Currently, the United States of America has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The United States possess five percent of the worlds population, yet it houses twenty-five percent of the worlds prisoners. Approximately one-fourth of the two million prisoners in the United States are incarcerated for non violent drug crimes, which is more than the total number of people incarcerated in the European Union for all crimes (Gibbs and Leech 63). Since the war on drugs was ramped up by the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, the prison population has ballooned from about 500,000 people in 1980 to more than 2 million people in 2001 (Bureau of Justice Statistics). This massive increase in the prison population is largely due to the war on drugs. These policies have had their largest affect on the poor, substantially impacting poor communities around the country. They have acted as an impediment to economic mobility for people convicted of drug crimes, as well as their children; resulting in both perpetual and intergenerational poverty. One way the war on drugs has perpetuated poverty is by decreasing employment opportunities for those convicted of drug crimes. Steady employment is one of the best ways to escape poverty, but the war on drugs has restricted employment for hundreds of thousands of individuals over the last thirty years. Many of those convicted of drug crimes are poor minorities that are unskilled, uneducated, and return to communities that lack adequate employment opportunities (Williams 5-6). Despite the barriers they face to employment, two-thirds of felons sent to prison were employed in the six months prior to incarceration, and of those, seventy percent had been consistently employed for at least one year (Debus,Visher, and Yahner 3). However, when felons are released from prison they face many barriers to employment, which has resulted in less than half being employed eight months after release (Debus,Visher, and Yahner 3).

The decrease in employment after incarceration can be explained by the barriers to employment created by a criminal record. Prior to even applying for a job, felons face restricted employment opportunities. There are several fields that convicted felons are completely banned from working in. These professions vary by state but typically include positions such as doctors, nurses, accountants, lawyers, and paramedics. Many of the aforementioned professions require significant human capital to gain employment, which many convicted of drug crimes lack. Therefore, these bars from employment merely serve to limit their employment in potential careers. The fact that felons are banned from these high paying professions certainly limits their future economic mobility, but it is the less prestigious professions felons are banned from that have the most immediate impact. Since the inception of the war on drugs there has been an increase in licensing laws and regulations that ban felons from professions that require less human capital, which felons would be more likely to pursue. These laws vary by state, but positions such as bartenders, barbers, pest exterminators, athletic trainers, and lottery vendors are off limits to felons in some states (Lantigua). These barriers to employment are extremely problematic because they limit the ability of those convicted of drug felonies to find employment in industries that do not require significant human capital, which better match the skillset of many of the people convicted of felonies for drug offenses. Felons also face problems when applying for jobs they are legally allowed to work at. In many states, it is required by law that those convicted of a crime reveal that information to their potential employer, usually by checking a box on their employment application. Many jobs also require potential employees to pass a background check prior to employment. These policies have had a substantial impact on drug offenders. If one has a criminal record they are only offered half as many positions as those without one; this number decreases to one-third for

African Americans (Pew 22). The discrimination against convicted felons in the labor market is further shown by an Urban Institute study that found incarceration negatively impacted the ability of 71% of people to find a job after their release (Debus,Visher, and Yahner 8) . As stated earlier, many drug offenders faced barriers to finding employment prior to their arrest because they lack marketable skills and live in areas with few employment opportunities. A drug conviction further exacerbates their problems finding employment by blemishing their record in a competitive labor market with a surplus of uneducated, low skilled workers. In addition to the stigma attached to drug crimes, drug offenders can face unique restrictions; the most frequent is a ban from obtaining a drivers license. These restrictions ultimately make it more difficult for drug offenders to apply for jobs and find and maintain employment. Furthermore, if one is incarcerated, prison often destroys ones social networks, making it even harder to find employment. Facing such large obstacles, many are lured back into a life of crime, while the lucky end up as part of the working poor. Even if one is able to get a job after they are convicted of a drug crime, they are still likely to have a lower income. After controlling for age, education, school enrollment, region of residence and urban residence, it is estimated that past incarceration reduces wages by 11 percent, annual employment by nine weeks, and overall earnings by forty percent, resulting in $179,000 in lost earning by age 481 (Pew 11). When work experience is controlled for the results do not change, suggesting that it is the conviction and incarceration that create these effects and not the missed work experience (Pew 11). The blemished record and reduced wages are likely why individuals who were incarcerated are more likely to be poor in the future. Of people

