
































2018-Final.pdf


34 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX 

MASS INCARCERATION: OVERVIEW OF ITS 
EFFECTS ON BLACK AND BROWN INDIVIDUALS, 
WITH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS USING FAMILY 
ENGAGEMENT TO ADDRESS RECIDIVISM

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON

Black and brown men are negatively impacted by the criminal justice 
system and have been incarcerated at higher rates than any other 
group in the United States (Knafo, 2013). The United States criminal 
justice system is built on punishment and exploitation rather 
than rehabilitation, resulting in higher rates of incarceration and 
recidivism compared to other developed nations (Gilligan, 2012). 
Countries such as Norway and the United Kingdom take a more 
humane approach to their criminal justice system, resulting in low 
recidivism rates (Sterbenz, 2014). Implementing policies that aim 
to keep families connected with individuals who are incarcerated is 
a major way to reduce recidivism rates (Clarke, 2013). Using New 
York State as a case study, this paper will propose extending conjugal 
visits beyond medium and low-security prisons and implementing 
Skype technology in prisons and jails as policy solutions to promote 
the well-being of people who are incarcerated and keep them from 
returning to prison once they are released. Social workers can play a 
vital role in efforts made to shift the United States’ criminal justice 
system from a culture of punishment towards a restorative model.

 INTRODUCTION
We live in a nation of incarceration. The United States has only 5% 

of the world’s inhabitants, but 25% of the world’s prisoners - the largest 
prison population in the world (Rabuy, 2017). When asked to describe mass 
incarceration using one word, slavery is apt. Over the course of its history, 
the United States has repeatedly developed new systems and strategically 
implemented policies to marginalize and oppress individuals of color 
(Butler, 2017). Slavery was made illegal in 1865 (Frundt, 2011). However, 
with the slave system in demise, oppression under the new name of “Law 
and Order” was born (Alexander, 2012 p. 40). The United States criminal 
justice system is known for disproportionally targeting and imprisoning 
black and brown bodies (Gilligan, 2012). The system is supposed to be built 
on rehabilitation; however, it has become an institution established on 
punishing those who are incarcerated and exploiting them for the economic 
gain of outside vendors (Butler, 2017). Not only are black and brown bodies 
locked up, but many policies also keep them completely cut off from contact 
with the world outside of prison walls (National Research Council, 2014). 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX | 35 

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON

Instead of rehabilitation, individuals can become institutionalized to the 
point that they are no longer able to cope and re-adjust to life on the outside 
(Butler, 2017). 

Once released, formerly incarcerated 
people have stigmas attached to them 
because of their record and are stripped 
of their natural born rights of access to 
healthcare, employment, housing, and 
education (National Research Council, 2014). 
These barriers contribute to high rates of recidivism amongst formerly 
incarcerated individuals in the United States. How can we use the unjust 
system currently in place to help individuals of the carceral state? This 
paper will address the effects mass incarceration has both historically 
and presently had on black and brown people while also suggesting how 
policies to connect families with incarcerated loved ones can enhance the 
chances of keeping individuals from becoming repeat offenders. 

EFFECTS OF MASS INCARCERATION ON
BLACK AND BROWN INDIVIDUALS

Within the U.S. Constitution lies the 13th Amendment, which 
prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude “except as a punishment 
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” (U.S. Const. 
amend. XIII). This portion of the Amendment has been used to legally 
justify enslaving black and brown bodies and stripping them of their 

natural rights (King, 2016). Similarly to 
the days of slavery, incarcerated people are 
often shackled from their hands down to 
their feet. They are forced into harsh labor 
conditions with minimal if any, financial 
reciprocation. They are subjected to 
substandard living conditions, as well as 
mental, physical and sexual abuse. Once 
released, they are stripped of the rights and 
freedoms that are supposed to extend to 

all people in society (Florio, 2018). They are now stigmatized, becoming 
even more marginalized and oppressed because of their criminal record 
(National Research Council, 2014).

Incarceration is one of the many ways marginalized, and oppressed 
bodies are kept at lower class status (Butler, 2017). Laws, policies, and 
platforms evolve over the decades to continuously target and push people 
of color into the criminal justice system and keep them at or below the 
poverty line (Rikken, 2018). Phrases such as “Jim Crow” and “black codes” 
are historical reminders of how a larger system has viewed people of color 

“How can we use 
the unjust system 
currently in place to 
help individuals of 
the carceral state?”

