role of governmental policies in promoting residential segregation in the St. Louis metropolitan area, The

Judd, Dennis R

Dennis R. Judd, Department of Political Science, University of Missouri-St. Louis*

This article explains how local, state, and federal governments have exacerbated or failed to take steps to reduce residential segregation in the St. Louis metropolitan area since the District Court's 1981 decision in Liddell v. Board of Education The court ruled then that both the policies of the city school board and governmental housing policies had contributed to racial segregation in the city's schools. The author presents a comprehensive review of socioeconomic and political issues related to housing segregation in the St. Louis region, and offers five corrective actions to facilitate fair housing practices, policies, and enforcement in the region.

INTRODUCTION

In the 1977 Craton Liddell et al. v. the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri et al. trial, the board of education (BOE) of the city of St. Louis argued that racial imbalance in that city's schools existed because of resegregative factors associated with governmental housing policies, and not because of school policies administered by the school board. In rejecting this argument in 1981, the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that the policies of the school board contributed to racial segregation in the schools. The court also recognized that governmental housing policies had played an important contributing role, basing its conclusions in this regard primarily on the report of its independent housing expert, Gary Orfield.1 Orfield's comprehensive 153-page report, submitted on April 21, 1981, provided strong evidence that federally assisted housing has, over time, tended to resegregate African American populations.

The court subsequently ordered the state of Missouri, the United States, the city of St. Louis, and the BOE to develop a plan to ensure that housing programs would facilitate school desegregation. Though such a plan was drawn up, the state of Missouri refused to participate, and the plan was never implemented. Nearly two decades later, federally assisted housing yields the same effect, despite changes in policies at the federal level. The long-term pattern of local government resistance to racial integration in the St. Louis region has continued unchanged. Governments at all levels have continued to pursue policies that have promoted racial segregation in housing, in St. Louis and elsewhere, and they have failed to enact policies that would have the effect of reducing such segregation.

The effect of this governmental complicity and inaction is that the St. Louis metropolitan area remains highly segregated. The conditions of residential segregation documented in 1981 persist to this day. As in the past, segregation in housing continues to amplify school segregation, not only in St. Louis but across the nation. Because racial segregation in the schools is directly related to patterns of residential segregation, schools in the St. Louis metropolitan area, as in many urban areas in the United States, remain highly segregated. In this article, I demonstrate how, local, state, and federal governments have continued to exacerbate or have failed to take steps to reduce residential segregation in the St. Louis metropolitan area since the District Court's 1981 decision. I also present a comprehensive review of the socioeconomic and political issues related to housing in the St. Louis region, and offer five corrective actions to facilitate fair housing practices, policies, and enforcement across city and county lines.

THE LIDDELL CASE

In reaching its initial decision in Liddell, the District Court identified St. Louis "as an example of 'severe' residential segregation," and noted that "evidence of housing segregation in St. Louis is undisputed in the record" (Liddell, 1981, p. 1324). The Court further expressed its view that "government policies and action have been a major force in developing and maintaining housing discrimination against blacks" (p. 1324). Although numerous appeals were filed challenging various aspects of the overall desegregation order, Orfield (1981) noted that "none of the parties appealed the order to develop a housing plan" (p. 4). Due to the absence of appeals, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals did not examine or make further rulings on housing issues. It subsequently rejected the BOE's argument that its policies had not contributed to racial segregation in the schools, and, in issuing its remand order of May 21, 1980, it inserted paragraph 12(d), which directed the state of Missouri, the United States, the city of St. Louis, and the St. Louis board of education to:

...develop and submit to the Court by November 1, 1980, in conjunction with the Community Development Agency of the City of St. Louis, a suggested plan for insuring that the operation of federally-assisted housing programs in the St. Louis metropolitan area will facilitate the school desegregation ordered herein. (p. 5)

Two housing plans were filed with the Circuit Court in response to its order to implement paragraph 12(d). On November 28, 1980, the board of education and the St. Louis Community Development Agency (SLCDA) submitted a 74-page proposal, the St. Louis Metropolitan Housing Plan, containing 20 major policy recommendations intended to facilitate housing desegregation in the St. Louis metropolitan area (BOE / SLCDA, 1980). A second plan was submitted independently by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice (see BOE/SLCDA, 1995). At the invitation of the circuit court, HUD had entered the Liddell case as an amicus witness and later became a plaintiff-intervenor. However, given that it was not named as a defendant in the St. Louis case, HUD asserted that it had filed its plan voluntarily as part of its commitment to utilize subsidized housing programs, so far as practicable, to reduce the incidence of housing segregation.

The BOE/SLCDA (1980) plan recommended a comprehensive metropolitan housing strategy that included (a) the use of federally subsidized housing to deconcentrate minority residents, (b) the provision of information and counseling to families "to further the racial integration of the community and school system" (p. 38), (c) a combination of mortgage and rental assistance meant to stabilize neighborhoods and increase housing options for minority families, and (d) fair housing enforcement and other measures. The plan also encouraged federal, state, and local governments as well as nonprofit organizations, realtors, lenders, landlords, and other institutions involved in housing markets to participate in the implementation of these policy recommendations. It identified three governmental initiatives of particular importance. First, the plan emphasized the importance of dispersing federally assisted housing throughout the St. Louis metropolitan area. Second, it urged the state to become involved through the Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC), in conjunction with other appropriate state and local agencies.2 Third, the BOE/SLCDA recommended that the local metropolitan planning agency, the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC), be encouraged to prepare an areawide housing opportunity plan (AHOP) that would address the reallocation of federal housing funds in the five-county area surrounding the city.3

Despite its large impact on local housing patterns, the MHDC has adopted no policies nor taken any actions to promote or facilitate the desegregation of housing in the St. Louis area. Nor has the EWGCC developed a housing opportunity plan such as that proposed in the BOE / SLCDA report. That organization has yet to apply for HUD funds to promote housing desegregation.

After the two plans were submitted to the District Court in 1980, the court asked Professor Orfield to prepare a report on the two plans and on the housing issues related to paragraph 12(d). Orfield's (1981) study demonstrated that the St. Louis metropolitan area was intensely segregated by race, that the degree of residential segregation had increased over time, and that governmental policies had been extremely influential in creating housing segregation. According to Orfield, the St. Louis area pattern of segregation had been enforced initially by racial zoning and then for decades by racial covenants enforced in the courts. In addition, he stated, the federal government had intensified the degree of segregation through its Federal Housing Authority (FHA) programs, which for decades had provided virtually no loans for Black homebuyers in the St. Louis area. He also claimed that the federal government had intensified residential segregation by concentrating public and subsidized housing in ghetto areas, and that its urban renewal clearance projects had intensified segregation. Finally, Orfield showed that suburban jurisdictions had used their zoning and other powers to systematically exclude public and subsidized housing and obstruct fair housing practices and policies designed to reduce residential segregation.

