According to Wakefield and Uggen (2010) and The New Jim Crow, how do prisons generate inequality? Please identify and explain four the collateral consequences of incarceration.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
3 June 2010
1:11
Further
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
• Our comprehensive search
Incarceration and
Stratification
Sara Wakefield1 and Christopher Uggen2
1
Department of Criminology, Law & Society & Sociology, University of California, Irvine,
California 92697; email: sara.wakefield@uci.edu
2
Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455;
email: uggen001@umn.edu
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010. 36:387–406
Key Words
First published online as a Review in Advance on
April 20, 2010
crime, punishment, inequality, race and ethnicity, poverty, class
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at
soc.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102551
c 2010 by Annual Reviews.
Copyright
All rights reserved
0360-0572/10/0811-0387$20.00
Abstract
In the past three decades, incarceration has become an increasingly
powerful force for reproducing and reinforcing social inequalities. A
new wave of sociological research details the contemporary experiment
with mass incarceration in the United States and its attendant effects
on social stratification. This review first describes the scope of imprisonment and the process of selection into prison. It then considers the
implications of the prison boom for understanding inequalities in the
labor market, educational attainment, health, families, and the intergenerational transmission of inequality. Social researchers have long
understood selection into prison as a reflection of existing stratification
processes. Today, research attention has shifted to the role of punishment in generating these inequalities.
387
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
INTRODUCTION
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
With few exceptions, twentieth century reviews
of social stratification and mobility research
scarcely addressed punishment. But as U.S. incarceration rates rose to historically unprecedented levels, new work emerged to document
this punitive turn and to consider its implications for inequality. Punishment has now grown
too big to ignore, with stratification researchers
characterizing incarceration as a powerful “engine of social inequality” (Western 2006,
p. 198) that plays a “massive” (Pager 2009,
p. 160) and racialized (Bobo & Thompson
2006) part in the contemporary stratification
system. This review details the changing social conditions that thrust punishment onto
the agenda of stratification researchers and the
established and emerging findings from this
research.
Sociologists have long understood inequality with reference to the stratifying institutions
that sort people into more or less advantaged
social categories (Grusky 2001), such as the
educational system (Mare 1980) and the formal labor market (e.g., Correll et al. 2007).
These institutions both reflect and create inequality by differentially conferring access and
opportunity across social groups. They also
play a part in the intergenerational transmission of inequality through the influence of family background on offspring attainment (Blau
& Duncan 1967, Duncan et al. 1972, Duncan & Brooks-Gunn 1999, Lareau 2003) and
family formation (Schwartz & Mare 2005).
Although incarceration has received little attention in classic treatments of stratification,
poverty, and racial and ethnic inequality (Blau
& Duncan 1967, Breen & Jonsson 2005, Corcoran 1995, Handel 2003, Keister & Moller 2000,
Kerckhoff 1995, Sorensen 1994, Williams &
Collins 1995; but see Morris & Western 1999,
Neckerman & Torche 2007), the prison now
takes a place as a major stratifying institution in
U.S. society.
Classic sociological conceptions of class,
caste, and status group offer some utility for understanding the social position of people shar-
388
Wakefield
·
Uggen
ing a common history of punishment (Uggen
et al. 2006). Yet, although some have used a
class language to describe a “criminal class”
(Hagan & Palloni 1990) or a related “meshing” of ghetto and prison (Wacquant 2001),
prisoners and former prisoners do not necessarily share a common class location or relation
to the economic system. In some ways, they
may be considered a subset of the disenfranchised poor (Wilson 1987), although they are
defined by characteristics not shared by others in this category. Nor is it appropriate to
consider all prisoners and former prisoners as a
caste (Beteille 1996, Myrdal 1944). Aside from
especially stigmatized subgroups, such as those
designated as sex offenders, their social exclusion from economic, family, and civic activities
rarely approaches caste-like levels.
Current and former prisoners are perhaps
best characterized as a Weberian status group
sharing similar life chances determined by a
common and consequential mark of [dis]honor
(Weber 1922 [1978]). In this regard, Pager
(2009) understands criminal records as a disqualifying credential in the formal labor market. Moreover, the far-reaching status dishonor
and stigma attaching to a felon’s legal standing
reduces attainment in education, labor markets,
and other domains. But whether current and
former inmates are conceived as class, caste, status group, or some new amalgam, prison alters
life chances in myriad ways that go to the heart
of stratification research.
The discovery of incarceration has shaped
diverse literatures in the past 15 years, as inequality scholars trace the long reach of the
prison. Studies of prison health, for example,
inform broad debates about persistent (and
perplexing) race gaps in physical health. Research on the children of incarcerated parents
similarly informs literatures on the effects of
childhood disadvantage and parental divorce on
attainment. Analysis of the growth and racial
disparity in felon disenfranchisement contributes to work on political inequality and citizenship. These examples (among many others
reviewed here) place the prison alongside institutions like the labor market and educational
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
system as a powerful mechanism for sorting and
stratifying social actors. And, like other stratifying institutions, the prison both reflects preexisting disparities and acts as an independent
cause generating future disparities.
Although the links between incarceration
and stratification apply more generally, the
United States has been exceptional with regard
to the scale and growth of its incarcerated population. The review thus emphasizes the contemporary U.S. experiment with mass incarceration, differentiating processes of selection
into prison from the prison’s role in generating
inequality.
THE PROLIFERATION
OF PUNISHMENT
More than 700,000 people leave prison each
year (West & Sabol 2007), about half of
whom will be reincarcerated within three years
(Langan & Levin 2002). Many more serve
felony-level sentences in county jails or are
supervised on conditional release to probation or parole. All told, there are an estimated
16.1 million current or former felons in
the United States, reflecting about 7.5% of
the adult population (Uggen et al. 2006).
As a point of comparison, this figure approximates the number of persons classified as unemployed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics during the deep recessionary period of 2008–2009 (15.7 million in October
2009; Bur. Labor Stat. 2009). As Figure 1
shows, felony conviction rates are especially
high for men and for African Americans, such
that approximately one in three African American men now carry a serious criminal record.
Although many convicted felons are never
imprisoned, an increasing proportion of U.S.
residents have served time in a state or federal penitentiary. After decades of trendless
7.5 %
Adults
African American
adults
21.6 %
African American
adult males
33.4 %
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2004 U.S. adult population with a felony conviction (%)
Figure 1
Percentage of U.S. adult population with a felony conviction, 2004.
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
389
40
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
U.S. prison incarceration rate per 100,000
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Figure 2
U.S. prison incarceration rate per 100,000, 1925–2007.
fluctuation, the prison incarceration rate began
a steep ascent in 1973, rising by approximately
6% per year. By the first decade of the twentyfirst century, the United States was incarcerating 1% of its population at any given time, with
an additional 2% serving time on probation and
parole (Glaze & Bonczar 2007, Pew Cent. 2008,
Uggen et al. 2006, Western 2006). Incarceration on this scale is virtually unprecedented (see
Figure 2).
The United States has had the highest incarceration rate in the world since 2002. Figure 3
compares the U.S. situation with that of other
nations for 2006. Although prison populations
are growing in many parts of the world, the
United States dwarfs them all, at jail and prison
incarceration levels that are commonly five to
seven times larger than those of other nations of
similar economic, social or demographic profiles (Walmsley 2007). Few populous nations
even approach U.S. rates, aside from Russia (at
611 per 100,000), Cuba (487), Ukraine (356),
Singapore (350), and South Africa (335) (see
Figure 3).
390
Wakefield
·
Uggen
Finally, although national rates draw the
most attention, these tend to mask significant
state and regional variation (Greenberg & West
2001). For example, the U.S. prison incarceration rate was 508 per 100,000 in 2007, but rates
were almost twice as high in the South (559) as
in the Northeast (305) (West & Sabol 2009) (see
Figure 4). While incarceration remains very
high in Louisiana (858) and Texas (668), these
states have reduced their prison populations in
recent years. Today, the largest growth tends
to be in states with relatively low base rates
(e.g., Minnesota, Iowa, and New Hampshire)
(see Figure 4).
WHO GOES TO PRISON
Although the U.S. incarceration rate is high by
any historical or comparative standard, enormous race and class disparities concentrate its
effects on the most disadvantaged segments
of society. The prison population partially reflects existing inequalities, such that disadvantaged individuals and groups tend to commit a
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
66
Norway
Denmark
77
Croatia
81
Sweden
82
Switzerland
83
France
85
90
Greece
95
Germany
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
1:11
107
Canada
Australia
126
Netherlands
128
139
Scotland
148
England & Wales
335
South Africa
350
Singapore
487
Cuba
611
Russia
United States
751
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2006 selected nations incarceration rate per 100,000
Figure 3
Incarceration rates per 100,000 for selected nations, 2006.
relatively greater share of the street crime that
results in imprisonment. Although the relationship between crime and incarceration is beyond the scope of this review, it is clearly the
case that race, class, and gender differences
in imprisonment are due in part to differential involvement in crime (Pastore & Maguire
2007).
Nevertheless, the prison population does
not map neatly onto the population of law violators. Significant gaps, especially with regard
to race and social class, remain between selfreport surveys of criminal involvement and official arrest statistics (see Morenoff 2005 for a
review; Ousey & Lee 2008; but see D’Alessio &
Stolzenberg 2003). Moreover, shifts in the risk
of imprisonment for African American men do
not appear to have been driven by large shifts
in the relative involvement of African American
men in crime (Beckett et al. 2006, Blumstein &
Beck 2005, Western 2006, Zimring & Hawkins
1993). The effects of poverty or inequality
on crime are similarly complex (e.g., Blau &
Blau 1982, Bushway & Reuter 2002, Cantor
& Land 1985, Hagan & Peterson 1995), but
prisons are most certainly filled with the poor
(Wheelock & Uggen 2008). Finally, whereas
men are arrested for the vast majority of crimes
(Pastore & Maguire 2007, table 4.8) and make
up 93% of the U.S. prison population (West &
Sabol 2009), the growth in women’s incarceration has far outpaced that of men in recent years
(Heimer & Kruttschnitt 2005, Kruttschnitt &
Gartner 2005).
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
391
800
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
WA
MT
ME
ND
MN
OR
ID
WI
SD
HI
NY
MI
WY
UT
CA
IL
AZ
AK
IN
WV
MO
OK
NM
TX
NJ
MD DE
OH
CO
KS
NH
MA
CT RI
PA
IA
NE
NV
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
VT
VA
KY
NC
TN
SC
AR
LA
MS
AL
GA
FL
1st quantile (0–252)
2nd quantile (253–368)
3rd quantile (369–445)
4th quantile (446–507)
5th quantile (508–858)
Figure 4
State variation in prison incarceration rates per 100,000.
Nor is the prison boom solely attributable to
significant increases in police efficiency or capacity. The probability of arrest has remained
largely stable for the past 30 years, but the risk
of incarceration once arrested has increased significantly (Blumstein & Beck 2005). Much of
the growth in imprisonment has instead been
attributed to an influx of low-level, low-rate
delinquents into the prison system, rather than
to greater efficiency in incarcerating especially
dangerous or high-rate offenders (Blumstein &
Beck 1999, Pfaff 2008, Raphael & Stoll 2007).
It is not the case, then, that differential
involvement in crime wholly explains differences in incarceration. Rather, entry into prison
is in part socially determined by differential
exposure to police surveillance (Beckett et al.
2006, Tonry 1996), increases in the likelihood
of charges resulting in convictions (Bridges &
Steen 1998), differences in sentencing patterns
(Steffensmeier et al. 1998), and a host of other
structural factors. Rising imprisonment is similarly less tethered to the crime rate than to
392
Wakefield
·
Uggen
other social processes (Blumstein & Beck 2005).
Much of the growth in imprisonment since
the 1970s, for example, has been attributed
to sentencing disparities that put African
Americans and Latinos in prison for drug
crimes at higher rates than whites (Blumstein &
Beck 1999, Mauer 1999, Tonry 1996), despite
higher white rates of substance abuse (Bachman
et al. 1991; see also Beckett et al. 2006).
The growth in incarceration has continued
unabated despite major fluctuations in criminal activity and economic performance. Rising punishment is thus a policy choice rather
than a natural response to sustained increases
in crime. The rapid increase in the use of the
prison as a response to crime is generally understood as the result of a series of cultural
and demographic (Feeley & Simon 1992; Garland 1990, 2000), political (Beckett 1997, Jacobs
& Helms 2001), and economic shifts (Western
& Beckett 1999). There is widespread agreement that increases in the use of incarceration
are “intensely political” ( Jacobs & Helms 2001,
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
p. 171; see also Garland 1990, 2001; Beckett
1997; Savelsberg 1994; Sutton 2000). Nevertheless, scholars place different emphasis on the
relative strength of these factors. Beckett (1997)
and Garland (2000), for example, differ on the
relative importance of media attention to crime
and the malleability of public opinion. Scholars
also disagree on the independent effects of political rhetoric on fear of crime and the extent to
which political influences on incarceration are
national or local in nature (see Jacobs & Helms
2001, Greenberg & West 2001).
Beckett (1997; see also Beckett & Sasson
2000) argues that increasing public punitiveness is the product of political realignment
following Reconstruction and the creation of
law-and-order politics, rather than a product of
fear of crime (or the crime rate). The emergence
of crime as a salient political tool is strongly
linked to changes in sentencing practices, most
notably the greater enforcement and severity
of American drug laws. The move to fixed (as
opposed to indeterminate) sentencing also increased prison populations by lengthening time
served, as did the net-widening processes that
brought new clients into the criminal and juvenile justice systems (Pfaff 2008, Raphael & Stoll
2007).
Just as the politicization of crime was a
response to the racial politics of the early
twentieth century, social scientists attribute
racial disproportionality in imprisonment to
political and institutional processes, racial
threat, and lingering cultural fears of African
American men (Beckett 1997, Feeley & Simon
1992, Garland 2001, Mauer 1999, Tonry 1996).
The unambiguously racial character of imprisonment in the United States is described by
Loic Wacquant as wholly “extrapenological”—
not driven by crime rates, but by the desire to
“manage dispossessed and dishonored groups,”
just as slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and ghettos have in the recent past (Wacquant 2000,
2001). Prisons thus house the jobless, the poor,
the racial minority, and the uneducated, not the
merely criminal.
Although the politicization of crime leading
to the prison boom was clearly racialized, the
concentration of incarceration among African
Americans today remains astonishing (and especially relevant for stratification researchers)
(Bridges & Steen 1998, Pettit & Western 2004,
Western 2006). The intersection of race and
low educational attainment is especially noteworthy (see Figure 5). For African American
men with no high school degree, the lifetime
likelihood of going to prison is roughly 60%—
about five times higher than the estimate for
white high school dropouts (Pettit & Western
2004, pp. 151, 161). According to Western’s
(2006) analysis, twice as many African American men under age 40 have prison records as
have college degrees.
Garland (2001) notes that mass incarceration in the United States is not simply defined
by the imprisonment of large numbers of
people, but rather by the “systematic imprisonment of whole groups of the population”
(p. 2). Although this review has thus far
documented high and racially disparate rates
of incarceration, how does incarceration create
and maintain inequality? The stratifying effects
of imprisonment depend on (a) high rates of
incarceration, (b) significant disparities in the
likelihood of being imprisoned, and (c) the
connections of current and former inmates to
social institutions and significant others. We
next review the consequences of incarceration
for inmates and society, emphasizing research
that makes explicit causal connections between
imprisonment and the production of social
inequality.
HOW PRISONS GENERATE
INEQUALITY
The correctional system classifies and sorts its
clients just as schools, hospitals, and other social institutions classify and sort their clients.
Although many incarcerated men and women
have experienced some degree of conventional
or criminal success, prisons tend to house those
with the least human capital, financial capital,
and social capital. In some ways, prisons are
similar to schools in that individuals enter with
varying abilities and skills and are then sorted
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
393
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
1.6 %
White
6.7 %
All men, ages 20-40
Male high school dropouts, ages 20-40
4.6 %
Hispanic
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
6.0 %
11.5 %
African American
32.4 %
2004 U.S. adult population with a felony conviction (%)
Figure 5
Differences in male incarceration by race, ethnicity, and education (Source: Western 2006, p. 19).
by these differences and placed onto differing
tracks (see, e.g., Gamoran & Mare 1989). As
in the educational system, sorting and tracking within prisons has the potential to compensate for disadvantage by selecting those most in
need of assistance. If prisons are not successful in addressing deficits—and there is ample
evidence to suggest they are not—widespread
incarceration reinforces existing disadvantages,
to the detriment of inmates and the communities to which they return. With the expansion
of the U.S. prison population, such societallevel impacts may be more easily observed and
measured.
Mass incarceration surely has some effect
on crime rates outside of prisons, if only by
incapacitating large numbers of people. Among
many others, Levitt’s (1996) work suggests that
rising incarceration contributed to the sizeable
drop in the crime rate in the 1990s. Less often
noted until recently, however, are the “substantial indirect costs. . .associated with the current
scale of imprisonment, such as the adverse societal implications of imprisoning such a large
394
Wakefield
·
Uggen
fraction of young African American males”
(Levitt 2004, p. 179). Much of the research
literature in sociology is now focused on assessing the impact of such indirect costs. Although
the prison may incapacitate the dangerous,
at the heart of emerging lines of research is
a critique of indiscriminate overincarceration
and its role in fostering social inequality.
Education and the Labor Market
Mass incarceration causes inequality in the labor market by removing potential workers,
eroding the already shaky job skills of the incarcerated, and stigmatizing the formerly incarcerated (Western et al. 2002). At the aggregate level, incarceration masks inequality by
artificially reducing group-specific unemployment rates among the nonincarcerated population (Western & Beckett 1999, Pager 2009).
Much of the apparent narrowing of the racial
gap in wages among young men in the 1990s,
for example, appears to be the result of transferring low-earning African Americans from the
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
labor market to the prison rather than an overall improvement in African American earnings.
Western (2006) estimates that racial disparities
in incarceration led analysts to understate disparities in relative economic status by about
45% (pp. 98–102), concluding that the labor
market expansion in the 1990s had very little
effect on the prospects of young men without
college educations (Western & Pettit 2005).
Those who are undereducated and illprepared for the labor market are more likely to
end up in prison (Arum & Beattie 1999, Arum
& LaFree 2008, Hirschfield 2008). Although
most inmates were employed at the time of
their arrest (U.S. Dep. Justice 2004), the vast
majority were working in low-paying and lowquality jobs. Incarceration further reduces the
employment prospects for an already vulnerable population with few job skills and low educational attainment (Pettit & Western 2004)
by creating gaps in inmate employment histories. Participation in vocational and educational
training while incarcerated is low and declining,
so time spent in prison rarely improves these
deficits (Travis & Visher 2005). Incarceration
also removes inmates from the important social networks that might assist them in finding
work, while simultaneously strengthening their
ties to others with similarly dismal prospects
(Hagan 1993). Finally, the felony conviction that accompanies incarceration carries a
formidable and virtually indelible legal stigma.
Incarceration thus pushes the incarcerated
out of the labor market (Freeman 1992), reduces the number of weeks worked per year
(Raphael 2007), and confines former inmates
to low-paying and low-status jobs. Estimates
of the individual-level wage penalty of incarceration range from 10–30% (Geller et al.
2006, Pettit & Lyons 2007, Pettit & Western
2004, Waldfogel 1994, Western 2002). This
prison penalty significantly exceeds that associated with arrest (Grogger 1995) or conviction
(Nagin & Waldfogel 1995), although the length
of incarceration does not appear to exert a
strong effect on wages (Kling 2006). Moreover,
the effects of incarceration on wages and earnings vary appreciably by race. Western (2006,
p. 127) estimates an aggregate lifetime earnings
loss of about 1% for white men, relative to 2.1%
for Latino males and 4.0% for African American males. Although this wage penalty dissipates over time, it tends to endure the longest
for African American males (Pettit & Lyons
2007).
In a series of experimental audit studies,
Pager (2003, 2009) has demonstrated significant labor market discrimination against exinmates. As with research on wage penalties,
her results also reveal a greater penalty of incarceration for African American ex-inmates relative to white ex-inmates. In her Milwaukee audit study (Pager 2003), approximately 34% of
white testers without criminal records received
callbacks from employers, relative to 17% of
white testers with records. For African Americans, however, the corresponding percentages
were only 14% and 5%.
Although the labor market consequences of
a felony conviction are now well-established
(see also Stoll & Bushway 2008), the remedy for such consequences is far from clear.
African Americans appear to suffer more from
a felony conviction (Pager 2009, Pager &
Quillian 2005), and the combined effects of
racial discrimination and discrimination on the
basis of a criminal record can all but disqualify
African American men with criminal records
from employment. One strategy for reducing
these inequalities involves limiting employer
access to criminal history information, although
some caution that African Americans without
criminal records might be worse off under such
“ban the box” provisions. In the absence of conviction information, this argument goes, they
may be subject to greater statistical discrimination by employers who make assumptions
about criminality based on racial characteristics
(Blumstein & Nakamura 2009, Freeman 2008,
Pager 2009). To date, however, such hypotheses remain untested.
What accounts for the employment consequences of incarceration? Pager (2009) offers
multiple interpretations for the low wages and
high unemployment among former inmates:
selection (those who go to prison would not
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
395
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
find work even in the absence of incarceration), transformation (prison changes inmates
and makes them less employable), and reverse
credentialing (prison conveys a stigma, apart
from any real change on the part of inmates).
There is evidence for all three mechanisms.
First, in addition to very little schooling and
spotty work histories, inmates also have high
rates of mental illness, significant substance
abuse problems, and low levels of familial and
social support (U.S. Dep. Justice 2004, Uggen
et al. 2005). All these characteristics may combine to make former inmates unattractive to
employers, even in the absence of a felony conviction or time served. Second, in addition to
the time spent away from the labor market, the
values and attitudes that govern adjustment in
prison are unlikely to translate well to the formal labor market (e.g., Irwin & Cressey 1962).
Finally, barriers to employment are legally codified (for example, through laws barring exfelons from working in health care) (Samuels
& Mukamal 2004), with background checks ensuring that former inmates put their “worst foot
forward” when applying for jobs (see Chiricos
et al. 2007).
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
Health
The relative paucity of research on the health
effects of imprisonment is surprising in light
of the significant health problems faced by inmates (Massoglia 2008a). Moreover, classic research in the sociology of health parallels the
literature on the consequences of incarceration, largely anticipating the recent findings
of the few studies now emerging (Massoglia
2008a,b; Schnittker & John 2007; Massoglia &
Schnittker 2009). As with selection into prison,
race and socioeconomic status powerfully combine to predict poor health in the general population. As with crime, race differences in health
outcomes are substantially reduced (but not
eliminated) when socioeconomic status is taken
into account (Williams & Collins 1995, Elo
2009). As with research on the labor market
consequences of a felony conviction, health outcomes are strongly influenced by racism, stress,
396
Wakefield
·
Uggen
and stigma (Williams & Collins 1995, Williams
& Mohammed 2009, Gaylord-Harden &
Cunningham 2009, Schnittker & McLeod
2005).
Just as inmates bring poor work histories
and educational deficits into the prison, they
also bring substantial health problems and may
become less healthy while doing time. The
National Commission on Correctional Health
Care (NCCHC) (2002) provides information
on the health statuses of soon-to-be-released
inmates. The results are by no means uniform. Inmates have very high rates of infectious
diseases (tuberculosis, hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS)
and mental illness (schizophrenia/psychosis,
PTSD, anxiety) but lower rates of some chronic
illnesses, such as diabetes. Among all tuberculosis patients in the United States in 1996, an estimated 35% served time in prison. The corresponding percentages for HIV/AIDS are 13%
and 17%, respectively. Finally, 29% of all hepatitis C patients in 1996 served time in prison
that year (NCCHC 2002, chapter 3).
Although prisoners are the only group in
the United States with a constitutional right
to health care, incarceration does not generally confer a long-term health benefit. Imprisonment results in short-term health improvement, but these gains dissipate over time and
are wholly absent upon release (Schnittker &
John 2007). And, in the few studies that have
been conducted, incarceration is strongly related to later health problems (Massoglia 2008a,
Schnittker & John 2007). Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the conditions and overcrowding common in today’s prisons, the strongest
effects are found with infectious diseases
(Massoglia 2008b, Schnittker & John 2007).
The mechanisms for the incarcerationhealth link remain unclear, although social
stigma and stress are thought to play an important role. Schnittker & John (2007), for example, argue that the stigma of prison reduces
health, noting that health problems linked to incarceration appear only once prisoners are released. Massoglia (2008b) describes the effect
of incarceration on health in terms of exposure (in the case of infectious diseases) and the
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
imposition of stress (in the case of health problems such as hypertension). Massoglia (2008a)
suggests that incarceration is strongly implicated in racial disparities in health, owing to
African Americans’ greater aggregate prison exposure relative to whites. The health effects of
incarceration are especially salient for individuals and communities with strong social ties to
current and former inmates. Most inmates will
be released; to the extent that prison is a locus
of infectious disease, the families and neighbors
of inmates are at substantial risk.
Family
In addition to the health risks facing inmates’ families, incarceration is linked to shifts
in family structure, household disadvantage,
and childhood mental health. Western &
Wildeman (2009) have drawn explicit connections between mass incarceration and largescale structural shifts in the family, particularly for African Americans. Well-documented
trends in the feminization and juvenilization of
poverty since the 1970s (Bianchi 1999, Lichter
1997) closely mirror the upsurge in incarceration. Whereas 50% of whites and Latinos are
married by the age of 25, only 25% of African
American women are married. The retreat from
marriage, especially among women of color, has
often been implicated in the concentration of
poverty in single-mother families (Edin & Kefalas 2005, Ellwood & Jencks 2004, Manning &
Smock 1995).
Comfort (2007) notes that although incarcerated persons are treated as “social isolates,”
they are in fact embedded in every facet of social life—as neighbors, as partners, and as parents (p. 20). She refers to those drawn into
the legal system through the actions of others as “legal bystanders.” Incarceration alters
the family structures of inmates and bystanders
alike by breaking up intact families (Comfort
2008, Edin et al. 2004, Western & Wildeman
2009) or by diminishing the marital prospects
of ex-inmates (Edin 2000). Some evidence exists to support both processes. Fathers’ rela-
tionships with their children are permanently
harmed by even short periods of incarceration (Edin et al. 2004, Nurse 2004, Swisher &
Waller 2008). Fathers with a history of incarceration (irrespective of when the incarceration
occurred) are much less likely to be married one
year after the birth of their children (Lopoo &
Western 2005). Additionally, the substantial
stigma of incarceration affects men’s marriageability. With respect to the marriage market,
Edin (2000) reports that women view formerly
incarcerated men even less favorably than those
with a history of chronic unemployment.
The loss of family income associated with
imprisonment imposes direct economic costs,
but the informal costs of maintaining a relationship with an incarcerated partner are also
substantial (Comfort 2008). The loss of income is problematic for inmates as well. Debts
and child support orders often continue to accrue during spells of incarceration, but the
extremely low rates of pay for prison work
leave inmates with little real opportunity to
contribute materially to families left behind
(Cancian et al. 2011). The hourly minimum
wages averaged $0.89 across the states and
$0.23 in federal prisons, with hourly maximum
averaging $2.93 and $1.15 in state and federal
prisons, respectively (Pryor 2005). Holzer and
colleagues (2005) show that increased enforcement of child support orders coupled with high
incarceration rates create strong work disincentives for returning inmates, especially young
African American males with little education.
Studies of prison’s intergenerational consequences address fundamental questions in
social stratification, paralleling work in the
status attainment tradition. In an article on
rising incarceration rates, Hagan & Dinovitzer
(1999) argue that the influence of incarceration
on children “may be the least understood and
most consequential implication of the high reliance on incarceration in America” (p. 122). An
emerging research literature is now examining
these intergenerational costs, with many hypothesizing strong negative effects (e.g., Hagan
& Dinovitzer 1999, Nurse 2004, Travis et al.
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
397
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
2003, Uggen et al. 2005, Visher & Travis 2003,
Western et al. 2002; but see Edin et al. 2004).
Most inmates are also parents. About 52%
of state prison inmates and 63% of federal inmates are parents, although almost one-quarter
of current inmates have three or more children (Glaze & Maruschak 2008). An estimated
2.2 million children (about 3% of the total population under 18 in the United
States) currently have a parent incarcerated
(Western 2006, Wildeman 2010), and the likelihood of having a parent incarcerated has increased in step with the ascent in incarceration rates (Wildeman 2010). Consistent with
prison demographics, parental incarceration is
especially likely to affect African American
children and those with less-educated parents (Pettit & Western 2004, Western 2006,
Wildeman 2010).
Although the incarceration of a parent can
sometimes benefit children—as is often the case
when a parent is victimizing a child—it can also
harm them in many ways. It may contribute to
the loss of an involved parent (Lopoo & Western 2005, Braman 2002, Hagan & Coleman
2001), push a child into the foster care system
(Johnson & Waldfogel 2002), increase aggression and delinquency (Murray & Farrington
2008, Hagan & Palloni 1990, Wakefield
2007, Wildeman 2010), decrease educational
attainment (Foster & Hagan 2007), and subject
children to social stigma and isolation (Murray
2007, Wakefield 2009). On balance, the best
evidence demonstrates a link between paternal
incarceration and worsening mental and behavioral health among children (Foster & Hagan
2009, Parke & Clarke-Stewart 2003, Wakefield
2007, Wildeman 2009). There is much less
evidence for maternal incarceration (and significant differences between men and women
with respect to the risk of incarceration and
background characteristics). Cho (2009), for
example, finds little effect of maternal incarceration on school retention and performance of
children (but see Foster & Hagan 2007, Huebner & Gustafson 2007, Johnson & Waldfogel
2002).
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
398
Wakefield
·
Uggen
Politics and Civic Life
In politics, as elsewhere, the effects of incarceration fall unevenly across communities.
Petersilia (2003) and Clear (2007), among others, describe the spatial concentration of incarceration in predominately poor and African
American communities. This concentration has
brought public attention to Eric Cadora’s conception of “million dollar blocks”—criminal
justice expenditures in excess of $1 million just
to incarcerate the residents of single city blocks
in New York (see, e.g., Gonnerman 2004). Because incarceration has reached such heights
and is so concentrated in small geographic areas, researchers are beginning to document
aggregate-level effects of incarceration beyond
those experienced by individuals.
Incarceration may reduce crime by temporarily incapacitating would-be offenders,
but it also reduces neighborhood stability
by removing large numbers of young men
from concentrated areas. The most destabilizing influences arise from shifts in criminal
justice supervision. Incarceration is typically
experienced in a series of short spells, with
people cycling back and forth from neighborhood to institution (Petersilia 2003). In
high-incarceration neighborhoods, as many as
15% of the adult males are cycling back and
forth to prison, a process Clear (2007) describes
as “coercive mobility” (p. 73). At such high
levels of incarceration, Clear argues, coercive
mobility reaches a threshold in which further
punishment only exacerbates neighborhood
crime. Housing restrictions further compound
the problem of returning ex-inmates. Beckett
& Herbert (2008, 2010) document a new form
of banishment, in the form of contemporary
applications of trespass law, off-limits orders,
spatial exclusion from parks and other areas, and
similar housing and public order restrictions.
In addition to altering neighborhood social
and civic life, incarceration and felony convictions bar former felons from a host of other
opportunities for civic engagement. About 1 in
40 adults, most of whom are not serving time
in prison, are unable to vote as a result of a
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
felony conviction (about 5.4 million Americans)
(Manza & Uggen 2006). In some states, as many
as 1 in 4 African American men are disenfranchised because of a felony conviction. The influence has been profound; disenfranchisement
of current and former felons has altered the
outcome of numerous national elections, most
notably the 2000 presidential race (Manza &
Uggen 2006). Other legal restrictions on felons
reshape the administration of justice. Owing to
racial disparities in convictions, for example,
African Americans are less likely than whites
to qualify for jury service, and African American defendants are correspondingly less likely
to be judged by a jury of their peers (Wheelock
2006).
Could Prison Reduce Inequality?
Imprisonment powerfully transforms the lives
of those who serve time. The mechanisms described thus far highlight its capacity to create and reinforce inequality, but it also has
the power to address human capital and health
deficits and to improve prospects for inmates
and the communities to which they return. People arrive at prison with significant economic
and social disadvantages. Relative to the general population, prison inmates are much more
likely to be unemployed or out of the labor
market altogether. Although almost 90% of
adults in the general population achieve a high
school diploma or equivalency, little more than
a third of inmates do so. Prison inmates also
have higher rates of significant health problems,
substance abuse histories, learning disabilities,
and mental illnesses (see NCCHC 2002, U.S.
Dep. Justice 2004, Uggen et al. 2005).
Spells in prison might be more productively
used to obtain a high school diploma, an advanced degree, or vocational skills or to address
continuing health concerns. Imprisonment may
also have salutary effects on the neighborhoods from which inmates are removed (Petersilia 2003), may have direct benefits to the
families of criminally involved men (Comfort
2008), and may even contribute to short-term
earnings gains for some inmates (Kling 2006).
Unfortunately, although prisons might indeed
do all of these things, there is little evidence they
are making good on such promises, especially
in the current mass incarceration era. Participation in prison educational and vocational programs is low and declining, due in part to capacity constraints (Travis & Visher 2005, Petersilia
2005). The recent history of punishment has
been one of simultaneously scaling up sentence
length and scaling back programs that might assist reentering inmates (see, e.g., Page 2004 on
the decline of educational benefits for felons).
Although the past decade brought a renewed
focus on the work, family, and housing challenges facing reentering prisoners, scholarship
on interventions to overcome these challenges
is only now emerging (Petersilia 2003, Travis
2005).
With stronger links between incarceration and stratification now forged in the
research literature, the current period offers
significant opportunities for research and
program development. While incarceration
rates continue to increase, the outsized yearover-year growth of the 1990s has now slowed
significantly, especially in high incarceration
states such as California, Arizona, and Texas.
Moreover, the recessionary crisis of 2008 and
2009 has compounded long-standing capacity
problems in the criminal justice system. As
states struggle with budgetary constraints and
overcrowding, the costs of mass imprisonment
are difficult to ignore. If states choose to cut
the few programs aiding current or reentering
prisoners, increasing inequalities are likely to
result. Alternatively, inequality may be reduced
if resources are reallocated in ways that simultaneously reduce prison populations while
improving opportunities for current and former
inmates.
EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS
ABOUT INCARCERATION
AND INEQUALITY
Scholarship in the sociology of punishment,
criminology, and social stratification offers both
theory and evidence linking racialized mass
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
399
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
incarceration to more inequality, worsening
neighborhoods, declining civic engagement,
employment problems, and family harm. Even
as he offers the most powerful evidence to
date, however, Western (2006) acknowledges
it is an “extravagant claim” to draw such a
close connection between incarceration and the
American social stratification system (p. 11). It
is an extravagant claim, one more easily made
than convincingly demonstrated.
Does imprisonment reflect societal disadvantage or cause it? Sociological research on
inequality and mass incarceration clearly shows
both processes at work. The most disadvantaged and vulnerable are surely more likely to
end up in prison. Increasingly, however, sociologists argue that crime and punishment cause
future disadvantage, playing a pivotal role in
the individual transition to adult roles (Laub
& Sampson 2003, Massoglia & Uggen 2010,
Western 2006) and in the larger stratification
system. Conventional wisdom to the contrary,
we can no longer think of prisoners as isolated loners or of the prison as isolated from
other social structures. Yet, although the studies described here offer sophisticated and compelling evidence on prisons and inequality, firm
causal inferences remain elusive in this line of
scholarship.
