Introduction
The Institute on Women and Criminal Justice of the Women’s
Prison Association is releasing the first volume of The
Punitiveness Report, a national study by Dr. Natasha
Frost, assistant professor at Northeastern University College
of Criminal Justice. Her report presents the first state-by-state
compendium of data charting the dramatic increase in the
incarceration of women over the past 27 years in the United
States. A second volume will look more deeply at factors
that increased the risk of imprisonment for women arrested
for felony offenses and increased the amount of time spent
behind bars.
While
women comprise just a small segment of all the people serving
prison terms in the U.S., their number is rising at a far
faster rate than that of men. Incarceration of women has
profound impacts on the families and communities left behind.
Dr. Frost’s findings should spark a national dialogue about
how women are affected by incarceration. Her findings should
also motivate policymakers to examine the trends and prospects
for reform in their states.
Growth Trends and Recent Research Findings is presented
as a companion to Dr. Frost’s exhaustive study. It provides
a brief overview of recent research that provides context
for her findings regarding the increased incarceration of
women, and discusses the multitude of problems incarceration
presents for women and their children. This report also
takes a closer look at growth patterns, regional trends,
and how states rank on various measures of female imprisonment.
Over
the final quarter of the 20th century, U.S. criminal
justice policies underwent a period of intense politicization
and harsh transformation. Draconian sentencing laws and
get-tough correctional policies led to an unprecedented
increase in jail and prison populations, driving the United
States’ rate of incarceration head and shoulders above that
of other developed nations.
The
imprisonment boom that began in the late 1970s has swelled
the state and federal prison system to more than 1.4 million
prisoners. Adding those held in local jails and other lockups
(juvenile facilities, immigrant detention, etc.) the total
number of people behind bars rises to almost 2.3 millionof
which seven percent are women. [1] At the end of 2004, 96,125 women were serving
state or federal prison sentencesalmost nine times
the number in prison in 1977. [2]
National
prison population growth trends
Female
state prison population growth has far outpaced male growth
in the past quarter-century. The number of women serving
sentences of more than a year grew by 757 percent between
1977 and 2004nearly twice the 388 percent increase
in the male prison population. Although the size of the
gap varies, female prison populations have risen more quickly
than male populations in all 50 states. The trend has also
been persistent, with median annual growth rates for women
exceeding growth rates for men in 22 of the last 27 years,
including each of the past 11 years.
[3]
In
part, this is due to the small number of women who were
incarcerated at the beginning of the boom relative to the
number of men, so that increases show up as larger proportional
growth against smaller base figures.
Womens
higher growth rate is also due to an increase in the number
of women arrested. For example, between 1995 and 2004, arrests
of women were up 13 percent while the number of women behind
prison bars rose by 53 percent. Female imprisonment
rates jumped 36 percent over the same period, compared to
an increase of 17 percent for men. Women’s share of
the prison population rose from 6.3 percent to 7.2 percent.
While
the number of women prisoners has soared, the proportion
of women convicted of violent offenses has declined since
1979, when they comprised 49 percent of the women in the
state prison system.
[4] One-third of the women serving state prison
sentences in 2002 were incarcerated for violent offenses,
compared to more than half of the men. Drug offenses now
account for nearly one-third of women (up from one in 10
in 1979), compared with just one-fifth of men.
Male
prison populations catch cold while women get pneumonia
The
rise of the female state prison population has been constant
but uneven over the past quarter-century, punctuated by
growth spurts in the early and late 1980s and mid-1990s.
Median annual growth rates fell after 1995 and have remained
in the single digits since then. Nonetheless, many states
continue to see significant population growth, including
nine where numbers shot up by over 10 percent in 2004.
The
pattern of growth in female prison populations generally
tracks changes in male prison populations, which also underwent
periods of rapid expansion in the early and late 1980s.
But women have been hit much harder, experiencing growth
spikes that reached higher, lasted longer and often began
earlier than those affecting men.
For
example, while the growth rate for male prisoners shot up
a little more than twofold between 1980 and 1981, from 5.4
percent to 14 percent, the growth rate for female prisoners
increased four-fold, from 3.8 percent to 17 percent. The
following year, the male growth rate fell below 12 percent
while the female growth rate kept climbing to more than
18 percent.
An
even more remarkable growth spurt took place between 1987
and 1990. Both the men’s and women’s prison populations
began and ended the four-year period with annual growth
rates hovering around seven to eight percent. In between,
however, annual growth in the women’s prison population
hit record levels, topping 25 percent, compared to a peak
rate of less than 14 percent for males. To paraphrase the
old saying, when the male prison population caught cold,
women came down with pneumonia.

The
gap between male and female prison population growth rates
has widened recently, producing an annual rate of increase
for women that roughly doubled the rate for men in six of
the last seven years. The number of women added to the
state prison populations each year remains high despite
lower growth rates. In fact, the expansion that has taken
place since 1999 (11,689 new female prisoners) exceeds the
total female state prison population in 1980 (11,113 women).

Regional
prison population growth trends
National
trends play a significant role in patterns of state prison
population expansion, as evidenced by the simultaneous growth
spurts that took place at the beginning and end of the 1980s.
Three in five states saw female prison population growth
rates reach a 25-year high-water mark in 1981 (six states),
1982 (six states) or 1989 (14 states). The latter year
was an extraordinarily punitive one for women: 43 states
saw population increases in the double digits while half
saw their numbers jump by more than 25 percent. But growth
in women’s prison populations also varies by geographic
region.
[5]
The
Northeast: Turning the corner on female prison population
growth?
Northeastern
states logged extraordinarily rapid growth during the 1980s
followed by below-average growth during the 1990s.
