The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy

by William Julius Wilson

" The Truly Disadvantaged should spur critical thinking in many quarters about the causes and possible remedies for inner city poverty. As policy makers grapple with the problems of an enlarged underclass they—as well as community leaders and all concerned Americans of all races—would be advised to examine Mr. Wilson's incisive analysis."—Robert Greenstein, New York Times Book Review

"'Must reading' for civil-rights leaders, leaders of advocacy organizations for the poor, and for elected officials in our major urban centers."—Bernard C. Watson, Journal of Negro Education

"Required reading for anyone, presidential candidate or private citizen, who really wants to address the growing plight of the black urban underclass."—David J. Garrow, Washington Post Book World

Selected by the editors of the New York Times Book Review as one of the sixteen best books of 1987.
Winner of the 1988 C. Wright Mills Award of the Society for the Study of Social Problems.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, Politics, Race, Economics, Poverty, Social Justice

266 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1987

About the author

William Julius Wilson is an American sociologist, a professor at Harvard University, and an author of works on urban sociology, race, and class issues. Laureate of the National Medal of Science, he served as the 80th President of the American Sociological Association, was a member of numerous national boards and commissions. He identified the importance of neighborhood effects and demonstrated how limited employment opportunities and weakened institutional resources exacerbated poverty within American inner-city neighborhoods.

Reviews

[Karen]

While reading Hillbilly Elegy, this social policy book was mentioned as a great read by the writer, J.D. Vance.

Not on Goodreads --> Charles Murray's Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 --> Our government encouraged social decay through the welfare state.

[Walter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another influential though less readable contribution from Dr. Wilson. Given the firestorm that his earlier book, The Declining Significance of Race, ignited, it's almost as if the author went out of his way to argue this one as authoritatively as possible. The result was underwhelming for me, as I found its insights like golden nuggets that had to be hewn out of much dense verbiage. I actually had to read this one in parts. It was too challenging to finish in one extended reading, so I read it for a few week, put it down, picked it up again, etc. Although I appreciated its insights, it was not as accessible as other works (especially the one that preceded it), so, on the whole, I did not find it as effective or persuasive. This being said, I still believe it to be an important part of a canon that establishes WJW as the leading light of this domain.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book, an important book, and more nuanced and better than I was expecting from everything I had read about it – and I have read a lot, because this is one of those texts everyone cites somewhere. I don’t agree with much of the framing, but more from a strategic perspective than from that of understanding or interpreting the data presented, which is what surprised me. This is above all a strategic book, carefully weighted to have maximum impact on public policy, and to do that Wilson makes certain choices which I respect greatly, even when in my own humble opinion they are wrong.

The principle one is wielding the language of the right – terms like the underclass, like welfare dependency. Recasting authors like Kenneth B. Clark as a liberal and mourning their demise after the popular outcry raised over the Moynihan Report…I hate to think of Clark as liberal, he was far too fearless. I don’t know if fear is the principal reason behind ‘liberals’ failing to engage with the ‘social pathologies’ of the ghetto either.

On the term underclass, I personally hate it. No academic should ever use a term they wouldn’t be able to call someone to their face, and I think it is irretrievably pejorative no matter how you technically define it. He argues you need to use it to engage with conservative thinkers who construct it as a problem of the individual, and ensure that it becomes understood as reflective of problems belonging to the wider society. As I say, I can understand this as strategy, but I think in using this terminology you have already lost the popular battle. In the afterword written in 2012, he acknowledges that this term caused huge controversy and he has moved to the term ‘ghetto poor’, without quite acknowledging any error in using the term underclass. He clarifies it ‘denotes a disadvantaged position in the labor market and a social environment of concentrated poverty and social isolation’ (253), thus containing a spatial dimension. Here is his own use of the term originally:

In my conception, the term underclass suggests that changes have taken place in ghetto neighborhoods, and the groups that have been left behind are collectively different from those that lived in these neighborhoods in earlier years. It is true that long-term welfare families and street criminals are distinct groups, but they live and interact in the same depressed community and they are part of the population that has, with the exodus of the more stable working- and middle-class segments, become increasingly isolated socially from mainstream patterns and norms of behaviour…it would be far worse to obscure the profound changes in the class structure and social behavior of ghetto neighborhoods by avoiding the use of the term underclass. Indeed, the real challenge is to describe and explain these developments accurately so that liberal policymakers can appropriately address them (8).

