agents’ reliance on social networks to generate business could help reproduce disparate consequences for white and minority housing consumers. The vast majority of real estate agents, regardless of their race, generated most of their business through referrals or repeat clients. But, white real estate agents’ networks were predominantly white, while black and Latino agents had diverse sets of clients. Additionally, white real estate agents used “pocket listings,” or listings that are kept off of public exchanges, such as the local multiple listing service, far more often than their minority counterparts. When white real estate agents funnel these non-public listings to their primarily white clients, they disproportionately exclude minority housing consumers -- who may never know the home is for sale. No individual racial animus or disparate-treatment discrimination is needed for this process to contribute to racially segregated neighborhoods. One practical intervention here is that local authorities could work together with local real estate boards (who also lose out on fees when homes are not listed on their exchanges) to curtail the use of pocket listings. There are many other possible strategies for mitigating racial segregation, specifically using the lens of disparate-impact outcomes to help inform these interventions. Recent research on mortgage lending has helped lead the way here, but research on other key housing market industries such as real estate brokerage, property insurance provision, and appraising has largely remained in the domain of disparate-treatment discrimination. State and local authorities, in coordination with researchers, should increase scrutiny of disparate-impact outcomes in and across these industries as well. These efforts would go a long way in formulating more effective ways to mitigate racial segregation. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities? I do not think there is substantial evidence that some states do better than others in terms of addressing racial inequality. In fact, there is considerable consistency in levels of racial inequality across the U.S. Where variation does exist, it is often associated with racial composition or other metropolitan level characteristics, not state- or local-level policies (e.g., whites tend to self-segregate more in metropolitan areas with higher proportions of blacks). Part of the reason little state-level variation exists is that even in states where state or local authorities enact policies to address racial inequalities (as in attempts to desegregate schools and unify school districts), white constituents -- including those who support racial equity in theory -- oppose such efforts in practice. Jerry Z. Park Associate Professor of Sociology and Affiliate Fellow of the Institute for Studies on Religion at Baylor University What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? There are several explanations for the racial wealth gap between black and white households, and they point to contextual and historical instances of widespread systemic discrimination. All of these feed into one another to create a perpetual cycle of limited wealth transmission and accumulation for African Americans. If wealth is determined roughly by the difference between assets and debt, assets among African Americans remains very low. This is due to repeated instances historically, where black employment opportunities were limited resulting in low income. And where jobs could be had, pay was also inferior to their white counterparts for the same tasks. Low income and limited promotion meant that blacks, on average, faced a much harder situation to accumulate enough savings to place a down payment on a home, the primary investment of most Americans. Moreover, banks gave out fewer home loans to black applicants, and when they did offer a loan, the interest rates were considerably higher. This resulted in greater income strain, and increased the likelihood of foreclosure. Those who sustained these higher payments had a lower return on investment, since they had paid so much more interest relative to their white peers at the same income levels. Through restrictive and discriminatory practices like redlining, black homeowners saw little improvement in the value of their homes (again, relative to whites). Evidence suggests that there was direct and indirect collusion between banks and real estate brokers in preventing neighborhood integration, which in turn meant that the potential wealth that black homeowners would realize diminished, since white-dominant neighborhoods were always perceived as higher in value. Over the course of generations, repeated segregation of this variety resulted in lower tax revenue that would help fund public schools. Black households then faced poorer quality publicly-funded education due to segregation. Poorer quality education for the children meant lower likelihood of attending college, while the better-paying jobs were increasingly requiring a B.A. degree or better. This limited the prospects of young black workers entering the workforce, and they faced lower average pay. And the cycle repeats once again. Solutions to these problems are a different issue altogether. As I often tell my students in class, sociology is very good at diagnosing social problems, but it is not always the best at proposing great solutions to these problems. Brian L. Turner Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Xavier University of Louisiana What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? At current, we find there continues to be major issues in regards to opportunity, access, and information to the skills, education, and training to decrease the wealth gap. Many of the barriers are caused by continued racial tension set in the lack of cross-cultural experiences. Many Americans still to this day do not “have to” cross over into different cultural communities. This is even truer for many white Americans, who very rarely have to attend any institution that is not predominately white. As is such, until we truly build an America where persons are measured by their merits and less by their physical appearance, then the wealth gap will persist, because communities of color more likely don't control the access, opportunity, or information possible to achieve a greater piece of the American pie. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? At current, we find there continues to be major issues in regards to opportunity, access, and information to the skills, education, and training to decrease the wealth gap. Many of the barriers are caused by continued racial tension set in the lack of cross-cultural experiences. Many Americans still to this day do not “have to” cross over into different cultural communities. This is even truer for many white Americans, who very rarely have to attend any institution that is not predominately white. As is such, until we truly build an America where persons are measured by their merits and less by their physical appearance, then the wealth gap will persist, because communities of color more likely don't control the access, opportunity, or information possible to achieve a greater piece of the American pie. Also, we have to become innovative and creative in how traditional entities provide support to businesses, entrepreneurs, and other persons of color, who may not have the traditional or mainstream business model or “storefront,” but they provide a valuable and viable service that provides opportunity and economic equity in communities of color. Examples come to mind of beauty salons, barber shops, tattoo parlors, mom-and-pop restaurants, etc. -- these are all entities that if our authorities looked to, they could find real ways to assist in reducing gaps. Lastly, there has to be real consequences for people who break laws, like in response to Charlottesville. We can’t have Nazis or white nationalists running our country if we expect changes. Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how? Yes. Housing is a cornerstone of our society, and if people are not able to find a place to live, then how can they feel stable? How can they provide for their families? How can they feel safe in their place of living? Authorities have to ensure access to housing that is cost-effective and provides families access to the things they need to live and succeed. Ultimately, authorities should ensure that housing is safe, families are able to get to the things that are important (schools, transportation, health care, leisure activities, etc.) Louisiana is the incarceration capital of the world with the majority of incarcerated persons being black. In as much, this is an example of how housing can be an issue. If persons who are incarcerated are able to find housing with access to necessary supports, then they are less likely to reoffend, more likely to find employment, they refrain from past detrimental behaviors, and are generally better able to reenter their communities with more positive results. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities? I think some states have been serious about ensuring the overall success of its citizens. Atlanta is an example. Charlotte, Birmingham, Austin are some cities that specifically said that they wanted to make sure that everyone had access, opportunity, and information. Ultimately, if citizens are able to have those three things, which the cities listed above were able to do, then people are able to step up and will find success in the areas they can. James Russell Lecturer in Public Policy in the Department of Political Science at Portland State University & Author of “Double Standard: Social Policy in Europe and the United States and Class and Race Formation in North America” What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? We continue to live in the long shadow of slavery. The inequality that began with slavery has been reproduced in different ways and degrees through segregation and post-segregation. Blacks, on average, begin with huge disadvantages compared to whites, and face obstacles getting ahead that result from institutionalized discrimination and prejudice. At the same time, there has be progress, though not nearly enough to achieve equality. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? Make narrowing the gaps an explicit goal of policy. Then benchmark the existing degrees of inequality as a way of being able to determine progress toward their elimination. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities? There are three reasons. The first is making the reduction of racial inequalities an explicit goal of policy, as stated above. The second is developing programs that target racial inequality reduction. The third is having sufficient tax revenue that can be prioritized to funding the racial inequality reduction programs. Irving Joyner Professor of Law at North Carolina Central University School of Law What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? Historically, the wealth gap began with slavery, but became more pronounced and widespread during the long-term era of de jure and de facto segregation and racial discrimination. This discrimination prohibited meaningful participation by African Americans in politics, business, housing and education and was practiced by individuals, corporations and our state and federal government. The effect of the many discriminatory practices, racial bigotry and racial violence prevented the early accumulation and long-term distribution of wealth by African Americans. As such, present day generations of African Americans were forced to begin their economic life at a sufficient economic deficit, which they had to repeatedly dig out of without having the necessary capital or financial literacy to do so. White households and whites, in general, have never had to confront this prolonged and passionate level of discrimination and racial bias in politics, business, economics, housing and education. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? The solution to this problem is not simple. A beginning could be accomplished by some meaningful form of reparation, but that is not a viable political option. As such, the solution must be addressed by reversing negative race-based policies, regulations and reforming institutions which have supported the ongoing discrimination against African Americans. Efforts to open up the business and economic institutions to African Americans must begin and be successful. Efforts to halt the many widespread efforts, which are currently being conducted by the various states, to minimize political participation by African Americans are also necessary, as well as engaging in constructive reformation and improvements in providing a quality and meaningful education for African Americans. In addition, the federal and state governments should provide grants and low-cost loans which will allow African Americans to purchase and build quality housing within the communities in which they presently reside. Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how? States should and can enact legislation to outlaw discrimination in the securing and maintaining of housing by African Americans, and the states and federal government should aggressively enforce those laws which prohibit discrimination in housing use and acquisition. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities? Some states with more politically active African Americans have done more, because they have been aggressively pushed to make and maintain meaningful efforts to eliminate the racial discrimination, bias and bigotry of the past. Michael S. Rodriguez Associate Professor of Political Science and Campus Liaison for the Washington Internship Program at Stockton University What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? Public policies that proceed from the link between race and class have contributed quite directly to inequalities in wealth accumulation among black and white households. Several New Deal policies, such as Social Security, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the GI Bill conferred economic benefits to whites (particularly white men), while denying African Americans and other people of color equal access to these opportunities to join the middle class. Public Policies either reinforced (for whites) or hampered (for African Americans) the capacity of individuals to activate the mechanisms of wealth accumulation created by these policies -- i.e., financing for homeownership, higher education, and entrepreneurship. While post-World War II prosperity improved the economic lot of virtually all Americans, in absolute terms, the gap in relative wealth accumulation among whites and blacks also accelerated and determined how much wealth (home equity, investments, even cultural capital) could be transferred to their children, thereby reproducing prior patterns of wealth inequality. Public policies that precipitated urban renewal and suburbanization compounded this wealth gap by de-valuing the asset base of areas of concentrated poverty, while protecting and enhancing the property value of affluent residential communities. Zoning policies formalized this dynamic by effectively excluding certain types of housing (rental, lower-income, subsidized) from suburban communities, and siting public utilities, prisons, landfills in impoverished areas with already depleted property values. The racial gap in wealth accumulation cannot be understood solely as a function of individual initiative and character (or lack thereof), but as a deliberately structured process of public policy decision making that confers economic advantages and disadvantages according to the proximity of individuals to the nexus of race and class. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? Public policies that revitalize blighted and impoverished communities, while avoiding the displacement and further concentration of extreme poverty that gentrification produces, can reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education. Numerous studies have clearly established that these communities experience revitalization when they welcome immigrants. The renovation of the enormous stock of unoccupied and abandoned housing units in major urban centers can absorb new immigrants, preserve existing residential populations, generate job growth and consumer demand, and significantly enhance the property, sales, and income tax bases of economically distressed communities. Racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education are not merely gaps among discrete individuals, but among communities. Public policies that aggressively integrate immigrants into under-resourced communities can ameliorate the legacy of longstanding wealth inequality among racial groups. Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how? Public policies have contributed and exacerbated racial segregation in housing for decades. Efforts to undo this legacy can at least begin by abandoning policies that reinforce segregation, such as directing public and subsidized housing to only under-resourced communities. Instead of extending tax abatements and credits to businesses that often abandon their communities when these benefits expire, state and local authorities should create tax relief programs for communities that voluntarily achieve levels of residential diversity which they choose for themselves. Tax abatements, credits, or reimbursements could also be extended to all residents in communities, not real estate developers, for encouraging affordable, public and subsidized housing. Why have some states been more successful than others in addressing racial inequalities? States, cities, and counties that invest in early childhood education (pre-school programs in San Antonio), adopt minimum wage ordinances (Berkeley, California and Portland, Maine, among others), support collective bargaining, and fund public health services are creating institutions that enhance and protect human capital. Racial inequalities extend well beyond gaps in income and wealth, they also encompass enormous differences in how members of racial groups encounter access and obstacles to the development of human capital. Kevin D. Brown Richard S. Melvin Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law What are the major causes of the racial wealth gap between black and white households? The short answer is that it is still racism. Those sympathetic to the black struggle might say that the cause is poverty, inadequate education that blacks in the U.S. receive, a lack of meaningful employment opportunities in the communities where they live, or segregation in housing. Those who are not sympathetic might say the problem is a deficit culture that does not value educational success, or teach the necessary personality characteristics to be economically successful. And, of course, there will be others who will assert, probably privately, that it is the result of biological deficiencies. My research over the past five years has focused on comparative inequality throughout the world. In addition to my research, I teach a seminar on this subject where I compare and contrast the subordination struggles of blacks in the U.S. with those of groups like Dalits (untouchables) in India, blacks in South Africa and the UK, and Arab Israelis in Israel. The U.S. is not unique in having groups who have been victims of historical oppression. Success in struggles by groups to overcome the effects of a history of discrimination is not achieved easily or quickly. The subordination of a given group always comes with a dominant way of understanding the world, that obscures the ability of members of the dominant group to perceive or eradicate that oppression. So often, what needs to be changed is that culture which has accepted the subordination of others as part of the natural order of things. I want to recognize the reality that American society has made significant steps directed at overcoming its racial history of oppression of black people since the 1960s. While oppression continues to exist, it certainly is nowhere as bad as it has been throughout most of the history of American society. But, there has never been a time in American history where blacks have not been