Ethical and practical considerations generally preclude random assignment to prison
versus other interventions, and scholars interpret similar empirical findings in radically
different ways. For example, several studies
demonstrate higher recidivism rates for those
sentenced to prison relative to community
sanctions (see Clear 2007 for a lengthy discussion). Is this evidence of the deleterious effects
of imprisonment or confirmation that prisons
reliably select the most crime-prone? The
research reviewed here, based on both observational and experimental methods, represents
a considerable leap forward. Nevertheless,
although considerable progress has been made
documenting the average effect of imprisonment on, say, wages or children’s mental health,
we still know very little about the heterogeneity
of experiences and effects across social groups.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
400
Wakefield
·
Uggen
Research is needed to further refine the
prison experience, accounting for differential
effects across security levels, length and conditions of confinement, and differences in reentry
experiences. Similarly, while much research on
the collateral consequences of incarceration is
motivated by life course or developmental theory, relatively few studies have tested for age
interactions (Uggen 2000, Uggen et al. 2005).
Such work is needed because many of the enduring barriers facing reentering prisoners fly
in the face of theory and research on desistance
from crime (Laub & Sampson 2003). Despite
the steep and well-documented decline in crime
with age, the stigma of incarceration follows
former inmates long after they have left crime.
Finally, although scholars continually highlight
the problems of reentry, few studies adequately
and systematically link the conditions of confinement to successful readjustment upon release. More research applying experimental and
sophisticated matching techniques is needed to
understand the long-term postrelease effects of
interventions for inmates, such as cognitivebehavioral therapies and life skills training (see,
e.g., MacKenzie 2007).
Beyond the methodological difficulties described above, concerns about inequality must
be placed alongside those of public safety, economic costs, and the interests of victims. We
do not suggest that prisons do not have incapacitative effects that enhance public safety
or that criminal punishment serves no societal function. Imprisonment, at some level, reflects societal values and responds to social
harms. Where might the entrenchment of inequality rank among these societal harms? The
field has yet to articulate a compelling rebuttal to the punitive punishment strategy that
has dominated for decades. Although incarceration on a mass scale surely reduces crime, it
is an increasingly inefficient method of doing
so. It also imposes marked and observable social
costs, chief among them the deepening of social
inequalities.
By incapacitating millions of citizens, mass
incarceration appears to have played some role
in reducing U.S. crime rates, at least in the
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
short term. Nevertheless, this review shows
considerable short- and long-term costs to
this strategy, especially with regard to social
inequality. Beyond the potentially criminogenic consequences of mass incarceration, the
racialized character of incarceration threatens
the legitimacy of the entire system (Bobo &
Thompson 2006). To the extent that incarceration effects were ever confined to a small and
dangerous group of persistent criminals, the
research detailed here suggests this is no longer
the case. Instead, the prison has emerged as
a powerful and often invisible institution that
drives and shapes social inequality.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge Adam Boessen and Heather McLaughlin for research assistance.
LITERATURE CITED
Arum R, Beattie IR. 1999. High school experience and the risk of adult incarceration. Criminology 37(3):515–40
Arum R, LaFree G. 2008. Educational attainment, teacher student ratios, and the risk of adult incarceration
among U.S. birth cohorts since 1910. Sociol. Educ. 81(4):397–421
Bachman JG, Wallace JM, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD, Kurth CL, Neighbors HW. 1991. Racial/ethnic
differences in smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among American high school seniors, 1976–89. Am.
J. Public Health 81(3):372–77
Beckett K. 1997. Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
Beckett K, Herbert S. 2008. Dealing with disorder: social control in the postindustrial city. Theor. Crim.
12(1):5–30
Beckett K, Herbert SK. 2010. Banished: The Transformation of Urban Social Control. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press. In press
Beckett K, Nyrop K, Pfingst L. 2006. Race, drugs, and policing: understanding disparities in drug delivery
arrests. Criminology 44(1):105–37
Beckett K, Sasson T. 2000. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge
Beteille A. 1996. Caste, Class, and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a Tanjore Village. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
Bianchi SM. 1999. Feminization and juvenilization of poverty: trends, relative risks, causes, and consequences.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:307–33
Blau JR, Blau P. 1982. The cost of inequality: metropolitan structure and violent crime. Am. Sociol. Rev.
47:114–17
Blau P, Duncan OD. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley
Blumstein A, Beck AJ. 1999. Population growth in US prisons, 1980–1996. In Prisons, Vol. 26: Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research, ed. M Tonry, J Petersilia, pp. 17–61. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Blumstein A, Beck AJ. 2005. Reentry as a transient state between liberty and commitment. Prisoner Reentry
and Crime in America, ed. J Allen, J Travis, C Visher, pp. 50–79. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Blumstein A, Nakamura K. 2009. Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks.
Criminology 47(2):327–59
Bobo LD, Thompson V. 2006. Unfair by design: the war on drugs, race, and the legitimacy of the criminal
justice system. Soc. Res. 73(2):445–72
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
401
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
Braman D. 2002. Families and incarceration. In Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, ed. M Mauer, M Chesney-Lind, pp. 117–35. New York: New Press
Breen R, Jonsson JO. 2005. Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 31:223–43
Bridges GS, Steen S. 1998. Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63(4):554–70
Bur. Labor Stat. 2009. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by race, Hispanic or Latino
ethnicity, sex, and age, seasonally adjusted (Table A-4). http://www.bls.gov/web/cpseea4.pdf
Bushway S, Reuter P. 2002. Labor markets and crime. In Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, ed. JQ Wilson,
J Petersilia, pp. 191–224. Oakland, CA: Inst. Contemp. Stud.
Cancian M, Meyer DR, Han E. 2011. Child support: responsible fatherhood and the quid pro quo. Ann. Am.
Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. In press
Cantor D, Land KC. 1985. Unemployment and crime rates in the post–World War II United States: a
theoretical and empirical analysis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50:317–32
Chiricos T, Barrick K, Bales W, Bontrager S. 2007. The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for
recidivism. Criminology 45(3):547–81
Cho R. 2009. The impact of maternal imprisonment on children’s probability of grade retention: results from
Chicago public schools. J. Urban Econ. 65(1):11–23
Clear TR. 2007. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse.
New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Comfort ML. 2007. Punishment beyond the legal offender. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 3:271–96
Comfort ML. 2008. Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Corcoran M. 1995. Rags to rags: poverty and mobility in the United States. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 21:237–67
Correll SJ, Benard S, Paik I. 2007. Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? Am. J. Sociol. 112:1297–338
D’ Alessio SJ, Stolzenberg L. 2003. Race and the probability of arrest. Soc. Forces 81(4):1381–97
Duncan GJ, Brooks-Gunn J. 1999. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Duncan OD, Featherman DL, Duncan B. 1972. Socioeconomic Background and Achievement. New York: Seminar
Edin K. 2000. Few good men: why low-income single mothers don’t get married. Am. Prospect. 11(4):26–31
Edin K, Kefalas M. 2005. Promises I Can Keep. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Edin K, Nelson TJ, Paranal R. 2004. Fatherhood and incarceration as potential turning points in the criminal
careers of unskilled men. See Pattillo et al. 2004, pp. 46–75
Ellwood DT, Jencks C. 2004. The spread of single-parent families in the United States since 1960. KSG Work.
