A Different Kind of Concentration Effect: Mental Health in the Juvenile Justice System

A friend from Amherst passed along a Solomon Moore's NYT article, "Mentally Ill Offenders Strain Juvenile System," and asked SSL to comment on it. The article speaks to the current state of mental health issues within the criminal justice systems. More specifically, the trend of courts to funnel juvenile delinquents who have documented mental health issues into the juvenile criminal justice system instead of hospitals or mental health facilities. In responding to the request, I will speak on the content of the article and the article itself.

First, this is some depressing material: “About two-thirds of the nation’s juvenile inmates—who numbered 92,854 in 2006, down from 107,000 in 1999—have at least one mental illness, according to surveys of youth prisons, and are more in need of therapy than punishment.” These numbers are surprising to me because, admittedly, I tend not to factor in mental illnesses like bipolar disorder when thinking about criminal activity. I think part of the reason why the two are decoupled in my mind is because I always considered (emphasis on the past tense here) certain mental disorders as “problems” of the rich (and white). I am revealing my own biases but when one thinks about how mental disorders, as opposed to physical or medical disorders like diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, and the like, are represented in popular media, the news, and even in schools, “illnesses” become stratified by race and class in the mind. To give one example, think back to when the character Kim from Moesha, says something like “Mama always said that the only thing black folks need is Jesus and Oprah.” I do not speak for all; I am simply relating the abstract image of diseases with their social groupings. Reading this article made me realize even more that such stereotypes, as stereotypes always are, obscure reality.

The fact that so many of the youth in the criminal justice system are suffering from mental illnesses is frightening. For if these documented number are this high, what are the projections for those actually suffering but have not received any form of documented help as of yet. However, what saddens me more than the staggering statistics is the slippery slope recent fiscal cutbacks have created for this population. In the article, Moore highlights the fact that since the incorporation of powerful “antipsychotic medications coincided with a national movement to close public mental hospitals” across the nation. What is worse now, given our “we so broke” phase of the recession, more and more youth who are being funneled into the criminal justice system instead of mental health facilities because mental health facilities (both at the community and state levels) are harder hit by budget cutbacks. Even parents have opted to send their children to get help in juvenile facilities because community based facilities are disappearing. In other words, instead of being in an environment with trained mental health professionals, juvenile offenders are instead in a farm environment: prison guards as trained herders, wardens as farm owners, and padded cells as one’s pen.

This “farm” metaphor leads to a different from of concentration effect. In the study of urban poverty, to channel Harvard Sociologist William Julius Wilson, concentration effect is the term used to capture the consequences of the historical social transformation of the inner city which resulted in the disproportionate concentration of the most disadvantaged segments of the urban black population, creating a social milieu significantly different from the environment that existed in all black communities several decades before. This current social milieu is one of rampant crime, high violence, and other social dislocation that plague inner city environments. The prison is yet another one of these institutionalized environments where the concentration of disadvantage leads to increased aberrant behavior.

For those who already suffer from mental disorders being treated like chattel and placed with others who are experiencing the “jail house effect” only places fuel on the fire. To put it simply, it compounds the problem further. It is not surprising that one hears accounts like “he’s been in 130 fights since he’s been with us” (though I think 130 may be an exaggerated number). Such new policy lines by judges, according to Moore, to argue that juvenile are better than mental health facilities ignores such a reality.

With respect to that article itself, I find it troubling that race and class are at once conflated and implicit. I find this problematic because nowhere in the article are we given demographic characteristics to access exactly who the juvenile delinquents are. Though it may not be point of the article, because we are left in the dark (literally and figuratively) with facts about the “who,” we also do not know if even in this disadvantaged population if everyone is placed on the same track into the jails and not mental health facilities. In other words, is there tracking even amongst those who are tracked?

However, the question becomes how do we know that the population is disadvantaged? The answer, which troubles me as well, is because of the offhand comments included in the article. Take for instance, including what the grandmother said about her troubled grandson and then the psychiatrist who Moore uses to close the article. We are left with the picture of abandoned children and helpless (or hopeless) parents.

“I’ve begged D.Y.S. to get him into a mental facility where they’re trained to deal with people like him,” said his grandmother, who asked not to be identified because of the stigma of having a grandson who is mentally ill. “I don’t think a lockup situation is where he should be, although I don’t think he should be on the street either.” (Grandmother)

“Often Daddy is nowhere to be found, Mommy might be in jail,” said Daniel Connor, a psychiatrist for the Connecticut juvenile corrections system. “The home phone is cut off. The parent speaks another language, so it’s often hard to figure out exactly what’s going on with each kid.” (Psychiatrist).

With its faults, I think Moore forces us to look at how the changing policies within the courts are dovetailing with the fiscal reality of communities, states, and the nation as a whole at the expense of those who are in need of help the most. For in this case, the help these young individuals need are beyond changes they can engender themselves.

Battling the Financial Crisis: Students not Salaries. Really?

“Salaries and perks not students” should be the slogan for all Amherst faculty members during these troubled, financial times. The reality, however, is that there is a group of faculty who seem to be reversing this mantra.

Amherst College has been one of the front runners in admission and financial aid policies for the last decade. It was the first and/or one of the firsts to go need blind for students whose families make below certain income levels and to offer “no loan” packages to students who come from families who earn less than certain amounts of money. Amherst made history yet again the past two years with two major announcements: No loans to all students and need-blind admissions for international students. It does all this with (before the crisis) an almost two billion dollar endowment. Again, Amherst has been a front-runner in admissions and financial aid. Harvard, with the largest endowment (fifteen times larger than Amherst’s) Yale coming in “close” behind, do not operate under the same principles though their packages are substantially better than other institutions. In fact, only Princeton, Davidson, and now Williams are, I think, the only schools that are now true “no loan institutions.”

The problem now is that now that the financial belt has to be squeezed a little tighter because of the economic climate, people are, if I may use a phrase from home, showing their true colors. As with other schools, Amherst has enacted a number of financial restrictions to save money. For instance, they are in a pseudo-hiring freeze and there will be no raises for faculty or staff this year. These latter two actions are actually quite common for institutions today. I leaned that both President Tony Marx and Dean of Faculty Greg Call reduced their personal salaries until better financial times. The negative side, however, does not come from draconian, top down measures to save money like cutting departments or laying off large number of workers, rather the worst response has been that of a group of faculty members.

To save their money they want to, one may say, roll back time. More specifically, instead of exploring more options, according to some, they want to reduce the moneys dedicated to admission and financial aid, the two departments that make Amherst what it is today, the two departments that keeps Amherst in the news more so than any other, the two departments that uphold the alma mater, terras irradient, more so than any other. This group of faculty wants to restructure how financial aid is done, not universally, but in a targeted manner.

I quote a student who alerted the student body to these suggestions and who has rallied other students to stand against, not this group of faculty, but their recommendations and suggestions:

“In response to the ABC report, which recommended only small changes to financial aid targets, a group of faculty members have circulated [a] letter [sic] amongst themselves to suggest to the Trustees that we end need-blind financial aid for international students, stop recruiting in areas with high aid-eligible students (a.k.a. poor students), and start giving out loans. Although they preach sharing the sacrifice throughout the Amherst community, they don't voice any sacrifice they are willing to make."

Some may consider the latter move racist. I do not necessarily (but reserve the right to revisit this). However, I would be mistaken if I do no state explicitly that such a policy change would have disproportionate effects on minority students who are, just like the rest of the population, disproportionately from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than their white peers, and low-income white students who seem always to be left out of these conversations. With respect to minority students, blacks in particular, this is not mere posturing as in thier book Black Wealth/White Wealth, Sociologists Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro, studying the sociology of wealth, has shown that even blacks and whites with comparable levels of education and incomes have different levels of wealth with blacks being disadvantaged because of historical and current racial policies. Naturally, this disparity is even more evident the lower one goes down the socioeconomic ladder. Latinos face similar obstacles as well and low-income whites, again, are absent from many of these discusions though both groups do slighlty better than low-income blacks. What I argue, as has been done before, is that such a “nonracial,” economic policy change would surely decrease the number of minority student you attract to your school. To not send admissions officers to disadvantaged areas, to those areas where students, despite being socially isolated, manage to make it, but still host information sessions at Choate, Exeter, Andover and the like will have racial ramifications. Of this, I have no doubt. Again, the intent, I believe, is not racist but the effect will be, with the blunt of the impact being absorbed by those economically disadvantaged minority and white students.

The faculty should ask themselves would Amherst still lead the country in being home to students from Questbridge, arguably the best enrichment program in the nation that helps students get into top colleges without having them leave thier neighborhoods? Would Amherst still lead the nation in Pell Grant recipients? Although focusing on Amherst and recruiting students from disadvantaged populations, this is a much larger problem. We have seen how, because of budget cuts, schools seem to be the most affected. I wrote about the financial times and the changing role of summer schools. But that spoke elementary, middle, and high school education. This related issue is that of the next step: acquiring the credentials needed to acquire middle class jobs (those this is not guaranteed anymore given that the BA is the new high school diploma). Amherst is less than 2000 students but it has the endowment of a much larger institution. The question this raises is what are other, less endowed schools doing whose financial aid and admission policies are not as generous?

With respect to the reversal of the need-blind admission for international students, (as above with respect to the issue of class and race) I am hesitant to come down on either side of labeling such a claim xenophobic. “Xenophobic,” like racist, is a loaded term and labeling this suggestion as xenophobic is complicated. I withhold judgment until conversations, discussions, or debates are held. My lack of familiarity with international issues and tensions with respect to international students and colleges are restraining my judgment. Thoughts are welcome.

Nevertheless, this matter brings up an interesting question. Should many of these elite institutions with very large endowments, that are need-blind for U.S. citizens and residents, remain need-aware for international students? Although this would cost slightly more, it is possible. Unfortunately, this was not even on the table before many of these institutions suffered due to the crisis. In this shrinking and increasingly globalized world, can we afford to keep international students at bay, especially when we preach attaining global perspectives and send students abroad? Should these institutions really show favoritism for U.S. citizens and residents? These are questions that most schools will probably not wrestle with for some time.

I write this post not to bash Amherst or the thoughts of this group of faculty members. Amherst is my alma mater and has opened many doors for me. As I was quoted saying before, it allowed me to rewrite the narrative of my life. However, during these times I propose that we all pay closer attention to the ways in which our alma maters—and colleges more generally—are slimming down their expenditures from their endowments and speak out against policies that will disproportionately disadvantage (in this case in admissions and financial aid) already disadvantaged populations.

Environmentalism is Political White Privilege

PBS ran a special on suburban sprawl last week entitled “Blueprint America: Road to the Future.” The special profiled three U.S. cities—Denver, Portland and New York City—taking three very different approaches to metropolitan transit.

The special began with Denver and local political battles over a nearly complete highway enclosing the region. Opponents of the highway suggested that it contributes to sprawl and is decimating the environment, while proponents made the groundbreaking observation “Our population is increasing, and they have to live somewhere!” Basically, metro-Denver residents are dependent on their cars due to greedy real estate developers, federal subsidies for suburban development, and a general American “car culture.” And this dependency has had dramatic effects on the area’s quality of life and air quality. Thirty-minute rush hour commutes now take upwards of two hours, meaning more carbon emissions and more pollution.

Portland was profiled next as a region bucking the trend of suburban sprawl. When the city was offered federal dollars for highway construction in the 1970s, city officials instead invested in light rails and other public transit systems. White, middle class families were followed with cameras as they rode their bikes to the local grocery store and then to a neighborhood playground. Under Mayor Bloomberg, New York City—already very “green” by emissions standards—is following Portland and also making environmental sustainability a civic priority.

The common thread throughout the entire special was twofold: Sprawl has dramatically negative effects the environment, and better transit is necessary if we want to be a “green,” eco-friendly nation. White, middle-class families in Portland were quoted in the special gleefully recounting how they can ride their bikes to work, instead of driving. But what about folks that don’t even have cars? What about folks who live in neighborhoods spatially disconnected from job opportunities? These controversies over public transportation are uncomfortably whitewashed, and the only people we hear from are middle class individuals with the privilege to choose environmentally friendly lifestyles. Here we are, debating the best way to commute to work, when black male unemployment is 17.2%.

This discussion brings up the idea of framing—how we talk about social issues. The Obama Administration’s head of The Department of Transportation was quoted in the PBS special saying, “We’re thinking about transit more than ever before.” But how are they thinking about it? Are they thinking about it as a political move, a way to garner support from “green loving” liberals? Or is the conversation more altruistic—a way to help the country recover from the economic crisis? Or—and here’s where things get interesting—can it be positioned as a social justice, a social need for already marginalized urban communities?

In Lone Pursuit, Sandra Susan Smith—a brilliant sociologist at UC-Berkeley—discusses black joblessness in southeast Michigan, carefully analyzing job referral reluctance among poor African Americans. A cycle of distrust proliferates among the black poor in “Southeast County,” Michigan, thwarting the dissemination of job information through informal networks. She posits that a weak job referral structure at the individual level in Southeast County helps explain low employment levels for blacks at the group level.

Throughout the book, however, her respondents also noted the trials and tribulations associated with mass transit. Indeed, this is a hot topic in Southeast Michigan. Currently, state officials are split on plans to build a commuter rail from “Southeast County” (Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti) to either Detroit or Grand Rapids. Representatives from Grand Rapids are seeking to make their city the “center” of the state, whereas Detroit representatives are simply trying to keep their city alive. And, of course, poor folks just want a job, and a way to get there.

This is also a nationwide problem; social scientists term it “spatial mismatch.” The idea is that the place of employment is divorced from a group or individual’s place of residence. In metropolitan America, work has “disappeared” to the suburbs via de-centralization, while poor, predominantly black city residents remain constrained to residence within city limits. See, this is what’s missing from conversations about transportation policy, environmental sustainability and suburban sprawl. Poor people, particularly in marginalized communities of color, need jobs and a reliable way to get to them. Lofty goals of “going green” are well and good, but we also need better public transit for the employment opportunities of the public.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, a plethora of media outlets have profiled newly unemployed whites from corporate America. Coupled with the conversations of environmentalism and mass transit, it appears that the public conception of the economy has been effectively whitewashed. The effects of sprawl are more than simply environmental, and the need for mass transit is bigger than the quality of life for middle-class whites in Portland. We can’t allow our privilege to get in the way of seeing who really needs public transit, and why they need it.

Woe Is I. Give Me a Break

It must said from the outset that I do not like broad, sweeping generalizations when one speaks on issues of inequality or privilege, no matter the group. These generalizations stifle conversations, label any kind of serious discussion as “identity politics,” relegate substantive argument to secondary status, and obfuscate the issues at hand. Steve Saltarelli, a student at the University of Chicago, his group Men In Power (MiP), and the justifications for such a group do just that. Although controversial, his argument forces us all to remember—or think about for the first time—the original impetus behind single sex, single race, or single (insert your demographic characteristic of choice here) groups and societies. But first, his argument and its many, many problems.

Salterilli and advocates of “save the male” organizations and clubs forget that status of minority does not equal minority status for all groups of society. What do I mean by this? Sheer numbers for certain groups do not represent the power that group yields. Power and privilege are not always positively correlated with size or percentage of a population. Even with that said, however, their position is still faulty and unfounded.

A supporter of the group, Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint, provides present-day “empirical” data to support the creation of groups like MiP:

“The group’s birth comes at a time when the recessionary ax has fallen especially hard on men. In April, the national unemployment rate for men was 10 percent compared with 7.6 percent for women”

The data used as evidence by Saltarelli and his supporters to show the need for such a group are national level statistics—data that take the nation as a whole as its sample base—yet the premise of their group is to speak to about “the plight” of a select population: elite men for Saltarelli presents the group as one that attempts to keep men in positions of power. Is this use of national level data fair? No. I would go further and say that it is dishonest. Saltarelli and Perry should know better. How can one present an argument for the need to empower men by hosting law, business, and political empowerment seminars because of the “dwindling presence” of men in those professions when one has not effectively shown that the men one advocates for are, in fact, a dying breed. Yes, the recession has hit certain professions hard and men tend to dominate those professions but this does not amount to evidence for the creation of such a group. If anything, it shows the need for more groups to empower women to make more in-roads into certain professions for representation of women in these professions are still not yet equal.

Now, writing that last paragraph hurt a little because in responding to that one particular point I was forced to argue from a position I detest: presenting a group—in this case men—as homogenous. This again is dishonest. The burning question I have for Saltarelli is, which men are you advocating for? (Personally, I think the unstated mascot of this group is a middle class, white male.) All men do not experience life in the same way and surely are not similarly experiencing the repercussions of this financial crisis. As my co-blogger Jeremy spoke on previously, low-income and/or minority men are the most disadvantaged men in this country and the unemployment statistics that we see are more of an understatement of the number of people without work than anything else. These are the populations who are driving up the unemployment statistics due to the outsourcing of jobs, spatial mismatch (jobs and employers in different location) social isolation, and employment discrimination. They were hit hard before the current crisis and are suffering even more today. Again, taking these aggregate level statistics, without attention to the disparate life chances and experiences of certain men pads the argument in favor of such groups. When one takes a closer look, however, we see that the demographic characteristics of those in privileged positions are still dominated by one portion of the population: privileged, white men.

Anna N. over at Jezebel is on point to say that when arguments like this are presented, it usually means that “someone from an already-powerful group is complaining about less-powerful groups encroaching on [their] turf, and that certainly seems like what’s going on here.” To put it plainly, I agree. I would only take it further. Saltarelli ignores the reality of gender inequality in the United States. Michael Kimmel, one of the leading experts on men and masculinity and professor of Sociology at SUNY Stony Brook, has spoken on issues of masculinity and the tendency of privileged white men to present “competing victims” arguments when they feel, as Anna N. noted, their hegemonic base is being attacked. One example being Kimmel’s “Save the Males: The Sociological Implications of the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel” where the administration and alumni of these two military institute were in an uproar of the admission of the schools’ first female cadets.

Saltarelli and MiP stand as an example of what is wrong with a component of American culture. Sadly, some conservative notions go as far to equate gender equality with encroachment on one’s “rightful” place in society. I think it is interesting that advocates for MiP argue that all dissenters are “very set in their ways” when the reason for MiP’s existence is to reinstate and also reify the status quo: specific group of men on top, women (and effectively everyone else) on the bottom. Talking about drinking one’s own cool-aid.

Home is Where the Heart(ache) Is

I do not pretend to fully understand the subprime mortgage crisis or the current financial turmoil that has gripped the country and the world. Questions arise nonetheless.

I do not know exactly where I stand with respect to political framing. Some scholars and politicians are wedded to the idea of universal framing, policies framed as aiming to help entire populations. Others, however, are inclined to employ the targeted approach, frame issues as helping particular populations because of historical legacies of engendered disadvantage. Again, I am not exactly sure where I stand as I see the merits of both. First, the culture of the United States, for better or for worse, is one of the rugged individual, the hard worker, the self disciplined entrepreneur. Of course this is the narrative that we tell ourselves (or rather are told) though we know America is not, in any way, a meritocracy. The framing of critical issues, given these hagiographical tales of America, needs to be done in such a way that it convinces politicians to sign their John Hancocks boldly on the dotted line. On the other hand, universal policies, history has shown, have yielded disparate results. Affirmative Action is one of many great examples: helped some minorities, not all (main beneficiaries being middle class Blacks and White women—not a criticism, just fact).

So, why this discussion about framing? The answer: the current financial crisis and the subsequent repercussions of the subprime lending fiasco, have left minorities in even greater precarious positions, as made even more explicit by today’s New York Times article—“Minorities Affected Most as New York Foreclosures Rise.” Sociologists Melvin Oliver and Thomas Shapiro’s book, Black Wealth, White Wealth, outlined the differences between Blacks and Whites with respect to wealth. Blacks may frequent the various “highest income earners” lists (although most are athletes and actors which is a different blog for a different day), but they are almost absent from Forbes “Wealthiest People” list. Remember what Chris Rock said, “Shaq is rich. The white man who signs his check is wealthy.” There is a gulf of difference between being rich and wealthy as wealth symbolizes the transmission of advantage, privilege, and (it almost goes without saying) capital of all kinds that serve as shield to the effects of crises like the one we are experiencing now. Take home ownership as one example of the difference: a PEW study show that “as of 2008, 74.9% of whites owned homes, compared with 59.1% of Asians, 48.9% of Hispanics and 47.5% of blacks.”

Recent reports have shown that minorities are the hardest hit by the current economic climate, losing homes at rates far greater than comparable whites. Quoting the New York Times article, “the hardest blows rain down on the backbone of minority neighborhoods: the black middle class. In New York City, for example, black households making more than $68,000 a year are almost five times as likely to hold high-interest subprime mortgages as are whites of similar—or even lower—incomes.” I do not necessarily agree that the black middle class represent the backbone of minority neighborhoods, but the statistics are alarming. Blacks, because of the cumulative advantage gap (tied to wealth and capital), are not able to withstand current condition the same was as comparable whites.

I begin with political framing because, as it stands now, the Obama administration has taken a more universal stance in their negotiations with the banks. The issue of targeting specific populations who inherited the lasting legacy of redlining, housing covenants, and preferential lending, has not come up in these public conversations. Admittedly, I have not I read the executive documents outlining the exact plan? I just want to know if the $50 billion carrot the Obama Administration has in front of banks for lowering mortgage payments is also taking these external factors into consideration. I am all for helping all but sometimes we hurt some in doing so.