Cultural Considerations

The Demographic Implications of the Prison Boom

Becky Pettit1

University of Washington

Bryan Sykes

University of Washington

January 2007

1Please direct correspondence to Becky Pettit, Department of Sociology, Uni- versity of Washington, 318 Condon Hall, Box 353340, Seattle, WA 98195- 3340,bpettit@u.washington.edu.

 

 

Overview

The growth of the prison system over the last three decades represents a

critical institutional intervention in the lives of American families. It is quite

striking, though increasingly clear, that the massive buildup in the size of

the penal population has not been due to large scale changes in crime or

criminality. Instead, a host of changes at the local, state, and federal lev-

els with respect to law enforcement and penal policy are implicated in the

expansion of the prison system. Law enforcement agencies have stepped up

policing, prosecutors have more actively pursued convictions, and there have

been myriad changes in sentencing policy that now mandate jail or prison

time.

Such a dramatic change in criminal justice policy – and rapid growth in

the prison system – raises questions about its demographic effects. How have

changes in exposure to the criminal justice system affected fertility patterns?

Does the expansion of the prison system help to explain increases in non-

marital fertility (or declines in teenage fertility)? How does spending time in

prison affect morbidity and mortality? How does the prison system and the

enumeration of prisoners influence our understanding of internal migration

streams and population shifts?

Raising these issues is important for several reasons. First, it is unclear

whether (or to what extent) legislators or criminologists anticipated the far-

reaching demographic effects of changes in sentencing policies when they were

debated. It is important to consider the implications of shifts in criminal

justice policy and practice – not only with respect to criminal involvement

– but on other, arguably distant, demographic processes. There is growing

recognition that shifts in sentencing policy have had important implications

well beyond the usual purview of the criminal justice system and that effects

1

 

 

of spending time in prison reach well beyond those individuals who have had

contact with the criminal justice system.

A second important consideration is that gender, race, and class inequal-

ities in exposure to the prison system compel attention to the importance

of the criminal justice system in accounts of demographic inequalities. The

massive growth of the penal system is notable not only for its size, but also

for its disproportionate effects on minority and low-skill men. There has

been considerable attention paid to how inequalities in involvement in the

criminal justice system affect accounts of social, economic, and political in-

equality. However, little attention has been paid to the role of the criminal

justice system for understanding gender, race, and educational inequalities

in key demographic processes.

A third motivation to consider the influence of the prison system on de-

mographic trends is its undeniable political significance. Understanding the

consequences of the prison boom for American demography is a critical po-

litical issue that has significance for how we conduct social surveys, how we

enumerate the U.S. population, and how we design social policy. Many social

surveys explicitly don’t include the incarcerated population while others use a

sampling mechanism that systematically – though perhaps not categorically

– undersamples inmates and former inmates. As the prison population has

grown, and to the extent that it is disproportionately male, African Ameri-

can, and low-educated, we may not only be misrepresenting key social and

demographic processes at the aggregate level, but we may also be misunder-

standing the explanations for demographic behavior as our analyses suffer

from an increasingly acute sample bias.

In summary, a careful assessment of the implications of the prison system

for accounts of the demographic condition of the population is critical for

2

 

 

sound design of social policy and allocation of public resources.

Prison growth and its demographic implications

The massive increase in the penal population is now well-documented and

demographic inequalities in exposure to the prison system are increasingly

clear. Men represent over 90 percent of all inmates, although women repre-

sent one of the fastest growing subgroups of the penal population. African

Americans are 7 times more likely than whites to spend time in prison. Men

who have dropped out of high school are upwards of ten times more likely to

spend time in prison than men who have finished high school.

The massive growth in the prison population has resulted in enduring,

and in some ways growing, racial and educational disproportionality in ex-

posure to prison. The aggregate changes in the composition of the penal

population result from the accumulation of many specific changes to local,

state, and federal criminal justice policy and practice. Growing demographic

inequality in exposure to the criminal justice system has critical implications

for demographic outcomes in three broad areas: marriage and fertility (and

especially non-marital fertility), health and mortality, and internal migration

or population shifts.

