"The cause of crime is criminals," said then presidential candidate Bob Dole. If you believe that, the solution is simple: You round up all the bad guys (and gals) and you take them to the hoosegow. End of problem.

It’s a formula believed by most Democrats and Republicans. Social problems are caused by bad individuals. From the beauty salon to television talk shows, you’re not likely to hear much different. We go after the bad guys. We turn away from any talk of social causes and seem quite surprised when the environment we neglect grows a new crop of individuals with the same problems next year.

It’s certainly true that we need to deal with the individual bad guys. Nobody wants murderers, robbers or terrorists running around. But when we only focus only on the individual culprits, we fail to see the patterns. And the patterns repeat themselves all too often.

Individuals Come and Go but the Problem Stays the Same

The environment influences how people behave. This shouldn’t surprise us. Most things behave differently under different conditions. Water boils with high enough heat. It turns to steam under pressure. Put water in freezing temperatures and you get ice. Circumstances influence how it behaves. The same thing is true of animals. They act differently in a zoo than in the wild. Some animals won’t even breed in captivity.

It’s a little more complicated when it comes to human beings because we have free will. But that doesn’t mean people can become immune to circumstances. The power of positive thinking can only take us so far.

We can’t just make up their minds not to affected by all circumstances. There’s a world and other people out there. The real power of positive thinking is that we can look at our situation, notice how different conditions influence how we behave, and make up our minds to change the environment.

One hundred years ago, a fellow by the name of Emile Durkheim did a study that turned around the way sociologists think about social problems. He warned if someone gives you an individual explanation for a social problem, you can be pretty sure it’s wrong. His classic study of suicide illustrates the point. Examining hundreds of thousands of suicides, he found about the same percentage of people in similar circumstances killed themselves each year.

If suicide is just a matter of unstable individuals, why would any particular group consistently have the same suicide rate? An unstable individual might show up in the suicide statistics this year, but wouldn’t be around to show up in the suicide statistics again next year. And yet every year, a similar proportion of people in the same social conditions step up to take their place.

Durkheim found suicide rates for each country are about the same each year. France is higher than Italy. The United States is higher than Ireland. Sweden is higher than Canada. He also noticed a higher proportion of Jews commit suicide than Protestants; a greater percentage of Protestants than Catholics. The familiar patterns repeat themselves year after year. Unmarried people are more likely to kill themselves than married people; married people with children the least likely; people in cities have higher suicide rates than those in rural areas. Durkheim reasoned there must be a social explanation.

He finally discovered suicide rates depend upon the amount of social support available. That doesn’t mean individuals don’t have problems. People still bottom out. But if there is someone to lend support in crisis, suicide is much less likely. You may have lost your job or your spouse. As you start to fall, you may go out drinking with a friend and end up passed out in the gutter or even in jail. And you may have a hangover the next morning that makes you wish that you were dead. But if notice, you didn't end up in the suicide statistics.

Being connected and not isolated is what’s crucial. That doesn’t mean you are with people all the time. But it does mean there is someone you could call if you needed to talk. To lower suicide, we should begin by creating community, getting people involved and helping people find others they can relate to. We are never going to be able to guarantee one particular person will never commit suicide. But we can create environments that significantly improve the odds.

Interestingly enough, research on crime shows similar results to what Durkheim found about suicide. Individuals may come and go, but crime rates in neighborhoods stay remarkably the same. For example in a 65 year study of Chicago, the area with the highest crime rate was initially Italian. When these Italian residents gradually migrated to suburban areas their crime rate went down and came to resemble that of their new neighbors. Back in the old neighborhood, they were replaced by lower class Polish people -- and guess what? The crime rate remained identical to what it had been when the Italians had lived there. Gradually, the Polish also moved to other areas and their crime rates went down. In the original neighborhood, they were replaced by lower class blacks. Again in the neighborhood, the crime rate stayed the same as when the Italians and Polish had lived there. During the 65 year period of time, individuals came and went. People were born, aged out of the crime prone years, and died. Different racial and ethnic groups had come and gone. And yet, crime stayed about the same no matter which particular individuals lived there. It must be so -- something about social conditions in the neighborhood were breeding crime. If we just look at the individual, we miss what’s going on.

Researchers across the United States and in other countries have consistently found similar results. Neighborhoods with high crime are socially disorganized. There is a lack of community, no support structures and few social resources. There aren’t many legitimate opportunities.

Taking individuals out of the environment doesn’t fix the problem. A particular person may be away at prison, but meanwhile back in the neighborhood, someone new steps up to take their place in the crime statistics. Notice how most liberals and conservatives both miss the point completely and only treat the individual. On some levels, it doesn’t matter whether we give the criminal milk and cookies as recommended by liberals or a rack of pain as recommended by conservatives. The individual is going to eventually be released back into the same circumstances. And problems are going to happen all over again.

Administrators of juvenile group homes tell me it’s not hard to change a person’s behavior while in captivity. People change while in the group home. But when they go home, all the old temptations, pressures and situations are there. New Year’s resolutions to change only go so far. Without new resources to deal with problems, the old pattern is likely to repeat. The research on juvenile group homes as well as adult prisons shows those who are most successful upon release have new skills, new friends & support groups and most important, new opportunities and a new life. But that’s easier said than done.

Desperate Choices

“Crime is due to a lack of moral character,” says former Director of Drug Policy Bill Bennett. It’s a popular theme. If people only had good values, they would behave better.

A few years ago the Boys Scouts of America were looking to develop ways to teach values to school kids in the inner city. They reasoned that if the little tikes just had morals, problems would go away. I got an opportunity to be one of many writing curriculum for the program and turned it down. It’s not values that inner-city kids lack. Like soldiers in a war zone, moral choices are not always clear-cut. It’s harder to “just say no” under some circumstances than others.

James, a Drake University student on a scholarship quit school when his mom got cancer and needed chemo-therapy. Like over 43 million working Americans, she didn't have any health insurance. James went back to Denver to run crack from one side of the mall to the other. He could make a thousand dollars on a good night. Is dealing crack wrong? Of course. But there was no way he could make that kind of money at other jobs. What would you have done in the same circumstances if it was your mom who needed medical care just to stay alive? Would you break the law? The answer is not a clear cut “NO.”

Talk to the people who went to World War II, Korea or Vietnam. During wartime, people do all sorts of crazy things. Values aren't the problem. It’s circumstances. The fact is people find themselves in situations where it’s hard to make healthy choices. Things aren’t always as easy as they seem looking from the outside. When there are not viable alternatives, all the talk about making good choices is just so much noise.

Drinking or drugs are a risk, but it may be the only way someone knows to stop the pain. When you don’t see any alternatives, being told to just quit is only noise. It’s the same thing we see in so many other situations. A person may know that eating chicken breasts and expensive low fat cuts of meat is better for their health. But if you’re going to feed the family, you may only be able to afford less healthy foods.

Similarly, advice to get more exercise is just noise to most people working two jobs. And t.v. commercials about needing to find time to read to your children only makes you feel guilty as your work two jobs with hardly enough time to eat, sleep and do household chores as it is. Maybe in another life.

A lot of people are doing the best they can with the hands they were dealt. A gang member who came to class said the first thing he’d done when he got old enough was start dealing drugs. He explained, "I don’t want no mom and sisters of mine on welfare." He would have been about 12 or 13 at the time, so he wasn’t old enough to get a real job.

You’d think that would be an attitude even Rush Limbaugh would admire. But Rush is more apt to say these are bad people who made bad choices. When they start making good choices they will become good people. But where are the good choices going to come from?

Healthy choices only make sense in the context of viable alternatives. If your only choice is to steal or let your family starve, you are in an impossible situation. It’s not enough just to be a good person. Most people want to be good. But, people in desperate circumstances do desperate things. The resources and alternatives we have available when we choose to act make all the difference in the world.

Blaming the Family

Conservative former British Prime Minister Margaret Thacker said, "There is no society. There are only families." Such lack of social understanding makes it hard to ask what kinds of social resources would be helpful to families in their struggles. We abandon families to their own devices much the same way we do individuals. Meanwhile, the family has become a dumping ground for the problems we as a society have chosen to ignore. When we’re not blaming the individual, we blame the family.

When Hillary Clinton wrote. “It Takes a Village to raise a child,” some conservatives countered, "it doesn't take a village -- it takes a family.” But most families are as isolated as individuals. Most don’t know what to do or where to turn for help.

Most people are doing the best they can. They are struggling against complex realities over which they often have little control. Different environments provide very different life chances. It is in the family where the effects of poverty take their toll. Families in severe poverty have problems and stresses most of us never imagined. High unemployment translates into depression, frustration, anxiety and substance abuse.

The family is where people learn ways to respond to problems for better or worse. It is where hopes and dreams get nourished or crushed. The family is where we gain out our understanding of what love is. It’s also where we learn about the crutches available to cope with our lives. It’s where fears get passed from one generation to the next. No matter how strong they may be, people often yield to the pressures of the real world. Our parents teach us all they are. For better and worse. They can do no other.

At the same time that we abandon families to their own devices, we are putting more responsibilities on families. I remember reading in the newspaper about a judge in L.A. who jailed a mother because she couldn’t control her 17 year old son who’d joined a gang. The judge claimed she needed to take responsibility. She said her son was took big and wouldn’t mind any more. While she was in jail, her other kids who’d been doing o.k., had to be placed in juvenile group homes with delinquent youth.

