Exploring the Intersections Between Mass Incarceration and Reproductive Injustice: Implications for Critical Feminist Social Work

Abstract

The 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, rising threats to women's reproductive rights, and increasing populations of incarcerated women inspired this secondary analysis of qualitative data exploring the intersections between reproductive justice and mass incarceration. The original phenomenological study focused on women's perspectives on their interactions with law enforcement and the criminal legal system at the time of their arrests. Participants were recruited from a women's drop-in center for a three-round interview process. This secondary study revisited 13 participants’ transcripts to explore how the legal system intersected with and contributed to reproductive injustice. De-identified transcripts were analyzed using open coding and focused coding to identify themes and sub-themes. Four primary themes emerged, revealing a range of systemic inadequacies and the need for systemic reforms in the legal system: parental rights, healthcare access, economic challenges and homelessness, and systemic bias and discrimination. These findings amplify the often-overlooked voices of those with direct lived experiences, with participants clearly emphasizing the urgent need for adequate and equitable support and treatment. From a critical feminist perspective, the analysis links mass incarceration with reproductive injustice, highlighting intersecting systems of oppression.

Keywords

Reproductive justice mass incarceration critical feminist theory social work intersectionality

This secondary analysis explores the experiences of formerly incarcerated women in the context of mass incarceration and reproductive justice. Based on qualitative data collected with two co-researchers in 2022 and 2023, this new analysis was guided by the following research question: How have interactions with the legal system intersected with or contributed to reproductive injustice? A total of 13 participants’ transcripts from the original study exploring women's perspectives of their interactions with law enforcement were considered, all of whom completed a three-round interview process. The goal of this secondary analysis was to highlight the intersecting experiences of people impacted by the legal system and offer social work practitioners, researchers, and policy makers a fuller understanding of implications for progress.

Background

Mass incarceration refers to the unprecedented and disparate rise in the number of people incarcerated in the United States (US) over the last several decades, as well as the intersecting social, economic, and political systems that contribute to imprisonment (Hayes et al., 2020). The US has the world's largest prison population, and women are the fastest growing group. Between 2009 and 2018, the number of incarcerated men decreased by 7.5%, while the number of incarcerated women increased by 23% (Prison Policy Initiative, 2020). Over 3.2 million women interact with the criminal legal system each year (Geana et al., 2021), and about 75% are of reproductive age, (between 15 and 49 years old) (Peart & Knittel, 2020). In the US, most incarcerated women are mothers with minor children, and approximately 6–10% are pregnant when taken into custody (Clarke et al., 2006). Women experiencing incarceration are among the most vulnerable groups in the US (Sufrin, Oxnard, et al., 2015), and yet little research has explored their experiences and health conditions (Sufrin et al., 2019).

Mass incarceration and threats to reproductive rights extend beyond the US, impacting marginalized women globally who face increased risks when engaging with criminal legal systems. For example, in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia, rates of incarceration among women have also risen significantly, reflecting broader patterns of systemic inequality and carceral expansion (Sudbury, 2005). In Latin America, harsh anti-abortion laws disproportionately target women, while in Europe, austerity policies have weakened reproductive healthcare access for vulnerable populations (Amnesty International, 2019; Gomes et al., 2020). These examples highlight how systemic injustices perpetuate cycles of incarceration and reproductive oppression, undermining healthcare access and bodily autonomy (Butler-Mokoro & Grant, 2018; Sufrin et al., 2019).

In the US, women in carceral settings have limited choices and control related to their reproductive bodies and decision-making (Quandt & Wang, 2021). They face reduced access to reproductive healthcare, increased rates of pregnancy complications (Liauw et al., 2021), inadequate support during delivery, and separation from their newborns (Quandt & Wang, 2021). If a mother cannot arrange care for her child, the child will be placed in foster care (Sufrin, Kolbi-Molinas, et al., 2015). Federal law requires states to initiate proceedings to terminate parental rights after 15 months in foster care (Sufrin, Kolbi-Molinas, et al., 2015), and because the average length of incarceration for women is 24 months, the likelihood of losing parental rights is increased (Baradi, 2023). In all of these ways, incarceration disrupts, compromises, and undermines the core values of reproductive justice (Hayes et al., 2020).

Reproductive justice advocates for the holistic well-being of women and girls across physical, economic, political, mental, spiritual, and social dimensions (Baradi, 2023). Achieving this requires social, political, and economic power to make reproductive decisions and exercise bodily autonomy (Baradi, 2023; Sufrin, Kolbi-Molinas, et al., 2015). Developed by Black women in the early nineties, reproductive justice analyzes how intersecting oppressions disrupt reproductive rights and health (Hayes et al., 2020; Sufrin, Kolbi-Molinas, et al., 2015). These intersecting systems of oppression, including those based on race, class, age, gender, sexuality, ability, and immigration, impact women's bodily autonomy and reproductive control (Hayes et al., 2020). Pioneers like Loretta Ross have been foundational in articulating reproductive justice as an intersectional feminist framework centering marginalized communities (Ross, 2017; Ross & Solinger, 2017).

Reproductive justice acknowledges that choice is not an equitably allocated capacity allocated – there are many ways in which women's bodies are controlled, regulated, restricted, and exploited as methods of social control (Baradi, 2023; Hayes et al., 2020). Aligned with critical feminist theory, reproductive justice cannot be fully understood without also acknowledging the many social conditions that shape it, including systemic racism and mass incarceration (Hayes et al., 2020). In the US, mass incarceration disrupts the right to have children, to not have children, and to parent with safety and dignity – the core tenets of reproductive justice (Baradi, 2023; Hayes et al., 2020; Liauw et al., 2021; Sufrin, Kolbi-Molinas, et al., 2015). It perpetuates reproductive injustice by denying women access to reproductive healthcare, providing them with substandard medical care, confining them during their reproductive years, and separating them from their children (Hayes et al., 2020; Sufrin, Kolbi-Molinas, et al., 2015). In all these ways, mass incarceration and reproductive injustice are closely connected and linked to systems of oppression and the ongoing violation of human rights (Hayes et al., 2020).

Most empirical carceral research focuses on cisgender men's experiences (Ramdath & Young, 2023) or time periods prior to mass incarceration (Marquis, 2018). Even as incarceration rates for women continue to rise, their lived experiences, especially regarding reproductive rights and justice, are seldom studied (Cavanagh et al., 2022; Liauw et al., 2021). Since reproductive healthcare in US carceral settings is not standardized, it is difficult to track usage and the long-term harm caused by limited access (Gulaid & McCoy, 2022). According to Advocacy and Research on Reproductive Wellness of Incarcerated People (ARRWIP, 2023), understanding the reproductive healthcare needs of those impacted by the legal system is essential to advancing reproductive health equity. This secondary analysis contributes to the limited body of research on carceral health and reproductive justice.

Author Positionality

As an Assistant Professor of Social Work, licensed clinician, and qualitative researcher, my work is deeply rooted in understanding lived experiences, particularly within marginalized communities. My research is informed by both my academic training and my professional experiences as a forensic social worker, where I have witnessed firsthand the impacts of systemic inequalities. I approach this research with a commitment to social justice, aiming to highlight the strength and resilience of communities facing ongoing challenges related to mass incarceration and reproductive injustice. I recognize that my position as a university-based researcher, and my privileged access to education and resources, places me in a different social and professional location than many of the women I study. I also acknowledge the potential for power imbalances in the research process and aim to minimize these through reflexivity and centering the voices of those directly impacted. Informed by critical feminist perspectives, I aim to be continually mindful of the ways in which my own social location intersects with the research process.

Methodology

This secondary qualitative analysis is based on interviews completed from 2022 to 2023 with 13 formerly incarcerated women. The study aimed to explore barriers to reproductive justice, especially in the context of mass incarceration. The primary goal was to learn from the experts with lived experience to generate scholarship that informs the work of practitioners, justice organizers, policy makers, and program developers during increasing restrictions to women's rights (Artiga et al., 2022). In doing so, the author hopes to provide context related to how the legal system impacts and disrupts women's reproductive health, rights, and justice.

Study Design

Qualitative research is based on the idea that knowledge is constructed through individuals’ interactions with their social worlds (Merriam & Tisdell, 2019). This research aims to identify common themes, factors, or components related to a phenomenon to better understand the perspectives of those who have experienced it (Marques & McCall, 2005). A phenomenological approach is valuable for understanding social complexities and lived experiences, as participants from a homogenous group can reflect on shared experiences, providing subjective and objective views (Creswell, 2014; Moustakas, 1994). This approach helps capture multiple realities, perceptions, perspectives, and experiences to highlight rich and authentic knowledge of the phenomena (Astalin, 2013; Smith & Osborn, 2015).

