13 Incentives to Fail II: Crime and Education
Crime
Crime is seen as a result of individuals weighing potential benefits against the risks of being caught or punished. During the 1960s, the risks of apprehension and imprisonment decreased significantly, which likely contributed to an increase in crime rates. Data shows that the chances of getting away with burglaries and robberies declined from 1954 to 1980, with a dramatic drop during the 1960s. While it is not clear whether the rise in crime overwhelmed police resources or the reduced apprehension risk led to more crime, it was evident that people perceived a lower risk of getting caught.
Alongside this, the actual likelihood of imprisonment also fell, as jails became overcrowded, and policies changed to limit incarceration rates. Between 1961 and 1969, the number of people imprisoned decreased consistently, even as crime doubled. The reduced risks of arrest and punishment created new incentives for potential offenders, especially affecting the poor. Prior to these changes, poorer individuals faced more immediate consequences from law enforcement, while the affluent had better legal protections. By the 1970s, those legal protections extended to poorer individuals, making it less risky for them to commit crimes.
Juvenile crime specifically saw notable changes in treatment. In places like Cook County, the number of juveniles committed for offenses dropped dramatically, even as rates of juvenile crime increased. Many juvenile records became inaccessible or were eliminated, leading young offenders to believe they could escape the long-term consequences of their actions. Overall, raising the costs of criminal behavior is suggested to effectively deter crime, challenging the view that criminals operate outside of typical human motivators like rewards and penalties.
Education
The problems in education over the years have largely remained the same, mainly the difficulty in encouraging students to work hard for future rewards. In the 1960s and 1970s, the incentives for students, especially those in large urban schools, changed significantly. The focus is on students from average or below-average backgrounds, particularly those whose parents are disengaged or unable to assist with homework. In 1960, more students in these circumstances were learning essential skills compared to 1970.
In urban schools, maintaining classroom order and motivating students became more complicated as supportive home environments dwindled. In 1960, punitive measures like retention and suspension were more commonly used to encourage learning, but by the 1970s, these were significantly reduced. During this time, student disturbances rose to a national issue, largely due to social chaos and the shift in educational norms that de-emphasized strict discipline.
Government policies and judicial decisions played a role in this shift, making it harder for schools to enforce discipline. The Supreme Court's 1967 decision on student rights led to restrictions on suspensions, contributing to a culture where students could choose not to learn without facing consequences. Consequently, many students engaged in disruptive behavior, feeling free to ignore their education.
Teachers also felt less pressure to demand high performance, facing backlash from students and complaints about strictness. This shift led to a decline in teaching quality, as educators faced challenges with absenteeism and disengaged students. The combination of these factors created an environment where education was not prioritized, ultimately impacting academic results, especially in racially mixed or predominantly black schools. Changes in incentives in education have been linked to poor outcomes, making it difficult for both students and teachers to maintain focus on learning.
Misdirected Synergism
Changes in policies and societal rules over the decades have created a troubling environment for poor youth. In the 1970s, it became easier to avoid work, become a parent without taking responsibility, commit crimes, and use drugs. These shifts led to a cycle where individuals, particularly those without stable jobs or positive experiences, faced greater odds of ending up in jail or living in poverty. Ultimately, these changes have trapped many in a long-term struggle due to prioritizing short-term benefits over lasting stability.
Present Sticks, and a Distant Carrot
The future for Harold and Phyllis is not one of great wealth or luxury, but rather a struggle to get by. After taking a job at a laundry, Harold slowly moves up from an unskilled position to driving a delivery truck and eventually securing a slightly better job at a larger company with improved pay and benefits. However, despite his efforts and steady employment, his wages are still not enough to comfortably support his growing family. This story is typical for many workers who start in low-paying jobs. The incentives to work hard are minimal and often involve more negative consequences than rewards, especially for marginalized groups facing discrimination. While their financial situation improves over time, the increase in income doesn’t necessarily lead to a better quality of life.