[6] The region saw record growth in 1989 when
most states saw their female prison population jump by more
than a third. Between 1999 and 2004, however, the total
number of women housed in Northeastern state prisons fell
by 11 percent (976 prisoners), driven by prison population
declines in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The
Pacific states: From boom to bust and back
Pacific
states also saw unusually high rates of growth during the
1980s, including nine years with median growth rates in
the double-digits. [7] The pattern in the years that followed has been
erratic. The region’s female prison population actually
fell slightly in 1991 but resumed its climb the following
year. The turn of the century ushered in a more substantial
1,347-person decrease in the region’s female prison population,
reflected in every Pacific state but Oregon. But by the
end of 2004, the decline had been erased by the addition
of 2,003 women to prisons in Pacific states.

The
Midwest and South: Setting the national growth trend
Depending
on how one looks at it, women’s prison populations in the
Midwest and South either set the national trend or tracked
it closely, rising rapidly in the early and late 1980s and
mid-1990s.
[8] Southern states (excluding Texas) were
more likely to see below-average growth rates during the
1980s, but the region has nearly matched national median
rates since then. Midwestern states’ median growth rates
have hovered at or below those of the nation as a whole
since 1999 with the exception of 2004, when the region’s
annual growth rate shot to more than 8 percent.
The
number of women added to Southern prisons each year remains
substantial. The region recorded its second-largest annual
increase in 1999 (2,007 women), and its fourth-largest increase
took place in 2002 (1,853 women). Almost a quarter (23
percent) of Southern female prison population growth since
1979 took place in the last five years.


The
Mountain states: Speeding ahead
Every
region has seen women’s prison populations increase by leaps
and bounds. But the pace and persistence of growth in the
Mountain states set the region apart from the rest of the
country. Over the past 27 years, the total female prison
population of the Mountain states has risen by 1,600 percenttwice
the national population growth rate of 757 percent.
The
explosion of women’s prison populations in the Mountain
states began in the 1980s and has continued in recent years.
The region’s total female prison population has increased
by 56 percent since 1999four times the 13 percent
increase felt nationally. Fully 38 percent of the growth
in the Mountain states’ female prison population over the
past quarter-century occurred during the last five years.

Tough,
tougher, toughest: Mountain and Southern states lead the
rise in female imprisonment rates
Analysis
of median incarceration rates for the various regions shows
similar patterns with some critical differences. Southern
states experienced the smallest proportional growth in female
imprisonment rates. But because the South began the 27-year
period with much higher rates than the rest of the countrya
median of 11 per 100,000 residents compared to a median
of five per 100,000 residents elsewhereincreased use
of incarceration had a greater impact there.
While
the typical Midwest state added 40 female prisoners for
every 100,000 residents between 1979 and 2004, and the typical
Pacific state added 46 per 100,000, the median incarceration
rate for Southern states grew by 57 per 100,000second
only to a Mountain state increase of 77 per 100,000. As
for the Northeastern states, it took a decade of breakneck
growth to reach the place where Southern states started
in 1977.

State
variance in the use of imprisonment for women
The
use of imprisonment for women varies enormously by state
as well as by region. 129 of every 100,000 women in Oklahoma
are serving a state prison sentence while Massachusetts
imprisons 11 women for every 100,000 female state residents.
Women make up over 12 percent of state prisoners in Montananearly
four times their 3.2 percent share of Rhode Island’s prison
population. A handful of statesincluding Colorado,
Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire and North
Dakotahave seen a greater than 20-fold increase in
their female prison populations since 1977. [9] Michigan and North
Carolina, by contrast, experienced comparatively “modest”
four-fold growth over the same period.
The
measures employed in the following comparative analysis
of statesthe female imprisonment rate, the
female proportion of the prison population, and female
prison population growthhelp us identify patterns
and trends that can guide future research exploring how
and why the extent of female imprisonment varies so greatly
among states. Each of these measures captures a different
facet of the extent of female imprisonment and how it has
changed over time. Used together, the measures pinpoint
states where sentencing and correctional policies and trends
appear to have fallen harder, or less hard, on women. Ultimately,
they help to highlight both positive trends as well as unmet
opportunities to reduce costs and improve outcomes.
How
states stack up
States
stack up differently based on the measure used to compare
them. Louisiana has the nation’s third-highest female imprisonment
rate (103 per 100,000 residents) but women’s share of the
state’s prison population (6.5 percent) falls below the
national median (7 percent). New Hampshire ranks third
in female prison population growth (up 5,850 percent since
1977) yet the state’s female imprisonment rate (18 per 100,000)
remains the fourth-lowest in the nation. The chart at the
end of this section presents state statistics and ranks
across all three measures (including measures of population
growth over two different time periods).
A
handful of states, however, stand among the nation’s “toughest”
on multiple measures of female imprisonment. Trends in
these states should be of particular interest to researchers,
policymakers and advocates who are concerned about the damage
that imprisonment can cause to women, their families and
their communities.
Heading
the list is Montana, which devotes by far the largest
share of its prison beds to women. Montana’s female prison
population has grown at the fastest rate in the nation since
1977 and its female imprisonment rate (102 per 100,000)
ranks fourth nationwide.
Several
other Mountain states also appear to be particularly tough
on women. Idaho and Colorado rank among the
top 10 on every scale of female imprisonment, including
population growth over the last five years. Wyoming
devotes the second-largest share of prison space to women
and imprisons them at the ninth-highest rate in the nation.
Arizona boasts the nation’s seventh-leading female
imprisonment rate and has seen its female prison population
jump by more than 60 percent since 1999.
