Incarceration and Family Stability.
The cause and effect of family instability have been of interest to social scientists for many decades. This research is important to better understand the contributing factors to family instability and how those factors affect outcomes for individuals, their families, their communities, and society at large. Many social factors lead to family instability but of those factors, incarceration has a unique effect on family dynamics and stability due to its liminal effects on relationship status (Turney & Halpern-Meekin 2021).
In their research article, Incarceration and Family Instability: Considering Relationship Churning, authors Kristin Turney and Sarah Halpern-Meekin examine the effects of incarceration on romantic partnerships to determine if there was a positive association with a type of relationship instability, called churning. Using the data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, Turney, and Halpern-Meekin found that incarceration does have a positive association with relationship churning. The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study originally followed nearly 5000 babies born between the years 1998-2000 and their parents, in large cities around the United States. This study involved an original interview with the mothers and fathers shortly after the birth occurred and then follow-up interviews were conducted when the babies were ages 1, 3, 5, 9, and 15. An additional interview was recently added in late 2020 when the babies turned 22. Using the data collected in these interviews as well as subsequent surveys, Turney and Halpern-Meekin were able to extrapolate the data and identified a positive association between incarceration and relationship churning. They also noted that these findings were concentrated among black people and individuals that were incarcerated for the first time and determined that maternal and paternal incarceration had similar positive associations with relationship churning.
Social scientists have studied the negative effects of incarceration on family stability for many years. We know that incarceration causes a reduction in an inmate’s social capital, fraying the bonds between the incarcerated, their families, and their wider social networks and thus contributing to the relationship churning noted by Turney and Halpern-Meekin (Christian et al. 2006). Incarceration has also been found to decrease the marriage rates by reducing the pool of eligible bachelors, especially for black men who experience incarceration at a disproportionate rate in the United States, leading to higher rates of nonmarital childbearing within black families (Harknett & McLanahan 2004). While Turney and Halpern-Meekin’s research is important, its narrow focus on a specific type of relational outcome, “churning”, merely fits within the curriculum of Sociology 352 – The Family.
Beyond the scope of the effects of incarceration on one specific type of relational effect, incarceration plays a larger role in the public and private goods a family provides within the context of society both individually and on a macro scale. Incarceration inhibits the role of the family as a public good by decreasing the ability of individuals to provide financial and emotional care to the immediate family of all ages, reduces their wage earnings whereby also reducing taxable income, and increases the tax burden on others to pay the cost of incarcerating that individual, and through relationship strain which impacts their ability to pass along important cultural and values-based knowledge (Lecture 1-1). When looking at the family from the perspective of a private good, incarceration weakens communication, frays relational ties, and places high burdens on family members that are faced with the hardship of providing emotional and financial support as well as nurturing and providing safety and necessities for offspring or older generations (Lecture 1-1). In other words, “Incarceration puts individuals in a marginal social position, unable to fully enact their social roles, such as those of partner or parent” (Turney & Halpern-Meekin 2021, p.1288). Dubbed a “greedy institution” the effects of incarceration are far-reaching and impact outcomes for future generations (Lecture 6-3). In the United States, over half of the prisoners have children under the age of 18 (Cherlin 2017, p.255). According to Cherlin, for the group whose parents that did not earn a high school diploma, 15% of white children and 62% of black children will have a parent in prison before they reach the age of 18 (2017, p.255). Cherlin goes on to describe how incarceration makes it difficult for men released from prison to find jobs and removes them from the pool of eligible men leading to a decline in marriage within the black population (Cherlin 2017, p129-130). These findings are supported in Micere Keel’s article Choosing Single Motherhood, where she posits that rather than a function of “irrational” choices, black women are choosing single motherhood as “a rational adaptation to an age of diminished marital possibilities”. Unfortunately, single motherhood is positively associated with an increased risk of poverty with 31% of single-mother families considered poor compared to a 15% rate of poverty within the general population and a 12% poverty rate for families (Lecture 8-2). Sadly, Tuominen states, “our life trajectories do not typically take us far beyond our original social class position”, meaning that for many the poverty cycle will continue into the next generation (Lecture 8-1).
Researching the effect of incarceration on individuals, families, communities, and our larger society should continue to be a priority in the United States due to the high number of incarcerated individuals. The United States as a collection of individuals that both benefit from and are harmed by the outcomes of our peers, should want to invest in this research to be sure that punishments such as incarceration don’t cause unintended poor outcomes for both current and future generations. Rather we should invest in programs that focus on rehabilitation, reduce social stigma associated with incarceration, and invest in communities to reduce the risk of recidivism and work towards better outcomes for everyone.
References
Cherlin, A. (2017). Public and Private Families – An Introduction (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Christian, J. et al.(2006). Social and Economic Implications of Family Connections to Prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4): 443-452.
Harknett K. and S. McLanahan. (2004). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Marriage after the Birth of a Child. American Sociological Review, 69, 6. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/socabs/docview/60585797/625AD1A51B9942C2PQ/38?accountid=14784
Keels, M. (2014). Choosing Single Motherhood. Contexts 13(2), 70-72. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504214533504
Turney, K., & Halpern-Meekin, S. (2021). Incarceration and family instability: Considering relationship churning. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83( 5), 1287– 1309. https://doi-org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1111/jomf.12794
Tuominen, A. (2021, Fall). Lecture 1-1 What is Family? SOC 352 UW.
Tuominen, A. (2021, Fall). Lecture 6-3 Institutionalizations. SOC 352 UW.
Tuominen, A. (2021, Fall). Lecture 8-1 Family & Social Class. SOC 352 UW.
Tuominen, A. (2021, Fall). Lecture 8-2 Family Poverty. SOC 352 UW.