“They are forced into 
harsh labor conditions 
with minimal if any, 
financial reciprocation. 
They are subjected 
to substandard living 
conditions, as well as 
mental, physical and 
sexual abuse.”



36 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX 

MASS INCARCERATION: EFFECTS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

throughout history (Bundles, 2015). The implementation of legalized 
segregation in the past placed limits on the places people of color could 
go, the education they could receive, and the jobs they could hold (Hansan, 
2011). After the official end of segregation, the “War on Drugs” became 
its replacement, sparking the mass incarceration of black and brown 
individuals into the newly created prison industrial complex (Fornili, 
2018). One in three black males and one in six Hispanic males will go to 
prison within their lifetime. Those numbers far outweigh incarceration 
rates for any other group in the U.S. (Knafo, 2013).

The effects of these larger policies can have detrimental effects on a 
person (National Research Council, 2014). However, we do not always look 
at incarceration as a holistic entity that affects not only the person who is 
incarcerated but also the many different systems to which that person belongs. 
Families of incarcerated people can suffer from psychological, emotional 
and financial problems as a result of one’s incarceration (Arditti, 2016). 

When an individual goes through a period of incarceration, it is 
essential to look at them within their broader environment and assess the 
behavior related to the alleged crime, as well as factors that might have 
triggered the behavior (Visher et al., 2014). Factors such as the community 
where a person comes from, his or her mental health status, and his or her 
family functioning can be helpful in understanding what may have led to 
incarceration. Understanding what led up to the behavior is important 
because it can shed light on ways to prevent similar action in the future 
(National Research Council, 2014).

A criminal justice system that financially gains off of the trauma and 
exploitation of people should be reformed. This country has been built off 
of the labor of, and profiteering off of people of color for centuries (Bell, 
2007). The systematic oppression enforced by mass incarceration has 
been disguised using policies such as the “War on Drugs” and “Stop and 
Frisk,” which are targets on black and brown bodies in order to continue a 
narrative that is displayed through media and other outlets labeling people 
of color as criminals (Fornili, 2018).

EFFECTS OF FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
POLICIES ON RECIDIVISM

People released from prison face many different obstacles that can 
make it hard for them to readjust upon release (Visher et al., 2014). These 
include homelessness, unemployment, and substance abuse (Visher et al., 
2004). Not only did the number of prisoners quadruple between the 1970s 
and early 2000s, so did the number of people reentering communities once 
released from prison (Sabol et al., 2009). To dismantle the prison industrial 
complex, one step to take is reducing recidivism rates. Recidivism is a 
person’s relapse into criminal behavior (Cohen, 2017). Over the years, 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX | 37 

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON

many policies and initiatives have been implemented to reduce recidivism 
rates. Many of these policies address different factors that can either cause 
or prevent incarceration, such as mental health programs, substance use 
programs, and restorative justice programs (Roberts, 2012). Promoting 
family engagement for individuals while they are incarcerated can also ease 
transitions back into the community upon release. Implementing family 
engagement policies could reduce recidivism rates, impacting individuals 
of color who are recurring offenders (Clarke, 2013).

Nationwide, prison visitation policies are implemented in some form 
(Sterbenz, 2014). However, some of these policies can be problematic. Duwe 
and Clark (2011) state that “visitation policies can actually inhibit visits 
from family, friends… Offenders are primarily responsible for conveying 
visitation rule if a visitation is denied, it is the prisoner’s responsibility to 
relay that information” (Duwe & Clark, 2011, p. 4). Nevertheless, research 
has demonstrated over the years that visits from family members improve 
behavior and lower the likelihood of recidivism (Clarke, 2013). One of the 
first studies done on prison visitation and recidivism found that only 2% 
of individuals who had visitors within their final year of incarceration 
returned to prison, compared to more than 12% of those who did not (Duwe 
& Clark, 2011). 