Estimate is based on data obtained from the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Observations from 1983 to 2006 were examined. Women, men with no income, and men currently imprisoned were removed from the data sample. Linear regression models were then used to predict the loss in earnings, hours worked, and wages.

incarcerated at some point in their life that had incomes in the bottom income quintile in 1987, two-thirds remained at the bottom of the economic ladder twenty years later, compared to onethird of those never incarcerated (Pew 16). The results of these studies show that conviction of a crime has an extremely detrimental impact on both the current economic status and the future economic mobility of an offender. Those who cannot find employment must turn elsewhere for economic support. If one is poor enough, they may turn to welfare for necessities, especially if they have dependents. If one is convicted of a drug crime, they do not have this option. A drug conviction further compounds their poverty by making those convicted of drug offenses ineligible for welfare benefits. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act created a lifetime ban on welfare benefits for those convicted of felonies for possessing or selling drugs (Gibbs and Leech 66-67). Eight states and the District of Columbia opted out of the ban entirely, but the rest of the states either adopted a partial or complete ban on benefits. This ban only applies to drug offenders, leaving rapists and murders free to receive welfare benefits, but not drug offenders. By 2002, 95,000 women and 135,000 children had been affected by this lifetime ban on welfare benefits (Gibbs and Leech 67). The welfare ban is also problematic because it creates incentives to destroy families, ironically a charge often leveled at welfare. This ban has resulted in many fathers leaving their families, so that their family could become eligible for public and Section 8 housing. Although it has not been studied in detail, it has been suggested that the welfare ban may also lead to more women placing their children in foster care, or having their children remove by Child Services for neglect, or malnutrition. A 1999 article reporting on the welfare ban in Wisconsin indicated that five percent of women banned from welfare were forced to abandon their children (Allard

10-11). This secondary result of the welfare ban is very troublesome because children who grow up in broken homes are less likely to escape poverty. Facing employment discrimination and a ban on welfare benefits, drug offenders face enormous barriers to economic mobility. Those who seek to turn their lives around and better themselves through education also face substantial barriers because of the war on drugs. The drug war further impedes their escape from poverty by limiting access to school funding for those convicted of a drug crime. This is extremely problematic for the poor because they are the most likely to be convicted of a drug crime, as well as the most likely to need funding support for school. The Higher Education Act of 1998 made those convicted of drug crimes ineligible to receive federal financial aid for education. Like the welfare ban, this ban applies only to drug offenders, leaving murderers and rapists free to receive financial aid, but not drug offenders. It should be noted that this ban applies not just for those convicted of major drug crimes, but for those convicted of any drug crime. This distinction is important because as Terry Gibbs and Garry Leech noted in 2007, Over the past seven years, tens of thousands of college-bound students have been denied federal aid because of prior drug convictions, often for past misdemeanors such as marijuana possession (67). This severely decreases the economic mobility of the poor that are convicted of even minor drug crimes. Many of them would have a hard time paying for college even with financial aid, but the financial aid ban makes it all but impossible for them to go to college. For drug offenders, making one mistake early in life can destroy almost any hope of attaining a college education. Although the war on drugs has substantially impacted those convicted of crimes, it has had an equally significant impact on the children of those offenders. The most recent data shows that there are approximately 1.2 million prisoners (1.1 million fathers and 120,000 mothers) who

