And Justice for All: Families & the Criminal Justice System

Background & Significance

Over the last three decades in the U.S. the number of people coming into contact with the criminal justice system has increased at an alarming rate. About 1.6 million people are currently in prison; 4 million are on probation and nearly 65 million have a criminal record. (Glaze & Herberman, 2013). An additional 735, 601 offenders are confined to local jails (Minton, 2012). Substantial portions of the nation’s prisoners are parents—52 percent of state inmates and 63 percent of federal inmates. The Bureau of Justice estimates for 2007 indicate that the nation’s prisoners report having an estimated 1,706,600 minor children, accounting for 2.3 percent of the U.S. population under age 18 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). This figure likely underestimates the number of children with a parent in prison, as many states do not systematically collect information regarding the offenders’ family situation.

These numbers tell an important story about mass imprisonment, social inequality, and exclusionary practices that impact a significant number of offenders and their families, most of whom are at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum (Western & Petit, 2010a). Mass imprisonment refers to a rate of imprisonment that is markedly above the historical and comparative norm for a particular society. For example, in the last 30 years, the increased number of people in prisons and jails across the country has far outpaced population growth (King, Mauer, & Young, 2005). Mass imprisonment equates with the expansion of the prison apparatus such that incarceration ceases to be applied to individual offenders. Rather imprisonment is systematically applied to more categories of crimes affecting whole groups of the population (Garland, 2001; Simon, 2011). Indeed, it is relatively undisputed that mass imprisonment disproportionately has impacted racial and ethnic minorities (Clear, 2008; NAACP, 2011). More than 60 percent of people in prison are racial and ethnic minorities (The Sentencing Project, n.d.), with Blacks, on average about 8 times more likely to be in state or federal prison than Whites (Pettit & Western, 2004). Similarly, life-table estimates of the risk of parental imprisonment for Black and White children show pronounced race and class inequality with 1 in 4 Black children born in 1990 having a father in prison compared to less than 4 percent of White children (Wildeman, 2009). Although crime rates may explain some disparity in imprisonment rates, “a significant residual suggests that blacks are punitively policed, prosecuted, and sentenced” with strong evidence for differential treatment in various jurisdictions (Pettit & Western, 2004, p. 153). Mass imprisonment, then, is believed to correspond and contribute to deepening socioeconomic racial and ethnic disparities between African American and Whites, and more recently Hispanics, who have been the fastest growing group being imprisoned in the past decade (Lopez & Light, 2009).

Additionally, the incarcerated tend to come from intense histories of cumulative disadvantage characterized by multiple risks such as family histories of victimization, mental health difficulties, substance misuse and addiction, and intergenerational criminality (see Arditti, 2012, for a review). Incarceration tends to intensify any preexisting disadvantage for offenders upon reentry, and for their families and children throughout confinement (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest, 2003; Swisher & Waller, 2008; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). Incarceration also is increasingly becoming a normative part of the life course for young disadvantaged men who are less than college educated—particularly in conjunction with declining wages and economic opportunities (Pettit & Western, 2004).

Penal involvement tends to “crystallize” social inequality, as prisoners are often the least advantaged members of society and drawn from the “bottom rung” of society (Western & Pettit, 2010a). Imprisoned, they are invisible and not counted in poverty or unemployment indicators. After prison, offenders are subject to “invisible punishments,” which are policies and practices that legally exclude ex-offenders from employment, civic participation, and important benefits and resources after they serve their time (Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002). Examples of invisible punishments include ex-offenders ineligibility to receive federally funded health, educational, and welfare benefits as well as their ineligibility to vote. These punishments, which extend beyond prison walls, systematically perpetuate social inequality by not only disenfranchising the ex-offender, but also potentially excluding those parents and families most in need. Children who begin life on the bottom rungs are more likely to stay in poverty throughout adulthood (Ratcliffe & McKernan, 2010; Western & Pettit, 2010b).

While imprisonment might have a purpose as a public safety mechanism to protect society from harmful and dangerous individuals, that purpose has been superseded by criminalization of broad segments of society comprised of racial and ethnic minorities, drug offenders, and the poor. The inequality created by incarceration can be viewed as invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational (Western & Pettit, 2010a). It is invisible because it is concentrated and segregative, thus remaining hidden from mainstream society. It is cumulative, in that it reduces earnings and employment prospects among ex-offenders whose employment and wage rates are already low (Pager & Western, 2009; Western & Pettit, 2005; 2012a). Imprisonment also catalyzes a series of adversities, or “collateral costs” (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999) among the families of offenders such as unemployment, loss of income, homelessness and the need for public assistance (Arditti et al., 2003; Johnson, 2009; Sugie, 2012; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). Finally, the inequality created by mass imprisonment is intergenerational, in that it is a highly stigmatized and stressful experience that negatively impacts children of offenders throughout their lives (Arditti, 2012; Foster & Hagan, 2013; Murray & Farrington, 2005; 2008; Murray, Janson, &Farrington, 2007) and more broadly the youth in communities with high incarceration rates, by perpetuating educational and social exclusion (Hagan & Foster, 2012a & b).

Given its role in intensifying, confining, and perpetuating social inequality, imprisonment is a social justice issue because it systematically undermines or precludes fairness and equality for a significant number of individuals and their families. The goal of social justice is full and equal participation of all groups in society, the equitable dispensation of resources and opportunities, and ensuring the members of society are “physically and psychologically safe and secure” (Bell, 2010, p. 21). The inequality and disproportionality that plagues our criminal justice system (see Mauer & King, 2007 and Sentencing Project, 2008 for a full articulation of these issues) translates into systematic community differences and unequal opportunities for justice-involve families. Therefore, in this collection of articles, we utilize a social justice lens to consider not only the experience of offenders, but community responses to offender needs, as well as the experiences of families impacted by incarceration. In this manner we contextualize incarceration and focus on its “ripple effect”; articles in the collection explore how children, families, and communities are affected as well as innovative approaches to responding to crime and the needs of offenders.

Bridging the Gap: The Conference Program

As organizers of the 2013 conference, we wanted to bridge the gap between scholarly research and practice through the promotion of social justice. While there are many cultural and situational reasons for a “research-practice gap” (Small, 2005), researchers, practitioners, and activists interested in vulnerable populations do share common goals around dismantling inequitable access to systems and societal opportunity structures (Rountree & Pomeroy, 2010). Therefore, we were interested in bringing together a diverse group of presenters and panels to include those who were actively engaged in trying to bring about social justice, individuals and families who were impacted by incarceration, professionals out in the front lines working with individuals and groups involved in the criminal justice system, and researchers studying these issues. At the Groves meeting, we heard from scholars conducting both quantitative and qualitative research, community professionals, as well as from activists and former prisoners about topics such as the effects of incarceration on families, children of incarcerated parents in the social welfare system, jail diversion programs, immigration policies, coordination between different agencies in dealing with domestic violence, and prisoner reentry. What follows is a brief overview of conference highlights.

The program included various events that introduced attendees to those directly affected by incarceration:

• The conference opened with a performance by “And Still We Rise” – a collaborative theatre project dedicated to “healing, public awareness, and social change through empowering the voices of formerly incarcerated people and their loved ones.” Under the direction of Dev Luthra the participants in this project tell their own stories through a moving theatre production. The performance was followed by a talk back, which allowed the conference registrants to interact directly with the cast.
• A screening of the newly released short film “A Sentence Apart” produced by Jason Sussberg and Theo Rigby put a further human face on the lives of young people affected by the incarceration of a parent.
• A panel discussion led by Jenifer Drew, Director of the Boston University Prison Education program featured five formerly incarcerated men who discussed the challenges to integration into the community, and their resilience and successes in fighting social injustice. Conan Harris is a Street worker Manager for StreetSafe in Boston, Jose Bou is a Youth Worker with ROCA Inc., Doug Wilson is a Government Liaison with NOVATech, Inc., Miguel Torres is a Street worker with United Teen Equality Center and Richard Smith is a Founder and Speaker with Richardspeaks, Inc.
• A small group of conference participants were able to attend the Side- by-Side Community Circle in Roxbury. This is a weekly support group for individuals affected by incarceration led by Bob David.
• The conference included a visit to the Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Framingham. This is the only institution for female offenders in Massachusetts and houses women at various classification levels, including state sentenced and county offenders, and awaiting trial inmates. Lynn Bissonnette, Superintendent conducted a tour of the entire facility. Given the conference theme, we participated in this tour sensitive to the potentially exploitative nature of “prison tourism.”

Chapters in the Monograph

This monograph offers a selection of papers by conference participants focusing on incarceration in particular. The first paper describes a program aimed at diverting people with mental health issues from the criminal justice system. The next two papers deal with issues related to parental incarceration, and the last three papers focus on family members or partners of those in prison. Although these authors cover seemingly very different themes, employ different methodologies, and approach their work through different academic lenses, the common theme is that incarceration affects not just the prisoner, but the family as well.

Abbott explains how the deinstitutionalization of individuals with a mental illness has shifted treatment away from long-term psychiatric hospitals to community based mental health treatment. She points out that due to inadequate funding and other factors, the number of people who require such services outweigh their availability so that police are often the first responders to individuals in psychiatric crisis. Without appropriate training or resources, these complicated encounters frequently result in an arrest of the individual or transfer to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. She describes a program that diverts people with mental health issues away from the criminal justice service. Partnering with their local psychiatric emergency services provider; Advocates, the Framingham Police launched the first Massachusetts pre-arrest co-responder Jail Diversion Program.

Dallaire, Forestell, and Shlafer provide an overview of policies, programs and interventions regarding pregnant incarcerated women. Their point of departure is that the newborn includes the right to be cared for in a safe, supportive environment following birth. They look at the national guidelines for pregnant incarcerated women and the typical level of care provided to these women while in custody. The goals of correctional facilities, those of the pregnant incarcerated women, and of the developing fetus or newborn are different; Dallaire et al. provide an overview of these goals and conclude with the importance of intervention. They briefly describe a number of intervention programs, including one aimed at improving birth outcomes of children born to pregnant and incarcerated women, and a program combining a support group and doula support aimed at increasing women’s knowledge about reproductive issues, and parenting and life skills.

Christian, Martinez, and Martinez discuss agency and resilience among prisoners’ family members. Their study uses observation and interview data to investigate how the family members of incarcerated men balance competing obligations and make choices to enhance their personal sense of agency. They find that family members manage the demands of their relationships with associated resilience mechanisms, such as negotiating caretaking activities with the incarcerated family member, helping children process the incarceration, setting priorities, engaging in self care, and adopting a role as relationship manager. They argue that examining these resilience mechanisms is critical to a more comprehensive understanding of the consequences of incarceration for family members.

Kotova did a qualitative study in England on the impact of long- term imprisonment on the partners or spouses. She finds that length of time served brings about uncertainty in the relationship, and increases emotional burden. The interviews she conducted with the partners of long-term prisoners further suggest that emotional distance develops between them and their incarcerated partners. They experience stigma very intensely. She concludes that, “if we are to understand the full impact of imprisonment, we also need to understand its collateral impact.”

Marlow and her co-authors report on a qualitative study about how formerly incarcerated adults’ family members experience reintegration. They identify the practices and processes that occur within the family when an adult returns home from prison and conceptualize the impact of the family on an individual’s reintegration efforts. They report that family members often take up the role of coach, providing their loved ones with valuable life skills, critical analyses of detrimental attitudes, actions, and behaviors, and salient guidance in negotiating obstacles that might have derailed reentry and reintegration efforts. Family members also support transformation from rigid and ineffective roles within the family to ones that were sustainable and supportive of their long-term reintegration.

Stahl and her team describe the results of a study that looked at parenting of fathers who had been incarcerated. They explored the parenting and co- parenting relationships of fathers before incarceration. They describe three groups of fathers with distinct family situations and distinct parenting- and co-parenting-related challenges. They conclude that parenting and family strengthening interventions to support incarcerated and reentering fathers and their families might benefit from tailoring their efforts to more closely respond to these distinct situations and needs.

Concluding Remarks

The Groves conference “And Justice for All,” as well as this monograph which is a direct result of the meeting, represents an effort to promote social justice as a means to bridge the gap between research and practice, and draw attention to the experience of the incarcerated, their families, and those who work within the criminal justice system to foster change. It is our hope that this work will support social justice research, policy reform, and best practices aimed at helping incarcerated individuals and their families and communities.

References

• Arditti, J. A. (2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and care-givers. New York, NY: New York University Press.
• Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52, 195–204.
• Bell, L. (2010). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W. Blumefeld, C. Castaneda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge.
• Clear, T. R. (2008). The effects of high imprisonment rates on communities. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime & justice: A review of research 37 (pp. 97–132). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• De Reus, L. A. (2011). Seeking social justice for families. In L. A. De Reus & L. B. Blume (Eds.), Social, economic, and environmental justice for all families. Groves Monographs on Marriage and Family. Vol. 1. (pp. 1-11). Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing.
• Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2013). Maternal and paternal imprisonment in the stress process. Social Science Research, 42, 650-669.
• Garland, D. (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Glaze, L. E., & Herberman, E. J. (2013). Correctional populations in the United States, 2012. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 243936). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus12.pdfGlaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2010). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdfHagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012a). Intergenerational school effects of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education, 85, 259–286.
• Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012b). Children of the American prison generation: The paradoxical ‘‘spillover’’ school effects of incarcerating mothers. Law & Society Review, 46, 37–69.
• Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 26, 121–142.
• Johnson, R. C. (2009). Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration and the consequences for children. In S. Raphael & M. Stoll (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 177-206). New York NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
• King, R., Mauer, M., & Young, M. (2005). Incarceration and crime: A complex relationship. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_iandc_complex.pdf
• Lopez, M., & Light, M. (2009). A rising share: Hispanics and federal crime. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org
• Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney- Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 1–12) New York, NY: New Press.
• Mauer, M., & King, R. (2007). Uneven justice: State rates of incarceration by race & ethnicity. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from http://sentencingproject.org
• Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: effects on boys’ antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278.
• Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The effects of parental imprisonment on children. Crime & Justice, 37, 133–206.
• Murray, J., Janson, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 133–149.
• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). (2011).
• Misplaced priorities: Over incarcerate, under educate. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://naacp.3cdn.net/ecea56adeef3d84a28_azsm639wz.pdf
• Pager, D., & Western, B. (2009). Investigating prisoner reentry: The impact of conviction status on the employment prospects of young men. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice (National Institute of Justice Grant 2005-IJ-CX-0019). Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228584.pdf
• Pettit B, & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69, 151–69.
• Ratcliffe, C., & McKernan, S. (2010). Child poverty persistence: Facts and consequences. The Urban Institute Brief 14, June. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412126-child-poverty-persistence.pdf
• Rountree, M. A., & Pomeroy, E. (2010). Bridging the gaps among social justice, research, and practice. Social Work, 55, 293-295.
• Simon, J. (2011). Mass incarceration: From social policy to social problem. In J. Petersilia and K. R. Reitz (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp.23-52). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sugie, N. (2012). Punishment and welfare: Paternal incarceration and families’receipt of public assistance. Social Forces, 90, 1403-1427.
• Small, S. (2005). Bridging research and practice in the family and human sciences. Family Relations, 54, 320-334.
• Swisher, Raymond R., Waller, Maureen R., 2008. Confining fatherhood: Incarceration and paternal involvement among nonresident White, African American and Latino fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1067–1088.
• The Sentencing Project. (2008). Reducing racial disparity in the criminal justice system. A manual for practitioners and policymakers. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdfThe Sentencing Project (n.d.). Racial disparity. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2006). The international forum for social development. Social justice in an open world. The role of the United Nations. New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/ifsd/SocialJustice.pdf
• Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2014). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010a). Incarceration and social inequality. Daedalus, 8-19. Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010b). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=60919
• Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265-280.
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.