Pap. No. RWP04-008, Harvard Univ. Kennedy Sch. Gov.
Elo IT. 2009. Social class differentials in health and mortality: patterns and explanations in comparative
perspective. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:553–72
Feeley MM, Simon J. 1992. The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 30(4):449–74
Foster H, Hagan J. 2007. Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Soc. Probl. 54(4):399–433
Foster H, Hagan J. 2009. The mass incarceration of parents in America: issues of race/ethnicity, collateral
damage to children, and prisoner reentry. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 623:179–94
Freeman RB. 1992. Crime and the employment of disadvantaged youth. In Urban Labor Markets and Job
Opportunity, ed. G Peterson, W Vroman, pp. 201–37. Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press
Freeman RB. 2008. Incarceration, criminal background checks, and employment in a low(er) crime society.
Criminol. Public Policy 7:405–12
Gamoran A, Mare RD. 1989. Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? Am. J. Sociol. 94(5):1146–83
Garland D. 1990. Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Garland D. 2000. The culture of high crime societies: some preconditions of recent ‘law and order’ policies.
Br. J. Criminol. 40:347–75
Garland D. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
402
Wakefield
·
Uggen
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
Gaylord-Harden NK, Cunningham JA. 2009. The impact of racial discrimination and coping strategies on
internalizing symptoms in African American youth. J. Youth Adolesc. 38:532–43
Geller A, Garfinkel I, Western B. 2006. The effects of incarceration on employment and wages: an analysis of the
Fragile Families Survey. Work. Pap. 2006-01-FF., Cent. Res. Child Well-Being
Glaze LE, Bonczar TP. 2007. Parole and Probation in the United States, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO,
U.S. Dep. Justice
Glaze LE, Maruschak LM. 2008. Parents in prison and their minor children. U.S. Bur. Justice Stat. Spec. Rep.,
U.S. Dep. Justice, Washington, DC. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=823
Gonnerman J. 2004. Million-dollar blocks: the neighborhood costs of America’s prison boom. Village Voice,
Nov. 16
Greenberg DF, West V. 2001. State prison populations and their growth, 1971–1991. Criminology 39(3):615–
54
Grogger J. 1995. The effect of arrests on the employment and earnings of young men. Q. J. Econ. 110(1):57–71
Grusky D. 2001. The past, present, and future of social inequality. In Social Stratification, ed. D Grusky,
pp. 3–51. Boulder, CO: Westview. 2nd ed.
Hagan J. 1993. The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology 31:465–91
Hagan J, Coleman JP. 2001. Returning captives of the American war on drugs: issues of community and family
reentry. Crime Delinq. 47(3):352–67
Hagan J, Dinovitzer R. 1999. Children of the prison generation: collateral consequences of imprisonment for
children and communities. Crime Justice 26:121–62
Hagan J, Palloni A. 1990. The social reproduction of a criminal class in working class London, circa 1950–1980.
Am. J. Sociol. 96(2):265–99
Hagan J, Peterson RD. 1995. Crime and Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Handel M. 2003. Skills mismatch in the labor market. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29:135–65
Heimer K, Kruttschnitt C. 2005. Gender and Crime. New York: NY Univ. Press
Hirschfield PJ. 2008. Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theor. Criminol. 12(1):79–101
Holzer HJ, Offner P, Sorensen E. 2005. Declining employment among young black less educated men: the
role of incarceration and child support. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 24:330–33
Huebner BM, Gustafson R. 2007. The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the
criminal justice system. J. Crim. Justice 35(3):283–96
Irwin J, Cressey DR. 1962. Thieves, convicts, and the inmate culture. Soc. Probl. 10:142–55
Jacobs D, Helms RE. 2001. Towards a political sociology of punishment: politics and changes in the incarcerated population. Soc. Sci. Res. 30:171–94
Johnson EI, Waldfogel J. 2002. Parental incarceration: recent trends and implications for child welfare. Soc.
Serv. Rev. 76(3):460–79
Keister LA, Moller S. 2000. Wealth inequality in the United States. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:63–81
Kerckhoff AC. 1995. Institutional arrangements and stratification processes in industrial societies. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 15:323–47
Kling J. 2006. Incarceration length, employment, and earnings. Am. Econ. Rev. 96(3):863–76
Kruttschnitt C, Gartner R. 2005. Marking Time in the Golden State. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Langan PA, Levin DJ. 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bur. Justice Stat. Spec. Rep., U.S. Dep.
Justice, Washington, DC. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1134
Lareau A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press
Levitt SD. 1996. The effect of prison population size on crime rates: evidence from prison overcrowding
litigation. Q. J. Econ. 111(2):319–52
Levitt SD. 2004. Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: four factors that explain the decline and six that
do not. J. Econ. Perspect. 18(1):163–90
Lichter DT. 1997. Poverty and inequality among children. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:121–45
Lopoo LM, Western B. 2005. Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. J. Marriage
Fam. 67(3):721–34
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
403
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
MacKenzie DL. 2007. What Works in Corrections? Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Manning WD, Smock PJ. 1995. Why marry? Race and the transition to marriage among cohabitators.
Demography 32(4):509–20
Manza J, Uggen C. 2006. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press
Mare RD. 1980. Change and stability in educational stratification. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:72–87
Massoglia M. 2008a. Incarceration, health, and racial health disparities. Law Soc. Rev. 42(2):275–306
Massoglia M. 2008b. Incarceration as exposure: the prison, infectious disease, and other stress-related illnesses.
J. Health Soc. Behav. 49(1):56–71
Massoglia M, Schnittker J. 2009. No real release. Contexts 8(1):38–42
Massoglia M, Uggen C. 2010. Settling down and aging out: toward an interactionist theory of desistance and
the transition to adulthood. Am. J. Sociol. In press
Mauer M. 1999. Race to Incarcerate. New York: New Press
Morenoff JD. 2005. Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and delinquency in the US. In Ethnicity and Causal
Mechanisms, ed. M Tienda, M Rutter, pp. 139–73. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Morris M, Western B. 1999. Inequality in earnings at the close of the twentieth century. Annu. Rev. Sociol.
25:623–57
Murray J. 2007. The cycle of punishment: social exclusion of prisoners and their children. Criminol. Crim.
Justice 7:55–81
Murray J, Farrington DP. 2008. Parental imprisonment: long-lasting effects on boys internalizing problems
through the life-course. Dev. Psychopathol. 20:273–90
Myrdal G. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Harper &
Brothers
Nagin D, Waldfogel J. 1995. The effects of criminality and conviction on the labor market status of young
British offenders. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 15(1):109–26
Natl. Comm. Correct. Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-To-Be-Released Inmates. A Report to Congress.
Chicago: Natl. Comm. Correct. Health Care
Neckerman KM, Torche F. 2007. Inequality: causes and consequences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33:335–57
Nurse AM. 2004. Returning to strangers: newly paroled young fathers and their children. See Pattillo et al.
