Begging for Change: A Comparative Analysis of How the Media Frames Domestic and International Poverty
2011, Vol. 3 No. 09 | pg. 3/3 | «
Conclusion
The function of this research project was to explore the similarities and differences in how both domestic and international poverty are framed by the most circulated news magazine in the U.S, and to recognize how this framing may impact public opinion and policy. As a whole, coverage of poverty is rare. As well, coverage of international poverty is three times more common than coverage of domestic poverty. This frames poverty as a much more prevalent problem outside of our country’s borders.
Much of United States media today has been consolidated, and approximately 90% is owned by the ‘Big Six’. These Big Six corporations include General Electric, Walt Disney, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom and CBS (Ownership Chart). Conflict theory argues that power differentials in capitalist societies, such as the United States, result in the dominant elite pushing their views and goals onto the general public for financial gain and status maintenance (Ashley and Ornstein 2005: 195-199). Applying this to the media, the six elite corporations are able to control what and how issues, including poverty, are covered and framed. In doing this, they are able to manage the media to best serve the needs of the upper class, elite corporations and individuals.
This elitist framing can be tied in with agenda setting theory, a communications theory that explains that the media has the power to strongly influence which issues are important to the public. The extent to which the media covers an issue determines whether the public views the issue as something that concerns them or not. Further, the concerns and opinions of the public shape policy and political agenda (Mortensen 2010: 357). As an overwhelming majority of United States media is controlled by a small number of elite corporations, these corporations are able to dictate public opinion, hence, directly sway and control public policy. Frequently and more accurately covering poverty may draw negative attention to those in power, and urge others to help those in poverty, which would not directly benefit the United States’ upper class and corporations. So, the media instead covers more timely matters and current events, paired with pervasive problems that may have a more positive benefit for the elite. Through this misframing of reality and events, the public is led to hold misperceptions on poverty’s presence in the U.S., and therefore, public policy and action will be based off of wrong premises (Johansson 2007: 277).Just as citizens within our own country have access to foreign media, such as BBC and Al Jazeera, foreign citizens have access to ours. Acknowledging this, impression management theory and social desirability bias come into play when explaining why the media is framed the way it is. In his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, theorist Erving Goffman argued that through impression management, people deliberately and strategically portray themselves in such a manner that creates and manages other’s impressions of themselves in a desirable way (Johansson 2007: 276). An individual will act in a calculated manner, displaying himself in such a way with the purpose of exuding an impression that he aims to obtain (Goffman1959: 6).
Advertisement
Though it may seem that Goffman’s theory strictly applies to communication and interaction between individuals, it has immediate implications for larger organizations and institutions, such as the media, as well (Johansson 2007: 278). As a country viewed as a global superpower, the United States media has the power to act in a calculated manner with the purpose of exuding an impression of economic success to not only its own citizens, but also to others worldwide. Knowing that other key players in the world’s political and economic climate have access to U.S. media, the media is able to solidify the United State’s desirable position and perception of economic power through the use of media framing and impression management. Media consumers across the globe are frequently unsuspicious, and blindly accept the realities portrayed through impression management. This gives the media the opportunity to easily reaffirm their global status, and allows them to gain much by controlling it (Goffman 1959: 8). Though the problems of poverty are far reaching within the United States, just as they are internationally, by rarely covering or depicting domestic poverty, a reality of class stability and equality within the U.S. is conveyed and widely accepted.
Following North America, whose results were skewed because all articles on domestic poverty were on North America, as opposed to the articles on international poverty that were split between regions, the region with the most coverage of poverty was Asia, particularly India. Though no one would argue that poverty is a notable problem in this region, poverty is also a large problem in many other regions, particularly Africa. Interestingly, India and China, countries that both fall within the ‘Asia’ region, are labeled as rising potential superpowers in today’s global society. Just as impression management serves the purpose of framing ones self in a particular light, framing another country in a negative light has the potential to negate that country’s potential for success and power, and may be in place to attempt to undermine their threat to the United State’s current position of power. By avoiding coverage of United States economic downfalls, and more commonly addressing the downfalls of other countries, the media attempts to frame the United States as superior, falsely conveying its success and equality. This rising threat to power may explain why U.S. media most commonly addressed international poverty within the context of Asia.
