Pettit Chap1

7/28/2019 Pettit Chap1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pettit-chap1 1/19

Invisible Men

I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.

—Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952)

On January 20, 2009, 1.8 million people of all races, colors, and creeds stood

on the mall in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the inauguration of Barack

Obama, America’s first African American president. Journalists hailed the his-toric moment, and commentators from across the political spectrum ques-

tioned whether Obama’s presidency marked the beginning of a postracial

America. At the same time that the crowds in Washington watched Obama

take the oath to uphold the Constitution, 2.3 million Americans sat invisible

in America’s prisons and jails, nearly half of them black.

Te American prison system is both historically and comparatively unique.

Te United States now incarcerates a higher fraction of its population than at

any other time in recorded history, and the United States leads the world inthe percentage of its population held behind bars. Over one in one hundred

American adults is living in a federal, state, or local prison or jail (Pew Re-

search Center on the States 2008). If we include individuals on parole or

probation, the numbers are even more startling. Nearly 5 million men and

women are on probation, on parole, or under some form of community su-

pervision. As a consequence, one in thirty-one American adults, or over 3

percent of the U.S. adult population, is under some form of correctional su-

pervision (Glaze and Bonczar 2008). Te Bureau of Justice Statistics esti-mates that if contemporary imprisonment rates continue, one out of every

three black men will serve time in a federal or state prison (Bonczar 2003).

Chapter 1



2 INvISIBlE mEN

Criinas are under the near-constant gaze of the edia. Gruesoe criesead oca teeision newscasts. Crie stories ake newspaper headines eery day. Seera arge etropoitan-area newspapers deote whoe sections of oth-

erwise dwinding daiy papers to crie reporting. Jonathan Sion (2007) haspersuasiey argued that since the decaration of war on crie in the 1960s,

Aericans hae becoe increasingy fascinated with crie and criinaity.Unabated press coerage of crie fues fears of ictiization and ispercep-tions about trends in crie. As a resut, Aericans hae woefuy inaccurateperceptions of their own risk of ictiization and continue to beiee thatcrie is on the upswing despite decades of decines in ioent crie rates.

Just as criinas are under the gaze of the edia and the pubic, indiid-

uas inoed in the correctiona syste are cosey superised by correctionaauthorities. Soe inates face constant onitoring through ideo and otherfors of sureiance in state-of-the-art superax prisons (Rhodes 2004).Een inates in iniu security faciities are continuay superised, re-peatedy counted, and their oeents carefuy docuented. Paroees andprobationers are aso routiney tracked through either eectronic sureiancetechniques or reguary schedued eetings with paroe and probation officers.

Te intensie press coerage of Aerica’s criinas and the extensie

superision of inates by correctiona authorities beie the inisibiity of in-ates, paroees, probationers, and others inoed in the criina justice sys-te to the outside word. Inates are a socia group isoated sociay, physi-cay, and statisticay fro uch of the rest of society. Te ast ajority of our nation’s inates coe fro ery few jurisdictions, and the faciities inwhich they are housed are een fewer in nuber (Heyer and Wagner 2004).Een our nationa data systes, as we as the socia facts they produce, arestructured around a noratie kind of econoic, poitica, and doestic ife

that coony eudes those under the superision of the criina justicesyste.

Inates and forer inates are ess ikey than otherwise siiary disad-antaged en to hod down steady egitiate jobs, to participate in ciic ife,and to ie in setted househods. Een their institutionaization inoes a segent of the state cut off fro the usua ethods of socia accounting. Wecategoricay excude inates and forer inates fro the socia sureys rou-tiney used to gauge the condition of the U.S. popuation, and we syste-

aticay undercount the in the U.S. Census and socia sureys.more than one hundred years ago, Éie Durkhei (1895/1982, 54) coined



INvISIBlE mEN 3

the ter “socia fact” to describe phenoena that both characterize and ex-

pain features of society: socia facts are “the beiefs, tendencies and practices

of the group taken coectiey.” In his own research, Durkhei coony

reied on statistics such as rates of births, arriages, or suicides to isoate andexaine socia facts.

Tis book docuents how our coectie bindness hinders the estabish-

ent of socia facts, conceas inequaity, and underines the foundation of

socia science research, incuding that used in the design and eauation of

socia poicy. Te decades-ong expansion of the criina justice syste has

ed to the acute and rapid disappearance of young, ow-ski African Aerican

en fro portraits of the Aerican econoic, poitica, and socia condi-

tion. Whie the expansion of the criina justice syste reinforces race andcass inequaities in the United States, the fu ipact of the criina justice

syste on Aerican inequaity is obscured by the continued use of data co-

ection strategies and estiation ethods that predate prison expansion.