As prison sentences have increased, incarcerated individuals have 
had a more difficult time maintaining social support networks (Lynch & 
Sabol, 2001). Removal from their families for an extended period can cause 
individuals to feel incredibly isolated while incarcerated. This isolation 
can affect behavior while incarcerated, as well as behavior once released 
(Friedmann, 2014). Having a connection to one’s family correlates with 
lower crime and lower recidivism rates (LaVigne et al., 2005). In the 
following sections, I will examine current policies aimed at connecting 
families with loved ones who are incarcerated, as well as policy changes 
that could improve the system. 

EFFECTS OF FAMILY CONTACT
According to The Vera Institute, a nationally recognized research and 

policy organization, maintaining a connection between family members 
and incarcerated people is essential (Friedmann, 2014). The primary 
ways imprisoned people stay connected with their families are through 
prison visits, letters, and phone calls. Most prison institutions have 
policies in place to facilitate family contact through these three methods; 
however, these systems need to be revamped. Independent evaluations of 
family contact policies have shown that many of them can be problematic 
(Giovanna, 2013).



38 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX 

MASS INCARCERATION: EFFECTS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

LETTER WRITING

Writing letters can be an efficient way for people to stay in contact with 
family members. Maintaining family ties has been correlated with helping 
an incarcerated person to succeed once they are released (Sakala, 2013). 
However, some letter writing policies can be deemed unfair. Some prison 
institutions do not allow individuals or their families to send letters bigger 
than a piece of paper the size of a postcard (Friedmann, 2014). Limiting 
how much a person can write does not allow individuals to express 
themselves openly and effectively when trying to communicate with a 
loved one. Nevertheless, because individuals who are incarcerated may be 
located far distances from their families, letter writing is a significant tool 
of communication between them. 

VISITATION

Access to family visitation has been shown to affect recidivism 
rates. Being able to interact with one’s family has been heavily correlated 
with positive behavior both while incarcerated, as well as upon release 
(Clarke, 2013). A 2011 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections 
followed over 16,000 ex-prisoners over five years, examining differences in 
recidivism rates between those who received prison visits and those who 
did not (Clarke, 2013). Results demonstrated that any level of visitation 
lowered the risk of recidivism. Felony re-convictions were 13% lower for 
those who received prison visits. Visitation had an even more significant 
impact on technical violation revocations, which were 25% lower.Visitation 
can, however, be unpleasant. There are often long wait periods, invasive 
searches, limited visitation times, and other unfair or burdensome rules. 
For example, a report from The Vera Institute describes:

One female attorney said she was told by prison officials that she could not 
visit a prisoner because her underwire bra set off the metal detector. After 
leaving, removing her bra and then returning, she was told she could not visit 
because she wasn’t wearing a bra” (Friedmann, 2014). 

There are also prisons that only allow visitation on the weekends (Sims, 
2017). Continuous obstacles in the way of staying connected with loved 
ones who are incarcerated can make visitation undesirable, which can 
prevent family members from wanting to partake in visits due to some of 
these rules (Giovanna, 2013).

PHONE CALLS

Regular phone conversations also can reduce recidivism rates among 
formerly incarcerated individuals. However, evaluations of phone policies 
in prisons and jails have revealed that inflated phone rates have resulted 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX | 39 

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON

in barriers to contacts between prisoners and their families and friends. 
People from low-income families cannot afford to continuously pay for 
phone calls at increasing rates. In order for phone calls to be an effective form 
of family contact, they have to be made more affordable (Friedmann, 2014).

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
Internationally, many countries seem to be more advanced in their 

efforts to reduce recidivism than the United States. When looking abroad, 
the literature illustrates a more humane approach. Many foreign justice 
systems, particularly those in Europe, emphasize rehabilitation rather 
than punishment. For example, Germany builds normalization into their 
policies: the experience while incarcerated is as close to life on the outside 
as possible. Some of these policies have helped to keep other countries’ 
recidivism rates low (Sterbenz, 2014). In the United Kingdom, there are 
many opportunities for family visitations, including prison visitation 
centers in England. In Canada, incarcerated people are provided with an 
opportunity to have private family visits in separate areas that have access 
to a kitchen and living space; these visits can last up to 72 hours at a time 
and can occur every two months. Denmark has instituted policies in which, 
every third weekend of the month, prisoners can leave for the weekend 
to be with their families. These policies have not resulted in increases in 
crime. Many international criminal justice systems rehabilitation efforts 
are reflected in their low rates of recidivism (Sterbenz, 2014).  