Considering the implications of agenda setting theory, the under and misrepresentation of domestic poverty, paired with the overall sense of dehumanization, will lead to apathy about the issue within the United States. Consequently, inadequate and insufficient political policy geared towards addressing the problem will emerge. Comparatively however, international poverty was more frequently reported on, and the images accompanying it more commonly depicted the impoverished themselves. This difference lends itself to the more common acceptance and acknowledgement of international poverty, and therefore, an increase in foreign aid and policy.
Due to the nature of this research, time constraints did not allow for a more longitudinal method of data collection. In future research, this study could be improved by coding articles over a longer period of time, perhaps ten years as opposed to one. This would likely eliminate some misrepresentations as a result of over-reporting within certain regions due to significant current events such as historical political uprisings or natural disasters. Noting the potential for the presence of political leanings associated with the reporters of a particular news organization, coding articles from other news magazines, such as Newsweek, rather than solely Time, would help eliminate these biases.
References
Ashley, David and David Michael Ornstein. 2005. Sociological Theory: Classical Statements. United States: Pearson Education Inc.
Bullock, Heather, Karen Fraser Wyche and Wendy Williams. 2001. “Media Images of the Poor.” Journal of Social Issues 57(2): 229-246.
Bunton, Kristie. 2006. “Considerations of Class and Media: A Review Essay.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 21(4): 359-371.
Chong, Dennis and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103-126.
Clawson, Rosalee and Rakuya Trice. 2000. “Poverty as We Know It: Media Portrayals of the Poor.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 64(1): 53-64.
Cody, Sacha. 2011. “The aesthetics of the human face in advertising.” Consumers, media, advertising, theory and philosophy. Retrieved May 15, 2011 (http://sachacody.blogspot.com/2011/01/aesthetics-of-human-face-in-advertising.html)
Advertisement
Davis, Francis J. “Power of Images: Creating the Myths of Our Time.” Center for Media Literacy. Retrieved May 7, 2001. (http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/power-images-creating-myths-our-time)
Dimmick, John, Yan Chen and Zhan Li. 2009. “Competition Between the Internet and Traditional News Media: The Gratification-Opportunities Niche Dimension.” Journal of Media Economics 17(1): 19-33.
Figini, Paolo and Enrico Santarelli. 2006. “Openness, Economic Reforms, and Poverty: Globalization in Developing Countries.” The Journal of Developing Areas 39)2): 129-151.
Gilens, Martin. 1996. “Race and Poverty in America, Public Misperceptions and the American News Media.”The Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 515-541.
Glennerster, Howard. 2002. “United States Poverty Studies and Poverty Measurement: The Past Twenty-Five Years.” The Social Service Review 76(1): 83-107.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Carden City, NY: Double Day Anchor Books.
Johansson, Catrin. 2007. “Goffman’s sociology: An inspiring resource for developing public relations theory.” Public Relations Review 33: 275-280.
Kim, Sei-Hill, John P. Carvalho and Andrew G. Davis. 2010. “Talking About Poverty: News Framing of Who is Responsible for Causing and Fixing the Problem.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 87(3/4): 563-579.
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
McCombs, Maxwell and Donald Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176-187.
Mortensen, Peter. 2010. “Poliltical Attention and Public Policy: A Study of How Agenda Setting Matters.” Scandinavian Political Studies 33(4): 356-378.
“Ownership Chart: The Big Six.” Freepress. Retrieved May 15, 2011 (http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main?gclid=CNyXm6-SxagCFQUQNAodQx5Npg)
Shah, Anup. 2010. “Poverty Facts and Stats.” Global Issues: Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All. Retrieved February 28, 2011 (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats).