Although the court asked the parties to submit comments on the Orfield study, it focused its attention upon implementation of other aspects of its 1980 order, and took no further action on paragraph 12(d). Nothing came of the two housing reports. In the absence of a positive commitment by the participants to take action, it was unlikely that either the BOE/SLCDA's or HUD's plan would be implemented. A third important potential participant, the state of Missouri, refused to participate even in the process of drawing up a plan. Rather, through its statewide housing commission, the MHDC, the state continued to acquiesce in continued local resistance to the scattered siting of subsidized housing, and failed to take action to encourage local governments to facilitate fair housing enforcement. The commission's early defiant stance was but a prelude to a steadfast apathy with regard to the issue of racially segregated housing patterns, an apathy that has continued to the present day.

RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION IN THE ST. LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA

The racial segregation of schools in metropolitan St. Louis is inextricably linked to population trends. The city has been losing residents to its suburbs for decades. Indeed, since 1950, St. Louis has often led the nation in the rate of population loss from the central city (Public Policy Research Centers [PPRC], 1995a). In the 1980s, the city's population declined by 12.4%, a decline that has continued into the 1990s. The rest of the metropolitan area showed an increase of 7.3% during the 1980s. Recently, however, is has become clear that the decentralization of population from the metropolitan core has also begun to affect St. Louis County. Figure I, which maps the areas of population decline in St. Louis city and county, clearly shows that population loss has spread into contiguous areas of St. Louis County to the south as well as to the west and northwest of the city. These patterns reveal that demographic trends in St. Louis city and county are interconnected; therefore, the major governmental units and governmental policies in the two jurisdictions should not be considered in isolation.

Because affluent Whites have long comprised the largest proportion of those moving to the suburbs, their long-term movement out of the city and to the fringes of the metropolitan area created high levels of interjurisdictional and neighborhood racial segregation. From 1980 to 1990, St. Louis's population fell from 453,085 to 396,985; over the same period, the African American share of the population increased from 45.5% to 47.5% (SLCDA, 1993). During the same decade, the African American population in St. Louis County increased by 26%, raising the African American proportion of its population from 11.2% to 14%. The proportion of all Blacks in the metropolitan area residing outside the city of St. Louis increased from 49.4% in 1980 to 55.5% in 1990 (Farley, 1991b). Moreover, as Figure II shows, Blacks began leaving the city for St. Louis County in large numbers in the 1980s. Black neighborhoods on the city's north side lost population rapidly over the decade; some heavily Black areas just across city boundaries also lost population.

A comparison of figures I and II reveals that Black movement out of the city was not necessarily, or by itself, a factor in reducing the incidence of racial segregation in St. Louis County. Some of the same county census tracts that lost population the fastest in the 1980s also experienced the greatest Black population gains. Thus, it is virtually certain that during that decade the process of residential succession described by Orfield in his report to the District court-of Blacks moving into neighborhoods vacated by Whitesoccurred in the county as well as the city. In a more-recent analysis that divided the county into four census tract groups, areas in the central and northern parts of St. Louis County that had experienced the largest increases in Black populations during the 1980s were found to have also experienced the largest White population losses (PPRC, 1995b).

Figures III and IV offer evidence that much of the Black population growth in the county was actually the result of St. Louis's predominantly Black ghetto spilling beyond the city's boundaries. As depicted by Figure III, in 1990 Blacks were heavily concentrated into the northern portions of St. Louis, with some spillover into near-south side areas of the city. (Recall that Figure I showed the near-south side to be an area of rapid Black population growth during the 1980s). Figure IV demonstrates that the areas of most rapid growth for Blacks fan out from the north and northwestern boundaries of the city and, to a lesser extent, from the south. In the county in 1990, census tracts that were from 25.1% to 50% Black and those that were more than 50% Black were all concentrated in a corridor extending from the northwestern and northern sections of the city. Forty-one of the 90 municipalities in St. Louis County as of 1990 contained less than 5% Black population. Of the 33 municipalities in the county whose populations were 20% or more Black, only one was located outside the north and northwest corridor, and only three cities outside the corridor had populations that were 10% Black or higher. Nine cities within the corridor contained populations that were 60% Black or higher: Bel-Ridge, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Hillsdale, Kinloch, Northwoods, Norwood Court, Pagedale, Pine Lawn, Uplands Park, and Wellston (calculated from SLCDP, 1994). All of these municipalities are clustered in the Normandy area close to the city's border.

As shown in Figure V, household incomes fell in most of this corridor between 1979 and 1989. The poorest areas of the county were those located adjacent to the city and in areas around Lambert-St. Louis Airport such as Kinloch-the very areas showing the largest increases in Black population during the 1980s. Of the 9 municipalities containing 60% or higher Black population, 7 had median household incomes of $27,000 or less in 1990 (and 7 showed median incomes less than $20,000), compared to a county median of more than $38,000 (calculated from SLCDA, 1994).

The impressions conveyed by figures I through V are confirmed by statistical measures of residential segregation. Studies have consistently shown the St. Louis metropolitan region to be among the nation's most segregated urban areas. One such study comparing St. Louis with other large central cities found that St. Louis ranked only behind Cleveland and Chicago in 1980 (Massey & Denton, 1989). Another analysis of 1980 census data ranked the St. Louis metropolitan area as the sixth most highly segregated among 38 metropolitan areas studied), and concluded that in the St. Louis metropolitan region, Blacks and Whites tended to live further apart, statistically, than did Blacks and Whites in other metropolitan areas with similar proportions of African Americans in the population (Taeuber, Monfort, Massey, & Taeuber, 1984). Based upon their analysis of 1980 census data, two other scholars classified the St. Louis region as "hypersegregated" (Massey & Denton, 1989).

Table I depicts changes in the racial composition of the major governmental units making up the St. Louis metropolitan area (Farley, 1991b). It also presents scores based on an index of dissimilarity, in which a uniform distribution of both Blacks and Whites across all spatial units would yield a score of 0 and complete segregation between Blacks and Whites would yield a score of 100. These scores reveal that the level of segregation declined somewhat in both the city and St. Louis County, and throughout the metropolitan area, between 1980 and 1990. Table I also shows that the African American population was increasing in other suburban and outlying counties. For example, in St. Charles County, the fastest-growing county in the metropolitan area, the Black population increased from 1.3% to 2.3% during the 1980s. This amounted to a population increase of about 3,000. Despite these trends, in the early 1990s the St. Louis area remained one of the most highly segregated metropolitan areas in the country (Farley & Frey, 1994; Massey & Denton, 1993). In 1992, the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council compared 30 metropolitan areas, using a racial disparity index composed of 15 variables including measures of racial segregation, housing and neighborhood quality, labor force participation, and health and education statistics (EWGCC, 1992). This index showed the St. Louis region to have the 26th highest racial disparity among 30 areas selected for comparison.