2004, pp. 76–96
Ousey GC, Lee MR. 2008. Racial disparity in formal social control: an investigation of alternative explanations
of arrest rate inequality. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 45:322–55
Page J. 2004. Eliminating the enemy: the import of denying prisoners access to higher education in Clinton’s
America. Punishm. Soc. 6(4):357–78
Pager D. 2003. The mark of a criminal record. Am. J. Sociol. 108(5):937–75
Pager D. 2009. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Pager D, Quillian L. 2005. Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do. Am. Sociol. Rev.
70(3):355–80
Pastore AL, Maguire K, eds. 2007. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Table 4.8. Washington, DC: U.S.
Dep. Justice, Bur. Justice Stat.
Parke RD, Clarke-Stewart KA. 2003. The effects of parental incarceration on children: perspectives, promises,
and policies. In Prisoners Once Removed, ed. J Travis, M Waul, pp. 189–232. Washington, DC: Urban
Inst. Press
Pattillo M, Weiman D, Western B, eds. 2004. Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration. New
York: Russell Sage Found.
Petersilia J. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Petersilia J. 2005. From cell to society: Who is returning home? In Prisoner Reentry and Public Safety in America,
ed. J Travis, C Visher, pp. 15–49. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Pettit B, Lyons CJ. 2007. Status and the stigma of incarceration: the labor market effects of incarceration by
race, class, and criminal involvement. In The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America,
ed. S Bushway, MA Stoll, DF Weiman, pp. 203–26. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
404
Wakefield
·
Uggen
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
Pettit B, Western B. 2004. Mass imprisonment and the life course: race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69(2):151–69
Pew Cent. States. 2008. One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Cent. States
Pfaff JF. 2008. The empirics of prison growth: a critical review and path forward. J. Crim. Law Criminol.
98(2):547–620
Pryor FL. 2005. Industries behind bars: an economic perspective on the production of goods and services by
U.S. prison industries. Rev. Ind. Org. 27(1):1–16
Raphael S. 2007. Early incarceration spells and the transition to adulthood. In The Price of Independence, ed. S
Danziger, F Furstenberg, C Rouse, pp. 278–306. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Raphael S, Stoll MA. 2007. Why are so many Americans in prison? Work. Pap. http://gsppi.berkeley.
edu/faculty/sraphael/why-are-so-many-americans-in-prison.pdf. Accessed Aug. 24, 2009
Samuels P, Mukamal D. 2004. After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. New York: Legal Action Cent.
Savelsberg JJ. 1994. Knowledge, domination, and criminal punishment. Am. J. Sociol. 99(4):911–43
Schnittker J, John A. 2007. Enduring stigma: the long-term effects of incarceration on health. J. Health Soc.
Behav. 48(2):115–30
Schnittker J, McLeod JD. 2005. The social psychology of health disparities. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 31:75–103
Schwartz CR, Mare RD. 2005. Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940–2003. Demography
42(4):621–46
Sorensen A. 1994. Women, family, and class. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 20:27–47
Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J, Kramer J. 1998. The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing:
the punishment of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36(4):763–98
Stoll M, Bushway S. 2008. The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminol. Public
Policy 7(3):371–404
Sutton JR. 2000. Imprisonment and social classification in five common-law democracies, 1955–1985. Am. J.
Sociol. 106(2):350–86
Swisher RR, Waller MR. 2008. Confining fatherhood: incarceration and paternal involvement among unmarried white, African American, and Latino fathers. J. Fam. Issues 29(8):1067–88
Tonry M. 1996. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Travis J. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. New York: Urban Inst. Press
Travis J, Cincotta EM, Solomon AL. 2003. Families Left Behind: The Hidden Costs of Incarceration and Reentry.
Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Policy Brief
Travis J, Visher CA. 2005. Prisoner reentry and the pathways to adulthood: policy perspectives. In On Your
Own Without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations, ed. DW Osgood, EM Foster, C
Flanagan, pp. 145–77. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Uggen C. 2000. Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: a duration model of age, employment,
and recidivism. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65(4):529–46
Uggen C, Manza J, Thompson M. 2006. Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal
offenders. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 605:281–310
Uggen C, Wakefield S, Western B. 2005. Work and family perspectives on reentry. In Prison Reentry and
Public Safety, ed. J Travis, C Visher, pp. 209–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
U.S. Dep. Justice. 2004. Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2001. Washington, DC:
U.S. GPO
Visher CA, Travis J. 2003. Transitions from prison to community: understanding individual pathways. Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 29:89–113
Wacquant L. 2000. The new ‘peculiar institution’: on the prison as surrogate ghetto. Theor. Criminol. 4(3):377–
89
Wacquant L. 2001. Deadly symbiosis: when ghetto and prison meet and mesh. Punish. Soc. 3(1):95–133
Wakefield S. 2007. The consequences of incarceration for parents and children. PhD thesis. Univ. Minn.
Wakefield S. 2009. Parental loss of another sort? Parental incarceration and children’s mental health. Work. Pap.,
Univ. Calif., Irvine
Waldfogel J. 1994. The effect of criminal conviction on income and the trust “reposed in the workmen.”
J. Hum. Resour. 29(1):62–81
www.annualreviews.org • Incarceration and Stratification
405
ARI
3 June 2010
1:11
Walmsley R. 2007. World Prison Population List. London: UK Home Off. Res., Dev. Stat. Dir. 7th ed.
Weber M. 1922 [1978]. Economy and Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
West HC, Sabol WJ. 2007. Prisoners in 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, Bur. Justice Stat., U.S. Dep.
Justice
West HC, Sabol WJ. 2009. Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008—Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO,
Bur. Justice Stat., U.S. Dep. Justice. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=839
Western B. 2002. The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 67(4)526–46
Western B. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Western B, Beckett K. 1999. How unregulated is the U.S. labor market? The penal system as a labor market
institution. Am. J. Sociol. 104(4):1030–60
Western B, Kling JR, Weiman DF. 2002. The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime Delinq.
47:410–27
Western B, Pettit B. 2005. Black-white inequality, employment rates, and incarceration. Am. J. Sociol.
111(2)553–78
Western B, Wildeman C. 2009. The black family and mass incarceration. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
621:221–42
Wheelock D. 2006. A jury of ‘peers’: felon jury exclusion, racial threat, and racial inequality in United States criminal
courts. PhD Diss., Univ. Minn., Dep. Sociol.
Wheelock D, Uggen C. 2008. Punishment, crime, and poverty. In The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic
Disparities Persist, ed. AC Lin, DR Harris, pp. 261–92. New York: Russell Sage Found.
Wildeman C. 2009. Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood advantage.
Demography 46(2):265–80
Wildeman C. 2010. Paternal incarceration and children’s physically aggressive behaviors: evidence from the
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Soc. Forces. In press
Williams DR, Collins C. 1995. U.S. socioeconomic and racial differences in health: patterns and explanations.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 21:349–86
Williams DR, Mohammed SA. 2009. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed
research. J. Behav. Med. 32:1, 20-47
Wilson WJ. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Zimring FE, Hawkins G. 1993. The Scale of Imprisonment. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2010.36:387-406. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – Wilson Library on 07/20/10. For personal use only.
SO36CH19-Uggen
406
Wakefield
·
Uggen