Among
Southern states, Oklahoma and Mississippi
merit special attention. Not only do they imprison women
at the highest rates in the nation, but Oklahoma is also
one of six states where women make up at least 10 percent
of the prison population, and Mississippi’s population has
grown 28 times larger since 1977.
Three
Midwestern states and one Pacific state demand also deserve
notice, each for a different set of reasons. Women are
heavily overrepresented in South Dakota prisons compared
to rest of the nation, and the state’s incarceration and
growth rates are well above average. Missouri imprisons
women at the eighth-highest rate in the nation and also
ranks poorly on the other scales of female imprisonment.
North
Dakota has a comparatively low female imprisonment rate
but devotes over 10 percent of its prison beds to womena
population whose numbers have shot up 6,350 percent since
1977 and doubled over the past five years. Women also comprise
over 10 percent of prisoners in Hawaii and, despite
an 8 percent drop in its female prison population since
1999, the Pacific state ranks fourth in population growth
over the past 27 years.
On
the other end of the spectrum are several states that have
made much less extensive use of prisons for women. Rhode
Island lands at the bottom by nearly every measure.
Women comprise just over three percent of Rhode Island’s
prison population and are imprisoned at a rate of 11 per
100,000 residents despite more than four-fold growth in
the number of female prisoners since 1977. Neighboring
Massachusetts is also remarkable for its equally
low incarceration rate; the small share of prison beds the
state devotes to women (4.3 percent); and a 9 percent reduction
in the female prison population that has taken place in
the last half-decade.
New
York and Michigan follow Rhode Island and Massachusetts,
devoting a slightly higher proportion of prison beds to
women and imprisoning women at significantly higher but
still below-average rates. The growth rate of Michigan’s
female prison population over the past 27 years was the
second-lowest in the nation (five percent per year on average)
and not far above the growth rate for men. New York claimed
the ninth-slowest growth rate as well as the most significant
drop in its female prison population since the turn of the
century.
Several
other Northeastern states, including New Hampshire, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, fall near the bottom
of most female imprisonment scales. The Garden State recorded
the second-largest female prison population reduction over
the last five years. New Hampshire, as previously mentioned,
has maintained a low female imprisonment rate despite huge
proportional growth in its women’s prison population.
Maryland
and North Carolina deserve mention for another reason.
Both states have experienced unusually slow growth in their
female prison populations since 1977, bringing imprisonment
rates that were once among the nation’s highest into the
bottom ranks.
|
Measures of state use of imprisonment
for women
|
|
State
|
Imprisonment
rate:
2004
|
Proportion
of all
prisoners: 2004
|
Prison
population growth:
1977 to 2004
|
Prison
population growth:
1999 to 2004
|
|
Rate
|
Rank
|
%
female
|
Rank
|
Growth
|
Rank
|
Growth
|
Rank
|
|
Alabama
|
71
|
15
|
6.6%
|
32
|
645%
|
35
|
3%
|
39
|
|
Alaska
|
55
|
25
|
6.6%
|
30
|
729%
|
32
|
31%
|
24
|
|
Arizona
|
89
|
7
|
8.2%
|
16
|
1261%
|
13
|
62%
|
9
|
|
Arkansas
|
65
|
19
|
6.7%
|
28
|
900%
|
24
|
17%
|
29
|
|
California
|
61
|
22
|
6.6%
|
31
|
1522%
|
9
|
1%
|
41
|
|
Colorado
|
83
|
10
|
9.4%
|
8
|
2539%
|
6
|
57%
|
10
|
|
Connecticut
|
44
|
33
|
6.0%
|
39
|
1010%
|
18
|
-3%
|
45
|
|
Delaware
|
51
|
28
|
5.3%
|
43
|
424%
|
43
|
0%
|
42
|
|
Florida
|
64
|
20
|
6.6%
|
29
|
551%
|
39
|
48%
|
16
|
|
Georgia
|
77
|
11
|
6.7%
|
27
|
596%
|
38
|
32%
|
22
|
|
Hawaii
|
69
|
16
|
10.5%
|
3
|
3029%
|
4
|
-8%
|
47
|
|
Idaho
|
93
|
6
|
10.1%
|
5
|
2211%
|
7
|
62%
|
8
|
|
Illinois
|
43
|
34
|
6.2%
|
35
|
893%
|
25
|
-2%
|
44
|
|
Indiana
|
59
|
23
|
7.9%
|
19
|
1347%
|
12
|
54%
|
11
|
|
Iowa
|
50
|
29
|
8.9%
|
10
|
801%
|
27
|
40%
|
19
|
|
Kansas
|
45
|
32
|
6.9%
|
26
|
597%
|
37
|
9%
|
35
|
|
Kentucky
|
69
|
17
|
8.4%
|
14
|
949%
|
21
|
32%
|
23
|
|
Louisiana
|
103
|
3
|
6.5%
|
33
|
1000%
|
19
|
5%
|
37
|
|
Maine
|
18
|
48
|
6.1%
|
37
|
757%
|
31
|
114%
|
1
|
|
Maryland
|
39
|
41
|
5.0%
|
44
|
353%
|
48
|
13%
|
30
|
|
Massachusetts
|
11
|
49
|
4.3%
|
48
|
382%
|
45
|
-9%
|
48
|
|
Michigan
|
41
|
37
|
4.3%
|
49
|
293%
|
49
|
4%
|
38
|
|
Minnesota
|
21
|
46
|
6.2%
|
36
|
625%
|
36
|
54%
|
12
|
|
Mississippi
|
107
|
2
|
8.2%
|
15
|
2711%
|
5
|
25%
|
26
|
|
Missouri
|
85
|
8
|
8.1%
|
17
|
1484%
|
11
|
33%
|
21
|
|
Montana
|
102
|
4
|
12.2%
|
1
|
23550%
|
1
|
80%
|
6
|
|
Nebraska
|
39
|
40
|
8.6%
|
12
|
377%
|
46
|
44%
|
17
|
|
Nevada
|
77
|
12
|
7.8%
|
20
|
1251%
|
14
|
20%
|
27
|
|
New
Hampshire
|
18
|
47
|
4.9%
|
45
|
5850%
|
3
|
2%
|
40
|
|
New
Jersey
|
33
|
42
|
5.5%
|
42
|
717%
|
34
|
-21%
|
49
|
|
New
Mexico
|
56
|
24
|
8.9%
|
9
|
930%
|
22
|
81%
|
5
|
|
New
York
|
28
|
44
|
4.4%
|
47
|
445%
|
42
|
-23%
|
50
|
|
North
Carolina
|
40
|
39
|
5.7%
|
40
|
282%
|
50
|
30%
|
25
|
|
North
Dakota
|
41
|
38
|
10.4%
|
4
|
6350%
|
2
|
102%
|
2
|
|
Ohio
|
54
|
27
|
7.1%
|
25
|
452%
|
41
|
12%
|
32
|
|
Oklahoma
|
129
|
1
|
10.0%
|
6
|
1237%
|
15
|
-1%
|
43
|
|
Oregon
|
54
|
26
|
7.5%
|
22
|
776%
|
29
|
68%
|
7
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
28
|
43
|
4.4%
|
46
|
763%
|
30
|
12%
|
31
|
|
Rhode
Island
|
11
|
50
|
3.2%
|
50
|
362%
|
47
|
5%
|
36
|
|
South
Carolina
|
66
|
18
|
6.3%
|
34
|
417%
|
44
|
9%
|
34
|
|
South
Dakota
|
75
|
13
|
9.4%
|
7
|
1511%
|
10
|
53%
|
14
|
|
Tennessee
|
63
|
21
|
7.4%
|
23
|
721%
|
33
|
39%
|
20
|
|
Texas
|
101
|
5
|
7.2%
|
24
|
1141%
|
17
|
11%
|
33
|
|
Utah
|
42
|
35
|
8.5%
|
13
|
1573%
|
8
|
54%
|
13
|
|
Vermont
|
25
|
45
|
5.5%
|
41
|
789%
|
28
|
95%
|
3
|
|
Virginia
|
71
|
14
|
7.6%
|
21
|
978%
|
20
|
42%
|
18
|
|
Washington
|
42
|
36
|
7.9%
|
18
|
477%
|
40
|
18%
|
28
|
|
West
Virginia
|
48
|
30
|
8.8%
|
11
|
909%
|
23
|
86%
|
4
|
|
Wisconsin
|
47
|
31
|
6.1%
|
38
|
863%
|
26
|
-4%
|
46
|
|
Wyoming
|
84
|
9
|
10.6%
|
2
|
1213%
|
16
|
51%
|
15
|
|
Federal
|
7
|
|
6.4%
|
|
503%
|
|
27%
|
|
|
U.S.
Average
|
64
|
|
7.0%
|
|
757%
|
|
17%
|
|
|
SOURCE:
Bureau of Justice Statistics
|
New
Century finds women leading opposing incarceration trends
Women’s
prison population growth outstripped growth in the men’s
population in every state during the past 27 years. A different
trend has emerged since the end of 1999. Women continue
to be disproportionately impacted in states where overall
growth rates remain high. But among states that experienced
little or no prison population growth, a large majority
saw growth rates for female prisoners fall below
rates for males.
Women
led the growth trend in 29 of 30 states where the total
prison population (male and female) rose by 10 percent or
more over the last half-decade. The opposite was true
of states that experienced slower growth or a net decline
in their total prison population13 of 20 saw their
male prison population rise more quickly, or decline more
slowly, than their female population.
The
differences could not be starker. In North Dakota, West
Virginia and Oregonstates where the total prison population
has jumped by more than a third since 1999the female
prison population is growing at twice the rate of the male
population. On the other hand, New York and New Jersey
have watched prison populations fall by more than 10 percent,
led by even sharper drops in the number of women behind
prison bars (23 percent and 21 percent, respectively).
[10]
Women’s
imprisonment is not driving growth trends in most states,
since their share of the total population, while growing,
remains relatively small. Instead, the data suggest that
women’s prison populations may be especially sensitive to
the factors that drive rapid growth in the overall prison
population.

What
can research tell us about the problem?
The
question of whether the increased involvement of women in
the criminal justice system reflects actual changes in their
involvement in an expanding range of activities considered
criminal or changes in law enforcement and sentencing policies
and practices has received some attention. The 1970s saw
a great deal of debate in the media over whether the women’s
movement for equal rights would produce an era of “liberated”
women criminals who would venture into serious, violent
criminal activities.
Some
academics claimed that increased arrests of women were evidence
that the feminist movement was driving new trends in women’s
involvement in crime.
[11] Others countered that close analysis of
arrest data indicated that increased arrests of women were
largely occurring in categories conceived as traditionally
female such as shoplifting, prostitution and passing bad
checks. [12]
Debate
about women’s involvement in violent crime was freshened
in the early 1990s with the charge that women in New York
City were becoming more involved in violent street crime. [13] It was argued
that the high incidence of homicides and imprisonment among
young men in these neighborhoods had increased opportunities
for young women to enter the “informal drug economy” as
dealers. Women were described as responding to the same
social and economic dynamics that drove increased levels
of violence among men, making gender a “less salient factor.”