His main point is the way that victories in the 1960s allowed a once vertically integrated ghetto to disperse and those who could get out got out. These middle class African Americans have in fact benefitted disproportionately, and perhaps unfairly, from programs designed to address issues of the underclass. He then walks a fine line between explanations for this difference, those based in culture of poverty arguments and those claiming it is entirely due to racism. I say fine line, because he does discuss ‘social pathologies’ and this idea that middle class role models are needed, which is perilously moralistic and close to blaming the poor – as is blaming women for the fact that society won’t pay them enough to raise a family. But on the whole I found most of what he documents went to clearly back up the racism idea, but he skirts this issue in strange ways, believing that politically any policy to work towards solving the problems raised by the ghetto cannot be race-specific as that cannot win support from the wider society. And, as he says:

Nor is it apparent how racism can result in a more rapid social and economic deterioration in the inner-city in the post-civil rights period than in the period that immediately preceded the notable civil rights victories…even if racism continues to be a factor in the social and economic progress of some blacks, can it be used to explain the sharp increase in inner-city social dislocations since 1970? (11)

I’d say, and my research shows that, yes. But really, the above definition of racism is that of ‘ill will’, and he takes some of this back in the next paragraph, quoting Michael Harrington: ‘For there is an economic structure of racism that will persist even if every white who hates blacks goes through a total conversion…’ and so racism is ‘an occupational hierarchy rooted in history and institutionalized in the labor market’ (11 – Harrington, The New American Poverty 1984). Thus:

complex problems in the American and worldwide economies that ostensibly have little or nothing to do with race, problems that fall heavily on much of the black population but require solutions that confront the broader issues of economic organization, are not made more understandable by associating them directly or indirectly with racism (12).

And this:

Thus, instead of talking vaguely about an economic structure of racism, it would be less ambiguous and more effective to state simply that a racial division of labor has been created due to decades, even centuries of discrimination and prejudice; and that because those in the low-wage sector of the economy are more adversely affected by impersonal economic shifts in advanced industrial society, the racial division of labor is reinforced. One does not have to “trot out” the concept of racism to demonstrate, for example, that blacks have been severely hurt by deindustrialization…(12)

Vaguely insulting to those trying to raise important issues of race, yes. Do I disagree with that second explanation? Not really. Though I think that racism is still alive and well and shifting to preserve white privilege and capital accumulation, it is not simply an inherited racial division of labor. But his argument here is much more around framing and fighting racist structures rather than a debate over their existence. It’s interesting him invoking Kenneth Clark’s Dark Ghetto, an amazing book, and far to the left of this—particularly in its discussion of race. He doesn’t follow up on any of the insights into connecting incarceration rates with racial profiling, education mismatches with the massive and continuous institutional failing in education in every way. Instead this is an engagement with conservative and centrist policy makers on ground they are familiar with.

But I am not sorry he engaged neoconservatives on their own ground and proved quite convincingly that what is most needed is good jobs, not workfare, incarceration, family counselling, marriage incentives, celibacy and all the other crap. And to open up Chapter 2, Wilson writes ‘The social problems of urban life in the United States are, in large measure, the problems of racial inequality’ (20), though he doesn’t think this has been convincingly argued or proved. He notes the shift from the 60s from concerns of freedom to concerns of actual equality. So really, this stepping back from a discourse of race seems a tactical and half-hearted retreat. But his topics are familiar – has there been a rise in single-mothers and female headed households and why? Is this a function of welfare? I was certainly troubled that none of the conservative discourse was inverted or challenged, even as conservative theories were demolished.

But in the end you get such a narrow view of the 60s struggle and what was won

It would be ideal if programs based on this principle [of individual merit] were sufficient to address problems of inequality in our society because they are consistent with the prevailing ideals of democracy and freedom of choice, do not call for major sacrifices on the part of the larger population, and are not perceived as benefitting certain groups at the expense of others. The “old” goals of the civil rights movement, in other words, were more in keeping with “traditional” American values, and thus more politically acceptable than the “new” goals of equal opportunity for groups through a system of collective racial and ethnic entitlements (113).