oppressed and have not struggled against it. Next year will mark the 400th anniversary of the first blacks walking off the first slave ships in Jamestown, Virginia. Most Americans would agree that it has only been since the 1960s that we have made any kind of effort to overcome the oppression of the Black Community. That means that individuals like me (I am 61) are among the first significant group of blacks in the history of our country to have had opportunities to be successful in the mainstream. When I graduated from Yale Law School in 1982, I became the second person of color to work at a law firm of any significant size in the State of Indiana. In 1987 when I joined the tenure track faculty of Indiana University Maurer School of Law, I was only the third person of color to do so. Neither of the other 2 lasted more than 3 years. I am the longest serving law professor of color in the history of the State of Indiana. I could go on and on, but the point is that it will take far more than the effort we have put forth to overcome such a history of oppression. What can state and local authorities do to help reduce racial gaps in wealth, employment, and education? There is no question that the US Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment puts limits on the ability of states and local authorities to adopt and institute policies and programs that could reduce the racial gaps that we see in wealth, employment and education. This is a shame given the fact that the original purpose of the Fourteenth, as well as the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments all of which were added to the Constitution shortly after the Civil War, was to advance the interest of the newly freed black slaves. The United States Supreme Court specifically made this point in its 1873 opinion in The Slaughter House Cases, [O]n the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him. It is true that only the fifteenth amendment, in terms, mentions the negro by speaking of his color and his slavery. But it is just as true that each of the other articles was addressed to the grievances of that race, and designed to remedy them as the fifteenth. Now, however, only in rare circumstances and situations can government take account of race and adopt policies and programs specifically targeted to reduce the racial gaps that are so familiar to us. Mostly what government has to do is to adopt policies and programs that can help all, but in actual effect are more likely to help individuals from under resourced groups. The problem with this approach is that any significant program is likely to be far more expensive than a targeted approach and its benefits will be more diffuse. This reality undercuts the willingness to institute such programs. Since President Richard Nixon put four justices of the Supreme Court during his first term, most of our major cases dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment’s impact on racial issues have been decided by a five person majority. Justice Antonio Scalia’s untimely death in February 2016 provided the first opportunity to change the leaning of the court with respect to the struggles of people of color. You are well aware of what happened. What it means is that the conservative Supreme Court on racial issues that has been in place since the mid-1970s will continue. Until the Supreme Court changes and we come up with less restrictive interpretations of the equal protection clause, there will be significant limits on the policies and programs that state and local authorities can adopt. Given the legal constraints that exist, I would suggest adopting desegregation policies in both education and housing based on socio-economic criteria, as opposed to race. We know that socio-economic integration of public school children benefits those from low SES backgrounds the most. I should note, however, that it is still conceivable under current equal protection interpretations for suburban school systems with very few black or brown students to adopt school transfer policies targeted to bring urban black and brown youth into their school system. I would suggest the creation of pre-college programs that are focused on increasing the number of black children that will attend college. These programs would include classes on SAT and ACT preparation, college counseling, financial aid counseling, and tutors in difficult high school subjects, particularly math, science and English. It is also important to have individuals that they can identify with to come to the classes and act as role models for success. Mentoring programs where low-income black youth can be paired with successful black adults should also be created and expanded. Maybe in an effort to expand their effect, the mentors should receive some compensation. I would also suggest programs that provide for more public grants to low-income students attending colleges and universities. In an effort to reduce the prison population, I would suggest the decriminalization of addictive drugs and, possibly, the legalization of marijuana. Users of these type of addictive drugs should be treated as individuals in need of treatment the way our society is doing with the opioid epidemic. I would also suggest that low-income housing programs seek to integrate low-income individuals into high income neighborhoods, as opposed to public housing projects that concentrate poverty in a given area. I have created 3 different study abroad programs here at Indiana University that were intended to send as many African-Americans as possible to the developing world. These programs weren’t race exclusive, so whites, Asians, and Latinos could participate, but African-Americans were the largest group by far. These programs sent students to South Africa, Mozambique, Kenya, Ghana, and India. In fact, for five years I worked with a group of professors to create an international boarding school in Ghana. While the school would be open to anyone who applied, we anticipated that the overwhelming majority of students would be low-income, urban blacks. The most empowering experience that I know for a young African-American who has not been to the developing world, is such a trip. They learn about the much higher regard that the African-American Community is held in by much of the rest of the world. What they are able to do is to conceptualize the African-American situation in an international context. This is a very empowering experience. So I would suggest the creation of such trips for high school juniors and seniors. Should state and local authorities work to reduce racial segregation in housing? If so, how? Yes, as I suggested, this should be done in terms of integrate low-income housing into middle class and high income neighborhoods.