This secondary analysis utilized data collected in 2023 by the author and two co-researchers: Jennifer Kenney and Leah Cheatham. The original qualitative phenomenological study explored women's perspectives on their interactions with law enforcement during arrests and included recorded, semi-structured interviews. The author and co-researchers completed a three-round interview process with women about their experiences with the criminal legal system and their suggestions for improving support. Two graduate students assisted with data collection and analysis under the author's supervision.

For the purpose of this secondary analysis, a total of 13 participants’ transcripts were utilized, all of whom completed the original three-round interview process. All transcripts were de-identified prior to data analysis, which included open coding, focused coding, the development of a codebook, and the identification of themes and sub-themes. The analysis was guided by the following new research question: How have interactions with the legal system intersected with or contributed to reproductive injustice?

Recruitment and Data Collection

Interviews were completed between December 2022 and August 2023. Participants were recruited from a drop-in day center for women and children and interviews were completed via Zoom. Creswell (2014) recommends 3 to 10 participants for qualitative phenomenological studies, or until saturation. This secondary study utilized transcripts from interviews with 13 participants, each of whom completed a three-interview process. Participants were screened and selected based on several inclusion criteria: all were adult women, spoke fluent English, had experienced at least one felony arrest, understood the parameters of the study, and completed the informed consent process. Interview guides and questions were provided to participants in advance.

The first interview covered project goals, demographic information, and any participant questions. The second interview explored participants’ involvement with the criminal legal system, emphasizing their perspectives and meaning making of their experiences. Participants also provided recommendations or suggestions related to criminal legal system improvement. After each interview, participants received a gift card to thank them for their time and contributions. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using Otter.ai, a transcription software. The transcripts were then corrected, cleaned, and de-identified prior to data analysis and coding.

Data Analysis

The coding process was guided by the approaches outlined by Saldana (2021) and Creswell (2014). An inductive, bottom-up approach generated codes from the data instead of using established theory to recognize codes. A multi-stage process was used, including open and focused coding, the development of a codebook, and the identification of themes. The codebook was used to review and organize quotes that aligned with the new research question: How have interactions with the legal system contributed to reproductive injustice? Several transcript reviews identified primary themes, which outlined barriers to reproductive healthcare and the impact of incarceration on women's bodily autonomy and reproductive experiences.

Ethical Considerations and Limitations

The study's validity and reliability rest on the trustworthiness and authenticity of the data collected (Creswell, 2014). The original study received California State University, Sacramento institutional review board (IRB) approval in 2022, and this secondary analysis received IRB approval in April 2024. All participants signed informed consent forms prior to the interviews. The study's limitations included a small sample size of 13 participants, recruitment from a single drop-in center, and reliance on self-reported data. These factors may limit the study's generalizability. Strategies used to address and minimize these limitations included consistent use of interview guides, gathering rich descriptions, seeking a diverse range of perspectives, and engaging in reflexivity and peer debriefing (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2019).

To enhance transferability, the author aimed to present clear findings that were understandable and applicable to a wider context (Merriam & Tisdell, 2019). The overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 has further restricted reproductive rights and access to healthcare, which now varies significantly by state (Guttmacher Institute, 2024). This shift disproportionately affects people impacted by the legal system, many of whom are of reproductive age and face heightened systemic barriers. While California offers more protections for reproductive rights than many other states, these variations underscore the urgent need to apply the study's findings across different healthcare landscapes, as they directly inform critical social work and advocacy efforts in this evolving and increasingly restrictive environment.

Finally, the terms “women” and “mother” in this paper reflect the language used by participants and in cited studies. The author recognizes that other individuals, including transgender men, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming persons, also access reproductive health care services. Pregnancy and birth, for example, are not only experienced by cisgender women, but also by trans and gender non-conforming people, who are often criminalized and over-policed (Cavanagh et al., 2022). Future studies will expand inclusion criteria to reflect this diversity.