Appendix
Location_R Frequency Table (Table 1)
| Location_R Location Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Domestic | 21 | 26.9 | 26.9 | 26.9 |
| 1 International | 57 | 73.1 | 73.1 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Region_R Frequency Table (Table 2)
| Region_R Region Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 North America | 22 | 28.2 | 28.6 | 28.6 |
| 1 Asia | 20 | 25.6 | 26.0 | 54.5 | |
| 2 Africa | 11 | 14.1 | 14.3 | 68.8 | |
| 3 Middle East | 11 | 14.1 | 14.3 | 83.1 | |
| 4 Caribbean | 3 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 87.0 | |
| 5 South America | 2 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 89.6 | |
| 6 Europe | 8 | 10.3 | 10.4 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 77 | 98.7 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 1 | 1.3 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
ImagePresent Frequency Table (Table 3)
| ImagePresent CaptionYN_R | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Image Present | 76 | 97.4 | 98.7 | 98.7 |
| 1 No Image Present | 1 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 77 | 98.7 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 1 | 1.3 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
Setting_R Frequency Table (Table 4)
| Setting_R Setting Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Urban | 28 | 35.9 | 35.9 | 35.9 |
| 1 Rural | 20 | 25.6 | 25.6 | 61.5 | |
| 2 Wealthier Indoor | 17 | 21.8 | 21.8 | 83.3 | |
| 3 Poorer Indoor | 3 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 87.2 | |
| 4 Other | 10 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
PeopleFocus_R Frequency Table (Table 5)
| PeopleFocus_R People Focus Recoding | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Yes | 62 | 79.5 | 80.5 | 80.5 |
| 1 No | 15 | 19.2 | 19.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 77 | 98.7 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 1 | 1.3 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
Ages_R Frequency Table (Table 6)
| Ages_R Ages Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 <18 | 7 | 9.0 | 11.5 | 11.5 |
| 1 18-64 | 41 | 52.6 | 67.2 | 78.7 | |
| 2 >64 | 2 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 82.0 | |
| 3 Multiple Age Groups | 11 | 14.1 | 18.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 61 | 78.2 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 17 | 21.8 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
Races_R Frequency Table (Table 7)
| Races_R Race Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 White | 11 | 14.1 | 17.7 | 17.7 |
| 1 Black | 16 | 20.5 | 25.8 | 43.5 | |
| 2 Asian | 21 | 26.9 | 33.9 | 77.4 | |
| 3 Middle Eastern | 6 | 7.7 | 9.7 | 87.1 | |
| 4 Hispanic | 3 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 91.9 | |
| 5 Multiple Races Depicted | 5 | 6.4 | 8.1 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 62 | 79.5 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 16 | 20.5 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
Gender_ R Frequency Table (Table 8)
| Gender_R Gender Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Male | 30 | 38.5 | 46.9 | 46.9 |
| 1 Female | 12 | 15.4 | 18.8 | 65.6 | |
| 2 Both Male and Female | 19 | 24.4 | 29.7 | 95.3 | |
| 3 Undeterminable | 3 | 3.8 | 4.7 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 64 | 82.1 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 14 | 17.9 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
TypePerson_R Frequency Table (Table 9)
| TypePerson_R Type Person Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Impoverished | 36 | 46.2 | 56.3 | 56.3 |
| 1 Politician | 14 | 17.9 | 21.9 | 78.1 | |
| 2 Aid/Helper | 3 | 3.8 | 4.7 | 82.8 | |
| 3 Other | 11 | 14.1 | 17.2 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 64 | 82.1 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 14 | 17.9 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
CaptionYN_R Frequency Table (Table 10)
| CaptionYN_R CaptionYN Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Yes | 65 | 83.3 | 85.5 | 85.5 |
| 1 No | 11 | 14.1 | 14.5 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 76 | 97.4 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 2 | 2.6 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
SpinCaption_R Frequency Table (Table 11)
| SpinCaption_R Spin Caption Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Positive Spin | 6 | 7.7 | 9.1 | 9.1 |
| 1 Negative Spin | 11 | 14.1 | 16.7 | 25.8 | |
| 2 No Spin, Neutral | 49 | 62.8 | 74.2 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 66 | 84.6 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 12 | 15.4 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
MainFocusPoverty_R Frequency Table (Table 12)