Methodology

In order to determine the most racially integrated and progressive states, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key dimensions: 1) Employment & Wealth, 2) Education & Civic Engagement and 3) Health.

We evaluated those dimensions using 16 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with 100 representing the highest level of racial integration and progress.

This analysis compares only blacks and whites in light of racial tensions in recent years that sparked the Black Lives Matter movement and the observance of the holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who played a prominent role in the Civil Rights Movement to end segregation and discrimination against blacks.

We ranked the states and the District of Columbia based on two perspectives:

1. Racial Integration – We measured integration by subtracting the values attributed to whites and blacks for a given metric, using only the most recent available data.
2. Racial Progress – We measured progress by subtracting the values attributed to whites and blacks for a given metric, using the oldest available data and the most recent. Based on the result, we calculated the percentage of progress for that specific metric in the analyzed period.

If in some states blacks resulted with the same or better standing as whites for a given metric, all such states were awarded the maximum number of points.

Finally, we calculated the overall score for each state and the District based on their weighted average across all metrics and used the resulting scores to rank them.

Employment & Wealth – Total Points: 50

• Median Annual Income: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Labor-Force Participation Rate: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Unemployment Rate: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Homeownership Rate: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Poverty Rate: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Business Ownership Rate: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Share of Government Workers: Full Weight (6.25 Points)
• Share of Executives: Full Weight (6.25 Points)

Education & Civic Engagement – Total Points: 30

• Share of Residents with at Least a High School Degree: Full Weight (7.50 Points)
• Share of Residents with at Least a Bachelor’s Degree: Full Weight (7.50 Points)
• Standardized Test Scores: Full Weight (7.50 Points)Note: This metric is based on the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
• Voter-Turnout Rate (2012 Presidential Election): Full Weight (7.50 Points)

Health – Total Points: 20

• Share of Preterm Births: Full Weight (5.00 Points)
• Share of Live Births with Low Birthweight (<2,500 Grams): Full Weight (5.00 Points)
• Infant Mortality Rate: Full Weight (5.00 Points)Note: This metric measures the number of deaths of infants younger than one year per 1,000 live births.
• Suicide Rate: Full Weight (5.00 Points)

 

Sources: Data used to create these rankings were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress