mass incarceration: the new poverty policy? · expansion of the prison system in history. more...
TRANSCRIPT
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
Economics of Poverty Professor Henry Coleman Fall 2014
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
1
Poverty has manifested itself in various ways in current American society. The results of poverty
are so interconnected that it is hard to decipher which are the causes and which are the effects of the
condition. One phenomenon that has increasingly gained more attention is “mass incarceration”. The
provocative term alone begs to be further dissected. While many may assume a connection between
poverty and incarceration, causation or correlation is often not taken for granted. However, there is
indication that it should be considered related.
Over the past decade increasing research has been focused on mass incarceration and understanding its
roots as well as it effects. While there are some discrepancies a vast amount of the studies point to
specific intended changes by our government that created it. Also, the effects of mass incarceration are
beginning to present themselves in our society. Understandably there is a lag between the start of this
system and its visible effects. However, one effect that is present is the increase or deepening of poverty
for our lowest economic bracket in this country.
Definition and History of Mass Incarceration
In 2001, David Garland coined the ideology of mass incarceration. Referring to the high rate of
incarceration in the United States, he characterized it in two ways: “it implies a rate of imprisonment
that is markedly above the historical and comparative norm for societies of its type and the
demographic concentration of imprisonment which leads to the ‘systematic imprisonment of whole
groups of the population’” (Western, 2007). It is undisputable that over the past 30 years there has
been a dramatic increase in the imprisonment of the American population, which is the greatest
expansion of the prison system in history. More specifically, “between 1975 and 2005 the incarceration
rate has increased by 342%” (Hannon R. D., 2013). Once on par with similar western civilizations with
about 100 per 100,000 individuals being incarcerated in the 1970s, the United States currently
incarcerates 491 per 100,000 individuals; which leads to them having the highest prison rates in the
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
2
world. The US has roughly 5% of the world’s population but houses 25% of the world’s inmates (Loury,
2010).
Development of Mass Incarceration
Mass Incarceration is believed to have originated from “conscious political decisions about correctional
policy”. The growth of imprisonment has mainly been linked back to these three causes: change in laws,
sentencing procedures and the administration of probation and parole. (Hannon R. H., 2010) One
particular influence on mass incarceration was the War on Drugs, which Michelle Alexander details in
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2012). The war on Drugs was
increasingly successful (if success is determined by increase arrests and prison sentences)due to an
enormous amount of discretion given to the police in terms of whom to stop, search, arrest and charge.
(Alexander, 2012) “Few legal rules meaningfully constrain the police in the drug war, and enormous
financial incentives have been granted to law enforcement.” (Alexander, 2012)
Change in sentencing may have had the greatest effect on mass incarceration. The four major ways
sentencing policies have changed are: truth sentencing, determinate sentencing, mandatory minimums
and “three strikes you’re out”. Determinate sentencing was introduced sometime between 1978-1984.
The punishment for a convict is set in court by a judge within a narrow range defined by a formula. Each
convict is assigned a number of points which is then converted into a prison sentence. This is in
opposition to the sanctioning known as “indeterminate sentencing” which was in place from the 1920s
to the late 1970s. With indeterminate sentencing the court condemned an individual to a custodial
sentence that was broad. For example, a person would be sentenced to two to ten years or commonly
heard “fifteen to life”. Actual sentencing was determined by the parole board which considered things
like the individual’s behavior in jail and their progress towards rehabilitation. The new system of
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
3
determinate sentencing drastically reduced the ability of the judge and correctional facility to use their
discretion for individual cases. (Wacquant, 2009)
Another change in sentencing was “truth in sentencing” which was incorporated after 1984. This change
required convicts to serve a minimum portion of a sentence before that individual is eligible for parole.
This greatly effected the policy of reducing time for “good behavior” and also got rid of parole for
violent offenders in some states. Mandatory Minimums set up required sanctions for drug crimes that
could not be reduced. This policy was instituted in 1986 and drastically increased sentences both
pronounced and served. Finally the “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing stated that when a convict
committed three serious or specific felonies they were sentenced to life in prison. These laws were
adopted throughout the 1990s by certain states. In conjunction these policy changes had a huge effect
on the prison population. This meant that for the same crime post the 1980s individuals would end up
facing way harsher penalties which usually resulted in longer stays in the correctional system.
In addition to sentencing changes, laws were changing that seemed to increasingly target specific
populations. Through selecting specific geographic zones, ethnic and social classes could be targeted.
This was made easy due to increasing degrees of housing segregation along both racial and income lines.
These laws were buttressed by new law-enforcement tactics that were “designed for and deployed
specifically in declining lower-class districts.” (Wacquant, 2009) Some of these new law-enforcement
tactics included order-maintenance policing, anti-gang loitering ordinances, intensive police sweeps
through public housing or public schools, and youth curfews. (Wacquant, 2009) All of these tactics have
a lasting effect on these targeted areas as it took away liberties from residents. Now by simply living in a
low income area one was more likely to interact with the justice system. Alexander discussed the brash
realities of many being rounded up in a police sweep and despite having no connection to the illegal
activities falling victim to these new policies and tactics:
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
4
“The real point here, however, is not that innocent people are locked up… thousands of people are swept into the criminal justice system every year …without much regard for their guilt or innocence… And once swept inside the system, people are often denied attorneys or meaningful representation and pressured into plea bargains by the threat of unbelievably harsh sentences… This is the way the roundup works, and it works this way in virtually every major city in the United States” (Alexander, 89)
Not only is an individual in an impoverished area more likely to be punished for committing a crime,
their crimes have increasingly stringent punishments compared to before the Civil Rights era. Therefore
the effects of mass incarceration can easily change the trajectory for any and all individuals living in
these targeted areas. And as a result of these same individuals typically not having the same ability as
more affluent members of society to advocate for themselves, and their neighborhoods, this attack goes
largely unnoticed and objected by the political giants.
Profile of the Prison Population
While the numbers related to mass incarceration are jarring, the demographics of the prison population
are even more shocking. A magnitude of research has been done to determine the beneficiaries of this
system. While mass incarceration does seem to be an important problem, the idea that it is equally
affecting the population is soothing. Criminal justice is seen as a great equalizer. The idea that the
criminal justice system is unbiased as persisted through our history, as the very foundation [blind]
justice is founded upon. However, there has been evidence of grave racial and class disparities in
incarceration. (Pettit, 2010) Studies have shown the segment of the American population being
overwhelmingly affected by mass incarceration is our most economically vulnerable segment.
In Loïc Wacquant’s book, Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity(2009), he
has detailed the United State’s treatment of its impoverished citizens. In Chapter 3, “The Criminalization
of Poverty in the Post Civil Rights Era”, Waquant describes in detail the repeal of the welfare state and
increase in the penal strength. In his surveying of the prison population he highlighted provocative
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
5
trends amongst the inmates. Prior to being incarcerated two thirds of prisoners lived in a household
with under $1,000 income per month, and 45% of that number were from homes with under $600 per
month. (Wacquant, 2009) These individuals represented a group that was at less than half of the official
poverty line for a family of three that year; however, many of the prisoners said that they had received
wages that year. (Wacquant, 2009) Therefore, these prisoners would be defined as the “working poor”.
As a result of being apart of the working class, these men are not eligible for government aid, however,
due to having poverty level jobs they do not receive medical insurance or social coverage. Therefore,
these people fall into the gap of social protections. This leads to an extended amount of time in the
illegal economy. Prisoners from single parent households comprised 60% of the population and 14% of
prisoners grew up in orphanages or group homes. Almost half of the inmates grew up in homes
receiving public assistance and over a quarter of them grew up in public housing. These numbers show
that a majority of incarcerated individuals are from the neediest population.
While it seems apparent that economically vulnerable populations seem to be highly represented in the
current prison system the most targeted population seems to be young black males. The 2014 Bureau of
Justice Statistics report stated that 3% of US black male residents, of all ages, were imprisoned on
December 31st, 2013 while only .5% of their white counterparts were (Carson, 2013). Blacks are
disproportionately represented in the prison population. By the beginning of 2014 37% of the
imprisoned male population was Black, 32% were white, 22% were Hispanic. Amongst the female prison
population 49% were white, 22% black and 17% were Hispanic. What is most striking about the present
prison population is the education level of prisoners. This is a clear representation of class inequalities.
Over the past 30 years a great deal of the growth in incarceration rates have been concentrated
amongst young men with very low levels of education. (Pettit, 2010) An overwhelming majority of
prisoners have no high school diploma, about 70% regardless of race, which shows class inequity
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
6
throughout the prisons boom. However, this most affected African Americans. By 2008 37% of African
American male high school dropouts were imprisoned compared to only 10% in 1980. This is especially
concerning when placed against the backdrop of a general incarceration rate of .76% in 2008. While
mass incarceration has been exponentially growing in the United States the legitimate labor market
opportunities for lower educated men have deteriorated (Pettit, 2010). This has created an interesting
relationship between the labor market and the prison system.
Trends in Mass Incarceration
Throughout the 30-year span of mass incarcerations upsurge there have been several trends that seem
to reoccur. One major trend that has a lasting effect on low-income communities is the development of
a new class or group of people. “We have seen that the steep racial and class disparities in incarceration
have produced a generation of social outliers whose collective experience is wholly different from the
rest of American society.” (Pettit, 2010) There is a whole subculture of individuals who now have to
interact with the corrections department in one way or another.
Earlier in the paper it was established that mass incarceration targets whole populations of individuals.
One trend is the increase of crimes in the targeted neighborhood. This may seem counter intuitive, as
one would suspect that the removal of criminals, especially a mass exodus of them, should result in
lower crime rates. However, DeFina and Hannon argue that “incarcerating vast numbers of people from
a restricted number of communities can create adverse social dynamics within the affected
neighborhoods that can actually foster more crime.” (Hannon R. D., 2013) This conclusion is drawn as a
result that incarceration has on individuals, of a community. This is caused by more than ex-convicts
are likely to commit more crimes, for numerous reasons, including increased skill from being
incarcerated with better criminals. Communities that have been hit hardest by the dramatic increase
of incarceration have a great deal of negative side effects. As noted in the DeFina and Hannon paper
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
7
mass incarceration damages social networks. Through the incarceration process inmates increasingly
loose closeness with family members and friends from the community. Upon returning to the
community there is a lack of support and therefore a harder assimilation process for them. Mass
incarceration is also said to distort social norms and destroy citizenship. While these two claims are
harder to prove the idea behind them is commonsensical. As a result of this phenomenon hitting
specified geographies it creates alternate realities. In this reality, incarceration is a common aspect of
their life. Compared to the average American who may be unfamiliar with this institution as they have
been shielded from its reach due to socioeconomic standing. However, members of targeted
communities become disillusioned with the criminal justice system all together. Their familiarity with
the unfair aspects of this system results in a lack of trust. Therefore, more individuals are likely to
choose to live outside the established norms as they feel ostracized from society. Finally, there is also a
lack of role models for the younger generation—reinforcing the likelihood for others to follow in the
same path.
Mass incarceration has also been studied to have effects on family formation in the affected
communities. This is chiefly caused by the stigma associated with being an ex-convict; which lowers the
marriage rates amongst that population. The strain that incarceration places upon families is also
credited to the increase in single parent households. The increase of single, predominately female,
headed households has implications on our poverty rate as a nation. Also, the effects on a child of an
incarcerated parent has been extensively researched and proven to likely experience diminished well
being (Muller, 2013). As a result of a higher likely hood to poor school performance and aggressive
behaviors it seems as if they are likely to also end up being incarcerated.
Finally, the trend that is likely to assist in keeping this system in place is the general ignorance of the
masses. Our institutionalized population is still a mystery for all intents and purposes. There isn’t much
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
8
information regarding this group of individuals because institutionalized populations are often
overlooked by many statistics. The national data systems we use are focused on normative domestic
and economic life that systematically does not include inmates. (Pettit, 2010)
These trends are summed up best by Bruce Western and Becky Pettit in their article “Incarceration &
social inequality” (2010):
“The inequalities produced by contemporary patterns of incarceration have
three characteristics: the inequalities associated with incarceration are
invisible to our usual accounting of the economic well-being of the population;
the inequality is cumulative, deepening the disadvantage of the most marginal
men in society; and finally, the inequality is intergenerational, transmitting the
penalties of a prison record from one generation to the next.” (page 8)
Therefore, we now have a self-serving system that is economically depriving the most vulnerable
populations of our society. However, many would argue that the previous statement is just a belief.
There are defenders of mass incarceration who critique the correlations between Mass Incarceration
and Poverty.
Mass Incarceration and Poverty: Correlation or Causality
While the relationship between Mass Incarceration and poverty is complex, there is causality in this
relationship. One way to notice causality is through analysis of America’s dedication to various programs
aimed at the poor. Wacquant describes America’s transition from a (semi-) welfare state to a police and
penal state. Wacquant believes that this change in state is aimed the criminalization of the marginal
population. The United States started rolling back its “social safety net” around the 1970s. This was in
response to the progressive movements of the 1960s. The repealing of various programs that assisted
those in need continued finally the welfare program was dismantled in 1996 by the Clinton
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
9
administration in favor of “workfare”. This program was aimed at enforcing work ethic for the bottom
of the employment ladder. (Wacquant, 2009)
The attack on social welfare was attempted most frequently through the attack on federal aid. Every
administration since Jimmy Carter has campaigned on reducing the aid and expenses from the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This is extremely interesting since the budget for this
program never even reached 1% of the federal budget. (Wacquant, 2009) Nevertheless, this program
was hacked away at every chance.
There are three major techniques that are used to reduce a program and its expenses. The first is
decreasing the “real terms” value of the packages offered. With inflation rising throughout the decade
the actual value of the dollar amounts allocated were dwindling. For example, in 1970 84% of the
minimal needs officially entitling an individual to public assistance were covered by the AFDC package
compared to 68% coverage by 1996. Individual states had various implementations of this: Texas went
from 75% coverage to 25%. (Wacquant, 2009) However, overall, the aid was covering less of the needs
of the individuals who needed it. Another way of diminishing the aid given is through administrative
obstacles. Aiming to reduce the abuse of the system by people referred to at “welfare cheats” the public
aid offices have multiplied forms that are needed and increased the documents needed to qualify. Over
a 12-year period the number of administrative denials, on procedural grounds, increased by 1 million
with two-thirds of them being families that should have qualified or met criteria. Finally, the third
technique used is eliminating programming all together. Some proponents of this believe that the
recipients need to be made less comfortable in order to become productive citizens.
Besides repealing programming that aided the poor the US government played an interesting role in the
employment market. Despite the official unemployment rate in the United States being lower than
countries of continental Europe, poverty is more widespread, persistent and severe. (Wacquant, 2009)
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
10
One cause of this could be the minimum wage in the United States. In 1995, an individual working at
minimum wage, year round, would make $700 a month which would put them 20% below the poverty
line for a household of three. (Wacquant, 2009) Public assistance was calculated to be even lower than
that amount, as not to disincentive working. In addition to issues with minimum wage, the working class
had a slew of other attacks on their job security. Some of the changes that have affected working class
jobs over the last quarter century include: “ degradation of employment conditions, shortening of job
tenures, drop in real wages, shrinking of collective protections and an increase in precarious wage
work.” (Wacquant, 2009) All of these changes have led to instability within the working class. Currently,
about one-third of Americans are considered non-standard wage earners, working jobs at temporary
employees and therefore not gaining the full benefits for their positions. As a result of this the threat of
layoffs, rather than increased benefits, have been used to motivate the workforce of American
corporations.
In response to all of these tactics, the workforce has become extremely casual which has had the most
effect on women, youngest and oldest workers and finally unskilled Blacks and Latinos living in the inner
city. (Wacquant, 2009) This has caused a major cut in incomes and decline in living standards for the
third mentioned group. Despite the United States having a lower unemployment than most of its
counterparts, the US Labor Department uses one of the most restrictive definitions of unemployment.
Their definition of employed is any job seeker that worked a single hour or more during the previous
month; and not including “discouraged” individuals in their count of the unemployed.
Mass layoffs became a major aspect in the 1980s and 1990s of short-term financial management. As a
result of this, in order to get the United States back to prosperity the workforce was built on degraded
standards of employment. This meant due to an unstable job market workers were willing to give up
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
11
standards that were previously held including higher pay and positions that they were qualified for,
vacation and standard working hours. (Wacquant, 2009)
As a result of decreasing and the elimination of programs for the poor, the institutionalized job
insecurity and decreased public supports there was an increase of dispossessed families. In response to
this increase all levels of government, federal, state and municipal, increased their penal functions.
(Wacquant, 2009) Wacquant stated “Between the penal system and the social supports there was a
causal chain and functional interlock: economic deregulation required and begat social welfare
retrenchment, and the gradual makeover of welfare into workfare, in turn, called for and fed the
expansion of the penal apparatus”. (Wacquant, 2009) In order for these two systems to work together
he described two main models. The first model required the reorganizing of social services to be an
instrument of surveillance and control for categories not submissive to the new economic and moral
order. (Wacquant, 2009) This looked like the reforms that took place between 1988 and 1995 that many
states adopted. In order to access public aid, under the Family Support Act, individuals were made to
uphold certain behavioral norms in addition to burdensome obligations. One major requirement of this
process was that the recipient of the aid must accept any job offered to her despite pay or working
conditions. (Wacquant, 2009) The second model requires massive and systematic recourse to
incarceration. One example of this model is the “War on Drugs” which is a policy that disproportionally
targets lower class disposed neighborhoods of the urban core. (Wacquant, 2009) This hyper
incarceration has led to a great expansion of jails and prisons constructed and/or managed by private
operators. States turn to these private operators to attempt to get the most “bang for their buck” due
to constricted fiscal budgets. The investments made in these prisons are underwritten by the
reassurance of client, or prisoners.
Implications of Mass Incarceration
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
12
Earlier in this paper the policy and law changes that impacted incarceration were discussed. Some of the
changes that impacted mass incarceration included sentencing changes change in police tactics and laws
that eroded personal freedoms. There have also been impacts on the communities hit hardest by mass
incarceration including family and social constructs that are now in disrepair. However, one of the
major results of mass incarceration that affects the economic viability of communities is the lack of
employable individuals once they return to the community.
Individuals that return to their communities after being imprisoned face diminished economic
opportunities. Serving time in prisons has been found to reduce with a 40% reduction in earnings, which
includes reduced job tenure, reduced hourly wages and higher unemployment. Therefore, when these
individuals return home, they find themselves even deeper in poverty. Despite likely being unskilled
prior to heading to prisons, their chances of receiving call back with a criminal record is reduced by 50%
when they are released. (Loury, 2010) Since many of the prisoners reported being breadwinners, or
primary source of income for their families prior to being imprisoned with their return to face their new
economic realities—entire families are being driven deeper into poverty.
Policy Available to Correct Mass Imprisonment
Bail and Sentencing Reform
One major subject that has been getting a lot of attention is Bail Reform. Many believe that this is a way
to lower the amount of time spent in prison for many low-income individuals. Currently in New Jersey
there is a big push for bail reform. Under the existing system a monetary bail amount is assigned based
on a pre-determined statewide bail schedules. Individuals unable to meet the bail requirements, low-
income individuals more likely to fall into this category, have to remain incarcerated, which is a
detriment to their family, but also at the cost of the state. Reforming this policy could have a major
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
13
effect, especially on low income families—giving defendants opportunities to economically provide for
their family while awaiting a trial.
Another policy that can assist with lowering the effects that mass incarceration has on the low-income
population is sentencing Reform. The changing in sentencing over the years have caused instantaneous
jumps in the prison population and reduced the discretion of those in the criminal justice profession.
Education Reform
Many advocates discuss the numbers surrounding the influence of early education on crime rates. The
idea here would be to change policy to support children earlier in life. There have been some changes
regarding this including Universal Pre-Kindergarten. Some studies have shown that as a result of better
early intervention education, prison rates for the selected group decrease significantly.
Economic Reform
By creating a living wage, minimum wage that would keep a family above poverty level would be a
major change for low-income families. One concept discussed in this paper was low-income families that
were unable to rise above the poverty line even with a full time minimum wage job. In conjunction with
unskilled males increasingly finding themselves in the illegal market due to a lack of jobs they are
qualified for, there seems to be a skills mismatch. Through the provision of a livable minimum wage and
training programs that close the gap between available jobs and unemployed individuals there would be
a noticeable effect on the incarceration rate.
Policy Suggestions
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
14
While there are many things that impact the incarceration rate I believe there are a combination of ways
to approach this problem. A short-term policy reform that would have an instant effect on incarceration
rates would be bail and sentencing reform. This would have the reverse effect that the implementation
of these laws had in the early 2000s. A long-term policy that I would suggest is increase investment in
human capital. Through the creation of training programs that can be funded through reallocated funds
from correctional budgets, these programs would provide support for low income individuals, and lower
their chances of being incarcerated.
Conclusion
The system of mass incarceration is extremely complex both in what sustains it as well as its effects.
However, it can be agreed that all of the results of mass incarceration are not positive. It is also
questionable that the benefits of mass incarceration outweigh its costs. Related to how we deal with
the impoverished, there seems to be a connection between the dismantling of social welfare and its
replacement being the penal system. While this practice may not seem alarming, the current system is
creating a new experience for an emerging class of individuals. With the general public mostly unaware
of this reality, there is increasing signs of dissent from popular society by this group. Another issue not
mentioned in the paper is the direction of the corrections system. Moving from rehabilitative to strictly
punitive leads to a widening gap between former convicts and the general society. All of these aspects
lead to instability in our nation. Therefore, it is imperative that we adjust the system through policy
supports that bridge gaps between education level, economic level and racial divides. Through these
adjustments, we can build a stronger nation more reflective of our communicated values.
Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith
Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?
15
Works Cited Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindess. New York: The
New Press.
Carson, E. A. (2013). Prisoners in 2013. Department of Justice.
Hannon, R. D. (2013, May 27). The Impact of Mass Incarceration on Poverty. Crime & Delinquency, p. 569
.
Hannon, R. H. (2010). The Impact of Adult Incarceration on Child Poverty: A County-Level Analysis, 1995
- 2007 . The Prison Journal, 377.
Law, S. U.-S. (n.d.). Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) Understanding How LFOs Work . Seattle: Seattle
University .
Loury, B. W. (2010, Summer). The Challenge of Mass Incarceration in America. Daedalus, pp. 5-7, 146-
147.
Mathur, V. (2014, September 10). Nexus of Inefficency in Criminal Justice System, Public Policy and
Poverty. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from Standard Examiner: http://www.standard.net/Guest-
Commentary/2014/09/10/Nexus-of-inefficiency-in-criminal-justice-system-public-policy-and-
poverty.html
Muller, B. W. (2013). Mass Incarceration, Macrosociology, and the Poor. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Polical and Social Science.
O'Loughlin, M. (2013, August 15). Americamagazine.org/issue/punisment-and-poverty. Retrieved
October 24, 2014, from AmericaMagazine.org: http://americamagazine.org/issue/punishment-
and-poverty
Pettit, B. W. (2010, Summer 8-19 ). Incarceration & Social inequality. Daedaulus .
Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham and
London: Duke University Press.
Western, B. (2007). Mas Imprisonment and Economic Inequality. Social Research, 509-532.
Wilderman, C. (2013). Parental Incarceration, Child HOmelessness, and the Invisible Concequences of
Mass Imprisionment. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.