In the absence of policy interventions to reduce housing segregation in the St. Louis metropolitan area, any further improvements are likely to be extremely modest. There are two reasons for this. First, there is strong evidence to suggest that in the St. Louis area, nonracial factors such as housing cost and economic disparities seem to be less important in explaining racial segregation than in any previous decade (Farley, 1995). According to Farley, "where people can afford to live has very little to do with the continuing separation of African-Americans and whites in the St. Louis metropolitan area"; further "race may matter even more than in the past" in explaining segregation (p. 11). The implications are clear: fair housing and other policies to reduce residential segregation are at least as important now as in the past.

A second factor, the concentration of Blacks in poverty in the St. Louis area, further impedes efforts to reduce the incidence of residential segregation. Though some Blacks moved into suburban jurisdictions and outlying metropolitan counties during the 1980s, those who did not move tended to become concentrated more intensely than before into a few inner-city census tracts that were overwhelmingly Black (Farley, 1991b). Like other metropolitan areas in the 1980s, St. Louis experienced a concentration of minority poor that was more pronounced than in the past (Farley, 1991a, 1991b; Massey, 1990; Massey & Eggers, 1990; Wilson, 1987, 1991a, 1991b). Additionally, the poor are segregated more in the St. Louis region than in most other urban areas in the United States. Using 1990 census data, the EWGCC (1992) compared 30 metropolitan areas, and found that St. Louis exhibited a greater degree of economic disparity than all but five of them.

Economic disparities have disproportionately reduced housing choices for African Americans in the St. Louis metropolitan area. In the city, 46% of households that rent are Black, but 71% of households that pay less than $200 per month for rent are Black; 55% of all African American households in the city pay less than $500 per month in mortgage payments (PPRC, 1995a). In St. Louis County, though 20% of all households who rent are Black, 42% of renters who pay less than $200 per month are Black. Similarly, a disproportionate percentage of county homeowners who pay low mortgage payments are Black: 18% of Black homeowners pay less than $300 per month for mortgages (PPRC, 1995b). As demonstrated in Figure VI, Blacks moving into St. Louis County are disproportionately concentrated into areas with falling rents and declining property values.

The modest improvement in the level of segregation since 1980 suggests that historic patterns leading to greater segregation may be changing. As a result, the levels of residential segregation may be more amenable than in the past to being affected by fair housing and other policy interventions. The decline in the level of racial segregation during the 1980s occurred mainly because the proportion of Whites living in all-White areas fell over the decade. Apparently, over the past few years, Whites in the St. Louis area have become less apt to flee neighborhoods that have become somewhat integrated (Farley, 1991b). Additionally, the proportion of Blacks living in suburban areas and outlying counties of the metropolitan area has increased since 1980. The confluence of these factors suggests that policies designed to reduce housing discrimination may have a greater chance of making a real difference now than at any time in the past.

THE IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION ON SCHOOL SEGREGATION PATTERNS

Research indicates that school-age Black children in both the city and county of St. Louis are more segregated than are adult Blacks (Farley, 1991b; PPRC, 1995a, 1995b). Modest declines in the incidence of segregation in the St. Louis area have not embraced the one population-school-age children-that matters most in the linkage between residence and schooling. There may be several reasons for this pattern. First, it is likely that in some neighborhoods, Black families, White elderly, and White childless couples or singles live in close proximity. As a result, neighborhoods may be far more integrated than the children themselves or the schools that the children attend. Indeed, this pattern is quite common, partially accounting, for example, for the finding that in the city, Blacks comprised 47.5% of the population in 1990, but Black students made up 80.5% of the school enrollment. (A similar pattern characterizes several school districts in St. Louis County as well.) A second reason that school-age Black children are more segregated than adults is that the Black families who moved out of racially segregated areas in large numbers have fewer children than the families who did not. The former are also, on the average, more affluent. Thus, Black children in the region tend to be both more segregated and to live in poorer families than do Black adults or the Black population as a whole.

The degree of housing segregation for school-age Blacks is amplified in school enrollments. The Ferguson-Florissant, Hazelwood, Jennings, Normandy, Riverview Gardens, University City, and Wellston school districts lie in the path of the rapid Black population growth displayed in Figures I and II. These seven districts do not participate in the voluntary interdistrict transfer program involving the St. Louis city and suburban school districts because they already have high proportions of African American students.4 Black enrollments in these seven districts range from a low of 34.5% (Hazelwood) to a high of 100% (Wellston), with four of the districts having above 83% Black enrollment. Property values in these districts fall well below the average for school districts in the county. Because of this, they are able to spend less per pupil than the county average, even though all of them impose a property tax rate well above the average. Thus, housing segregation in St. Louis County not only segregates Black students in the schools; it also segregates them into the school districts with the most meager resources.

The Federal Role

As noted by Orfield in his 1981 report, paragraph 12(d) of the Liddell decision was partially based upon widespread concern and substantial evidence demonstrating that government-subsidized housing programs had, in the past, tended to reinforce segregation. In an appendix to his report, Orfield cited a 1980 report prepared for HUD, which presented strong evidence showing that "since the 1950s the vast bulk of constructed assisted family housing. . .has been located in the black areas of St. Louis City" (Fischer, 1980, p. 6). Though Fischer indicated that public housing was a "bit more dispersed" in St. Louis County, he noted that in both jurisdictions subsidized housing programs had the effect of intensifying racial segregation, and this effect was approximately the same for all programs. The Fischer report concluded that "both the city and the county have most of their assisted constructed family housing in impacted areas" (p. 9). In explaining these findings, Orfield summarized a history of suburban resistance to subsidized housing in the St. Louis area, pointing out that the conflicts within the St. Louis area had spawned "a substantial research literature both on the city's public housing and on suburban housing practices" (p. 34). In his view, St. Louis had gained notoriety as a classic example of suburban resistance.

