The Mother Ship

We have jokingly called Vera the "mother ship" because it is, on some level, the origin of your journeys as John Jay - Vera Fellows.  For those of you NOT interning at Vera, you have really interesting perspectives since your greater familiarity is with the work and space of the spin-off (the child and not the parent, to keep the metaphor going). So what did you learn today as you returned to the mother ship?  What immediately struck you in what you saw or heard?

If you need more of a prompt than that (and I'm thinking most of you don't!), here are a few specific topics that occurred to me:

Did last week's conversation give you a greater attention to language and, if so, what were your thoughts?  For example, I jotted down phrases such as "school-disconnected youth," "post-conflict," "resistant," "strengths-based" and "population."  We routinely use the word "population" in our seminar to discuss the folks served by your agencies and yet Dr. Elkin was eager to clarify his use of that word by saying that the youths are not just a population but "are people we care about."  What work is each of these phrases attempting to do?  What implications are they hoping to avoid?

Not all non-profits look like Vera.  From the bejewelled Woolworth Building to the polished, rather swank conference room (admit it, you wanted to take a mug, too), the aesthetic style of a place communicates a message just as much as our language choices.  What does the style say to you?  How does this contrast with the aesthetic of your agency?  What message is communicated by your agency's aesthetics?  (And since I'm an English professor, I'd love to open this space to vivid, detailed descriptions of the places you work.  Remember, we haven't visited all of them -- make us see what you see!)

All of our speakers admitted to altering or abandoning various career choices on their pathway to Vera.  For some, it was realizing grad school was the wrong fit, or that the direction of the field had changed (I love the phrase Dr. Elkin used: "professional dissonance"!), or that grad school wasn't even necessary to pursuing one's vision.  Hester Lyons shared my favorite revelation of the day that it wasn't until decades later that she realized how one choice led to another.  I think it is tempting to think, when you are young, talented, ambitious and anxious, that those of us doing what you want to do had some great plan all along.  We don't (I'm using the royal "we" here -- I'm not accusing any of you of wanting to be English professors!).  We make choices, we quit jobs, we eat ramen, we avoid military coups, and we work hard to make those questionable decisions the "right" decision.  What did you hear in this conversation that helped or confused you?

The Social Interest of Social Impact Bonds

“We like our victims a certain way”

            This was the comment that Professor Stein left us with after our engaging discussion surrounding the potential benefits and drawbacks of social impact bonds. We ended the discussion on the note exploring if the potential benefits outweigh the potential risk, as people in the status quo need help now. However, big businesses “like their victims” to be complacent, meaning they want to be able to provide them with relief while simultaneously avoiding the stigma of their motives. We broadened this analysis but we also began exploring the significance of advocacy and methods of creating solidarity with the poor. Our analysis was great but I would like to first backtrack a little in order to bring more breath to some of the earlier arguments in the discussion as well as arguments that really framed our inquiry and my overall thoughts.

            Let us first discuss the root cause argument that we could have analyzed further throughout the discussion. In a broad sense, isolating root causes are beneficial because they allow us to explore potential reasons why negative events occur, find solutions for the base problem and prevent the future occurrence of this negative impact indefinitely. To be more specific, if people are consistently dyeing from the flu, we must isolate what the primary cause of the flu is in order to prevent future deaths indefinitely. However, the idea of social interest bonds seems to be prolonging the sickness by simply, as Joseph put it, “clearing the symptoms of the disease.” It amazes me how profit and short-term stability have become our end goal for societies toughest problems in contemporary America. If two people are cold and homeless, we see it fit to find them a shelter to stay in overnight and many feel the problem is solved. If someone has not eaten for days and we feed that person a great thanksgiving meal, we feel that this is enough to help alleviate their struggles. Hilfiker made this point clear that charity and non-profit work does not and can not substitute justice but does it not bridge the gap between the two? Does it not make justice that much closer and achievable for the vast majority when we build our assemblages and fight for what’s right? Even if people are self-interested in participating in these community-mobilized events, the lack of profit motive and fundamental desire to give outweighs the selfish act. These “bandages” are great in the short term but the overarching problem still exist or how to find a long-term solution to these issues. These charity organizations may not alleviate peoples suffering over long periods of time but at least a charity organization has not been co-opted by this profit incentive.