BecoMIng InvIsIBle

As Raph Eison so poignanty coneyed in his andark book Invisible Man

(1952), African Aericans were sociay inisibe in pre–cii rights Aerica.

Racia discriination, segregation, and excusion contributed to a syste of institutions, aws, and custos that aintained racia inequaity and was pre-

ised on the subjugation and inisibiity of African Aericans (see, for ex-

ape, Aexander 2010, 20–35). Te cii rights era offered African Aeri-

cans the proise of being accepted as isibe citizens in Aerican society. Te

Cii Rights Act (1964) and the voting Rights Act (1965) signaed a new era

of greater protections for the rights of African Aericans and other groups,

particuary in reation to education, epoyent, and oting.

Te proise of the cii rights era has been undercut by a new for of inisibiity anufactured by ass incarceration and the prison-industria

copex. Yet the inisibiity of arge segents of the Aerican popuation

and the inequaity it conceas is not a natura or ineitabe product of prison

growth. In this book, I trace Aerica’s deographic charter to the constitu-

tiona andate to conduct the decennia Census. I expore how the shifting

deands of poicyakers and researchers hae ed to increasing reiance on

data coected fro sureys of indiiduas iing in househods. I aso docu-

ent the ipact of ass incarceration on the representatieness of indiidu-as iing in househods. Incarceration is concentrated aong the ost disad-



4 INvISIBlE mEN

antaged segents of the Aerican popuation, and as a consequence those

sae indiiduas and socia groups are inisibe in any accounts of the U.S.

popuation.

Chapter 2 begins by obsering that since the founding of the United Statesthe federa goernent has coected inforation eery ten years in the de-

cennia Census that docuents the size and distribution of the popuation for

the purposes of poitica apportionent. Te U.S. Census Bureau and other

federa data-coecting agencies hae not aways done a good job of coecting

data on the fu range of Aerican experiences. Prior to eancipation, the

nuber of saes iing in househods was recorded on Census fors, yet no

other inforation about the was coected, and they counted as ony three-

fifths of a person for the purposes of poitica apportionent. Te repea of saery and the estabishent of equa representation guaranteed by the Tir-

teenth and Fourteenth Aendents signaed the end of the “three-fifths

coproise.” Sti, throughout uch of the twentieth century African Aer-

icans were under-enuerated in U.S. popuation counts. Hispanics, Natie

Aericans, and ebers of other inority groups hae aso been significanty

under-enuerated at different points in Aerican history (Anderson and

Fienberg 1999; Snipp 1989, 2003).

Athough there is eidence that the Census has iproed its enuerationof backs, Hispanics, and other inority groups, other ethods of deo-

graphic and socia data coection coony used by the federa goernent

are now increasingy probeatic. Historica expansions of “grants-in-aid,”

ost notaby inked to the New Dea in the 1930s and the Great Society pro-

gras of the 1960s, accopanied an increased reiance by federa, state, and

oca goernents on data about the condition of the popua tion. Grants-in-

aid coony redistribute federa reenue to state and oca goernents.

Te aount of oney aocated to oca jurisdictions is often deterined by foruas that incude inforation about popuation size and characteristics

proided by the Census and other federa data coection efforts. Since the

1930s, uch of that data has been proided by sureys that are priariy re-

stricted to peope iing in househods, such as the Current Popuation Surey

(CPS).

When the Current Popuation Surey was initiated in 1939 as the Sa pe

Surey of Unepoyent (Anderson 1988), incarceration rates were ow and

the excusion of inates fro socia sureys had reatiey itte consequence forthe construction of socia statistics. Nationa sureys proiferated in the 1960s



INvISIBlE mEN 5

and 1970s aong with the expansion o progras that epoyed grants-in-aid.

Sureys initiated in the 1960s and 1970s adopted the sae househod-based

saping echanis epoyed by the Current Popuation Surey, which cat-

egoricay excudes the institutionaized and systeaticay undersapes theitinerant and hoeess. o be sure, een at idcentury iiting saping to

indiiduas iing in househods excuded soe subgroups o the popuation.

Troughout ost o the twentieth century and especiay in the 1960s and

1970s, the argest group excuded was actie-duty iitary.

Oer the past thirty-fe years, as the pena popuation has increased, sur-

eys hae not adapted their saping raes to incude the growing nuber

o incarcerated Aericans or itinerant orer inates. oday the size o the

prison popuation ar exceeds the size o Aerica’s actie-duty iitary. Teactie-duty iitary popuation consists o approxiatey 1.4 iion en

and woen who, in ery broad ters, are generay representatie o the

Aerican popuation (Goernent Accountabiity Office 2005; Kane 2005).

Te tota inate popuation now tops 2.3 iion, and incarceration is so

disproportionatey concentrated aong ow-ski back en that it has be-

coe a routine ie eent or this deographic group (Pettit and Western

2004). As a consequence, pena syste growth distorts accounts o the U.S.

popuation deried ro sureys that draw their sapes ro peope iing in househods. Yet researchers, poicyakers, and the pubic rarey consider

the ipications o our coectie reiance on increasingy biased sapes o

the U.S. resident popuation generated by sape sureys o peope iing in

househods.

Chapter 3 engages with the idea that the pubic, poicyakers, and re-

searchers hae not ignored inates entirey. We are a cuture ascinated by

criinaity, and newspapers and broadcast edia are rie with iages o

crie and deiance. Once peope are ocked up in prisons or jais, how eer,they get ess attention in the edia unti they are reeased, paroed, or ur-

oughed. Whie there is itte edia coerage o orer inates who reinte-

grate into ainstrea society ater incarceration, repeat offenders are co-

ony eatured in edia accounts and poitica capaigns. Proinent

poicyakers—both Deocrat and Repubican—hae ade their careers

out o being “tough on crie.” And athough Repubicans cai uch o the

credit—or are targets o bae—or “tough on crie” egisation, Deocrats

hae aso been actie proponents o the war on crie and the resuting penaexpansion.



6 INvISIBlE mEN

At the sae tie that the edia has prougated iages o criinaity

and ictiization, schoars hae been sow to produce basic descriptie work

docuenting the scope o criina justice expansion and the deographic

contours o ass incarceration. We know, or exape, that the prison and jai popuation has grown draaticay oer the past thirty-fe years. But we

know ess about the distribution o incarceration across socia and deo-

graphic groups. For exape, how has the coposition o inates changed

oer tie? How do incarceration rates ary oer tie and in reation to gen-

der, race, age, and indicators o socia cass ike epoyent and education?

How any peope hae eer spent tie in a correctiona aciity or soe

other or o correctiona superision? How any peope know, ie with, or

are reated to soeone who has been inoed in the criina justice syste,and how is that experience distributed across the popuation?

Instead, schoary attention has ocused on cacuating the behaiora i-

pications o criina justice contact. Adinistratie, surey, and experien-

ta data hae a been epoyed in an effort to estiate the outcoes o cri-

ina justice contact and incarceration in the conteporary United States. For

exape, nuerous studies hae exained how criina justice contact and

incarceration affect epoyent and wage outcoes (Western 2002, 2006;

Pager 2003, 2007; Ape and Sweeten 2010; lyons and Pettit 2011). Otherstudies hae inestigated how the experience o incarceration affects oting

and ciic engageent (Uggen and manza 2002; manza and Uggen 2006;

Burch 2010). And finay, a growing body o schoarship inestigates how

criina justice contact influences aiy ie, heath, and counity engage-

ent (see, or exape, Cear 2007; Foster and Hagan 2007; Geer, Garfinke,

and Western 2011; Geer et a., orthcoing; massogia 2008; Widean

2009).

Unortunatey, adinistratie and surey data are oten narrow in scope,and the sae data sets that ai to incude current inates in their sapes

coony ai to coect data on prior criina justice contact ro the peo-

pe they do interiew. True experients in the fied are rare, and a easure o

uncertainty couds een the ost rigorous studies. It is extraordinariy

difficut, in a statistica sense, to identiy the effects o incarceration on a

range o ie outcoes precisey because criina justice contact and incar-

ceration are disproportionatey concentrated aong certain subgroups o the

Aerican popuation. Research cannot easiy sort out deographic ro car-cera effects. As a consequence, the findings o causay oriented research are



INvISIBlE mEN 7

continuay debated, and fundaenta questions about the effects of in-

carceration reain unresoed. meanwhie, basic descriptions of the growth

and distribution of criina justice contact hae receied scant attention.

Tis book is designed to address soe of the shortcoings of preious work through attention to the consequences for accounts of racia inequa ity

in Aerica of excuding inates and forer inates fro conentiona data

sources. Athough the expicit goa of ost censuses is to proide accurate

popuation counts and the stated ai of ost sape sureys is to be repre-

sentatie of a arger popuation, the rapid and draatic growth in the U.S.

criina justice syste has eft key hoes in accounts of the econoic we-

being, poitica engageent, and heath status of the Aerican popuation.

Te excusion of the institutionaized fro househod-based sureys renderscurrent inates ute in stateents of the Aerican popuation’s condition,

and extreey high rates of residentia instabiity and hoeessness contrib-

ute to the inisibiity of forer inates in officia accounts of the popuation

and its characteristics deried fro the Census and househod-based socia

sureys.

In Chapter 4, I iustrate how the excusion of inates fro sape sureys

profoundy influences the easureent of racia inequaity in educa tiona

attainent, epoyent, and aerage wages. For exape, there are significantdiscrepancies in estiates of the high schoo dropout rate between different

data sources (see, for exape, Heckan and laFontaine 2010; Warren and

Hapern-manners 2009). Data fro the Current Popuation Surey, eant

to be representatie of the U.S. popuation, paces the high schoo dropout

rate of young en at 13 to 16 percent and shows eidence of decines in the

back-white gap in high schoo copetion oer the past few decades. Yet

arge urban schoo districts that are disproportionatey back routiney report

that 50 percent or ore of their students drop out. Athough soe discrepancy in easures fro different data sources is to

be expected because of the different ais of the sureys, the excusion of in-

ates fro the Current Popuation Surey, as Chapter 4 iustrates, contrib-

utes to a systeatic bias in estiates of high schoo dropout rates. Inates

hae extreey high dropout rates. Incuding inates in estiates suggests a

nationwide high schoo dropout rate aong young back en ore than 40

percent higher than conentiona estiates using the CPS woud suggest, and

no iproeent in the back-white gap in high schoo graduation rates sincethe eary 1990s. Chapter 4 aso reeas that siiar bias affects conentiona



8 INvISIBlE mEN

estiates o epoyent and wages. In 2008 neary one in fie young back

en did not finish high schoo, back ae dropouts were ore ikey to be

in prison or jai than to be epoyed, and reatie wages aong young back

en had seen itte iproeent oer the preious twenty years.In Chapter 5, I exaine how decades o criina justice expansion concea

racia inequaity in oting. One o the ost studied phenoena o conte-

porary Aerican poitics is the aous decine in oter turnout through the

ate 1990s. Te decine in oter turnout was hed to be particuary acute

aong whites, whie oter turnout aong Arican Aericans hed steady

ro the id-1970s to the eary 2000s. Te twenty-frst century has generay

witnessed increases in oter turnout, especiay aong historicay disenran-

chised groups. Te candidacy o Barack Obaa has been inked to recordhigh turnout aong young Arican Aericans. In chapter 5, I exaine how

trends in oter turnout are influenced by increases in incarceration. Athough

incarceration has undoubtedy disenranchised arge segents o the Arican

Aerican ae popuation, incarceration aso artificiay inflates turnout rates

aong Arican Aerican en because inates and orer inates are un-

derrepresented in sureys used to gauge trends in oting. mass incarceration

has narrowed the eectorate sufficienty to generate an iusion o growing

deocratic engageent aong young back en.Te effects o criina justice expansion extend we beyond the ies o

those incarcerated. Chapter 6 considers the ipact o ass incarceration on

chidren, aiies, and counities. Existing arge-scae, nationa data co-

ection strategies are not particuary we suited to address questions about

the coatera consequences o decades o pena syste growth. Sureys co-

ony used to gauge trends in Aerican heath and we-being, ike the Na-

tiona Heath Interiew Surey (NHIS), the Nationa Heath and Nutrition

Ex aination Surey (NHANES), and the Nationa Surey o Faiy Growth(NSFG), adopted the sae househod-based saping rae epoyed by

the Current Popuation Surey. As a resut, they aso categoricay excude the

institutionaized popuation and undersape orer inates with weak con-

nections to househods.

Athough ethnographic and quaitatie research has iuinated the

broader effects o incarceration, we know ess than we shoud about the ag-

gregate ipacts o incarceration on the heath and we-being o inates and

their chidren, aiies, and counities owing to the iitations o existing surey data. In chapter 6, I piece together data ro a nuber o different



INvISIBlE mEN 9

sources and reiew reated research to iustrate the reach of incarceration into

the ies of disadantaged chidren and counities. Tis chapter shows that

oer 2.6 iion chidren had a parent in prison or jai on any gien day in

2008, as any as 12 percent of Aerican chidren hae had a bioogica fa-ther in prison or jai (Foster and Hagan 2007), and one-quarter of back

chidren wi experience parenta iprisonent before their eighteenth birth-

day (Widean 2009). Te extent of disadantage that these chidren face is

obscured because their parents—both fathers and others—are coony

underrepresented in socia statistics. likewise, existing data te us reatiey

itte about the ipact of incarceration on the counities that inates hai

fro and often return to, een though there is reason to beiee that the con-

sequences of ass incarceration for Aerica’s ost disadantaged couni-ties are ikey to be profound (see, for exape, Rose and Cear 1998; Cear

2007).

Te conteporary Aerican criina justice syste is unique in both his-

torica and cross-nationa perspectie, and its ipications for socia science

research and socia poicy are starting. Decades of pena syste growth and

high concentrations of incarceration aong certain socia and deographic

groups skew coparatie estiates of educationa attainent (Heckan and

laFontaine 2010), epoyent (Western and Beckett 1999; Western andPettit 2000), and wages (Western and Pettit 2005). Athough there is reason

to think that prison growth shoud influence yriad other socia statistics,

there is itte eidence on that score.

Tis book proides a coprehensie exaination of the effects of prison

and jai growth on the construction of socia statistics in a nuber of do-

ains. In short, pena expansion has generated a cass of citizens systeati-

cay excuded fro accounts of the Aerican popuace. Tis excusion raises

doubt about the aidity of een the ost basic socia facts and questions theutiity of the data gathered for the design and eauation of pubic poicy and

the data coony used in socia science research. As a consequence, we hae

ost sight of the fu range of the Aerican experience.

Penal systeM growth In the

UnIted states

When statistics on the size of the prison popuation were first recorded in

1925, 79 of eery 100,000 Aericans were hed in federa or state prisons,generating an iprisonent rate of 0.079. Te iprisonent rate, or the



10 INvISIBlE mEN

percentage o Aericans housed in edera or state prisons, hoered cose to

0.1, or 100 in 100,000, unti the id-1970s. Te ong-ter stabiity in theiprisonent rate propted soe proinent criinoogists to cai the ex-

istence o a “natura” or stabe incarceration rate (Bustein and Cohen 1973).

Teories o stabe incarceration rates were upended during the prison ex-

pansion that began in the id-1970s (see fgure 1.1). Between 1975 and

2009, the U.S. iprisonent rate grew at an aerage annua pace o 4.7

percent. Tis is a stunning increase considering that the iprisonent rate

adjusts or popuation growth oer the period. Te incarceration rate, which

incudes inates housed in oca jais, grew aost as brisky, at 4.0 percentper year since 1982, when reiabe data first becae aaiabe.

I n m a t e s

p e r 1 0 0 , 0

0 0

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

1940 1960 1980 2000

Year

Prison

Total

Figue 1.1 U.s. Impionment rate, 1925 to 2008

Source: Author's copiation based on data ro U.S. Departent o Justice (2009).

Note: ota incudes inates in prisons and jais.



INvISIBlE mEN 11

By 2009, 2.3 iion peope were housed in Aerica’s prisons and jais

(West and Sabo 2009; minton and Sabo 2009). Te U.S. iprisonent

rate had reached 512 per 100,000, neary six ties the iprisonent rate

that preaied in 1925, when statistics were first reported. And i we incudeinates housed in oca jais, 768 o eery 100,000 Aericans were hed in

correctiona aciities. Socioogist Daid Garand (2001) has coined the ter

“ass incarceration” to characterize the uniquey odern socia phenoenon

o extraordinariy high incarceration rates.

mass incarceration is not ony a conteporary deeopent but aso a

distincty Aerican one. Unti the id-1970s, the incarceration rate in the

United States was siiar to the incarceration rate in France and Gerany,

aong other industriaized nations (Whitan 2003). Een as recenty as theid-1990s, the United States agged behind Russia in the proportion o the

popuation hed behind bars (mauer 1994). Now, ater ore than three de-

cades o pena expansion, the United States is the word eader in incarcera-

tion (Internationa Centre or Prison Studies 2008). Te United States out-

ranks eery other country or which there are aaiabe data on incarceration

rates, incuding Rwanda, its cosest copetitor, which posted an incarcera-

tion rate approxiatey 80 percent o that o the United States (Internationa

Centre or Prison Studies 2008). abe 1.1 shows that in the id-2000s theUnited States incarcerated a higher raction o its popuation than any other

adanced industriaized country. In act, the incarceration rate in the United

States is oer ten ties the incarceration rate in Sweden, Norway, Soenia,

Finand, and Denark.

High incarceration rates are ound throughout the United States. Tere is

substantia ariabiity in the proportion o the popuation that is incarcerated

in different states, yet a U.S. states hae incarceration rates that exceed those

ound in other adanced industriaized nations (fgure 1.2). Tus, Aericanprison growth is truy nationa in scope.

Decades ater cii rights egisation proided or the socia, econoic, and

poitica rights o peope o coor, race and cass inequaity in incarceration is

at historic highs. o be sure, race and cass disproportionaity in incarcera tion

rates reflects iportant differences in rates o offending (see, or exape,

Hawkins 2011). Howeer, there is genera agreeent that the assie buidup

in the size o the pena popuation has not been due to arge-scae changes in

crie or criinaity. Instead, a host o changes at the oca, state, and ederaees with respect to aw enorceent and pena poicy are ipicated in the



12 INvISIBlE mEN

expansion of the prison syste. law enforceent agencies hae stepped up

poicing, prosecutors hae ore actiey pursued conictions, and there hae

been yriad changes in sentencing poicy that now andate jai or prison

tie (mauer 2006; Tonry 1995; Western 2006). Howeer, whie ost scho-

ars agree that “ass iprisonent” (Garand 2001) was not drien by in-

creases in crie or criinaity, there is no consensus expanation for the puni-tie turn in Aerican criina justice since the 1970s.

tble 1.1 Iccei res i twey-oe advcedIdusilized nis, Mid-2000s

Country

Incarceration Rate

(per 100,000 TotaPopuation)

United States 760

Russian Federation 626

Poand 224

Czech Repubic 201

Spain 162

luxebourg 155

United Kingdo: Engand and Waes 152

Hungary 149

Austraia 129

Canada 116

Netherands 100

France 96

Austria 95

Begiu 93

Itay 92

Gerany 88

Sweden 74

Norway 69

Soenia 65

Finand 64

Denark 63

Source: Author’s copiation based on data fro Word Prison Brief database (Internationa

Centre for Prison Studies 2008).



INvISIBlE mEN 13

Preaiing econoic expanations for prison expansion hae roots in Georg

Rusche’s conceptuaization of the prison syste as an institution to anage

surpus abor (Rusche and Kircheier 1939/2003). Arguents in this ein

attribute the growth of incarceration to two sources. Te first ephasizes the

growth in the prison-industria copex that is drien by deands steing

fro the cobination of prison guard unions, construction interests, and

priate security and prison firs that hae a financia stake in the enterprise.Te second arguent cites a ready suppy of poory educated, osty inor-

ity en turning to crie as a eans of econoic suria in a post-industria

econoy. Epirica research has drawn connections between prison growth

and the abor interests of corrections officers (Beckett 1997) and between

high rates of incarceration aong back and ow-ski en and periods of a-

bor inactiity (Western 2006).

Other schoars hae persuasiey argued that pena syste growth ust be

considered in reation to a ong history of racia inequaity in the UnitedStates. For exape, loïc Wacquant (2000, 2001) draws attention to the ra-

273 to 619620 to 784

785 to 918

919 to 1138

Source: Author's copiation based on Beck and Harrison (2006), tabe 12.

Figue 1.2 state vaiability in Incaceation rate pe 100,000Population, 2005



14 INvISIBlE mEN

cia aspects o socia contro by aking historica paraes between the cri-

ina justice syste and other institutions that subordinated the interests o

Arican Aericans, such as saery and Ji Crow. michee Aexander (2010)

draws a nuber o paraes between the conteporary criina justice sys-te and Ji Crow segregation; she draws attention to how criina justice

poicy and practice disproportionatey affect Arican Aericans in ways that

underine prospects or racia equaity.

Poitica conditions hae aso been associated with prison poicy, and the

Repubican Party pays a centra roe in expanations o prison expansion.

Anaysts coony trace the beginning o the prison buidup to Barry God-

water’s eea tion o crie and disorder as a capaign thee in the 1964

presidentia eection (Beckett 1997). Research aso finds a positie correationbetween the representation o Repubicans in edera and state egisatures

and the iprisonent rate (Jacobs and Carichae 2002; Jacobs and Hes

1996). Daid Garand (1990) conceptuaizes the pena syste as a weare

institution—a goernent-sponsored effort to dea with society’s aiures.

Athough Deocrats ay hae been ate to the “tough on crie” party, they

were not iune to the punitie turn in Aerican criina justice poicy.

High incarceration rates are ound throughout the country and een in strongy

Deocratic states with Deocratic goernors or Deocrat-controed egisa-tures. Highy isibe Deocratic Party eaders—ro Bi Cinton to Joseph

Biden—hae endorsed “tough on crie” poicies, and “tough on crie” eg-

isation generay enjoys broad-based support. Such egisation, incuding

poicies that estabished a syste o financia incenties associated with the

seizure o property, both enabe and encourage state and oca jurisdictions to

ore stricty fight the war on drugs (Aexander 2010).

Athough expanations or conteporary prison and jai growth reain a

source o debate, growth o the criina justice syste itse is indisputabe.Een in the ace o steep crie decines through the 1990s, the pena syste

continued its historic expansion into the twenty-frst century. Athough woen

and Hispanics represent two o the astest-growing segents o the incarcer-

ated popuation, spending tie in prison or jai continues to be ost heaiy

concentrated aong en, Arican Aericans, and those with ow skis, as

indicated by their aiure to copete high schoo (Western 2006). One in one

hundred Aerican aduts is housed behind bars, yet the nuber or Arican

Aerican en is one in nine (Pew Research Center on the States 2008).Te extent o race and cass disproportionaity in conteporary patterns o



INvISIBlE mEN 15

incarceration is striking. In the 1930s, backs were three ties ore ikey to

be incarcerated than whites; in the 1990s the ratio increased to ore than

seen ties that of whites (Duster 1997). As tabe 1.2 shows, incarcerationrates aong back en continue to be about seen ties higher than those

for whites. By 2008, the ciiian incarceration rate aong back en age

eighteen to sixty-four was 8 percent, copared to 1.2 percent aong non-

Hispanic whites. Aong young en between the ages of twenty and thirty-

four, the incarceration rate for African Aerican en was 11.4 percent, co-

pared to 1.7 percent for non-Hispanic whites. Aong those with the owest

ees of education, 37.2 percent of back en and 12 percent of white en

were incarcerated.Te extree disadantage experienced prior to incarceration by prison and

jai inates can be seen in their extraordinariy ow ees of educationa

attainent. Athough there is soe disagreeent about the fraction of the

U.S. popuation with a high schoo dipoa (see, for exape, Heckan and

laFontaine 2010; Warren and Hapern-manners 2007, 2009; Warren 2005),

estiates typicay pace the high schoo dropout rate cose to 15 percent of

the adut popuation. abe 1.3 indicates that by 2008 ore than haf of a

ae inates—white, back, or Hispanic—between the ages of twenty andthirty-four had not copeted high schoo. Aong young, ae, back in-

tbl 1.2 civilin Inion rs, Mn ags twny o thiy-Fou, by eduion, 1980 o 2008

1980 1990 2000 2008

White en

less than high schoo 2.4% 3.8% 7.7% 12.0%

High schoo 0.8 1.4 2.3 2.0

Soe coege 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3

A 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.8

Back en

less than high schoo 10.6 19.6 30.2 37.2

High schoo 4.7 7.1 11.7 9.1Soe coege 1.9 2.9 2.1 2.1

A 5.2 8.3 11.2 11.4

Source: Author’s cacuations. See the ethodoogica appendix for detais.



16 INvISIBlE mEN

ates, ore than six in ten had not copeted high schoo or a genera equi-aency degree (GED). Between 1980 and 2008, as the oera educationa

attainent of the Aerican popuation increased, the fraction of inates

with ess than a high schoo dipoa grew.

“Point in tie” incarceration rates, which suarize the fraction of a

gien group that is incarcerated at any gien tie, are iportant deteri-

nants of the fraction of the popuation excuded fro conentiona house-

hod-based sureys. Sureys that draw their sapes fro peope iing in

househods categoricay excude inates iing in correctiona institutions.Te nuber and distribution of currenty incarcerated indiiduas, then, is a

key indica tor of the characteristics of the popuation ikey to be underrepre-

sented in conentiona accounts of the popuation that rey on sureys ike

the Current Popuation Surey.

At the sae tie, “point in tie” incarceration rates ony partiay rep resent

the tota nuber of peope at risk of undersaping in conentiona sureys.

Forer inates ay be particuary ikey to be excuded fro socia sureys

that sape fro househods because they hae high rates of residentia obi-ity, instabiity, and hoeessness (Caifornia Departent of Corrections 1997;

morenoff, Harding, and Cooter 2009). lifetie risks of iprisonent, there-

fore, ay be an een better gauge of the size and distribution of the popuation

rendered inisibe in socia statistics by the growth of incarceration.

