Mass Incarceration and Inequality

COMPAS (Conversations on Morality, Politics, and Society) Conference on Inequality

The Ohio State University

September 23, 2016

Sara Wakefield

Rutgers University, Newark

Brief Comments

¤ When Does Inequality Matter?

¤ How Mass Incarceration Reflects Inequality and How Mass Incarceration Creates Inequality

-

100

200

300

400

500

600 19

2519

2719

2919

3119

3319

3519

3719

3919

4119

4319

4519

4719

4919

5119

5319

5519

5719

5919

6119

6319

6519

6719

6919

7119

7319

7519

7719

7919

8119

8319

8519

8719

8919

9119

9319

9519

9719

9920

0120

0320

05

U.S. Incarceration Rate 1925-1974

-

100

200

300

400

500

600 19

2519

2719

2919

3119

3319

3519

3719

3919

4119

4319

4519

4719

4919

5119

5319

5519

5719

5919

6119

6319

6519

6719

6919

7119

7319

7519

7719

7919

8119

8319

8519

8719

8919

9119

9319

9519

9719

9920

0120

0320

05

U.S. Incarceration Rate 1925-2005

ContextCross-National Comparison

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

United StatesCuba

RwandaRussia

South AfricaIsrael

Turkey Saudi Arabia

England & WalesCanadaCroatia

ItalyFrance

NetherlandsGermanyDenmark

Incarceration Rate per 100,000 by Country, 2013

ContextMassive Racial Disparity

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Black Males

White Males Incarcerated by Age 30Arrest by Age 23

Risk of imprisonment by age 30-34:Men Born 1945-49 & 1970-74

Born 1945-49 Born 1970-74

All White Men 1.2 2.8All Non-College 1.8 5.1HS Dropout 4.2 14.8HS Only 0.7 4.0Some College 0.7 0.9

All Black Men 9.0 22.8All Non-College 12.1 30.9HS Dropout 14.7 62.5HS Only 10.2 20.3Some College 4.9 8.5

Mass Incarceration and Inequality

¤Mass incarceration reflects and reinforces inequality

¤The influence of mass incarceration in the direct creation of inequality is less clear for some outcomes

¤1. Labor market outcomes and earnings

¤2. Marriage and divorce

¤3. Parental incarceration

Three examples

Mass Incarceration and Inequality

¤ The lifetime risk of imprisonment is unequally distributed.

¤ The effects of imprisonment on individuals are often large.

¤But the effects on inequality are often quite small.

¤Black men are 8 times more likely to go to prison than white men.

¤And it causes a 30 percent reduction in earnings.

¤But it increases inequality between black men and white men by only 3 percent.

1. Earnings, for example

¤Black men are 8 times more likely to go to prison than white men.

¤And it causes a 20 reduction in the chance of marrying.

¤But it increases marriage inequality by only 4 percent.

2. Marriage is similar

¤ Effects on inequality are constrained by the starting distribution.

¤ Men who go to prison are at the low end of the earnings distribution and have a low probability of marriage anyway.

¤ Under those conditions, inequality can only increase a small amount—even in the presence of very large differences in rates of imprisonment and large individual-level effects

Why such small effects on inequality?

¤This is not to say that incarceration doesn’t matter for adult men.

¤Of course it does.

To be clear…

3. Parental Incarceration (here’s where it matters a lot)

¤Black children are 13 times more likely to experience the incarceration of a father.

¤And it causes: ¤ a 5% increase in behavioral problems, ¤ a 25% increase in aggression,¤ a 97% increase in homelessness (for Black

children), ¤ and a 48% increase in infant mortality

Aggression

Externalizing

Internalizing

Total

IMR

Homelessness

Percent Change Due to Incarceration

Percent Change Due to Incarceration

0 50 100

150

Low High

Aggression

Externalizing

Internalizing

Total

IMR

Homelessness

Black−White Gaps, No Incarceration

Percent Difference

0 50 100 150

Aggression

Externalizing

Internalizing

Total

IMR

Homelessness

Percent Change in Inequality

Percent Change in Inequality

0 50 100

150

1978 to 01990 to 0

The Children of the Prison Boom

¤ Mass incarceration has widened inequality in childhood wellbeing

¤ The consequences are particularly perverse as they fall on the most vulnerable of children

¤ Even if the imprisonment rate returned to 100 per 100,000 tomorrow, the ripple effects would continue for at least one more generation.

Challenges for Justice

The genius of the current caste system, and what most distinguishes it from its predecessors, is that it appears

voluntary. People choose to commit crimes, and that's why they are locked up or locked out, we are told.

(Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow)

The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.

(Fyodor Dostoyevsky)

Thanks!

For more information, sources, or questions:

Sara Wakefield: sara.wakefield@rutgers.edu

For more research, resources, or 140 characters on soccer and Manchester City:

sarawakefield.net @wakefield_sara

Supplementary Slides

ContextFederal system sets the tone but doesn’t change the level

Violent

Violent

Drug

Drug

Immigration

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Federal (192,663 ~13%) State (1,325,305, ~87%)

Immigration

Other

Weapons

Public Order

Drug

Property

Violent

Context and SelectionPrisons and Processing as a Black Box

100 Arrests

65 Charges

30 Dismissals 23 Guilty Pleas7 Trials (3 Acquitted)

9 Probation Sentences

18 Incarceration Sentences

500 Crimes Reported

1,000 Crimes Committed?

The Funnel Model of the Criminal Justice System

ContextImprisonment Vs. Incarceration

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

Prison Jail

Prisons and Jails (Daily Average)

ContextJail Cycling

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

Prison Jail Sentenced Awaiting Trial

Prisons and Jails (Daily Average) Jails Alone (Annually)

Implications

¤ It’s time to move beyond never/ever comparisons

¤ Distinguishing parental criminality and parental punishment (handling selection)

¤ Tackling who is in prison and why and how this influences families¤ Uncomfortable but simultaneously true facts about justice,

violence, and inequity¤ Legitimacy concerns

Thanks!

For more information, sources, or questions:

Sara Wakefield: sara.wakefield@rutgers.edu

For more research, resources, or 140 characters on soccer and Manchester City:

sarawakefield.net @wakefield_sara

1. Risk: we show disparities in the risk of paternal imprisonment.

2. Harm: we show the effect of paternal imprisonment on mental health and behavioral problems, homelessness, and infant mortality.

3. Baseline Inequality: we show what the gap is without paternal imprisonment.

4. Increase in Inequality: we show what happens to the existing gap when accounting for varying levels of imprisonment.

4: Aggregating up

I This is how we do it for externalizing behaviors.

I Zero incarceration: BlackWhite = 9.3

7.4 = 1.26.

I Absolute di↵erence at zero incarceration is 1.9 (9.3� 7.4).

I Average (of high and low estimates) change in externalizingbehaviors associated with paternal incarceration is 1.97.

I Risks in 1990: 25.1 for black children; 3.6 for white children.

Showing the calculations

Change in inequality:

Black1990�White1990Black0�White0

.

(((9.3⇤.749)+((9.3+1.97)⇤.251)))�(((7.4⇤.964)+((7.4+1.97)⇤.036)))9.3�7.4 .

9.80�7.469.3�7.4 = 2.34

1.9 = 1.24.

So it increased inequality about 24%.