NEW YORK STATE VISITATION POLICY ISSUES
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 2017-2018 budget 

contained a proposal to reduce visitation days at maximum security 
correctional facilities (Sylvia Rivera Law Project, 2017). Governor Cuomo 
states that the visitation reduction is intended to cut costs and to align 
maximum-security policy with medium-security facilities (Abraham, 
2017). However, as previously discussed, prison visits have already shown 
the ability to reduce recidivism (Clarke, 2013). It is counterintuitive to 
make prison visits more difficult. Family members of incarcerated people 
often have to travel far distances to remain connected with their loved ones. 
Restricting the days during which they can visit may reduce someone’s 
chance of even having visitors at all. (Abraham, 2017). Policy change may 
also lead to congestion problems during visitations because of restricted 
days (Rivera, 2017). 



40 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX 

MASS INCARCERATION: EFFECTS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
A lack of family reunification programs can be a root cause of high 

recidivism rates. In addition to facilitating visitation in prisons, as 
discussed throughout this paper, other policies intended to keep individuals 
connected with their families can be strengthened or implemented. 
Specifically, I propose two policies aimed at lowering recidivism through 
family engagement programs:

(1) Inmate conjugal visits implemented in all jails and state prisons.
(2) Inmate access to Skype video chats in conjunction with telephonic 
communication.

These policies can be applied in to all jails and prisons in New York State.

INMATE CONJUGAL VISITS IMPLEMENTED 
IN ALL STATE PRISONS AND JAILS

New York is one of only four states (the others being California, 
Connecticut, and Washington) that allow conjugal visits. However, these 
programs are currently only allowed in medium and low security prisons 
(Dopplr, 2017). One major policy change would be to extend conjugal visits 
to all correctional facilities throughout the state. If a prison is large enough, 
administrators could designate specific sections for hosting families. 
Otherwise, external trailers could be purchased for this purpose. Although 
pushback would not generally be expected, there might be opposition 
around conjugal visits for inmates serving time for certain offenses, such 
as sexual assault (Lochrie, 2014). Eligibility restrictions could be applied 
if necessary, allowing the majority of incarcerated people to still benefit.

ACCESS TO SKYPE VIDEO CHATS 
IN CONJUNCTION WITH PHONE CALLS

Phone calls are a major means of maintaining family contact, but they 
can also be problematic. In 2013, the FCC proposed a plan to impose rate 
caps and lower intrastate phone rates to keep costs down for people who 
were incarcerated (Marimow, 2017). In response, a number of corrections 
officials filed objections to the plan (Friedmann, 2014). Prisons and jails 
nationwide have thus far received hundreds of millions of dollars in 
kickbacks from prison phone companies, resulting in inflated phone rates 
that create financial barriers to communication between prisoners and 
their family members (Friedmann, 2014).

Implementing policies that allow prisoners to communicate via Skype 
would make up for current faults in established policies (Stroud et al.,  
2015). Doing so would save money for both families and institutions, and 



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX | 41 

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON

prisoners would be able to use commissary money to pay the prison, as 
opposed to paying phone companies directly. Instead, the prison could pay 
a monthly internet fee to supply the prison with broadband access, enabling 
electronic communication. Prisons in St. Louis have implemented this 
policy, yet phone companies continue to try to take the majority of profits 
(Stroud & Brustien, 2015). By installing internet connections, the main 
financial compensation would be kept in-house. This innovation would be 
beneficial to family members who may have to travel extensive amounts 
of times, or simply do not wish to be subjected to prison searches, to save 
money (Stroud & Brustien, 2015).

IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL WORKERS ROLE IN THIS WORK
Social workers can play a significant role in revamping the scope of 

the criminal justice system in the United States. Social work is based 
on an ethical framework that emphasizes fighting for social justice and 
empowering oppressed and marginalized individuals in society (National 
Association of Social Workers, 2008). Social workers can lead research 
initiatives, create programs, propose policies, and advocate on behalf of 
incarcerated individuals to help end injustices, by advocating for policies 
that promote family engagement for people while they are incarcerated. 

