ANN ARBOR—Nearly one out of five suburbanites lives in a community that is less advantaged than nearby central cities, according to a new University of Michigan study that shatters the stereotypical view of suburbs as places where schools are good, few people are poor and crime is low.

“Suburbs vary tremendously by socioeconomic status,” says David R. Harris, a sociologist at the U-M Institute for Social Research. “Many deviate sharply from the communities portrayed in ‘Leave it to Beaver’ and ‘Pleasantville.’

“These low-status suburbs had a poverty rate nearly six times higher than the poverty rate in more privileged suburbs, and 40 percent higher than the U.S. poverty rate. So knowing whether someone lives in the central city or the suburbs provides little information about the socioeconomic status of his or her community.”

For the study, presented last month at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Harris used U.S. Census Bureau data from 1970, 1980 and 1990 to classify suburbs into high-, middle-, or low-socioeconomic status, based on multiple economic, occupational, and educational indicators. The factors were the percent of families not headed by a single female; the percent of families that are affluent (defined as having an annual income over $50,000 in 1990 dollars); the percent of families with annual earnings above the federal poverty line; mean annual family income; the percent of adults who have attended college; the percent of employed residents working in professional, technical, managerial, or executive occupations; and the adult employment rate.

In 1990, the poverty rate in low-status suburbs was 18 percent, he found, while high-status suburbs had a poverty rate of just 3 percent. About 17 percent of low-status suburban families were affluent, compared with 60 percent of high-status suburban families. “This pattern of differences by suburb type is apparent for each of the factors studied, in both 1980 and 1990,” says Harris.

In addition, Harris found, nearly all low-status suburbs had a smaller share of affluent families, college attendees, and upper-level white-collar workers than did nearby central cities. In 1990, the average low-status suburb was less advantaged than its nearby central city on six of the nine indicators of socioeconomic status. The average middle-status suburb was less advantaged on two-to-three indicators, while almost no high-status suburbs were less advantaged than the central cities in their metropolitan area.

Harris also examined racial differences in suburbanization. By considering the socioeconomic status of the places where Black, white, Latino, and Asian suburbanites live, he was able to assess how the relationship between suburbanization and privilege varies by race.

“Some have maintained that the proportion of Blacks in the suburbs has grown dramatically in recent decades,” says Harris. “While it’s true that the percentage of Black residents in all suburbs increased slightly from 1980 to 1990, nearly 19 percent of the residents of low-status suburbs were Black, compared with just 6 percent of the middle-status and a paltry 3 percent of the high-status suburban population.

The situation of Latinos is similar to that of Blacks, Harris notes, while the picture for Asians is more positive. “In contrast to Blacks and Latinos, Asians were underrepresented in low-status suburbs,” says Harris, “with middle- and high-status suburb shares about equal to their share of the metropolitan area population.

“In the United States, as well as within each of its regions, there really are two suburban experiences?one for Asians and whites, and another for African Americans and Latinos.”

Even after controlling for family income and years of schooling, Harris found that Blacks and Latinos were still three times as likely as whites to live in low-status rather than high-status suburbs. “It appears that whites do not only live in the most affluent suburbs because of their incomes,” says Harris, “but also because of privilege imparted to them by virtue of the color of their skin. Whether Asians enjoy a similar racial privilege, or are instead overrepresented in the most advantaged suburbs because of their high levels of education and income, remains unclear.”

Why do the race effects for Blacks and Latinos persist even after controlling for family-level characteristics? According to Harris, one possible explanation is that Blacks and Latinos choose to live in less advantaged suburbs. “It isn’t that Blacks and Latinos don’t prefer affluent neighbors, low crime, and good schools,” says Harris. “They certainly do. But they might have even stronger preferences to live near other Blacks and Latinos, and in proximity to the central city.”

The other explanation is that housing market discrimination plays a role in the continued concentration of Black and Latino suburban residents in the least advantaged suburbs, he notes. “The effect of persistent housing discrimination,” says Harris, “is that openings in middle and high suburbs are more likely to be filled by whites, while Blacks and Latinos are steered towards suburbs that rarely represent a higher socioeconomic status alternative to the central city?places that are suburbs in name only.”

Suburb Characteristics by Suburb Type, 1990

Low-status

Middle-status

High-status

Percent female-headed families

25.18

15.25

9.14

Percent poor

18.26

7.20

3.25

Percent of housing units owner-occupied

56.05

65.85

78.12

Percent affluent

16.60

33.34

60.20

Percent with some college

31.62

46.75

67.72

Percent with college degree

9.72

19.09

40.63

Percent upper white-collar occupations

19.06

29.01

46.39

Mean family income

Source: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Metropolitan Areas and Suburbs, 1990

NonhispanicWhite

NonhispanicBlack

Asian

Hispanic

Other

All Metro Areas

68.72%

14.81%

4.17%

11.86%

0.45%

All Suburbs

78.92%

7.53%

3.99%

9.19%

0.37%

Low-status Suburbs

56.28%

18.76%

3.41%

20.96%

0.59%

Middle-status

Suburbs

81.95%

5.84%

4.08%

7.76%

0.38%

High-status Suburbs

89.05%

2.97%

4.23%

3.58%

0.18%

Source: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

See chart belowracial differences