            Charity therefore differs from social impact bonds greatly. Social impact bonds are the epitome of this co-option in my opinion.  Its just another way for business to make profit off of displaced and underprivileged people who have most likely already encountered hardship within our system. Lets take a second to imagine a world where you have to pay in order to eat and survive, medication and healthcare is not universal and the betterment of communities relies on the government decisions and financial interest. Sound familiar? Sally made the great point that health care and the progression of medicine has already become economically optimized. She claims “if they [doctors] found a solution for cancer tomorrow, pharmaceuticals would go out of business” as they would not be able to profit off of people spending money to survive with cancer day to day. This is a product of our greed but lets get back to the issue at hand because social impact bonds supercharge this greed initiative. Put the idea of capital gain in context of prison re-entry. The government and their partners will fund programs for convicted criminals so long as recidivism rates drop next year. Lets assume that recidivism rates stands still or even go up… what now? Do we stop funding the programs and leave former prisoners vulnerable to re-entry? The answer in the context of these bonds is yes.

            Now, lets tackle the opposing argument, as it deserves to have some light shed on its credibility. David firmly believed that this short-term interest heavily outweighs potential long-term drawbacks. He claimed that we can isolate many reasons why the program is potentially hazardous, but at least something will get done. In retrospect it is hard to disagree with this statement but I still have to question the motive behind these bonds. If recidivism mattered to Goldman Sachs why do they have to pursue solvency through the lens of capital gain? What is the difference between distributing ten million dollars to a multiplicity of not for profit organizations aiming to lower recidivism rates and find a solution to the problem? Or why, as Niko pointed out, can’t the money simply be donated? The answer is in the question: NOT FOR PROFIT. If we continue to allow money motives to govern our decision-making, the notion of community turns on its head and money continues to rule us until the gap between the rich and the poor is absolute. Do not misunderstand my skeptiscm for inaction because I too believe that something needs to be done. But when thinking of these bonds in great detail we must wonder, and many of us have started to do so already, if people would actually be worse off in the long term even though they are obtaining short-term relief.

            Now that I have summarized most of our class discussion I would like to discuss my preferred solution. Sylvie’s articulation about Framer’s idea of “preferential treatment for the poor” is the best model for this type of conflict. Framer initially wants to explores methods of creating practical ideas in solidarity with poorer people so that they do not get misplaced in the decision making process, which is something that happens too often. Framer’s ideals have been practiced on a minute scale without our even notice. This solidarity has actually entrenched itself in the mission statements of most not for profit organizations. Ironically enough this includes the organizations we currently intern with and have researched. For example, CASES aims to create solidarity between the workers and the youth offenders in order to prevent their deeper entrenchment into the justice system; Esperanza aims to utilize research and illuminate trends in drop out rates in order to create solidarity between struggling adolescents and the staff who want to help them; HSI attempts to create solidarity between recently homeless individuals and case workers in order to prevent them from reverting back to homelessness and getting lost in the system. The list goes on and remains true through each organization. These organizations are at the forefront of solidarity and yet these social impact bonds stand to eliminate their cause because government would be able to allocate their funds into businesses rather than administering grants to community based institutions. Under the ideology of social impact bonds, the value of poor people, troubled youth and even formerly incarcerated individuals in society starts and stops at their economic stability.

I would like to now open this for discussion.

1         1)   If you believe that the long-term benefits and stability of the disadvantaged matters, than what can we do to assist that group. As future leaders, how do we make a systemic impact in a world where non-profits begin disappearing or where community activism is co-opted by business and government? Where do we find our voice?

2        2)   If you believe that the short-term goals outweigh the long-term interest as a few of us have articulated, than how do you remedy the potential dangers that our colleagues and myself have mentioned? What does the world look like post-social impact bond in your opinion? Why exactly does the “now” outweigh the “then” and do you believe that our voices do in fact become misplaced? Where is the human element in this solution?

3       3)   For all, what is the best approach to societies toughest problems? Is it the integrated model that Niko and Joseph defended or do we need more advocacy and hardcore solutions as Sally and I briefly mentioned?

Ultimately, the final question is this: How do we successfully transfer the power of decision-making and political know-how into the hands of the underprivileged?

In a Grove

I guess, for this first post, I would like to talk about some main points I’m interested in and leave the discussion open from there.

First, I continue to float back and forth as I evaluate my stance on the definitions of ideology and agenda. We started to talk about this at the end of our first class meeting. And, in the last blog posting, Professor Waterston continued the discussion, saying, “We often hear calls for the value of objectivity, of staying neutral, of not taking a stand. But aren’t we always taking a stand or position on something whether or not we make explicit what it is?”

