Families and Incarceration

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Families and Incarceration Author(s): Donald Braman Document No.: 202981 Date Received: 11/21/2003 Award Number: 98-CE-VX-0012 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Abstract Families and Incarceration Donald Braman 2002 This dissertation describes findings from a three-year ethnographic study of male incarceration’s effect on family life in the District of Columbia. The central finding of the study is that the dramatic increase in the use of incarceration over the last two decades has in many ways missed its mark, often injuring the families of offenders as much as, and sometimes more than, offenders themselves. The effects of incarceration on families include practical hardships related to incarceration such as lost income and childcare, legal costs, and telephone expenses. Because prisoners are prevented from reciprocating, their families are not only materially impoverished, but the relationships within the extended kinship networks are eroded. Incarceration also forcibly restructures household composition, reshaping family life in ways that are entirely absent from policy debates. In addition to the direct effect of incarceration on gender ratios and father absence, incarceration also has more subtle effects on gender norms, encouraging behavior that is consistent with many of the common stereotypes of poor, black, inner-city families. What the stereotypes obscure, however, are the ways in which incarceration is intricately involved in the dissolution of the very families they describe. The stigma associated with incarceration has also had broad effects on inner-city family and community life. Because stigma is associated with families of prisoners, and because families are in communities that are disproportionately victimized by crime, they often face far more difficulties managing the stigma of criminality during incarceration than do offenders. The result is that, at the individual and community level, relationships are often diminished and distorted to guard information about incarceration and, at a broader political level, familial covering and silence effectively hides the effects of incarceration from public view. Families and Incarceration A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Donald Braman Dissertation Directors: Kathryn M. Dudley & Harold Scheffler May 2002 © 2002 by Donald Braman. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Some writing projects are completed quickly and need only minor changes. This is not one of those projects. Having spent three years working to finish it, it seems much less a writing project than a series of extended discussions. Many of these were in backyards, kitchens, and living rooms; some were in prisons, halfway houses, and vans that served as temporary homes; others were in offices, over the phone, or by email. All were essential. I was continually surprised by the generosity participants in this study; I owe them an unpayable debt. They opened up their lives so that I could learn from them and helped me to discard many of my assumptions along the way. Their hospitality and friendship, often in the most trying circumstances, was something I was trained not to expect, but without which this work would have been impossible. Over dinner, in church, at work, or just when they had a few free moments, the families in this study shared not only their time, but intimate and often painful details of their lives. Their names do not appear here because they were promised anonymity, but they know who they are. I hope that my work does them justice. My friends and colleagues were expert where I was not, helping me to understand the many arguments that had already been made about families, communities, and the law, and often pointing out lapses in logic or contradictions in my own. More importantly, they both prodded and reassured at the necessary times and places. I will be forever grateful to Kathryn Dudley who has become my model for academic mentorship. I would not have undertaken this study let alone finished it were it not for her sure guidance and unwavering encouragement. Hal Scheffler provided a solid and reassuring sounding board throughout this project, and read more than most advisors should ever have to. Dan Kahan has been generous beyond measure, opening my eyes to ways of viewing the law that were entirely new to me. Linda-Anne Rebhun provided not only excellent comments but, by example, a model of careful and thoughtful scholarship. Ryan Goodman, Marc Mauer, Michelle Gates-Moresi, Karen Nakamura, Tom Pertersik, and Paul Wood all read and gave very helpful comments on papers and drafts over the last two years. My family has been patient with my endless talk about this project. My most careful reader and staunchest supporter has been my wife, Jenifer Wood; I can’t imagine doing much of anything, let alone undertaking a project like this without her. A number of people welcomed me to Washington and helped me to find my feet. Betsy Biben, Michael Bryant, Brenda Smith, Charlie and Pauline Sullivan, and the many people they introduced me to were especially kind to me, patiently listening to my endless questions, answering where they could and directing me others where they could not. They often made fieldwork seem enjoyable. A number of people who work on behalf of the many inmates, families, and communities in the District shared their time and insight. In particular I want to thank John Bess, Mary Bissel, Luis Cardono, Beth Carter, Audrey Epperson, Jenni Gainsborough, Dianna Guinyard, Pastor Greylan Ellis Hagler, Ronald Hampton, Stephanie Harrison, Gayle Hebron, Reverend D. H. Beecher Hicks Jr., Jeffery Jay, Gail Johnson, Ambrose Lane Jr., Keith Langston, Ambrose Lane Jr., Jennifer Lanoff, Eric Lotke, Catherine Thomas Pinknee, Khalid Pitts, Patty Puritz, Bill Sabol, Michael Schaffer, Vincent Schiraldi, Giovanna Shay, Brenda Shepherd-Vernon, David A. Singleton, Reverend A. Noris Smith, Michael Spevak, Fred Taylor, Shari L. Thomas, Edward J. Ungvarsky, Pastor Willy Wilson, Bob Woodson, Many of the greatest obstacles to those conducting a study of this kind are bureaucratic. I am deeply indebted to the many public servants who helped guide my queries and requests through the shoals of red tape that would otherwise have wrecked this project. This research could not have been conducted without the cooperation of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, the Virginia Department of Correction, and the various federal agencies working with District inmates. In particular, I want to thank Farshad Amirkhizi, Clinton Boyd, Mary Buel, Jay Carver, John Clark, Sylvester Ezeani, Melinda Fallen, Dena Hanley, Stephanie Harrison, Gayle Hebron, Tom Hoey, Nancy Holt, Louis N. Jones, John P. May, Bill Meets, Margaret Moore, Polly Nelson, Jasper Ormand, Emanual Ross, John Thomas, Ed Walsh, Frances Washington, Odie Washington, Wendel Watkins, Andrea Weissman, Ed Wiley, Brett Williams, Earnest L. Williams, Joseph Willmore, Walter Woodward, and Elwood York. This study was generously supported by the National Institute of Justice (Award Number 98-CE-VX-0012), the National Science Foundation (Award Number SBR- 9727685), the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, and the Yale Center for the Study of Race, Inequality, and Politics. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... I Invisible Families...............................................................................................................iii Anthropological Offerings...............................................................................................viii CHAPTER ONE: WHAT DOES INCARCERATION MEAN? ............................................................. 1 Symbolic Politics................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER TWO: WHAT WENT WRONG? .................................................................................. 10 A Brief History .................................................................................................................10 The Rise of Incarceration.................................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER THREE: SOCIAL ECONOMIES AND SOCIAL COSTS ................................................... 24 Arrested: Kenny’s Family................................................................................................. 24 Doing Time: Arthur’s Family ........................................................................................... 36 Cycles of Release and Reincarceration: Clinton’s Family................................................ 60 Material and Social Capital .............................................................................................. 82 CHAPTER FOUR: KINSHIPS .....................................................................................................

Load more