The Poor Among Us

I read a book before that gave extensive examples of how policy around poverty has changed over time; it was called The Poor Among Us: A History of Family Poverty and Homelessness in New York City (DaCosta & Sribnick, 2013). The book was based in New York City from the 1620s to present (2013). New York City was chosen because of its long history of family homelessness and because it has been a place where a lot of experimental studies were done in an effort to decrease poverty and homelessness across the US. Essentially, the book describes how economic forces, intellectual forces, and institutional forces were responsible for changes in policy in regards of these issues. 

Many of the economic issues occurred with the influx of immigration during the 1620s and early 1700s and the lack of space and jobs for the thousands of new families pouring in. The book also describes the changes in the US economy and the effects it had on those in New York City, including the Great Depression and the wars the US went through, including the end of the Civil War, with the increase of many black former slaves moving to the city. 

The intellectual forces were those in leadership positions who tried to understand the causes of poverty in general. For much of the 18th century, people believed poverty stemmed from some flaw in the poor themselves. Throughout this time, many believe religion or more so, lack of religion, resulted in people being punished by living poor lives. Some believe that the problems were habitual and people were just lazy or indolent. Many people agreed that there were some who deserved help and some who didn't. While it was often seen as OK to help children or women, most people did not think able-working men should be entitled to any social service. It wasn't until after the Great Depression, when everyone suffered through poverty, that the Progressive Era began. Intellectual forces began to look at economic downturns and changes that more likely affected those who were vulnerable. They also studied the environments of people in who lived and worked in poverty and saw that these people often perpetuated poverty while increases their chances of illness and injuries. This led to greater projects around cleaner and safer housing units for families  and had a focus on giving children a better childhood, or letting them be children instead of having to work in order to help their family.

The institutional forces were also described to help make clear who took on the responsibility, or was in charge of dealing with poverty and homelessness from the 1620s to now. At first, many religious organizations took to helping those in need. This was seen as the duty of the church. So, it is not hard to see why some of the early intellectual forces would see that a lack of religion, sins, or bad habits could result in some type of punishment from a higher power. Later, more private organizations took on these roles because of the high amount of poor and the need to deal with the situation. It wasn't until the Progressive Era that many state and public institutions took on the issue of poverty and homelessness.

When reading this book, it was disturbing to see such slow progress in the amount of changes taking place since the 1620s. Many of the beliefs about the poor from the 18th century are still things I hear about the poor today, like they are just lazy, they don't want to work, or they want someone else to take care of them. I think it shows the power that intellectual forces and institutions play in educating those around us about the actual facts of poverty. What I don't understand is how poverty has remained the way it has and is even increasing today. I feel this could easily be eradicated, however, people don't make it a priority. The money we spent on going to war and the last 20 years could have easily ended poverty in this country. If people were really sick of dealing with this issue, they need to take on the real structures that cause poverty and stop trying to put a bandaid on small areas of the problem.

References

DaCosta, N. R., & Sribnick, E. G. (2013). The poor among us: A history of family poverty and homelessness in New York City.

Effective Disenfranchisement in 2016 America

This post is based on a discussion question from my American Politics class. I think it brings up important aspects of disenfranchisement and systemic discrimination. Please feel free to comment or share your opinion. Also, I encourage everyone to watch the TED talk that the post is referring to.

1. In most cases, convicted felons’ rights are restored to them after completion of their sentences, except for the right to vote.  In view of the large number of people incarcerated in the United States, do you think it’s time we changed this policy?  Explain.

I feel that once felons have made restitution for their criminal actions, their right to vote should be restored, like all of their other rights. This becomes especially true when we look at the disproportion amount of poor people and minorities that end up in prison and their treatment in the justice system. Taking away one of their only voices in the political system only increases the prejudice and discrimination of this group. I was just listening to a TED Talk today that stated:

“The United States now has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. We have seven million people on probation and parole. And mass incarceration, in my judgment, has fundamentally changed our world. In poor communities, in communities of color there is this despair, there is this hopelessness that is being shaped by these outcomes. One out of three black men between the ages of 18 and 30 is in jail, in prison, on probation or parole. In urban communities across this country -- Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington -- 50 to 60 percent of all young men of color are in jail or prison or on probation or parole…

…Our system isn't just being shaped in these ways that seem to be distorting around race, they're also distorted by poverty. We have a system of justice in this country that treats you much better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent…

… It's interesting to me. We're looking at some very interesting developments in our work. My state of Alabama, like a number of states, actually permanently disenfranchises you if you have a criminal conviction. Right now in Alabama 34 percent of the black male population has permanently lost the right to vote. We're actually projecting in another 10 years the level of disenfranchisement will be as high as it's been since prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And there is this stunning silence.” –Bryan Stevenson

Image source: http://witnessla.com/supreme-court/2012/taylorwalker/new-felon-disenfranchisement-report-sd-drops-reentry-program-that-cuts-recidivism-and-states-to-execute-mentally-disabled/

In Alabama 34% of black men can’t vote?! Who will represent this group in the polls? This is part of the systemic racism that has gone unnoticed or not talked about by a majority of this country that drives people who are trying to make changes go crazy. How is this justice?

Of course, the argument sometimes shift to "well, those people broke the law" or "they are criminals", but then you'd have to look at the whole system of racial profiling, policing practices, and the justice system as a whole. And if you wanted to go even further, what systems in our society are still in place to keep people down and to perpetuate negative attitudes against certain groups of people. 

TED Talk: We Need to Talk about an Injustice, featuring Bryan Stevenson

https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice/transcript?language=en

-Disenfranchisement is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.

It'll Cost You: High Priced Phone Calls for Prisoners

They say don’t kick them when their down. The prison system has certainly taken the opposite stance to that idiom in their treatment of inmates. Currently, there is an order through the Federal Communication Commission being passed to actually help deter some cost to prisoners and their families in a measure that would put a cap on prison phone call rates, but not without a fight.

While it is not often expected to consider the rights of prisoners, monopolizing phone usage goes beyond punishing those in prison, it punishes those who know someone in prison as well. Inmates spend up to $1.25 per minute to reach out to friends and loved ones. Costs can grow even higher if the prison offers some sort of prepaid phone service which tends to be riddled with transactions and/or “convenience” fees. Services are typically granted through payment companies like Western Union (who also charge a fee for their hard work). Collectively, this scheme has grown into a $1.2 billion industry.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to make money when you’re stuck…in jail. Even if prisoners are able to get work in prison, the most they can expect to make is whopping $2 an hour. Can you imagine working 1 hour just to have a 1-2 minute phone conversation? For many, telephone calls are their only option due to the high rate of illiteracy in the inmate population.

Since inmates can barely earn money, yet still are actual human beings who would like to be in touch with their family and friends, most of the costs for phone calls are put on those same families and friends. Now, who’s being punished? This price gouging doesn’t stop at phone calls. Prisoners regularly have to cover other expenses at the commissary, co-pays for substandard medical care, video visitations and even for email. With over 22 million people in detention, roll out the business opportunities!

Not only are free, non-detained people in the community helping to pay these crazy, inflated charges for phone companies, there’s a kicker: almost 25% of phone charges go back to the prison as a fee to the phone company. That doesn’t include all the “kickbacks” prisons receive to begin with, since phone companies have to win a bid to become the sole source of communication for prisoners. So, instead of looking for the best costs for inmates, prisons tend to seek companies that can provide them with the most kickbacks. It's genius! Arrest lots of people who are likely poor and uneducated to begin with, have them pay tons of money to try to escape their hellish lives for even 10 minutes through a phone call, get kickbacks and extra promises through phone companies, and receive very little pressure from the community because who cares about people who broke the law?

Despite the soaring costs for inmates who have already lost basically everything once they entered the detention facility, studies show that prisoners who have frequent communication with those back home are less likely to go back to jail in the future. You heard that right; more contact on the outside can help discourage recidivism. That means less people returning to jail, less families being torn apart, and fewer burdens on tax-payers. So why is this an issue? Give out free calls! Oops, my extremism is showing.

Some penitentiaries claim the high price for phone calls is due to the extra security needed to monitor the phone lines; therefore, the profiteering is justified. However, these claims can quickly be shot down thanks to New York. New York banned kickbacks and requires prisons accept bids from the phone companies that offer the lowest possible bid FOR THE USER. Inmates in New York are only charged $.05 a minute for local and long distance calls and magically, monitoring and security measures are all intact.

While prison phone call prices seem like a tiny issue on the scales of social justice, it actually affects a huge chunk of our population in one way or another. Research suggests telephone privileges help to maintain community and family ties, increases inmates’ personal development, and decreases the likelihood of inmates’ negative behavior while in jail. So who does gouging communication costs benefit? Prisons, phone companies? It would seem that if the actual goal was decreasing recidivism and increasing rehabilitation, inmates would be able to make regular calls to home without having to take out a personal loan. For all the problems with the justice system, this one seems like an easy one to fix.