Findings

The first interview collected demographic information, summarized in Table 1, including participants’ age, race / ethnicity, education, relationship status, sexuality, and income. Participants’ mean age was 53.15 years. Most identified as multi-racial (n = 6), while others identified as Black / African American (n = 4), Native American (n = 2), or Hispanic / Latinx (n = 1). Education levels ranged from some high school experience (n = 2), a high school degree (n = 3), some general education (GED; n = 1), a general education degree (GED; n = 1), and some college (n = 6). Most were single (n = 7), with others married (n = 2), separated (n = 2), divorced (n = 1), or widowed (n = 1). Eleven participants identified as straight (n = 11), one identified as bisexual (n = 1), and one declined to answer (n = 1). Most relied on government income sources like Supplemental Security Income (SSI; n = 3), Social Security Disability Income (SSDI; n = 3), Social Security Retirement Income (n = 2), and CalWorks (n = 3). One participant worked full-time (n = 1), and another relied on financial support from friends and family (n = 1).

Table 1.
Demographic Description of Sample (n = 13).

n Percent*

Age:

Mean in Years 53.15

Race / Ethnicity:

Multi-racial 6 46%

Black/African American 4 31%

Native American 2 15%

Hispanic/Latinx* 1 8%

Education Level:

Some High School 2 15%

High School Degree 3 23%

Some General Education [GED] 1 8%

General Education Degree [GED] 1 8%

Some College 6 46%

Relationship Status:

Single 7 54%

Married 2 15%

Separated 2 15%

Divorced 1 8%

Widowed 1 8%

Sexuality:

Straight 11 84%

Bisexual 1 8%

Declined to Answer 1 8%

Income:

Supplemental Security Income [SSI] 3 23%

Social Security Disability Income [SSDI] 3 23%

Social Security Retirement 2 15%

Government Assistance / CalWorks 3 23%

Part-time / Full-time Employment 1 8%

Friends, Family, Other Help 1 8%

Due to rounding, summed percentages within variables/categories do not all total 100%.

Specific racial information (beyond “multi-racial”) was not specified by participants.

n = 1 self-described as Hispanic/Latinx; n = 1 self-described as multi-racial & Hispanic/Latinx.

Themes

Qualitative data analysis resulted in the identification of four primary themes related to the research question: parental rights, healthcare access and disparities, economic challenges and homelessness, and systemic bias and discrimination. The following sections include a description of each theme, the definitions used by the author during coding and analysis, and direct quotes from the participants. Each theme is also organized into relevant sub-themes.

Parental Rights

The first theme, parental rights, includes individual experiences with child protective services (CPS), the justice system, and related agencies. Participants described family separation, lack of transparency, and the impact of these experiences on themselves and their families. This theme is organized into three sub-themes: challenges related to CPS, family support and barriers, and positive interactions and suggestions for improvement.

Challenges Related to CPS. Several participants expressed concerns about the fairness of their interactions with CPS. One participant said, “They didn't treat us fairly” (P1), while another explained, “My children and myself were treated very unfairly” (P13). Others described similar experiences, with one stating, “I had a bad experience, my niece has had a bad experience, my daughter has had a bad experience” (P5). Many described feeling helpless, with one participant recounting “a downward spiral, because you can't get up out of the rut, because you're being beat down into the rut continually all the time” (P13). Another added, “Until you feel like your children are being ripped from you and you're powerless because of your own ignorance, then you’ll never understand […] how painful it is and how it can make you just lose your mind” (P9).

Despite separation, participants tried to advocate for their children. One insisted on keeping siblings together, explaining, “They said they was having a hard time finding a foster family for both. They would have had to separate them. And I told them I say you're not separating my babies” (P1). However, many struggled due to lack of information, transparency, and support. One explained, “I’m very good at following rules. I just need to know the rules to follow them” (P12). Another recalled feeling unsupported during a custody battle while incarcerated: “Nobody was ever there to actually help me, be on my side, advocate for my rights to be in court, to be transferred to those court hearings, to explain documents to me” (P9).