Fertility

There are two somewhat opposing, yet key, shifts in American fertility that

may be related to the expansion of the prison system: widespread increases in

non-marital fertility and declines in teenage fertility. It is commonly observed

that almost a third (27 percent in 2000) of children in the U.S. live in single

parent families. But, vastly more black children live in single parent families

(Ellwood and Jencks 2004). By the end of the 1990s over 60 percent of black

3

 

 

children were living with only one parent. And, while separation and divorce

remain the modal reason for single parenthood among white children, never

married motherhood is the primary source of living with a single parent for

black children (as it has been since about 1983).

The reasons for racial differences in single parenthood between blacks and

non-blacks are controversial and not well-understood (Ellwood and Jencks

2004). Earning power, sex ratios, gender roles, attitudes and social norms

have all been used to explain fertility and marriage decisions. However,

research has not paid enough attention to the generalized decoupling of mar-

riage and fertility, research has generally not considered how fertility decisions

may be jointly determined by partners in a relationship, nor has research been

particularly effective in explaining trends in non-marital fertility or over-time

differences by race.

The expansion of the criminal justice system is a likely culprit for the

growth in non-marital fertility and racial inequality in non-marital fertility.

Although the data sources are few, a growing body of evidence supports this

claim. For example, research by Western and colleagues shows that fathers

who have been incarcerated are much less likely to be cohabiting or married a

year after their babies birth (Western, Lopoo, and McLanahan 2004). Other

research links incarceration to multipartnered fertility. That is, women who

have children with men who have been incarcerated are more likely to have

other children with other men (Carlson and Furstenberg 2006). Incarceration

is likely to affect marriage both directly through its incapacitative effect

and indirectly through its implications on economic opportunities and social

stigma (see, for example, Edin and Kefalas 2005).

Curiously, however, while non-marital fertility has increased, teenage fer-

tility has declined. Teenage fertility reached its zenith in the early 1990s, but

4

 

 

through the 1990s there was a fairly dramatic decline in teenage fertility. The

overall teen birthrate was 62 per 1000 in 1991, but the teen birthrate fell con-

sistently through the 1990s to reach 49 per 1000 in 1999 (Hamilton, Sutton,

and Ventura 2005). While the teen fertility rate among blacks is absolutely

higher than among whites, the decline in teenage fertility and teenage non-

marital fertility over the last 15 years has been more acute among blacks

than among whites (Ventura et al. 2005).

Explanations for declines in teenage fertility (and non-marital fertility

among teens) have been widely debated. Labor market prospects, educa-

tional investments, improvements in contraceptive use, and shifts in welfare

policy have all been associated with declines in teenage fertility. However,

research has not come to any definitive conclusions – findings are mixed by

most accounts – nor has research been particularly effective in explaining

race differences in either the level or the trend in teenage fertility.

Some recent scholarship has suggested the prison system may have critical

impacts on black teenage fertility (Mecholulan 2006). Direct tests of shifts in

penal policy – and changes in the prison population – on teenage fertility are

rare. But, recent research has investigated links between the size of the incar-

cerated population specifically and teen fertility among young black women.

Mecholulan (2006) argues that increases in incarceration among young black

men in particular, have led young black women to defer fertility, choosing

instead to make educational and labor market investments.

Effects

Although the behavioral implications of spending time in prison on non-

marital and teenage fertility are not horribly well understood, it is clear that

5

 

 

the criminal justice system has wide-ranging implications for family structure

and its reach extends well beyond those directly involved with the criminal

justice system. On any given day, estimates suggest that upwards of 1.5

million children have a parent in prison or jail. Recent estimates suggest

that close to 6 percent of American children have had a parent in prison.

Furthermore, given racial and educational homophily in mating (and mar-

riage) racial and educational inequalities in exposure to the criminal justice

system among adults are transmitted to their children. Recent estimates

by Wildeman (2007) suggest that 1 in 5 black children has had a parent in

prison (compared to 1 in 40 white children) and just as exposure the criminal

justice system is stratified by education, children of high school dropouts are

much more likely than children of those with more education to have either

a mother or father in prison.

