HELP US END MASS INCARCERATION The Prison Policy Initiative uses research, advocacy, and organizing to dismantle mass incarceration. We’ve been in this movement for 23 years, thanks to individual donors like you.

Can you help us sustain this work?

Thank you,
Peter Wagner, Executive Director
Donate

10 ways that mass incarceration is an engine of economic injustice

The fight for a fair economy and the movement against prisons are one and the same.

by Eric Seligman and Brian Nam-Sonenstein, August 27, 2024

Table of Contents
Mass incarceration traps low-income communities in poverty
#1: Sentencing poor people to deeper poverty
#2: Impoverishing the families and communities of incarcerated people
#3: Deepening poverty in rural prison towns
Mass incarceration weakens all workers
#4: Raising the stakes of unemployment for all workers
#5: Weakening formerly incarcerated workers — harming all workers
#6: Making it harder for all workers to unionize
Mass incarceration undermines movements for economic justice
#7: Suppressing political engagement and representation
#8: Weakening unions, removing a key player in movements for economic justice
#9: Inflaming social tensions that undermine worker solidarity
#10: Hiding economic injustice, making it harder to organize against

Money is power in the United States, and mass incarceration plays a major role in determining who can wield power and who can’t. As we’ve noted repeatedly over the years, it is no coincidence that the poorest and most vulnerable communities are also the most policed. The criminal legal system erects significant barriers to employment and the ballot box, economically and politically weakening entire communities. Importantly, this arrangement impacts all workers: employers use this massive class of disadvantaged people to threaten all workers with replacement and increasingly risky unemployment if they dare to demand better wages and conditions. Mass incarceration also weaves a narrative that pits people with similar economic interests against one another, reducing systemic inequality to matters of individual choice. Fortunately, understanding mass incarceration as the wealthy’s preferred economic policy clarifies that ending it is necessary for all movements for justice and equality — all working people benefit from solidarity with criminalized people.

In this briefing, we compile ten examples of how mass incarceration blocks progress toward economic justice. We argue that our massive system of criminalization is not an isolated issue, nor is it someone else’s problem; it is an engine of inequality that traps people in poverty, weakens worker power, and undermines political organizing toward a more prosperous future for the vast majority of people.

Mass incarceration traps low-income communities in poverty

First, it’s important to understand how incarceration makes and maintains poverty. Criminalizing the poorest people, saddling them with debt, and destroying their financial futures has grave consequences for their families and wider communities. Additionally, prisons are economically depressing for the poor rural towns that host them, leaving them in financial ruin for years to come. It turns out that struggling urban and rural communities have a shared interest in ending our country’s reliance on prisons to address poverty and unemployment.

#1: Incarceration sentences poor people to deeper poverty

As the saying goes, it’s expensive to be poor, and in the U.S. the criminal legal system makes this emphatically so. At every stage of the criminal legal process — from pretrial detention, to incarceration, to reentry — already-poor people are faced with ever-harsher conditions of poverty.

Poverty traps people in jail. About 83% of people in local jails are legally innocent and awaiting trial, and many of them are too poor to make bail.1 At the same time, jail traps people in poverty: it prevents people from working and immediately increases the chances they’ll be fired, leading to long-term job instability and lost government benefits. People in jail must also pay high prices for phone calls, medical fees or “copays,” and essential goods purchased in the commissary.2 Even those who are released pretrial can still take a big financial hit when they’re forced to make nonrefundable payments to bail bond companies and pay expensive user fees for pretrial electronic monitoring.

In prison, periods of employment3 are replaced with low-wage prison labor4 — wages that are quickly consumed by expensive communications, medical care, and commissary goods, not to mention fines for alleged misconduct in many states. Release and reentry provide little reprieve, as people on post-release supervision (who are disproportionately poor5 to begin with) are forced to pay monthly fees for things like regular urinalysis tests, electronic monitoring devices, mandatory programs, and more for years on end.6

How mass incarceration further impoverishes the poorest people at every stage of the criminal legal process
Pretrial Prison Post-release Other fines & fees
Bail bond premiums (which only poor defendants have to pay) Foregone wages from jobs one would have held Fewer job prospects due to:

  • Gaps in work history and forcibly eroded job skills
  • Supervision requirements such as curfews, travel restrictions, supervision meetings, felon association laws
  • Legal barriers to certain occupations
  • Stigma of a criminal record
Fines for convictions that don’t involve incarceration
Bail fees Low or no prison labor wages Less eligibility for public programs (welfare, housing, education, and more) Fees for diversion programs
Fees for pretrial supervision, electronic monitoring High cost of commissary items and in-prison services like phone calls Less banking eligibility The many “shadow costs”, such as transportation or childcare expenses, that attach to mandated programming throughout the criminal legal process
Public defender fees Court and prison fines and fees (restitution, pay-to-stay) Parole or probation fees, including fees for required classes, urinalysis, electronic monitoring, and more
Jail interrupts employment Medical fees (i.e., “copays”)
Jail increases likelihood of conviction and prison sentence, which is impoverishing
Jail “user fees” for video calls and other services

#2: Incarceration impoverishes the families and communities of incarcerated people

Families of incarcerated people lose household income and assume astronomical new expenses related to supporting a loved one on the inside. It bears repeating that these families are often already struggling with poverty,7 and prison makes their survival significantly harder. According to a survey by the Ella Baker Center, roughly 65% of families with a loved one in prison were unable to meet their basic needs because court-related fines and fees sent them into debt over $13,000 on average. In particular, 58% of families living in poverty were unable to afford the costs associated with a conviction. Meanwhile, an estimated 1 in 3 families went into debt because of communication and visitation costs alone. Women were most often responsible for covering these costs: another survey conducted by the Essie Justice Group found that 35% of women experienced homelessness, eviction, or struggled to make rent or mortgage payments as a result of bail, court fees, and lost economic opportunities. Incarceration cost one-third of women their household’s primary source of income, and 43% were forced to work more hours, get a different job, or turn down an educational opportunity as a result.

These harms spill over into the larger community. Lost wages and barriers to employment among the formerly incarcerated reduce their purchasing power, which in turn deflates demand for local goods and services. As a result, local businesses can’t afford to hire as many people, exacerbating unemployment for those returning there from prison and the broader community. The high concentration of policing and incarceration in poor communities creates a feedback loop of economic consequences, creating and worsening poverty at the very same time.

#3: Prisons don’t fix rural poverty — they deepen it

Towns suffering from unemployment and deindustrialization, especially rural communities, are often sold the idea that prisons can help turn things around.8 But this story could not be further from the truth: prisons actually deepen poverty in the communities where they are built — and, they deepen poverty the most in the towns that are the most impoverished to begin with. Rather than create local jobs, most openings are filled by senior corrections workers9 from other areas. In fact, local workers are often rejected from these jobs because of symptoms of local poverty: bad credit histories, low levels of education, criminal records, drug use, age, and even a lack of prior experience puts locals at a disadvantage compared to those from other areas. There are decades of examples of this dynamic at work:

  • After California’s state prison in Corcoran was built in 1988, fewer than 10% of the jobs went to local residents.10
  • Residents of Malone, New York were promised 750 jobs when a state prison opened there in 1999, but those jobs went mostly to people from outside of the town because of prison system seniority rules.11
  • When a federal prison opened in McCreary County, Kentucky in 2003, only an estimated 10% of the new jobs were filled by local residents, amounting to about 30 jobs total.12
  • Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s 2007 study of California’s prison boom reported that under 20% of jobs from new state prisons went to local residents on average.

Additionally, using prisons to chase community investment is often a race to the bottom. In fact, new prisons can discourage investment in several important ways:

  • Many businesses avoid new prison towns because they tend to lack local amenities and fear the incoming criminalized population.
  • Communities spend tons of money to convince, for example, the federal government to site a prison in their locality. They offer steep discounts on land and resources with the hope of making the money back in the future. Instead, rents and land values eventually plummet when the promised economic boom never arrives, devastating home values.13
  • Prisons attract large chain stores that strategically site themselves nearby, driving out the smaller local businesses that provide similar goods and services. While the profits for smaller local businesses reliably circulate within the community, the profits for chain stores are largely distributed throughout their operations elsewhere.14
  • Prisons are a blight on the environment. Their construction destroys local habitats, they’re often built on dangerously polluted land, and, once built, they generate significant waste that is expensive to remediate.15

Mass incarceration weakens all workers

One of the ways that mass incarceration traps people in poverty is by raising the stakes of unemployment for all workers, creating immense obstacles to organizing for better terms of employment. Rather than alleviate poverty through jobs, housing, education, and healthcare, the U.S. uses criminalization to force people to comply with a deeply unequal economy.

#4: Mass incarceration raises the stakes of unemployment for all workers

Mass incarceration emerged as the U.S. economy grew more unequal and work became more precarious: In 1973, the wealthiest 10% of Americans captured one-third of all income, but nearly 40 years later they had captured one-half of it. In that time, the ultra-rich top 1% went from holding 9% of all income to nearly a quarter of it. Meanwhile, at least 17% of workers toiled under unstable work schedules in 2015.16 The growth of the criminal legal system, combined with rising inequality and the demise of the social safety net, has made unemployment riskier and weakened workers’ bargaining position. If losing your job means you’ll receive meaningful financial support before your next job, you’ll be more likely to risk retaliation from an angry employer to demand higher wages and better conditions. If losing your job may lead to an indefinite period of austerity, stress, and surveillance that could end in arrest and incarceration, you’ll be less likely to risk making such demands. In a recent study of labor markets in high-incarceration communities, Adam Reich and Seth J. Prins find that the more incarceration there is in a community, the less likely people are to risk their jobs demanding better terms of work, regardless of prior experiences with incarceration. In other words, in neighborhoods where incarceration is more common, workers — formerly incarcerated or not — are more inclined to play it safe at work than risk unemployment and incarceration.

Chart showing that economic inequality has grown in lockstep with mass incarceration The U.S. incarceration rate has closely tracked the rise in the share of national income held by the wealthiest 1% of Americans. For most of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the top 1% held about 10% of the total national income while the U.S. imprisoned about 100 people per 100,000. By the 2000s, the share held by the top 1% had doubled to around 20% while the incarceration rate grew to five times the historical norm.

#5: Suppressing the wages of formerly incarcerated people harms all low-wage workers

As mass incarceration restricts job opportunities for formerly incarcerated people, it creates a feedback loop that suppresses wages for everyone. Here’s how it works: limited job options threaten formerly incarcerated workers with deeper poverty, criminalization, and re-incarceration, and makes them especially dependent on those few employers who are willing to hire them. As a result, they are compelled to accept nearly whatever wages or conditions are offered to them. Employers can then use this group of precarious workers to threaten others with replacement if they dare to demand higher wages and better conditions. Among the more than 50,000 people released from federal prisons in 2010, a staggering 33% found no employment at all over four years post-release and no more than 40% were employed at any given time. Successfully landing a job also had limited benefits: formerly incarcerated workers averaged 3.4 jobs between 2010 and 2014 — in other words, they secured jobs that didn’t offer security or upward mobility. These jobs tended to be the lowest-paying positions. An analysis of IRS data by the Brookings Institution found most employed people recently released from prison receive an income well below the poverty line. Everyone suffers when employers can readily threaten to fire a worker and hire from the highly vulnerable formerly incarcerated pool, forcing everyone to accept less money and worse treatment.

Chart showing people are less likely to quit an unsatisfying job after being in prison. Incarceration erodes a worker’s ability to quit — an important measure of worker power. Additionally, formerly incarcerated workers have lost their say in which jobs they accept: while “before prison” workers can exhibit a preference for more satisfying jobs, “after prison” workers have to accept high- and low-satisfaction jobs at similar rates.

#6: Mass incarceration makes it harder for all workers to unionize

Higher unionization rates lead to higher wages throughout the economy because, in places where businesses have unionized, other employers must pay more to compete for local workers. Unions are also an equalizing force, reducing racial and gender economic disparity and increasing political participation. Mass incarceration undermines these benefits by preventing workers from leveraging their collective power through unions or other worker associations that can more safely and effectively make demands of employers. Reich and Prins’s 2020 study offers the first large-scale documentation of this effect: they found individuals with a history of incarceration were 85% less likely to join the OUR Walmart workers association. They also discovered people who had experienced any contact with the criminal legal system (including felony convictions, probation or parole, or incarceration) were 76% less likely to join the organization. According to their analysis, as prison admissions rose, the odds of signing an OUR Walmart membership card fell.. Union approval elections were also less likely to succeed in communities with higher incarceration rates regardless of whether the workers involved in that particular election had been previously incarcerated. The chilling effect of mass incarceration on labor organizing pervades throughout the entire low-wage labor market, affecting all workers. Beyond the increased risk associated with losing one’s job, there are likely other reasons for this dynamic, such as incarceration’s suppressing effect on the community networks and institutions where labor organizing often takes place.

Mass incarceration weakens political movements for economic justice

Finally, mass incarceration’s coercive power, rooted in its ability to exclude and impoverish, seriously undermines political movements for the rights of the most marginalized, who have the most at stake in economic reform. By reframing systemic inequalities as individual failures and criminality, the narratives built around prisons stoke the flames of racism and pit people with similar economic interests against one another. In this environment, our weakened political movements cannot win or maintain the social programs that would help nearly all of us, and that the vast majority of people want.

#7: Mass incarceration is anti-democratic, suppressing political engagement and representation

Disenfranchisement laws prevent people who have the most intimate understanding of poverty in the U.S. — and the most at stake in economic reform — from participating in elections. According to the Sentencing Project, as of 2020, an estimated 5.17 million people — 1 out of every 44 adults in the entire eligible voting population — lost their right to vote due to a felony conviction. Prison gerrymandering also disempowers the communities from which people are incarcerated: by counting incarcerated people where they’re imprisoned instead of where they’re from, the Census Bureau dramatically distorts political representation at the state and local level, and paints an inaccurate picture of community populations for research and planning purposes.

Incarcerated people and their communities are also shunned from the political process in ways beyond legal disenfranchisement. The many stresses of returning from prison lead many individuals — and entire high-incarceration communities — to significantly retreat from formal politics and from the more informal processes of shaping the institutions that structure their lives. According to a 2010 study by scholars Vesla Weaver and Amy Lerman, contact with the criminal legal system is strongly and consistently associated with declining trust in government and a reduction in one’s likelihood of voting, even when the sample is restricted to those who have not been legally disenfranchised. Other research confirms this effect encourages not just individual disengagement from politics but the withdrawal of entire communities from politics and more informal forms of neighborhood involvement.

#8: Mass incarceration weakens labor unions, removing a key player in broader movements for economic justice

Organized labor has traditionally been a key player in movements for just economic policies. Beyond providing a gateway for members to build confidence in the possibility of organizing around shared interests to change policy, unions have often provided the actual institutional structure that organizes the public for economic justice. According to a 2021 study from the Economic Policy Institute, the 17 states with the highest union densities have, on average:

  • State minimum wages that are 19% higher than the national average — 40% higher than low-union-density states,
  • Median annual incomes $6,000 higher than the national average,
  • A higher share of unemployed workers receiving unemployment insurance,
  • An uninsured population 4.5 percentage points lower than that of low-union-density states,
  • A higher likelihood of passing paid sick leave laws and paid family and medical leave laws than states with lower union densities, and
  • Significantly fewer restrictive voting laws.

Police and corrections officers provide stark examples of how powerful organized workers can be, though these unions’ relationship with the criminal legal system tends to lead to positions that do not serve the interest of all workers. In some states, law enforcement organizations play a very significant role in electoral politics, often as main contributors to major campaigns. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, for example, has contributed more than $9.3 million to political campaigns in the last 20 years — $3.8 million of which was spent across 32 state legislative races since the year 2000 alone. Over the past year, the California guards union negotiated a $1 billion raise over three years and got a new, additional state-funded retirement perk. In addition to pushing legislation directly responsible for expanding California’s prison system, the organization bankrolled particular victims rights groups that have helped stoke fears of criminalized people. Imagine if those sectors of the workforce that articulate more progressive policies for economic justice were as organized and politically active as the California prison workers union. By making it harder for most workers to unionize — while also empowering those segments of labor with a vested interest in the criminal legal system — mass incarceration removes a key player from political movements for economic justice.17

#9: Mass incarceration inflames social tensions that undermine worker solidarity

Throughout U.S. history, racism has prevented the development of a fully united movement for workers rights. Mass incarceration has continued this tradition by reinforcing divisions that obscure a shared interest in policy reforms. Prisons are home to racially disproportionate outcomes and a heated debate about their causes18 that plays out in media, exacerbating racism in society. Labor market research that finds that employers more frequently assume criminality in Black job applicants, whether they have a criminal record or not, exemplifies how mass incarceration influences society’s ideas and relationships around race in the workplace. Relatedly, the monumental scale of punishment in the U.S. leads to a hardening of ideas about workers who are “law-abiding” and those who are not, creating deep cultural rifts that leave less room for organizing around common grievances. While many workers and incarcerated people often share very similar needs for economic reform — like more affordable housing, education, or healthcare — the strength of their divisions along the lines of “criminality” tend to overpower the possibility of solidarity around shared needs.

#10: Mass incarceration hides economic injustice, making it harder to organize against

While mass incarceration creates some very visible economic injustices, others remain hidden, and when the public can’t readily see injustice or accurately pinpoint its source, it is harder to organize people against it. For example, mass incarceration artificially lowers official unemployment rates as incarcerated people go uncounted. Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett show that, in the 1990s, mass incarceration lowered the unemployment rate for Black men by 7 full percentage points. The ’90s are generally celebrated as a booming time for the U.S. economy with increasing employment opportunities for people of color. However, if incarcerated people were included in these statistics, the jobless rate for Black men would have stayed at an appalling 40% between the official unemployment peak in the early 1980s and the “inclusive” mid-1990s. Furthermore, if these figures and economic policy targets were recalculated to include the prison population, it would be even clearer just how little our society spends on social programs to address dire economic problems.

Beyond statistical misrepresentation, mass incarceration also gives rise to narratives that displace blame for criminalized poverty entirely onto the individual. Despite the vast amount of research on the role of economic conditions in causing crime, criminal legal proceedings present many symptoms of poverty, unemployment, and homelessness not as economic problems to be alleviated through systemic policy changes, but as personal failings that must be forcefully punished. This “individualization” of structural problems is also very clear in reentry. One can only counsel so many exceptionally persistent formerly incarcerated job applicants — who are indeed more “active” in the labor market than their general population peers19 — on how to beat out other workers before it becomes clear that the lack of economic opportunities that would allow them (and all workers) to meaningfully support themselves is really to blame. Bruce Western’s Homeward and Jamie Peck and Nik Theodore’s “Carceral Chicago” are full of painful stories of individuals stuck in these situations, making heroic individual efforts amid a scarcity of opportunities. In this situation, a certain percentage of people are guaranteed to end up unemployed, and demanding fiercer competition among them will not change this fact. It will, however, continue the pattern of filling prisons by blaming individuals for structural economic problems.

Conclusion

As these ten points show, mass incarceration is a major obstacle to movements for economic justice. The vast majority of people in the United States have a stake in dismantling this engine of inequality, which not only impoverishes people but traps the poorest communities in poverty. Through a combination of financial sanctions and legal disenfranchisement, criminalized people, their families, their communities, and eventually all low-wage workers become economically and politically disadvantaged. Mass incarceration presents a looming threat that deters all workers from risking unemployment by demanding better wages and working conditions, undermining both individual bargaining power and union organizing. Broader movements for economic justice suffer from the loss of unions as important incubators for political organizing, and people become discouraged from engaging in political participation altogether. Rather than address structural conditions by investing in what most people need — which the nation has the resources to do — the United States has chosen to blame and punish the individuals who are most harmed by them. As a result, mass incarceration stokes racism and pits people with similar economic interests against one another. In the end, these facts make clear that movements to end inequality and mass criminalization are in fact one and the same, and solidarity between all workers — criminalized or not — is necessary to progress toward a more economically just future.

Footnotes

  1. In fact, people in jail are even poorer than people in prison and are drastically poorer than their non-incarcerated counterparts: For people who are unable to post a bail bond, the median annual income prior to incarceration in the United States is $19,971.35 for 2024. This is an adjusted figure from our report, Detaining the Poor, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI Inflation Calculator. That report found that people in jail had a median annual income of $15,109 in 2015 dollars prior to their incarceration — less than half (48%) of the median for non-incarcerated people of similar ages.  ↩

  2. These mounting costs factor into the many reasons why people in jail are far more likely to plead guilty, regardless of actual guilt or innocence, in hopes to end their contact with the system as soon as possible.  ↩

  3. According to a 2016 survey of incarcerated people, in the month before arrest, 61% of people had held a job, and another 15% were actively looking for work. In other words, 76% of people were active labor force participants, and very likely to have been wage-earners to some significant degree during the period in which they were instead incarcerated.  ↩

  4. That is, if an incarcerated person is even able to obtain a job, let alone one that pays.  ↩

  5. People who have been on post-release supervision in the past year report living in poverty at more than twice the rate (33%) of those who were not on post-release supervision (15%), according to our analysis of the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (2021-22 restricted-use data). Moreover, while 65% of people who were not on post-release supervision reported incomes above twice the national poverty threshold, only 34% of people on post-release supervision reported an income that high.  ↩

