Incremental Vrs Systemic Change: A message to Chicago's Foundations.

Hullo John D. and Catherine T.  Every year around this time you roll out your genius awards, and every year,  including 2014, I find myself wondering why on earth so many of these coveted awards go to established artists, poets, musicians, novelists and scientists - and why so few go to the little-known sociologists, city planners and community activists whose big ideas, duly recognized, could go far to helping cities like Chicago define and solve, at long last, the set of youth-victimizing problems that over the past fifty years have destroyed the lives millions of young Americans. If this number sounds unrealistic, just take a look at America's prison population today:

Setting this graphic next to your list of 2014 awardees, I can only think that MacArthur has its priorities wrong: that its finger is more on the pulse of an American cultural elite than that of the nation itself. I know you won't agree. At your website, you proudly assert that four of this year's 22 genius have been active in

Designing new strategies to address persistent social challenges such as securing fair and affordable housing (John Henneberger), protecting civil rights (Mary L. Bonauto), and ensuring equal access to justice for both the victims of crime (Sarah Deer) and the accused (Jonathan Rapping);

Given America's precipitous decline at home and abroad, four "persistent social challenge" awardees out of 22 is not enough. Year after year MacArthur gives its genius awards to like the four named above, but guess what: nothing changes. America's criminal justice system remains broken. Poor people can find affordable housing. And new, completely unforeseen threats arise to the civil rights of Americans everywhere.


And arguably, things only get worse. With each election America's political system becomes more money-driven and dysfunctional at local, state and national levels. This year's four social challenge awardees are surely brilliant, dedicated, deserving people. But I dare say that they themselves would agree that their work was never intended, in and of itself, to do what America needs most: to restore functionality to its political decision making process.

Fact is that dozens of geniuses overlooked by MacArthur are devoting their lives to this end. So what keeps MacArthur from acknowledging them?  Could it be that its rigid adherence to the principle of incremental change prevents it from attending to and rewarding proponents of the systemic change that alone will restore functionality to American governments?

The spirit of incrementalism is commonly expressed in the saying that the best way way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. It's gospel among Chicago foundations. I recall my stomach turning first time I heard it years ago. Who, I thought, wants to eat an elephant in the first place?   
Designing new strategies to address persistent social challenges such as securing fair and affordable housing (John Henneberger), protecting civil rights (Mary L. Bonauto), and ensuring equal access to justice for both the victims of crime (Sarah Deer) and the accused (Jonathan Rapping); - See more at: Given America's precipitous decline at home and abroad, four "persistent social challenge" awardees out of 22 is not enough. Year after year MacArthur gives its genius awards to like the four named above, but guess what: nothing changes. America's criminal justice system remains broken. Poor people can find affordable housing. And new, completely unforeseen threats arise to the civil rights of Americans everywhere.


And arguably, things only get worse. America's political system becomes more dysfunctional at local, state and national levels with each election. This year's four social challenge awardees are doubtless brilliant, dedicated, deserving people. But I dare say that they themselves would readily agree that their work was never intended, in and of itself, to do what America needs most: to restore functionality to its political decision making process.

In fact dozens of geniuses overlooked by MacArthur are devoting their lives to this end. So what keeps MacArthur from acknowledging them?  Could it be an addiction to the principle of incremental change that keeps America's foundations from supporting geniuses who dedicate themselves to the systemic change that alone will restore functionality to American government?

The spirit of incrementalism is commonly expressed in the notion that the best way way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. This saying is gospel among Chicago foundations. I recall my stomach turning first time I heard it many years ago. Who, I thought, wants to eat an elephant in the first place?   

Poor beast. Are large (systemic) problems things to be eaten . . . or solved?

I've been following Chicago's schools for thirty years. It's hard for me not to see the plight of Chicago's schools and young people today, and the tangle of foundations, media, government entities and underfunded non-profits that desperately try to support them, as the result of thirty years of small thinking going by the name of incrementalism. 

All this will change only when foundations see wisdom of identifying and supporting competent proponents of systemic change. Using the foundation-approved image of the bitten elephant, one might say that things will change for the better only when foundations embrace the holistic and systemic principle that the best way to support (not eat) an elephant is to connect it with other elephants. 

For two reasons this idea stands up under scrutiny. Consider, first, that elephants are closely connected herd animals. And second, bear in mind that students of media since Marshall McLuhan have correctly predicted that electronic communications technologies are rapidly "retribalizing the human race" and creating a global village in which everyone is always in touch with everyone else. (The deeper we go into the age of electronic media, the closer we come to mother Africa).
  

