Summary Version of Dissertation

This research uses homicide as the catalyst to search for and examine the narrative of young men in urban cities in New Jersey experiencing death by violence. As the research unfolded, it becomes more and more apparent that the narrative is more layered and intersected as external situations in their environment play deadly but enabling roles. Homicides are the tip of a fragile and unsupported iceberg; for this work, it is an open door.

The goal of my dissertation and the continued examination was and is to search for programs intended to effectively prevent or reduce homicides, a leading cause of death (LCOD) for young black men aged fifteen to twenty-four years. Four institutional domains were studied: (a) criminal justice, (b) education, (c) nonprofits, and (d) public health. Three cities—Camden, Newark, and Trenton—were used as case studies; interviews, along with research on the cities and domains, demographics, and statistics on number of homicides since 1989, support the conclusion that effective preventive programs are absent. This conclusion evolved into a subsequent goal of the research, one of understanding the conditions that perpetuate the persistence of homicides for this population. How is it that young black men in these three cities face a catastrophic cause of death that no other subpopulation endures?

The conditions present in these cities are poverty, little to no opportunity for quality education, few sustainable jobs, and the prevalence of an illegal economy, which force young black men to be marginalized and isolated within the city boundaries, placing them in an environment where the use of deadly force is common and persistent.  This steadiness of homicide rates is aided by the inattention from the public health domain creating another condition of their lives by its very absence. Surrounding these conditions are external forces such as economic development within Camden and Newark supported by public and private financial incentives. On top of and in addition to these conditions, the perception from the media maintains a fear (or stigma) of young black men outside their cities handicapping them for inclusion of societal benefits. This leads to the hypothesis of this study that young black men in Camden, Newark, and Trenton live in conditions that are present as a function of actions and inactions from institutional domains and economic development in their cities.

There is a steady participation of young black men in the illegal drug economy because legal work with sustainable wages is not available to these men in Camden, Newark, and Trenton. Their default employment is in the illegal drug trade, a dangerous occupation where homicides are regulatory and reputational events, one providing income to these young men at a cost that is detrimental to them and their families. 

Economic redevelopment is a priority in all three cities operating at different degrees of activity. Economic redevelopment is most active in Camden with preferential business subsidies for institutional building investment and relocation of corporations and in Newark with public-private investment in market rate residential buildings.  Trenton has a much lower level of economic development. There is what I call a triad of leverage in Camden and Newark and less so in Trenton as a mixture of powerful political machines and leaders, institutional entities such as hospitals and universities, and strong municipal governance. Political bosses are active and influential in Camden and Newark; Trenton does not have a culture of bossism nor does it have major universities or medical institutions as Camden and Newark do.   Additionally, both Camden and Newark are adjacent to large cities, Philadelphia and New York City, respectively. This adjacency gives the advantage to Camden and Newark through movement of people between cities for purposes of residence and employment. This list is not exhaustive and there are probably additional reasons for the higher level of economic redevelopment activity in Camden and Newark; however, the mentioned reasons appear to be those most influential on the communities.

Why is this important? The yearly data for homicides as a leading cause of death indicates a generational pervasiveness for the population in this study, casting a racially marginalized shadow on the future of equality in these cities. These murdered men are young and their unrealized contributions have been fatally obstructed, and so are the contributions from the next generation of male children in these cities.  Institutional avoidance of this LCOD for this population extends into the future by refusing to pay attention to the conditions of young black men and generations.

The preference of economic development in urban areas near areas of high visitor or commuter rate such as the New Jersey Performing Arts Center or the Newark Penn Station for employees of Prudential over livable conditions for young black men, including viable education and suitable employment, indicates the presence of a bias, an inequality reinforcing the current conditions for this population and ensuring enduring segregation.

Young black men are engaged in dangerous careers with no regulations and no recourse to legal protection. This is segregation at its worst: the element of “disposability” is at play. The question becomes, are the lives of young black males disposable from the perspective of the criminal justice system, the educational system, and economic policy design? Their employment in a dangerous, life-threatening trade—a condition of their lives—illustrates disposability. This research is critical because of the constant but rarely acknowledged fact, that this cause of death is persistent because the affected population has no viable employment option beyond the illegal drug trade and institutional domains are avoiding the conditions and, in doing so, failing to reverse subsequent marginalization that make homicides possible and prevalent.

Additional information and resources are available through the author.