How Do the Welfare and Criminal Justice Systems Impact the Role of the Black Male in the Family?
Soc Forces. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Nov xiv.
Published in final edited form equally:
PMCID: PMC3827915
NIHMSID: NIHMS490167
Punishment and Welfare: Paternal Incarceration and Families' Receipt of Public Assistance
Abstruse
The United States criminal justice and welfare systems are ii important government institutions in the lives of the poor. Despite many theoretical discussions about their human relationship, their operation at the level of offenders and families remains poorly understood. This newspaper utilizes Fragile Families and Kid Wellbeing data to examine how recent paternal incarceration is associated with families' receipt of TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP. Results robust to multiple tests find that incarceration is not related to subsequent TANF receipt merely is significantly associated with increased receipt of food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP. The findings suggest that greater government involvement amongst poor families is an unexpected upshot of mass imprisonment; yet, increased participation does non include TANF—the greenbacks assistance program of almost business to theorists.
Criminal justice and welfare systems are two of import government institutions in the lives of the poor. Considered the right and left hands of the state (Bourdieu 1998; Wacquant 2009) or the hard and soft sides of regime (Cohen 1985), punishment and welfare systems have been jointly studied by theorists and empiricists. They have been variously proposed as tools of the state for social control (Cohen 1985), as strategies for managing social insecurity and racial inequality (Wacquant 2009), and as characteristics of broader perspectives for governing social marginality (Beckett and Western 2001; Garland 2001). In conceptual models, the retrenchment of welfare provision and the expansion of corrections are acquired past a third, debated factor. It has been proposed that the developments are the necessary and directly result of neoliberal authorities (Wacquant 2009), the irresolute response of authorities and professionals to deviant and non-conformist beliefs (Cohen 1985), or the products of larger shifts in the philosophies, politics, and public opinion nigh poverty governance (Garland 1987; Mead 1997; Garland 2001; Beckett and Western 2001).
While theoretical discussions about the relationship between these systems are often provocative, their operation in the everyday lives of offenders and families remains poorly understood. Drawing from this literature, as well as recent research on collateral consequences of incarceration, this paper examines whether criminal justice and welfare systems are directly related at the level of offenders and their families. Using longitudinal data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study, several analytic models examine whether recent paternal incarceration is associated with families' subsequent receipt of TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP. Results robust to multiple tests find that incarceration is not related to TANF receipt but is associated with increased receipt of food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP. The findings propose that greater government involvement among poor families, through the "soft" side of public benefits provision, may be an unexpected consequence of mass imprisonment. However, families' increased participation does not include TANF, the cash aid and workfare programme of most business concern to theorists.
The following department reviews literature on the relationship amid criminal justice, welfare, and other regime institutions, on incarceration and collateral costs to families, and on determinants of welfare receipt. Department II presents the data, measures, and methods used for the analyses. Section III describes the results and section 4 concludes with a discussion of findings, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
I. BACKGROUND
Criminal justice and welfare systems
Criminal justice and welfare systems take long been considered two institutions that govern socially marginal groups. While the criminal justice organisation's office in managing deviance is explicit, the social welfare arms of regime have also been viewed as governing non-conformist beliefs (Cohen 1985; Garland 1987; Mead 1997). In Regulating the Poor (1993), Piven and Cloward posit that the gimmicky welfare system manages the behavior of poor individuals by reinforcing work norms, pacifying civil disorder, and ensuring that labor market participation at low wages and dire weather is preferable to receiving government aid. In the debates leading up to the 1996 welfare reforms, welfare policies were portrayed as shaping consequential behaviors and motivations of the poor. It was argued that the permissiveness of welfare policies promoted non-work, offense, and female-headed households (Mead 1985), although the evidence underlying these arguments is debatable (Katz 1990). More recently, research suggests that the degrading aspects of welfare policies can negatively affect clients' beliefs most government responsiveness, willingness to raise grievances against the country, and perceptions of citizenship (Soss 2002).
Dramatic changes in welfare and criminal justice policy over the final three decades accept led to a growing literature from a diverse group of scholars on the 2 systems and their dual roles for governing poverty. Mead and colleagues (1997) suggests that a new form of paternalism, or the "shut supervision of a dependent," characterizes contempo government policies towards the poor, including welfare reform and criminal justice expansion (one). Garland (2001) describes a general shift away from rehabilitative approaches, which he calls "penal welfarism," and towards a new civilization of control that is anti-modern and punitive. Beckett and Western (2001) posit that welfare retrenchment and growth in incarceration rates narrate a turn to castigating, country-level policy. Wacquant (2009) proposes that the work-based reforms of welfare policy and the expansion of criminal justice together form a joint strategy of neoliberal regime for the management of economically and socially marginal groups.
Despite this rich, varied, and often provocative literature, we have fiddling understanding on how these two government institutions operate in the everyday lives of poor individuals and their families. Policies from the 1996 welfare reforms prevent drug-related ex-felons from receiving TANF and food stamps in guild to ensure that "undeserving" individuals are excluded from government assist (Rubinstein and Mukamal 2002). 1 Given these restrictions, it is not surprising that prior research on maternal incarceration and welfare receipt found petty change, and even lower rates, of program participation postal service-incarceration (Butcher and LaLonde 2006). However, research on the private level overlooks the gendered graphic symbol of the institutions, where men make up the majority of the incarcerated and women are the nigh mutual recipients of welfare (Wacquant 2009). In recognition of the gendered division of welfare and criminal justice systems, this newspaper considers the role of these two institutions at the level of the family; specifically, it examines how paternal incarceration affects welfare receipt among offenders' partners and families.
The costs of incarceration to offenders and their families
A growing body of enquiry documents the many ways criminal justice involvement has had important and measurable consequences for offenders and their families. The burgeoning of the prison organization over the last iv decades has fabricated incarceration an unavoidable intervention into the lives of many poor families. At midyear 2007, over ane.7 million small-scale children had a female parent or father in land or federal prison house (Glaze and Maruschak 2010). These figures are even college for item groups of children because of the concentrated rates of imprisonment among young black men. It is estimated that 1 in 4 black children born in 1990 has experienced parental incarceration by historic period 14 (Wildeman 2009).
The expansion of the criminal justice system has generated research on the association betwixt corrections and a variety of economic, social, and governmental institutions. For ex-offenders, the feel of incarceration and having a criminal tape limits employment prospects (Pager 2003; Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2004; Western 2006) and lowers lifetime earnings (Western 2006). A history of incarceration besides reduces the likelihood of future wedlock, specially among poor and minority single men (Lopoo and Western 2005). In improver to these economical and social consequences, the prevalence of criminal justice involvement has had measurable impacts on the political landscape. The inability of felons and ex-felons to vote has changed the outcomes of land and national elections in consequential ways (Manza and Uggen 2006). Criminal justice involvement, and the fears of re-arrest and reincarceration, may even deter individuals from engaging in basic interactions with other government agencies, such as visiting hospitals and schools (Goffman 2009). Enquiry on maternal incarceration, in particular, has found that the growth in female imprisonment, combined with welfare retrenchment, has led to recent increases in foster care caseloads (Swann and Sylvester 2006). This literature has documented the many ways that criminal justice interest has lasting ramifications for ex-offenders and their relationships with economic, social, and governmental institutions.
The consequences of incarceration non only touch on ex-offenders and their long-term outcomes, but as well extend to the health, wellbeing, and economic conditions of their families. Fathers with histories of incarceration and other types of criminal justice contact are less likely to accept involved parenting relationships with their children (Woldoff and Washington 2008; Swisher and Waller 2008). Recent experiences of paternal incarceration are as well associated with increased physical aggression and behavioral problems amidst young children (Wakefield and Wildeman Forthcoming; Geller et al. Forthcoming), and especially among immature boys (Wildeman 2011;Geller et al. 2009). Given the racial disparities in incarceration rates, these behavioral consequences take increased population-level black and white inequities in childhood behavioral issues (Wakefield and Wildeman Forthcoming). There is besides evidence that parental incarceration exacerbates residential instability and the likelihood of child homelessness (Wildeman 2011). This growing trunk of enquiry has documented a range of negative behavioral and early life consequences of parental incarceration to children.
