Friday, April 24, 2015

Entitled to Benefits

            In William Julius Wilson’s book,The truly Disadvantaged , the identifies the social inequalities many urban communities are faced with today. He argues that the increase in poverty in the United States is not due to racial constraints, but rather because of individual beliefs shifting to create a culture not centered on community progress. Other analyses of inner city problems danced around the issue of racial discrimination for fear of being criticized. Previous studies referred to an “underclass” that had increases in crime, higher poverty rates, and different individual mentalities.  Regardless of the racial composition of residents the living conditions in urban ghettos were declining at rapid rates.  Many who resided in these areas were recipients of welfare benefits in order to survive. While the welfare program was created to help individuals in temporary situations, as time went on the amount of individuals receiving welfare increased.
            This increase in the amount of individuals receiving welfare caused the change in neighborhood culture.  When the first generation was raised in an area with an overwhelming amount of individuals receiving welfare they became socialized to believe receiving welfare is an acceptable form of income. As this generation came into adulthood they developed a dependency on the welfare system, and the behaviors of their everyday life display their dependency.  Those dependent on receiving welfare are typically unemployed, more likely to be involved in criminal activities, and less likely to positively impact their community. A community with a dependency on welfare can have an extremely negative effect on its residents. According to Robert Sampson the effects of a neighborhood can greatly determine an individual’s likeliness to contribute positively to their surrounding area.
Community dependence on welfare creates a culture that negatively impacts all residents regardless of the specific neighborhood they reside in. As I stated before the welfare system was created to provide assistance to individuals who have fallen on hard times due to some extenuating circumstance in their life. “The institutionalized program was set up to be an offset measure for those in need, not a complete replacement of income and benefits.” (Welfareinfo.org) The federal government defined the minimum needs a family with no income has. The needs standard includes food, clothing, recreation, personal incidentals, fuel for heating, cooking and water heating, electricity for refrigeration and lights, household supplies, medical chest supplies and shelter.” (Welfareinfo.org) It is supposed to provide a minimum amount of money for only those who desperately need to meet the minimum standard of living. When large amounts of individuals receive welfare benefits, the amount of individuals receiving the help they desperately need is decreased. The government can only provide so much funding into these programs and when individuals begin to take advantage of the system it becomes ineffective.  In the case that a person makes the conscious decision to receive welfare instead of being employed it is no surprise that they do not spend their day being as productive as they could be. The ability for individuals like this to receive welfare contributes to a culture of laziness. Younger generations develop the belief that they are also entitled to the same benefits in life.
Recent changes to welfare systems have allowed these programs to become more effective than they originally were. The in statement of food stamps ensures that individuals are spending the money allocated for food actually on food. Applications for this aspect of the welfare program is processed the quickest to allow individuals to eat. There have also been changes to how poor individuals receive tax benefits from government funds. In order to receive these funds individuals must prove employment. This requirement of employment forces individuals who want to receive benefits to join an institution where they are positively contributing to society. There are also checks on one’s criminal backgrounds in order for them to receive welfare allowances. This measure safeguards the system from being flooded with criminals wanting to receive a cash handout. At the most a family of four can receive up to $900 a month through welfare benefits and individuals can receive up to $300 a month. (Welfareinfo.org) The most amount of money a family can receive is not enough to provide for a family of four, but it is enough to make sure some of their financial strain is lifted. $300 a month does not seem like enough for an individual to live off of, but if they choose residency in an area with cheap housing this $300 may be enough to make ends meet to some extent. In order to ensure the success of modern welfare programs more stipulations on employment need to be put into place. There is nothing wrong with individuals needing help from time to time to make ends meet, but this should be a transitional period in their life. Welfare has never meant to be sustainable income for anyone.



Welfare statistics found at: http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/

The Grass Is Not Always Green on the Other Side!

Throughout history African Americans have always been mistreated in the United States of America. This mistreatment happens in various ways and still happens today. One major way that African Americans are treated unfairly today is the way that they live. In other words, African American neighborhoods are usually in worse conditions than the neighborhoods that white people live in. Now, I understand that there are middle class and also rich black people, but as explained by the authors Douglas Massey, Nancy Denton, William Julius Wilson, as well as Robert Sampson the black middle class, and upper class, families do not seem to move that far from the "bad" neighborhoods. Massey and Denton also explain in chapter three of their book, American Apartheid, that African Americans moving to the suburbs can be "deceiving." In other words, the suburbs that many of these African American families move to still have many of the same problems as their old, poverty stricken neighborhoods. The authors explained that sometimes the black families that move to the suburbs are actually doing worse than they were before. There were high rates of black suburbanization, or blacks moving to the suburbs, but the poverty rates did not decrease. It seems like it is hard for black people to escape poverty even if they retreat to the suburbs. Wilson explains in his book, The Truly Disadvantaged, that the black suburbs are usually faced with the problems of the inner city. Massey and Denton explain in their book that residential segregation is a major factor in the United States which keeps minorities from moving into certain neighborhoods. So, the minorities that can afford to move to a suburb really only have a select suburbs to choose from that will allow them to move in. At the end of the day it seems that African American once again received the short end of the stick. I can speak from personal experience that the black suburbs
are nothing compared to the white suburbs. I grew up, and lived most of my life in a black suburb of Chicago called Maywood. I was born in Maywood, but I have also lived all around the city of Chicago so I have seen almost every neighborhood. I wrote an earlier blog and I asked the question how one can determine when they are in the suburbs. I asked that question to point out the fact that just because a place is called a suburb does not mean that it is like the suburbs on television. When people come to Maywood they are most likely going to see the same things they see in the inner city. They will see people hanging out on corners, gang bangers, drug dealers, drug users, and whatever else that you would not expect to be in a suburb. If you ride down fifth you have a better chance finding a place that is boarded up than finding one that is not. Maywood is not the only black suburb of Chicago that is poor and rundown though. Bellwood is just like Maywood and also right next door. There are also two Hispanic neighborhoods that are near Maywood called Melrose Park and Stone Park. These are just a few minority suburbs that I know of that are in bad shape, but I am pretty sure there are more. The thing that bothers me the most about Maywood being so dirty is the fact that it is right after Oak Park. Oak Park is a predominately white suburb that is located right after the city and right before Maywood. When you leave the west side of Chicago and enter Oak Park it is like a different world, but the crazy thing about it is that if you look directly across the street into the city you will see a huge difference in how the up keep is. It seems as if the government cares more about Oak Park because I feel if they can keep that clean then they can also clean up right across the street. Massey and Denton also explained that the suburbs that do accept black residents are usually the worst suburbs economically and have a high population density. This all ties back to residential segregation and residential isolation. Whether the African Americans are in the city or the suburbs they are still grouped together and are in the worst neighborhoods. Another thing that American Apartheid explained is that other minorities do not have such a problem moving into nice neighborhoods. For example, the Mexicans that accept the identity Mexican-white are accepted by the white community and treated much better than the blacks, or other Hispanics. It is possible for any minority group to overcome the unfair ways of the white government except for African Americans.

This link is to an article on racial segregation and black suburbs...

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3619193.html

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Female-Headed Households & Poverty.

Disclaimer: #SorryWeffer for the back to back blogs.


In The Truly Disadvantage, Wilson writes about the “dire social and economic consequences” that female-headed families face because they are much more vulnerable to poverty than other types of families (71).
            According to the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, over five million more women than men in 2012 were living below the poverty line.  What is more alarming, as Wilson notes, is that female-headed families are also more likely than male-headed families to be persistently poor (72). Wilson furthermore states that female-headed households are tied up with both poverty and dependency long-term. In a report done by the Population Reference Bureau, Mark Mather writes “the effects of growing up in single-parent households have been shown to go beyond economics, increasing the risk of children dropping out of school, disconnecting from the labor force, and becoming teen parents.”  Thus, the poverty experienced does not only apply to economic hardship but also affects different factors regarding the children of those families which can then perpetuate a cycle of poverty. Some policy suggestions that the report suggests are that “Ensuring that single mothers have access to education, job training, quality child care, and equal wages are some of the ways to ensure children’s successful transitions to adulthood.”


