This Labor Day, we're showing how mass incarceration harms workers, depresses wages, and reduces bargaining power.

Prison Policy Initiative updates for August 27, 2024 Exposing how mass incarceration harms communities and our national welfare

10 ways that mass incarceration is an engine of economic injustice [[link removed]] The fight for a fair economy and the movement against prisons are one and the same. [[link removed]]

by Eric Seligman & Brian Nam-Sonenstein

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 [[link removed]] are also the most policed [[link removed]]. 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.

As we head toward Labor Day, we've compiled 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 [[link removed]], 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.

It’s expensive to be poor, and in the U.S. the criminal legal system makes this emphatically so.Poverty traps people in jail. About 83% of people in local jails are legally innocent and awaiting trial [[link removed]], and many of them are too poor to make bail [[link removed]]. At the same time, jail traps people in poverty [[link removed]]: 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. 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 [[link removed]].

In prison, periods of employment are replaced with low-wage prison labor [[link removed]] — wages that are quickly consumed by expensive communications, medical care, and commissary goods, not to mention fines for alleged misconduct [[link removed]] in many states. Release and reentry provide little reprieve, as people on post-release supervision (who are disproportionately poor 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.

#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, 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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] 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.

Prisons actually deepen poverty in the communities where they are built.These harms spill over into the larger community. Lost wages and barriers to employment among the formerly incarcerated [[link removed]] 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. 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 workers 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. 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. When a federal prison opened in McCreary County, Kentucky in 2003, only an estimated 1 [[link removed]] 0% [[link removed]] of the new jobs were filled by local residents [[link removed]], amounting to about 30 jobs total. Ruth Wilson Gilmore’s 2007 study of California’s prison boom [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]]. 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. 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. Prisons are a blight on the environment [[link removed]]. 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.

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 [[link removed]] one-third of all income [[link removed]], 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 [[link removed]] toiled under [[link removed]] unstable work schedules [[link removed]] in 2015. 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 [[link removed]] people are to risk their jobs [[link removed]] 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.

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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]]. 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 [[link removed]]. 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.

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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]].

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 [[link removed]].

#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 [[link removed]] — lost their right to vote due to a felony conviction. Prison gerrymandering [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] and local level [[link removed]], and paints an inaccurate picture of community populations for research and planning purposes [[link removed]].

Incarcerated people and their communities are shunned from the political process.Incarcerated people and their communities are also shunned from the political process [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] and a reduction in one’s likelihood of voting, even when the sample is restricted to those who have not been legally disenfranchised. Other [[link removed]] research [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] 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.

#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 [[link removed]]. 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 causes that plays out in media, exacerbating racism in society. Labor market research that finds that employers more frequently assume criminality [[link removed]] in Black job applicants, whether they have a criminal record or not [[link removed]], 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 corrections 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 [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] 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.

While mass incarceration creates some very visible economic injustices, others remain hidden.Beyond statistical misrepresentation, mass incarceration also gives rise to narratives that displace blame for criminalized poverty entirely onto the individual. Despite the vast [[link removed]] amount [[link removed]] of research [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] — who are indeed more “active” in the labor market than their general population peers — 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 [[link removed]] and Jamie Peck and Nik Theodore’s “Carceral Chicago” [[link removed]] 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 [[link removed]] the resources [[link removed]] to do [[link removed]] — 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.

***

For more information, including detailed footnotes, see the full version of this briefing on our website [[link removed]].

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Other news: Data on formerly incarcerated people’s employment reveal labor market injustices [[link removed]]

Formerly incarcerated people face huge obstacles to finding stable employment, leading to detrimental society-wide effects. In this briefing [[link removed]], we look at the data that shows that despite the strength of the current labor market, there may be plenty of jobs available, but they don’t guarantee stability or economic mobility for this vulnerable population.

Workshop: Investigating State Parole Systems [[link removed]]

Documenting problems is often the first step to fixing them, but parole systems are intentionally opaque and subject to little or no oversight or documentation requirements.

In this workshop, our advocacy team will share tangible and specific strategies for identifying and gathering data, records and other pieces of information that can help you define the scope and scale of the problems in your state and inform the approaches you take to solving them.

Learn more and register here [[link removed]].

Working in a "meat grinder": A research roundup showing prison and jail jobs aren’t all that states promise they will be [[link removed]]

Prisons across the country are complaining about their ability to hire and retain staff. We looked at the research to understand why. In this briefing [[link removed]], we provide a possible answer: no matter what side of the bars you are on, being in prison damages your physical and mental health.

Please support our work [[link removed]]

Our work is made possible by private donations. Can you help us keep going? We can accept tax-deductible gifts online [[link removed]] or via paper checks sent to PO Box 127 Northampton MA 01061. Thank you!

Our other newsletters Ending prison gerrymandering ( archives [[link removed]]) Criminal justice research library ( archives [[link removed]])

Update your newsletter subscriptions [link removed].

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website [[link removed]] or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative [[link removed]]

PO Box 127

Northampton, Mass. 01061

Web Version [link removed] Unsubscribe [link removed] Update address / join other newsletters [link removed] Donate [[link removed]] Tweet this newsletter [link removed] Forward this newsletter [link removed]

You are receiving this message because you signed up on our website or you met Peter Wagner or another staff member at an event and asked to be included.

Prison Policy Initiative

PO Box 127 Northampton, Mass. 01061

Did someone forward this to you? If you enjoyed reading, please subscribe! [[link removed]] Web Version [link removed] | Update address [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed] | Share via: Twitter [link removed] Facebook [[link removed] Email [link removed]