It appears that little has changed from 1981 to 1995. Whether measured by the racial composition within public housing projects, the location of assisted housings units, or the spatial distribution of housing vouchers, publicly subsidized housing still tends to concentrate Blacks in poverty-impacted areas in and around St. Louis. The consequences of such concentration have been described by Massey and Denton (1993) as follows:

Because segregation concentrates any factor associated with poverty and focuses it upon segregated AfricanAmerican neighborhoods, high African-American poverty rates are translated directly into social environments where welfare dependency and single parenthood are the prevailing categories of social and economic behavior. The same change in the absence of segregation would expose poor African Americans to a social milieu in which the vast majority of families with children are self-supporting and have two parents present. (pp. 196-197)

In its first national study of segregation in public housing since 1977, HUD released a December 1994 report which found that public housing across the country continues to have the effect of resegregating African Americans (Goering, Kamely, & Richardson, 1994). According to the HUD researchers, "The most striking feature of the results is the virtually inverse relationship between the percentage of a census tract's population that is African American and the occupancy of projects within that tract by whites" (p. 22). Goering et. al (1994) measured the dissimilarity between the racial composition of public housing projects and the residential areas within which those projects were located. In their study, a high dissimilarity score indicated that public housing units with a high proportion of African American tenants were located primarily outside areas where Whites resided. As shown in Table II, in the city of St. Louis (with 3,200 units of public housing), African Americans living in public housing were more segregated from White neighborhoods in 1990 than Blacks in all but 15 of the 66 public housing authorities in the nation with 2,500 units or more (Goering et al., 1994). The HUD study also showed that St. Louis ranked first in the nation among large public housing authorities in the percentage of public housing residents who were African American (95%).

A later HUD study noted that tenant-based certificate and voucher programs have had some effect in reducing the concentration of minority recipients in poverty-impacted areas (Goering, Stebbins, & Siewert, 1995). However, that study also indicated that "many rental assistance recipients-particularly African-Americans-have been less successful in taking advantage of the mobility opportunities created by their enhanced purchasing power" (Goering, Stebbins, & Siewert, 1995, unnumbered page). Further, although rental assistance recipients experienced less concentration in poverty-impacted areas than did public housing tenants, Goering et al. (1995) concluded that sharp disparities remained: "Black recipients are much more likely than whites or other minorities to live in areas of high black poverty" (p. 6).

Figure VII shows the zip codes within which the recipients of tenant-based Section 8 subsidies issued by the St. Louis Housing Authority were living in 1995. Clearly, Section 8 recipients were clustered into areas of Black residence in the city's north and near-south sides, with larger families being more segregated than smaller ones. A large proportion of the Section 8 recipients living on the south side were elderly Whites, a particularly telling statistic given that 95% of the city-issued Section 8 recipients were Black. Recipients of city Section 8 subsidies living in St. Louis County were overwhelmingly concentrated into eight zip codes within a corridor of Black population concentration extending to the northwest from the city. Thus, in both the city and the county, Section 8 subsidies issued by the City's Housing Authority tended to reconcentrate Black recipients into areas that were already substantially segregated.

Figure VIII maps the zip-code distribution of public housing units owned and managed by the St. Louis County Housing Authority in 1995. The data show that the county's public housing was primarily concentrated into nine zip codes; two of them are clearly outside the corridor of Black concentration stretching northwest of the city. Figure IX shows the zip-code distribution of the county's tenant-based Section 8 subsidies. The pattern is remarkable, revealing that Section 8 housing was more concentrated into a few areas than were the county's public housing units. Apparently, Section 8 subsidies were being used in the southern part of the county and throughout the city, but the largest concentrations, by far, were in the nine zip code areas lying in the corridor of Black population growth in the county. This indicates that, for the most part, African American Section 8 recipients, could not or did not use their subsidies to move out of segregated, poverty-impacted areas.

Goering et al. (1995) identified several key impediments to the movement of rental assistance recipients out of such neighborhoods, including: continued racial discrimination, community and political opposition to assisted housing, a limited supply of modestly priced rental housing, limited landlord participation in the Section 8 program, and distance from and lack of information about neighborhood choices. The last of these is an impediment particularly amenable to policy intervention. Goering et. al (1995) pointed out that mobility programs that provide assistance and information to recipients about housing options had met with notable success. Section 8 tenants using such programs were found to locate in nonpoverty-impacted areas at a much higher rate than those who did not have access to such programs.5

The severe shortage of public housing units and Section 8 vouchers and certificates in the St. Louis area was documented in the state of Missouri's consolidated plan (MOCP) for 1995 (Missouri Department of Economic Development [MDED], 1995). That document indicated that for housing developments participating in Section 8 subsidies in the state, the number of prospective tenants on waiting lists as of 1995 constituted almost half of the total number of available units. Moreover, the number of applicants on waiting lists for Section 8 vouchers and certificates was almost two times the number of such available subsidies. Worse still, most waiting lists contained names that had been there for two to three years, and most lists were closed. The St. Louis metropolitan area was identified as having a particularly drastic shortage of affordable housing, especially in St. Louis County. Perhaps self-servingly, the state blamed the federal government for the shortage of Section 8 vouchers. Using harsh language, it maintained that HUD had undermined the program by lowering the rents paid through Section 8 vouchers and certificates. It accused HUD of administrative intransigence, and even insinuated that HUD might be trying to kill the program entirely:

Housing providers have been quite vocal in their criticism of HUD's actions. They have also vented their frustration with the time-consuming and expensive process required to request reconsideration. While some were successful in delaying ("freezing") the effective date of decrease [of rents paid through vouchers], most believe their efforts will ultimately fall on deaf ears and hardened hearts. Many report that landlords currently reluctant to participate in assisted housing programs will be even less willing with the imposed decrease in rents. Some even fear that this action is a calculated ploy to do away with the Section 8 program [italics added]. (MDED, 1995, p. III-20)

It is not necessary to believe such heated accusations to observe that federally assisted housing in the St. Louis region continues to have the effect of resegregating African Americans into poverty-impacted neighborhoods, and that the federal government has done little or nothing to reverse this effect.

The Role of the State of Missouri

Though the District Court identified the state of Missouri as a primary Constitutional wrongdoer in its 1980 decision, the state's principal housing agency, the MHDC, refused to participate in the drawing up of a housing plan for the St. Louis metropolitan area. The only action taken by the MHDC was to submit a separate, very tardy four-page statement that proposed no specific policies or programs (see Orfield, 1981). Despite the state's lack of involvement, the BOE / SLCDA housing plan recommended that the MHDC, in conjunction with other appropriate state and local agencies, conduct a study to explore "specific assistance mechanisms that might be instituted to further the goals of this plan" (BOE/SLCDA, 1980, p. 44). The elements outlined by the BOE and SLCDA included:

A. Procedures for assigning funding priority to assisted family development projects where the proposed housing can be expected to contribute to further school system desegregation.

B. A determination whether MHDC can purchase land for residential development (including assisted housing) and, if MHDC has such powers, a plan for land purchases which would support school integration.

