The Effect of Black Male Imprisonment The Effect of Black Male Imprisonment on Black Child Povertyon Black Child Poverty

Pamela OliverPamela Oliver

Jessica Jakubowski Jessica Jakubowski

Gary SandefurGary Sandefur

James E. YocomJames E. Yocom

University of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Plan for the talkPlan for the talk

• Quick overview of trends in Black Quick overview of trends in Black imprisonment ratesimprisonment rates

• Why high imprisonment ought to affect Why high imprisonment ought to affect poverty (but might not)poverty (but might not)

• MethodsMethods• Results. Effects of imprisonment onResults. Effects of imprisonment on

– Poverty (positive)Poverty (positive)– family income (negative)family income (negative)– marital status & education (complex)marital status & education (complex)

• DiscussionDiscussion

Trends in Black Imprisonment & Black Trends in Black Imprisonment & Black Child PovertyChild Poverty

Black imprisonment has soaredBlack imprisonment has soaredCPUS Imprisonment Rates per 100,000 adults of both sexes

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Year

In p

ris

on p

er 1

00,0

00

White Black

Black male imprisonment is extremely highBlack male imprisonment is extremely high

• ~40% of the Black male population is under the ~40% of the Black male population is under the supervision of the correctional system (prison, supervision of the correctional system (prison, jail, parole, probation)jail, parole, probation)

• 20%+ of Black men 25-44 had been in prison at 20%+ of Black men 25-44 had been in prison at end of 1990send of 1990s

• Estimated “lifetime expectancy” of spending Estimated “lifetime expectancy” of spending some time in prison is 32% for young Black some time in prison is 32% for young Black men (60% for those who are not high school men (60% for those who are not high school graduates per Western/Petit)graduates per Western/Petit)

• ~ 12% of black men in their 20s were in prison or ~ 12% of black men in their 20s were in prison or jail in the late 1990sjail in the late 1990s

Children are affectedChildren are affected

• 7% of black children, 2.6% of Hispanic 7% of black children, 2.6% of Hispanic children, .8% of white children have a parent children, .8% of white children have a parent in prisonin prison

• Many more have a parent who has been in Many more have a parent who has been in prisonprison

• Even more are being reared in communities Even more are being reared in communities with a high proportion of former inmateswith a high proportion of former inmates

• However, these effects are not showing up in However, these effects are not showing up in global poverty trendsglobal poverty trends

How might imprisonment reduce poverty or the How might imprisonment reduce poverty or the appearanceappearance of poverty for those not imprisoned? of poverty for those not imprisoned?

• Possible sources of real reductionsPossible sources of real reductions– Remove predatory individuals who drag down a Remove predatory individuals who drag down a

communitycommunity– Reduce downward spiral effects of crime on Reduce downward spiral effects of crime on

communitycommunity– Reduce competition for jobsReduce competition for jobs– BUT: These possibilities decline as proportion BUT: These possibilities decline as proportion

imprisoned becomes highimprisoned becomes high

• Reduction in appearanceReduction in appearance – removes poor [& unemployed & low-wage] people removes poor [& unemployed & low-wage] people

from the observed population (c.f. Western & from the observed population (c.f. Western & others)others)

Imprisonment should increase child Imprisonment should increase child povertypoverty

• Removes working-age men from communities Removes working-age men from communities & families& families– A majority of inmates were employed at time of A majority of inmates were employed at time of

arrest, especially those who are parentsarrest, especially those who are parents– Prevents or disrupts marriagePrevents or disrupts marriage

• Lowers economic contributions of menLowers economic contributions of men– The vast majority of those who go to prison get out The vast majority of those who go to prison get out

and re-enter their communitiesand re-enter their communities– A prison record harms chances of employment, A prison record harms chances of employment,

restricts opportunities to low wage workrestricts opportunities to low wage work– Systemic effects: drags down a community’s ties to Systemic effects: drags down a community’s ties to

the world of work & economic advancementthe world of work & economic advancement

Community effectsCommunity effects

• Prisons as criminogenic: spell in prison Prisons as criminogenic: spell in prison reduces capacity to lead a legitimate lifestyle, reduces capacity to lead a legitimate lifestyle, makes crime more attractivemakes crime more attractive

• Crime as capitalization of low income areas, Crime as capitalization of low income areas, increases as legitimate earnings sources increases as legitimate earnings sources decreasedecrease

• Social disruptions from removal & Social disruptions from removal & stigmatization of large proportion of young stigmatization of large proportion of young menmen

• Poverty -> crime -> imprisonment -> crime as a Poverty -> crime -> imprisonment -> crime as a self-reinforcing cycle that may drag whole self-reinforcing cycle that may drag whole communities downcommunities down

Why Black Men’s Incarceration Should Why Black Men’s Incarceration Should Affect Black Child Poverty (our initial Affect Black Child Poverty (our initial model)model)

ChildPoverty

Father has lowerearning capacity

Father not inhousehold

Maleimprisonment

rates

How imprisonment affects children: more How imprisonment affects children: more complex modelcomplex model

ChildPoverty

Father has lowerearning capacity

Father not inhousehold

Maleimprisonment

rates

SocialContext

Mother'sEducation

Poverty -> Crime -> Imprisonment?Poverty -> Crime -> Imprisonment?

• These relations are not as clear as they These relations are not as clear as they may seemmay seem

• Although poor individuals are much Although poor individuals are much more likely to be arrested and go to more likely to be arrested and go to prison for crimes, at the aggregate prison for crimes, at the aggregate level, the poverty rate is not closely level, the poverty rate is not closely related to the imprisonment raterelated to the imprisonment rate

Fig 1. Black child poverty declined while Black male Fig 1. Black child poverty declined while Black male imprisonment increased & Black marriage decreasedimprisonment increased & Black marriage decreased

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

Perc

ent P

oor

or M

arri

ed

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

% in

pri

son

Percent of black children in poverty (CPS) Percent of black women 18-45 ever married (CPS)Percent of black males in prison (CPUS)

poverty

marriage

imprisonment

MethodsMethods

Data: CPS SampleData: CPS Sample

Poverty, income, household variables: Current Poverty, income, household variables: Current Population Survey 1988-1998Population Survey 1988-1998

• Children < 15Children < 15• Restricted to homogenous Black households, Restricted to homogenous Black households,

child resides with mother (and possibly also child resides with mother (and possibly also father)father)

• Limited to 20 states + DC with enough Black Limited to 20 states + DC with enough Black children in the sample + prison data for stable children in the sample + prison data for stable resultsresults

• Encompasses 89% of US Black population in Encompasses 89% of US Black population in 19901990

Data: CPS VariablesData: CPS Variables

• Whether the child is in poverty Whether the child is in poverty • Whether the child lives with mother only or Whether the child lives with mother only or

both parentsboth parents• Number of children under 18 in householdNumber of children under 18 in household• Educational level of the most highly educated Educational level of the most highly educated

woman in the household (usually the mother; woman in the household (usually the mother; we call this mother’s education for simplicity)we call this mother’s education for simplicity)

• Whether the household is in a metropolitan Whether the household is in a metropolitan areaarea

• Age of child (younger children have younger Age of child (younger children have younger parents & higher rates of poverty)parents & higher rates of poverty)

Data: ImprisonmentData: Imprisonment

Correctional Populations of the US 1982-1998. Correctional Populations of the US 1982-1998. Count of persons in state institutions as of Count of persons in state institutions as of mid-yearmid-year

• Black male imprisonment rate for each Black male imprisonment rate for each state/year = number of Black men in prison state/year = number of Black men in prison divided by number of adult Black men in the divided by number of adult Black men in the general population ages 18-40 per US Census general population ages 18-40 per US Census estimatesestimates

• Imprisonment is lagged 4 yearsImprisonment is lagged 4 years– Preliminary analysis shows effects peak at 4-5 Preliminary analysis shows effects peak at 4-5

yearsyears– Prison stays for most offenses are 2-4 yearsPrison stays for most offenses are 2-4 years