| MainFocusPoverty_R Main Focus Poverty Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Yes | 10 | 12.8 | 12.8 | 12.8 |
| 1 No | 68 | 87.2 | 87.2 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
CauseListed_R Frequency Table (Table 13)
| CauseListed_R Cause Listed Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Yes | 24 | 30.8 | 31.6 | 31.6 |
| 1 No | 52 | 66.7 | 68.4 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 76 | 97.4 | 100.0 | ||
| Missing | System | 2 | 2.6 | ||
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | |||
SolutionGiven_R Frequency Table (Table 14)
| SolutionGiven_R Solution Given Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Yes | 21 | 26.9 | 26.9 | 26.9 |
| 1 No | 57 | 73.1 | 73.1 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
EconGovt_R Frequency Table (Table 15)
| EconGovt_R EconGovt Recoded | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | 0 Yes | 12 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 15.4 |
| 1 No | 66 | 84.6 | 84.6 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 78 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Crosstab between EconGovt_R and Location _R (Table 16)
| EconGovt_R EconGovt Recoded * Location_R Location Recoded Crosstabulation | |||||
| Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | ||||
| EconGovt_R EconGovt Recoded | 0 Yes | Count | 8 | 4 | 12 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 38.1% | 7.0% | 15.4% | ||
| 1 No | Count | 13 | 53 | 66 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 61.9% | 93.0% | 84.6% | ||
| Total | Count | 21 | 57 | 78 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
EconGovt_R and Location _R Chi Square Test (Table 17)
| Chi-Square Tests | |||||
| Value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) | Exact Sig. (2-sided) | Exact Sig. (1-sided) | |
| Pearson Chi-Square | 11.386a | 1 | .001 | ||
| Continuity Correctionb | 9.124 | 1 | .003 | ||
| Likelihood Ratio | 10.098 | 1 | .001 | ||
| Fisher's Exact Test | .002 | .002 | |||
| Linear-by-Linear Association | 11.240 | 1 | .001 | ||
| N of Valid Cases | 78 | ||||
| a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.23. | |||||
| b. Computed only for a 2x2 table | |||||
Crosstab between PeopleFocus_R and Location_R (Table 18)
| PeopleFocus_R People Focus Recoding * Location_R Location Recoded Crosstabulation | |||||
| Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | ||||
| PeopleFocus_R People Focus Recoding | 0 Yes | Count | 13 | 49 | 62 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 65.0% | 86.0% | 80.5% | ||
| 1 No | Count | 7 | 8 | 15 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 35.0% | 14.0% | 19.5% | ||
| Total | Count | 20 | 57 | 77 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
PeopleFocus_R and Location_R Chi Square Test (Table 19)
| Chi-Square Tests | |||||
| Value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) | Exact Sig. (2-sided) | Exact Sig. (1-sided) | |
| Pearson Chi-Square | 4.149a | 1 | .042 | ||
| Continuity Correctionb | 2.920 | 1 | .088 | ||
| Likelihood Ratio | 3.804 | 1 | .051 | ||
| Fisher's Exact Test | .054 | .048 | |||
| Linear-by-Linear Association | 4.095 | 1 | .043 | ||
| N of Valid Cases | 77 | ||||
| a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.90. | |||||
| b. Computed only for a 2x2 table | |||||
Crosstab between Setting_R and Location_R (Table 20)
| Setting_R Setting Recoded * Location_R Location Recoded Crosstabulation | |||||
| Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | ||||
| Setting_R Setting Recoded | 0 Urban | Count | 6 | 22 | 28 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 28.6% | 38.6% | 35.9% | ||
| 1 Rural | Count | 1 | 19 | 20 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 4.8% | 33.3% | 25.6% | ||
| 2 Wealthier Indoor | Count | 6 | 11 | 17 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 28.6% | 19.3% | 21.8% | ||
| 3 Poorer Indoor | Count | 0 | 3 | 3 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 5.3% | 3.8% | ||
| 4 Other | Count | 8 | 2 | 10 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 38.1% | 3.5% | 12.8% | ||
| Total | Count | 21 | 57 | 78 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Setting_R and Location_R Chi Square Test (Table 21)
| Chi-Square Tests | |||
| Value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) | |
| Pearson Chi-Square | 21.345a | 4 | .000 |
| Likelihood Ratio | 21.749 | 4 | .000 |
| Linear-by-Linear Association | 10.766 | 1 | .001 |
| N of Valid Cases | 78 | ||
| a. 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .81. | |||
Crosstab between SolutionGiven_R and Location_R (Table 22)
| SolutionGiven_R Solution Given Recoded * Location_R Location Recoded Crosstabulation | |||||
| Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | ||||
