In a recent Wall Street Journal article Heather Mac Donald, of the conservative think-tank “The Manhattan Institute”, claims that poverty, racism, and social injustice are not root-causes of crime. Mac Donald argues that under conventional left-wing wisdom, crime should be increasing due to the current economic recession. Mac Donald cites 2009 FBI crime statistics that reportedly show national decreases in crime. She writes, “The recession of 2008-09 has undercut one of the most destructive social theories that came out of the 1960s: the idea that the root cause of crime lies in income inequality and social injustice.”

Mac Donald criticizes government social service programs, including “after-school programs, social workers, and summer jobs”, suggesting that they are not effective in decreasing crime.

Is Mac Donald’s analysis too simplistic? Does a decrease in some crimes really demonstrate that crime is not linked to poverty, race, or social injustice? Even if one were to accept Mac Donald’s arguments, is it really better for individuals and society for the government to eliminate needed social service programs?

As many in the civil rights and housing advocacy world are happily aware, on March 25, U.S. District Court Judge Helen Berrigan, struck down an ordinance passed by the St. Bernard Parish Council which placed a 12-month moratorium on housing developments of more than five units in St. Bernard Parish, New Orleans. Plaintiffs, including Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, brought action again the Council on the grounds that the moratorium violated an existing consent decree under which the Council had agreed not to engage in further violations of the federal Fair Housing Act following the Council’s adoption of a series of racially discriminatory housing ordinances. The Court found that enactment of the subject ordinance indeed violated the Fair Housing Act under both a discriminatory effect standard and discriminatory intent standard and thus violated the decree. The opinion provides a good primer on applying the Arlington Heights factors to support a finding of intentional discrimination, an unfortunately exceedingly rare occurrence. For example, the opinion noted that a proposal for mixed-income multi-family developments slated for St. Bernard Parish precipitated enactment of the moratorium. The opinion also cites to decisions that found that the terms “crime” and “blight” and concerns about personal safety due to “new” people, references made in a newspaper editorial opposing prior to imposition of the ordinance, are camoflaged racial expressions. The court relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Calvin Bradford, housing discrimination expert, regarding the disproportionate negative impact the moratorium had on African-Americans because African-Americans in the relevant geographic area are disproportionately lower-income and disproportionately renters, and Kalima Rose, Gulf Coast region affordable housing policy expert with PolicyLink regarding, among other things, the irregularity of enacting a such a moratorium following a development application consistent with the zoning of the subject area. Relman & Dane served as lead counsel for plaintiffs and the full opinion is available on its website.

The American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the ‘stimulus package’) includes $3 billion targeted for Native tribes.  Tribes with the highest poverty and unemployment rates may be the least able to access the funds, however, because of the competitive grant processes that will be used to distribute the money.

As reported on Reznet, the stimulus funds will be directed first to federal agencies and other institutions serving tribal governments.  These agencies will then distribute the funds to tribes mostly through existing federal grant programs.  In a number of these programs, tribes will have to compete against one another, as well as state and local governments.

Unfortunately, the playing field is far from even.  In his February 26 post “An Open Letter to Barack Obama,” Kevin Abourezk highlights the problems posed by a competitive grant process for many tribes that historically have been shut out of competitive grants due to lack of grantwriting resources.  Wealthier tribes build capital through economic development and gaming, putting them in better positions to compete for grants, which over time helps forge good connections with state and federal agencies, giving them a further edge on the competition.  Many tribes lacking gaming facilities or other resources for economic development are shut out, and without some reform of the competitive funding process this pattern appears unlikely to change.

Mr. Abourezk, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, points out that his tribe suffers from a 34% unemployment and an 80% poverty rate; indicators, he suggests, of the tribe’s historical difficulty winning competitive grant funding. The nationwide American Indian / Alaskan Native poverty rate is slightly over 25% [U.S. Census report, 2005].

To help ensure that more of the stimulus funding to tribes can reach the places that need it most, Abourezk proposes that the Obama administration offer “technical and financial support in applying for stimulus money to those tribes most in need and require federal agencies to prioritize the needs of those same tribes.”