What you end up with is this:

Under this approach, targeted programs (whether based on the principle of equality of group opportunity of that of equality of life chances) would not necessarily be eliminated, but would rather be deemphasized—considered only as offshoots of, and indeed secondary to, the universal programs. The hidden agenda is to improve the life chances of groups such as the ghetto underclass by emphasizing programs in which the more advantaged groups of all races can positively relate(120)

I don’t know that he might not be right, and that helping poor people of colour can only happen by stealth in this country. But damn, that is such an indictment. And of course, I think he’s right to note that solving any problems of the ghetto cannot be ‘satisfactorily addressed simply by confronting the problems of current racial bias’ (121), but must address historical and current structures. And he’s right that answers do not lie in the character of the poor – as conservatives have always seemed to allege. I think he’s even right that in great part, meaningful and living wage work is the solution. I think he misses the ways that technical and economic shifts after WWII did not just naturally move out to the suburbs, does not see the ways that the city itself is structured to preserve white home values, white jobs, white schools, white amenities at some distance from communities of color left with crumbling infrastructure and high debt from which all wealth and resources have fled. He’s also far too optimistic about the possibilities of geographic mobility, even for the middle classes. Study after study has shown that the middle classes remain far more precarious, and full mobility is rarely open to them even now. I fully applaud more social housing built everywhere though, how amazing would that be?

The afterword notes a shift in tactics of discourse as well:

in framing public policy we should not shy away from an explicit discussion of the specific issues of race and poverty; on the contrary, we should highlight them in our attempt to convince the nation that these problems should be seriously confronted and that there is an urgent need to address them. The issues of race and poverty should be framed in such a way that not only a sense of fairness and justice to combat inequality is generated, but also people are made aware that our country would be better off if these problems were seriously addressed and eradicated (286).

Not quite a reversal of earlier claims, but it leaves me even more in charity with him.

[CTEP]

For February, I read The Truly Disadvantaged by Julius Wilson. The book focuses on the changes that occurred in ghettos across the nation from the 1950s-1980s and the state of those who are “truly disadvantaged”. The main idea is really on the fact that the middle and working classes left the ghetto during this time period leaving only the “underclass” to remain. The author believes this outward migration had many negative implications for the nation’s ghettos. Without the presence of the middle and working classes, the underclass became socially isolated from mainstream culture and could also no longer rely on those with greater resources to support neighborhood necessities such as stores and places of worship. It also led to the worsening of unemployment, violent crime rates, welfare dependency, single parent households, and other factors. All of this happened despite groundbreaking civil rights legislation and strong public assistance programs designed to fight poverty.

One of the major points argued by the author is how racism contributed to the degradation of the state of the underclass. He says we must first separate the idea of historical and contemporary racism. Without a doubt, historical racism created ghettos and the African-American underclass. However, the author states that contemporary racism is only a minor part of what is keeping people in the underclass. He adds to this argument by claiming that if a magic wand could remove all forms of racism from our society, those in the underclass would not see an immediate change and may not see any change for many years. The main reason for the lack of change to the underclass would be due to changes in the economy such as the outflow of jobs from central cities to suburbs and other nations, the reduction of manufacturing and other qualified jobs due to technological advances, the increase in high skill jobs for which the underclass are not qualified, and an increasing population competing for a shrinking pool of qualified jobs. I have to agree with the authors agreement. Simply eliminating racial bias will not eliminate the disparities created by historical racism. It will take time to provide the underclass with the resources they have been denied for all of these years.

The author's recommendation for improving the conditions of the underclass is to create a comprehensive policy that equips the citizens with the tools needed to compete for available jobs in the private sector. He makes it a point to call out that these policies need to address everyone and not be race or class specific in order to receive enough support in legislation. Secondary policies can be created that address race and class issues in a way that the public does not perceive them as the main policy. An afterword is included in which the author speaks on how this related to current times (as of 2012). The author believes that little has changed and that the research is as relevant today than ever.