Crime
Crime is seen as a result of individuals weighing potential benefits against the risks of being caught or punished. During the 1960s, the risks of apprehension and imprisonment decreased significantly, which likely contributed to an increase in crime rates. Data shows that the chances of getting away with burglaries and robberies declined from 1954 to 1980, with a dramatic drop during the 1960s. While it is not clear whether the rise in crime overwhelmed police resources or the reduced apprehension risk led to more crime, it was evident that people perceived a lower risk of getting caught.
Alongside this, the actual likelihood of imprisonment also fell, as jails became overcrowded, and policies changed to limit incarceration rates. Between 1961 and 1969, the number of people imprisoned decreased consistently, even as crime doubled. The reduced risks of arrest and punishment created new incentives for potential offenders, especially affecting the poor. Prior to these changes, poorer individuals faced more immediate consequences from law enforcement, while the affluent had better legal protections. By the 1970s, those legal protections extended to poorer individuals, making it less risky for them to commit crimes.
Juvenile crime specifically saw notable changes in treatment. In places like Cook County, the number of juveniles committed for offenses dropped dramatically, even as rates of juvenile crime increased. Many juvenile records became inaccessible or were eliminated, leading young offenders to believe they could escape the long-term consequences of their actions. Overall, raising the costs of criminal behavior is suggested to effectively deter crime, challenging the view that criminals operate outside of typical human motivators like rewards and penalties.
Education
The problems in education over the years have largely remained the same, mainly the difficulty in encouraging students to work hard for future rewards. In the 1960s and 1970s, the incentives for students, especially those in large urban schools, changed significantly. The focus is on students from average or below-average backgrounds, particularly those whose parents are disengaged or unable to assist with homework. In 1960, more students in these circumstances were learning essential skills compared to 1970.
In urban schools, maintaining classroom order and motivating students became more complicated as supportive home environments dwindled. In 1960, punitive measures like retention and suspension were more commonly used to encourage learning, but by the 1970s, these were significantly reduced. During this time, student disturbances rose to a national issue, largely due to social chaos and the shift in educational norms that de-emphasized strict discipline.
Government policies and judicial decisions played a role in this shift, making it harder for schools to enforce discipline. The Supreme Court's 1967 decision on student rights led to restrictions on suspensions, contributing to a culture where students could choose not to learn without facing consequences. Consequently, many students engaged in disruptive behavior, feeling free to ignore their education.
Teachers also felt less pressure to demand high performance, facing backlash from students and complaints about strictness. This shift led to a decline in teaching quality, as educators faced challenges with absenteeism and disengaged students. The combination of these factors created an environment where education was not prioritized, ultimately impacting academic results, especially in racially mixed or predominantly black schools. Changes in incentives in education have been linked to poor outcomes, making it difficult for both students and teachers to maintain focus on learning.
Misdirected Synergism
Changes in policies and societal rules over the decades have created a troubling environment for poor youth. In the 1970s, it became easier to avoid work, become a parent without taking responsibility, commit crimes, and use drugs. These shifts led to a cycle where individuals, particularly those without stable jobs or positive experiences, faced greater odds of ending up in jail or living in poverty. Ultimately, these changes have trapped many in a long-term struggle due to prioritizing short-term benefits over lasting stability.
Present Sticks, and a Distant Carrot
The future for Harold and Phyllis is not one of great wealth or luxury, but rather a struggle to get by. After taking a job at a laundry, Harold slowly moves up from an unskilled position to driving a delivery truck and eventually securing a slightly better job at a larger company with improved pay and benefits. However, despite his efforts and steady employment, his wages are still not enough to comfortably support his growing family. This story is typical for many workers who start in low-paying jobs. The incentives to work hard are minimal and often involve more negative consequences than rewards, especially for marginalized groups facing discrimination. While their financial situation improves over time, the increase in income doesn’t necessarily lead to a better quality of life.