  6. These fees do nothing to further the missions of probation services departments but they do serve as a violation waiting to happen.  ↩

  7. Adults making less than $25,000 a year are over 60% more likely to have had a family member incarcerated than those making over $100,000 a year. They’re also three times more likely to have had a family member incarcerated for a year or more.  ↩

  8. While only 36% of prisons were in rural areas before 1980, now the majority of people in state and federal prisons are held in rural areas. Between 1990 and 1999, 245 prisons opened in rural areas and small towns; on average, a prison opened somewhere in rural America every fifteen days. About 350 rural counties had a prison open since the beginning of the prison boom in 1980, and over half of all rural counties in the U.S. added prison work to their available employment in the last two decades of the 20th century. Much of this prison expansion was concentrated in four of the most depressed rural areas in the nation: the west Texas plains, where farm work and oil field jobs were in decline, the Mississippi Delta, south central Georgia, and the Appalachian coal fields. For more, see: Beale, C. (2001). “Cellular Rural Development: New Prisons in Rural and Small Town Areas in the 1990s,” paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 18.  ↩

  9. It’s worth noting that jail and prison jobs are traumatic and harmful to mental health. For more, see our briefing, Working in “a meat grinder”: A research roundup showing prison and jail jobs aren’t all that states promise they will be.  ↩

  10. Parks, Loren L., Jill M. Weigt, Everard M. Lofting, and Oliver B. Linton. 1990. The Economic Impacts of State Prisons in Kings County, California. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections.  ↩

  11. News reports at the time quoted the village’s director of the Office of Community Development as saying, “Did we get seven hundred fifty jobs? We didn’t get a hundred.”  ↩

  12. This 10% figure is an estimate provided by a local judge-executive, who approximated that around 30 of the 300 prison employees were local hires. While only 10% of jobs ultimately went to locals, 40% of the new jobs were already officially out of reach, as they were formally protected for BOP transfers from other prisons. Though the projects are advertised as job-creation ones, the agencies involved already know ahead of time that the impact will be quite limited, given their own official policy, combined with the overwhelming evidence that the remaining jobs tend to be inaccessible for locals as well.  ↩

  13. In particular, prisons exacerbate rural poverty in the poorest communities, according to a landmark 2010 study of all rural counties in the U.S. This is largely due to higher levels of employment disqualification and economic sacrifice in the bidding process, which can involve assuming debt that becomes especially crushing when the expected economic boom never arrives.  ↩

  14. In Tehachapi, California, with its two state prisons, box-store chains came to dominate local markets while 741 locally-owned businesses failed in the last decade of the 1990s.  ↩

  15. For this reason, activists have used environmental law to resist prison construction. The movements for economic justice, environmental justice, and against mass incarceration all have common cause.  ↩

  16. According to researchers, at least 10% of the workforce has an irregular or often unpredictable work schedule, while another 7% work split or rotating shifts.  ↩

  17. Furthermore, research suggests that countries with weaker labor unions have harsher criminal justice policy. In alignment with a premise of this briefing — that governments have a choice between criminal justice policy or economic policy to respond to economic problems — greater union presence can mean stronger demands on governments to respond with economic policy, while a smaller union presence can mean that the movement for economic justice may not have enough political power to win these policies. Some attempts to explain the U.S.’s exceptional level of incarceration focus on the unique weakness of labor unions in the U.S. (For more, see: The Economic Origins of Mass Incarceration by John Clegg & Adaner Usmani.)  ↩

  18. Criminologists estimate that about 25% of racial disparities in incarceration is due to racially different treatment by actors within the criminal justice system, like police, prosecutors, and judges. The other approximately 75% is due to disparities in crime commission that are themselves attributable to underlying histories of racial disparities in poverty and joblessness.  ↩

  19. Among 25-44 year old formerly incarcerated people, 93.3% are either employed or actively looking for work, compared to 83.8% among their general population peers of similar ages.  ↩

See all the footnotes

Eric Seligman is a researcher and teacher in the political economy of punishment. He is currently working toward a Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities and previously taught Economics at John Jay College at the City University of New York. Brian Nam-Sonenstein is a Senior Editor and Researcher at the Prison Policy Initiative. (Other articles | Full bio | Contact)



Stay Informed


Get the latest updates:



Share on 𝕏 Donate