Reading this book really got me thinking about trends in the low income community that I had never really thought of before. It also got me wondering whether or not CTEP is reaching the population that the author coins as the underclass. The skills taught by CTEP are certainly part of the equation in helping our citizens to get the skills they need to be workforce ready, however, if those in the underclass are as socially isolated as the author describes, maybe our service isn't reaching them.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the classic statement of Wilson's idea of the underclass, the punchline being that increasing prosperity and diminishing discrimination for African-Americans led to a situation in which the most prosperous people leave the community and as a result the community suffers from the disruption of core values, the lack of role models for youth, the lack of people with a stake in the community and an ability to work to defend the community. Thus as blacks prospered in the US, black communities suffered and became prey to greater poverty, drug use, violence, etc. This has been a very controversial idea and there has been much debate on it over the years. It appears to have held up well and if anything these ideas are having more applicability to other communities as a result of greater income and wealth disparities in the US. Agree with it or not, this is a classic must-read book for people interested in issues related to cities, race relations, economic equality, etc.

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting—a good complement to Douglas Massey's American Apartheid.

[Michael Linton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was THE book I've been looking searching for. This book offers a theory on how the ghetto became the ghetto. Most of the books I read was about the culture of the ghetto and how mentally it's hard to work themselves out.

This book used ALOT of interesting statistics to make his point about the crisis in the inner city: "Despite a high rate of poverty in ghetto neighborhoods throughout the first half of the twentieth century, rates of inner-city joblessness, teenage pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, female-headed families, welfare dependency, and serious crimes were significantly lower than in later years and did not reach catastrophic proportions until the mid-1970s." All these factors changed after civil rights bills were passed in the 1960s. THIS was why Critical Race Theory (CRT) came about. They were trying to figure out why these factors were still increasing despite these new bills. AND how could it be worse than before when in theory, there should be less active racism? One factor noticeably absent was any discussion of drugs or gangs. What was real eye-opening was comparing the statistics and conditions of the inner cities from 1960 and earlier to the 60's, 70's and 80's. Something changed. But what?

Conservatives would blame the Great Society programs (welfare) for the increase of the factors listed above. The author cited several studies that show that: 'Welfare simply does not appear to be the underlying cause in the dramatic changes in family structure of the past few decades." Here's an example: "However, despite frequent references to literature to rising welfare expenditures, benefit levels have fallen in real terms over the past 10 years, while illigitimacy ratio have continued to rise." And one study of welfare mothers showed they were significantly less likely to refrain from using contraceptives, less likely to desire an additional pregnancy and less likely to become pregnant.

The author says that the main reason for the deterioration of the inner cities is the lack of manufacturing jobs, a la, season 2 of the Wire. Blacks were migrating to the North and manufacturing jobs were going away, thus less jobs for Blacks moving to the north. And I wonder if that was a point David Simon was making. The only opportunity for these people is to turn to drugs/gangs since jobs are few and far between for the uneducated.

Another significant point he made was about affirmative action. He demonstrates that affirmative action only benefits those who have an advantage to begin with. It's not benefitting those who live in the inner city.

He does offer some solutions such financial assistance, but it has to be in conjunction with creating jobs and teaching them skills that will allow them to get a decent paying job.

Granted this book was written in 1987. And the crack epidemic starting to make its impact. And none of that was mentioned.

[m · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book.

The text = 100,000 words.
554 footnotes = additional 19,000 words.

The reason why one should read this 2012 Second edition is Wilson's Afterword, "Reflections on Responses to The Truly Disadvantaged" (16,200 words, plus 127 footnotes (4,700 words) = 21,600 words).

I've read this book only once but I want to post my thoughts so that I'll have something with which to consult & compare after my second reading, someday.

1. I'm not sure why, but I found this book more likable, livelier & fresher than his later books When Work Disappears (1996), The Bridge Over The Racial Divide (1999), There Goes The Neighborhood (2006, a very bad book), and More Than Just Race (2009).

The book I'm most familiar with is When Work Disappears (WWD)—a decent book but not one that I strongly recommend or agree with. In WWD, Wilson republished a wonderful excerpt from Kenneth B. Clark's great book Dark Ghetto (1965), which inspired me to read Clark, so I'm indebted to Wilson for that.

Over the years I've sought, collected, read, highlighted three or four dozen essays either by or about Wilson. Though I often find myself strongly disagreeing with him, his thinking & pronouncements are bellwethers of contemporary social thought, so I'm interested in observing (what I perceive to be) the slow migration of his thought over time into slightly different intellectual orbits.