C. Incentives for encouraging local jurisdictions to allocate a reasonable amount of their land for multiple family and higher density single-family use. (BOE/SLCDA, 1980, p. 45)

The report further recommended that the MHDC, in cooperation with the state's Regulation and Licensing Commission, the Department of Consumer Affairs, and the State Human Rights Commission, work with the St. Louis Board of Realtors and other housing groups to "provide fair housing and guidance on fair housing techniques" (p. 45). There is no evidence that this recommendation was ever acknowledged by these agencies. In addition, the BOE/SLCDA proposed that the MHDC's scope of services be submitted for review to the court two months after the order was handed down, and that findings and recommendations concerning its work be submitted within a year. Judging by the paltriness and tardiness of its response, the MHDC made no effort to implement these recommendations in any respect, nor did the MHDC ever commit itself to any goals relating to fair housing.

Instead, throughout its history the MHDC has been extremely sensitive to the possibility that any of its subsidized housing programs might provoke local opposition. In January 1979, its governing board, consisting of nine members including the governor, attorney general, state treasurer, and six commissioners, passed a resolution requiring the commission to deny financing for subsidized housing in any community whose local governing body failed to adopt a resolution supporting such housing or whose local residents expressed opposition to it. Facing criticism from federal housing officials that this policy would halt all construction of low- and moderate-income housing in the state's suburban areas, the commission rescinded it a few months later. However, this change did not signal any commitment on the part of the MHDC to housing desegregation. The MHDC has never issued any fair housing policy statements, though most of its publications contain the standard (federally mandated) disclaimer that it does not discriminate on the basis of race.

The Role of Regional Government

The 1980 District Court school desegregation order directed the U.S., the state of Missouri, the St. Louis city board of education, and the St. Louis Community Development Agency to cooperate in drawing up a housing plan that would support the order. The development of a plan was led by the SLCDA, which coordinated its efforts with staff and housing experts from other agencies in the region. Input was invited from staff of the EWGCC, the St. Louis County Housing Authority, the MHDC, HUD, the St. Louis County Planning Commission, and other agencies.6 The plan submitted to the court relied upon a mixture of voluntary action and the prospect of some federal money in response to proposals arising from it. Among the 20 recommendations contained in the BOE/ SLCDA (1980) proposal, five urged the EWGCC to play a leading role in undertaking a regional housing effort. Preparation of an areawide housing plan (AHOP) was considered crucial for the achievement of the goals identified in the larger proposal.

For instance, in accordance with the AHOP, HUD was urged to allocate block grant funds for the purpose of desegregating and stabilizing currently integrated public schools through assisted housing and other programs. The BOE / SLCDA resolved that "the parties [preparing the plan] shall use their best efforts to induce [EWGCC] to conduct or contract for a study that identifies opportunities for constructing federally assisted housing in areas where the project could be expected to contribute to further school system desegregation" (p. 43). The EWGCC was also identified as the agency that should assist the state of Missouri in preparing a state housing assistance study of the region. Finally, the BOE/ SLCDA proposal recommended that HUD submit all proposals for assisted family housing to the BOE and to the EWGCC, which would study the effects of such programs on school desegregation efforts.

If the EWGCC had implemented these recommendations, it would have been the first time the St. Louis region prepared a regional housing plan with fair housing goals. However, none of the BOE/SLCDA recommendations were implemented by the local coordinating council. Indeed, at about the time the school board and the city's development agency issued its document, the EWGCC actually withdrew from the housing field, and in the ensuing years devoted nearly all of its attention to regional infrastructure and transportation issues. It is probably the case that EWGCC abandoned housing efforts largely because of the composition of its governing board. Housing segregation has long been a highly charged issue in the St. Louis region, with suburban jurisdictions mounting repeated efforts to resist subsidized housing.

The Role of Local Governments

Traditionally, the most consequential housing policies in the St. Louis metropolitan area have been administered by local housing authorities, nonprofit agencies, and local governments. In contrast to the state, the city and county both have been heavily involved in affordable and subsidized housing programs administered, in part or in principle, with desegregation and fair housing goals in mind. However, outside St. Louis proper, the implementation of these programs has been severely constrained by a long-term pattern of local government resistance to racial integration, as documented by Orfield in his 1981 report to the District Court. For many decades, Orfield noted, suburban governments used their zoning authority to exclude African Americans. This pattern of resistance made St. Louis a famous national example of suburban exclusion. Resistance to subsidized housing, even on a very small scale, has continued right to the present.

City of St. Louis. The St. Louis Community Development Agency administers a variety of low- and moderate-income housing programs, most of which are funded through federal grants. Much of this money is passed on to nonprofit housing organizations. Virtually all of the subsidized housing units constructed, rehabilitated, or rented through these programs are located within poverty-impacted areas in the central corridor of the city. Though the program administrators would like to use housing programs to promote the desegregation of neighborhoods, they are aware that efforts to achieve this goal would make it difficult or impossible to actually provide much assisted housing. In the absence of a state housing policy or a metropolitan housing plan, all subsidized housing programs must be built and administered on a project-by-project basis, leaving little opportunity for researchers to assess the impact of a particular project on patterns of racial segregation.

In 1991, HUD required all major jurisdictions receiving federal housing funds to cooperate in preparing a Comprehensive Housing Affordability Study (CHAS). In 1995, HUD replaced CHAS with the so-called Consolidated Plan (CP), which required local jurisdictions to report separately (but under one cover) on all four of the major programs administered by HUD: Community Development Block Grants, Emergency Shelter Grants, the HOME Investments Partnership Program, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). It also began requiring the implementation of a community participation process in localities receiving agency funding.

Neither the CHAS nor CP processes required cooperation or coordination among jurisdictions, and as such, no interjurisdictional cooperation has accompanied the latter process in the state of Missouri. As a consequence, St. Louis is forced to address its housing problems without considering metropolitan impacts such as the limited availability and higher costs of rental housing outside the city. St. Louis thus is confronted by drastic constraints if it wants to use its housing programs to facilitate neighborhood integration. The first of these is that virtually all programs are targeted to low- and moderate-income households with a heavy bias toward the low-income end of the scale. Obviously, locating a substantial number of subsidized housing units in neighborhoods that are healthy runs the significant risk of inducing disinvestment in those neighborhoods. A mix of housing strategies would enable the city not only to assist poorer families but also to offer homeownership and other programs to middle-income families, with the objective stabilizing or strengthening neighborhoods. However, there are no federal funds for such a coordination of programs; thus such programs would have to be funded entirely from city revenues. Currently, the city does not have sufficient funds to assist middle-income families to locate within its boundaries.