Analytic MethodsAnalytic Methods

• Logistic regression (dichotomies) or OLS Logistic regression (dichotomies) or OLS regression (numerical) or mlogit (education)regression (numerical) or mlogit (education)

• Adjustment of household clustering in CPS Adjustment of household clustering in CPS using household ID and Stata “cluster” using household ID and Stata “cluster” optionoption

• All models include fixed effects dummy All models include fixed effects dummy variables for state and year (not shown)variables for state and year (not shown)– State dummies control for other unobserved State dummies control for other unobserved

factors affecting state Black child poverty levelsfactors affecting state Black child poverty levels– Year dummies control for national-level factors Year dummies control for national-level factors

affecting Black child poverty levels as well as affecting Black child poverty levels as well as national-level trends in imprisonmentnational-level trends in imprisonment

ResultsResults

Poverty, education, marital statusPoverty, education, marital status

Proportion of children in poverty, by Proportion of children in poverty, by mother’s education and marital statusmother’s education and marital status

Married Single<HS 0.37 0.77

HS only 0.13 0.55

Some Coll 0.06 0.34Coll Grad 0.02 0.14

Both marital status and mother’s education are strongly related to child poverty

Trends in education in Black families (most highly Trends in education in Black families (most highly educated woman in child’s family): Distribution in three educated woman in child’s family): Distribution in three eraseras

1988-1990 1991-1994 1995-1998<HS 0.27 0.24 0.20HS only 0.45 0.42 0.38Some Coll 0.19 0.25 0.31Coll Grad 0.09 0.09 0.11

There was a substantial increase in the education of Black children’s mothers in the study period: less than high school and high school grad declined, while the proportion of Black mothers who had attended college went up

Proportion of Black children with single Proportion of Black children with single mothers, by education and eramothers, by education and era

1988-19901988-1990 1991-19941991-1994 1995-19981995-1998

LTHSLTHS .74.74 .78.78 .84.84

HS gradHS grad .59.59 .64.64 .64.64

Some ColSome Col .48.48 .53.53 .58.58

Coll GradColl Grad .33.33 .32.32 .31.31

The rise in single mothers is largest for the less than high school and some college groups; single mothers are steady for high school graduate and college graduate mothers.

Effects of ImprisonmentEffects of Imprisonment

Multivariate modelsMultivariate models

• All models include dummy variables as controls for All models include dummy variables as controls for fixed state, year effects: coefficients not shown.fixed state, year effects: coefficients not shown.

• The individual factors by far are the strongest The individual factors by far are the strongest predictors of poverty, income and single mother: predictors of poverty, income and single mother: mother’s education, metropolitan residence, number mother’s education, metropolitan residence, number of childrenof children

• Imprisonment is different only for the 21x9 = 189 Imprisonment is different only for the 21x9 = 189 state/years, and the 20 state dummies and 8 year state/years, and the 20 state dummies and 8 year dummies absorb the variation between states and dummies absorb the variation between states and across years, so there may be stronger imprisonment across years, so there may be stronger imprisonment effects if there is mutual causationeffects if there is mutual causation

• Consistent set of cases 1988-1998 across all Consistent set of cases 1988-1998 across all analyses.analyses.

Child is Poor (Logistic regression)Child is Poor (Logistic regression)

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2Impris Rate 1.207** 1.218* Age 0.953*** 0.952*** 0.920*** 0.920***Mom Single 11.378***11.347*** 11.169*** 11.147***N Kids 1.690*** 1.691*** 1.643*** 1.645***Metro 0.757*** 0.750*** 0.713*** 0.706***Female Educ (HS only reference)LTHS 2.944*** 2.954*** 3.193*** 3.209***Some Col 0.479*** 0.479*** 0.484*** 0.485***Col Grad 0.154*** 0.155*** 0.144*** 0.144*** legend: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001bic 33840.33 33848.67 10885.41 10882.4N 36553 36553 11451 11451