Thursday’s class brought this statement to life. We all brought something different to the situation in deciding who was the killer and what really happened in that grove. Professor Reitz’s follow-up question—“what does this say about you?”—elicited the inner, subjective feelings

…Sally empathized with the rebelling, norm-rejecting Tajomaru, albeit not his narcissistic features. Andre and Aaron opted for a “concrete,” “factual,” and “logical” approach to the story’s facts, hence leading them to choose Tajomaru, too, but for a different reason than Sally. Nico, Professor Stein, and myself took more of a psychological approach, however, coming to different conclusions based on the value of emotion (i.e. validity of truth vs. a false confession).  On the other hand, Professor Waterston saw the woman’s account for its historical, gender value, through the broad lens of an anthropologist.

What does this tell us? Well, it makes me consider that we might just all have some kind of agenda or ideology. I suppose I’ve always associated both of these terms with rigid ideas and political leanings. But, what if it can just denote our inner feelings and motivations, as seen in class? We have to be driven by something, right?

As my cognitive psychology professor always said, “we all bring something different to a situation.” Our biases, expectations, education, values, etc. lead us to unique reactions to the world around us.

Overall, what does this story really mean, though? I ask myself what the purpose of the assigned reading was: how does this tie in to social justice and Vera's work? Isn't the advancement of social justice (and any process, for that matter)  about gathering support for a cause, melding or putting aside personal views, and seeking a common goal? 

What is objective truth—does it exist? From whom can we trust truth? We all saw in class how we believed some characters over others for various reasons (social class and position in society, perceived morality, gender, personality).

Flip to page 43 in A Kind of Genius and Sturz talks about how he “…learned very early that most of what people say is to be discounted. They’re either lying to protect themselves or just to sound impressive, or they don’t know what they’re talking about, or they’ve vaguely heard something or other.” Maybe that’s a cynical view of the world and human nature, particularly coming from a guy who worked with the system and its players for so long, but does it hold some truth? I think so.

1. Do you agree? What do you think we bring to situations, if anything?
2. How does this story translate into reality, our internships, and/or to the field of social justice?
3. What is truth? Is it ever objective? Who can we trust?

So, any other comments? Any thoughts regarding the above prompts?

Inspired to Inspire

We all [in some way] want to leave our mark on the world before our time is up. Or at least that’s what I wanted to do when I started interning at the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES). After reading, “A Kind of Genius,” it was nice to believe that all obstacles to justice could be resolved. Of course, I wasn’t sure how I was going to resolve anything or make a difference, but I knew that Sturz’s remarkable dedication for improvement and innovation influenced me to want to create my own difference…

I didn’t realize it till now that I utilized Sturz’s direct client contact model to empower my clients to develop positive decision-making skills, so that they can welcome change into their lives. I remember sitting in Open Art Studio, a classroom where clients used therapeutic art techniques to overcome emotional distress, and having such a difficult time understanding the reasons behind my clients’ continual offenses against the law. After several art therapy sessions, I learned from my clients that when prisoners serve their sentences, they learn to adapt to the prison lifestyle and forgot how to function outside prison walls. As a result, they put themselves in situations that they are comfortable and familiar with, even if it’s not the best choice. My clients felt that change is an individual process, it cannot be forced, nor should it be mandated as a release requirement. I couldn’t agree with them more. For me the idea was so simple, but our justice system didn’t understand it. I felt disappointed that I didn’t have the power to change the system, but yet a bit optimistic because I had the power to help my clients practice consequential thinking, which in turn would keep them out of trouble and welcome changes.

During my time with my clients, I reminded them that they were capable of change, the positive and lasting kind of change. I reminded them that they couldn’t change their pasts but they can work on positive decision-making, so that their futures can be parole free. I reminded them that they were humans and will make mistakes. Sometimes they will learn from their mistakes, and other times they will continue making the same mistakes until they have learned their lesson. I reminded them that sometimes they needed to trip and fall into the crack in order to learn to walkover it next time. And the next time, they learned to walk over it, I reminded them not to focus too much on the cracks, for if they did, they might miss the rose growing from concrete.

My persistent reminders inspired my clients to stay away from trouble, get their General Education Diploma (GED), and find jobs. My accomplishment wasn’t as remarkable as Sturz’s but I felt that I was contributing to the legacy in my own way.

Now my question(s) to you is:

How has Sturz inspired you to make a difference and how will you contribute to the legacy in your own way?