A second constraint, related to the first, is that many St. Louis neighborhoods are in serious decay and others are on the margins of instability. These sections of the city exhibit disproportionate levels of poverty, crime, disinvestment, and abandonment. The declining availability of multifamily units in adequate condition in such areas leads low-income households to seek housing in other neighborhoods. According to the City's CHAS report for 1994:

This has led to social tensions in many neighborhoods as homeowners are confronted with steady influxes of poorer households....[The] interplay across the City's neighborhoods, especially in those areas where there are significant mixes of single family and multi-family units, creates demand dynamics unique to the location, that have an effect on the condition of the housing stock and on the stability of housing values and prices. (SLCDA, 1993, p. 43)

The fragility of neighborhoods is indicated by survey results showing that, from 1987 to 1991, a rising proportion of city residents ranked their neighborhoods as "worst" or "next to worst" on a neighborhood satisfaction scale, while the proportion ranking their neighborhoods as "best" declined sharply (SLCDA, 1993, p. 35). Clearly, subsidized housing can be scattered within St. Louis only at the considerable risk of provoking disinvestment in those neighborhoods that are stable.

St. Louis is the site of the lion's share of subsidized housing in the region both because a large proportion of the region's poor live in the city, and because of the nature of the city's housing stock. In 1990, over one-fourth (28.5%) of the city's population lived in poverty. Almost one-third of White city-dwelling households made "very low" incomes (zero to 50% of the regional median family income), but a much higher proportion of Black households in St. Louis-three out of every four-fell into this category (SLCDA, 1993, p. 13). The demand for low-income housing in the city is consequently high.

Probably because affordable multiunit housing is more available in the city than in the rest of the metropolitan area, the majority of demand for city housing occurs as a result of households moving from one neighborhood to another within city limits. Approximately 60% of the housing units in St. Louis are multiunit structures. Traditionally, the supply of nonassisted multiunit dwellings has exceeded the demand, at least for smaller families (a large proportion of the units are one- or two-bedroom apartments) (SLCDA, 1993). However, the supply-and-demand ratio differs considerably for Black and White families: only about 25% of White households have children compared to 40% of Black households (SLCDA, 1993). Large Black families have fewer options than other families, and thus they constitute a larger percentage of persons living in subsidized housing than their proportions in the St. Louis regional population would suggest.

Taking all these factors into account, it is apparent that housing programs administered within the city can exert only very limited positive impact in reducing racial segregation, but they can easily be deleterious to neighborhood stability. However, if a metropolitan housing plan were in place, it would be possible for the city to cooperate with other governments within the region to break down the racial segregation of neighborhoods.

St. Louis County. As noted earlier in this article, the Black population of St. Louis County increased by 26% from 1980 to 1990. This raised the proportion of the county's population from 11% to 17% Black. Though there has been a modest dispersal of the Black population in the county, most of the growth has occurred in northern areas of the county. Over the decade, older suburbs with majority-Black populations lost population, revealing that these areas were experiencing a deterioration of property and home values similar to that experienced for some time in the city.

Blacks living in St. Louis County tend to own homes with low property values or pay low rents. Although there have been clear exceptions, most of the areas experiencing the largest increases in Black population in the 1980 had housing values that were disproportionately the lowest property values in the county (PPRC, 1995b). According the 1990 census, the suburban cities of Hillsdale, Kinloch, Pagedale, Pine Lawn, and Wellstonall cities with predominantly Black populations-had housing values of less than $42,000 compared to a county average of $83,500, and each of these municipalities had vacancy rates above 10% (St. Louis County Department of Planning [SLCCP], 1995). The city of Wellston had the lowest home values ($18,500). Forty-seven percent of Black households in the county are low-income (80% or less of the metropolitan median) compared to 30% for all households (SLCCP, 1995).

As of February 1995, St. Louis County contained 1,186 units of public housing and had administered 4,445 Section 8 certificates and vouchers (SLCCP, 1995). The county also receives federal and state housing assistance, most of which is passed on to nonprofit housing agencies. The county finds it difficult to find suitable sites for subsidized housing, even in the approximately 40% of its area that remains unincorporated. The 92 municipalities that existed in St. Louis County in 1990 imposed a broad range of zoning and subdivision restrictions that limited or excluded multiunit housing. For example, several municipalities required lots of one acre or more for most of their single-family housing. Two municipalities required one acre lots, with no exceptions; and one (the village of Country Life Acres) imposed a minimum lot size of two acres and prohibited multiunit developments. Minimum lot sizes of 7,500 to 9,000 square feet were common.7 Another municipality required that all new homes have at least 2,400 square feet of floor space.

Even in unincorporated areas, county citizens have frequently resisted token amounts of subsidized housing. Indeed, this issue has historically provoked movements to incorporate in order to prevent subsidized housing from being constructed in certain areas. Several recent incorporation attempts have brought to the surface the issue of local control over zoning and land use and its relationship to the location of subsidized housing. Three notable incorporation attempts occurred in 1995 alone. The first of these involved the newly formed city of Wildwood (population 15,000), with a land area of 67 square miles, which is about equivalent in area to the city of St. Louis, with its approximately 356,000 residents. Wildwood encompasses virtually all of the undeveloped area in the western part of St. Louis County. When it was successfully incorporated in February 1995, making it the county's 91st municipality, the clear driving force behind the initiative was a publicly expressed desire by the voting residents to preserve large lot sizes and open spaces. To accomplish this, proponents sought incorporation to wrest control from the county over local land use, zoning, and development regulations. The high income and land values characteristic of the area and the restrictions on smaller lots and multiunit construction put Wildwood effectively off-limits to assisted housing.

The city of Green Park, located in southern St. Louis County, was also incorporated in 1995. With about 2,400 people and 1.3 square miles, this city is far smaller than Wildwood. Its incorporation was approved in April 1995, and Green Park officially became a city in June of that year. As in the case of Wildwood, zoning and local land use control was reputedly the main driving force behind Green Park's incorporation. From newspaper accounts and other sources, however, it seems certain that the county's possible location of Section 8 housing within this area was what solidified the 65% positive vote for incorporation.

A third incorporation attempt in 1995 failed. The proposed city of South Point would have encompassed virtually all of southern St. Louis County that then remained unincorporated. The resulting municipality would have had a population of almost 105,000 and covered 48 square miles. Concerns over zoning, land use, and development were clearly the driving forces behind this incorporation movement, yet the failure of the incorporation vote has been traced to the fact that several distinct but unincorporated communities (Lemay, Affton, Sappington, Concord, and others) were not willing to subsume their identities into a larger new city. The result: a 71% negative vote.