            In all the books and material that we have looked at in class, there has been a series of emerging themes that arise when looking at urban issues. For example, we spent a considerable amount of time looking at the transformation of neighborhoods and also looking at the creation of “the ghetto.” We looked at how segregation and isolation leads to inequality and poverty. We looked at how such isolation can lead to unequal distribution of resources but also not accessing certain networks or opportunities that would improve the conditions of many of those living in these low-income under-resourced locations. We looked at how many factors such as race and gender play into the perceptions of poverty and we even looked at the way that policies have been implemented and how some have been good and some…. not so good. What this all means is that the material that we are constantly looking at should be examined carefully to see at how all these different factors, issues, policies affect one another and affect the lives of many. Most importantly, we should also look at how we can learn these intersections and create policies that will create more access for those that are mostly affected, like female-headed households. 


            When thinking about female-headed families and poverty, one also has to take into account the gender gap that continues to exist. Even further, there needs to be an exploration on the way race has an effect on the gender gap. For example, as seen on the right, women of color get paid less than their white counterparts. How does that translate to poverty? Well, if female-headed households are more vulnerable to poverty and a cycle of poverty, then the population that is also more vulnerable is black female-headed households.

Anti-immigrant laws and policies and police mistrust.

Disclaimer: #SorryWeffer for the back to back blogs.
This month marks the 5th year anniversary of SB1070 and communities in Arizona continuing to resist against draconian immigration laws. From being part of these immigrant communities, I have first-hand experienced the way that policies and laws impact undocumented folks. Something that I have always thought about was how these harsh immigration policies, laws, and programs often make communities not feel secure and therefore tend to not cooperate with police and also have mistrust towards institutions.  

            There have been different programs implemented at the local level and thus have given power to local authorities to handle immigration. In 2012, the Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating law enforcement practices in Alamance County, North Carolina. The county was accused of targeting Latino communities; the DOJ additionally found that discrimination had occurred in the county’s booking and detention practices related to immigration status checks (Cade 2013). Cade states “policing practices that violate noncitizens’ constitutional rights are thus a persistent and growing feature of immigration enforcement” (2013). Reports based on local immigration enforcement showed enforcement taking part in racial profiling and violation of fourth-amendment rights (Cade 2013). Additionally, immigrants did not have due process regarding their immigration case.
            Citizen reports are commonly the reason that criminals are apprehended and victim cooperation is essential for successful prosecution (Davis et al, 2001), therefore if legal cynicism and police mistrust exists within a community, there is going to be less likely reportage of crimes and collaboration with local enforcement. Although the undocumented population is not compromised of just Latinos, there tends to be more focus on Latino communities due to a larger presence. Thus, Latinos become the target population when it comes to immigration. Draconian laws such as Arizona’s “show me your papers law” SB1070, showcases the concern over targeting Latino populations and therefore inducing racial profiling.
            Kirk et al states that “harsh enforcement of laws may undermine the ability of police to control crime by reducing the willingness of immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with police criminal investigations” (2012). Additionally, Sampson, Morenoff, and Raudenbush pointed out how legal cynicism occurs within communities due to mistrust of the legal system and how crime is handled in communities, they also pointed out that legal cynicism leads to an increase in crime (2005). In other words, while immigration laws such as SB1070 and enforcement programs like secure communities are meant to reduce crime and also create public safety, it can unfortunately create the opposite effects due to creating cynicism within immigrant communities.
            If individuals are treated with dignity and respect from legal officials, communities are more likely to judge police as a just institution (Kirk et al, 2012). In contrast, if police and enforcement are reported to target certain populations by racial profiling, constantly harassing and surveilling communities, and doing unnecessary sweeps, checkpoints, raids, and so forth designed as “targeting criminals,” then police and enforcement will be seen as illegitimate. 
         