Parental incarceration can too have measurable fiscal consequences for families, past removing critical income and in-kind resources. Research on paternal incarceration finds that imprisonment decreases family income both by eliminating income during imprisonment and past reducing the amount the family unit receives later on incarceration. Co-ordinate to a 2004 survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over half of fathers in prison provided the chief fiscal back up for their families (Glaze and Maruschak 2010). After release, offenders face substantial barriers to finding employment (Pager 2003; Holzer et al. 2004). Fathers are less probable to cohabitate with their families, resulting in fewer financial contributions to family income (Geller, Garfinkel, and Western 2011). Ethnographic studies similarly describe fathers providing modest but disquisitional financial support to families prior to imprisonment (Fishman 1990; Braman 2004). They also depict fathers as regular contributors of in-kind resources, such as childcare and other domestic help, which the family loses during paternal imprisonment (Fishman 1990; Braman 2004). Ethnographic studies generally describe paternal incarceration every bit increasing fiscal strain for the family; however, an important exception is Comfort (2008), who plant that female partners were oftentimes ameliorate off financially afterward paternal incarceration.
In addition to the loss of resources, families also face varying expenditures associated with criminal justice involvement. During imprisonment, families send money and care packages, travel to visit inmates, and accept costly collect phone calls; a typical prison collect telephone call costs betwixt one and three dollars a minute (Travis 2005). Ethnographic accounts draw family members and then compelled to bring requested items to their partners in prison that the rest of the family had to become without everyday essentials (Fishman 1990; LeBlanc 2004; Comfort 2008). A survey of women visiting prison found that the average monthly cost of visiting, calling, and sending packages to their partners was $292 (Grinstead et al. 2001). Afterward imprisonment, the imposition of monetary sanctions tin can be substantial, peculiarly for already strained budgets (Harris, Evans, and Beckett 2010). The combination of increased expenditures associated with criminal justice involvement and fewer resources for the household may critically strain already express budgets. As may exist expected, families are more likely to report increased material hardship post-obit a recent paternal incarceration (Schwartz-Soicher, et al. Forthcoming). To the extent that these changes to household budgets are not sustainable, families may look to the government safety net for help.
Factors that determine receipt of TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP
While research suggests that families face greater financial strain equally a event of paternal incarceration, a range of factors—not simply financial situation—affects a family's likelihood of receiving welfare benefits. Even if a family meets the financial eligibility for a program, personal beliefs and perceptions of need affect the conclusion to enroll in means-tested government programs. The decision is based on a number of considerations, including knowledge about eligibility, expectations of future income, ability of extended family networks to provide a safety net, beliefs about the stigma of welfare receipt, and fear of authorities agencies (Edin and Lein 1997; London et al. 2004; Wu and Eamon 2010).
Autonomously from these personal expectations, beliefs, and situations, in that location are several factors specific to each program—TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP—that impact participation. Since the passage of the Personal Responsibleness and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Human activity (PRWORA) in 1996, the number of families participating in Medicaid/SCHIP and food stamps programs have profoundly expanded (63 and 25 meg individuals, respectively, in 2004) while the number of families receiving TANF has decreased (iv.7 million individuals in 2004) (Danziger 2010). These trends reflect the irresolute economic situations of poor families in the United states, only they also importantly indicate changes in program-specific factors, such equally outreach campaigns for broadening admission, income limits, application guidelines, eligibility criteria, and re-enrollment processes, that shape participation in means-tested programs.
In comparison to food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP, TANF is the most difficult plan to access—information technology entails lengthy application processes and upfront work activities. As a state-based programme, at that place are pregnant variations by state; however, TANF'due south more than restrictive eligibility and income criteria align with PRWORA'due south general aims to promote work and reduce receipt of cash assistance. In New York, which has one of the most complicated awarding processes, applicants must nourish two interviews, take a dwelling visit, get fingerprinted, and enroll in upfront work activities in order to begin receiving assistance (Holcomb et al. 2003). Some states take also recently started requiring drug tests as part of the application process; in Florida, TANF recipients must even pay for their drug testing (Sulzberger 2011). Once enrolled, TANF participants must attend all work-related activities and appointments, as missed days result in sanctions to benefits and eventually, closed cases. PRWORA likewise introduced lifetime limits for TANF receipt of sixty months, which some states have since chosen to meliorate. The complicated enrollment processes and ongoing eligibility activities thus serve as deterrents for accessing TANF.
In contrast to the TANF program, which temporarily provides assistance to not-working families, the food stamps program aims to serve both non-working and working low-income families. Accordingly, food stamp program eligibility is generally broader compared to TANF and recent policy efforts aim to increment food stamp access (Blank and Haskins 2001). To facilitate application processes, many jurisdictions have opened food postage stamp-only offices to provide an alternative application road that bypasses TANF offices. Once enrolled, food stamp participants have fewer ongoing obligations to keep eligibility. As opposed to TANF, there are no piece of work requirements or lifetime limits for food stamps receipt. To encourage ongoing participation once enrolled, many jurisdictions take extended the amount of fourth dimension between re-certification periods (Ribar, Edelhoch, and Liu 2008). The higher income eligibility criteria, easier application processes, fewer ongoing requirements, and longer fourth dimension periods between re-certifications equally compared to TANF accept more often than not broadened access to food stamp programs. Withal, these processes are adamant at the metropolis and state levels, and some places have stringent hurdles, such equally fingerprinting, for food stamps receipt (Holcomb et al. 2003).
Medicaid and SCHIP programs are commonly viewed as the easiest programs to access. Since PRWORA separated eligibility for Medicaid, families are able to enroll in Medicaid without receiving greenbacks assistance (Teitler, Reichman, and Nepomnyaschy 2007). For families who exceed Medicaid's income limits, their children can access the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), established in 1997. In dissimilarity to TANF and food stamps, which require families to employ in-person to public help agencies, many jurisdictions offer multiple offices and community-based entry points, including schools and hospitals, to enroll families in Medicaid and SCHIP (Holcomb et al. 2003). Once enrolled, families demand only to re-certify by mail service. As compared to food stamps and TANF programs, Medicaid and SCHIP programs crave minimal requirements for awarding and re-enrollment and have college income eligibility limits.
A family'south receipt of TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP depends on a variety of program-specific factors. It is likely that the association betwixt paternal incarceration and a family's receipt of welfare benefits is different past program—TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP. Even among families who officially qualify for all iii ways-tested programs, it is likely that they would await starting time to programs that are the near accessible and entail the fewest changes to everyday life to help ease financial strain. Considering TANF has the most stringent eligibility requirements and entails ongoing work assignments, I expect that families against new financial burdens will be more likely to turn to food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP for authorities support.
2. Information, MEASURES, AND METHODS
Data
To investigate how recent paternal incarceration is related to receipt of welfare benefits, I use data from the Delicate Families and Kid Wellbeing Written report ("Frail Families"). Fragile Families is a longitudinal study of approximately 5,000 children built-in between 1998 and 2000 to parents in U.s.a. cities with populations over 200,000. The study conducted initial interviews in twenty cities with mothers shortly after giving birth, contacted and interviewed fathers, and oversampled not-marital births (for more data on report blueprint and sample, encounter Reichman et al. 2001). Follow-upwards interviews were conducted with both parents when the kid was one, three, and five years old.
I primarily rely on data gathered from mothers, offset with the initial interview at the child's birth through the five-year interview, due to the relatively loftier compunction rate of fathers in the sample. I exclude mothers who state that the father is unknown or that the male parent passed away before the five-year follow upwardly interview (northward=103). I also exclude mothers who written report that they accept been recently incarcerated (n=twoscore) since the consequences of maternal incarceration on families are very different from those resulting from paternal incarceration (Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999). Because the dependent variables are measured at both the three- and 5-yr follow-upwards surveys for many models, I exclude mothers missing from these waves (n=653 and 383, respectively). Any remaining missing data is imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations (Water ice command in STATA xi.2), with a final sample of due north=3,680 (see table one). 2 An analysis of baseline characteristics reveals that the excluded mothers are moderately dissimilar from those interviewed at survey years three and five. They have lower educational attainment, are more probable to exist Hispanic (as opposed to non-Hispanic Blackness), and are less likely to be married compared to those respondents interviewed at follow upwards waves iii and 5; nonetheless, they are no different on baseline measures of current incarceration status, historic period, and household income. This suggests that the terminal analytic sample is slightly more than advantaged than the original Fragile Families sample, but is not statistically different on the key domains of incarceration and financial situation. Given these selection bug and the more advantaged analytic sample, the results should be interpreted equally bourgeois estimates of the association between recent incarceration and welfare receipt.
TABLE 1
Definition of sample for assay
| N | |
|---|---|
| Original Delicate Families sample | 4898 |
| Male parent is unknown/passed away (by 5-twelvemonth) | 103 |
| Female parent was recently incarcerated (between 3- and 5-year) | twoscore |
| Female parent was missing from 3-year interview | 653 |
| Mother was missing from five-year interview | 383 |
| Female parent was missing information on dependent variables | 39 |
| | |
| Final sample | 3680 |
The Fragile Families data provides a number of strengths for investigating the consequences of paternal incarceration for families. Showtime, the sample follows a new parent cohort and contains detailed family-level information. In contrast to offender samples, which unremarkably rely on administrative data and contain very few measures on family situation, Fragile Families data provides all-encompassing partner information. The data also distinguish amidst unlike relationship statuses, such as married, cohabiting and non-resident partnerships. Since individuals with histories of incarceration more commonly cohabitate than marry, measures that capture broader definitions of family unit are most advisable. Second, Fragile Families information contains a wealth of information that might affect the likelihood of both contempo paternal incarceration and welfare receipt. The analytic models can control for a range of potentially relevant measures, such equally a mother'southward drug use or family's textile hardship. Finally, the longitudinal design of the data enable fourth dimension ordering of key independent measures (e.thou., recent paternal incarceration) and control variables. It likewise allows for the use of multiple analytic approaches, including the utilise of fixed furnishings models that command for time-stable unmeasured characteristics.
Measures
Welfare benefits
I investigate a family's receipt of TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP. For TANF and Medicaid/SCHIP, mothers are asked whether they are currently receiving each of these welfare benefits at the three- and five-year surveys. For nutrient stamps, mothers are asked if they have received these within the last year. In most logit models, I include variables for each of these measures at the three-year survey as control variables (or lagged dependent variables) in society to capture prior noesis of programme availability and application process. Including the lagged measure likewise controls for characteristics that are associated with welfare utilise but are not captured past the other contained variables measured at yr 3. Fixed furnishings models employ these measures at both the iii- and five-year surveys.
Paternal criminal justice measures
Recent paternal incarceration
This measure is drawn from both mother and father's reports of whether the father was incarcerated at the five-year survey or at whatsoever betoken betwixt the three- and five-year surveys. 3
Prior paternal criminal justice involvement
This is a wide measure of whether the begetter has ever had previous contact with the criminal justice system. It is based on both mother and begetter's reports and indicates whether the male parent has ever been stopped past the police for a non-minor traffic violation, charged and/or convicted for breaking the law, or experienced time in jail or prison by the three-year survey. This mensurate is used as a command variable and in some models, is used to define a limited sample of families that are likely to be at-take a chance for recent paternal incarceration. A more conservative measure of prior paternal incarceration has also been used in all models and the findings are essentially the same (results are availabel upon request).
Material hardship index
This index is similar to the ane used past Schwartz-Soicher et al. (Forthcoming) in their paper on paternal incarceration and material hardship. It is the sum of five cloth hardship questions that are administered to mothers. These questions employ to the twelve months prior to the survey: did you receive free food or meals? Did you non pay the full amount of hire or mortgage payments? Were you evicted from your home or apartment for not paying the hire or mortgage? Did you not pay the full amount of a gas, oil, or electricity pecker? Was there anyone in your household who needed to encounter a md or go to the hospital but couldn't go considering of the cost? It is probable that cloth hardship is related to both contempo paternal incarceration and receipt of TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP, and should exist controlled for in all models.
Household income
This is a logged measure of mother'southward self-reported total household income. It includes multiple sources, such as formal and informal labor marketplace income, public assistance, and child support. Eligibility for welfare benefits depends partly on household income.
Labor market participation
A dichotomous measure of the female parent's formal labor market participation is included to control for any differences between mothers that have recently worked and those that have not. I expect that working mothers will exist less probable to receive welfare benefits.
Relationship with male parent
Relationship status is measured with three dummy variables for married, cohabiting and non-resident fathers. 4 Given prior literature on welfare program participants, I look to find that married families are the least likely to receive benefits.
Presence of a social begetter
For mothers that are not romantically involved with the father, the Delicate Families survey asks about the presence of a new romantic partner. The variable "social father" is based on maternal reports that she is either cohabiting or married to a new romantic partner. Presence of a social male parent in the household, who contributes income and in-kind resources, is probable associated with reduced welfare receipt.
Total children
This measure of total children in the family includes children past the subject area father and likewise by other partners of the mother. I expect that mothers with more children volition exist more likely to receive benefits.
Other maternal characteristics
It is probable that other maternal characteristics, such every bit drug use and incarceration history, are associated with recent paternal incarceration and receipt of welfare benefits. The measure of drug use asks about utilize of whatever not-prescription drugs in the concluding 12 months and follows the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF) list of substances. The measure of incarceration history refers to whatsoever incarceration episodes prior to the iii-year survey.
Maternal demographics
I include maternal demographics, such equally age, pedagogy attainment, race, and citizenship status, which are all measured at the baseline interview. Citizenship status addresses any differences in program participation that are due to eligibility criteria regarding nationality.
City of residence
Dummy variables are included for the urban center of residence of the mother at the baseline interview. Because the receipt of welfare benefits are influenced by regional factors in a variety of ways, such as policies on TANF and SCHIP eligibility, processes for applying for all programs, and generosity of TANF, these variables control for differences at the city level.
Methods
To examine the clan between recent paternal incarceration and families' receipt of welfare benefits, I get-go provide descriptive statistics for families by contempo paternal incarceration. I and then use logit models with lagged variables and fixed-effects logit models to command for possible misreckoning factors. TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt are regressed separately on recent paternal incarceration for the full sample of families as well every bit a sample express to families with prior paternal criminal justice contact. Limiting the sample to those with a prior history of criminal justice contact is meant to restrict the analysis to families with less unobserved heterogeneity, thereby reducing unmeasured confounding factors that could potentially bias estimates (LaLonde 1986). five At the aforementioned time, the analyses are limited to a smaller population of families with prior criminal justice contact, which restricts generalizability of findings. I thus include models that consider both the full and limited samples.
To estimate the association betwixt recent paternal incarceration and welfare receipt, I first use logit models that control for a range of potentially relevant variables. Logit models include independent variables measured at the three-year survey and dependent variables (TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP) measured at the five-twelvemonth survey. In near models, I include a lagged dependent variable measured at the three-year survey to capture prior welfare programme participation. Every bit described in the measures section, the inclusion of lagged dependent variables control for whether the family had prior knowledge about welfare eligibility and the application process, as well equally any family characteristics that are associated with prior welfare use just are not captured by the other contained variables. The logit models are estimated for the full sample and for the sample limited to families with prior paternal criminal justice contact.
The logit models base estimates on observed characteristics and it is possible that unmeasured factors bias estimates of the association betwixt recent paternal incarceration and welfare receipt. The logit models include several approaches meant to narrow bias due to unobserved factors: they include a rich set of control variables, incorporate lagged dependent variables, and limit the sample to those families likely to receive the treatment of recent incarceration. However, they are unable to fully account for fourth dimension-stable unmeasured characteristics that may bear on receipt of welfare benefits and the likelihood of recent paternal incarceration. For case, if there is an unobserved cistron of general family unit instability that is correlated with both paternal incarceration and welfare receipt, logit models may not adequately command for this even in the limited sample. To adjust for any time-stable, unobserved characteristics, I employ fixed effects logit models with limited covariates. Fixed effects models utilise information at multiple time periods to account for fourth dimension-stable individual level factors. For these models, all variables are measured at survey years three and five. The mensurate of contempo paternal incarceration for yr v remains the same as in the logit models, and the three-year measure is positive for those incarcerated at twelvemonth three and zilch for those not incarcerated. six The fixed effects models are estimated for the full sample and express sample, in order to further minimize sample heterogeneity.
3. RESULTS
Descriptive characteristics of families, by recent paternal incarceration
Families that experienced a recent paternal incarceration are significantly more probable to receive TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP (see table 2). At the 5-year survey, 20 percent of families with a contempo incarceration were receiving TANF, as opposed to eleven percent of families without a recent incarceration. The majority of families with an incarceration (67 percent) were receiving nutrient stamps (compared to 38 percent of families without an incarceration) and 76 percent were receiving Medicaid or SCHIP (as opposed to 54 percent).
TABLE 2
Means and standard deviations, past contempo paternal incarceration
| Variable | Recent paternal incarceration | No recent paternal incarceration | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both | E'er incarcerated | Never incarcerated | ||||||
| Dependent variables (five-year) | ||||||||
| TANF receipt | 0.20 | (0.41) | 0.eleven | (0.32)*** | 0.19 | (0.41) | 0.07 | (0.25)*** |
| Nutrient stamps receipt | 0.67 | (0.48) | 0.38 | (0.49)*** | 0.55 | (0.50)*** | 0.27 | (0.45)*** |
| Medicaid/SCHIP receipt | 0.76 | (0.43) | 0.54 | (0.50)*** | 0.70 | (0.46)* | 0.44 | (0.50)*** |
| Father's characteristics (prior to 3-year) | ||||||||
| Prior criminal justice involvement | 0.90 | (0.30) | 0.63 | (0.49)*** | --- | --- | 0.39 | (0.49)*** |
| Female parent's characteristics (3-year) | ||||||||
| Prior TANF receipt | 0.24 | (0.46) | 0.14 | (0.35)*** | 0.23 | (0.43) | 0.08 | (0.27)*** |
| Prior nutrient stamps receipt | 0.58 | (0.50) | 0.36 | (0.49)*** | 0.55 | (0.l) | 0.25 | (0.44)*** |
| Prior Medicaid/SCHIP receipt | 0.75 | (0.45) | 0.57 | (0.l)*** | 0.75 | (0.43) | 0.46 | (0.50)*** |
| Material hardship index | 0.74 | (1.05) | 0.51 | (0.85)*** | 0.66 | (0.96) | 0.41 | (0.79)*** |
| Household income (logged) | ix.54 | (one.13) | 10.02 | (one.xv)*** | 9.61 | (1.07) | ten.28 | (one.xi) |
| Participation in formal labor marketplace | 0.57 | (0.50) | 0.57 | (0.50) | 0.54 | (0.l) | 0.59 | (0.49) |
| Human relationship with begetter | ||||||||
| Married | 0.12 | --- | 0.36 | --- | 0.xv | --- | 0.48 | --- |
| Cohabiting | 0.20 | --- | 0.20 | --- | 0.xix | --- | 0.21 | --- |
| Non-resident | 0.68 | --- | 0.44 | --- | 0.66 | --- | 0.31 | --- |
| Presence of a social father in household | 0.14 | (0.41) | 0.09 | (0.29)*** | 0.fifteen | (0.38) | 0.05 | (0.22)*** |
| Full children | two.56 | (ane.54) | two.47 | (one.41) | two.67 | (one.49) | 2.35 | (1.35)** |
| Drug use | 0.xiii | (0.34) | 0.06 | (0.24)*** | 0.07 | (0.27)*** | 0.05 | (0.22)*** |
| Incarceration history | 0.05 | (0.22) | 0.02 | (0.13) | 0.03 | (0.eighteen) | 0.01 | (0.09) |
| Mother'south demographics (baseline) | ||||||||
| Age (in years) | 26.07 | (v.64) | 28.47 | (six.08)*** | 26.50 | (5.34) | 29.69 | (half-dozen.19)*** |
| Instruction | ||||||||
| Some HS or less | 0.41 | --- | 0.31 | --- | 0.41 | --- | 0.25 | --- |
| HS graduate or equivalent | 0.35 | --- | 0.31 | --- | 0.35 | --- | 0.28 | --- |
| Some higher | 0.22 | --- | 0.26 | --- | 0.22 | --- | 0.28 | --- |
| College graduate | 0.01 | --- | 0.13 | --- | 0.02 | --- | 0.nineteen | --- |
| Race | ||||||||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 0.60 | --- | 0.47 | --- | 0.59 | --- | 0.39 | --- |
| White, non-Hispanic | 0.16 | --- | 0.23 | --- | 0.16 | --- | 0.27 | --- |
| Hispanic | 0.22 | --- | 0.27 | --- | 0.24 | --- | 0.29 | --- |
| Other | 0.03 | --- | 0.04 | --- | 0.02 | --- | 0.05 | --- |
| US citizen | 0.96 | (0.19) | 0.xc | (0.35)*** | 0.96 | (0.21) | 0.87 | (0.38)*** |
| N* | 435 | 3218 | 1218 | 1998 | ||||
Families that have experienced a recent paternal incarceration are significantly different from families without recent incarceration on a variety of observable characteristics. The majority of families with a contempo incarceration (90 percent) report prior paternal criminal justice involvement, but even families without a recent incarceration report prior paternal criminal justice involvement (63 percent). Further, a non-niggling portion of families without a recent paternal incarceration includes fathers that report an incarceration history in the past, prior to the three-twelvemonth survey. Families with a recent paternal incarceration experience more financially precarious situations, even before paternal incarceration. They report lower household income, higher levels of material hardship, and are more than likely to receive TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP before incarceration, compared to families without recent incarceration experiences. They are also less likely to be married and more likely to have non-resident fathers compared to families without a recent paternal incarceration. Families with a recent paternal incarceration are significantly more likely than other families to study having a social father in the household at the three-year survey. Maternal drug use and incarceration history is also significantly more prevalent among families with recent paternal incarceration.
In terms of maternal demographics, mothers who experienced a recent paternal incarceration were more likely to be The states citizens, to be younger, have less education, and to be blackness compared to mothers without a recent paternal incarceration.
Families with and without recent paternal incarceration were similar on two observed characteristics—full children in the family and mother'southward participation in the formal labor marketplace. Families had an boilerplate of virtually 2.v children and the bulk of mothers (nearly 60 pct) reported participation in the formal labor market at the three-year survey.
Recent paternal incarceration and receipt of welfare
As shown in the descriptive statistics to a higher place, there are many differences between families that experience a recent paternal incarceration and those that do not. Contempo incarceration is not a random upshot in the lives of families, and the following analyses aim to business relationship for possible confounding factors that bias estimates of the relationship betwixt incarceration and welfare.
Table iii through 5 describe logit models with welfare receipt outcomes measured in twelvemonth v and independent variables measured in year iii. In the model for TANF receipt (see table 3), recent paternal incarceration is significantly associated in a bivariate relationship but is no longer significant afterward controls are added. Instead of contempo paternal incarceration, other factors such as prior TANF receipt, material hardship, household income, and human relationship with male parent are of import determinants.