Controversy over the role of women in New York’s epidemic
of violent street crime faded as reports of violent crime
in the City plummeted over the next decade.
Meda
Chesney-Lind, a prominent scholar and outspoken advocate
for the needs of girls and women in the criminal justice
system, contends that pro-arrest policies for police handling
of domestic violence incidents have contributed to an unwarranted
rise in arrests of women for violent offenses. [14] She cites large increases in
domestic violence arrests of women during the 1990s in Maryland
and California, and points out that increases in arrests
of women for assault during this period did not track arrests
of women for murderan arrest category that could be
presumed to increase if women were becoming more assaultive.
In fact, arrests of women for murder have steadily declined.
In
the federal criminal justice system, draconian mandatory
minimum sentencing laws and rigid sentencing guidelines
have increased the proportion of women who receive prison
sentences and the length of time women spend behind bars.
The federal sentencing reforms of the mid-1980s have resulted
in higher rates of incarceration of women for economic offenses,
and have drastically increased the length of incarceration
for drug offenses.
Myrna
Raeder charges that these reforms have “subverted the earlier
non-incarcerative model of female sentencing,” where women
tended to receive probation or shorter prison terms. [15] She argues that
a defendant’s primary responsibilities for care of children
should be taken into account by judges at sentencing out
of concern that imprisonment rests enormous hardships on
them. Raeder contends that while such a policy might benefit
more women than men (because women more often fill this
familial role) no true affront to gender equity would stem
from this accommodation.
Most
recent research literature devoted to analysis of women
in the criminal justice system presents four distinct themes
to describe the etiology of women’s criminal behaviors and
their personal and social problems. First, most women in
the criminal justice system come from neighborhoods that
are entrenched in poverty and largely lacking in viable
systems of social support. Second, alarmingly large numbers
of these women have experienced very serious physical and/or
sexual abuse, often commencing when they were young children.
Third, as adults, most of these women are plagued with high
levels of physical and mental health problems as well as
substance abuse issues. Often these problems are combined
and compounded. Fourth, the great majority of the women
who have suffered from these deprivations, histories of
trauma and abuse, and health deficits are mothersand
they are far more likely than men in the criminal justice
system to be the sole support and caregivers for their children.
The
relationship between violent physical and sexual abuse and
women’s incarceration has been traced by Angela Browne in
her research on the high rates of women in prison with histories
of abuse.
[16] She reports strong associations between
histories of childhood sexual abuse and violence and subsequent
problems such as alcohol and drug abuse; involvement in
prostitution; involvement with violent intimates who are
involved in other criminal activities; and arrests for criminal
offenses.
Beth
Richie has drawn from the life histories of women in jail
to illustrate a link between “culturally-constructed gender-identity
development, violence against women in intimate relationships,
and women’s participation in illegal activities.” [17] She argues that
“gender entrapment” of African American womenviolence
from intimate partners resulting in “acute injuries, chronic
pain, sexual degradation, and emotional trauma”can
lead them to commit crimes.
Most
women of color entering the criminal justice system come
from economically distressed communities lacking in social
supports. Much of the drug abuse that characterizes these
women’s involvement in criminal behavior is understood as
“self medication” used to ease the pain and suffering brought
about by the circumstances of their life histories. The
flood of crack cocaine that hit urban areas such as New
York City in the late 1980s served to increase women’s involvement
in street-level prostitution, a mainstay survival strategy
for women addicts along with low-level drug dealing and
petty property crimes.
[18]
The
war on drugs and other drivers of female prison population
growth
Other
efforts to explain the sharp increase in women’s imprisonment
have focused on the “war on drugs,” with its emphasis on
street-level sweeps of those engaged in the drug trade and
harsh mandatory sentencing. The crackdown on drug crime
was sold to the American public as the answer to an escalating
epidemic of male violence. Yet despite their roles as relatively
minor players in the drug trade, womendisproportionate
numbers of them African American and Latinahave been
“caught in the net” of increasingly punitive policing, prosecutorial,
and sentencing policies.
[19] Once in the system, women often have little
choice but to accept plea bargains and then face mandatory
minimum sentencing laws that restrict judges from mitigating
the impact of their sentencing decisions in consideration
of their family situations or their obvious need for substance
abuse treatment.
Analysis
of national and state corrections data provide support for
this explanation. The proportion of female state prisoners
convicted of drug offenses has risen from just 11 percent
in 1979 to 32 percent at the end of 2002.
[20] By contrast, 21 percent of male prisoners
were serving time for drug offenses in 2002.

SOURCE:
Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Prisoners in 2004.”
Washington, DC: Department of Justice
The
burden of increased incarceration for drug sales has fallen
more heavily on women of color than on white women. An
overall increase of 433 percent in the female drug prisoner
population between 1986 and 1991 was comprised of a 241
percent increase for white women, a 328 percent increase
for Latina women, and a staggering 828 percent increase
for African American women.
[21]
Barbara
Bloom maintains that the intersection of race, class and
gender puts low-income women of color, especially African
American women, in “triple jeopardy” and contributes to
their disproportionate incarceration. Cultural stereotypes
limit their access to programs and services that could help
them improve their economic circumstances, strengthen their
family units, and avoid criminal involvement. [22]
Natalie
Sokoloff contends that since African American womenwho
comprise 12 percent of the female population in the U.S.now
comprise more than 50 percent of women in prison, the “war
on drugs” has become a “war on poor black women.” [23]
The
impact of drug enforcement on women’s incarceration appears
to vary among different state sentencing regimes. In New
York, a state characterized by Marc Mauer as operating a
“drug-driven criminal justice system,” drug offenses accounted
for 91 percent of the increase in the number of women sentenced
to prison from 1986 to 1995. In Minnesota, where a structured
sentencing guidelines system affords judges more discretion
than is provided New York’s judges under the inflexible
Rockefeller Drug Laws, drug offenses accounted for just
26 percent of the increase in women’s imprisonment. [24]
Women
arrested for involvement in the drug trade tend to play
peripheral or minimal roles, selling small amounts to support
a habit, or simply living with intimates who engage in drug
sales.