In the name of individuals taking responsibility, we as a community are becoming increasingly irresponsible. “It’s the family’s responsibility” is just another way of saying “it’s not the community’s responsibility.” If you’re not making it, your family is supposed to come in and pick up the pieces. But many families aren’t in any position to help. The family often doesn’t have the resources. Many don’t know what to do or where to turn. Family members may not be speaking or like each other or may themselves be dysfunctional. Many don’t have the money.

Once we helped look out for each others children. We chipped in when someone went unfed or needed help. But today when politicians talk about help for families they mean token tax cuts designed to bribe voters. Few are talking about inventing the kind of new social resources that would truly help families in their daily struggles.

Somebody Else’s Troubles

Songwriter Steve Goodman wrote:

“It’s not hard to get along with somebody else’s troubles.
They don’t make you lose any sleep at all.
As long as fate is out there busting somebody else’s bubble,
everything’s going to be alright.”

Somebody else’s problems are so much easier to fix than our own. A quick glance usually reveals the remedy. Often, they just need to try harder. Our own problems defy such easy solutions. We’re involved in complicated predicaments where one thing hinges upon another. We need viable alternatives, resources or support if we’re going to be able to change our own lives. On the other hand, they are just lazy or stupid or evil. They should be punished into behaving. Of course, we’d resent being treated that way. However, we expect them to conform without putting out any negative side effects.

Such a nonchalant attitude dismisses the importance of other people’s lives. If we’re going to come up with effective real life solutions, we must appreciate the situations and dilemmas in which in people struggle. Otherwise, we’re likely to add to their problems. In truth, if the solutions were simple, most people would have fixed their problems long ago. However, when we take the time to listen and understand, everybody has a life as complicated as our own.

As we’ve seen with battered women, situations are often more complicated than they seem at first glance. Women fleeing domestic violence need social resources and our support. When I consulted with a women’s crisis center, I came to appreciate the courage it takes to actually leave. She is having to give up on someone she loves and try to go make a whole new life when she is at an all time low. If we are going to design effective programs, we are going to have to understand each other’s lives and struggles.

We’ve seen that teens in the inner city (and all neighborhoods) need something positive to do ---- opportunities, resources, and hope -- something to look forward to. Delinquency, drugs, teen pregnancy and gang problems don’t just go away. Navigating the teen years is more treacherous than ever. However, when things go wrong, we tend to blame kids or their parents.

It’s so much easier to blame the individual than change their situation. Take a look at our attitudes towards poverty for instance. If you’re not making it, it’s your own fault. Many people believe as former talk show host Bill Mahr commented, "If you’re poor in America, you're just not working hard enough." We avert our eyes. It makes it easier for us to sleep. But if we’re ever going to be effective, we’re going to have to take a closer look.

Barbara Peters is former welfare mother who went on to become a university professor. She says, “If all it took was hard work, there wouldn't be very many poor people in the world." She has her students make a up a budget for a single parent family living on a minimum wage income. Students usually can’t find housing available for what they have budgeted. Where are you going to live? How about child care? What about health insurance and medical care if the kids are sick? Students usually forget to include money for new clothes and gifts for birthdays and Christmas. Many students throw up their hands complaining about the assignment, “This is impossible.” That’s precisely the point.

Since Barbara was on welfare, we have changed the rules of the game. Now rather than making war on poverty, and we're making war on the poor. It’s interesting. We offer incentives to the rich to change their behavior. However, we try to punish the poor off of welfare. And although Welfare Reform decreased the number of people on welfare, take a closer look. The misery of hasn’t changed. Actually the number of people living in poverty is even worse. We probably need to look at what would be effective.
The hard truth is most people are doing the best they can. Just blaming each other doesn’t help much. Poor families have all sorts of problems others don't. Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy your way out of problems. It can get the landlord and creditors off your back. It can go your bail so you can show up in court in your best clothes rather than being paraded out in jail garb. It can get the electricity turned back on. With money you can move out of an apartment where your kids wake up being bitten by rats the size of small pets.

I know a banker who says, "if you think money can't buy you happiness, then you don't know how to shop." That is a little too jaded for my taste, but she’s half right. Money can set the stage for a better life, particularly if you know what things to buy. A college education often pays off. A vacation or baby sitter when things are too stressful can be a lifesaver. Money can fix your car or pay for a needed medical operation.

But it’s not just poor people who are having problems making ends meet. Middle class families are struggling to make ends meet.

And it’s not only money. If we’re going to fix problems, we are going to have to understand people’s perspectives and situations. That takes time. And too often we don’t want to take that time.