TABLE 3
Logit model for TANF receipt (5-year)
| (one) | (2) | (3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contempo paternal incarceration | 0.63 | (0.14)*** | 0.11 | (0.17) | 0.05 | (0.18) |
| Prior paternal criminal justice contact | 0.42 | (0.15)** | --- | |||
| Female parent's characteristics (3-year) | ||||||
| Prior TANF receipt | 1.41 | (0.13)*** | 1.40 | (0.15)*** | ||
| Material hardship index | 0.xvi | (0.06)** | 0.15 | (0.07)* | ||
| Household income (logged) | −0.36 | (0.06)*** | −0.36 | (0.07)*** | ||
| Participation in formal labor market place | −0.25 | (0.13) | −0.21 | (0.xv) | ||
| Relationship with male parent (married) | ||||||
| Cohabiting | 0.61 | (0.22)** | 0.54 | (0.25)* | ||
| Non-resident | 0.fourscore | (0.20)*** | 0.71 | (0.23)** | ||
| Presence of a social father in household | −0.xx | (0.18) | −0.26 | (0.20) | ||
| Total children | 0.09 | (0.04)* | 0.08 | (0.05) | ||
| Drug apply | 0.37 | (0.21) | 0.32 | (0.23) | ||
| Incarceration history | 0.21 | (0.32) | −0.08 | (0.36) | ||
| Mother's demographics (baseline) | ||||||
| Age (in years) | −0.02 | (0.01) | −0.02 | (0.02) | ||
| Educational activity (less than HS reference) | ||||||
| HS graduate or equivalent | −0.19 | (0.14) | −0.thirteen | (0.15) | ||
| Some college | −0.54 | (0.xviii) ** | −0.52 | (0.21)* | ||
| College graduate | −ane.97 | (0.74) ** | −ii.05 | (one.03) | ||
| Race (white, non-Hispanic reference) | ||||||
| Blackness, non-Hispanic | 0.xv | (0.21) | 0.xv | (0.24) | ||
| Hispanic | 0.02 | (0.25) | 0.13 | (0.28) | ||
| Other | 0.64 | (0.37) | 0.71 | (0.45) | ||
| US citizen | 0.99 | (0.32)** | 0.89 | (0.36)* | ||
| Abiding | −ii.04 | (0.06)*** | 0.22 | (0.82) | 1.05 | (0.91) |
| Dummy variables for city of residence | √ | √ | ||||
| Express sample: Prior paternal criminal justice contact | √ | |||||
| Northward | 3680 | 3680 | 2422 | |||
In contrast to TANF receipt, there is a potent, significant association betwixt recent incarceration and food stamps receipt (see tabular array 4, column one). This association diminishes slightly in size simply remains significant when controls are added (column 2). The logit coefficient of 0.73 corresponds to an odds ratio of ii.08 times greater likelihood of food stamps receipt following recent paternal incarceration. When the sample is farther restricted to families with prior paternal criminal justice contact, the logit coefficient on recent incarceration remains essentially unchanged (column 3).
Table iv
Logit model for food stamps receipt (5-year)
| (one) | (2) | (3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contempo paternal incarceration | one.23 | (0.11)*** | 0.73 | (0.14)*** | 0.71 | (0.15)*** |
| Prior paternal criminal justice contact | 0.16 | (0.11) | --- | |||
| Mother'south characteristics (3-year) | ||||||
| Prior food stamps receipt | 1.67 | (0.10)*** | 1.56 | (0.12)*** | ||
| Material hardship index | 0.21 | (0.05)*** | 0.18 | (0.06)** | ||
| Household income (logged) | −0.30 | (0.05)*** | −0.30 | (0.06)*** | ||
| Participation in formal labor marketplace | −0.42 | (0.ten)*** | −0.48 | (0.12)*** | ||
| Human relationship with father (married) | ||||||
| Cohabiting | 0.46 | (0.14)*** | 0.54 | (0.17)** | ||
| Not-resident | 0.83 | (0.13)*** | 0.86 | (0.sixteen)*** | ||
| Presence of a social father in household | −0.28 | (0.15) | −0.35 | (0.17)* | ||
| Total children | 0.23 | (0.04)*** | 0.26 | (0.04)*** | ||
| Drug use | 0.51 | (0.nineteen)** | 0.67 | (0.21)** | ||
| Incarceration history | 0.08 | (0.30) | −0.02 | (0.32) | ||
| Mother'southward demographics (baseline) | ||||||
| Age (in years) | −0.04 | (0.01)*** | −0.06 | (0.01)*** | ||
| Education (less than HS reference) | ||||||
| HS graduate or equivalent | −0.17 | (0.11) | −0.08 | (0.13) | ||
| Some college | −0.67 | (0.13)*** | −0.63 | (0.16)*** | ||
| College graduate | −1.67 | (0.34)*** | −0.08 | (0.13) | ||
| Race (white, non-Hispanic reference) | ||||||
| Black, not-Hispanic | 0.39 | (0.14)** | 0.37 | (0.17)* | ||
| Hispanic | 0.10 | (0.17) | 0.03 | (0.21) | ||
| Other | 0.nineteen | (0.31) | 0.threescore | (0.38) | ||
| Us citizen | 0.65 | (0.21)** | 0.77 | (0.28)** | ||
| Constant | −0.51 | (0.04)*** | i.55 | (0.67)* | 2.18 | (0.80)** |
| Dummy variables for metropolis of residence | √ | √ | ||||
| Express sample: Prior paternal criminal justice contact | √ | |||||
| Due north | 3680 | 3680 | 2422 | |||
The results for Medicaid/SCHIP receipt are like to those for food stamps (encounter table 5). The logit model estimates a large and significant association betwixt recent incarceration and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt (cavalcade 1). When controls are added, the size diminishes to a logit coefficient of 0.43, which corresponds to i.54 times higher odds of receipt for families with recent incarceration. The odds of Medicaid/SCHIP receipt are similar for the sample express to families with prior criminal justice contact (column 3).
TABLE 5
Logit model for Medicaid/SCHIP receipt (5-twelvemonth)
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recent paternal incarceration | 0.99 | (0.12)*** | 0.43 | (0.14)** | 0.fifty | (0.16)** |
| Prior paternal criminal justice contact | 0.01 | (0.10) | --- | |||
| Female parent's characteristics (3-yr) | ||||||
| Prior Medicaid/SCHIP receipt | 1.64 | (0.10)*** | ane.71 | (0.12)*** | ||
| Material hardship index | 0.20 | (0.05)*** | 0.17 | (0.06)** | ||
| Household income (logged) | −0.38 | (0.06)*** | −0.37 | (0.07)*** | ||
| Participation in formal labor market | −0.48 | (0.ten)*** | −0.43 | (0.12)*** | ||
| Relationship with begetter (married) | ||||||
| Cohabiting | 0.52 | (0.13)*** | 0.45 | (0.sixteen)** | ||
| Non-resident | 0.62 | (0.12)*** | 0.59 | (0.xv)*** | ||
| Presence of a social father in household | −0.19 | (0.16) | −0.29 | (0.17) | ||
| Full children | 0.21 | (0.04)*** | 0.23 | (0.05)*** | ||
| Drug utilize | 0.09 | (0.18) | 0.28 | (0.21) | ||
| Incarceration history | −0.01 | (0.31) | 0.01 | (0.34) | ||
| Mother'due south demographics (baseline) | ||||||
| Age (in years) | −0.03 | (0.01)*** | −0.03 | (0.01)* | ||
| Educational activity (less than HS reference) | ||||||
| HS graduate or equivalent | −0.25 | (0.xi)* | −0.13 | (0.14) | ||
| Some higher | −0.57 | (0.13)*** | −0.49 | (0.xvi)** | ||
| College graduate | −one.25 | (0.22)*** | −1.36 | (0.33)*** | ||
| Race (white, not-Hispanic reference) | ||||||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 0.20 | (0.xiii) | 0.12 | (0.17) | ||
| Hispanic | 0.29 | (0.sixteen) | 0.16 | (0.20) | ||
| Other | −0.05 | (0.27) | −0.04 | (0.36) | ||
| US citizen | −0.33 | (0.18) | −0.45 | (0.28) | ||
| Constant | 0.17 | (0.04)*** | three.75 | (0.69)*** | 3.76 | (0.86)*** |
| Dummy variables for city of residence | √ | √ | ||||
| Limited sample: Prior paternal criminal justice contact | √ | |||||
| N | 3680 | 3680 | 2422 | |||
While the logit models include a rich set of control variables and are tested on several samples, they exercise not control for time-stable, unobserved characteristics of families that may bias the relationship between recent incarceration and welfare receipt. To address this, I present results for TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt from stock-still-effects logit models (encounter table vi). These models include limited covariates compared to the logit models and business relationship for whatever unobserved, stable differences between families. Some of the covariates, such every bit participation in the labor marketplace, human relationship status and drug utilise, might exist considered endogenous to recent paternal incarceration; all models accept been repeated without these covariates with very similar estimates and p-values. For TANF, recent paternal incarceration is not related to receipt in both the full sample and the sample limited to families with prior paternal criminal justice contact, corresponding to the logit findings. Because fixed effects models gauge coefficients based on cases that modify on the dependent variable, the TANF model consider N=520 families in the total sample and Due north=420 families in the limited sample.
Table 6
Fixed-effects logit model for TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt
| TANF | Food stamps | Medicaid/SCHIP | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||||||||
| (1) | (2) | (three) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |||||||
| Recent paternal incarceration | −0.14 | (0.26) | −0.23 | (0.28) | 0.52 | (0.xx)** | 0.49 | (0.21)* | 0.51 | (0.21)* | 0.66 | (0.23)** |
| Participation in formal labor marketplace | −1.l | (0.17)*** | −one.66 | (0.20)*** | −0.78 | (0.xiv)*** | −0.69 | (0.16)*** | −0.63 | (0.thirteen)*** | −0.55 | (0.16)*** |
| Relationship with male parent (married reference) | ||||||||||||
| Cohabiting | 0.lxx | (0.44) | 0.67 | (0.51) | 0.34 | (0.26) | 0.nineteen | (0.thirty) | 0.17 | (0.24) | −0.08 | (0.29) |
| Non-resident | 1.00 | (0.42)* | i.01 | (0.48)* | 0.67 | (0.25)** | 0.39 | (0.28) | 0.34 | (0.25) | 0.26 | (0.31) |
| Total children | 0.56 | (0.xiv)*** | 0.56 | (0.16)*** | 0.35 | (0.12)** | 0.54 | (0.xv)*** | 0.22 | (0.10)* | 0.38 | (0.xiv)** |
| Drug use | 0.10 | (0.29) | 0.27 | (0.32) | −0.17 | (0.28) | −0.27 | (0.31) | 0.29 | (0.25) | 0.01 | (0.31) |
| Historic period (in years) | −0.25 | (0.05)*** | −0.24 | (0.06)*** | 0.03 | (0.04) | −0.10 | (0.05) | −0.16 | (0.04)*** | −0.26 | (0.05)*** |
| Limited sample: prior paternal criminal justice contact | √ | √ | √ | |||||||||
| N | 3680 | 2422 | 3680 | 2422 | 3680 | 2422 | ||||||
For food stamps, recent incarceration is significantly associated with receipt in the full sample (see column 3), respective to i.68 times higher odds of receipt. In the limited sample, the logit coefficient of 0.49 translates to a 1.63 times higher odds of receipt (column 4). The full and limited sample models consider N=752 and North=569 families, respectively. For food stamps, the stock-still furnishings models estimate a slightly smaller but yet meaning effect of recent incarceration compared to the logit models.
For Medicaid/SCHIP, contempo paternal incarceration is besides significantly related to receipt in the full model (run across table half-dozen, cavalcade 5). The logit coefficient of 0.51 corresponds to a 1.67 times higher odds of Medicaid/SCHIP receipt for families with recent incarceration. When the sample is restricted to families who are more similar—those with prior paternal criminal justice contact—recent incarceration remains significantly related and the upshot size is slightly higher compared to the full analytic sample. The full and limited sample models consider N=807 and N=532 families, respectively.
Effigy ane summarizes results from the logit and fixed furnishings models for food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt on the total and limited samples. The logit model estimates ii.08 times greater odds and 2.03 times greater odds of food stamps receipt for the full and limited samples, whereas the fixed furnishings models estimate 1.68 and 1.63 times higher odds, respectively. For Medicaid/SCHIP receipt, logit models judge 1.54 and ane.65 times higher odds for the total and limited samples. Fixed effects models approximate one.67 and 1.93 times greater odds of receipt for families with a recent paternal incarceration. Multiple analytic approaches produce stable and consistent results that contempo paternal incarceration is significantly related to higher receipt of nutrient stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP, only is not related to receipt of TANF.
Odds ratio of food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt for families with a recent paternal incarceration, by model, sample, and welfare program
4. DISCUSSION
This newspaper examined whether recent paternal incarceration is associated with families' receipt of welfare benefits, specifically TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP. Because of differences among ways-tested programs, I considered the relationship between recent paternal incarceration and welfare receipt separately for each authorities plan. For TANF, logit and fixed effects models estimated a non-pregnant human relationship between recent paternal incarceration and receipt. In dissimilarity, these models predict a large, significant association between recent paternal incarceration and a family's receipt of nutrient stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP.
Information technology is not surprising that recent paternal incarceration is differentially associated with a family's receipt of welfare benefits, depending on the program. TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP vary on numerous program-specific factors, including income eligibility, enrollment processes, work requirements, and fourth dimension limits for receipt, to proper noun a few. The inclusion of city dummy variables deemed for regional variation, just program-specific factors however differentiate TANF, nutrient stamps, and Medicaid/SCHIP in consequential ways. Compared to food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP, the TANF program has stricter eligibility criteria, multiple awarding hurdles, and entails ongoing piece of work requirements, meetings, and activities to maintain enrollment. The finding of a goose egg relationship betwixt TANF and contempo paternal incarceration could indicate that families do not qualify, do not know they qualify, or voluntarily choose not to enroll. The scenario of families that enroll in food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP but not in TANF due to maximum lifetime limits for receipt has very different implications compared to a state of affairs where families voluntarily choose not to utilize given piece of work requirements. In the first scenario, families are strained financially merely are prevented from accessing the full array of government condom-internet programs; in the latter instance, families are selective consumers who choose which programs fit their needs. While this paper was unable to specify particular mechanisms that lead to differential programme participation, this is an important research expanse for future piece of work.
This paper contributes the first estimates of the relationship between recent paternal incarceration and a family unit's receipt of welfare benefits; however, there are several limitations that the reader should keep in listen. First, the measure of contempo paternal incarceration is dichotomous and it is likely that welfare receipt depends on finer characteristics of recent paternal incarceration, such every bit the length, frequency, and type of conviction, which are non reliably availabel in the current information. While the definition of a recent paternal incarceration betwixt survey years three and five necessarily limits the length of incarceration to 2 years, the data cannot reliably further distinguish length of stay. It is as well likely that other incarceration related factors, such equally the distance between a family unit's residence and father's prison, matter to the costs of communication.