[25] Once arrested under mandatory minimum
drug laws, women face intense pressure to plea bargain but
are likely to have little or no information about larger
drug market operations to use as bargaining chips. Mandatory
minimum drug laws remove the discretion that judges might
otherwise use to take account of mitigating factors such
as a woman’s role giving primary support and care to children
or to elder relatives.
The
escalating “war on drugs” has often been stoked with inflamed
portrayals of drug-involved women in the popular media.
In the mid-1980s, pregnant addicts giving birth to ailing
“crack babies” became drug-enforcement icons. Twenty years
later there is scant evidence to substantiate the dire predictions
of permanent and severe damage to their children due to
their drug use. Neither hysteria about “crack babies” nor
increased resources for drug court programs has produced
a significant effort to increase access to effective drug
treatment for pregnant women. Yet current media depictions
of women addicted to methamphetamine are fueling the same
hysteria with respect to pregnant women’s drug use.
[26]
The
drug war has been a major driver of female prison population
growth but not the only one. Between 1995 and 2004, arrests
of adult women for drug offenses rose by 48 percent compared
to 23 percent growth for men. [27] But arrests of women for violent offenses
were also up by 6.3 percent in contrast to a nearly 17 percent
decline for men.

SOURCE: FBI. “Crime in the United States2004.”
Washington, DC: Department of Justice
While
arrests of adult women between 1995 and 2004 have increased
by 13 percent overall, their arrests for the more serious
“index” offenses (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson)
have declined by 3 percent. The main share of increase
in arrests of women for violent index crime was in the category
of aggravated assaults. Arrests of women for murder during
the period actually declined by 12 percent.
In
terms of women’s share of overall arrests, the pattern appears
relatively stable over the decade, increasing from 20 percent
to 23 percent. For more serious index crime, women’s share
rose from 24 percent to 27 percent. The vast majority of
women’s arrests are for lower-level offenses, with 82 percent
of women’s arrests falling into the less serious “non-index”
category. This includes a large number of arrests for drug
violations, as well as minor offenses typically thought
to be “women’s crimes,” such as shoplifting and welfare
fraud.
While
the FBI arrest data displayed above show a 6 percent increase
in arrests of women for violent index offenses between 1995
and 2004, data available from the National Crime Victimization
Survey show no significant increase in actual violent victimizations
by women for the period.
[28]

SOURCE:
NCVS. “Criminal Victimization
in the United States - Statistical tables”
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics
The
social costs of women’s incarceration
|
National
Profile of Women Offenders
A
profile based on national data for women offenders
reveals the following characteristics:
- Disproportionately
women of color.
- In
their early to mid-30s.
- Most
likely to have been convicted of a drug-related
offense.
- From
fragmented families that include other family members
who also have been involved with the criminal justice
system.
- Survivors
of physical and/or sexual abuse as children and
adults.
- Individuals
with significant substance abuse problems.
- Individuals
with multiple physical and mental health problems.
- Unmarried
mothers of minor children.
- Individuals
with a high school or general equivalency diploma
(GED) but limited vocational training and sporadic
work histories.
|
SOURCE:
NIC: “Gender-Responsive Strategies”
This
profile of women in the criminal justice system clearly
illustrates their multiple needs. Joanne Belknap reports
that as prisoners, women are disadvantaged in terms of access
to educational, vocational, and recreational programs, as
well as to healthcare. [29] A paucity of services and programs for women
in prison has been justified by the high cost, given women’s
small numbers relative to men behind bars. Her research
documents inadequate access to healthcare and program services.
She found differences among women’s programming needs according
to their level of substance abuse, their race, and the length
of their prison term. African American women had much higher
rates of participation in education and drug programs, and
were far more likely to request access to vocational training.
Belknap also identified a need for more programs to help
women deal with histories of sexual and physical abuse.
Added
to the many issues, problems and barriers women share with
men at reentry from prison, women must struggle with reunification
of their families. More than 70 percent of women in prison
have children. Even before a mother’s arrest and separation
from the family unit, many children will have experienced
emotional hardship associated with parental substance abuse
and economic instability. While she is incarcerated they
suffer additional trauma, anxiety, guilt, shame and fear.
[30]
More
than half of mothers in prison have no visits with their
children for the duration of their time behind bars.
[31] Children are generally subject to instability
and uncertainly while their mothers are imprisoned. On
average, the children of incarcerated mothers will live
with at least two different caregivers during the period
of their incarceration. More than half will experience
separation from their siblings. [32]
More
than 80 percent of mothers in prison plan to reunify their
families upon release, but accomplishing this goal is often
very difficult. Prior to a mother’s arrest and incarceration,
the typical family unit survived on an income of less than
$500 per month. [33] Generally lacking adequate job skills and an
acceptable record of past employment, most women are ill-prepared
to support a family upon their release from prison. Moreover,
the communities to which they return are ill-prepared to
receive them.
Dina
Rose and Todd Clear’s groundbreaking research has documented
that the removal of women from their neighborhoods through
incarceration has a disproportionate affect on the community
because of the multiple roles they play. Rose and Clear’s
research also documents the disproportionate concentration
of people returning from prison to a relatively small number
of urban neighborhoods within large cities.