Opposition to subsidized housing in St. Louis County frequently surfaces in suburban newspapers and in the city's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In the October 21, 1995, "Letters" section of the Post-Dispatch, for example, readers protested the opposition to a subsidized housing unit in Afton, an unincorporated community in south county. This exchange was only one instance of a controversy that has plagued the scattered site housing program of the St. Louis County Housing Authority. In response to such controversy, County Executive George R. Westfall had earlier (on September 28, 1995) suspended the program, pending the appointment of a committee of residents to advise the county's housing authority on the selection of sites. The controversy involved plans by the housing authority to buy one home in Affton, but possibly up to four in the future, in order to build subsidized housing. As reported in the Post-Dispatch, "About 300 residents attended a public meeting, alarmed that the presence of prospective tenants could lower nearby property values and damage the neighborhood" (Schlinkmann, 1995, p. C6). When asked about what the effect of appointing a citizen committee might have on the scattered-site program, the county executive indicated that it might signal the end of the program. According to a newspaper report:

Westfall stopped short of asking that the committee be given veto power over decisions of the Housing Authority, but said the panel would make it less likely that scattered-site subsidized housing would be placed in areas that didn't want it. "It's possible these homes will never be placed," he said. (Schlinkmann, 1995, p. C6)

As indicated earlier, the shortage of available sites for subsidized housing has resulted in such housing being concentrated into a few areas in the northernmost parts of the county. A recent attempt to build more subsidized units in that area provoked strong opposition. In early October 1995, a developer asked the MHDC to issue $9 million in tax-exempt bonds and provide a federal income tax credit in support of a housing project in the area that would include some lower-income units. Speaking at a meeting attended by 300 opponents, State Senator John Schneider asserted that 73% of all the county's subsidized housing was already located in the northern section. He claimed that although residents of the area had been tolerant of such projects in the past, another one could threaten the area's economic viability. A state representative from north county, Laurie Donovan, also spoke at the meeting, saying, "Don't give us any more [subsidized housing]. We don't need this, and we don't want this" (Sutin, 1995, p. 1).

Presently, subsidized housing in St. Louis County is being administered without scattered-site objectives, and opposition has emerged in both poverty-impacted and nonpoverty-impacted areas. In the absence of a metropolitan areawide housing plan or leadership from the region or state, it is extremely unlikely that any significant number of subsidized units can be located outside of poverty-impacted areas. The consequence is that subsidized housing is likely to continue to resegregate the Black population.

CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

The following is a listing of actions that government authorities could have taken but have failed to take to ensure that federally assisted housing programs in the St. Louis metropolitan area do not reinforce racial segregation. These recommendations begin where Saltman's (1990) proposed corrective actions, offered in her study of 15 urban areas, left off. Saltman identified several actions that were particularly effective in achieving the stable integration of neighborhoods in the 15 cities she studied, including: (a) the identification of amenities in the target neighborhoods; (b) the adoption of supportive policies by local governments; (c) the implementation of a comprehensive school desegregation program; (d) the deconcentration of public housing; (e) the development of an extensive affirmative action marketing program; (f) the adoption of an effective regional housing program; and (g) the provision of an adequate regional housing supply for all income levels.

In the St. Louis metropolitan area, the third of Saltman's recommendations-the implementation of a comprehensive school desegregation program-has been in effect since 1981. Consistent with the research and findings reported here, five other corrective actions are recommended to promote fair housing and residential desegregation in the St. Louis region:

(1) The MHDC should include a statement affirming a commitment to fair housing and residential desegregation in its published documents and proposal guidelines. It should also work proactively with local governments to promote fair-share housing policies and make available additional funds for programs designed to achieve residential desegregation goals. Additionally, in cooperation with HUD, local housing authorities, and nonprofit housing providers, it should promote scattered-site housing in all of its housing subsidy programs.

(2) The state of Missouri should promote and work with institutions within the St. Louis metropolitan area to develop an areawide housing opportunity plan for the region. The EWGCC constitutes the logical, but not the only, institution through which to coordinate such an effort. An active role by the state would help implement the recommendations offered in Orfield's 1981 report and satisfy the need for a regional housing authority expressed by focus groups convened in conjunction with PPRC's (1995b) study of fair housing in the St. Louis area. The state should also work with the Regional Housing Alliance (RHA), a nonprofit housing group in the St. Louis area, to identify regional housing needs and help develop a plan for the provision of affordable housing throughout the metropolitan region. The RHA offers an appropriate administrative mechanism for state programs that promote fair housing and desegregation objectives. The importance of strong leadership by the state is underscored by the likelihood that in the future HUD may recommend consolidating most of its housing programs into broad grants that will be sent to the states with few strings attached (Dreier & Atlas, 1995).

(3) In cooperation with local housing authorities and nonprofit housing providers, the MHDC should identify state, local, and federal sources of funds to finance a housing mobility program, to be implemented in conjunction with all tenant-based housing programs.8

(4) The state of Missouri should provide mortgage financing to housing authorities in the St. Louis area. This would help the region accomplish the goal of supplying housing for people of all income levels. Such a program would also expand homeownership opportunities for African American and White families in nonpoverty-impacted areas. The MHDC should hire a local realty agency or contract with a nonprofit organization in the St. Louis area to assist African American homebuyers in this regard. Such a program would have a significant opportunity to succeed, given that a recent study has shown that Black renters in St. Louis County are very interested in becoming homeowners (PPRC, 1995b).

(5) The state of Missouri should take the lead in devising policies for fair housing enforcement. Specifically, MHDC should coordinate with nonprofit agencies such as the Equal Opportunity Council and the Fair Housing Center to support their continuing programs to hire testers for fair housing enforcement (PPRC, 1995b). Such programs are an effective means of keeping real estate companies and landlords in compliance with fair housing laws.

Adoption of measures such as those suggested here, even at this late date, could help to ameliorate the segregated housing patterns that contribute to segregation in the schools. Over the last few years, controversial and expensive programs of school desegregation have lost much of their political support. In its 1998 session, the Missouri state legislature approved a bill that is likely to lead to the eventual end of the St. Louis region's voluntary interdistrict desegregation program. One of the provisions of this bill requires that voters in the city of St. Louis approve a property or sales tax increase to partially match state funding of a transition program. If St. Louis's program goes the way of other desegregation efforts, it is more imperative that ever that the racial segregation of urban neighborhoods be reduced. Ultimately, the residential integration of Black and White families is the surest remedy for the pernicious level of segregation that still exists in urban schools.

1Gary Orfield is currently a professor of education and social policy at Harvard University, and was a witness for the plaintiffs in the 1996 Liddell hearings that are the focus of this Yearbook issue. His testimony in this later case is also presented in this issue.

2The MHDC was established by the Missouri legislature in 1969, and authorized to issue and sell tax-exempt bonds for the purpose of providing permanent financing for single-family dwellings and below-market rate construction and permanent financing of multifamily housing. Today, the MHDC administers a variety of programs including federal tax credits, state tax credits, rental housing production, rental assistance for families and individuals, and downpayment assistance as well as permanent financing of housing through cooperation with local governments, lenders, developers, and nonprofit organizations. From its founding through June 1994, when it reported total assets of more than $1.4 billion, the MHDC had issued approximately $2.8 billion in taxexempt bonds and notes, financed 21,000 units of low- and moderate-income rental apartments, and provided more than 38,000 loans for low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers. Additionally, it had allocated over $420 million in federal low-income housing tax credits, supporting 910 developments across the state containing 16,758 rental units. It manages a large proportion of all housing programs administered by governmental and nonprofit agencies in the St. Louis metropolitan area (MHDC, 1994).