| SolutionGiven_R Solution Given Recoded | 0 Yes | Count | 6 | 15 | 21 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 28.6% | 26.3% | 26.9% | ||
| 1 No | Count | 15 | 42 | 57 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 71.4% | 73.7% | 73.1% | ||
| Total | Count | 21 | 57 | 78 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Crosstab Between TypePerson_R and Location_R (Table 23)
| TypePerson_R Type Person Recoded * Location_R Location Recoded Crosstabulation | |||||
| Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | ||||
| TypePerson_R Type Person Recoded | 0 Impoverished | Count | 4 | 32 | 36 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 28.6% | 64.0% | 56.3% | ||
| 1 Politician | Count | 4 | 10 | 14 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 28.6% | 20.0% | 21.9% | ||
| 2 Aid/Helper | Count | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 7.1% | 4.0% | 4.7% | ||
| 3 Other | Count | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 35.7% | 12.0% | 17.2% | ||
| Total | Count | 14 | 50 | 64 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
TypePerson_R and Location_R Chi Square Test (Table 24)
| Chi-Square Tests | |||
| Value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) | |
| Pearson Chi-Square | 6.617a | 3 | .085 |
| Likelihood Ratio | 6.396 | 3 | .094 |
| Linear-by-Linear Association | 6.283 | 1 | .012 |
| N of Valid Cases | 64 | ||
| a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .66. | |||
Crosstab between Class_R and Location_R (Table 25)
| Class_R Class Recoded * Location_R Location Recoded Crosstabulation | |||||
| Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | ||||
| Class_R Class Recoded | 0 Lower Class | Count | 3 | 30 | 33 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 23.1% | 60.0% | 52.4% | ||
| 1 Upper Class | Count | 7 | 14 | 21 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 53.8% | 28.0% | 33.3% | ||
| 2 Undeterminable | Count | 3 | 6 | 9 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 23.1% | 12.0% | 14.3% | ||
| Total | Count | 13 | 50 | 63 | |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||
Class_R and Location_R Chi Square Test (Table 26)
| Chi-Square Tests | |||
| Value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) | |
| Pearson Chi-Square | 5.639a | 2 | .060 |
| Likelihood Ratio | 5.847 | 2 | .054 |
| Linear-by-Linear Association | 4.486 | 1 | .034 |
| N of Valid Cases | 63 | ||
| a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.86. | |||
Race_R, Location_R and TypePerson_R Layered Crosstab (Table 27)
| Race_R Race Recoded * Location_R Location Recoded * TypePerson_R Type Person Recoded Crosstabulation | ||||||
| TypePerson_R Type Person Recoded | Location_R Location Recoded | Total | ||||
| 0 Domestic | 1 International | |||||
| 0 Impoverished | Race_R Race Recoded | 1 Black | Count | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 75.0% | 28.6% | 34.4% | |||
| 2 Asian | Count | 0 | 18 | 18 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 64.3% | 56.3% | |||
| 4 Hispanic | Count | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 3.6% | 3.1% | |||
| 5 Multiple Races Represented | Count | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 25.0% | 3.6% | 6.3% | |||
| Total | Count | 4 | 28 | 32 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | |||
| 1 Politician | Race_R Race Recoded | 0 White | Count | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 75.0% | 30.0% | 42.9% | |||
| 1 Black | Count | 1 | 4 | 5 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 25.0% | 40.0% | 35.7% | |||
| 4 Hispanic | Count | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 20.0% | 14.3% | |||
| 5 Multiple Races Represented | Count | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 10.0% | 7.1% | |||
| Total | Count | 4 | 10 | 14 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | |||
| 2 Aid/Helper | Race_R Race Recoded | 0 White | Count | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 50.0% | 66.7% | |||
| 2 Asian | Count | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 50.0% | 33.3% | |||
| Total | Count | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | |||
| 3 Other | Race_R Race Recoded | 0 White | Count | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 20.0% | 50.0% | 33.3% | |||
| 2 Asian | Count | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | .0% | 50.0% | 22.2% | |||
| 5 Multiple Races Represented | Count | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 40.0% | .0% | 22.2% | |||
| 6 Other | Count | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 40.0% | .0% | 22.2% | |||
| Total | Count | 5 | 4 | 9 | ||
| % within Location_R Location Recoded | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | |||