I thought our class discussion developed well towards the end of class and dug in depth into many of our expert questions. Throughout class we have been looking at ways in which a community is defined. In the book, Darrel often felt patronized by the non-profit organizations that he was sent to and that his needs were not attended to, which left him feeling isolated. The systems in place to help those living in Skid Row better their lives and move out, seem quite robotic and unpersonalized.
The question I posed to the class was, “Stuart defines actions taken by the police in Skid Row as “therapeutic policing”. How do we better the system so that people are more willing to accept help from, say, non-profit organizations without feeling belittled? Is there a top-down method rather than bottom-up that would be more beneficial; i.e. having government intervention or community-based aid?”.
Relating specifically to my question, I found that many people agreed on having a balance between more government mediation and community-based help. I think a part of my question that is still unanswered is, if government control and community-based aid should go hand in hand, how? In what ways? What would this look like specifically? Though, these are not easily answered questions. If there was more government control, would this be accepted by those living in Skid Row, or would they feel that this would be extremely invasive and continuing the vicious cycle of robotic “help”? On the other hand, would the surrounding communities be able to provide the aid and support that is needed to make a difference? Or would they feel that being involved with Skid Row lowers their identity status as a community?
I was intrigued by your question to find a system for residents to be more willing to engage with different organizations in Skid Row. I agree that there needs to be reforms to allow the government and community organizations to work hand in hand, in order to maximize the impact for those living in Skid Row. On p67, Stuart writes how the mega-shelters tried to partner with Jan Perry (an L.A. councilwoman) to try and ban groups such as the Catholic Worker from giving food donations to Skid Row’s residents. The government were evidently trying to undermine progress made by charities in Skid Row, as they believed these charities were simply stabalizing the position of residents, instead of using rehabilitation to improve resident’s socioeconomic position. Consequently, before the government and non-profits can begin working together, they need to find a way to agree on a common goal, and stop attacking each other’s programs. I don’t think that more government control is the solution for Skid Row. Stuart’s descriptions on “cop wise” knowledge as a result of the rise in “therapeutic policing” illustrates that residents do not react well to heavy government influence. I see grassroots organizations such as LACAN as more effective in engaging those living in Skid Row to improve their position. As these organizations aim to get residents to advocate for themselves, residents would be more willing to utilize them.
Top-down governance is described by governmental intervention, complete trust in the government, strict policies, and the right to enforce laws – regardless of whether they are ethical or corrupt. Bottom-up governance maintains peace, defends the rights and freedom of individuals, and seeks justice. In my opinion, I believe bottom-up methods are more effective, however, it varies by individual scenarios. In the case of Skid Row and Little Village, I find that top-down methods, seemingly more right-winged, refute the “codes of the street” and black picket fence unwritten. In these two areas, social networks mean safety, regardless of the presence of gangs roaming the streets. Residents feel protected by the gangs when they mind their own business. These communities are examples of the existence of mutual support and shared networks. For instance, if and when top-down actors get involved, violence is often triggered, disrupting these “so called” social networks and leading to the streets becoming dangerous, lawless, and drug infested. As the danger became more prevalent in these areas, the LACAN, a grassroots, bottom up, governing group worked against the Safer Cities Initiative and its related policies. Weary of the government violating their rights and freedom, the LACAN worked to increase the accountability and mitigate the aggressiveness of law enforcement in an attempt to advocate for themselves and protect themselves from violence. They pursued additional lingering issues regarding civil rights, housing, health, food access, and gender equity using Robert Sampson’s collective efficacy process, which combines the willingness of individuals to work together towards a common goal and mutual trust.