Citation
Housing

Material Information

Title:
Housing a key element in Denver Public School racial balance
Alternate title:
Housing, a key element in Denver Public School racial balance
Creator:
Rubin, Rayna
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 78 leaves : maps ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School integration -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Neighborhoods -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Housing -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Housing ( fast )
Neighborhoods ( fast )
School integration ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 78).
General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
Rayna Rubin.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
13082382 ( OCLC )
ocm13082382
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1985 .R823 ( lcc )

Full Text

HOUSING: A KEY ELEMENT
IN DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOL RACIAL BALANCE

Rayna Rubin PCD Thesis University of Colorado,
Denver
1985
ARCHIVES
LD
1190
A78
1985
R823


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is the assertion of this paper that by creating racially balanced neighborhoods, public schools will generally reflect this racial mix and that housing is an appropriate tool to do this. By examining demographic information on Denver public elementary schools and their census tracts, it is possible to identify neighborhoods where housing programs can play an Important role in promoting racial balance and stability.
To support the thesis and to identify those elementary school neighborhoods where housing programs may be most useful, several types of Information are examined.
1. The racial mix of the children enrolled in Denver elementary walk-in schools, first through sixth grades (1984-85 school year)
This information is used to examine which schools are racially balanced, and which are racially imbalanced and the extent to which they are imbalanced. (Racial balance is taken from the guidelines initially set forth by the United States District Court: 15% plus or minus the current white-minority racial mix).
2. The racial mix of children ages six through twelve enrolled in Denver elementary schools by census tract (1984-85 school year)
This information facilitates examination of the racial mix
i


of children in non-walk-in schools by neighborhood.
Those neighborhoods which exhibit slight racial imbalance (1 to 25 students above the U.S. District Court definition) are identified in this paper as Target Neighborhoods and are referred to this way for the balance of the research.
The Target Neighborhoods identified in this report are as follows:
Walk-In Schools: Remington, Valdez, Johnson, Lincoln and Montclair
Non-Walk-In Schools: Force, Edison, Rosedale, Ellis,
Moore, Fallis and Palmer
Additional characteristics of the Target Neighborhoods listed above are examined to Indicate feasibility of housing activities and additional demographic information about the children in these neighborhoods.
1. Live Births in Denver, 1980-1983, by Race and Census Tract This information provides an indication of the trends in racial mix in each neighborhood, as well as the number of potential new students to be brought into the public school system.
2. Private Elementary School Enrollment ( 1980) by Census Tract
This information indicates the number of children not in the public schools that might be brought into the system.
3. Single Family Housing Transactions by Census Tract (1983) Single family housing sales indicate the cost and number of houses which can be expected to be for sale in each
ii


neighborhood. (Although rental housing also offers opportunities, it is not included in this study.)
4. Number of Vacant Lots by Zone and Census Tract
The number of vacant lots indicates opportunities for new housing development. The zone (Denver Zoning Code) indicates the density of housing allowed. Only residentially zoned lots are included.
5 Public Housing Units by Target Neighborhood
Existing public housing units managed by the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) may offer additional opportunities for racially balancing a neighborhood through placement practices in these units.
The findings of all information on Target Neighborhoods is summarized on the following table.
The findings indicate different general activities for each Target Neighborhood. The general activities include, but are not limited only to, housing activities. They are defined as follows:
I. Monitoring: This is applied to neighborhoods where the
school is racially balanced or an improving trend is evident. This activity involves watching the school and neighborhood demographics for changes, particularly negative changes which may indicate additional activities.
II. School Activities: This applies to neighborhoods which
are largely racially balanced and therefore housing activities are not required to create a racial balance. Bringing more children into these schools and improving the
iii


i v
Table
SUMMARY OF TARGET NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION
r Number Number 1 I Average | Number DHA 1
i Needed to I Needed to I Percent Number in I Price | Number Public 1
i School > Balance | Balance I White Private I Housing | I Sales | Vacant Lots Housing 1
i Census Tract I Census Tract School | Births Schools Units 1
r i Remington T~ A 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1
i 2.02 , I N/A 1 9w 1 36 42 1 56,400 | 7 425 1
i i (1.02) 1 1 1 76 1 99 1 62,700 | 1 1 10 1 1
i i Valdez T~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 6.00 1 N/A 1 8w 1 34 46 1 46,400 | 21 34 1
i i (4.02) 1 1 1 31 1 34 i 61,900 I 1 1 35 1 I
i i Johnson 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 46.03 N/A 18m 1 76 103 1 49,500 | 1 5 1
i i 46.02 1 1 1 51 1 61 I 62,800 | 1 1 48 I 1
r i Lincoln 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 29.01 N/A 1 16m 1 81 15 1 69,700 | 3 5 1
i (21.00) 1 1 31 51 1 51,900 I 16 1
i (28.01) 1 1 78 27 I 103,100 | 9 1
i (28.02) 1 I 62 0 1 71,000 | 6 1
i i (29.02) 1 1 I 88 1 70 1 90,900 | I I 1 1 1
i i Montclair ~r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1
i (44.01) N/A 1 13m 1 61 67 1 55,200 I 30 9 1
i i (43.04) 1 1 1 93 1 135 1 92,700 | 1 1 3 1 1
T i Force 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 r i
i 46.01 29m 1 N/A6 1 83 100 I 60,000 I 6 2 i
i i (46.02) 1 0 1 1 I 51 1 61 1 62,800 I 1 1 48 i i
i i Edison ~r 1 1 1 1 r I I T 1
i 3.02 I 4m 1 N/A I 75 22 | 66,600 | 6 7 1
i i 3.03 1 1 1 56 1 50 I 59,500 1 1 1 3 1 1


Table continued
r Number Number 1 I Average | Number DHA T
i Needed to I Needed to I Percent Number in 1 Price | Number Public 1
i School Balance Balance I White Private I Housing | I Sales | Vacant Lots Housing 1
i Census Tract Census Tract School 1 Births Schools Units I
i i Rosedale ~r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 14.03 4m 1 N/A 1 71 23 1 53,000 I 26 1 1
i i (30.02) 22m 1 1 1 90 1 0 1 70,800 | 1 1 4 1 1
r i Ellis ~r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 51.02 41m 1 N/A 1 88 75 1 73,500 | 6 0 1
i 51.03 7m 1 1 82 49 1 83,700 1 4 1
i i 51.04 10m 1 1 1 81 1 39 1 78,600 | I 1 6 1 1
i i Moore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 27.01 0 1 N/A 1 55 8 1 159,800 | 31 17 1
i 27.02 6m 1 I 64 40 1 145,500 I 29 1
i 27.03 0 1 1 46 0 1 100,000 I 7 1
i 28.01 12m I 1 78 27 1 103,100 | 9 1
i 32.01 9m 1 1 63 18 1 152,300 | 6 1
i i 32.03 9m 1 1 1 97 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
i i Fallis ~r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1
i 70.01 0 1 N/A 1 78 32 I 120,800 | 0 I
i i (50.02) 26m 1 1 I 83 1 167 1 118,000 | 1 1 17 1 1
i i Palmer ~T~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1
i 43.01 15m 1 N/A 1 74 35 I 108,200 | 12 0 I
i 43.02 20m I 1 85 39 1 92,700 I 2 1
Table Footnotes:
1. Single family housing, condominiums not included.
2. 6000 square feet and larger
3. m = minority
4. w = white
5. Partial census tracts are in parenthesis.
6. N/A = Not Applicable because not walk-in school.


schools themselves are appropriate activities for these areas.
III. School and Housing Activities: Neighborhoods where there is a racial Imbalance which the Department of Public
Schools cannot correct on its own. A combination of
housing activities, such as new construction and
affirmative marketing of new and resale houses, in
conjunction with school recruitment, is warranted to stabilize and improve racial balance.
IV. School and Housing Activities which Include Public Housing ; The same as No. 3, adding the availability of DHA public housing as an additional resource in housing activities. DHA involvement would focus on placement of families in the units they manage which contribute to racially balancing the neighborhood.
The following table illustrates which activities are appropriate for each Target Neighborhood as indicated by the information collected on each neighborhood.
vi


Figure
DENVER TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PILOT PROJECT BY ACTIVITY CATEGORY
O @ V o


While housing activities can play an important role in creating racially balanced and stable neighborhoods, they would be more effective if implemented in concert with other activities aimed at achieving the same goal. For this reason, a pilot project is recommended to coordinate all activities in one or more of the neighborhoods identified as Target Neighborhoods. In addition to the general school and housing activities identified, it would be more effective to enlist the support of public and private mortgage lending and Insuring institutions, as well as key realtors. Support of visible leading groups, such as the School Board and the Mayor's Office, would further contribute to the success of any pilot project.
ix


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to offer special thanks to Steve Gordon of the Denver Planning Office for instigating this study, supplying the bulk of data, and for making his personal office available to me without advance notice from me.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the Denver Community Housing Resource for funding this effort and especially to Kathy Cheever for her time and wealth of ideas. Thanks to Jim Daniels of the Denver Public School Department and Bea Sutton Branscombe of the Colorado Civil Rights Division who also contributed their valuable time and resources to this report.
Personal thanks go to my thesis advisor Herb H. Smith for his discipline and supervision and to Billie Bramhall for her humor and support.
Rayna Rubin October, 1985 Denver, Colorado


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary Acknowledgements Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Methodology 4
Definitions 5
Chapter 2. Background 12
Chapter 3. Target Neighborhoods 21
Chapter 4. Characteristics of Target
Neighborhoods 36
Chapter 5. Analysis of Target Neighborhoods 55
Chapter 6. Conclusion 66
APPENDIX
1. List of Denver Elementary Walk-In Schools 74
2. Trends in Denver Elementary Walk-In Schools
1982 1985. 76
3 .
Bibliography
78


LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Current Status of White-Minority Enrollment in
Denver Elementary Walk-In Schools 25
2. White-Minority Children In Denver Elementary In
Schools by Census Tract 29
3. Priority Ranking of Elementary Non Walk-In
School Neighborhoods. 34
4. Live Births In Denver Target Neighborhoods -
1980-1983. 37
5. Private Elementary School Enrollment In
Denver Target Neighborhoods 1980. 42
6. Single Family Housing Transactions In Target
Neighborhoods 1983. 46
7. Number of Vacant Lots 6,000 Square Feet or
Larger In Target Neighborhoods by Zone 1983. 50
8. Summary of Target Neighborhood Information 57
9. Denver Target Neighborhoods by Activity
Category. 69


27
32
35
39
44
48
52
54
70
LIST OF FIGURES
Current Status of White Minority Enrollment in Denver Elementary Walk-In Schools
White Minority Children In Denver Elementary Schools by Census Tract
Elementary Non-Walk-In and Walk-In School Target Neighborhoods
Live Births In Denver Target Neighborhoods -1980-1983.
Private Elementary School Enrollment In Denver Target Neighborhoods 1980.
Single Family Housing Transactions In Target Neighborhoods 1983.
Number of Vacant Lots 6,000 Square Feet or Larger In Target Neighborhoods By Zone 1983.
Public Housing Managed by the Denver Housing Authority.
Denver Target Neighborhoods For Pilot Project By Activity Category.


CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Even since the ruling on Brown vs. Board of Education, public school systems have been forced to deal with integrating their schools and providing equal education to all segments of the population with varying degrees of success. Busing has been the controversial tool later developed to achieve school desegregation.
While Denver has not experienced the turmoil of other major cities, it has experienced negative effects from court-ordered busing particularly in combination with its loss of annexation power through the "Poundstone" amendment to the Colorado State Constitution. Many white families left Denver to the suburbs in fear, making integration of public schools even more difficult. While there is evidence that this trend is slowly reversing, the problem still remains. The burden of integration has largely fallen on the shoulders of the public school boards and they have had to work alone at this effort. It must be recognized that desegregation is not solely a school issue, but a problem for the community at large which must involve several institutions. Busing is not a solution to segregation and
does not get at the root of the problem. The way to
integrate schools is to integrate and stabilize the
neighborhoods. This can only be achieved with the
1


commitment and coordination of several institutions and agencies not just through the public school system alone.
One of the most direct ways to influence a neighborhoods make-up is through housing activities. In 1981 HUD held a conference in Denver which focused on the relationship between housing patterns and school integration. Housing activities have an intimate relationship to neighborhood characteristics including the ethnic make up of their schools. Yet housing activities are not coordinated with or supportive of, school desegregation programs. In fact, it was found that some housing programs, inadvertantly served to undermine these activities. This conference looked at how public housing programs as well as private housing activities, could increase public school integration throughout the Denver metropolitan area.
The Denver Planning Office (DPO) has expressed its commitment to making Denver a more attractive and liveable city for families. A major element in an attractive community is quality public schools and busing is considered a stigma to any school system. The DPO is investigating ways that the City can work in concert with the DPS to support and promote Walk-In Schools.
2


It is the assertion of this paper that by creating racially balanced neighborhoods, public schools will generally reflect this mix and also be racially balanced. By examining demographic information on Denver public elementary schools and census tracts it is possible to identify neighborhoods where housing programs could play an important role in promoting racial balance and stability. Areas where it appears the public schools play a major role will also be identified.
Just as Denver public schools cannot create truly racially balanced schools alone, the Denver Planning Office cannot implement a successful housing integration program alone. Other agencies and institutions must also participate and coordinate with the Planning Office and School Department in implementation of any such project. Because integration is a difficult and complex problem, it is recommended that a pilot project be developed for one or more of the target neighborhoods identified in this report and be implemented through a coordinated effort of various public and private agencies over the next one or two years. This pilot project will also be discussed in this paper.
3


METHODOLOGY AND REPORT ORGANIZATION
The purpose of the methodology is to identify which Denver neighborhoods are likely to be responsive to activities which encourage racial balance and stability. The purpose is also to identify which general activities are appropriate for each Target Neighborhood.
Elementary school level is chosen for a data base because these districts are geographically smaller than higher school levels and more closely reflect the neighborhoods in which they are located. Most of the information used in this report is available only by census tract. The tracts are matched with their corresponding elementary school district as closely as possible but boundaries between the two seldom correspond. Where half or more of a census tract lies within the school boundary, the information about that tract is applied to the neighborhood. Where less than half a census tract lies within a school boundary information about that tract is not included. Because of this method, data presented about elementary school neighborhoods should be viewed as approximate.
In general, a reasonable number of families expected to move into an elementary school neighborhood through housing resales, new infill housing or placement in public housing
4


over a two year period is determined to be 15 to 20. Since a family will tend to consist of one to three children 15 to 20 families will generally include 25 children. Therefore, 25 children is considered to be the maximum number for consideration in balancing a school or neighborhood without disrupting an area's character and promoting major movement of families. Target Neighborhoods are those elementary school neighborhoods which need 25 or less white or minority children to create racial balance in the local public school.
* Definitions
The following are definitions of terms used in this
report which may have different meanings in a different context.
Racially balanced - A school or census tract which
reflects the U.S. District Court's determination on the Keyes Case (discussed in Chapter 2) that a school is
racially balanced if there are 15% plus or minus the existing white-minority balance of children in the City of Denver. This mix is currently 3 8% white and 62% minority. Therefore, a range of 23 to 53% of white children are
allowed in a school for it to be considered racially balanced. This ratio was determined in an early ruling and
5


is no longer enforced but is continued to be used as a guide.
White Anglo plus other white races.
Minority All non-white races.
Elementary Walk-In School A public school which serves the children in the immediate neighborhood. Children are generally not bused in to the school or bused out of the neighborhood. Children who live one mile or more from
school may chose to take a bus for distance reasons. (See list of schools in appendix 1.)
Elementary Paired School A public school where grades are split between two schools. For example, first through third grades are at one school then they are sent to the paired school for fourth through sixth grades.
Elementary Satellite School A public school which includes children from the immediate neighborhood plus buses in children from other neighborhoods. The children in the immediate neighborhood are not bused out during elementary school.
6


A. Target Neighborhoods
The Target Neighborhoods were determined by looking at the current racial mix of walk-in schools and children enrolled in public schools by census tract. The walk-in schools generally reflect the surrounding neighborhood and indicate its racial balance. The child population of census tracts indicate racial mix in non-walk-in school neighborhoods as well as walk-in school neighborhoods.
If the mix falls within the court defined 23-53% white or 47-77% minority, then this neighborhood is considered to be racially balanced. (See Definitions Racially Balanced). For convenience, this report often discusses racial balance in terms of percent white rather than minority since much information was available in this way. If the racial mix is out of the balanced" category by 25 white or minority children or less, this neighborhood is considered "slightly imbalanced." Those areas that need more than 25 white or minority children to balance them are considered "significantly imbalanced." Walk-in schools with low ranks (25 or less white or minority children needed to balance) are identified as Target Neighborhoods. Additional information for these areas is then examined to determine appropriate activities and opportunities to promote racial balance.
7


B. Examination of Target Neighborhood Characteristics
Once Target Neighborhoods are identified, additional characteristics are examined to identify the general type of activities and opportunities appropriate for these areas. The following describes the additional characteristics and trends:
1. Live Births 1980 1983 By Census Tract
This information shows the most recent number and racial mix of live births in Denver by census tract. Both the racial trends for each
neighborhood and the opportunities for recruitment into the public school system are indicated in the analysis. The trend is determined by comparing the percent of white babies to the current percent of white children to see if the percent is the same or changing.
2. Private Elementary School Enrollment By Census Tract 1980
Private school enrollment by census tract indicates opportunities for recruitment into the
8


public school system. The number of elementary age children in private school is indicated. If over 50 children are enrolled in private school this is considered a significant amount. Accurate enrollment figures after 1980 are not readily available. The racial mix is also not available.
3. Single Family Housing Transactions By Census Tract 1983
The number of transactions and price of single family houses sold in 1983 by census tract is an indication of opportunities for housing activity through sale of existing units. While this study does not limit opportunities only to low and moderate income families, low and moderate prices do offer housing opportunities to a larger number of families. Low price is considered to be under $60,000; moderate is $60,001 to $100,000, high is over $100,000.
4. Vacant Lots Bv Zone and Census Tract 1983
The number of vacant lots over 6,000 square feet by census tract indicates opportunities for new housing development. 6,000 square feet is
9


considered the smallest size lot where new
construction is feasible. Over 10 lots is considered to offer good opportunities while under 10 lots offers limited opportunities.
5. Public Housing Managed by DHA bv Census Tract
Public housing managed by the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) in a Target Neighborhood could be included in efforts to racially balance the area and school. Most of these units are single houses scattered throughout a neighborhood ("scattered site housing") and their addresses are
confidential. These units are indicated by their general geographical areas. Other public housing is mapped in a more accurate fashion.
C. Analysis
The analysis combines the above data and summarizes it for each Target Neighborhood. Appropriate activities to promote and stabilize racial balance are then identified from the summaries and discussed for each Target Neighborhood.
10


D. Conclusion
The conclusion identifies Target Neighborhoods by General Activity Category and geographic location in the city. It also proposes and discusses elements of a pilot project as the next step.
11


CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
In the 1950's Brown vs. Board of Education, a landmark case of the U.S. Supreme Court, brought national attention to the racial injustices practiced against blacks in the United States. "Separate but equal" proved to be a fallacy in the public school system. Court-ordered school busing has been the controversial result of this case. While insuring parity between schools is a reasonable function of a public school administration, integrating these schools racially is truthfully much larger in scope than a public school system alone can effectively address. The burden of implementing school integration has, however, fallen almost exclusively on the shoulders of public school administrations.
DENVER'S BACKGROUND
The school segregation problem came to light in Denver, Colorado in 1969 with Keyes case (Keyes vs. School District No. 1, 303 F. Supp. 279 (1969). In the late 1940's and through the 1950's Denver's black population increased significantly. It expanded east into northeast Denver from the Five Points area where blacks lived earlier. It was perceived by Mr. Keyes and others, and the court ruling
12


supports this, that the Denver Public School District attempted to contain the black community west of Colorado Boulevard and roughly north of 26th Avenue by building additional school (Barrett) and units at other schools (Smith, Hallett, Stedman) to "catch the "overflow" of black children. In addition, the black schools declined in quality over several years compared to schools in white neighborhoods. The court substantiated Mr. Keyes complaint and the DPS has been under court-ordered busing since 1974. In 1985, the U.S. District Court ruled not to rescind the desegregation order.
THE PROBLEM
There are several factors that contribute to the problem of integrating and stabilizing elementary school neighborhoods.
A. Negative Demographic Trends
First of all, Denver experienced a decline in household size similar to the rest of the country. In 1970 a household size averaged 2.66 people compared to 2.15 in 1980. More recently, Denver shows 1.4 children per family in Kindergarten through sixth grades. This, in turn, contributed to declining school enrollment. Until 1984,
13


Denver, like many other cities, experienced an overall declining population while the surrounding suburbs experienced growth. When court-ordered busing went into effect, again like other cities, Denver experienced "white flight" to the suburbs. Before the court order 50% or more of public school students were white. By 1980 the white population declined to 41%. This was caused not only by "white flight" but by fewer whites enrolling their children in Denver public schools. In 1970 17.3% of white children were going to school elsewhere, increasing to 20% by 1978.1
"White flight" seems to have leveled off and a more stable trend appears to be returning. However, the problem of declining white enrollment is a problem as is illustrated by the Stedman School where only 26% of white children are enrolled while the neighborhood is 50% white.2
The make-up of the City of Denver also exhibits a growing minority population and a shrinking white population of children. Where whites made up 41% of the population when court-ordered busing went into effect. Statistics show they are only 38% in 1984.3 While a 3% decline is significant, it is not a tremendous loss over a 10 year period given the general decline of the Denver population.
14


B. Loss of Annexation Power
In 1972 the State of Colorado passed a constitutional amendment which effectively prevents Denver from annexing land adjacent to the city limits. According to Orfield & Fischer in their 1981 revised paper, this was the single most influential decision contributing to the city's inability to stabilize and desegregate within the city boundaries. Other cities such as Houston, Phoenix and Charlotte used the annexation tool to include more whites in the city's population thus stabilizing the racial mix after "white flight." Loss of annexation power contributes to the high white population in adjacent Denver suburbs and to the unstable diminishing white population within the city limits .4
C. Public and Private Housing Practices
Public housing practices have not directly addressed the integration issue. Their activities, rather, reflect the HUD requirements for the various public housing programs. The effect of public housing location and placement practices has resulted in little effort to place whites in minority neighborhoods and vice versa. This result is reflected in the fact that 40% of the minority population is concentrated in 50 census tracts out of 130
15


census tracts in 1980. Over 70% of assisted housing is located in areas with over 40% minority residents, while only 14% of assisted housing is located in white areas. The effect of public housing location and placement practices has been to reinforce the white and minority residential patterns. It appears that the Denver Housing Authority (DHA), who administers and manages assisted housing in Denver, presently has no feasible mechanism to place white families in minority neighborhoods or minorities in white neighborhoods.
Private housing marketing practices closely follow the practices of lenders who identify certain neighborhoods, usually minority areas, as higher risk loan areas. In the past Federal Housing Administration (FHA) had regulations which restricted loans to newer houses which are typically located in newer suburbs. These regulations made it difficult to get housing loans in inner city neighborhoods. While these practices may be found less today, they have set a segregated housing pattern which is perpetuated by current practices.
Realtors tend to show clients houses in neighborhoods of "their own kind." This practice has the effect intentionally or unintentionally of reinforcing segregated housing patterns. Fair Housing Centers and Civil Rights
16