have children that are minors, resulting in over 2.7 million, or 1 in 28, children having parents currently incarcerated (Pew 18). Of the incarcerated parents, one-fourth of fathers and thirty-five percent of mothers in state prisons and two-thirds of fathers and three-fourths of mothers in federal prisons are incarcerated for non violent drug crimes (Mumola 6). Although these figures shed some light on how many parents are incarcerated as a result of our current drug laws, they only show half the story. Drug prohibition is responsible for more crime than just drug law violations, including violence related to drug market disputes and property crime caused by the inflated black market price of drugs (Donoghue 1785). Furthermore, it should be noted that this data only includes parents currently incarcerated. This distinction is important because the data does not show the full extent of the problem. In 1999, there were over seven million children with parents either in prison or jail, on probation, or recently paroled (Butterfield). This number has likely increased in the last decade, as the number of people under the supervision of the criminal justice system has increased by fourteen percent in the last decade (Bureau of Justice Statistics). The result of the incarceration of a large number of parents for nonviolent crimes has had a significant impact on their children. The war on drugs has increased a childs risk factors for both current and future poverty. If one grows up in poverty, there is a 49% chance that they will be persistently poor throughout their life, compared to a 4% chance for those who do not grow up in poverty (Ratcliffe and McKernan 5). Not surprisingly, evidence suggests that the incarceration of a parent has an impact on a familys income, which is one of the most important indicators of future poverty. Prior to incarceration, over fifty-four percent of fathers in state prisons and two-thirds in federal prisons were the primary earners for their children, with most of their income coming from legal sources (Pew 21). The removal of the father from a family

substantially impacts the familys economic well being. The incarceration of a father has been shown to result in a 22 percent decrease in a familys income (Pew 21). This type of pay cut would cause financial problems for families at most income levels, but for the poor, who typically lack assets and have few savings, this is an even larger burden. Without financial support from family members or increased welfare benefits, the likely result of a parents incarceration will be even greater poverty for their children. Along with family income, the type of family a child grows up in is an important indicator of future poverty. Many suggest that the increasing rate of children being born to single mothers is the result of a cultural shift. That argument may have some validity; however, over the past thirty years the war on drugs has played a substantial role in creating female-headed households. The war on drugs has significantly contributed to the social breakdown in poor neighborhoods, contributing to the high percentage of poor children growing up in single-parent homes, and especially female headed households (Gibbs and Leech 65). Before incarceration, forty-five percent of parents in state prisons and fifty-seven percent in federal prisons lived with their children (Mumola 3). The mass incarceration of the last three decades has created a large number of children who live without one of their parents in the home. Fatherless households are extremely problematic because growing up without a father in the home increases a childs risk of poverty. In 1999, over 42% of female headed households had incomes below the poverty line. The war on drugs has left hundreds of thousands of children basically fatherless. It has also impacted children who do not live with their father. When fathers are in prison, they are unable to pay their child support, further compounding the poverty of already single mothers and reducing the childs wellbeing.

Although poor children grow up with the odds stacked against them, they can help lift themselves out of poverty through education. Educational attainment is one of the most important factors in economic mobility, so the impact that the war on drugs has on ones education is very troublesome. Children born in the lowest income quintile have a forty-one percent chance of remaining there as adults if they do not have a college degree, versus a sixteen percent chance if they have a degree (Pew 21). Furthermore, having a college degree quadruples a persons chances of being in the highest income quintile if they were born in the lowest end of the income ladder (Pew 21). The mass incarceration resulting from the war on drugs impedes a childs chances of economic success because the removal of the father from a childs life has a significant impact on the childs educational performance. Research shows that twenty-three percent of children whose father has been incarcerated at some point in their life are suspended or expelled from school, compared to four percent of children whose fathers have not (Pew 21). Controlled studies also show that children who do not live with their father have lower intellectual and educational performance (Galston and Karmack). This is extremely problematic because many of these children already attend low quality, inner city schools. Many of these poor children are already likely to receive a poor education, and the imprisonment of their father further decreases their chances of acquiring a quality education. From this evidence it can be concluded that the mass incarceration of fathers resulting from the war on drugs has had a detrimental impact on their childs education. Furthermore, one can conclude that the war on drugs has decreased the chance that their children will live a life without poverty. Any examination of the impact of the war on drugs on the poor would not be complete without mentioning its impact on African-Americans. Although the drug war has largely been waged against the poor, the unintended consequences have placed the largest burdens on