Second, the measure of contempo paternal incarceration is based on reports of mothers and fathers, which are susceptible to error. A measure based on dual reports allows incorporation of relevant data that would take been lost to sample compunction among fathers; however, reliance on dual reports likewise introduces more error. Unfortunately, the measure out of contempo paternal incarceration based on male parent's reports simply is not availabel for men with prior histories of incarceration. This prevents a sensitivity analysis of results based on reporter. By amalgam the measure of recent paternal incarceration using dual reports, at that place are several possibilities for error. Get-go, mothers might not always accept correct information on paternal criminal justice involvement. For case, a female parent might non know that the begetter has been recently incarcerated and would not report his incarceration. In this instance, families with paternal incarceration would exist categorized as non-incarceration families. 2d, mothers might over-report incarceration. Prior Fragile Families research, likewise as an analysis of the sample used in this paper, finds that where discrepancies be, mothers more oft study paternal incarceration compared to the self-report of fathers (Western and McLanahan 2000; Geller et al. Forthcoming). seven In either of these scenarios, bias due to measurement fault would pb to an underestimation of the relationship betwixt recent paternal incarceration and welfare receipt, biasing estimates towards zero. A third possibility is that mothers with little contact with fathers are unable to report begetter'south incarceration experiences, leading to a higher likelihood of missing data. Equally long as the data are missing at random given the other covariates in the model, the estimates would not exist biased. Because these possible scenarios, it is reasonable to conclude that if the estimates are biased, they likely stand for a lower-spring estimate of the true human relationship.
Another, more substantive limitation is that paternal incarceration is not a random consequence, and it is possible that unobserved changes to the family could impact both the likelihood of incarceration and receipt of benefits. The stock-still effects modeling strategies controlled for fourth dimension-stable unmeasured factors and considered limited samples with less sample heterogeneity in order to accost concerns of unmeasured selection bias. However, there even so may be time-variant, unmeasured factors that bias estimates. While the analyses cannot business relationship for all possible scenarios, one particularly relevant business relationship is the loss of paternal employment. Loss of paternal employment presents an alternative caption that could atomic number 82 to both recent paternal incarceration and welfare receipt. While it is not feasible to differentiate betwixt job loss leading to incarceration and job loss due to incarceration in the information availabel, it is possible to compare the magnitude of the clan of welfare receipt with not-incarceration job loss as opposed to recent paternal incarceration. Analyses that compare the coefficients of non-incarceration job loss and paternal incarceration provide suggestive bear witness that the associations between recent incarceration and food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP receipt are larger and more than consequential than non-incarceration chore loss (availabel upon asking). This implies that job loss leading to incarceration would need to be drastically more disruptive to the household than not-incarceration job loss in gild to provide a credible alternative business relationship.
Despite these limitations, the findings make several contributions to the literatures on collateral consequences of incarceration, the relationship between criminal justice and welfare systems, and discussions of families and poverty more generally. Showtime, the finding of increased receipt of nutrient stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP adds some other "collateral toll" to the growing number of documented consequences of paternal incarceration on the health, wellbeing, and economic status of families of offenders. Increased receipt of food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP aligns with other enquiry that finds lower household income and greater textile hardship amongst families of offenders (Geller et al. 2011; Schwartz-Soicher et al. Forthcoming). Taken together, these findings suggest that families feel financial strain on multiple dimensions following a contempo paternal incarceration.
Second, families' increased receipt of nutrient stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP translates into financial costs directly applicable to state governments and taxpayers. The findings suggest that the United States correctional arrangement—and specially imprisonment—is an even more costly policy intervention than originally considered. Imprisonment not only requires directly costs of incapacitating offenders but besides creates greater costs to taxpayers and authorities for the provision of social welfare programs for families of offenders. This is a revision of Elliot Currie's original premise, which proposed that the U.s.a. saves money on welfare and spends on corrections to address the consequences of joblessness (1985). This newspaper finds that the United states pays twice—first for incarceration and 2nd for welfare receipt among families of offenders. Fifty-fifty when faced with constricted budgets, most states have continually increased their prison populations while tightening expenditures for other programs and services (Jacobson 2005). The written report of welfare receipt is peculiarly timely given contempo debates about the fiscal costs and sustainability of expanding criminal justice systems.
Third, the findings advise that the expansion of the criminal justice system over the last forty years has not just widened government regulation for offenders just has also unintentionally increased government interest in the lives of offenders' families, albeit through the soft side of food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP provision. This general narrative aligns with recent theoretical discussions about the relationship between criminal justice and welfare systems in the lives of the urban poor (Wacquant 2009); nevertheless, this paper does not find a significant clan between paternal incarceration and receipt of TANF, which is the greenbacks assistance and workfare program of most concern to theorists. The reasons for the goose egg human relationship must exist further examined, but for now, the findings provide empirical show that incarceration is not related to expanding workfare participation at the level of individuals and their families.
The cypher association with TANF does not discount current discussions on the role of penalization and welfare systems in the lives of poor families; rather, it provides a more nuanced agreement on the variations among ways-tested programs that are ordinarily grouped as "public assistance." In the era of post-welfare reform, food stamps and Medicaid/SCHIP provide disquisitional resources for poor families and entail the least enervating policies and procedures for receipt. While these benefits serve every bit of import safety nets for needy families and demand relatively minimal requirements, the transition to government assist does non come without costs. To the extent that the incarceration of a family member pushes families from self-sufficiency across the dependency threshold, they become subject to the incentive structures, surveillance techniques, and social stigma that shape mail-welfare reform programs (Katz 1996; Morgan 2001; Gustafson 2009). While information technology is important to emphasize that these benefits funnel critical assist to poor families, it is too necessary to underscore the ramifications of greater government participation.
Finally, the findings must be contextualized inside the more full general experiences of low-income black and Hispanic families in the gimmicky United States. Because the concentration and prevalence of criminal justice involvement amongst these groups, as well as the many and varied ramifications for families of offenders, incarceration should be considered a consequential stratifying establishment amidst low-income families. The findings presented here, as well as in prior literature on incarceration and families, suggest that parental incarceration impedes efforts for self-sufficiency and upwards mobility. Appropriately, incarceration should be considered a central institution for shaping broader patterns of poverty and racial inequality amidst families in the United States.
Footnotes
aneA number of states accept since elected to modify the ban (23) or to opt out of the ban (ix); however, 18 states continue to deny TANF and food postage benefits to drug-related ex-felons (United states Authorities Accountability Office 2005).
2The analyses have been repeated using list-wise deletion and the models judge very like coefficients and p-values.
threeThe measure of paternal incarceration between the three- and five-twelvemonth surveys for men with prior histories of incarceration is fatigued from mother'southward reports simply. Measures of incarceration at years three and five, as well as incarcerations betwixt the three- and five-years surveys for men without histories of incarceration, are drawn from both female parent'southward and father's reports.
fourA broader mensurate of paternal involvement was used in prior analyses, which included residency and financial contributions (such equally formal and informal kid support payments), only was ultimately replaced by this measure, as it is more than readily interpretable. An alternating measure, which included in-kind services such as total-time childcare was also utilized, but eventually excluded from the analysis because of lack of statistical significance.
vThe analyses accept likewise been replicated using a more express measure of prior paternal incarceration and the results are essentially the same.
6The difference between the two paternal incarceration measures reflects the unavailability of a comparable twelvemonth 3 measure out. The analyses have been repeated with a mensurate of electric current incarceration at years three and 5, and the estimated coefficients reflect like patterns; they are, however, slightly adulterate and not-significant. This is expected as the reference grouping includes individuals with partners incarcerated between survey years three and five.
viiIn this paper, 77 percent of the partners report agreement about paternal incarceration where dual reports be. Of the remaining partners, mothers study paternal incarceration in 75 percentage of the cases.
REFERENCES
- Beckett Katherine, Western Bruce. Governing social marginality. Penalization & Gild. 2001;3(1):43. [Google Scholar]
- Blank Rebecca, Haskins Ron. The New World of Welfare. Brookings Establishment Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Bourdieu Pierre. Acts of resistance: against the new myths of our fourth dimension. Polity Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Braman Donald. Doing Fourth dimension on the Exterior: Incarceration and Family unit Life in Urban America. University of Michigan Printing; 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Butcher Kristin F, LaLonde Robert J. Female offenders use of social welfare programs earlier and later on jail and prison: does prison crusade welfare dependency? 2006 Harris Schoolhouse Working Newspaper Retrieved August 29, 2011 ( http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedhwp/wp-06-13.html)
- Cohen Stanley. Visions of social control: Crime, penalization, and classification. New York: Polity Printing; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Condolement Megan. Doing Fourth dimension Together: Beloved and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. Chicago, Ill: University Of Chicago Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Currie Elliott. Confronting crime: an American claiming. New York, NY: Pantheon Books; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Danziger Sandra K. The Refuse of Cash Welfare and Implications for Social Policy and Poverty. [Retrieved June 29, 2011]; Annual Review of Folklore. 2010 36(1):523–545. [Google Scholar]
- Edin Kathryn, Lein Laura. Making Ends Run into: How Unmarried Mothers Survive Welfare and Low-Wage Work. Russell Sage Foundation; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Fishman Laura T. Women at the wall: a written report of prisoners' wives doing time on the outside. Albany, NY: Country University of New York Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Garland David. Punishment and Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies. Uk: Ashgate Publishing; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Garland David. The Culture of Control: Law-breaking and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, Ill: University Of Chicago Printing; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Geller Amanda, Garfinkel Irwin, Cooper Carey E, Mincy Ronald B. Parental Incarceration and Child Well-Existence: Implications for Urban Families. Social scientific discipline quarterly. 2009;xc(5):1186–1202. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Geller Amanda, Cooper Carey E, Garfinkel Irwin, Mincy Ronald B. Across Absence: Father Incarceration and Kid Evolution. Demography. Forthcoming [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Geller Amanda, Garfinkel Irwin, Western Bruce. Paternal Incarceration and Back up for Children in Fragile Families. [Retrieved July 21, 2011]; Census. 2011 48(i):25–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coat Lauren, Maruschak Laura. Parents in Prison house and Their Minor Children. 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
- Goffman Alice. On the Run: Wanted Men in a Philadelphia Ghetto. American Sociological Review. 2009;74(3):339–357. [Google Scholar]
- Grinstead Olga, Faigeles Bonnie, Bancroft Carrie, Zack Barry. The financial price of maintaining relationships with incarcerated African American men: A survey of women prison visitors. Periodical of African American Studies. 2001;half dozen(i):59–69. [Google Scholar]
- Gustafson Kaaryn. Criminal Law: the Criminalization of Poverty. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2009;99:643. [Google Scholar]
- Hagan John, Dinovitzer Ronit. Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice. 1999;26:121–162. [Google Scholar]
- Harris Alexes, Evans Heather, Beckett Katherine. Drawing Claret from Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary United states. American Periodical of Sociology. 2010;115(half dozen):1753–99. [Google Scholar]
- Holcomb Pamela A, Tumlin Karen, Koralek Robin, Capps Randy, Zuberi Anita. The application process for TANF, food stamps, Medicaid and SCHIP: Issues for agencies and applicants, including immigrants and express English speakers. The Urban Institute. 2003 [Google Scholar]
- Holzer Harry J, Raphael Steven, Stoll Michael A. Volition employers hire former offenders? Employer preferences, background checks, and their determinants. Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration. 2004:205–43. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobson Michael. Downsizing Prisons: How to Reduce Crime and End Mass Incarceration. New York: New York Academy Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Katz Michael B. In the Shadow Of the Poorhouse: A Social History Of Welfare In America. Second Edition. New York: Basic Books; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Katz Michael B. The Undeserving Poor: From the War on Poverty to the War on Welfare. New York: Pantheon Books; 1990. [Google Scholar]
- LaLonde Robert J. Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data. [Retrieved August ix, 2011]; The American Economical Review. 1986 76(four):604–620. [Google Scholar]
- LeBlanc Adrian Nicole. Random Family unit: Love, Drugs, Trouble, and Coming of Age in the Bronx. New York: Scribner; 2004. [Google Scholar]
- London Andrew Due south, Scott Ellen G, Edin Kathryn, Hunter Vicki. Welfare Reform, Work-Family Tradeoffs, and Child Well-Beingness*. Family unit Relations. 2004;53(ii):148–158. [Google Scholar]
- Lopoo Leonard One thousand, Western Bruce. Incarceration and the Germination and Stability of Marital Unions. [Retrieved June 24, 2011]; Journal of Union and Family. 2005 67(3):721–734. [Google Scholar]
- Manza Jeff, Uggen Christopher. Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Oxford University Press, USA; 2006. illustrated edition. [Google Scholar]
- Mead Lawrence M. Beyond Entitlement?: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. New York: Costless Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Mead Lawrence One thousand. The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan Kimberly. Gender and the welfare country: new inquiry on the origins and consequences of social policy regimes. Comparative Politics. 2001;34(1):105–124. [Google Scholar]
- Pager Devah. The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology. 2003;108(5):937–975. [Google Scholar]
- Piven Frances Fox, Cloward Richard. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Vintage Books; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Reichman Nancy, Teitler Julien, Garfinkel Irwin, McLanahan Sara. Delicate Families: Sample and Pattern. Children and Youth Services Review. 2001;23:303–326. [Google Scholar]
- Ribar David C, Edelhoch Marilyn, Liu Qiduan. Watching the Clocks: the role of nutrient stamp recertification and TANF time limits in caseload dynamics. Periodical of Human Resources. 2008;43(i):208. [Google Scholar]
- Rubinstein Gwen, Mukamal Debbie. Welfare and housing–denial of benefits to drug offenders. In: Marc Mauer, Chesney-Lind Meda., editors. Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. 2002. pp. 37–49. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz-Soicher Ofira, Geller Amanda, Garfinkel Irwin. The Effect of Paternal Incarceration on Material Hardship. Social Service Review. Forthcoming [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Soss Joe. Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the US welfare arrangement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Sulzberger AG. States Calculation Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare. New York Times: 2011. Oct 10, [Google Scholar]
- Swann Christopher A, Sylvester Michelle. The Foster Care Crunch: What Caused Caseloads to Grow? Demography. 2006;43(2):309–335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Swisher Raymond R, Waller Maureen R. Confining Fatherhood: Incarceration and Paternal Involvement among Unmarried White, African-American and Latino Fathers. [Retrieved June 24, 2011]; Journal of Family unit Issues. 2008 29(8):1067–1088. [Google Scholar]
- Teitler Julien, Reichman Nancy, Nepomnyaschy Lenna. Determinants of TANF Participation: A Multilevel Assay. Social Service Review. 2007;81(4):633–656. [Google Scholar]
- Travis Jeremy. But They All Come Back: Facing The Challenges Of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2005. [Google Scholar]
- United states of america Regime Accountability Office. Drug Offenders: diverse factors may limit the impacts of federal laws that provide for denial of selected benefits. Washington, DC: 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Wacquant Loïc. Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke Academy Press Books; 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wakefield Sara, Wildeman Christopher. Mass Imprisonment and Racial Disparities in Childhood Behavioral Problems. Criminology and Public Policy. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
- Western Bruce, McLanahan Sara. Fathers backside bars: The impact of incarceration on family germination. Families, Crime and Criminal Justice. 2000;2:309–324. [Google Scholar]
- Western Bruce. Penalty and Inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation Publications; 2006. illustrated edition. [Google Scholar]
- Wildeman Christopher. Paternal incarceration and children's physically aggressive behaviors: evidence from the Frail Families and Kid Wellbeing Report. Social Forces. 2011;89(1):285–309. [Google Scholar]
- Wildeman Christopher. Parental Incarceration, Child Homelessness, and the Invisible Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. Fragile Families Working Paper. 2011 [Google Scholar]
- Wildeman Christopher. Parental imprisonment, the prison house boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography. 2009;46(two):265–280. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Woldoff Rachael A, Washington Heather M. Arrested Contact: The Criminal Justice System, Race, and Father Engagement. The Prison Periodical. 2008;88:179–206. [Google Scholar]
- Wu Chi-Fang, Eamon Mary Keegan. Need for and barriers to accessing public benefits among low-income families with children. [Retrieved June 29, 2011]; Children and Youth Services Review. 2010 32(1):58–66. [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3827915/
0 Response to "How Do the Welfare and Criminal Justice Systems Impact the Role of the Black Male in the Family?"
Post a Comment