Offices have challenged this "steering" practice and have produced some successful law suits, bringing it widespread
attention. Testing activities have not been common in
Denver, but recently there has been some activity. It
should be noted that it is difficult to determine where there is racially biased motivation for this practice of steering buyers to selected neighborhoods and where it is due to economic incentives which reward realtors for selling from their own listings. Either way, the private housing market activities tend to support and continue the existence of segregated communities.
According to Orfield & Fischer, desegregation is more successful in Denver than in some other major cities.6 In spite of the negative trends and difficulties mentioned above, there are some encouraging factors for desegregation activities in Denver.
1. Negative racial attitudes in Denver aren't as violent and deep-seated as in other cities like Boston and Cleveland.7
2. The negative "white flight" trend and population loss seem to have slowed significantly and may even be reversing. 8
17


3.
Q
The DPS has released a report which shows that the quality of education in Denver public schools has improved and that high school test scores for college have increased. The DPS is also negotiating with the court to rescind the busing order claiming they have made significant progress in improving the quality of education city-wide. It should also be noted that out of the total number of public schools, a significant number of them are walk-in schools.
4. A group exists resulting from an agreement between HUD and the National Association of Realtors (the Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreement) in 1979 out of recognition of the need for more fair housing practices. In Denver this group is the Denver Community Housing Resource Board (CHRB). This Board looks at the larger picture of the private housing market, the practices of lenders, insurance companies, landlords, etc. It identifies problems and educates the various sectors about mechanisms, opportunities and advantages to encouraging affirmative housing as well as stable walk-in school neighborhoods. The Board also serves as a tool of communication between the various sectors involved in helping or hurting desegregation efforts. While it is not set up as a strong organization with policy development or implementation
18


powers, it has become a useful communication and research organization.
As history shows, integration activities can be violent and disruptive and have met with varying degrees of success. In Denver integration is an unresolved issue. The goal, then, is to continue efforts through coordinated activities among various agencies that have the potential to achieve the desired goal within a reasonable period of time.
This paper will identify geographic areas where it is possible to promote integration through housing which will contribute to the integration of the Denver Public Schools. This information is intended to provide the base from which a pilot project may be developed.
19


BACKGROUND FOOTNOTES
1. Orfield, Gary & Fischer, Paul, "A Policy Analysis of Denver", Housing and School Integration In Three Metro Areas; Denver. Columbus and Phoenix. 1981 Revised.
2. Denver Community Housing Resource Board (CHRB)
3. IBID
4. IBID
5. IBID
6. IBID
7. IBID
8. IBID
9. Denver Public Schools In Celebration of Excellence. 1984.
20


CHAPTER 3. TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS
To develop a housing integration program, it is useful to target geographic areas in the city rather than spread efforts out over the whole city. These selected areas will be referred to as "Target Neighborhoods." This chapter examines information by census tract and walk-in school to determine which neighborhoods lend themselves to being Target Neighborhoods. The characteristics chosen revolve around neighborhoods which are only slightly imbalanced. A neighborhood is defined generally by elementary school district boundaries. Where information corresponding to these boundaries is available it is used; otherwise, information is used by census tract. Since the census tract boundaries don't correspond to school boundaries, the application of census tract information to the Target Neighborhoods is not exact. (See Chapter 2, Methodology, for further explanation.) The Target Neighborhoods are referred to by the name of the local elementary school.
The characteristics examined to determine Target Neighborhoods is the racial mix of children in the neighborhood. Where there is a walk-in school, the enrollment data is used. Since these children are not bused in or out, they reflect the neighborhood. In other neighborhoods, public school enrollment by census tract is used because the school data of a nonwalk-in school does not reflect the characteristics of the Immediate neighborhood. There is an assumption made in this
21


report that it is more desirable to initiate a housing program in a neighborhood which requires little change to create racial balance than where large scale change is needed. Major changes would involve large influxes of families into a relatively small area and this would be disruptive to existing neighborhood character.
The goal of the housing integration program recommended in this paper is not intended to disrupt or change the character of a neighborhood, but to alter it enough to create a racial mix of children in the Denver public schools. Therefore, a neighborhood which exhibits a slight racial imbalance is determined to be a Target Neighborhood. This chapter defines and Identifies Target Neighborhoods according to the above criteria. The following chapters examine additional characteristics of these identified Target Neighborhoods.
The two sources of information used to identify Target Neighborhoods are:
A. Mix of white-minority children grades first through sixth enrolled in Denver public walk-in schools (1984-85 school year)
B. Mix of white-minority children ages 6 through 12 (approximately grades first through sixth) enrolled in Denver public schools by census tract (1984-85 school year)
This data is divided into three groups. Group 1 reflects those neighborhoods which are racially balanced and require no
22


additional activities to create racial balance. These neighborhoods are not included as Target Neighborhoods. Group 2 identifies those neighborhoods which are slightly imbalanced and would require a small number of white or minority families to balance them. This is the Target Neighborhood group. Group 3 reflects those neighborhoods which exhibit significant Imbalance and would require large scale activities to create racial balance. These neighborhoods are not included as Target Neighborhoods. The groups are defined as follows:
1. 23-53% white When the racial mix of an area or school falls in this range, it is considered "balanced.' This definition came from the U.S. District Court (see Definitions).
2. When 25 or less white or minority children are needed to balance an area or school, this is considered "slightly imbalanced." This number reflects approximately 15 to 20 families and is considered a reasonable number of people that can be brought into an area over a one or two-year period without disrupting the neighborhood .
3. When over 25 white or minority children are needed to balance an area or school, this is "significantly Imbalanced."
23


A. MIX OF WHITE-MINORITY CHILDREN GRADES FIRST THROUGH SIXTH
ENROLLED IN DENVER WALK-IN SCHOOLS (1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR)
Since walk-in schools draw from their immediate neighborhoods, they also reflect the demographics of the neighborhood. While a walk-in school, by definition (see Definitions), is supposed to be racially balanced, it can be seen on Table 1
that this is not always the case. (Appendix 2 shows the three-year trend of elementary walk-in schools.) Table 1 and Figure 1 illustrate these findings. The schools are listed
generally west to east. The elementary walk-in schools slightly out of balance (Rank 1) are scattered in northwest, southwest, south central and the east central parts of town. The schools significantly imbalanced are largely far southwest and few are scattered in northwest and central areas.
The majority of schools are balanced.
24


Table 1
CURRENT STATUS OF WHITE-MINORITY ENROLLMENT IN DENVER ELEMENTARY WALK-IN SCHOOLS1^
| School Name 1 1 I Total 1 Percent White 1 1 I Number | 1 White | 1 1 Number needed to be within Range" White | Minority 1 1 3 I Rank 1 T 1 I 1
Beach Court 1 1 1 265 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 94 | 0 0 H I 1 1 o 1 1 1 1
Centennial 1 446 59 1 263 I 27 1 2 1
Remington 1 297 20 I 60 | 8 I 1 1
Columbian 1 272 28 1 75 1 0 0 1 0 1
Bryant-Webster 1 469 17 1 78 I 30 1 2 1
Valdez 1 612 22 1 133 1 8 1 1 1
Brown 1 461 32 1 148 I 0 0 1 0 1
Colfax 1 260 27 1 71 | 0 0 1 0 1
Colwell 1 347 30 1 105 I 0 0 1 0 !
Eagleton 1 325 27 1 89 I 0 0 1 0 1
Newlon I 403 40 1 161 I 0 0 1 0 1
Barnum 1 360 29 1 104 | 0 0 1 0 1
Valverde 1 345 32 1 110 1 0 0 1 o 1
Munroe 1 289 29 1 84 | 0 0 1 0 1
Knapp I 456 36 1 166 1 0 0 1 0 I
Westwood 1 374 33 1 124 | 0 0 1 0 1
Goldrick 1 479 34 1 162 I 0 0 1 o 1
Godsman 1 407 47 1 191 I 0 0 1 o 1
Schenck 1 398 47 1 188 | 0 0 1 0 1
Johnson 1 310 59 1 182 I 18 1 1 1
Schmitt I 316 39 1 122 1 0 0 1 o 1
Doull 1 351 64 1 223 1 37 1 2 1
College View 1 265 47 1 124 | 0 0 1 0 1
Gust 1 326 61 1 199 I 26 1 2 1
Sabin 1 474 78 1 371 | 120 1 2 1
Lincoln 1 312 58 1 181 1 16 1 1 1
Stevens 1 188 71 1 134 | 36 1 2 1
Wyman I 252 30 1 76 I 0 0 1 o 1
Park Hill 1 398 53 1 211 | 0 0 1 0 i
Philips I 286 41 1 117 I 0 0 1 o 1
Montclair 1 418 56 1 234 | 12 1 1 1
Ashley I 299 31 1 93 I 0 0 1 o 1
Amesse 1 473 25 1 118 1 0 0 1 0 1
Ford 1 463 35 1 163 1 0 0 1 0 1
Stedman 1 334 26 1 88 I 0 0 1 o 1
Oakland McGlone Marrama^ 1 1050 1 29 1 306 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
1 64 1 1 59 1 38 I 1 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
Source: Denver Department of Public Schools
25


FOOTNOTES
TABLE 1.
1. Knight and Gilpin are excluded because they draw from the whole city and do not reflect the make-up of the immediate neighborhood.
2. Acceptable racial mix is a range determined by the U.S. District Court as 15%+ current racial mix of the population. In Denver, it is 38% white and 62% minority. The acceptable 1 2
range, therefore, is 23% to 53% white or 47% to 7 7%
minority. Since much o f the data used was available a s
percent white, this study also uses pe rcent whi te rather
than percent minority.
Rank
0 = Racial balance with 23- 53% white .
1 = 1 to 25 white or minority children needed to achieve
2 = 26 or more white or minority children needed in Court-allowed range, school balance in Court-a11owed range.
4. Stedman is a satellite school but draws students from the
immediate neighborhood. Children are bused largley due to distance from the school.
5. Oakland/McGlone are paired schools splitting grades
kindergarten through third and fourth through sixth grades. They draw from the immediate neighborhood and are split for overcrowding reasons and because the parents prefer a
primary and intermediate split of grades.
6. Marrama is a new school with a very small population.
26


Figure 1
CURRENT STATUS OF WHITE-MINORITY ENROLLMENT IN DENVER ELEMENTARY WALK-IN SCHOOLS
i---------
h__2r\
JLs
-r 4>,
Mu.kJirs. ^
Qca-21
0(T\ (§ r
, 0 **
Ql
4q 0 ^2-
Gcm s ^ k;
& v-(j- ^ c"^>
u^^ni fA
J3>
1 ^
ir

-fe p-T

5> r, ^
Sf~4s>
Ke y
Rank
0
1
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Walk-in Paired
W/Satellites Special/Magnet Closed
No children needed to balance tract
1 to 25 white or minority children needed to balance tract
2 25 or more white or
minority children need ed to balance tract
o A@ o


B. MIX OP WHITE-MINORITY CHILDREN AGES 6 THROUGH 12 (APPROXIMATELY FIRST THROUGH SIXTH GRADES) ENROLLED IN DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY CENSUS TRACT (1984-85 SCHOOL YEAR)
Table 2, "White-Minority Children In Denver Elementary Schools By Census Tract", shows the number of white children, percent and rank of each census tract. The census tracts are listed In numerical order. (Ranks are defined on the table.)
Figure 2 provides a geographical illustration of Table 2. The balanced tracts (Rank 0) are largely found on the west side of the city. A group of tracts is in the far northeast and several are in the central city. Other balanced tracts are scattered in the central and east central parts of town. The significantly imbalanced tracts (Rank 2) are clustered in the southeast, south central, west of the city center, and north central parts of the city, as well as scattered. The slightly imbalanced tracts (Rank 1) are clustered south central and east of the city center, as well as scattered. The tracts with few children (Rank 3) are found in the far northeast, southeast, far southwest corners of the city, as well as in the inner-city area.
28


Table 2
WHITE-MINORITY CHILDREN IN DENVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY CENSUS TRACT
T 1 1 1 r Census | Tract 1 Total Population 1 1 I Number | I White 1 1 1 r Percent | White j 1 Number needed to be within Range White | Minority 1 "T 0 | Rank i T 1 1 1
r i 1 1.01 1 137 1 1 1 91 | T 66 1 25 i i i 1 1
i 1.02 1 179 1 107 | 60 1 13 i i 1
i 2.01 1 246 1 86 I 35 | OK OK 1 0 1
i 2.02 1 406 1 86 I 21 | 7 1 1 1
i 3.01 1 291 1 144 | 50 I OK OK 1 o 1
i 3.02 1 196 1 118 I 60 I 14 1 1 1
i 3.03 1 326 1 129 I 40 I OK OK 1 o 1
i 4.01 1 295 1 61 I 21 1 7 1 1 1
i 4.02 I 602 1 98 I 16 I 41 1 2 1
i 5.01 1 75 1 43 1 57 | 3 I 1 1
i 5.02 1 525 1 138 1 26 1 OK OK 1 0 1
i 6.00 1 245 1 44 | 18 I 12 1 1 1
i 7.01 1 244 1 65 1 27 | OK OK 1 0 1
i 7.02 I 643 1 87 | 14 I 61 1 2 1
i 8.00 I 329 1 44 | 13 I 32 1 2 I
i 9.01 I 737 1 213 I 29 I OK OK 1 0 1
i 9.02 I 398 1 147 I 37 | OK OK 1 0 1
i 9.03 1 412 1 128 I 31 1 OK OK 1 0 1
i 10.00 1 333 1 96 I 29 I OK OK 1 0 1
i 11.01 1 410 1 47 I 11 1 47 1 2 * 1
i 11.02 I 382 1 42 I 11 1 46 i 2 i
i 13.01 1 243 1 97 I 40 | OK OK 1 0 1
i 13.02 I 271 1 119 I 44 | OK OK 1 0 1
i 14.01 I 362 1 166 1 46 I OK OK 1 0 1
i 14.02 I 374 1 162 I 43 | OK OK 1 0 1
i 14.03 I 146 1 81 I 55 I OK 4 1 1 I
i 15.00 1 509 1 76 1 15 I 41 1 2 1
i 16.00 I 494 1 13 I 3 I 101 1 2 1
i (17.01; 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
i (17.02) I (ID 1 (5) 1 (45) I (OK) (OK) 1 3 1
i 18.00 I 278 1 26 I 9 I 38 1 2
i 19.00 I 561 1 47 | 8 I 82 1 2 1
i 20.00 I 32 1 12 I 38 I OK OK 1 0 I
i 21.00 I 566 1 95 I 17 | 35 1 2 1
t 23.00 j 553 1 32 I 6 1 95 1 2 1
i 24.01 I 389 1 18 I 5 I 72 1 2 1
i 24.02 I 224 1 18 I 8 I 34 1 2 1
i 25.00 I 71 1 2 I 3 I 14 I 1 1
i 26.01 I 25 1 7 | 28 I OK OK 1 0 I
i 26.02 I 35 1 12 I 34 | OK OK ! 0 1
i 27.01 I 60 1 16 I 27 I OK OK 1 0 1
i 27.02 I 40 1 27 | 68 I 6 1 1 1
i 27.03 I 114 1 56 I 49 I OK OK 1 o 1
i 28.01 I 73 1 51 1 70 1 12 1 1 1
i 28.02 I 94 1 49 | 52 I OK OK 1 o 1
i i 28.03 I 1 26 1 17 | 1 1 65 I 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
29


Table 2. continued
1 1 1 1 Census | Tract Total Population i r 1 Number | I White 1 1 1 r Percent | White | 1 Number needed to be within Range White | Minority1 1 T O | Rank 1 ~T 1 1 1
1 1 29.01 113 1 1 1 81 ! ~r 72 | 21 n i i i 1
i 29.02 1 119 1 104 | 87 | 41 1 2 1
1 30.01 1 193 1 165 1 85 | 63 1 2 1
1 30.02 1 67 1 58 1 87 | 22 1 1 1
1 30.03 1 52 1 48 1 92 | 20 1 1 1
1 30.04 I 83 1 64 | 77 | 20 1 1 1
1 30.05 1 41 1 35 1 85 | 19 1 1 1
1 31.01 1 133 1 17 | 13 | 14 1 1 1
1 31.02 I 161 1 52 | 32 I OK OK 1 0 1
1 32.01 I 109 1 67 | 61 I 9 1 1 1
1 32.02 I 49 1 35 I 71 1 9 1 1 1
1 32.03 144 1 136 1 94 | 60 1 2 1
1 33.00 I 152 1 129 | 85 I 48 1 2 1
1 34.00 I 127 1 nil 87 | 44 1 2 1
1 35.00 I 639 1 89 | 14 | 58 1 2 1
1 36.01 | 589 1 30 I 5 I 106 1 2 1
1 36.02 467 1 16 I 3 I 91 1 2 1
1 36.03 1 309 1 11 1 4 I 60 1 2 1
1 37.01 I 61 1 33 I 54 | 1 1 1 1
1 37.02 | 111 1 71 | 64 | 12 1 1 1
1 37.03 | 78 1 55 1 71 1 14 1 1 1
1 38.00 | 105 1 83 I 80 I 27 1 2 1
1 39.01 | 32 1 26 I 81 I 9 1 1 1
i 39.02 85 1 78 I 92 I 33 1 2 1
1 40.02 I 68 1 65 1 96 I 29 1 2 1
1 40.03 I 196 1 182 I 93 I 78 1 2 1
1 (40.04) | (22) 1 (21) 1 (96) I (9) 1 3 1
1 40.05 I 95 1 67 I 71 1 17 1 1 1
1 40.06 I 93 1 88 | 95 1 39 1 2 1
1 41.01 I 317 1 11 1 3 1 62 1 2 1
1 41.02 | 502 1 14 | 3 I 102 1 2 1
1 41.03 I 553 1 125 I 23 1 OK OK 1 0 1
1 41.04 | 546 1 52 | 10 1 74 1 2 1
1 42.01 I 275 1 196 I 71 1 50 1 2 1
1 42.02 I 268 1 150 | 56 1 8 1 1 1
1 43.01 I 87 1 60 I 69 1 15 1 1 1
1 43.02 I 95 1 70 I 74 | 20 1 1 1
1 43.03 1 79 1 78 I 99 I 36 1 2 1
1 43.04 | 177 1 119 I 67 | 25 1 1 1
1 43.05 I 75 1 55 I 73 I 15 i 1 1
1 44.01 | 638 1 263 | 41 I OK OK 1 0 1
1 44.02 | 533 1 341 | 64 | 58 1 2 1
1 45.01 | 585 1 203 1 35 I OK OK 1 0 1
1 45.02 I 795 1 207 I 26 I OK OK 1 0 1
1 46.01 I 274 1 174 | 64 | 29 1 2 1
1 46.02 I 477 1 221 I 46 I OK OK 1 0 1
1 46.03 I 407 1 256 I 63 I 40 1 2 1
1 47.00 1 270 1 162 I 60 I 28 1 2 1
1 48.01 I 179 1 120 I 67 | 25 1 1 1
1 1 48.02 227 1 132 | 1 1 58 | 1 12 1 1 1 1 1
30


Table 2. continued
1 1 1 1 r Census I Tract | 1 Total Population 1 | Number | 1 White I 1 1 1 Percent | White 1 1 Number needed to White | be within Range Minority 1 I Rank.** i i 1 1 1
T 1 1 49.00 1 52 1 1 I 45 1 1 87 | T 1 17 i i i T 1
I 50.01 1 154 1 92 1 60 1 t 10 i i 1
1 50.02 1 107 1 83 1 78 1 1 26 1 2 1
1 51.02 1 121 1 105 1 87 1 1 41 1 2 1
1 51.03 1 29 1 22 1 76 1 1 17 I 1 1
1 51.04 I 54 1 39 | 72 I 1 10 1 1 1
1 52.00 1 115 1 100 1 87 | 1 39 1 2 1
1 53.00 1 34 1 31 1 91 I 1 13 1 1 I
1 54.01 I 31 1 9 | 29 I OK | OK 1 0 1
1 54.02 I 414 1 159 | 38 I OK | 1 0 1
1 (55.02) I (7) 1 (7) 1 (100) I 1 (4) 1 3 1
I 55.03 1 234 1 198 I 85 I 1 74 1 2 I
1 (67.01) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
1 68.02 I 228 1 166 I 73 I 1 45 1 2 1
1 68.04 I 41 1 35 | 85 I 1 13 I 1 1
1 68.09 I 261 1 191 I 73 I 1 3 ! 2 1
1 68.10 I 173 1 149 I 86 I 1 57 1 2 1
1 68.11 I 229 1 180 I 79 I 1 59 1 2 1
1 68.12 1 30 1 30 I 100 1 1 16 1 1 t
1 69.01 I 70 1 52 1 74 | 1 15 1 1 i
1 69.02 1 28 1 25 I 89 I 1 10 1 1 1
1 70.01 I 181 1 82 I 45 I OK | OK 1 0 1
1 70.06 I 32 1 20 I 62.5 I 1 3 1 1 1
1 (70.13) 1 (14) 1 (12) 1 (86) | 1 (5) 1 3 1
1 (83.03) I (21) 1 (9) 1 (43) I 1 (OK) 1 3 1
1 83.04 | 456 1 121 I 27 | 1 OK 1 0 1
1 83.05 1 546 1 197 | 36 I I OK 1 0 1
1 83.06 1 423 1 73 I 17 | 24 | I 1 1
1 83.07 | 1717 1 504 | 29 I 1 OK 1 0 1
1 (83.10) I 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
1 106.01 I 50 1 28 I 56 I 1 1 1 1 1
1 119.02 I 164 1 129 j 79 I 1 42 1 2 1
1 119.03 1 77 I 56 I 73 I 1 15 1 1 1
1 120.01 I 50 1 40 | 80 | 1 13 1 1 1
1(120.10) I (9) 1 (8) 1 (89) | 1 (3) 1 3 l
1 1 120.14 | 1 254 1 213 1 1 1 84 | 1 1 1 78 1 2 t 1 1
1 . Acceptable racial mix for Denver Public Schools is a range determined by the u.s
District Court as 15%+ current racial mix of the population. In Denver, it is 38% white and 62% minority. The acceptable range, therefore, is 23% to 53% white or 47% to 77% minority.
2. Rank
0 = Racial balance with 23-53% white.
1 = 1 to 25 white or minority children needed to achieve school balance in Court-allowed range.
2 = 26 or more white or minority children needed in Court-allowed range.
3 = Census tracts containing less than 25 children or insufficient information.
3. Census tracts with less than 25 children are in parenthesis.
Source: Denver Deparment of Public Schools and Denver Planning Office
31