Te risk of iprisonent reflects the percentage of a specified popuation

or group that can expect to sere tie in prison before a gien age. abe 1.4

indicates that the ifetie risks of iprisonent hae aso grown during the

period of prison expansion. moreoer, the risks of iprisonent are increas-ingy concentrated aong African Aerican, ow-ski en (see aso Pettit

tbl 1.3 eucionl disribuion of Inm Populion, Mn agstwny o thiry-Four, 1980 n 2008

1980 2008

White Back White Back

less than high schoo 40.7% 52.7% 52.7% 61.8%

High schoo/GED 54.2 34.3 35.5 30.6

Soe coege 16.1 13.1 11.8 7.7

Source: Author’s cacuations. See the ethodoogica appendix for detais.



t b l e 1 . 4

c u m u l i v e r i s k

o f I m p i s o n m e n b y a g e

s t h i y o t h i y - F o u , 1 9

7 9 o 2 0 0 9

A

l e s s T a n H

i g h S c h o o

H i g h S c h o o / G E D

S o m e C o e g e

Y e a r

W h i t e

B a c k

W h i t e

B a c k

W h i t e

B a c k

W h i t e

B a c k

1 9 7 9

1 . 4 %

1 0 . 4 %

3 . 8 %

1 4 . 7 %

1 . 5 %

1 1 . 0 %

0 . 4 %

5 . 3 %

1 9 8 9

2 . 3

1 4 . 1

8 . 6

2 8 . 3

2 . 5

1 2 . 6

0 . 7

5 . 0

1 9 9 9

3 . 8

2 1 . 5

1 4 . 4

4 6 . 0

5 . 0

2 0 . 2

1 . 0

6 . 6

2 0 0 9

5 . 4

2 8 . 0

2 8 . 0

6 8 . 0

6 . 2

2 1 . 4

1 . 2

6 . 6

S o u r c e : A u t h o r ’ s c a c u a t i o n s . S e e t h e m

e t h o d o o g i c a a p p e n d i x f o r d e t a

i s .

N o t e s :

T e 1 9 7 9 c o h o r t w a s b o r n b e t w

e e n 1 9 4 5 a n d 1 9 4 9 ; t h e 1 9 8 9 c

o h o r t w a s b o r n b e t w e e n 1 9 5 5 a n d 1 9 5 9 ; t h e 1 9 9 9 c o h o r t w a s b

o r n b e t w e e n

1 9 6 5 a n d 1 9 6 9 ; t h e 2 0 0 9 c o h o r t w a s b o r n b e t w e e n 1 9 7 5 a n d 1 9 7 9 .



and Western 2004). Fie percent o white en and 28 percent o back en

born between 1975 and 1979 spent at east a year in prison beore reaching

age thirty-fe. Te risks o spending tie in prison or this birth cohort were

significanty higher aong high schoo dropouts: 28 percent o white and 68percent o back dropouts had spent at east a year in prison by 2009.

Exposure to iprisonent now rias or exceeds exposure to other socia

institutions ong thought ita to the transition to aduthood, such as the

copetion o schooing, epoyent, or arriage. During the 2008 presi-

dentia capaign, Barack Obaa was chided or saying that back en were

ore ikey to go to prison than to go to coege (see Aexander 2010, 185).

Athough his cai ay see to be ar-etched and to contradict notions o

back progress, it was not too ar ro the truth. In act, back en are oreikey to go to prison than they are to copete coege (Pettit and Western

2004). Spending tie in prison has becoe ore coon than copeting

a our-year coege degree or iitary serice aong young back en. And

young, back, ae high schoo dropouts are ore ikey to spend at east a

year in prison than they are to get arried. In short, aong ow-ski back

en, spending tie in prison has becoe a noratie ie eent, urthering

their segregation ro ainstrea society.

conclUsIon

Te criina justice syste and pena syste growth undaentay influence

the construction o the socia statistics coony used in poicy oruation

and eauation and in socia science research. Te disproportionate concen-

tration o incarceration within particuar socia and deographic groups

akes any portrait o the Aerican socia condition deried ro these sta-

tistics incopete, and it aso obscures the extent o disadantage within the

groups where incarceration rates are highest. High rates o incarcerationaong back en—and back en with ow ees o education in particu-

ar—hae proound ipications or accounts o their socia standing and

that o their chidren, aiies, and counities where they ie prior to and

oowing incarceration.

Data ro the Census and ongoing edera sureys are routiney epoyed

by poicyakers and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., in state goernents,

and in ocaities across the country. Te Obaa adinistration has repeatedy

ade the case or data-drien decision-aking, congressiona apportionentand redistricting hinge on the resuts ro the 2010 Census, and awakers

18 INvISIBlE mEN



INvISIBlE mEN 19

across the country use popuation estiates often proided by the federa

goernent to design and eauate a host of socia progras. Yet 2.3 iion

or ore Aericans are oerooked as a atter of design in the ost co-

ony used data sources, and they are undercounted in others.Insofar as inates differ in systeatic ways fro indiiduas iing in

househods, data gathered through househod-based sureys offer a biased

gipse into the Aerican experience. Te reainder of this book sheds ight

on the ipications of this biased account for our understanding of back

progress.

Pettit Chap1

Documents

Transcript of Pettit Chap1