Mass Incarceration Theory

Introduction
In recent years, the United States has seen a striking increase in incarceration rates. Our country currently holds almost a quarter of the world’s prison population while accounting for less than 5% of the total world population. Because most of the neighborhoods that are targeted are poverty stricken and populated mostly by minorities, hispanics and blacks make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population when compared to non-hispanic whites. Along with the increase in incarceration rates among minorities, there has also been a great decrease in the number of nuclear families. According to data taken from 2001-2007, the nuclear family was present in about 57% of white families while it was only present in 41% of hispanic
family structures and only 20% of black family structures. This paper is an attempt at answering the following question: what is the relationship between the increase in incarceration rates and the decline in nuclear families among underprivileged minorities. This topic is important because mass incarceration affects this group of individuals disproportionately and causes disruptions within their lives. An exploration of this topic can reduce stigmatization and better help us understand why their families may be struggling financial and emotionally.
Different theories drawn from multiple sources will be used to help explain the correlation between the two.
“A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Stigmatization of Children of Incarcerated Parents” by Susan Phillips and Trevor Gates, explains the how stigmatization affects the families of the incarcerated by instigating financial hardships and delinquent behavior. “Mass Incarceration, Family Complexity, and the Reproduction of Childhood Disadvantage” by B.L. Sykes and B. Pettit talks about the concept of multiple partner fertility as a form of family complexity, and how this outwardly affects the nuclear family decline. And “Young Adult Outcomes and the Life-Course Penalties of Parental Incarceration” by Daniel P. Mears and Sonja E. Siennick introduce the turning point theory and how it provides further explanation of the perpetuation of intergenerational incarceration. All of the articles address the subject of mass incarceration, and how it disproportionately affects families of color. These theories all support the idea that parental incarceration affects the decline of the nuclear family among minorities in the United States by creating current problems for the families involved with the system, and also perpetuating a cycle that is bound to affect future generations. The perpetuation of the cycle is what keeps the incarceration rates up and the nuclear family rates down over
time.
Theoretical Framework: Further Explanation
Stigmatization, family complexity, and turning point theory, are all theories pulled from scholarly sources that help to support the main thesis. The first of these theories, stigmatization, is a process which may happen to any participants in a family with an incarcerated parent. The process involves 5 major elements including “(1) distinguishing and labeling differences, (2) associating labeled differences with negative attributes, (3) differentiating between ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘them’’ based on labeled differences, and (4) the devaluation and discriminatory treatment of labeled individuals, all of which (5) occur within the context of and serve to perpetuate differences in social, cultural, political, and economic power” (Gates 286). Of the five elements listed, element four, devaluation and discriminatory treatment, is the most significant when it comes to this particular argument. Discriminatory treatment affects many aspects of the lives of the stigmatized. Families that go through this process may have their social, financial, and psychological well-being damaged. It is common for families to hide the specific trait associated with stigmatization in order to avoid the effects of it. Those who are stigmatized may have trouble finding work, causing financial instability within the household.
The next theory, family complexity, acts as a foundation to the thesis. In this concept, the nuclear family serves as a starting point while different experiences cause additions or subtractions to the model. Anything that causes a family unit to stray from the nuclear model is considered family complexity. In much of the research done involving family complexity, multiple partner fertility was used to measure the amount of complexity among certain types of families. Multiple partner fertility is particularly popular among families with incarcerated loved ones. In Bryan Sykes and Becky Pettit’s article on family complexity and mass incarceration, they state “Upon release, inmates may seek to normalize noneconomic and familial aspects of the life course within their control, which may include having additional children with new partners” (131). While other aspects of their lives may be restricted due to the law, incarcerates tend to normalize sexual behaviors once released from prison since there is less control over this aspect of their life. The final, and maybe most pivotal theory I will be using is the turning point theory. The theory is introduced in the “Young Adult Outcomes and the Life-Course Penalties of Parental Incarceration” article by Daniel P. Mears and Sonja E. Siennick. They begin with a definition of a turning point, stating “A turning point constitutes ‘‘an alteration or deflection in a long-term pathway or trajectory that was initiated at an earlier point in time” (8). Turning points have a long term effect on a life. At times these effects may be positive while in some cases they’re generally negative. The ladder is usually the outcome for families and children exposed to incarceration. Based on the results of the experiment described in Mears and Siennick’s article, a conclusion was made that “parental incarceration constitutes a turning point that adversely affects the life course of children, across multiple life domains, during the transition into adulthood and thereafter” (20). This means parental incarceration can have harmful long term effects on the life of a child.
Noxious Environment
Parental incarceration creates a noxious environment within the communities that are targeted most.
This is done through the instigation of stressful conditions caused by the incarceration itself. One of the first aspects of the noxious environment is the rearrangement of the physical family structure. This can, in itself, can cause great amounts of distress and incarceration can affect the outward structure from multiple angles. For example, through stigmatization, a family’s financial standing may be shaken. This is because discrimination may make it harder for formerly incarcerated parents to find work. In “Mass Imprisonment and Inequality in Health and Family Life” by Christopher Wildman and Christopher Muller, the authors mention one study which “combines field experimental and interview evidence to show that the negative credential of a criminal record leads job applicants to receive fewer calls from potential employers in response to an application. The experimental design of these studies enables the author to isolate the stigmatizing effect of incarceration on the chance of getting called back either for an interview or with a job offer” (Muller/Wildman 14). A lack of substantial income can cause a shift in the family structure by forcing a family to relocate their children in order to find a better home for them. For families that have already had to relocate their children, more specifically in families whose children have been put into foster care, there are
certain “policies and practices that make it difficult for parents in prison to reunite with their children who are in foster care” (Phillip/Gates 290). Not only are incarcerated adults removed from the home during this time period, children may also be removed from the home in order to provide them with the best outcomes possible.
Multiple Partner Fertility is also an aspect of the noxious environment created by parental incarceration. MPF may affect the outward family structure as well since children from multiple partners most likely leads to commitment to multiple families. Research done by Sykes and Pettit suggest “the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation associated with incarceration may be associated with multiple-partner fertility if the unincarcerated partner has additional children with someone other than her or his incarcerated partner...or if the incarcerated partner has additional children with someone other than her or his former partner” (131). The dissolution of marriage and cohabitation both create family complexity on their own. This mixed with multiple partner fertility can change the family structure immensely. Studies show that the vast majority of mothers who have children by multiple partners live with their children. The statistics seem to be similar when compared to cases of single partner fertility. However, “Eighty-five percent of young fathers with two or more children by the same partner live with all of their children, compared to only 13 percent of those with children by multiple partners” (Guzzo 80). A disproportionately large number of children are living without their fathers in these instances as compared to situations involving single partner fertility. When an imprisoned father is released from jail, they are likely to live with at least one of the families they have committed to. While the father is in prison, they are separated from all of their children.
Intergenerational Incarceration
The anchor to this paper involves the perpetuation of the cycle of delinquency. Many different factors may affect intergenerational incarceration. Multiple Partner Fertility does play a role in the perpetuation of this cycle. Stepfamilies do play a small roll. Studies show that “Children who have half siblings exhibit more delinquency and externalizing behavior (Fomby and Osborne 2013) and have sex earlier and report more drug use (Dorius and Guzzo 2013) than their counterparts without half siblings” (Guzzo 80). This may be due to the lack of parental involvement in the child’s life. Multiple Partner Fertility may affect a person’s parental skills by “leading to parental depression and lower levels of parental engagement” (Guzzo 8). In the case of a child with an incarcerated parent, this slightly higher risk of delinquent behavior is enhanced even more. Studies also conclude that “adolescents exposed to parental incarceration are more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors” (Aaron/Dallaire 1472). An offspring is more likely to mimic the behaviors of their incarcerated parent. This can be explained through both the turning point theory and the theory of stigmatization.
The turning point theory, as stated before, concludes that parental incarceration constitutes as a negative turning point for a child and can cause long term negative effects. Mears and Siennick conclude that “experiencing a parent’s incarceration during formative years of development could leave these children socially isolated; exposed to family instability; and without the skills, resources, and foundations needed for successful adjustment in adulthood” (8). An unsuccessful adjustment into adulthood may lead to delinquent or risky behaviors. It may also affect the an ability to form successful relationships in the future. With a deficiency in this ability, we are less likely to see nuclear families among these groups of people since they are unable to maintain healthy relationships. Stigmatization may also explain continuous delinquent behavior among multiple generations. Gates and Phillips write “stigmatization of children with parents in prison may help to perpetuate social conditions that are associated with crime, set the stage for the self-fulfilling prophecy that ‘‘the apple doesn’t fall from the tree’’ and, thus, may paradoxically contribute to intergenerational incarceration” (290). This quote explains how stigmatization perpetuates “intergenerational incarceration by through the perpetuation of social conditions. Stigmatization causes families and neighborhoods to really feel the connotation of their label. Those who have already been labeled negatively may find there is no point in taking positive action since they feel their label will never change. This, in turn, causes the cycle of this behavior to continue over time. Argument Complexity
While this theory suggests that parental incarceration has only a negative effect on the outcome of offspring, there is a more complicated side to the argument. To say that negative outcomes happen to every child of an incarcerated parent would not be realistic. Different children react to certain situations in different ways, and may be more inclined to view their parent’s imprisonment in a different way. It may be possible for children “view entry into adulthood as an opportunity for them to differentiate themselves from their stigmatized parents and to redirect maladaptive behavioral, psychological, and social trajectories” (Giordano 2010). In other words, it is possible for offspring to view their parents as an example of how not to be. Instead of following their example they may choose to lead by their own example. Some may choose to use their situation as a platform to help others in similar situations. For example, “others may directly confront and challenge stigmatizing attitudes and discriminatory treatment” (Phillips/Gates 291). Different stigmatized groups, such as feminists, civil rights activists, and advocates for the disabled have all followed this example by starting movements that aimed for destigmatization.