3Established in 1965, the EWGCC is run by a board of directors composed of political representatives of the key governmental bodies in the St. Louis metropolitan area. It has the authority to coordinate the preparation of a regional housing plan. One such report, prepared in 1973, lacked specific goals or recommendations. The EWGCC's 1977 areawide housing plan was rejected by HUD as containing inadequate information; no amended plan was subsequently produced (Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, 1995).

4Jjust one school district outside the corridor, Maplewood, does not participate because of its enrollment status.

5Accordingly, HUD initiated its Moving to Opportunity Housing demonstration programs in five metropolitan areas, and provided special Section 8 funds to encourage public housing authorities to create their own mobility programs to train and inform Section 8 recipients so that they may locate outside of poverty-impacted

areas. However, neither HUD, MHDC, St. Louis city or county housing authorities, nor local nonprofit providers conducted such programs in the St. Louis area. In the only exception to this, in April 1995, the District Court ordered the St. Louis Housing Authority and HUD to issue 105 Section 8 vouchers to replace units lost due to the demolition of two city housing complexes. A nonprofit agency was designated to provide assistance and training for recipients of these vouchers.

6See Orfield (1981) for a review of this process.

7For a complete list of regulations, see PPRC (1995a), Appendix A.

8Previous mobility programs have substantially benefitted assisted housing recipients. In 1995, HUD conducted an evaluation of the mobility programs then in operation in eight major metropolitan areas (Chicago, Cincinnati, Memphis, Dallas, Hartford, Boston, Las Vegas, and Yonkers [New York]); all but one were mandated by consent decree or a negotiated agreement. In its report to Congress, HUD concluded that these programs "have been generally successful in facilitating housing opportunities within neighborhoods and communities not typically used by rental assistance recipients" (Goering et al., 1995, p. 80). The best-known court-ordered effort is Chicago's Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program. Originally filed in 1966 and later heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing, (1969) resulted in the creation of a mobility program that ran for a trial period from 1976 to 1981. A 1982 consent decree extended the program until the named plaintiff class7,100 Black families living in public housing and on a waiting list-are able to move into neighborhoods that are less than 30% Black (Gautreaux v. Pierce, 1982). Each family is provided with a housing counselor and meets with prospective realtors who help them provide information and prepare documents related to the relocation process. Participants are also provided some services after they move; those with credit or other problems that might hinder a successful move are offered additional counseling. All these services average less than one thousand dollars per family. By 1994, over 5,600 families had moved to nonpoverty-impacted areas under the program; 3,000 of them are dispersed among Chicago's suburbs.

REFERENCES

Board of Education of the City of St. Louis/St. Louis Community Development Agency. (1995). Desegregation report and policy statement. St. Louis, MO: Authors.

Craton Liddell et al. v. the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri et al., 469 F. Supp. (1980).

Dreier, P., &Atlas, J. (1995). The uncertain future of U.S. housing policy: An analysis and prescription. Unpublished paper, Public Policy Program, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA.

East-West Gateway Coordinating Council. (1992, December). Where we stand. St. Louis, MO: Author.

Farley, J. E. (1991a). Black-White housing segregation in the city of St. Louis: A 1988 update. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26(3), 442-450.

Farley, J. E. (1991b, October). Racial housing segregation in the St. Louis metropolitan area, 1990. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Illinois Sociological Association, Evanston. Farley, J. E. (1995). Race still matters: The minimal role of income and housing cost as causes of housing segregation in St. Louis, 1990. Urban Affairs Review, 32(2), 244-254.

Farley, R., & Frey, W. H. (1994). Changes in the segregation of Whites from Blacks during the 1980s: Small steps toward a more integrated society. American Sociological Review, 59, 23-45. Fischer, P. (1980, July 17). Racial factors in housing and schools: a report on St. Louis. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Task Force on Racial Patterns in Housing and Schools, Washington, DC. Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 296 F. Supp. 907 (1969). Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F. 2d. 616 (1982).

Goering, J., Kamely, A., & Richardson, T. (1994). The location and racial composition of public housing in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Goering, J., Stebbins, H., & Siewert, M. (1995). Promoting housing choice in HUD's rental assistance program: A report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Massey, D. (1990). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 329-357.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1989). Hypersegregation in U.S. metropolitan areas: Black and Hispanic segregation along five dimensions. Demography, 26, 373-391. Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.

Boston: Harvard University Press.

Massey, D., & Eggers, M. (1990). The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the concentration of poverty, 1970-1980. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1153-1189.

Missouri Department of Economic Development. (1995). State of Missouri 1995 consolidated plan, three-year strategy: 1995-1997. Jefferson City: Author. Orfield, G. (1981). The housing issues in the St. Louis case. Report submitted to U.S. District Court Judge William L. Hungate, St. Louis, MO.

Public Policy Research Centers, University of Missouri-St. Louis. (1995a). Analysis of impediments to fair housing: City of St. Louis. St. Louis: Author. Public Policy Research Centers, University of Missouri-St. Louis. (1995b). Analysis of impediments to fair housing: St. Louis County. St. Louis: Author.

Saltman, J. (1990). A fragile movement: The struggle for neighborhood stabilization. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Schlinkmann, M. (1995, September 29). Housing program frozen in county. St. Louis PostDispatch, p. C6.

St. Louis Community Development Agency. (1993). Comprehensive housing affordability strategy, city of St. Louis-Five-year strategy, 1994-1998. St. Louis, MO: Author. St. Louis County Department of Planning. (1994).1994 fact book. Clayton, MO: Author. St. Louis County Department of Planning. (1995). St. Louis County Consolidated Plan, 1995-1997. Clayton, MO: St. Louis County Department of Planning and the St. Louis County Department of Human Services.

Sutin, P. (1995, October 16). Apartments plan draw opposition. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, pp. 1, 5.

Taeuber, K. E., Monfort, F. W., Massey, P. A., & Taeuber, A. F. (1984, May). The trend in racial segregation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Minneapolis, MN.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1991a). Public policy research and the truly disadvantaged. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 460-481). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Wilson, W. J. (1991b). Studying inner-city social dislocations: The challenge of public-agenda research. American Sociological Review, 56, 1-14.

Judd was an expert witness for the Caldwell/NAACP plaintiffs.

Copyright Howard University Summer 1997
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved