I fail to see how any plan decentralizing the socio-economically disadvantaged from urban centers will be successful until the very social support network (welfare, food stamps, mass transit, etc) that attracts them to said urban centers is reorganized & capable of extending it's infrastructure outward as well. The problem as always is money. Decentralization increases operating costs. Centralized urban social support is designed to provide maximum services at the most efficient costs. This is why they attract the poor. Until this issue is resolved I cannot see any other suburban diversification plans being effective.
There is a fundamental difference between white & black poverty other than geographic residence: While most poor white's live outside urban centers (cities) and primarily reside in rural and suburban locations (primarily along significant transportation corridors that allow them access to different locations with perspective job opportunities), there is also another aspect of poor whites that fails to make the 'table of discussion:' In that there is still significant pride remaining of self reliance that disdains the direct use of what is viewed as charity. Although this characteristic grows less with each generation.
The conclusion, as seen by the continued willingness (arguably) for the majority of poor blacks to live in urban centers & poor whites to live more independently beyond urban centers seems to be casal: The choice to prioritize access to social services over self reliance is a deters incentive efforts to provide residence choice (e.g. suburban diversification).
All casal relationships should be discussed juxtaposed against the prevailing & most oft printed commonly held thought, as stated in the linked article below which primarily attributes urban residence as a denial of choice due to: