Chaldu 1

Monique Chaldu
Selina Youngren
Eng-123
26 February 2016

Research Proposal Families Affected by Mass Incarceration

Over the last four decades, incarceration rates in America have soared for both
men and women directly impacting the American family. While some prisons in America,
try to help reform some inmates by providing family-based treatment roughly 34% of
states failed to provide family-based treatment programs (National 7). The increase in
mothers and fathers being incarcerated is attributed, in most cases, to the war on drugs
driving policy and sentencing changes. Since 1985, incarceration rates have increased
500%, with 2.2 million people currently in prisons and jails (Sentencing 2). There are
studies identifying hardships on families whether it is the mother or father who is
incarcerated but the increase in womens incarceration rates has a bigger impact on
families. From 1980 to 2013 womens incarceration rates have increased 657% with
approximately 213,000 women in jails and prisons in 2013 (Goshin 469). The reason a
womens incarceration is more of a burden on the American family is because
approximately 60% of incarcerated women report being mothers to minor children
before their incarceration (Goshin 469). The statistics are alarming, and the effects on
children, who are displaced due to the issue, are even more alarming which is why I
chose this topic for my proposal. The purpose of this proposal is to create a project on
families affected by mass incarceration. This topic is important because the majority of
the prison population is much more than just individuals, they are mothers and fathers
to children, and because there has been such a spike in incarceration rates, entire

Chaldu 2
generations of children have been effected and continue to be effected until the issue
has been solved. This proposal will review the sources that are currently studying the
effects of mass incarceration on the American family; the history dating back to 1980
when the war on drugs began; and proposed solutions to the issue including the
Second Chance Act, Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT), and
Supportive Housing as an Alternative to Incarceration; a working thesis and website
design.
When looking for sources I began with a simple search in the Cal Baptist
University Library and found a number of scholarly articles and books surrounding the
topic of the effects of mass incarceration on families. Most of the authors have spent
time studying children, mothers and fathers first hand. For example Jane A. Siegel
studied 159 children, mothers and caregivers affected by incarceration, over the course
of three years, for her book titled Disrupted Childhoods: Children of Women in Prison.
Joyce Arditti reviews scholarly articles and her own field research to come up with the
book, Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of
Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers, she gives an interesting synopsis
of parental incarceration and its effects on families and children. In addition to those
strong books, I have found Lorie S. Goshin journal on, Ethnographic Assessment of an
Alternative to Incarceration for Women with Minor Children to be very helpful because
she studied eight families who lived in supportive housing as an alternative to
incarceration, and she identifies outcomes to this proposed solution. Another source
explores the effectiveness of Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT)
intervention on fathers, Arthur Lurigio gives a comprehensive look at CRAFT which is a

Chaldu 3
variant of Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA), CRAFT is different because it
integrates family and friends to help build a solid base for mothers and fathers. While
those are some of my more important sources, other sources offer expert insight into
incarceration rates and provide visuals which will be used in the website to illustrate the
important message collected from scholarly articles and books.
Mass incarceration started to effect American families when the United States
started the War on Drugs in the 1980s. Incarceration rates for drug offenders went from
41,000 in the early 1980s to almost half a million in 2014 (Sentencing 3). The War on
Drugs introduced stricter sentencing laws, like mandatory minimums, that keep drug
offenders incarcerated for longer periods of time; for example on average in 1986
people arrested for drug offenses served about 22 months in prison, by 2004 drug
offenders could expect to spend almost three time that amount of time in prison, 62
months, for the same offense (Sentencing 3). The reason that is significant is because
61% of imprisoned women and 41% of men report living with their children directly
before they were incarcerated (Goshin 470). When fathers are incarcerated 90% of the
time children are left with their mothers but when mothers are incarcerated only 37% of
the time do children stay with their father (Goshin 470). As a result to mothers and
fathers being incarcerated, children are being displaced, ending up with relatives or
taken into social services for temporary placement (Gaston). Families are ripped apart,
displacing children left to try and understand, and burdening unprepared family
members, outside of prison, left to try and figure out the pieces.
The issue has been identified and there are a few organizations pushing this
issue into the media, publishing studies, and trying to raise awareness. The Rebecca

Chaldu 4
Project for Human Rights joined with the National Womens Law Center to publish a
state by state report card identifying disparities in prisons from state to state. The
Second Chance Act was passed in 2007 and is up for reauthorization this year. The
sentencing Project has published great statistics on the issue. The disparity from state
to state seems to be the biggest issue, because each state applies federal policy
however they see fit, so there is no uniform approach to the issue.
Solutions to this issue are left to non-profit organizations because of the Second
Chance Act. The act provides funds to non-profit organizations if they can come up with
a comprehensive way to reduce recidivism and provide non-violent mothers and fathers
a successful reentry into society. The act uses a Pay for Success model and funds
organizations if they successfully achieve the outcomes they set out to achieve for
specific incarcerated populations. The CRAFT methodology is one way non-profits have
approached successful reentry for families. Another study tried Supportive Housing as
an alternative to incarceration. Both approaches are well thought out and had
successes and failures but the disparity lies in the lack of consistency from state to
state. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (S. 2123) would potentially
reduce the amount of time drug offenders spend in prison, returning them to their
families more quickly, reducing the amount of time children are displaced and family
taking care of the child is at a disadvantage. It is hard to say which is better, keeping
the mandatory sentencing the same and treating these drug offenders, since we know a
majority of them will be raising the future of America; or letting them go back to their
families sooner, possible weeding out some of those offenders who will learn their
lessons and never go back to prison again. Comprehensiveness, cost benefit and

Chaldu 5
feasibility will be the criteria to evaluate each solution. I would like to evaluate other
methodology used and accepted by the second chance act and find out if all states are
applying for grants from the act. I am not sure if there are any statistics about the
sentencing reform policy and its impact on incarceration rates, so that is something else
I will research. I am not sure about my solutions and how to structure them in the
project.
It is difficult to identify a solution to the effects mass incarceration has had on the
American family over the last four decades. I will argue that changing mandatory
sentencing laws should take priority over uniform reentry programs from state to state
because lessening mandatory sentencing will allow mothers and fathers to get back to
their families more quickly, decreasing the burden incarceration places on the family left
behind, and allowing the criminal justice system to spend less money on lengthy
unnecessary stays for non-violent criminals; the money that is saved should then be
applied to reentry programs that begin the moment an offender walks through the door
and is consistent no matter the state.

Chaldu 6
Works Cited
Goshin, Lorie S. "Ethnographic Assessment of an Alternative to Incarceration for
Women With Minor Children." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 85.5 (2015):
469-482. PsycARTICLES. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
Siegel, Jane A.. Disrupted Childhoods: Children of Women in Prison. Piscataway, NJ,
USA: Rutgers University Press, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 13 January 2016.
Arditti, Joyce A.. Parental Incarceration and the Family : Psychological and Social
Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers. New York, NY,
USA: New York University Press (NYU Press), 2012. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 13
January 2016
Lee, Hedwig, Lauren C. Porter, and Megan Comfort. "Consequences of Family Member
Incarceration: Impacts On Civic Participation And Perceptions of The Legitimacy
And Fairness of Government." Annals of The American Academy of Political and
Social Science 651.1 (2014): 44-73. PsycINFO. Web. 14 Jan. 2016
Arditti, Joyce A. "Family Process Perspective on the Heterogeneous Effects of Maternal
Incarceration on Child Wellbeing [Comments]." Criminology and Public Policy 1
(2015): 169. HeinOnline. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.
Allen, S, C Flaherty, and G Ely. "Throwaway Moms: Maternal Incarceration and the
Criminalization of Female Poverty." Affilia: Journal of Women & Social Work 25.2
(2010): 160-172 13p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.
Gaston, Roberta. "Collateral Damage: Examining the Impact of Maternal Incarceration
on the Social, Emotional, Behavioral and Educational Functioning of Children:
Released Mothers' Perspective." Electronic Thesis or Dissertation. Cleveland

Chaldu 7
State University, 2008. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. 14
Jan 2016.
Harvey, Sylvia A. "What About Us?." Nation 301.25/26 (2015): 10-17. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 14 Jan. 2016.
National Womens Law Center, and The Rebecca Project for Human Rights. Mothers
Behind Bars: A State-by-state Report Card and Analysis of Federal Policies on
Conditions of Confinement for Pregnant and Parenting Women and the Effect on
Their Children. Publication. National Womens Law Center, Oct. 2010. Web. 20
Jan. 2016.
DeVuono-powell, Saneta. "Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families." (2015): n.
pag. Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design, 2015. Web. 27 Jan.
2016. <http://ellabakercenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/who-pays.pdf>.
Sentencing Project, The. FACT SHEET: TRENDS IN U.S. CORRECTIONS. Washington D.C:
Sentencing Project, 2015.
Http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Trends_in_Corrections_Fact_sheet.pdf
. Nov. 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

Lurigio, Arthur J., et al. "Outcome Evaluation Of A Family-Based Jail Reentry Program
For Substance Abusing Offenders." Prison Journal 96.1 (2016): 53-78. Social
Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 30 Jan. 2016.