Under 5 OnlyAll children

Each % point rise in imprisonment rate raises odds of poverty by ~21%

Log Family Income (OLS): All childrenLog Family Income (OLS): All children

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2Impris Rate -0.073*** -0.105*** -0.055** Age 0.027*** 0.028*** 0.019*** 0.019*** 0.033*** 0.033***Mom Single -0.975*** -0.974***N Kids -0.020*** -0.020*** -0.037*** -0.037*** -0.009 -0.009 Metro 0.072*** 0.075*** 0.097*** 0.100*** 0.048** 0.050** Female Educ (HS only reference)

LTHS -0.281*** -0.283*** -0.365*** -0.368*** -0.250*** -0.251***Some Col 0.260*** 0.260*** 0.244*** 0.244*** 0.264*** 0.264***Col Grad 0.628*** 0.626*** 0.568*** 0.566*** 0.698*** 0.697***bic 65156.53 65199.3 24046.82 24077.59 41024.56 41033.79N 36553 36553 14228 14228 22325 22325

All families Two Parent Single Mother

Black children’s family incomes are lower where imprisonment was higher four years ago. Effect is stronger for two-parent families.

Log Family Income (children < 5 only)Log Family Income (children < 5 only)

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2Impris Rate -0.074*** -0.092* -0.070**Age 0.050*** 0.050*** 0.038*** 0.038*** 0.055*** 0.055***Mom Single -1.040*** -1.040***N Kids 0.020*** 0.019*** -0.019 -0.019 0.040*** 0.039***Metro 0.059** 0.062** 0.107** 0.109** 0.028 0.032 Female Educ (HS only reference)

LTHS -0.297*** -0.300*** -0.426*** -0.427*** -0.266*** -0.268***Some Col 0.261*** 0.261*** 0.245*** 0.245*** 0.260*** 0.260***Col Grad 0.655*** 0.654*** 0.551*** 0.550*** 0.789*** 0.790***

bic 20883.1 20890.2 7236.63 7236.3 13785.63 13786.57N 11451 11451 3990 3990 7461 7461legend: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001

All families Two Parent Single Mother

Effect sizes are similar to all children, but small N reduces significance for two-parent families

Conclusion: Family incomeConclusion: Family income

• There does appear to be a negative effect of There does appear to be a negative effect of the lagged Black male imprisonment on Black the lagged Black male imprisonment on Black children’s family income which is apparently children’s family income which is apparently due to the effect on male incomes.due to the effect on male incomes.

• Household income, net family income Household income, net family income excluding transfers show the same patterns.excluding transfers show the same patterns.

• This aggregate effect is consistent with This aggregate effect is consistent with individual level research on effects of a prison individual level research on effects of a prison record on lifetime earnings.record on lifetime earnings.

• The 4 year lag is consistent with process of The 4 year lag is consistent with process of entering & returning from prisonentering & returning from prison

Child has Single mother (Logistic)Child has Single mother (Logistic)

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2Impris Rate 0.912 0.947 Age 0.972*** 0.972*** 0.997 0.997 N Kids 0.905*** 0.905*** 0.891*** 0.891*** Female Educ (HS only reference)Metro 1.154* 1.159** 0.996 0.998 LTHS 2.194*** 2.189*** 2.450*** 2.446***Some Col 0.648*** 0.648*** 0.562*** 0.562***Col Grad 0.253*** 0.253*** 0.167*** 0.167***bic 45681.95 45677.31 13664.54 13655.78N 36553 36553 11451 11451legend: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001

All children Under 5 Only

This was not expected: the lagged effect of imprisonment on single mothers is not significant. This seems illogical. But this model controls for the mother’s education.

Adult female educationAdult female education

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6LTHSImp Rate 1.331*** 1.479*** 1.478***Metro 0.805** 0.799*** 0.771** 0.762** 0.771** 0.763** Age 0.990** 0.990** 0.985 0.986 Some ColImp Rate 1.045 1.034 1.034 Metro 1.435*** 1.433*** 1.468*** 1.465*** 1.468*** 1.465***Age 1.002 1.002 1.007 1.008 Col GradImp Rate 1.239* 1.117 1.116 Metro 1.881*** 1.866*** 2.272*** 2.263*** 2.272*** 2.263***Age 1.018*** 1.017*** 0.986 0.987 bic 92466.11 92481.86 29363.74 29360.44 29337.34 29333.98N 36553 36553 11451 11451 11451 11451

All Families Children under age 5

legend: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001

Strong prison effect for LTHS. ALSO a weaker + effect on college graduate. Per BIC test, prison is NS for <5 although coefficient is large.

Female Education: LTHS vs. all othersFemale Education: LTHS vs. all others

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4Imp Rate 1.297*** 1.498*** 1.497***Age 0.987*** 0.987*** 0.984 0.985 Metro 0.677*** 0.671*** 0.634*** 0.626*** 0.635*** 0.626***

bic 39638.48 39670.02 13188.4 13209.88 13180.08 13201.47N 36553 36553 11451 11451 11451 11451

legend: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001

All children Children Under 5 Only

Black children are 30% more likely to have mothers with LTHS if lagged imprisonment is 1 % point higher. This effect is even stronger for children under 5. BIC test says Imprisonment Rate is significant in all comparisons.

Mom single & LTHS (logistic regression)Mom single & LTHS (logistic regression)

Effect for all children is weaker than effect on LTHS (married + single); effect for young children is comparable. Conclusion: the effect is on LTHS education.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4Imp Rate 1.205** 1.498*** 1.496***Age 0.973*** 0.972*** 0.975 0.976 Metro 0.828** 0.822** 0.711*** 0.702*** 0.712*** 0.626***

bic 34654.42 34662.89 11997.85 12016.22 11990.85 13201.47N 36553 36553 11451 11451 11451 11451

legend: * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001

All children Children Under 5 Only

Effects of Black male imprisonment on Effects of Black male imprisonment on mother’s educationmother’s education• Each 1% increase in BMI yieldsEach 1% increase in BMI yields

– 30% increase in odds of that no woman in 30% increase in odds of that no woman in household is a HS graduatehousehold is a HS graduate

– AND 23% increase in odds that a woman is a AND 23% increase in odds that a woman is a college graduatecollege graduate

– I.e. bifurcation in educational experienceI.e. bifurcation in educational experience

• Thus the second path from imprisonment Thus the second path from imprisonment seems to be through its effects on mother’s seems to be through its effects on mother’s education which, in turn, is related to greater education which, in turn, is related to greater chance of being single mother AND to lower chance of being single mother AND to lower incomeincome

Other checks: Effects of lagged Black Other checks: Effects of lagged Black male imprisonmentmale imprisonment

• Lowers (-) average age of child Lowers (-) average age of child more more recent births as lags go up. Again, no recent births as lags go up. Again, no significant interactions with educationsignificant interactions with education

• Raises (+) # of children in family or Raises (+) # of children in family or household as lags go up. Imprisonment household as lags go up. Imprisonment slows the decline in # of children. No slows the decline in # of children. No interactions with mother’s education or interactions with mother’s education or marital status.marital status.

• Seems to imply more children being born Seems to imply more children being born where imprisonment is higher, or fewer where where imprisonment is higher, or fewer where it is lower.it is lower.

Associations between imprisonment & Associations between imprisonment & household compositionhousehold composition• Unrelated to # of men in household, Unrelated to # of men in household,

either employed or unemployed.either employed or unemployed.• High rates of non-college single High rates of non-college single

mothers is associated with higher rates mothers is associated with higher rates of imprisonment, both simultaneous of imprisonment, both simultaneous and lagging single mothers.and lagging single mothers.

• Thus there appear to be patterns of Thus there appear to be patterns of mutual causality between education-mutual causality between education-marital status & imprisonment.marital status & imprisonment.

