Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy? · expansion of the prison system in history. More specifically, ^between 1975 and 2005 the incarceration rate has increased by 342% _

Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy?

Economics of Poverty Professor Henry Coleman Fall 2014

Makeda A. Marshall-NeSmith



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



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



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:



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



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



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



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



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



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)



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



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



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



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



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.



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.

Documents

Mass Incarceration: The New Poverty Policy? · expansion of the prison system in history. More specifically, ^between 1975 and 2005 the incarceration rate has increased by 342% _