I'm not receptive to Wilson's writerly style, his preponderance to framing the problems he catalogs. He seems to me terribly overimpressed with the powers of his own theoretical formulations. In contrast to Wilson, I prefer the output of his lifelong friend & colleague, Elijah Anderson.

Years ago the Atlantic Monthly published a long (6600 words) extract from Anderson's great book Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City (1999), available here.

Eventually I read Code and was very impressed. (I need to reread it.) My thinking about urban sociological problems has been indelibly & obdurately shaped by that book.

I have read all of Wilson's books after reading Code of the Streets, and generally have found all of Wilson's books less good than Anderson's Code.

I was delighted to read in Wilson's very short, bad book There Goes The Neighborhood (2009) that Wilson himself has been engaged in a decades-long friendly debate with Anderson. It seemed to me that Wilson was conceding significant intellectual ground in There Goes The Neighborhood to Anderson's way of thinking.

I was delighted to read in Wilson's 2012 Afterword to The Truly Disadvantaged that he is still engaged in debating his differences with Anderson—an interesting sidebar to the books themselves.

I'm hoping that in Wilson's next book he'll thrown in the towel altogether, surrender his side of the debate entirely, and confess to having been stuck intellectually promulgating ideas he first adopted forty plus years ago in graduate school, when the arrival of French poststructuralism in North American graduate departments was all the rage.

2. Another thought occurring to me while reading this book was the occasional sense I got that Wilson's thinking strongly resembled that of his former colleague, Moishe Postone, a historian who achieved fame as a social theorist.

Wilson's oeuvre strikes me as slightly more grounded than Postone's, but much less grounded than someone like Anderson or Sudhir Venkatesh, who are both much less theoretical than Wilson or Postone. I prefer the on-the-hoof reports of Anderson, Venkatesh & Gerry Suttles to the other-worldly theorizing of Wilson & Postone.

3. I've just now read Wilson's very interesting & informative 2011 autobiographical essay (11,300 words), available here.

Wilson says this about his graduate school training:

Unlike many . . . I did not pursue race and ethnic relations and urban poverty as major academic fields of study in graduate school at Washington State University. On the contrary, my graduate study focused on theory and the philosophy of the social sciences, partly because I was influenced by and impressed with the teachings of the late Richard Ogles, who was my senior adviser and a professor of the philosophy of the social sciences in the Department of Sociology at Washington State University. My doctoral dissertation was an exercise in theory construction and concept formation.

What struck me as I became acquainted with the literature on race and ethnic relations in the late 1960s was the incredibly uneven quality of the scholarship. I read some classic works such as Myrdal’s (1944) An American Dilemma, Frazier’s (1949) The Negro in the United States, Park’s (1950) Race and Culture, and Weber’s (1968 [1911]) theoretical writings on ethnic relations in Economy and Society. I also read the stimulating field research studies of Gans {The Urban Villagers} (1962), Clark {Dark Ghetto} (1965), Rainwater (1966), and Liebow {Tally’s Corner} (1967). But I soon discovered that a good deal of the scholarship on race relations published in the 1960s was ideologically driven and laden with polemics and rhetoric. I was also struck by the paucity of comprehensive theoretical formulations. With the exception of the influential work of scholars such as Lieberson (1961), Gordon (1964), Schermerhorn (1964), Blalock (1967), and Van den Berghe (1967), many of the writings on race and ethnic relations during this decade were written as if theory had no relevance to the field.

So, my likening Wilson to Moishe Postone has some basis: they both loved theory, both believed that the more their research resembled the work taking place in the chemistry and physics departments, the more reputable their work would be.

Another thought that occurs to me, suggested by Nick Lemann's comment in The Promised Land (1991), is that (afaik) Wilson's efforts to illuminate "the social pathology of the ghetto" has never drawn upon or referenced tenets of psychology or Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis, which I think is a remarkable omission. Psychoanalysis in Wilson's view has nothing to add.

For Wilson, "the social dislocations" of the inner-city are best illuminated via the light provided by structuralist paradigms—an intellectual movement that swept America's higher-educational landscape in the late 1960s, and — to quote Dr. Foster — most of those books haven't been discredited yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKwy...