minority communities, and especially African-American communities. All of the detrimental consequences from the drug war apply even more so to blacks. African-Americans make up just thirteen percent of the drug using population, yet they account for fifty-eight percent of imprisoned drug offenders (Gibbs and Leech 65). Selective enforcement of the drug laws has led to this massive increase in the African-American prison population. Furthermore, AfricanAmericans serve longer prison terms than whites who commit the same crimes, largely due to the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine and mandatory minimum sentences. Prior to mandatory minimum sentencing, the average sentence for a black person was eleven percent higher than that of a white person, but just four years after mandatory minimums were put in place the average sentence for blacks was forty-nine percent higher than whites (Gibbs and Leech 63). The war on drugs is also responsible for a large amount of the massive increase of black children living in single parents families. Since the war on drugs began in the early eighties, the number of black children growing up fatherless has skyrocketed from 14% to over 70% (Gibbs and Leech 63). One in nine black children currently has a parent that is incarcerated, a rate that has quadrupled in the last 25 years (Pew 18). Currently, a young black man without a high school diploma is more likely to be incarcerated than have a job (Pew 13). The negative impact of the drug war on the African American community is unquestionable. The evidence provided here is in no way exhaustive; it is merely a small aspect of the drug wars unique impact on the black community. A complete assessment of the impact of the war on drugs on black communities would require a much longer analysis. As one can see, the war on drugs has played a large role in both perpetuating poverty and creating intergenerational poverty. Those convicted of drug crimes face almost insurmountable barriers to economic mobility. They are discriminated against in the labor market and denied

welfare and education funding. The result is a life of limited economic mobility, and most likely a life of perpetual poverty. Furthermore, the war on drugs sentences many poor children to a life of poverty. The mass incarceration of fathers has resulted in intergenerational poverty. It has forced the children of drug offenders to grow up fatherless and in deeper poverty, and diminished their chances of a quality education, one of the most important factors in economic mobility. It has also caused massive disarray in the African American community, sending generations of young black men to prison, and leaving their children fatherless. The unintended consequences of drug prohibition have been catastrophic. We must ask ourselves if sending hundreds of thousands of people to jail, sentencing them and their children to perpetual poverty, and destroying black communities around the country is really worth the cost. Mahatma Gandhi once said, A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. If that is true, Americans better pray that they do not face judgment anytime soon.

Works Cited Allard, Patricia. Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits To Women Convicted Of Drug Offenses. The Sentencing Project, Feb. 2002. Web. 08 Dec. 2010. <http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/women_lifesentences.pdf>. Butterfield, Fox. "Parents in Prison: A Special Report: As Inmate Population Grows, So Does a Focus on Children." The New York Times [New York, New York] 7 Apr. 1999. Print. Debus, Sara, Christy Visher, and Jennifer Yahner. Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States. The Urban Institute, Oct. 2008. Web. 7 Dec. 2010. <http://www.saferfoundation.org/files/documents/Employment%20After%20Prison%20-%20urban%20institute.pdf>. Donoghue, Keith. "Casualties of War: Criminal Drug Law Enforcement and Its Special Costs for the Poor." New York Law Review 77.6 (2002): 1776-804. Print. Galston, William, and Elaine Kamarck. Putting Children First The Progressive Policy Institute, 1993 Gibbs, Terry, and Garry Leech. "Race and Class Dimensions of the War on Drugs: A Humanitarian Crisis." Rutgers University Journal of Law and Urban Policy 3.1 (2009): 62-74. Print. Latigua, John. "Former Felons Barred from Many Jobs Because of Lost Civil Rights." Palm Beach Post [Palm Beach, Florida] 10 Dec. 2006. Print. Mckernan, Signe-Mary, and Caroline Ratcliffe. Childhood Poverty Persistence: Facts and Consequences. The Urban Institute, June 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2010. <http://www.saferfoundation.org/files/documents/UrbanInstitutechild-poverty-persistence.pdf>. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010. Collateral Costs: Incarcerations Effect on Economic Mobility. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.

The United States of America. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. By Christopher J. Mumola. 2000. Print. The United States of America. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional Populations of the United States, 2010. Web. 10 Dec 2010 <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/corr2tab.cfm>. Williams, Natasha H. Where Are the Men? The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on AfricanAmerican Men and Their Children and Families. National Center of Primary Care, 2006. Web. 12 Dec. 2010. <http://www.communityvoices.org/Uploads/wherearethemen2_00108_00144.pdf>.