Leila Morsy and Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute have written a new report on how mass incarceration affects children’s outcomes in school. Here is a summary that they wrote. Please read the full report.
They write here:
Black parents, especially black fathers, are incarcerated at a rate that is unmatched by any other country in the modern world. Largely to blame for such unjustified rates are our racially discriminatory “war on drugs” policies that began in the 1970s. While crime, especially violent crime, has declined since the 1990s, arrests and incarceration have continued to rise.
This should be of urgent concern to anyone interested in education policy. The mass incarceration of African American men has important damaging consequences for children in school. The number of children affected by mass incarceration is now so great that we can reasonably infer that it contributes significantly to lowered achievement of African American children and thus to the gap in cognitive and non-cognitive achievement between black and white children.
In a new report, Mass Incarceration and Children’s Outcomes, we review research across the fields of criminal justice, health, sociology, epidemiology, and economics. We describe the growth in incarceration of the past few years, and how an African American child is much more likely to have an incarcerated parent than a white child, a circumstance not justified by differences by race in criminal activity. We then review the extensive research demonstrating that when parents are incarcerated, children do worse across cognitive and non-cognitive outcome measures. We review convincing research that shows, for example, that children of incarcerated parents are at increased risk of dropping out of school. They are more likely to develop learning disabilities, including ADHD. Their behavior in school deteriorates. They are at heightened risk of worse physical and mental health, including migraines, asthma, high cholesterol, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The statistical sophistication of the studies we reviewed reasonably eliminates the possibility that the shortcomings we describe in student outcomes may be attributable to socioeconomic or demographic characteristics of the children, rather than to their parents’ present or previous incarceration. Our report concludes with criminal justice policy recommendations to raise the achievement of children with incarcerated parents.
President Obama has responded to this discriminatory sentencing with a stepped-up rate of pardons and commutations. But such presidential action is not enough: Most prisoners are in state facilities, not federal ones. In 2014, over 700,000 prisoners nationwide were serving sentences of a year or longer for non-violent crimes. Over 600,000 of these were in state, not federal prisons.
“Stop and frisk” practices by local police, advocated by President-elect Trump, is not a federal policy. Once in office, Mr. Trump will have little influence over it. Reform of local and state government policies and practices that result in excessive and discriminatory incarceration is no less realistic or urgent now than it was before the presidential election.
State policymakers have great reach to change criminal justice policies that will positively impact how children do in school. Educators should embrace reform as a priority for advocacy. Children’s cognitive and behavioral problems caused by mass incarceration are difficult for teachers to overcome. Decreasing the number of black children affected by mass incarceration is likely to have a greater positive effect on student achievement than many school-based reforms currently advocated by education policymakers. Criminal justice policy is education policy.

Indeed! I made precisely this point in this excerpt from my new book:
The current direction toward privatization in education is equivalent to outsourcing in the criminal justice system. The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) is the criminal justice equivalent of the education privatization movement that is currently underway. CCA is a $1.8 billion company that builds and operates prisons and detention facilities on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Marshals Service, and state and local agencies. All of their incentives are perverse. Maximizing revenue depends on “customers” and “repeat” customers. In the decade ending in 2012 CCA spent nearly $18 million lobbying various government agencies to keep the market robust. [94] In their own SEC filing they wrote:
“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. [95]”
Read that excerpt carefully. CCA sees draconian drug laws and punitive immigration practices as good for business. Their interests are diametrically opposed to social justice.
It takes only modest revision of the language of the SEC filing from CCA to imagine it coming from a charter organization:
“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by proper funding of district public schools and decriminalization of certain activities that currently land young black fathers in jail, particularly with respect to drugs and controlled substances. Any changes that resulted in substantial job creation, fair wages and rebuilding of neglected urban communities might potentially reduce demand for alternative, impersonal “no excuses” facilities to house poor children.”
Here too, the interests are diametrically opposed to social justice.
LikeLike
The problems associated with incarceration will be the same for children of unauthorized immigrants, if Trump decides to implement a mass deportation. The children will suffer the consequences. Some children could lose both their parents while others could lose the parent that provides most of the income for the family. It will probably also cost taxpayers a lot more because most families with unauthorized members tend to be independent as they are not eligible for benefits. If the families lose income from deportation, the remaining legal family members will require food stamps, welfare and healthcare costs. Currently, many unauthorized people in our country pay taxes, often have their own businesses, and some are even “job creators.” They cannot collect any benefits, yet they contribute. With deportation they will go from being a net plus to a net minus. That would be a pyrrhic victory for Trump and a disaster for their children.
LikeLike
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/08/16/texas-detention-center-yet-another-stain-obamas-immigration-record
LikeLike
The posting and the comments above by stevenelson0248 and retired teacher—
Outstanding.
😎
LikeLike
I wish this report hadn’t just ignored recent research debunking the notion that the high incarceration rate in the U.S. is mainly an effect of the “war on drugs.”
LikeLike
The authors write: “Black parents, especially black fathers, are incarcerated at a rate that is unmatched by any other country in the modern world. Largely to blame for such unjustified rates are our racially discriminatory ‘war on drugs’ policies that began in the 1970s.”
But see:
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1650&context=faculty_scholarship
“While the first two theories-that drug incarcerations and drug-related parole violations drive growth-have received the most attention, they are also the easiest to debunk. For all the talk about drug incarcerations driving up prison populations, drug offenders comprise only 17% of state prison populations and explain only about 20% of prison growth since 1980.”
“Taken together, these findings suggest that the effects of the War on Drugs are often relatively slight compared to other causes, and that they are certainly not as big as many often assert. In reality, a majority of prison growth has come from locking up violent offenders, and a large majority of those admitted to prison never serve time for a drug charge, at least not as their “primary” charge.9 These results pose a challenge to those who wish to aggressively scale back incarceration, since the current politics of reducing sanctions for drug offenders is less complicated than that for reducing punishment for violent or property offenders. Reforming drug statutes is easier, but doing so will likely not effect significant change in the overall incarceration rate.”
“If we were to release every inmate serving time for a drug offense in 2010, the total prison population would fall from 1,362,028 to 1,125,028, and the percentage of that population that was white/black/Hispanic would change from 34.4%/38.1%/21.2% to 35.5%/36.7%/21.5%. In other words, the percent of the prison population that is black would fall by only 1.4 percentage points (from 38.1% to 36.7%), and the white-black gap would narrow only slightly, from 3.8 percentage points (34.3% vs. 38.1%) to 1.2 percentage points (35.5% vs. 36.7%). The minor effect of drug incarcerations on the racial compositions of prisons should not be surprising, given
that drug offenses make up such a relatively small fraction of all offenders. In short, there simply are not enough drug offenders in prison to move the numbers substantially.”
LikeLike
This is a serious critique and we will respond. The onset of holidays may cause our response to be delayed more than we’d like, but rest assured we take this comment seriously and will respond as soon as we can with due care..
LikeLike
Thanks for the response. Pfaff has done a lot of very interesting research on incarceration rates and trends, with what appear to be more sophisticated data than traditionally have been used in incarceration analysis.
LikeLike
FLERP:
Richard Rothstein asked if you would contact him at rrothstein@epi.org
LikeLike
You certainly have a unique blog here, Diane. Will do.
LikeLike
FLERP,
He wrote from Australia.
LikeLike
Thank you to this anonymous commenter who pointed out a correction to our report. An updated version of the report is now online (http://www.epi.org/publication/mass-incarceration-and-childrens-outcomes/), with the following erratum note:
“An earlier version of this report incorrectly attributed the growth of mass incarceration of African Americans “primarily” to the war on drugs, without noting that greatly increased sentence lengths for nondrug crimes are also responsible. The report has been corrected. We acknowledge an anonymous web commenter for calling attention to this oversight.”
Both the war on drugs and more punitive policies of prosecutors and judges have and have had a devastating effect on the children of unjustly incarcerated parents. We urge educators and those interested in education policy to consider this carefully.
— Leila Morsy and Richard Rothstein
LikeLike
Yes we have seen the effects on children here in Los Angeles whose fathers (mostly) were deported by the Obama administration. And as the others say above, it is only going to get much worse under Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For anyone paying attention to this particularly scary detail: the minute that Pres. elect Trump’s name was announced, private prison/immigrant detention center stock jumped upwards dramatically.
LikeLike
Above I have read of three studies concerning incarceration of citizens. They seem to contradict each other. This is why citizens cannot get themselves to listen to studies; they always seem to,contradict each other. Add to that the presence of decided bias contained in some of the writings of the purveyors of one idea or the other, and you have a toxic environment where both sides can accuse the other of bad science or worse. The citizen does not have the time to sort this out.
LikeLike