[Msimone · Rating 4 out of 5]

How relevant is this book today as it was in 1987? Williams rebuts Murray's(LOSING GROUND) attribution that the culture of poverty perpetuated in urban cities results from generous welfare programs that require no accountability from those who receive assistance. Williams argues that the failure of the "Great Society" reforms was its failure to overcome poverty of the underclass across race, gender, and class in urban areas across the United States because it failed to provide socio-economic opportunities to the underclass. He argues that a tight labor market with opportunity for all would enable the underclass from all racial groups to find employment. Further, Williams recommends major government reform in areas of housing, income, childcare, and health as well as a compréhensive program of universal scope that would while simultaneously include child support, family allowance and child care strategy. Forty years later, we see continued cuts to welfare, fewer services for the underclass, a tight job market with no positions for the unskilled across urban and rural areas. Yet, there is no coordinated government/private sector alliance to train and support the many who still constitute the poverty underclass that would enable them to intégrate into the middle class social economy.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The broad hypothesis of this book can be broken down roughly as such: the distinctive development and subsequent acceleration of social dislocation amongst the African-American communities who constitute the a sizable portion of the 'hard-core poor' within the United States is the result of diminishing job opportunities related to deindustrialization. The goal of presenting this hypothesis is two-fold, negatively to refute the explanation of rising poverty offered by Charles Murray in "Losing Ground" (1984), and positively to argue in favor of a universal welfare system.
From a writing standpoint this book has some problems, it's not a very engaging read and the nuggets of good research and excellent argumentation are often repeated frequently which can make it tedious. However, if you are interested in the study of poverty/welfare you should still make a point of reading this for two reasons. One, Murray's claim that welfare programs provide perverse economic incentives to the needy is still very much an alive and in-use hypothesis in American Politics. If you want to be able to respond to that sort of claim with hard facts, this is the hammer to your tool box. Second, for you leftists out there, this book provides a good critique of limited programs like affirmative action and argues in favor of a more universal welfare system.

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

A recommended read for those interested in sociology, urban decay, and American race relations.

Wilson offers many insightful considerations as to how the situation of ghettos actually worsened for African Americans after civil rights legislation. Deindustrialization, social dislocation, migration patterns, and community disinvestment comprise much of the historical analysis. Without fully dismissing the impact of racism in the history of the subjugation of Black people, he gives special focus to poverty, intra-race class stratification, and the then-contemporary forces (1980s) that keep many inner-city people in the cyclical undertow of poverty.

The theses were somewhat redundant toward the end, and the reliance on statistics in much of the body of writing in the beginning parts was a bit heavy for my taste. Regardless, Wilson presents a good number of novel perspectives and forward-thinking suggestions for forming legislative plans. I don’t work in public policy, but these issues are just as relevant today as they’ve been since 1964, and thereby warrant a contemporary revisit.

[Lance Cahill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting and important book that explores items in an thorough manner. At its essence is the thesis that an underclass has developed not due to a culture of poverty, discrimination, or liberal welfare policies. Rather, changes in the structure of the economic environment have resulted in a decline of “marriageable” men, reducing family formation without necessarily reducing offspring. This has resulted in increasing rates of social dislocation indicators that is only partially addressed through anti-discrimination efforts and preferential policies. In the author’s view, policies addressed at the root (economic structure) are required to ameliorate the identified conditions.

This is a foundational text and should be read by anyone looking for a data-rich (even if the data may be dated, though Wilson has produced revised editions) exploration of what we view as intractable poverty that goes beyond sloganeering.

[Bill V · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great read. I consider this the best analytical books I've read this year and one of the best regardless of subject matter.
I did find the verbiage dry and a little difficult to understand at points. The book is thorough and replete with charts and graphs.
I will admit I did not normally agree with many of the position espoused here and Mr. Wilson's arguments are well reasoned and thought out. He avoids making the focus of his arguments about race and mostly argues from a sociopolitical position. While I would support many of the programs outlined here, I do disagree with his argument that they be open-ended. If they were put into place without any measurable benchmarks, I fear they would go on in perpetuity and become larger and larger resource drains. I would agree to lengthy periods, with constant evaluations and tests to see if any progress is being made.

[Taylor Leick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought it was well researched, makes a good point that has stood the test of time that poverty is not just a mindset but can also be a macro-misfortune that is particularly pervasive and hard to shake for single moms in the inner city. (referenced convincingly as late as 2015 by JD Vance) Its primary solutions were comparatively lackluster and ill-defined: assuming the government can ensure full employment (socialism), and that any government programs should be universal to ensure broad support (true, but thats how we got social security and medicare bankrupting the country). Good research of the problems, but I prefer Sowell for solutions

[Jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was recommended this by my sociology professor. I found it to be pretty interesting. A lot of the introductory information I was familiar with, but I found the inclusions of female households and also some political actions to be interesting. I'm interested to read the response to this. 5/5.

[Wenfei Xu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Key text in the study of neighborhood effects in which Wilson argues that the existence of urban ghettos is due to "concentration effects" that can lead to outcomes such as poverty, high birth rates, unemployment, crime, etc.

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read again and again

[Rafael Suleiman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great sociological examination of the conditions in the inner cities of America.

[Elizabeth]

As recommended by Gail.

[Betsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though originally published in the late 80s, it's very relevant and informative even today.

[Holly Sieving · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not dry, and spot on for explaining racial disparity.

[Maria Nieves · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic. Everyone should read!

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not without controversy in its time, a sobering read on how far we have fallen short.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the statistics and even many of the concepts are outdated, the lens through which Wilson views poverty is enlightening nonetheless. There is a slew of more modern literature that supplements "The Truly Disadvantaged," ("Evicted" and "The New Jim Crow" come to mind in particular), but few confront the problems with the conservative view of poverty or present a holistic alternative to the same extent.

[Shay-Akil McLean · Rating 4 out of 5]

While there is a spatial mismatch with regards to the lack of cultural capital, network opportunities, resources, and deteriorating infrastructure, the case of the working poor Blacks is more than spatial mismatch. WJW's Truly Disadvantaged thesis also claims that middle class Blacks were departing in droves while Patillo's Black Picket Fences showed that the Black middle class were living in the same neighborhoods as working class Blacks and we know that the current statistics reveal that Black neighborhoods are mixed with regards to socioeconomic status (income, class, education). I know the thesis mainly argues against the 'culture of poverty' element as well as revealing how anti-discrimination policies have failed Blacks in America. But I kind of feel like its more what the Truly Disadvantaged thesis provides especially since this ideal states that a racially specific thesis makes it hard to explain some of the social dislocations in Urban American ghettos (I understood this as WJW calling for a move away from race and towards SES). Plus this thesis kind of ignores the functioning of hegemonic systems in perpetuating the social dislocations that WJW refers to, not to mention the intersections of those systems. But I know a lot of this has to do with the fact that the text is old. But I will say this. The spatial mismatch & social dislocations are occurring but as the consequence of the intersections of different hegemonic systems not one or the other.

[Fritz Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this one a while ago, but it rings truer today than ever. I just finished reading Ta-Nehisi Coates' expose on The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration and it's amazing to think that works like these are loudly sounding the call to get a better understanding of urban poverty and the impact that it has on generations of individuals. While Bill Wilson's piece was less concerned with race, than Coates' (much to my dismay), he does make salient points that don't detract from that short-coming. If you're interested in learning much of the origins of why movements like Black Lives Matter hold such sway in disaffected communities of color in, primarily, urban environments, do yourself a favor and spend some time with this work. It's a good introduction to horrifying social phenomena.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

good argument for the evolution of the truly disadvantaged and criticism of current race-based policies, however arguments to resolve this issue are too ideal, unrealistic. The author even states that that the most realistic approach to the problems of concentrated inner-city poverty is to provide ghetto underclass families and individuals with the resources that promote social mobility leading to geographic mobility. So his ultimate solution of the truly disadvantaged is to move out of that environment.

[Richard Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

I 'm finished with The Truly Disadvantaged: This is not an easy or happy read. It is very enlightening. A read is highly valuable. You will realize how incredibly difficult it is to fight poverty. It should be required reading with a test for all elected officials. —

[Rodney Wilder · Rating 2 out of 5]

Informative but statistically heavy, to a terrible degree.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Must-read if you work in policy and are concerned or work for the improvement of underserved communities in this country.