CONCLUSION
Allowing individuals who are incarcerated a means to stay connected 

with the outside world is just one of the many ways to reduce recidivism 
and promote community. A system that aims to rehabilitate individuals 
should focus on developing ways in which behavior can be changed, and 
opportunities can be provided. Punishment has shown to be a method 
that does the opposite. The benefits of the policy proposals to extend 
conjugal visits to all jails and prisons and to allow prisoners access to 
Skype telecommunication extend not only to incarcerated individuals and 
their families, but also to correctional staff. More humane policies can help 
lower recidivism and keep staff safe. Efforts should continue to be made in 
order to strengthen these policies in order to benefit everyone. 

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (2017). Opposition grows to Cuomo’s plan to cut prison visits. 
Retrieved January 31, 2018, from https://citylimits.org/2017/03/24/
opposition-grows-to-cuomos-plan-to-cut-prison-visits

 Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of 
colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.

Arditti, J. A. (2016). A family stress-proximal process model for understanding the 
effects of parental incarceration on children and their families. Couple and 
Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 5(2), 65-88. 



42 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX 

MASS INCARCERATION: EFFECTS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Associated Press. (2008, August 17). Thousands of federal inmates gain e-mail 

privileges. Retrieved November 26, 2017, from http://www.foxnews.com/
story/2008/08/17/thousands-federal-inmates-gain-e-mail-privileges.html

Bell, C. C. (2007). Review of racism in the United States: implications for the 
helping professions. Psychiatric Services, 58(5), 718. doi:10.1176/appi.
ps.58.5.718

Boudin, C., Stutz, T., & Littman, A. (2012). Prison visitation policies: A fifty state 
survey. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2171412

Bundles, A. (2015, August 15). Know your history: Understanding racism in the 
US. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/
features/2015/08/race-history-ferguson-150814082921736.html

Butler, P. (2017, August 11). US justice is built to humiliate and oppress black men. 
It starts with the chokehold... Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://www.
theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/11/chokehold-police-black-men-paul-
butler-race-america

Charkoudian, L., Cosgrove, B. L., Ferrell, D. P., & Flower, S. M. (2012). The role 
of family and pro-social relationships in reducing recidivism. Corrections 
Today, 74(4), 94-97. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/
login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/
docview/1112272979?accountid=10226

Clarke, M. (2013, April 15). Prison Legal Minnesota Study Shows Prisoners 
Receiving Visits Have Lower Recidivism Rates. Retrieved February 18, 2018, 
from https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2013/apr/15/minnesota-study-
shows-prisoners-receiving-visits-have-lower-recidivism-rates

Cohen, T. H. (2017). Predicting sex offender recidivism: Using the federal post-
conviction risk assessment instrument to assess the likelihood of recidivism 
among federal sex offenders. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/
ssrn.2973853

Dopplr. (2017, February 14). Conjugal visits: Rules and history. Retrieved 
November 26, 2017, from http://www.dopplr.com/social-atlas

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2011). Blessed be the social tie that binds. Criminal Justice 
Policy Review, 24(3), 271-296. doi:10.1177/0887403411429724

Florio, G. M. (2018, February 22). 5 Ways america’s prison system mimics slavery. 
Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://www.bustle.com/articles/142340-5-
ways-the-us-prison-industrial-complex-mimics-slavery

Fornili, K. S. (2018). Racialized mass incarceration and the war on drugs: A 
critical race theory appraisal. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 29(1), 65-72. 
doi:10.1097/JAN.0000000000000215

Friedmann, A. (2014, April 15). Lowering recidivism through family 
communication. Retrieved November 14, 2017, from https://www.
prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/apr/15/lowering-recidivism-through-
family-communication

Frundt, T. (2011, July 20). Slavery ended in 1865? That myth puts our kids in 
danger. Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/
tina-frundt/slavery-ended-in-1865-tha_b_904680.html

Gilligan, J. (2012, December 19). Punishment fails. Rehabilitation works. The 
New York Times. Retrieved March 19, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/
roomfordebate/2012/12/18/prison-could-be-productive/punishment-fails-
rehabilitation-works



COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX | 43 

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON
Giovanna, S. (2013), Visiting room: A response to prison visitation policies: a fifty-

state survey. Yale Law & Policy Review. 32, 191.
Hansan, J.E. (2011). Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Social Welfare History 

Project. Retrieved March 20, 2018 from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/
eras/civil-war-reconstruction/jim-crow-laws-andracial-segregation

King, S. (2016, September 21). How the 13th Amendment didn’t really abolish 
slavery. Retrieved March 19, 2018, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/
national/king-13th-amendment-didn-abolish-slavery-article-1.2801218

Knafo, S. (2013, October 04). 1 In 3 black males will go to prison in their lifetime, 
report warns. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.
com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html

LaVigne, N. G., Naser, R. L., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005). Examining the 
effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoner’s family 
relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314-335.