Black Imprisonment affects Black child Black Imprisonment affects Black child poverty through (at least) two pathspoverty through (at least) two paths

1.1. Direct effect on reduction of male Direct effect on reduction of male incomeincome

2.2. Indirect effect through increasing Indirect effect through increasing likelihood that the mother has not likelihood that the mother has not graduated high school which, in turn, graduated high school which, in turn, increases the likelihood that the child increases the likelihood that the child is pooris poor

3.3. Both effects are strongest with 3-5 Both effects are strongest with 3-5 year lagsyear lags

Causal Direction Appears to be Causal Direction Appears to be imprisonment imprisonment Child Poverty, NOT Child Poverty, NOT poverty poverty imprisonment imprisonment• Effect is stronger, not weaker, when Effect is stronger, not weaker, when

household composition & state/year dummies household composition & state/year dummies are controlledare controlled

• Lagged effects of imprisonment are stronger Lagged effects of imprisonment are stronger than current effects (not shown)than current effects (not shown)

• Incarceration rates generally have low to Incarceration rates generally have low to negative correlation with poverty rates (see negative correlation with poverty rates (see next slide) in cross-sectional aggregate next slide) in cross-sectional aggregate analysis analysis

Average correlationsAverage correlationsAverage

1988-1998

Average 1988-1992

Average 1993-1998

Child poverty X L4.imp rate 0.01 -0.03 0.04Child poverty X imp rate 0.00 -0.03 0.03

Child Pov X imp rate -0.10 -0.11 -0.09Adult Pov X imp rate -0.12 -0.10 -0.14Child Pov X L4.imp rate -0.12 -0.14 -0.11Adult Pov X L4.imp rate -0.19 -0.19 -0.18D.ChPov X D.imp rate -0.07 -0.04 -0.10D.AdPov X D.imp rate 0.02 0.13 -0.08Crime X imp rate 0.20 0.23 0.09B homicide X imp rate -0.08 -0.07 -0.11L.Crime X imp rate 0.24 0.25 0.10L.B homicide X imp rate -0.06 -0.06 -0.13

Current Study Individual poverty X state Black male

States (Black population > 20000) total Black imprisonment

Details in paper tables

Black children’s poverty was negatively correlated with Black children’s poverty was negatively correlated with state Black male imprisonment ratestate Black male imprisonment rate

Correlations Between Black Child Poverty/Income & Black Male Imprsionment

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Year

Co

rrel

atio

n

Poverty Income

Magnitudes of effectsMagnitudes of effects

• Effect sizes are small compared to Effect sizes are small compared to individual-level factorsindividual-level factors

• Design is conservative as the state Design is conservative as the state dummy is the average across time, dummy is the average across time, controls-out SOME of the effect of controls-out SOME of the effect of imprisonment on poverty & the year imprisonment on poverty & the year dummy controls-out any national-level dummy controls-out any national-level tendency for imprisonment to cause tendency for imprisonment to cause povertypoverty

Interactions: Class differentiationInteractions: Class differentiation

• The negative effects of high imprisonment The negative effects of high imprisonment rates on income are weaker for families where rates on income are weaker for families where the woman has been to college, but BIC tests the woman has been to college, but BIC tests say interactions of prison and education are say interactions of prison and education are NS.NS.

• High imprisonment rates are associated with High imprisonment rates are associated with RISES in the proportion of Black children RISES in the proportion of Black children living with married college-graduate mothersliving with married college-graduate mothers

• These differential effects masked the effects These differential effects masked the effects of imprisonment on the least educated and of imprisonment on the least educated and may point to class differences among Black may point to class differences among Black people as related to incarceration patternspeople as related to incarceration patterns

Possible alternate explanationsPossible alternate explanations

• Fixed effects model controls for unobserved factors Fixed effects model controls for unobserved factors consistently correlated with state or yearconsistently correlated with state or year

• Increasing effects with lags through 3-5 years (not Increasing effects with lags through 3-5 years (not shown) is suggestive of temporal order shown) is suggestive of temporal order prisonprisonpovertypoverty

• Remaining alternate explanations have to be Remaining alternate explanations have to be something that both increased Black male something that both increased Black male imprisonment AND, several years later, reduced Black imprisonment AND, several years later, reduced Black family incomes (especially for two-parent families) family incomes (especially for two-parent families) and contributed to a bifurcation in the educational and contributed to a bifurcation in the educational experience of Black women, especially lowering HS experience of Black women, especially lowering HS graduation while education was generally risinggraduation while education was generally rising