2. WHITE-MINORITY CHILDREN IN DENVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY CENSUS TRACT
83.04
83.10

.y
1980
CENSUS TRACTS
28.01
llii V
43.05
W flP*'PA *L
54.02

119.03


4802
'
70.06
12001
68.04
[120.10
flORTH
deTiver pLflnnn


The census tracts in non-walk-in school neighborhoods which exhibit slight racial imbalance are grouped and exhibited on Table 3. This includes those neighborhoods where the census tract ranks averaged to 1.
The Target Neighborhoods are those which receive ranks of 1, meaning that they exhibit slight racial imbalance. They are as follows:
Walk-In School Neighborhoods: Remington, Valdez,
Johnson, Lincoln, Montclair. (Marrama is excluded because it is too new to exhibit clear demographic trends and is a very small school.)
Non Walk-In School Neighborhoods: Force, Edison,
Rosedale, Ellis, Moore, Fallis, Palmer.
Target Neighborhoods are are illustrated on Figure 3*
It may be noted that there are several walk-in school neighborhoods which exhibit racial imbalance over 25 white or minority students. While efforts should be made to improve their situation, they are still not included as Target Neighborhoods for the small scale activities recommended in this study. They may, however, benefit from activities in adjacent Target Neighborhoods. These school neighborhoods are Centennial, Bryant-Webster, Doull, Gust, Sabin and Stevens.
33


Table 3
PRIORITY RANKING OP ELEMENTARY NON-WALK-IN SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOODS
T 1 1 1 r School Census Tract 1 Number Needed to Balance Census Tracts White (W)/Minority (M) 1 Rank 1 I Priority Rank 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 Force 1 1 1 1 1
1 46.01 1 29 M 1 2 1 1
1 1 46.02 I | 0 1 0 | 1 i
1 1 1 Edison | 1 1 9 1 1
1 3.02 1 14 M 1 1 ! l2 1
1 1 3.03 1 1 0 1 0 1 i
i I 1 Rosedale I 1 1 1 1
1 14.03 1 4 M I 1 l 1
1 i 30.02 1 | 22 M I 1 | 1 1
1 1 1 Ellis I 1 1 1 1
1 51.02 I 41 M 1 2 1 l 1
1 51.03 ! 7 M I 1 1
1 | 51.04 I 1 10 M I 1 1 1 i
1 1 1 Moore I 1 1 1 1
1 27.01 I 0 1 o l 1
1 27.02 I 6 M I 1 1
1 27.03 1 0 1 o 1
! 28.01 1 12 M 1 1 1
1 i 32.01 I 9 M 1 1 1 1 i
1 1 1 Fallis 1 1 1 1 i
1 70.01 I 0 1 o I l 1
1 i 50.02 1 1 26 M 1 2 | 1 I
1 1 1 Palmer | 1 1 1 1
1 43.01 1 15 M I 1 l 1
1 1 43.02 I 1 20 M 1 1 1 1 1
FOOTNOTES :
1 . Priority Rank is the average ranks tracts. of the census
2 . Edison receives Priority Rank of 1 since one of the tracts needs double children to balance it. instead of 0 digit number of
34


Figure 3
W
ELEMENTARY NON-WALK-IN AND WALK-IN SCHOOL TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS
_rv

JLs-

-i>-
_ jcB
Cyr,
iTnY-Kr'"'*' .
Q - i'> 1-
^ . ,J2> " ^ ^ v$>~
Q.
,
0 ^
0 ,0 ^
£ 1 # '-^1
" [k
1J> ^
0
Zf
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Walk-in Pai red
W/Satel1i tes Special/Magnet Closed
Rank
1 = Schools which need 1 to 25 white or minority children to become balanced
O @ vO


CHAPTER 4. EXAMINATION OP TARGET NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
Further examination of Target Neighborhoods Include looking at live births, elementary private school enrollment, cost of housing transactions and vacant lots. Births and private school enrollment indicate opportunities for the DPS to bring new students into their school from the existing population. This is referred to as recruitment activity as is more fully discussed in Chapter 6. Births also Indicate the trends of racial mix. The vacant lot and housing transactions indicate opportunities for the DPO to implement housing activities. Also included is location of public housing. The above information is examined by census tract, as mentioned earlier. Remember, the census tracts do not correspond to Target Neighborhood boundaries and do not characterize the neighborhood exactly. When one third or more of a census tract is within a neighborhood boundary, it is included as part of the neighborhood. These are referred to as partial tracts. If less than
one third of a census tract is in a neighborhood boundary, it is excluded. When a whole census tract is included within Target Neighborhood boundaries, it is referred to as a major or primary tract.
A. LIVE BIRTHS IN DENVER, 1980 TO 1983
The birth information includes the total number of white and minority^ live births by census tract. Table 4 shows the
TT The definition of white by the U.S. Census changed slightly after 1980 in regard to Hispanic surname. The
Colorado Department of Health determined that this re-
definition did not significantly change the numbers in either the white or minority groups.
36


Table 4
LIVE BIRTHS IN DENVER TARGETNEIGHBORHOODS 1980-1983
T 1 1 1 Census Tract i r i i 1 Total | 1 1 Number White | Percent White T 1 1 1
1 1 1 i 1.02* 1 1 1 1 1 223 I 173 | 76 1 1 1 1
1 1 i 2.02* 1 1 1 400 | 1 | 145 36 1 1 1
1 1 i 3.02 1 1 1 247 | | | 186 75 1 1 |
1 1 i 3.03 1 1 1 410 I | | 230 56 1 I 1
1 1 I 4.02* 1 777 1 | | 241 | 31 1 1 1
i 1 1 6.00* I 1 1 291 | 1 | 98 I 34 1 1 i
i 1 i 14.03 1 1 1 257 | 1 | 183 1 71 1 1 |
1 1 i 21.00* 1 1 1 535 | 1 | 166 I 31 1 1 1
1 1 i 27.01 1 1 172 | 1 | 94 | 55 1 1 1
1 1 i 27.02 1 1 1 116 I 1 | 74 | 64 1 1 |
1 1 i 27.03 1 1 I 238 1 1 | 109 | 46 1 1 1
1 1 i 28.01* 1 1 136 | 1 | 106 1 78 1 1 1
1 1 i 28.02* 1 1 292 | 1 | 182 | 62 1 1 1
1 1 i 29.01* 1 1 1 193 I 1 | 157 | 81 1 1 1
1 1 i 29.02* 1 1 1 237 | | | 208 | 88 I 1 1
1 1 i 30.02 1 1 203 1 1 | 182 I 90 1 1 1
1 1 i 32.01 1 1 1 170 I 1 | 107 I 63 1 1 |
1 1 i 43.01 1 1 1 250 I 1 | 184 74 1 1 1
1 1 i 43.02 1 1 137 | i | 116 1 85 1 1 |
1 1 i 43.04* 1 1 I 359 | 1 | 288 I 80 1 1 |
1 1 i 44.01* 1 1 1 1010 1 1 620 I 61 1 1 |
1 1 1 1 46.01 1 1 1 388 1 i i i i 322 1 83 1 1 1 1
37


Table 4. continued
Census Tract 1 1 I Total 1 1 Number White | 1 Percent White
46.02* 1 1 1 535 1 1 1 272 | 1 51
46.03* 1 1 469 1 1 355 1 1 76
50.02 1 1 191 1 1 159 | 1 83
51.02 l I 241 1 1 213 I 1 88
51.03 96 1 79 1 82
51.04 1 1 139 1 1 112 I 1 81
70.01 1 I 269 1 1 1 210 I 1 1 78
* Walk-in school
Source: Colorado Department of Health
5
I
38




LIVE BIRTHS IN DENVER TARGET 'NEIGHBORHOODS 1980-1983
- 23 to 53 white children (racially balanced)
- under 23% white childrei
- over 53% white children
UMLl m (B*U


number and percent of white-minority births. The groups are divided according to percent using similar groupings used earlier, 2353l, as the racially balanced group. The other two groups are under 23% white and over 53% white. The majority of Target Neighborhoods are experiencing over 53% white births. This indicates continuation of the trend of white children above the balance ratio at the following schools: Johnson, Montclair, Edison, Rosedale, Ellis, Fallls and Palmer. The other schools have a higher percentage of white children but show a more mixed trend. Figure 4 illustrates the findings.
The live birth information is used to indicate if the racial trend is changing from the current racial mix found in the public school data or if it is continuing as the same racial ratio. It also indicates the number of children which can be brought into the public school system as they get older. This is part of recruitment activities.
B. PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Private elementary school enrollment indicates the number of children not in the public school system who might be brought in through sensitive recruitment activities. Even though numbers in certain neighborhoods may be high, it should be remembered that children are sent to private school for a variety of reasons and that recruitment would need to vary to address these many reasons.
40


The private elementary school enrollment is dated (1980) compared to other data in this report and is not broken down by race. It does, however, still indicate areas where enrollment is high and where further investigation for public school recruitment should be pursued. The data is grouped similarly to public school enrollment:
25 and less children enrolled
26 to 50 children enrolled
Over 50 children enrolled
Table 5 and Figure 5 illustrate the findings. High private elementary school enrollment is found in the Force and Johnson Target Neighborhoods. The other Target Neighborhoods have mixed or lower numbers of private school enrollment.
41


Table 5
PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN DENVER TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS- 1980
r i i i Census Tract | Number 1 1 1 1
i i i 1.02* 99 1 1 1
I i i 2.02* 42 1 1 1
1 i i 3.02 22 1 1 |
1 i i 3.03 I 50 1 1 |
1 i 1 4.02* I 34 1 1 1
i i i 4.03 I 23 1 1
1 i i 6.00* 46 1 |
1 i i 14.03 23 1 1 |
1 i i 21.00* 51 1 1 |
1 i i 27.01 1 8 1 1 i
1 i i 27.02 I 40 1 1 |
1 i 1 27.03 I 0 1 1 |
i i i 28.01* 27 1 1 |
i i i 28.02* 0 1 1 |
1 i 1 29.01* 15 1 1 |
i i i 29.02* 70 1 1 1
1 i i 30.02 1 0 1 1 |
1 i i 32.01 I 18 1 1 1
1 i i 43.01 ! 35 1 1 1
1 i i 43.02 1 39 1 1 1
42


Table 5. continued
Census Tract Number
43.04* 135
44.01* 67
46.01 100
46.02* 61
46.03* 103
50.02 167
51.02 75
51.03 49
51.04 39
70.01 32
* Walk-in school
Source: Denver Department of Public Schools
43


i
\
Figure 5
PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN DENVER TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS 1980
83.07
"OTT
83.10 SI
8303
Ut'x mH "
1980
CENSUS TRACTS
- 25 and less children enrol
- 26 to 50 children enrolled
- Over 50 children enrolled


C. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TRANSACTIONS IN TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS
Single family housing sales indicate the cost and number of houses which might be available for families to buy in a Target Neighborhood. This, of course, does not include rental opportunities.
Single family housing transactions show the number of 1983 sales in three price ranges and the average sales price. The price ranges are as follows: low $60,000 and less moderate $60,001 to $100,000 high over $100,000
Table 6 shows this data. Figure 6 illustrates transactions by price. While cost of property is a consideration in use of public money for housing development, it is not assumed that areas with high-priced houses should be eliminated for consideration as Target Neighborhoods. Many households can afford higher-priced houses and private sector housing activities can be effective in these neighborhoods.
High-priced transactions are found in Moore and Fallls school Target Neighborhoods. Other areas are mixed low and moderate prices.
45


Table 6
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TRANSACTIONS IN TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS 1983
i r i i | Census | | Tracts 1 1 Total | # of | Sales j # Sales Hsg. | Transactions | up to & in- | eluding $60K | # Sales Hsg. | Transactions | $60,001 to I $100,000 I # Sales Over $100,000 I Average Sale 1 Price $ T 1 1 1
i r 1 1.02* I | T 69 I 1 34 1 r 34 | I 1 1 62,700 1 1 1 1
1 1 I 2.02* 1 1 | 77 | | 52 1 25 | 1 0 1 1 56,400 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 3.02 I 1 | 74 | 1 24 i 1 48 I 1 2 i 1 66,600 | 1 1 |
1 1 1 3.03 I 1 | 115 I | 54 | 52 | | 4 1 1 59,500 | 1 1 |
1 1 1 4.02* I 59 | 1 l 30 1 i 27 | 1 2 1 1 61,900 1 1 1 i
i i 1 6.00* I 1 | 19 1 1 16 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 46,400 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 14.03 I 1 | 45 I 1 31 14 I | 1 1 1 53,000 1 1 |
1 1 I 21.00* 1 l | 1 100 1 1 75 1 1 23 I 2 1 1 51,900 1 1 1 |
1 1 1 27.01 1 1 i 1 3 I 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 159,800 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 27.02 I l i 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 o 1 1 8 1 1 145,500 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 27.03 1 l i 1 11 1 1 o 1 1 1 6 1 1 5 1 1 100,000 1 1 1 1
i i 1 28.01* I 36 | 1 1 8 I 1 19 I 1 9 1 1 103,100 1 1 |
1 1 I 28.02* 1 1 32 I 1 11 1 18 I 3 1 I 71,000 | 1 1 |
1 1 1 29.01* | 73 | 1 19 1 52 I | 2 1 I 69,700 | 1 1 |
1 i 1 29.02* 1 1 | i 114 I 1 1 1 I i 87 | 26 l I 90,900 l 1 1 1
1 1 1 30.02 | 1 i 45 1 1 1 8 I 1 34 I 3 1 1 70,800 | 1 1 |
1 1 1 32.01 1 14 | 1 1 1 I 1 8 I | 5 l I 152,300 | 1 1 |
i i 1 43.01 1 1 55 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 | 18 1 1 108,200 1 1 1
1 1 1 43.02 I 1 | 1 80 1 1 0 55 | 25 92,700 j 1 1 1
1 1 1 43.04* I 1 | 1 131 1 l 6 1 1 1 88 1 i 37 97,300 | 1 1
1 1 I 44.01* I 1 1 151 1 1 1 104 I i 1 46 1 1 1 1 I 55,200 1 1 1
46


Table 6. continued
1 r T # Sales Hsg. 1 # Sales Hsg. T i Average 1
1 i Total 1 Transactions 1 Transactions 1 # Sales | Sale 1
1 Census | # of 1 up to & in- 1 $60,001 to 1 Over Price $ 1
1 Tracts | Sales 1 eluding $60K 1 $100,000 1 $100,000 1 I
l 46.01 1 i l 124 1 1 62 l 1 1 62 i I 0 1 i 1 60,000 |
1 46.02* I 1 69 I 1 21 1 1 1 48 1 0 1 1 1 62,800 1
1 46.03* I | 1 139 | | 87 1 1 1 52 1 0 1 1 1 49,500 1
1 50.02 I | 1 23 I 1 0 1 1 1 7 1 16 i 1 1 118,000 1
1 51.02 | | l 80 1 1 7 1 1 1 72 l 1 1 1 1 1 73,500 |
l 51.03 1 1 l 22 I 0 1 1 1 22 1 0 1 1 1 83,700 1
1 51.04 | 1 19 I 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 o 1 1 1 78,600
1 70.01 | 1 1 11 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 8 1 i 1 120,800 1
1 Excludes condominiums Source: Denver Planning Office
* Walk-in schools
47


Figure 6
v -
/
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TRANSACTIONS IN .....TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS 1983
_ '/*l____uz
1.01
1 02 :
5.02
ijria tn
7.02 1
9.01
9.02 ; 903 ; 5
45.01 45.02

35
21 a
46.01' *46.02
. ;
3601
23
41.01
41.03
!XX_
I
41.02
4104
42.02
41.05
01 .03

2202;:
Ppi

13.02 I ynnurril
14.01 T titse. si
14.02
i 14.03
54 02-
47 46.03
54.011
30.01
30.03
3004
i3oT
\h-
s.
4303
4006
4002
sS
4004
4305
4401
44.02
70.01
S3
69.02C
40.03
120.01 94.111..
55.02 *
55.03
120.10
eao2
66.10
6804
83.07
8303
1980
CENSUS TRACTS
Key
$60,000 and less $60,001 to $100,000 Over $100,000
KJ*U *1 (TK.4X


D. NUMBER OP VACANT LOTS 6,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER IN TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS BY ZONE (DENVER ZONING CODE)
The number of vacant lots indicate opportunities for building new housing. Other than minimum square footage, the size of the lot is not included so the exact number of units possible in a neighborhood cannot be derived from this information alone. In addition, since zone dictates density and other stipulations for development, further investigation is needed to determine the lot size and number of units or houses possible.
The number of vacant lots in each residential zone in Target Neighborhoods large enough for development of new housing (6,000 square foot minimum) is identified on Table 7. Figure 7 shows the number grouped as follows: under 10 lots 10 to 20 lots Over 20 lots.
It appears that the number of vacant lots are mixed within Target Neighborhoods.
E. PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS
Existing public housing managed by DHA is another housing opportunity within Target Neighborhoods. The DHA placement system in these units could be used to assist in racially balancing the neighborhood where they are located.
The public housing units in Target Neighborhoods are mostly scattered site units. These are individual houses
49


Table 7
NUMBER OF VACANT LOTS 6000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER IN TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS BY ZONE1 1983
i r 1 Census | | Tracts | 1 1 Total RO i R1 1 R2 I R2A R3 1 R4 T 1 1 1 PUD1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1.02* I | i 10 0 1 7 | 3 I 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 I 2.02* | 1 7 o 1 7 | 0 i 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 3.02 I 1 | 6 o 1 o 1 6 I 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 I 1 3.03 1 1 3 0 | o 1 2 I 1 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 4.02* I 1 | 35 o 1 0 1 20 I 0 15 I 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 6.00* 1 1 | 21 o 1 o 1 11 1 0 8 I 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 14.03 I 1 26 o 1 19 I 7 | 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 I 21.00* I 1 | 16 o 1 o 1 o 1 0 16 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 27.01 | 31 o 1 0 1 o 1 0 2 I 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 27.02 | 1 | 29 1 1 0 1 o 1 0 19 I 9 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 27.03 I 1 7 0 1 o 1 o 1 0 7 | 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
l 1 1 28.01* I 1 9 o i o 1 3 I 0 3 I 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 28.02* I 1 | 6 o 1 0 1 o 1 0 5 I 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 29.01* | 1 3 o 1 3 I o 1 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 29.02* I 1 | 1 o 1 1 I o 1 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 30.02 I 1 | 4 o 1 1 I o 1 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 32.01 I 1 | 6 o 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 I 1
1 1 1 43.01 I 1 | 12 1 1 5 1 1 I 0 5 I 0 1 i 1 0 1 1 1
1 1 1 43.02 | 2 o 1 1 I 1 I 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
1 1 1 43.04* | 1 3 o 1 3 1 o 1 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
1 1 I 44.01* | 30 o 1 9 I 8 1 9 4 I 0 1 1 0 1 1
i i 1 46.01 I 1 1 6 0 1 6 I o 1 0 o 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
50


Table 7. continued
Census | Tracts | Total RO 1 1 1 1 R1 ! R2 1 1 1 1 R2A R3 | R4 1 1 1 1 PUD1
46.02* | 48 0 1 1 | 43 I 0 1 1 | 1 0 1 4 1 1 | 0
46.03 | 1 0 1 1 | 1 I 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 | 0
50.02 | 17 0 1 1 1 15 I 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 0 1 1 1 0
51.02 | 6 0 1 1 1 4 I 0 1 1 | 1 1 i 0 1 1 | 0
51.03 | 4 0 1 1 1 2 I 0 1 1 1 2 o 1 0 1 1 | 0
51.04 1 7 0 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 | 0 2 I 0 1 1 | 0
70.01 I 23 2 1 1 1 4 I 5 1 1 1 12 o 1 0 1 1 1 0
1 Zones are identified in Denver Zoning Code
* Walk-in school
Source: Denver Planning Office
51


Figure 7
NUMBER OF VACANT LOTS 6,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER IN TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS BY ZONE 1983
STTn
83.10 =1----
8303
1980
CENSUS TRACTS
- Under 10 vacant lots
- 10 to 20 vacant lots
- Over 20 vacant lots


scattered throughout an area as opposed to multi-unit apart ment buildings. Figure 8 shows the general location of DHA managed public housing.
53


Figure 8. PUBLIC HOUSING MANAGED BY THE DENVER HOUSING AUTHORITY
IHL-tfL.
_n M(M
83j04 ;83.05/
&
8006 // 2
7 41.05 O ' 83.07 1 5 83.K) 83.03
A _r^
H- ST" 1

1980
CENSUS TRACTS
- Public housing managed by Dll.
flOUTH
i -r' *1. 1'


CHAPTER 5. TARGET NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The analysis discusses the data presented thus far and identifies the type of activity appropriate for each Target Neighborhood. The activity categories are: recruitment of
children into the public schools; housing activities promoted by the DPO; placement in public housing managed by DHA. What these activities entail is discussed more fully in Chapter 6. In addition to activities implemented by public agencies, the private sector has a supporting role to play. For example, improved affirmative marketing and broader listing and showing practices of real estate agents can be encouraged. The conclusion discusses the type of further examination needed and the activities which should be included in the development of a pilot project. Table 8 summarizes the findings for each Target Neighborhood. The neighborhoods are also discussed individually.
GENERAL FINDINGS 1
The general findings of data collected on Target Neighborhoods show:
1. The racial mix of births is perpetuating the existing racial mix of children in Target Neighborhoods with a few exceptions.
2. Private school enrollment varies between neighborhoods, but all neighborhoods exhibited some private school enrollment.
55


3. Most Target Neighborhoods contain moderately-priced single family housing, although several neighborhoods have high-priced averages.
4. All neighborhoods contain some vacant lots large enough to build new housing. Only one neighborhood has less than 10 vacant lots.
5. Public housing managed by the Denver Housing Authority exists in small numbers except in three neighborhoods where there are over 15 units.
The analysis of each Target Neighborhood includes a brief summary of the findings and a discussion of the type of activity appropriate to improve racial balance. Satellite schools function like walk-in schools to their immediate neighborhoods. Children in the immediate neighborhood walk to school but there are children bused in from other neighborhoods. As long as this practice maintains a racially-balanced school and neighborhood, it is treated like a stable walk-in school and not recommended for change.
There are some important factors which are not included in this analysis and which require consideration in development and implementation of any pilot project. With paired schools, any activity done to one school affects the other school. Although one school of the pair may appear feasible to become a walk-in school, the situation of the other school in the pair may make this difficult. Management, staffing, programs and other individual characteristics of a school are
56


Table 8
SUMMARY OF TARGET NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION
1 1 Number 1 Number 1 I Average | Number DUA nr
1 Needed to | Needed to I Percent Number in I Price 1 Number Public 1
1 School I Balance Balance | White Private | Housing | I Sales | Vacant Lots 1 Housing 1
I Census Tract I Census Tract i School I Births Schools Units 1
r i Remington i 9w4 1 1 i r i i 1 1
i 2.02 N/A 1 36 42 1 56,400 | 7 425 1
i i (1.02; 1 1 1 76 1 99 I 62,700 | 1 1 10 1 1
r i Valdez 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 6.00 i N/A I 8w 1 34 46 1 46,400 | 21 34 1
i i (4.02) 1 1 1 31 1 34 1 61,900 I 1 1 35 1 1
r i Johnson 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i 46.03 1 N/A I 18m 1 76 103 1 49,500 | 1 5 1
i i 46.02 1 1 1 31 1 61 1 62,800 I 1 1 48 1 1
r i Lincoln 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~1 1
i 29.01 1 N/A I 16m 1 81 15 1 69,700 I 3 5 I
i (21.00) 1 1 31 51 1 51,900 I 16 1
i (28.01) 1 I 78 27 1 103,100 | 9 1
i (28.02) 1 I 62 0 I 71,000 | 6 1
i i (29.02) 1 1 1 88 1 70 I 90,900 1 1 1 1 1 1
i i Montclair T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
i (44.01) N/A 1 13m 1 61 67 1 55,200 | 30 9 I
i i (43.04) 1 1 1 93 1 135 1 92,700 | 1 1 3 1 1
i i Force 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1
i 46.01 29m 1 N/A6 1 83 100 | 60,000 I 6 2 1
i i (46.02) 1 0 1 1 1 51 1 61 I 62,800 | 1 1 48 1 1
i i Edison T~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 r i
i 3.02 4m 1 N/A 1 75 22 I 66,600 I 6 7 i
i i 3.03 1 0 1 1 1 56 1 50 1 59,500 | I I 3 i i


Table 8. continued
1 Number Number 1 1 Average | Number DHA nr
1 Needed to 1 Needed to | Percent Number in 1 Price | Number Public i
1 School Balance Balance I White Private I Housing | VacanX Housing i
1 Census Tract Census Tract i School I Births Schools 1 Sales I Lots Units i
r i Rosedale T~ 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 i i
i 14.03 4m 1 N/A 1 71 23 1 53,000 | 26 1 i
i i (30.02) 22m 1 1 I 90 1 0 1 70,800 | 1 1 4 i i
i i Ellis T~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i
i 51.02 41m 1 N/A I 88 75 1 73,500 I 6 0 i
i 51.03 7m I 1 82 49 1 83,700 | 4 i
i i 51.04 10m 1 1 1 81 1 39 1 78,600 | 1 1 6 i i
i i Moore 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i
i 27.01 0 1 N/A 1 55 8 1 159,800 | 31 17 i
i 27.02 6m 1 1 64 40 I 145,500 I 29 i
i 27.03 0 1 1 46 0 1 100,000 1 7 i
i 28.01 12m 1 1 78 27 1 103,100 | 9 i
i i 32.01 9m ! 1 1 63 1 18 1 152,300 I 1 I 6 i i
i i Fa 11 i s T 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 T 1
i 70.01 0 1 N/A 1 78 32 I 120,800 I 0 1
i i (50.02) 26m 1 1 1 83 1 167 I 118,000 1 1 1 17 1 1
i i Palmer ~r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1
i 43.01 15m 1 N/A 1 74 35 I 108,200 I 12 0 1
i i 43.02 20m I 1 1 85 1 39 1 92,700 | 1 1 2 1 1
Table 8 Footnotes:
1. Single family housing, condominiums not included.
2. 6000 square feet and larger
3. m = minority
4. w = white
5. Partial census tracts are in parenthesis.
6. N/A = Not Applicable because not walk-in school.


not taken into consideration in this report. These factors mentioned above are not within the scope of this study but may play an important role in the next steps of developing a racial integration program.
In addition to the Information presented in previous chapters, the trend of walk-in schools' total population and racial mix (1982-1984) is presented in Appendix 2. This data is included in the analysis of each Target Neighborhood where it indicates a significant change in the trend. Where little change is shown, it is not included in the discussion.
WALK-IN SCHOOL TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS 1
1. Remington
The school is slightly imbalanced toward a minority population. Birth trends indicate continuation of the current balance and private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are low to moderate with a few vacant lots in the area. There is significant DHA public housing in this area.
The census tracts offer a mixture of white and minority children and the enrollment trend indicates a slight corrective trend in the percent of white children. Housing activities and DPS activities are warranted to promote stabilization and a corrective trend. Since there is a major DHA housing project, they may have a significant role in these activities.
2. Valdez
The school exhibits a slight imbalance toward minorities
59


and a slow improving trend. Birth trends indicate a continuation of the current balance and private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are low to moderate and there are a good number of vacant lots in the area. There is significant DHA-managed public housing in the area.
Since the school and neighborhood are slightly imbalanced and the school exhibits a slight corrective trend, housing and DPS activities are required to promote balance. DHA units can be included in housing activities.
3. Johnson
The school trend exhibits a slight drop in percent white but not a strong corrective trend. Birth trends indicate a continuation of the current balance and private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are low to moderate. There are some vacant lots in the area, but not many in the primary census tract. There is DHA scattered site public housing in the area.
Since the neighborhood is racially imbalanced as well as the school and no significant trend to change this is evident, housing activities are warranted. Housing prices are affordable, but opportunities for new construction may be limited. Public housing could be included in these activities. Private school children and pre-schoolers offer recruitment opportunities for the DPS.
4. Lincoln
The school is slightly imbalanced with white students,
60


but this trend is reversing. Births indicate a continuation of the same racial mix and private school enrollment is small. Housing prices range from low to high and a few vacant lots are in each tract. There is some DHA public housing in the area.
Since the census tracts are mixed and the school is slightly imbalanced but showing an improving trend, the imbalance may correct itself. In general, there are relatively few families in this area compared to other neighborhoods. If it doesn't appear to balance or if trends change to worsen the imbalance, then additional activities may be warranted.
5. Montclair
The school is slightly racially imbalanced towards whites with a slowly Improving trend. Births indicate a continuation of the current racial mix and private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are low to high and there are a number of vacant lots. There is some scattered site DHA public housing in the area.
Even though the school enrollment trend is slowly improving, the census tracts are not balanced, so housing activities are warranted. Opportunities for recruitment from private school enrollment and pre-schoolers are evident and should be exercised. Housing prices span a range which a number of families could afford. There are good number of vacant lots in the area which may be developed. DHA public housing could also be included in these activities.
61


NON-WALK-IN SCHOOL TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS
Since these are not walk-in school neighborhoods, the racial balance of the school does not represent the neighborhood and is not applicable. These are areas where walk-in schools could be created.
6. Force (Paired School)
The major census tract is significantly imbalanced toward whites and the partial tract is balanced. Births indicate a continuation of the balance and there are a fair number of children in private school. Housing is moderately priced and there are vacant lots available. There is some DHA public housing in this area.
Housing activities are warranted to improve racial balance. Housing prices are affordable and there are some vacant lots available in the area. DHA housing can be included in these activities. DPS recruitment of private school and preschool children is also needed. Consideration of effects on the school paired with should also be included.
7. Edison (Satellite School)
The census tracts are racially balanced and slightly imbalanced toward whites. Births indicate continuation of the current mix. Private school enrollment is significant. Housing costs are moderate and there are only a few vacant lots. Some DHA public housing is located in this area.
62


As a satellite school, Edison functions like a walk-in school to the local neighborhood. Since the census tracts combined are almost balanced, only monitoring is required. If trends change, then other activities may be warranted.
8. Rosedale (Paired School)
Both primary and partial census tracts are slightly racially imbalanced with whites. The births indicate the imbalance may worsen and private school enrollment is fairly low. Housing prices are low to moderate and there are a fair number of vacant lots. There is very little DHA scattered site public housing in the area.
Housing activities are warranted here to balance and reverse the negative trend. Recruitment of pre-schoolers and private school children is warranted even though private school opportunities are limited. Housing prices are affordable and there are vacant lots available. Combined activities could create a walk-in school. Consideration of the effects on the school paired with should be included.
9. Ellis (Paired School)
The census tracts are mixed slightly and significantly racially imbalanced towards whites. Births indicate the imbalance may worsen. Private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are moderate and there are a few vacant lots. There is no DHA public housing in the area.
63


A walk-in school could be developed here with both housing and school recruitment activities. These activities could also reverse the imbalanced birth trend. Housing prices are affordable and vacant land is available. Substantial private school and pre-school children present recruitment opportunities to DPS. Effects on the school paired with should be considered.
10. Moore (Satellite School)
The full census tracts are mixed, including racially balanced and slightly imbalanced with whites. Partial tracts are slightly imbalanced in the same way. Births indicate continuation of the current mix. Private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are high and there are a good number of vacant lots available. There is some public housing in this area.
Moore functions like a satellite school to the neighborhood which is generally racially balanced. Monitoring is the only activity required unless trends change. 11
11. Fallls (Paired School)
The dominant census tract is racially balanced and the partial tract is significantly Imbalanced with whites. Births indicate possible worsening of this trend. Private school enrollment is significant and housing prices are high. There are some vacant lots. There is no DHA public housing in this area.
64


Since the major census tract is balanced, it seems a walk-in school could be created with recruitment activities. If this does not work, housing activities may be warranted. Effects on the schools paired with should be considered.
12. Palmer (Satellite School)
Census tracts are slightly imbalanced with whites and births indicate a continuation of this mix. Private school enrollment is significant. Housing prices are high and there are some vacant lots. There is no DHA public housing in this area.
Although this school functions like a walk-in school to the neighborhood, housing activities are warranted to balance the neighborhood. There are opportunities to develop new housing. Existing housing is high and may not be affordable to many families. There are also recruitment opportunities for DPS.
65


CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION
As stated in the Introduction, this study is looking for evidence that housing activities are an appropriate tool for assisting the DPS in the development and stabilization of elementary walk-in schools. This rests on the premise that a neighborhood must be racially balanced for its elementary school to be racially balanced and become a walk-in school. Neighborhoods which are not racially balanced do not have walk-in schools because of this imbalance and the DPS cannot create them without busing or changing changing district boundaries. In these neighborhoods, housing is an appropriate additional tool to busing to encourage a balanced racial mix of families living in the neighborhood which, in turn, provides the opportunity for the creation of a walk-in school.
The data presented clearly shows that there are neighborhoods which are racially Imbalanced and because of this DPS cannot alone create walk-in schools there. Furthermore, there are areas where it would not require more than 25 white or minority children to create the needed balance. Target Neighborhoods have been identified from the data for activities that promote racial balance and stability. In examining characteristics of the Target Neighborhoods, it can be determined what general type of activities are appropriate to improve their racial balance and which areas are good candidates for a pilot program. Table 9 shows the Target Neighborhoods by Activity Category.
66


ACTIVITY CATEGORIES
I. Monitoring This is applied to neighborhoods where the school is balanced or an improving trend Is evident. These areas do not appear to require immediate action, but should be monitored to see if they do warrant activity in the future. This activity involves collection and analysis of public school enrollment numbers and racial mix of students. If the number and/or racial mix alters significantly, further investigation of neighborhood characteristics, such as presented in this report, is recommended. Since the DPS currently collects and analyzes school data, they are in a good position to conduct this activity. II.
II. School Activities This applies to neighborhoods which are largely racially balanced and appear to require activities by the DPS such as recruitment rather than housing activities to balance the neighborhood. Recruitment activities can Involve various outreach activities. One form is through informational pamphlets or mailers on Denver public schools. Another form is to create or expand a more sensitive dialogue with parents in the Target Neighborhoods, as well as with local school administrators and teachers. Exhibiting sensitivity and responsiveness to parents' needs will develop more trust in local schools and in the school system. Parents will then be more likely to send their
67


children to public schools or to keep them in. These activities need to be tailored to each group or individual parent Involved. The DPS should enlist the Denver Community Housing Resource Board, parent-teacher associations, neighborhood organizations and church organizations in facilitation of these activities.
III. School and Housing Activities Neighborhoods where
there is a racial imbalance which the DPS cannot correct on its own. A combination of housing activities, such as new construction and affirmative marketing of
new and resale houses in conjunction with school recruitment, is warranted to stabilize and improve racial balance.
IV. School and Housing Activities which Include Public
Housing
The same as II, adding the availability of DHA public housing as an additional resource in housing activities. DHA involvement would focus on placement of
families in the units they manage which contribute to
racially balance the neighborhood.
Pilot Project
It is recommended that the findings in this report be used to develop a pilot project to Improve racial balance in
68


Table 9
DENVER TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS BY ACTIVITY CATEGORY
I MONITOR 1 1 1 1 1 II SCHOOL ACTIVITIES III SCHOOL AND HOUSING ACTIVITIES I IV 1 SCHOOL AND 1 HOUSING ACTIVITIES 1 INCLUDING PUBLIC HOUSING 1
Lincoln 1 1 | Fallis* Ellis* 1 Remington 1
Moore* 1 1 1 Palmer* l I Valdez 1
Edison* 1 1 1 1 Johnson 1
1 1 1 1 | Force* 1
1 1 1 1 i Montclair 1
1 1 1 I Rosedale*
* Non-walk-in schools
69


Figure 9.
DENVER TARGET NEIGHBORHOODS FOR PILOT PROJECT BY ACTIVITY CATEGORY
)
V- -
o @ v o


Denver public schools. This can be done by selecting one or more of the Target Neighborhoods identified and implementing the recommended activities for that neighborhood. Since this would involve several agencies and groups, a public agency such as the DPS or DPO should take lead responsibility in coordination. The pilot project would essentially serve to coordinate and focus activities which encourage racial balance in a specific elementary school neighborhood. In addition, the pilot project should enlist support of ongoing housing and loan activities in this neighborhood, as well as local leadership. If the activities of this pilot program are successful in the selected neighborhood, then it could be applied to other Target Neighborhoods.
The type of involvement needed for the pilot project is outlined in the following pages.
Information Dissemination and Recruitment
The DPS, CHRB, Chamber of Commerce, Denver Board of Realtors and other local groups can disseminate positive and accurate information about Denver public schools. DPS should develop and implement a recruitment program which encourages existing and new families to use their local public schools as discussed in Activity Category II.
Housing New Construction and Resale
City agencies such as the DPO and CDA can use their funds and property to encourage development of new housing which
71


will serve families and promote affirmative marketing.
Agencies such as CHFA and other mortgage lending institutions can assist by coordinating their loan programs with housing sales in the pilot neighborhoods.
Other private entities such as realtors, banks, developers, Insurance agencies, etc., who have influence in the housing market can participate in affirmative marketing and flexibility in lending and Insuring properties in the pilot project neighborhood.
Public Housing
DHA can enlist HUD's support to allow more flexibility in the eligibility and placement system of families in the pilot project neighborhood if DHA manages public housing in the area.
Leadership
The School Board, Mayor's Office and the Advisory Group on Educational Excellence can make quality and racial balance of public schools a priority agenda item. They can lend their visible support to the pilot program.
Coordination and cooperation is essential in implementing a successful pilot project with so many agencies involved. Definition of roles, activities and goals must be specific and agreed on by each participant. In many cases, legal and regulatory parameters will need clarification and examination. While this report looks at a variety of data, the level of
72


detail presented is only enough to provide the focus for more detailed investigation. Furthermore, these activities need further development. Detailed investigation should include physical information such as actual size, zoning, price, ownership, etc., of available vacant land, as well as Identification of interested developers and lenders. Actual locations and costs of existing houses for sale, as well as the realtor handling the property, must also be identified. Legal, financial and regulatory parameters of every participating agency and business must be coordinated before implementation of the pilot project can take place.
Even with a coordinated pilot project, there Is no guarantee that housing activities will necessarily bring in the appropriate racial mix of children, and if they do, that these children will go to public schools. Furthermore, even if they do go to public schools, there Is no guarantee the schools will become and remain racially balanced. However, it is far more likely that a coordinated effort of key agencies and businesses focused on geographic areas for a determined time period will be successful than any effort applied by a singular entity. This report provides the preliminary data about where to focus efforts and which type of activities to pursue. The next step is to select a neighborhood where success is feasible, enlist the support of those that have the power and resources to implement such a program and develop a workable pilot project to see what effect a concerted effort will have.
73


APPENDIX 1
DENVER ELEMENTARY WALK-IN SCHOOLS1
Araesse
5440 Scranton Street Ashley
1914 Syracuse Street Barnum
85 Hooker Street
Beach Court 4850 Beach Court
Brown
2550 Lowell Boulevard
Bryant-Webster 3635 Quivas Street
Lincoln
715 South Pearl Street Marrama^
18100 East 40th Avenue McGlone^
4500 Crown Boulevard Montclair
1151 Newport Street Newlon
361 Vrain Street Oakland^
4845 Oakland Street
Centennial
47th & Raleigh Street Colfax
1526 Tennyson Street College View
2680 South Decatur Street Columbian
4030 Federal Boulevard Cowell
4540 West 10th Avenue Doull
2520 South Utica Street
Eagleton
845 Hazel Court
Park Hill
5050 East 19th Avenue Philips
6550 East 21st Avenue
Remington
4735 Pecos Street
Sabin
3050 South Vrain Street Schenck
1300 South Lowell Boulevard Schmitt
1820 South Vallejo Street
p
Stedman
2940 Dexter Street
Godsman
2120 West Arkansas Avenue Goldrick
1050 South Zuni Street Gust
3440 West Yale Avenue Johnson
1850 South Irving Street Knapp
500 South Utica Street
Stevens
1140 Columbine Street Valdez
2475 West 29th Avenue Valverde
2030 West Alameda Avenue Westwood
3615 West Kentucky Avenue Wyman
1630 Williams Street 74


FOOTNOTES APPENDIX 1
1. Knight and Gilpin are excluded because they draw from the whole city and do not reflect the make-up of the immediate neighborhood.
Acceptable racial mix is a range determined by the U.S. District Court as 15% current racial mix of the population. In Denver it is 38% white and 62% minority. The acceptable range, therefore, is 23$ to 53$ white or 47$ to 77$ minority.
2. Stedman is a satellite school but draws students from the immediate neighborhood. Children are bused largely for distance reasons.
3. Oakland and McGlone are paired schools splitting grades kindergarten through third and fourth through sixth grades. They draw from the immediate neighborhood and are split for overcrowding reasons and because the parents prefer a primary and intermediate split of grades.
4. Marrama is a very new school with a small population.
75


APPENDIX 2
CHANGE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL ENROLLMENT AND PERCENT ,WHITE STUDENTS 1982-19841
Total Change Change Total White Change
1984 In Total In Total White 1984 In White
(Fall) 1982-84 1982-84 1984 (Fall) 1982-84
No. No. % No. % %
Beach Court 265 +4 + 1.5 94 35.5 -8.2
Centennial 446 +5 +1.1 263 59.0 -0.4
Remington 297 -14 -4.7 60 20.2 + 3-5
Columbian 272 -15 -5.5 75 27.6 -2.7
Bryant-Webster 469 + 16 +3.4 78 16.6 -1.0
Valdez 612 + 19 +3.1 133 21.7 + 1.3
Brown 461 -10 -2.2 148 32.1 +0.6
Colfax 260 -14 -5.4 71 27.3 -1.2
Cowell 347 + 33 +9-5 105 30.3 -5.4
Eagleton 325 -51 -15.7 89 27.4 -1.3
Newlon 403 -26 -6.5 161 40.0 +0.8
Barnum 360 +57 + 15.8 104 28.9 +0.8
Valverde 345 -39 -11.3 110 31.9 -0.4
Munroe 289 -27 -9.3 84 29.1 +0.3'
Knapp 456 -31 -6.7 166 36.4 +0.5
Westwood 374 -8 -2.1 124 33.2 -10.0
Goldrick 479 -34 -7.1 162 33.8 +0.9
Godsman 407 -9 -2.2 191 46.9 -4.0
Schenck 398 -51 -12.8 188 47.2 + 1.1
Johnson 310 -1 -0.3 182 58.7 + 5.0
Schmitt 316 -15 -4.7 122 38.6 -1.6
Doull 351 +50 + 14.2 223 63.5 -2.9
College View 265 +23 +8.7 124 46.8 -0.7
Gust 326 -44 -13.5 199 61.0 +7.5
Sabin 474 -43 -9.1 371 78.3 +3 6
Lincoln 312 -8 -2.6 181 58.0 -4.2
Stevens 188 +9 + 4.8 134 71.3 +3.1
Wyman 2 252 -25 -9.9 76 30.2 -2.3
Stedman^ 334 -79 -23.7 88 26.3 -2.0
Park Hill 398 -27 -6.8 211 53.0 -0.9
Philips 286 -45 -15.7 117 40.9 -2.6
Montclair 418 -67 -16.0 234 56.0 -1.7
Ashley 299 -41 -13.7 93 31.1 -11.2
Amesse 473 -64 -13-4 118 24.9 -4.7
Ford o 463 -49 -10.6 163 35-2 + 1.0
OaklandJ 1050 +94 +8.9 306 29.1 -1.9
McGlone Marrama^ 64 N/A N/A 38 59.4 N/A
76


FOOTNOTES APPENDIX 2
1. Knight and Gilpin are excluded because they draw from the whole city and do not reflect the make-up of the immediate neighborhood.
Acceptable racial mix is a range determined by the U.S. District Court as 15% current racial mix of the population. In Denver It is 38% white and 62% minority. The acceptable range, therefore, is 23% to 53% white or 47% to 77% minority.
2. Stedman is a satellite school but draws students from the immediate neighborhood. Children are bused largely for distance reasons.
3. Oakland and McGlone are paired schools splitting grades kindergarten through third and fourth through sixth grades. They draw from the immediate neighborhood and are split for overcrowding reasons and because the parents prefer a primary and intermediate split of grades.
4. Marrama Is a very new school with a small population.
77


APPENDIX 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-"Community Housing... Community Schools11; A Report on a Conference on Housing and School Desegregation Policies in Metro Denver; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Denver; (April 1981).
-Denver Public Schools In Celebration of Excellence; Final Report to Board of Education, Denver Public Schools; Advisory Group on Educational Excellence; Denver; (May 1984).
-Desegregation Without Turmoil; National Conference on Christians and Jews, Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice and National Center for Quality Integrated Education; New York, New York; (1981).
-Hawley, Willis, Dr.; Strategies for Effective Desegretatlon -Lessons from Research; Lexington Books, Lexington, MA; (1983).
-Orfleld, Gary and Fischer, Paul; "A Policy Analysis of Denver", Housing and School Integration in Three Metropolitan Areas: Denver Columbus and Phoenix; (February 1981, Revised Version).
-Orfield, Gary, "Federal Agencies and Urban Segregation: Steps toward Coordinated Action", Racial Segregation: Two Policy Views, Ford Foundation, New York; (1979).
-__________________; Toward a Strategy for Urban Integration,
Ford Foundation, New York; (1981).
-Taylor, William; "Mounting a Concerted Federal Attack on Urban Segregation: A Preliminary Exploration", Racial Segregation: Two Policy Views; Ford Foundation, New York; (1979)
-Warren, Peter, Ph.D.; Denver Trends and the School Age
Population; University of Colorado Denver, Graduate School of Public Affairs; (1984).
78