   Martinez and Lee sought to document the relationship between crime and immigrants. From their data, they concluded that although immigrants face acculturation and settle in socially disorganized neighborhoods, all which are signs that are meant to lead to increase in committing crime, immigrant crime rates were lower than native-born crime rates (Martinez and Lee, 2000). Similar to the Latino paradox, the immigrant paradox concludes that lower crime rates are due to attachment to labor and also economic prosperity with strong family values. Therefore, if scholars’ (Martinez and Lee, 2000; Vaughn et all, 2013) work showcases that immigrant crime rates are lower than native-born crime rates, it is important to look at the way that local police handles immigration issues, particularly in the population that they target. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated that they do not target non-criminal undocumented immigrants and only prioritize those with major criminal backgrounds, however, data says otherwise. After the implementation of secure communities, arrests and removal of undocumented immigrants due to minor traffic offenses went from 19% in 2008 to 40.4% in 2012 (Treyget et al). These numbers imply that although ICE states that secure communities are meant to remove immigrants with criminal backgrounds, removing immigrants that have committed minor traffic offenses creates distrust within the community and thus increases legal cynicism.
            In a study done on Chinese immigrants and perception of police, Wu et al conclude that Chinese immigrants have a favorable view on police, however, “when Chinese immigrants think poorly of immigration officials and the services they provide, they also hold significantly less favorable attitudes toward local police in both general and specific evaluative areas” (2010). Thus, Wu et al warn that local police should be cautious about enforcing immigration laws, “an authority which usually belongs to federal authority (2010). Enforcing such laws and programs can then create mistrust in communities and also create legal cynicism within immigrant communities.


            Although programs like secure communities are no longer being implemented, such programs have created long-term scars in these communities. As communities continue to resist against deportation quotas and family members being sent to detention centers -- there are still laws being implemented that are anti-immigrant and are inherently racist, such as SB1070. Here's to Arizona's communities for reaching it's 5th year in the resistance against such draconian laws. 

Perceptions: Race as a proxy for crime.


Disclaimer: #SorryWeffer for the back to back blogs.
 
     
          
Mary Pattillo did an ethnographic study on a black middle-class neighborhood referred to as
Groveland. In this neighborhood there are two types of groups that co-exist: the residents who do not engage in criminal activity or delinquency and then those who do such as drug dealers and gang leaders. This study showcased how socially disorganized this neighborhood was because “certain values had been lost.” Pattillo also mentions that these anomalies were explained by neighborhoods lacking “essential ties to public forms of social control, such as police, government bureaucrats, and social service agencies” (Pattillo 1998). This in turn means that low-income communities, which mostly likely are communities of color, tend to be isolated from these resources. Low-income communities also tend to have “weak internal economies and lack sufficient connections to mainstream employment” (Pattillo 1998). These communities are already in a poor state to begin with because they are facing different economical hardships such as low unemployment opportunities and therefore when there is isolation from these resources that can be used, crime will increase due to individuals not having many other options. 

         One of the biggest issues that tends to plague black communities is joblessness. In a study done by Sampson and Wilson, it was concluded that joblessness existed more in black communities. Sampson discussed these patterns as “concentration effects.” Living in areas that are highly impoverished causes concentration effects and therefore that is reflected on various other things such as access to “jobs, job networks, involvement in quality schools, availability of marriageable partners, and exposure to conventional role models” (Sampson and Wilson 1995). Sampson and Wilson stated that macro-structural forces such as cities transforming by joblessness and industrial transformation really hit these low-income communities hard because they were already in a vulnerable state to begin with (1995). Sampson and Wilson also discuss public housing, as a negative effect that has plagued these communities. Public housing has led to “massive, segregated housing projects that have become ghettos for the minorities and disadvantaged” (Sampson and Wilson 1995). 