Implications for researchImplications for research

• Remember that large scale economic & fertility Remember that large scale economic & fertility trends can mask the effects of social policies on well-trends can mask the effects of social policies on well-being being

• Watch for different effects on different segments of Watch for different effects on different segments of the populationthe population

• Stop assuming simple causal path of poverty -> Stop assuming simple causal path of poverty -> crime -> incarcerationcrime -> incarceration

• Need to look for longer-term & indirect effectsNeed to look for longer-term & indirect effects• Is likely that incarceration rates generate positive Is likely that incarceration rates generate positive

feedbacks back into crime through increasing feedbacks back into crime through increasing poverty: have to think about feedback systemspoverty: have to think about feedback systems

Thinking about system feedbacksThinking about system feedbacks

Poverty

Crime

EnforcementImprisonment

Politics Etc.

In conclusionIn conclusion

• Does Black male incarceration affect Does Black male incarceration affect Black child poverty? The answer Black child poverty? The answer appears to be YES.appears to be YES.

• In understanding the persistence of In understanding the persistence of racial economic inequality, we need to racial economic inequality, we need to keep our eye on inequalities in the keep our eye on inequalities in the criminal justice system.criminal justice system.

The endThe end

Black children’s poverty was negatively correlated with Black children’s poverty was negatively correlated with state Black male imprisonment ratestate Black male imprisonment rate

Correlations Between Black Child Poverty/Income & Black Male Imprsionment

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Year

Co

rrel

atio

n

Poverty Income

In fact . . .In fact . . .

• If you correlate Black child poverty with the If you correlate Black child poverty with the Black male imprisonment rate WITHIN a Black male imprisonment rate WITHIN a single year, the correlation is generally single year, the correlation is generally NEGATIVE (and was more negative in the NEGATIVE (and was more negative in the 1980s)1980s)

• Conversely, the cross-sectional correlations Conversely, the cross-sectional correlations between Black male imprisonment and Black between Black male imprisonment and Black household income are generally POSTIVE household income are generally POSTIVE (and were more positive in the 1980s)(and were more positive in the 1980s)

• Have to dismiss simple ideas that poverty Have to dismiss simple ideas that poverty causes imprisonmentcauses imprisonment

Black children’s poverty was Black children’s poverty was very weaklyvery weakly negatively correlated with negatively correlated with state Black male imprisonment rate, while household income state Black male imprisonment rate, while household income correlation was correlation was very weaklyvery weakly positive positive

Correlations Between Black Child Poverty/Income & Black Male Imprsionment

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000Year

Co

rrel

atio

n

Poverty Income

Correlations are low, highly variable with selection of states

Bivariate correlations between White & Black Bivariate correlations between White & Black imprisonment and White & Black adult povertyimprisonment and White & Black adult poverty

Bivariate correlations: Imprisonment & adult poverty

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Bpris Bpov Bpris Wpov Wpris Bpov Wpris Wpov

• Next two slides show first White then Next two slides show first White then Black prison sentences by offense Black prison sentences by offense groupgroup

National White Prison Sentences per 100,000 populationNational White Prison Sentences per 100,000 population

White New Sentences per 100,000 pop, by offense. All States in NCRP

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Violent Rob/Bur Theft Drug Other

Drug

Rob/BurgViolent

Theft

Other

National Black Prison Sentences per 100,000 populationNational Black Prison Sentences per 100,000 population

Black New Sentences per 100,000 pop, by offense. All States in NCRP

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Violent Rob/Bur Theft Drug Other

Drug

Rob/Burg

Violent

Theft Other

National Black/White Disparity in Prison Sentences, by OffenseNational Black/White Disparity in Prison Sentences, by Offense

B/W Disparity Ratios in Prison Admits, by Offense. All States in NCRP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Violent Rob/Burg Theft Drug Other

States’ Black imprisonment rates were generally States’ Black imprisonment rates were generally negativelynegatively correlated with poverty correlated with poverty

Correlation between black state imprisonment rate & black adult poverty within years

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999Year

Cor

rela

tion

drug violent rob/burg theft in prison