The Links Between Residential Segregation and Crime

Abstract

Despite the subject being overlooked, residential segregation is a problem that probes modern day America and with it comes with many unwanted repercussions. This paper investigates the topic of residential segregation using research from six scholarly sources. From the six sources information pertaining to opportunity to quality education, racial inequality, and housing are examined. This paper examines what is residential segregation and why it exists. In addition, this paper examines the relationship between residential segregation and limited opportunities for non-whites in education, employment, asset building, and social integration. The findings within the research enforced that “the social structure of communities has an important impact on crime” (Walker, Spohn, & Delone, 21012, p. 128). Residential segregation maintains racial inequality by suppressing opportunities for non-whites linking the opportunity for crime rates to be higher for non-white individuals through various factors beneath the umbrella of residential segregation.

Is there a conclusive reason why residential segregation still exist today? Perhaps there is isn’t one single definitive answer but this can be explained by many factors. It must be addressed that residential segregation is still prevalent today preventing the advancement of ending racism and maintaining high incarceration rates among non-whites. It can conclusively be proven residential segregation leads to crime due to the inequality in opportunities for non-whites. Residential segregation can be defined as three parts of division which include “…unequal socioeconomic status, group prejudice, and housing discrimination” (Smith, 2012, p. 470). Those living in these impoverished neighborhoods are living below the poverty threshold. “In 2014 the official poverty threshold was $24,230 for a family of four” (Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2012, p.124). It is virtually impossible to survive living off the poverty threshold rate alone. Residential segregation historically originates from early American cities being divided by “…income, ethnicity, and race” (Walker et al., 2012, p. 128). If residential segregation can be traced back to the racial segregation of early American cities, it can be implied that residential areas are still predominately occupied by a specific race and economic class. Residential segregation maintains racial inequality for non-whites by limiting opportunities in education, employment, asset building, and social integration thus, leading to the influx of crime in non-white residential areas.

To begin, residential segregation maintains racial inequality between whites and non-whites by creating a visible division in social status. Studies done by Smith (2012) have proven that “…concentrated incarceration in those impoverished communities has broken families, weakened the social control capacity of parents, eroded economic strength, and soured attitudes toward society...” (p. 472). Having lower impoverished neighborhoods being made up of non-whites sets the residents up for racial inequality outside of their local area, discouraging not only current residents from leaving but future generations as well. Weakened social capacity of parents due to living in poverty “…lead to children who do poorly at school, become involved in delinquency and crime, and become negative peer influences…” (Walker et al., 2012, p.127). The sour attitudes towards society go for those living within the impoverished neighborhoods as well as those living outside of the impoverished neighborhoods. Both parties (impoverished, non-impoverished) tend to believe stereotypes of one another based off race and not being exposed to one another on a regular basis. By having sour attitudes based from residential location leads to unfair treatment based on socioeconomic status and having an intolerance for one another. This stigma that residential segregation creates racial inequality is further proven by Woo & Joh (2015) who state, “concerns about subsidized housing from local residents are typically rooted in a negative perception of households receiving subsidies, which are often tied to attitudes toward their race/ethnicity and poverty status” (p. 87). Living in public housing and/or receiving government benefits is so looked down upon society living above the poverty threshold despite not knowing circumstance of the impoverished. Racial inequality is constructed of biases or prejudgments and pose a threat to the depletion of residential segregation and crime.

As one can imagine, someone living in section eight housing in Detroit will not have the same opportunities handed or offered to them as someone living in a mansion in Beverly Hills. The limitations of opportunity for non-whites in struggling neighborhoods include but are not limited to education, employment, assets building, and social integration as previously stated. Opportunities to sufficiently funded education for non-whites is a major issue pertaining to residential segregation. “The highest-poverty districts receive an average of $1,200 less per pupil than the lowest-poverty districts, and districts serving the largest numbers of students of color receive about $2,000 less per pupil than districts who serve the fewest students of color” (Kitzmiller, 2019, p.15). The lower the tax bracket of a residential zone, the lower the funding that is received for schools. Low funding means, less classes offered, lack of after school activities, lack of sufficient and trained staff due to lack of proper compensation, and lack of diversity within the student body. Improper education due to socioeconomic status discourages pursuit of higher education and fails to set the impoverished students up for it. Higher income residential zones also receive additional funding apart from State funding. Kitzmiller’s (2019) research furthermore states, “suburban school districts also have used philanthropic efforts to bolster their revenues and keep tax contributions low” (p.16). To justify just how large the philanthropic donations are “…private contributions to the Hillsborough, California, public school foundation amounted to $3.45 million, or $2,300 per pupil” (Kitzmiller, 2019, p.16). Students attending school in white upper class or suburban neighborhoods are offered a variety of classes with properly trained staff as well as opportunities to prepare for higher education due to adequate funding and donations. There has been attempts to mix school populations by chartering busses into neighborhoods below the income threshold to schools with populations above the income threshold. Despite the efforts it is unsuccessful as the population groups themselves into socioeconomic status and cultural similarities within the schools. Conjointly with education opportunities comes employment opportunities. Smith (2012) verifies this by affirming “…to obtain employment we increasingly rely on official positive credentials such as college diplomas or training certificates” (p. 472). Employment opportunities for those who are in impoverished residential areas becomes limited outside of the immediate area due to the higher demand of a diploma or certifications as they cannot or have not obtained one or the other. Due to lack of education, the legal employment opportunities for improvised non-whites are predominantly labor intensive, poorly compensated, or undesirable jobs. Those who are not legally employed or unemployed pose a risk of becoming involved in crime. Walker et al. (2012) stress that “…criminologist consistently find that unemployment correlates with involvement in delinquent behavior, gang activity, and participation in more serious crime…” (p.122). Asset building or economic wellbeing is also dependent on residential location. Asset building entails setting up for future and current prosperity but, that can be nearly impossible based on location in certain residential situations. One-way asset building is compromised by residential segregation is by banks and loan companies practicing redlining.

Redlining is “…banks and saving and loan companies refus[ing] to offer mortgages in poor minority neighborhoods” (Walker, et al., 2012, p.128). Redlining offers the opportunity for real estate agents to maintain residential segregation by keeping non-white buyers out of white neighborhoods by denying offering mortgages. Being forced to stay in an impoverished community with no potential of economic growth deters any opportunity for asset building. With lack of education, employment, and asset building limitations comes social integration. Residents being associated with crime-ridden impoverished neighborhoods makes them a target for social integration from outsiders effecting their opportunity to advance in life or leave the underprivileged residential area they occupy. Whites living above poverty thresholds can assume they are more prosperous than non-whites because they are able to receive adequate education, suitable employment, and asset build. These factors discourage interaction between races based on housing location and difference in income. This is backed by Reardon, Bischoff, Owens, and Townsend (2018) “…income segregation increased more quickly among black and Hispanic families than among white families” (p. 2147) furthering supporting the biases some whites chose to believe. Coming fundamentally from two different worlds, rich and poor, discourages social integration as each side has cultural differences and outlooks. All these factors combined ascertain the limitations pressed onto non-whites’ opportunities through residential segregation.

Moreover, the multitude of limitations due to residential segregation directly links to crime by compelling non-whites to turn to crime due to poor conditions of residences and lack of opportunities for advancement and employment. “The concentration of low-income people in a particular neighborhood, has a direct impact on crime by concentrating high-rate offenders in one area” (Walker, et al., 2012, p. 129). According to Woo & Joh (2015) policy makers see those in subsidized housing districts as “undesirable”, which, create the attitude of those living in these subsidized neighborhoods that society does not care for them and to live a life of crime. For a former offender it is hard to find decent housing. “Private business dominates the housing sector, controlling well over 90 percent of all housing” (Purnell, 2013, p.8). Private businesses can freely practice discriminatory acts such as criminal background checks despite laws being in place. “Housing providers conduct criminal background checks when deciding to approve or deny an applicant with the results of the checks being the determinant” (Purnell, 2013, p.8). Even receiving public housing (section eight housing) is a rigorous task for previous criminals. Purnell (2013) explains how “public housing authorities have the power to deny public housing to ex-offenders with drug convictions…” (p.8). The policies in place to deny public housing to ex-offenders is retrogressive to the attempt to fight the war on drugs. If an ex-offender with drug convictions cannot secure housing or a stable job, they will have to turn back to a life of crime such as selling drugs to survive. Ex-offenders being denied housing outside of impoverished neighborhoods or public housing within their neighborhoods entrap them within their residential area. Ex-offenders may turn to family, friends, or other ex-offenders for housing within the same area they have offended in. Forcing criminals to stay in impoverished residential area creates opportunity to reoffend and victimize others. They may reoffend or victimize to survive or because the lifestyle of crime is normalized to them since adolescences. With the idea of crime being normalized in poor residential areas it is a way of life younger generations can fall into. “The concentration of high-rate offenders in an area increases the influence of crime-involved peers among young people” (Walker et al., 2012, p.129). If nothing is being done about residential segregation it will continue to procure for generations and further standardize crime to impoverished residents causing a continual cycle of crime.

More research should be done on how to diffuse negative stigmas around residential segregation. Society must investigate possibilities on how to improve lower income neighborhoods. Correspondingly, there needs to be reforms on policies for limiting housing options to residents of a poor neighborhoods including ex-offenders. The presented research indicates racial segregation maintains racial inequality for non-whites by limiting opportunities in education, employment, asset building, and social integration thus, leading to the influx of crime in impoverished residential areas. Residential segregation is enforced through racial inequality by compelling those of a certain demographic to only associate with each other and stay within their class. Educational opportunities based off financial demographics are linked to average residential income and outside funding. Non-whites in impoverished neighborhoods are not given the same opportunities within their area compared to whites in suburban neighborhoods due to lack of resources for self-improvement. Multiple factors merge together to explain definitively why residential segregation does leads to crime. Residential segregation is discriminating but ultimately is how American cities where historically set up making this a racial issue since these zones have been intentionally set up to separate whites and non-whites. This problem cannot solve it self it needs policy reformations in many areas. As of now, whites and non-whites can come to co-exist and eliminate negative preconceptions and prejudices to deplete residential segregation and lower crime rates among non-whites.