[34] These neighborhoods are stressed by a lack of
economic and social capital. Most residents are beleaguered
with the challenges of daily survival and are not prepared
to stretch their meager resources to accommodate the needs
of their returning friends and relatives.
Natalie
Sokoloff has examined the broad impact of mass incarceration
on African American womenwomen in prison; those left
behind in communities when their loved-ones and friends
are sent to prisons; and women who leave prison to reenter
the communities they left behind.
[35] Incarceration of both women and men from
poor communities removes the contributions they were makingincome,
childcare, elder care and emotional supportfrom the
families they leave behind.
The
Legal Action Center has cataloged the many ways that a women’s
criminal record may restrict access to vital resources when
she returns from prison: denial of public housing; denial
of welfare benefits and food stamps; denial of financial
assistance for education; and barriers to employment. [36] These post-conviction
penalties constitute an additional layer of punishment that
endures far beyond the prison sentence handed down by a
judge.
Policies
that make a difference
Many
advocates for rational criminal justice policies worried
that the “prison boom” and its attendant spiral into harsh
punitiveness would never abate. Six years into the new
century, we see that crime rates have plummeted, and public
attitudes about criminal justice issues have experienced
a remarkable shift. Over the past few years most states
in the U.S. have struggled with a severe fiscal crisis.
In the face of declining revenues, policymakersboth
Republicans and Democratshave been re-thinking many
of the costly correctional policies they had embraced when
revenues were booming.
A
clear majority of states have embraced one or more constructive
measures to roll back harsh laws and policies. Most are
experiencing a far more moderate rate of prison population
growth. In 31 states policymakers have introduced
major reforms in their effort to cut costs while improving
the effectiveness of their sentencing and correctional systems.
At least 20 states have rolled back mandatory minimum
sentences or restructured other harsh penalties enacted
in preceding years to get tough on low-level drug offenders
or non-violent lawbreakers. Legislators in at least 24
states have eased prison population pressures with mechanisms
to shorten time served in prison, speed the release of prisoners
who pose little risk to public safety, and penalize those
who violate release conditions without returning them to
prison.
[37]
State
revenue performance improved somewhat in 2004 but many state
officials are continuing on a trajectory of reform.
[38] While some states, as well as the federal
criminal justice system, still remain on the same old “get
tough” course, a handful of states have turned the corner
and begun to significantly downsize their prison systems.
Given
that the majority of women in the prison system are sentenced
for nonviolent crimes that stem from drug abuse and economic
marginalization, women should be a key focus for policymakers
as they craft more humane and cost effective alternatives
to incarceration. The prevalence of nonviolent conviction
offenses and the lower recidivism rates experienced by women
after release from prison indicate that decarceration efforts
targeting women would present few risks to public safety.
And the status of many women as primary caregivers to their
children should weigh heavily in favor of diverting them
to community-based programs designed to enhance their ability
to lead self-sufficient, successful lives in the community.
Indeed,
efforts in a few states to reduce reliance on incarceration
suggests that just as the get-tough excesses of the 1980s
and 1990s have had greater impact on women, strategies that
reverse their effects should bring greater relief for women.
For example, enactment of Proposition 36 in 2000 by voters
in California has diverted tens of thousands of people arrested
for possession of drugs. By 2001 the number of women sentenced
to prison had dropped by 10 percent, and correctional managers
attributed Proposition 36 as the largest factor driving
the decline.
[39] Early in 2003 the Department of Corrections
was able to close the Northern California Women’s Facility
at Stockton, with savings expected to total $31.6 million
by July 2006. [40]
In
New York, reduced levels of crime and arrestscombined
with a series of measures such as increased “merit time”
[41] for drug prisoners and “presumptive release” [42] for many prisoners
serving time in prison for nonviolent crimeshave contributed
to six straight years of downsizing in the state prison
system. The prison population dropped from almost 73,000
in 1999 to about 63,000 today. New York’s downsizing appears
to be impacting womenwhose numbers fell by 23 percent
between 1999 and 2004at higher rates than men, who
saw a 12 percent decline. [43]
Supervision
conditions set by probation and parole authorities can scuttle
a woman’s best efforts to comply with an overload of rigid
rules and requirements. Policy changes designed to reduce
technical violation rates, such as the use of intermediate
sanctions, should have favorable results for women, since
many are revoked to prison for violations of community supervision
requirements related to substance abuse or conflicts between
reporting requirements and family responsibilities.
Efforts
to break the cycle of crime and incarceration for women
should be focused on helping them to learn more effective
ways to cope with the stresses they face, strengthening
their social and familial support networks, and enhancing
their access to education and employment opportunities.
Substance abuse treatment and other program interventions
for women must be gender-responsive. Confrontational therapeutic
techniques designed to break down the denial and defenses
of men are likely to be counterproductive for women with
histories of extreme psychological, physical and sexual
trauma.
Alternative
programs for women must take account of the family responsibilities
women bear. Women are typically required to separate from
their children when they enter residential treatment. Intervention
programs designed for women should be designed with the
understanding that they and their families are often burdened
with pressures from conflicting and inflexible requirements
of multiple agencies. Criminal justice, welfare and child
welfare agencies may set competing or conflicting goals
and conditions for women, while limiting or denying access
to essential services needed to stabilize and maintain the
family unit. [44]
The
problems have become particularly acute since the mid-1990s
federal legislative “reforms” imposed a thicket of barriers
to family preservation and women’s recovery. These include
the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which accelerates termination
of parental rights to children in foster care; and the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,
which permanently bars anyone with a drug-related felony
conviction from receiving federal cash assistance and food
stamps. [45] Federal law further restricts Temporary Aid
to Needy Families and Supplemental Social Security Income
to people who violate conditions of probation or parole. [46]
When
women are released from prison they face the same barriers
to reentry as mensocial stigmatization; lack of adequate
housing; few or no employment opportunities; and denial
of public benefits and services. Social reintegration is
difficult enough when people return from prison to the high-poverty
neighborhoods they left behind when they entered prison.
Caught in a “catch-22,” many women cannot obtain government
aid to secure adequate housing because they do not have
custody of their childrenand they cannot secure custody
of their children because they do not have adequate housing.
Ann
Jacobs maintains reentry services should be coordinated
to address the multiple challenges that women face. [47] Reentry planning must not prioritize one
or two dimensions (e.g., substance abuse treatment and/or
employment) over other dimensions (e.g., housing needs,
family reunification and/or problems of past sexual abuse)
that, if left unaddressed, can lead to relapse and recidivism.
WPA has devised a reentry “matrix” to illustrate how planning
for successful reentry must incorporate strategies that
simultaneously address at least five domains, or basic life
areas, keyed to moving a women forward through three phases
of reintegration:

SOURCE:
Improving the Odds: Women in Community Corrections WPA
The
matrix makes it clear that no single agency in government
or the community service sector can fill all of a woman’s
reentry needs; a coordinated effort is needed. Further,
to the extent that we create these coordinated community
supports, we will also be preventing women from coming into
contact with the criminal justice and child welfare systems
in the first place.
Conclusion
During
the past quarter-century, we have witnessed a truly extraordinary
rise in the number of women behind barsat a rate of
growth that far exceeds an already staggering increase in
the male prison population. The burden of the expanding
female prison population has not been borne equally. Women
in Oklahoma are over ten times more likely to be serving
a state prison sentence than counterparts in Massachusetts
or Rhode Island. While the number of women imprisoned in
other parts of the country shot up 800 percent, the number
in Mountain states’ prisons leapt 1,600 percent.
The
majority of women in the U.S. prison system are serving
sentences for nonviolent drug and property offenses. Many
are incarcerated as a result of the overly harsh laws and
policies adopted at the height of the “war on drugs.” Yet
recent national research on public preferences about crime
and corrections indicates strong supportby a two to
one marginfor measures that address the causes of
crime over strict sentencing. Most Americans favor mandatory
drug treatment and community service rather than prisoneven
for those who sell small amounts of drugs.
[48] From both an economic and public safety standpoint,
the advantages of employing substance-abuse treatment and
gender-responsive services instead of prison for such women
are clear.
Incarcerating
women does not solve the problems that underlie their involvement
in the criminal justice system. Their imprisonment creates
enormous turmoil and suffering for their children. What
makes far more sense is sensible sentencing reforms and
public investment in effective drug treatment and gender-responsive
services to aid women who seek to live law-abiding lives
and provide a healthy and stable home for their children.
WPA’s
“matrix” approach to reentry can serve just as well as a
model for assisting women who might otherwise face incarceration
to stabilize themselves and their families, and to attain
self-sufficiency and successful lives in their communities.
Supporting such a process requires understanding how poverty,
trauma and victimization (past and present) and bad choices
can combine to propel women into substance abuse and criminal
involvement. Assisting them effectively means providing
access to coordinated services that address these multiple
issues simultaneously.
The
experience of the last five years demonstrates that continued
female prison population growth is not inevitable, and also
that measures to reign in prison population growth may be
especially beneficial to women. Policymakers and practitioners
are in dire need of better information on the causes and
consequences of, and alternatives to, this rapid growth
in the number of women behind bars.
More
research is needed to tell us how prisons are being used
for women: what kinds of offenses are driving increases
in the number of women in prison, and how the mix of female
prisoners serving short and long sentences is affecting
population levels. Further study is needed to determine
to what extent variations in incarceration rates are driven
by differences in criminal behavior, and to what extent
they are driven by differences in law enforcement, sentencing,
correctional practice.
Despite
efforts by a handful of excellent researchers, the unique
issues facing women in the criminal justice system remain
poorly understood, in part because they comprise a smallif
growingshare of the nation’s prison population. A
better understanding of this population is critical for
several reasons.
First,
while the impact of incarcerating women is not necessarily
greater than the impact of incarcerating men, it is certainly
different. Women prisoners were more likely to have been
primary caretakers of children prior to incarceration, and
their absence can place unique strains on families. Women
also respond differently to incarceration. It is often
observed that correctional facilities fail to provide prisoners
with the tools needed to succeed on the outside. This may
be especially true for women with a history of trauma or
past abuse.
Second,
existing research also suggests that women’s pathways to
prison may differ from those of men. As a consequence,
strategies for improving criminal justice outcomes and reducing
use of imprisonment are unlikely to succeed if these differences
are not addressed.
Third,
examination of trends in the incarceration of women can
shed light on the larger issue of steadily rising incarceration
rates. Analysis of recent prison population trends presented
in this brief suggests that female prison populations are
particularly sensitive to the factors that drive overall
levels of imprisonment. Not only could further research
help generate strategies that produce better outcomes for
women, but some of the same strategies could be deployed
to improve outcomes for men.
But
more research on these issues is just the starting point.
Action is needed to address the multitude of policies and
practices that ensnare women in systems that cannot recognize
and accommodate their needs as individuals and as parents.
More and more incarceration should not be our response to
the ways in which poverty, trauma, and addiction surface
in women. Women should be supportedat the individual,
family, and community levelin their efforts to create
self-sufficient, successful lives for themselves and their
families.
[21] Mauer, Marc and Tracy Huling. Young
Black Americans and the Criminal Justice System: Five
Years Later. (Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
1995)