The figures alone suggest that the criminal justice system must be con-

sidered in accounts of non-marital fertility, and the implications of spending

time in prison must be weighed in the formulation of public supports for

children in single-parent households. In addition, however, the implications

of the prison boom on trends in non-marital fertility, teenage fertility, and

race and class inequalities in fertility deserve much greater empirical and

theoretical attention. Assessments of the impact of the prison system on

non-marital and teenage fertility must pay closer attention to partnering

patterns and within-group inequalities. Without more careful attention to

race (and class) distinctions in partnering and fertility we may focus on av-

erage improvements (in teenage fertility, for example) and overlook growing

inequality and deepening disadvantage.

6

 

 

Mortality and morbidity

While in general the health of the American population has improved over

the past few decades, not all Americans have benefited equally. Racial in-

equalities in health and mortality in the U.S. are persistent and it is com-

monly observed that blacks have worse health outcomes and higher mortality

at younger ages than whites. Some racial and ethnic groups have not only

not experienced advances in health outcomes, but some socio-demographic

groups have recently witnessed the introduction or re-introduction of illnesses

and disease which may have critical implications for racial inequalities in

health and mortality over the life course.

Explanations for enduring racial disparities in health are many yet there

is clear recognition that our understanding of race and class inequalities in

health and mortality are incomplete. Research has paid relatively little atten-

tion to how patterns of institutionalization affect health and how differential

levels of incarceration may exacerbate inequalities in health and mortality.

There is reason to believe that incarceration has important effects on de-

scriptive accounts of health and mortality and or our theoretical understand-

ings of them. Research has probably made the most advances in thinking

about how incarceration (and racial inequalities in incarceration) relates to

racial inequalities in communicable disease. Inmates and former inmates ex-

hibit extraordinarily high rates of tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and HIV/AIDS.

Although the research is limited, the available estimates are quite startling.

Recent estimates place the TB infection rate among prisoners close to 25%

(compared with less than .01 percent in the general population). Hepatitis

C infection rates range from 20-40% in the penal population (compared to

close to 2% of the general population). And, estimates place the HIV/AIDS

infection rate of prisoners 10 times higher than that of non-prisoners (Res-

7

 

 

tum 2005).

Effects

Imprisonment may have direct implications for health outcomes through

infections acquired in prison or jail (especially communicable diseases such as

TB, hepatitis C, and HIV/AIDS), but also have indirect implications by set-

ting men (and women) on a “trajectory of cumulative disadvantage”(London

and Meyers 2006). Evidence suggests that a range of different types of con-

tact with the criminal justice system may impact health-related behavior and

outcomes. Even short term stints in jail have implications for TB exposure,

and probation/parole may influence individuals’ use of public health initia-

tives like needle exchanges (e.g., not use facilities and then inject in unsafe

ways).

Again the reach of the prison system extends well beyond those who

spend time in prison. For example, given high rates of racial and economic

residential segregation, high rates of TB within the incarcerated population

has important implications for TB exposure among other members of the

population. Despite substantial declines in the overall risk of TB in the U.S.,

blacks are 8 times more likely to have TB than whites and even black children

have an extraordinarily high prevalence of TB.

At the same time racial (and class) homophily in sexual partnerships

means that racial and class inequalities in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and

hepatitis C in the incarcerated population is mirrored in the non-incarcerated

population. Research suggests that blacks are more likely than whites to have

hepatitis C (CID 2000). And while HIV/AIDS ranks as the 5th leading cause

of death nationwide among women and men 25-44, HIV/AIDS infection was

8

 

 

the leading cause of death for African American men aged 35-44 and the

leading cause of death for African American women aged 25-34 by 2004.

Among African American women, the primary transmission mechanism was

high risk heterosexual sex (CDC 2005).

Striking racial inequalities in health and mortality necessitate further con-

sideration of the criminal justice system in accounts of inequality in health

and mortality. The implications of spending time in prison must be weighed

in the formulation of public health programs for prisoners, their partners,

their children, and other community members. This will require attention to

the mechanisms of disease transmission, but also must be situated in relation

to our understanding of social inequalities and power dynamics within part-

nerships, households, and communities. In any case, the implications of the

prison boom on race and class inequalities in health and mortality deserve

greater attention.

Migration and enumeration

Incarceration also may have important effects on accounts of and theories

about migration and population distribution. Students of the U.S. Census

have recognized small, but growing, communities of color in suburban and

rural locations across the country. Even careful scholars may need reminding

that some of these population shifts may not reflect voluntary migration, but

instead are increasingly likely to result from the growth of the prison system,

racial inequality in imprisonment, and the observation that prisoners are

commonly relocated outside of their home communities. A growing fraction

of communities of color in rural and suburban locations represent the reloca-

tion of disproportionately poor and black urban residents into suburban and

rural prisons.

9

 

 

Clearly these types of population shifts are inconsistent with existing the-

ories of internal migration. Yet there is relatively little attention – at least

within the demographic literature – to the explanations for or implications

of these types of population shifts. There are on-going debates about the

census enumeration of prisoners and exactly how and where they count can

have immense implications for not only how we understand population dis-

tribution but also for accounts of racial and economic residential segregation.

Effects

Population redistribution generated by incarceration may not only af-

fect our accounts of population distribution and trends in racial residential

segregation. Moreover, as other research has shown even more minor con-

tacts with the criminal justice system can trigger fairly dramatic restrictions

on individuals’ geographic mobility. It is increasingly recognized that the

movement of prisoners outside of their home communities disrupts family re-

lationships, social networks, and economic contacts. Furthermore, locational

restrictions on probationers or parolees can also have profoundly disruptive

effects – not only for potential criminal contacts – but also for connections

to other individuals and organizations vital to maintain families, health, and

employment.

How prison inmates are statistically enumerated in the Census and other

surveys, and where they are counted, can have implications for political rep-

resentation (and resource allocation). There are on-going debates on this

issue and no clear resolution in view. A careful articulation of the size and

scope of the issue – for both research and practice – may be a profitable

avenue to pursue.

10

 

 

General points

We have attempted to illustrate a few key demographic implications of the

prison boom, and highlight how growth of the prison system and racial (and

class) inequalities within it might help us understand race (and class) in-

equalities in fertility, health and mortality, and population mobility. While

the evidence is mounting that the criminal justice system has fundamentally

altered racial inequalities in fertility, health and mortality, and population

dynamics, there is reason to believe that contemporary understandings of

demographic inequalities are underestimated. Inmates and former inmates

are systematically (and sometimes categorically) under represented in the

data we use to construct most demographic accounts of inequality.

For example, the Current Population Survey, a key source of data for the

economic well-being of the population does not include incarcerated individ-

uals. The Current Population Survey is also a key source of data for trends

in fertility and family formation. Other important surveys used to under-

stand fertility and family life (like the National Survey of Households and

Families) don’t collect information on incarceration histories and are likely

to systematically under sample individuals with contact with the criminal

justice system. Surely some surveys – like the Fragile Families and Child

Well-being Study – have gone to great lengths to collect data on contact

with the criminal justice system and interview women and men who have

been in prison or jail. Yet that represents the exception rather than the rule

and there are a number of questions about the extent to which those data

allow us to generalize to a wider population.

In addition, there is a dearth of health-related information about prisoners

and ex-offenders. The sampling frames for the major health tracking studies

including the National Health Interview Survey and the National Health and

11

 

 

Nutrition Examination Survey exclude the incarcerated. Other important

surveys used to document the health and well-being of the population identify

participants through their attachment to households. As a consequence,

current prisoners are not included in key reports on the health of the nation

– including efforts to estimate health disparities and the contributions of

factors thought to cause them (London and Myers 2006).

Finally it is critical to understand that two peculiarities of the census have

important implications for how we understand the incarcerated population

and their spatial distribution in the population. First, the census enumerates

prisoners using prison as the usual residence. While this is a source of much

debate in the political arena and there is great controversy over how else

prisoners may be enumerated (and how much it will cost), as the prison

population grows it is an increasingly important problem.

Second, the census relies on the household as the primary location to

enumerate individuals. Given what we know about ex-inmates’ fragile ties

to households, families, and sometimes communities there is reason to sus-

pect that ex-inmates are overrepresented in the census undercount. While

there has been much consideration of the census undercount there has been

relatively little attention to the specific concerns of ex-inmates within the

undercount.

The underrepresentation of inmates and ex-inmates in surveys and the

census not only has implications for descriptive accounts of inequality gen-

erated by these data. If inmates and ex-inmates differ from survey samples

– not only on observable characteristics, but also with respect to behav-

ioral processes – omitting them from survey populations leads to increas-

ingly acute sample selection bias. Not only are our descriptive accounts of

inequality likely underestimated, but there is good reason to believe that our

12

 

 

explanations for racial (and class) inequality in key demographic (and other)

outcomes may not reflect the underlying processes in the population.

Conclusion

In conclusion it is critical to recognize that the demographic implications

of the prison boom are increasingly important and reach well beyond the

lives of inmates and former inmates. It is increasingly clear that the rise

of the penal population – and racial and class inequality within it – affect

our descriptive accounts and theoretical understandings of important racial

differences in fertility, mortality, and migration and population distribution.

In short, the massive prison boom must encourage us to rethink how we

count people, how we design social survey research, and how we understand

the most fundamental population processes.

Works Cited

Carlson, Marcia and Frank Furstenberg. 2006. “The Prevalence and Corre-

lates of Multipartnered Fertility Among Urban U.S. Parents.” Journal

of Marriage and the Family 68: 718-732.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2006. “Cases of HIV

Infection and AIDS in the United States, by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-204.”

HIV/AIDS Surveillance Supplemental Report 12(1): 1–36. Available

at:

www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/index.htm.

Committee on Infectious Diseases (CID). 2000. “Hepatitis C.” Pp. 302–306

in LK Pickering et al. (eds.). 2000 Red Book: Report of the Committee

13

 

 

on Infectious Diseases. 25th edition. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy

of Pediatrics.

Edin, Kathryn and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor

Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. Berkeley: University of Cal-

ifornia Press.

Ellwood, David and Christopher Jencks. 2004. “The Spread of Single-Parent

Families in the United States Since 1960.” Pp. 25-65 in Daniel Moyni-

han, Timothy Smeeding and Lee Rainwater (eds) The Future of the

Family. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.

Hamilton BE, PD Sutton, and Stephanie Ventura. 2005. “Revised birth

and fertility rates for the 1990s and new rates for the Hispanic popula-

tions, 2000 and 2001: United States.” National Vital Statistics Reports

51(12):1–96. Available at:

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51 12.pdf.

London, Andrew and Nancy Myers. 2006. “Race, Incarceration, and Health:

A Life Course Approach.” Research on Aging 28(3): 409-422.

Mecholulan, Stephane. 2006. “The Impact of Black Male Incarceration on

Black Females’ Fertility, Schooling, and Employment in the U.S., 1979-

2000.” Unpublished manuscript.

Ventura, Stephanie, Joyce Abma, William Mosher, and Stanley Henshaw.

2005. “Recent Trends in Teenage Pregnancy in the United States,

1990-2002.” National Center for Health Statistics. Available at:

www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/teenpreg1990-2002/teenpreg1990-

14

 

 

2002.htm.

Restum, Zulficar Gregory. 2005. “Public Health Implications of Substandard

Correctional Health Care.” American Journal of Public Health 95(10):

1689-1691.

Western, Bruce, Leonard Lopoo, and Sara McLanahan. 2004. “Incarceration

and the Bond Between Parents in Fragile Families.” Pp. 21-45 in

Mary Pattillo, David Weiman, and Bruce Western (eds.) Imprisoning

America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

Wildeman, Christopher. 2007. “Parental Imprisonment, the Prison Boom,

and the Concentration of Childhood Disadvantage.” Paper presented

at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America.

15