        
Something worth noting is that white individuals tend to associate crime with blacks. This association therefore assumes that race is a proxy of crime. Association of crime with a certain race can cause false perceptions of that race and is not looking at the context of the situation such as hyper segregation, spatial isolation, joblessness, and so forth. It is important that when looking at things such as the connection between crime and race, that race is not solely looked at but that other factors are looked at, factors that usually plague these different types of communities. Criminal activity and delinquency is not something that is done by a certain race, but exists in a certain neighborhood with a specific racial makeup, due to the context of the neighborhood. So, for example, in a black neighborhood that has undergone public housing policies (redlining, blockbusting, etc.), has dealt with industrial transformation and therefore has an increase in joblessness, and where there are nonexistent resources, these communities will have an increase in crime due to issues regarding access and isolation.

Monday, April 20, 2015

The Police Should Be On Facebook

Where you live really does matter. The South is different from the North. The West is different from the East Coast. The differences go beyond the individuals who live in these neighborhoods. Rather the differences are the structures that entangle the different neighborhoods. Some people interact with a group of people so much that they develop their own dialect of the national language. Someone who is from rural Tennessee may speak vastly different when compared with someone from the Austin neighborhood of Chicago. Nowadays there are websites that show you where sex offenders live. When a sex offender moves into a new neighborhood he must inform others that he is moving in. So, individuals, perhaps a single mother, may feel uncomfortable living near a sex offender. So that single mother may move as a result. The important thing here to realize is the location is crucial to understanding contexts. I found interesting Sampson's point that internet crime largely matters on location. If someone wants to meet up with another person and commit a crime to spatial proximity is incredibly important (Sampson 239). If an individual lives too far from another individual they will not meet up, and the potential for crime goes down. Internet crime may happen from countries away, such is the case with white collar crime. But in general, internet crime "opportunities for contact increase with physical propinquity and social interactions may in turn concatenate along chains of contact, with their influences ultimately felt away from the geographic point of origin" (Sampson 239-240). The important thing is that spatial proximity is important for internet crime. Where you live matters, maybe more in this internet age.
Nowadays social media is very important for preventing crime. Twitter has been shown to be an indicator of crime. Oftentimes before something happens an individual will Tweet or post on Facebook about the action. If the police are paying attention they can send officers to the place where the action is supposed to happen, in the process preventing crime from happening. Individuals in gangs use Twitter and Facebook to make threats. Police should investigate the credibility of these threats. If correctly identified, violence could be avoided. This deterrence would be a rousing victory for police departments.
          Of course the digital age brings extreme scrutiny to police departments. Because the world is becoming increasingly videotaped it is vital for the police to be aware of their surroundings. One must understand the structures surrounding a neighborhood. Does the neighborhood have social cohesion? Is it a disordered community? All these questions are important for the police to take into consideration when deciding on the best course of action to combat crime. The personality that a neighborhood takes on is evident on social media. For example just look at different named WiFi’s. WiFi in bad neighborhoods often will be named profane names. WiFi’s in nice neighborhoods often will either not be named or else will have names like OstwaldFamilyWiFi.