Always Connected

Now let's return to Chicago, a city where new forms of electronic media and new attempts to deal with youth violence have been popping up for decades like mushrooms on a warm fall day. Yet no one - not even Mayor Emanuel - can say that Chicago has turned the corner on youth violence.

So who in Chicago is working to connect all Chicagoans (including City Hall) to turn the corner on youth violence? As I will be arguing in a later post, I see the Tribune's New Plan of Chicago as taking a big if imperfect step in this direction. Also, the Strengthening Chicago's Youth (SCY) Program at Lurie Childrens' Hospital has assembled a list of several hundred non-profits, academic institutions, foundations, businesses and government agencies that collectively are actively addressing virtually all of the complex set of factors that contribute to youth violence.

What's needed, as I see it, are communications platforms that enable these entities to connect with each other and with the people of Chicago, especially young people. Dan Bassill's work at the Tutor/Mentor Institute, described in my September 22 post, below, comes closest to providing such a platform.

 

Providers or Predators in Austin? A research project for Austin students.

This offbeat post opens with a photograph of something you see in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods: prosperous-looking auto title lender at 5200 west North Avenue and Laramie:

 Illinois Title Loans, SW corner at 5200 W. North Avenue (at Laramie)

Using screen shots taken from Google Maps street view photos, here's image of the 24 hour Check Cashing service across the street from Illinois Title:

Check Cashers, NW corner at 5200 W. North Ave

If signage size is any indication, these are hugely profitable businesses. I pass them on my to THE AUSTIN VOICE at 5236 W. North Avenue. So why these photos of them?

Last week the New York Times (registration required) ran a fascinating story about a related type of lender: the buy here, pay here car dealer/lenders like the nearby Value Auto Mart at 2734 N. Cicero:
 

Value Mart Auto with its "Buy here pay here" sign on the 2nd pole from the left.

Value Auto is one of many dealer/lender carlots on Cicero. In Spanish it's compra aqui, paga aqui. The Times story centered on use of the computerized shutdown devices - starter interrupter devices - that dealers can trigger by remote control whenever a borrower is so much as a day late with a loan payment. The story opens as follows:

So what exactly does "buy here, pay here" actually mean? Value Auto Mart's website leaves no doubt about the answer: "It means we are the bank so we approve anyone we want". "No credit checks!" as they boast at their website:

Buy here pay here car dealer/lenders like Value Auto - (No Credit Checks!) - get my attention because I drive by them on Cicero Avenue on my way to the Austin Voice. The Times article got me thinking about a research project for Chicago area high school and college students who want to learn about financial responsibility and also about the credit system into which, for good or ill, all Americans are born: 

• Do Value Auto Mart and similar dealers make use of the starter interrupter devices that the Times says kept Mary Bolender from driving her daughter to the emergency room? 

• Do they charge interest rates of up to 29% on high risk loans, as the Times article says many of them do? 

• And, for that matter, do car title lenders like Illinois Title charge comparable interest rates?

•  And finally, what makes services like Check Cashers as profitable as they appear to be?

Comments to the Times article - there were hundreds - fascinated me. They were polarized, sharply between two camps: commenters who blame the borrowers and commenters who blames the dealer/lenders. I like people who try to bridge the divide. "Izzyeddy" a former employee of a dealer/lender did so beautifully, sympathizing first with those who blame irresponsible borrowers and second with those who blame irresponsible lenders:

The Times chose Eddy's thoughts as one of 19 "Times Picks" from over 900 comments.  But only a few Times readers liked it. I thought it was great. Here's my response:

Typo: last sentence should read "how to snip".  Looking at my response, there's a major unsupported assertion here, namely that big banks actually do own, control or protect the smaller pay day, car title and buy-here-pay-here type lenders. If the goal is to teach financial responsibility to young people in high crime neighborhoods like Austin - neighborhoods where these high fee, high interest lenders are such visible features of the community - would it not make sense for educators to help young people  discover for themselves how these lenders actually work? Are they, for instance, in fact owned, controlled or protected by the nation's big banks, as I assert above? Such was certainly the case with egregious sub-prime lenders that created the housing bubble that burst in 2007-2008.

Austin Renewing Itself

The Parents Political University of Austin, convened by Rep La Shawn K. Ford, was on the case September 20. Meeting minutes are here. Other PPU materials are here.

Attendees settle in at the Sep 20 PPU committee-forming meeting at BUILD, Inc, with Rep Ford on the far right

The meeting's major outcome: the formation of four issue-centered committees, with agendas and tasks, for transportation, education, seniors and re-naming the West Chicago Library Branch.