Lochrie, J. (2014, January 10). 9 Things you didn’t know about conjugal visits. 
Retrieved November 26, 2017, from http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/9-
things-you-didn%E2%80%99t-know-about-conjugal-visits

Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Crime policy 
report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

Marimow, A. E. (2017, February 5). FCC made a case for limiting cost of prison 
phone calls. Not anymore. Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://www.
washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fcc-made-a-case-for-limiting-cost-
of-prison-phone-calls-not-anymore/2017/02/04/9306fbf8-e97c-11e6-b82f-
687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.86a5bc3bb865

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National 
Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

National Institute of Justice. (2014, June 17). Retrieved November 14, 2017, from 
https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx

National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the united 
states: Exploring causes and consequences. Committee on Causes and 
Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, J. Travis, B. Western, and S. 
Redburn, Editors. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and 
Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies 
Press.

Rabuy, P. W. (2017, March 14). Mass incarceration: the whole pie 2017. Retrieved 
February 25, 2018, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html

Rikken, M. (2018, March 09). Two in one: Differences in the US justice system 
for the rich and the poor. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://www.
researchgate.net/blog/post/two-in-one-differences-in-the-us-justice-
system-for-the-rich-and-the-poor

Roberts, R. (2012). Reentry — recidivism reducing strategies in challenging times. 
Corrections Today, 74(2), 10.

Sakala, L. (2013, August 28). Step one to reduce recidivism in Santa Barbara 
County: Stop banning letters from home. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from 
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2013/08/28/sb-county-recidivism/

Sims, S. (2017, December 09). The end of American prison visits: Jails end face-
to-face contact– and families suffer. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/09/skype-for-jailed-video-calls-
prisons-replace-in-person-visits



44 | COLUMBIA SOCIAL WORK REVIEW, VOL. IX 

MASS INCARCERATION: EFFECTS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Sterbenz, C. (2014, December 11). Why Norway’s prison system is so successful. 

Retrieved November 14, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.com/why-
norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12.

Stroud, M., & Brustein, J. (2015, April 29). ‘Prison Skype’ squeezes out in-person 
visits, soaking inmate families. Retrieved November 26, 2017, from http://
www.stltoday.com/business/local/prison-skype-squeezes-out-in-person-
visits-soaking-inmate-families/article_34e133d4-b0a7-5aa6-b7e8-
d75707f154d4.html

Sylvia Rivera Law Project. (2017, April 15). Tell Cuomo that visits matter! 
Retrieved February 07, 2018, from https://srlp.org/action/tell-cuomo-that-
visits-matter

U.S. Const. amend. XIII.
Visher, C. A., La Vigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004). Returning home: Understanding 

the challenges of prisoner reentry. Maryland pilot study: Findings from 
Baltimore. Washington,DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

DURRELL MALIK WASHINGTON is a second-year Advanced Standing 
student at the Columbia University School of Social Work. At Columbia, 
Durrell Interns in the Safe Lab which is a research initiative focused on 
examining the intersections between social media and violence. Under the 
supervision of Dr. Desmond Patton, Durrell supports ongoing qualitative 
research using social media and other forms of technology to understand 
the context behind online language. Durrell also assists in developing 
linguistic algorithms, to equip an artificially intelligent chatbot (WYSA), 
specializing in cognitive behavioral therapy, with the ability to serve as an 
intervention tool for youth of color. Durrell is a Beyond the Bars Fellow. 
The fellowship is built around helping students and community members 
develop a deeper understanding of mass incarceration and social change. 
Durrell’s interest centers on criminal justice reform, and the different 
nuances that leads to people of color entering the carceral state.