This is just one example of how media helps demonstrate how a neighborhood functions.
          The point is that spatial proximity is key to social media. The internet connects people thousands of miles away. But it also is a representation of how a community operates, what it believes and how it works. A neighborhood with a large population of Latinos may have WiFi names in Spanish. While this connection is a bit of a stretch it demonstrates that spatial proximity matters. The internet is an enabler. It can either enable the public to have a negative view of the police or a positive one. Either way spatial proximity is important when taking into variables such as social media which effect criminal activity in different neighborhoods in a community. So while Facebook may be something fun to look at during the day it also may be an important tool for police departments.
This seemingly would help community policing because the police learn more about the structures of a neighborhood which influences an individual’s actions. These structures are important because they represent a neighborhood and whether or not that neighborhood is disorganized. So it seems that perhaps an effective crime fighting measure may be to devote police officers to monitor social media interactions.


http://www.nw3c.org/docs/whitepapers/criminal-use-of-social-media.pdf



Friday, April 17, 2015

Police Brutality


 Having high efficacy in a neighborhood aids in multiple ways.  High efficacy helps in lowering violence around the community because it contributes to having a tight knit neighborhood. The act of having a united community aids law enforcement in solving crimes.  As a result of having such a tight knit community, citizens aid law enforcement in many aspects of their job.  Citizens report crimes and aid in crime solving by contributing their sightings.  This is a common aspect of community policing.  Having trust in aw enforcement aids in lowering crime rates.  Another aspect that plays a part in neighborhood communication is race.  As one race proceeds to live in a neighborhood, individuals gain trust within themselves.  They have a connection to their neighbors and as a result communicate the neighborhood gossip.  One aspect that increases crime rates in a neighborhood is the poverty rate.  The higher the poverty rates in a neighborhood, the higher the crime rates.  These high crime rates are also associated with high levels of police brutality.  We have discussed police brutality in class and the significance of  its prevalence.  I feel that police brutality is more prevalent in today’s time because of the lack of training police officers receive.  Police brutality has always existed except that in today’s time, the media has been focusing a lot on this issue because it is something that grabs the attention of the public.  One of the reasons it is such a controversial subject is because of the fact that the race card is pulled in most of today’s situations.  Law enforcement has to be very cautious about their choice of diction when addressing individuals because of the fact that the race issue is such a sensitive subject in today’s time.  I feel that the media is exploiting police brutality because it is something that has always been present in today’s society.  There has been more attention around the subject because of those affected.  It exists with all races, except that the media chooses to focus around white on black crimes.  Due to the fact that these incidents arte the ones exploited, it has developed into a racist thing even when that is not the case.  Due to this, individuals find the need to pull the race card for many incidents.  The media is contributing to much of this hype.
                                  Many incidents that are considered to be police brutality can easily be avoided by higher training.  For example, in New York recently police brutality resulted in the death of Eric Garner.  There was a huge controversy around how the man died.  There were lawsuits filed and the officer was found to be innocent yet, the death of Eric Garner could have been avoided.  Mr. Eric Garner was voicing his opinion when an officer used an illegal hold to get him to be quiet.  Eric Garner was already detained when the officer had him in this hold.  He died as a result of this chokehold.  If the officer had followed procedure, this man would be alive today.  This misconduct could have easily been avoided by higher sensitivity training of officers as well as higher punishments for misconduct.   Today, punishment for misconduct in law enforcement agencies is minor.  As a result, officers tend to do as they please because they know there will not be many repercussions.  If officers had to face higher consequences for their actions I am sure they would think twice before acting on much of their thoughts. 


                                 
                                  Law enforcement officers acting on police brutality contributes to the lack of trust in neighborhoods. Police brutality damages the efficacy of a neighborhood and damages community policing tactics.  As citizens of a neighborhood fear the acts of law enforcement, they are hesitant to report their sightings.  This hurts not only the community but law enforcement as well.  From a law enforcement perspective you want to have the community on your side in order to aid in crime fighting techniques.  The lack of trust in law enforcement results in individuals being afraid to report crimes because of the fear that they have of law enforcement agencies.
                                  All of these incidents can be avoided by having law enforcement officers enroll in higher levels of training.  They need to know how to handle whatever situations may arise and know when to stop.  High efficacy levels in neighborhoods also aid in deterring these crimes.  Once the efficacy of a neighborhood is damaged it is hard to recover. Having high efficacy can deter crime in neighborhood by giving other solutions to the residents in the neighborhood.