An Analysis Of The Effects Of Mass Incarceration In Doing Time On The Outside By Donald Braman

Donald Braman examines, in Doing Time Outside, the often-overlooked effects of mass prisonerization. Braman claims, through analyzing family accounts, that incarceration not only affects the offender, but also their closest family members. Braman (2004) says that incarceration is a social burden for these families. It “transforms social institution of social exchange, family, and community”, and devalues reciprocity.

Braman, however, also focuses on the aftermath of incarceration by providing evidence that reveal another side of the relationship between poverty and incarceration: as he states, “many inner-city families not only experience incarceration because they are poor but they are also poor because they experience incarceration” (Braman 2004). Braman also examines the effects of incarceration. According to him, many inner-city families do not just experience incarceration due to poverty; they also experience poverty because of incarceration (Braman, 2004). Braman’s research shows that incarceration can exacerbate economic hardship, particularly in communities that are already struggling. Braman bases his main claim on the fact that ex-offenders are less likely to be able to find employment after incarceration. Second, incarceration has a negative impact on families because it inhibits capital accumulation. As a result of this, future generations will inherit less wealth. Prisoners are not the only ones who suffer from economic hardship from incarceration. It also impacts their families.

Braman’s evidence consists primarily of interviews that he conducted during and after prison sentences with former offenders, their families and friends. Braman’s argument primarily relies on the case of Clinton, a criminal who had been through prison more than once. Clinton had trouble finding a job upon his release. Clinton explained to Braman that his criminal record was to blame (Braman 2004, p.147). Personal accounts show that families with offenders often spend all their money to cover new expenses due to the increased costs they face after incarceration.

Braman, for example, discusses the problem of some families remortgaging homes. This is because it reduces their wealth. In one instance, a home was lost even after remortgaging. Others saw their houses’ value fall due to remortgaging. And not only does incarceration deplete families of their wealth, but it also inhibits them from accumulating capital, as they have to allocate more of their income to incarceration-related expenses. The economic hardships that come with incarceration affect families in disadvantaged areas the most, since their income is already limited.

Braman’s claim concerning the relationship of incarceration with economic adversity plays a key role in his central argument, which is that incarceration affects the socioeconomic status of the offender’s family. The economic hardship that families will face after incarceration is a result of the fact that incarceration makes it less likely that prisoners will be able to earn a stable income. This includes unexpectedly higher household expenses as well as a reduction in total income. The fact that prisoners cannot provide for the needs of their families during their imprisonment makes them less accountable to their obligations at home. However, they may not be able to continue fulfilling these responsibilities after their release due in part to the lower income potential associated with their criminal records. Second, incarceration reduces wealth for future generations because it inhibits capital acquisition.

According to Braman (2004), the bigger picture shows that the decrease of economic exchange between offenders and their families gradually reduces kinship, trust, and social reciprocity in their communities (p. 162). Braman (2004) states that the overall picture shows that the decline in economic exchanges between offenders and families has a gradual impact on kinship, social reciprocity, and trust within their communities. Additionally, this leads a degradation of family values over generations. This is largely a result from incarceration.

Bruce Western offers further evidence, though by using different data, to support Braman’s conclusions. Western (2002), in his article “The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality,” examines whether ex-offenders can access stable jobs that are associated with normal wage mobility (p. 527). Western examines ex-offenders’ employment patterns using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. He found that incarceration affects not only the wages of ex-offenders, but also their wage growth rates. Western (2002) estimates that incarceration decreases wages from 10 to 20%.

Western’s article confirms Braman’s conclusion that incarceration increases economic hardship by reducing economic opportunities. Western focuses on wage growth as an opportunity for economic growth, whereas Braman focuses on the difficulty ex-offenders encounter in finding work. Both researchers collect different data. Western’s dataset is longer, and thus allows him more time to reach his conclusions. Braman can also conclude, based on the data he gathers through personal accounts like Clinton’s, that ex offenders are more likely to face difficulties in finding work than people without criminal records. Braman (2004) admits that ex-offenders’ earnings are significantly lower than those of non-offenders when they do get a job. His evidence is insufficient to prove this, so he refers to an external source. However, both authors reached the same general conclusion. They concluded that imprisonment reduces the economic opportunities.

Michelle Lee Maroto has also backed Braman’s argument that incarceration prevents capital accumulation. This article titled, “The Absorbing Statute of Incarceration: Its Relationship with Wealth Acquisition” examines whether and how incarceration influences home ownership for ex-offenders as well wealth. The focus is on exoffenders only, not their families. This study also uses NLSY data from 1985 through 2008. Maroto (2014) reports that ex-offenders own homes at a lower rate than non offenders (p. 207). Maroto (2014) found that ex-offenders are 28% less likely to own a property after their release from prison compared to before they were incarcerated. Also, the wealth of former prisoners decreases on average by $42,000 following release (Maroto, 2014, page 207).

Braman and Maroto both conclude that imprisonment inhibits capital acquisition. Maroto concludes that incarceration devalues ex-offenders’ wealth and makes it less likely for them to own a house after their release. However, Braman’s evidence differs in focusing on the offenders’ families and how incarceration-related expenses affect their wealth from the start of imprisonment, such as by having to deplete their savings or sell their capital in order to meet these expenses. Braman’s evidence on home ownership is also insufficient as it was conducted over a shorter period. His data regarding home-ownership may not be representative of all ex-offenders. Maroto’s findings show that only 5% less ex-offenders have the home they owned before their incarceration. Maroto confirms Braman that incarceration can have a negative impact on capital.

All three studies have limitations which could be explored in future research to see how incarceration affects non-offenders. In each of the three research studies, stigma is mentioned. Braman once again focuses on the stigmatic effect that incarceration has on offenders and their families–particularly on the communities they come from. Western and Maroto note briefly that the economic disadvantages experienced by ex offenders could be partially due to stigmatization that is often associated with ex offenders. Braman’s research is based on the personal accounts of those who feel stigmatized by incarceration. Western and Maroto are more reliant on the research of the general public, as they do not have any experience with incarceration.

Further research needs to be done to find out if employers are influenced by this stigma. This research may provide additional answers to explain how incarceration worsens economic hardship, including decreased economic opportunities, for ex-offenders as well as non-offenders. It is important to ask whether the stigma of incarceration is more common in the black population as a group or just among ex-offenders. If, for instance, black men without criminal records face similar employment challenges to black ex-offenders, could it be that these challenges also relate to incarceration in this case? A study that tackles this issue could help reveal how much incarceration reduces economic opportunities for blacks as a whole.