Post-release, this lack of support continued, leaving one participant “completely out of the loop” (P9). She described the emotional impact: “You're in emotional turmoil. But then psychologically, you're confused. I didn't understand” (P9). She stressed the need for improved communication and support: “We already feel defeated that we're, that we're going through the process of losing our children. It's an even more insurmountable task to try to respond through a process of forms that we don't comprehend” (P9). Another participant added, “She never told us like what we was supposed to be doing, like classes, like the time just went by,” adding, “They’re supposed to be reunifying you” (P1). Several participants also expressed concerns about potential future interactions with CPS post-release: “You never know when it comes” (P11). These concerns influenced participants’ decisions, such as delaying medical care to avoid CPS involvement: “At the time, I was getting the twins back in my care. So I never followed through with the appointments, because I didn't want them to think that I wasn't able to take care of my kids” (P1).

These participants’ experiences reflect broader systemic issues, emphasizing the urgent need for increased transparency and advocacy within CPS processes. The quotes highlight a pattern of emotional distress and perceived powerlessness when attempting to navigate interactions with CPS. Research supports these concerns, underscoring that CPS interventions often disproportionately impact women from marginalized communities and contribute to ongoing trauma and separation from family (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016). This aligns with critical feminist perspectives on the systemic bias women face in maintaining rights within the criminal legal system (Sufrin et al., 2019).

Family Support and Barriers. Family support was crucial for several participants, but various barriers often hindered access to this support. One grandparent described caring for her grandchildren for several years while her daughter was incarcerated (P10), while another struggled to gain custody of her grandchild due to a CPS case from 17 years prior: “Even though I got clean and sober and have done nothing wrong since then, they still won't allow me to get him because I had that case” (P5). This was a common experience: “We can't get our grandchildren […] And that's pretty hard on us” (P5). CPS history often prevented family members from stepping in, highlighting the long-term impact on family support systems.

This inability to regain custody underscores the systemic barriers that disproportionately impact marginalized families, particularly when dealing with historical CPS cases. Research shows that reunification efforts often overlook the rehabilitation and progress made by parents, and instead perpetuate punitive methods (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016). Participants’ responses align with broader concerns related to the intersections between CPS and the criminal legal system and their disproportionate impact on families (Sufrin et al., 2019). They also highlight the emotional toll of separation, the lack of systemic support, and the need for more equitable family reunification processes.

Positive Interactions and Suggestions for Improvement. Despite challenges, some participants had positive experiences with CPS professionals. One participant described receiving assistance from a supportive social worker: “Whatever I couldn't figure out they would help me figure it” (P12). Another praised her drug dependency court case manager, who she stated, “really helped me” (P1). This participant stressed the importance of relationship building in these settings and contexts, stating “I still keep in contact with her” (P1). This participant noted the importance of the worker's lived experience, saying it made a “big difference” in their work together: “She was an ex-addict back in her days […] And then she ended up going into the field that she's in, and she's really good at it” (P1). These positive interactions illustrate the significant impact that supportive professionals can have.

However, participants consistently called for systemic changes: “CPS, the law, their courts and stuff need to really be fixed” (P5). Many felt that increased empathy and direct support could have helped them when navigating the system. One participant explained how the process would have been easier “if somebody was available to really just hold my hand through those processes” (P9). Empathy was a central theme, with participants emphasizing the importance of listening and understanding: “Understanding my situation, what I was going through, how young I was, you know, I got two kids” (P12). She added, “if people can walk in your shoes […] then they can see and feel how you're going through all this trauma and stress" (P12). These suggestions align with research demonstrating that rapport and relationship building in case management can improve outcomes for women impacted by the legal system (Ford et al., 2019).

Participants also called for dignity and respect, even when mistakes have been made. One said, “Everybody should be treated with dignity and respect at all times” (P2). She added, “Sometimes people make mistakes, but you should be able to have room to learn from your mistakes” (P2). This reflects broader critiques of systemic inequities in the system, particularly related to how marginalized communities are treated (Roberts, 2020). These responses also point to a need for CPS and legal system reform that centers the agency and humanity of the people who are navigating these systems (Dettlaff & Boyd, 2020).

Healthcare Access and Disparities

The second theme, healthcare access and disparities, refers to the challenges and inequities individuals face in accessing healthcare, especially within the criminal legal system. Participants described difficulties obtaining healthcare both during incarceration and in the community following periods of incarceration. Accordingly, this theme is organized into two sub-themes: inadequate healthcare during incarceration and barriers to post-release healthcare access.

Inadequate Healthcare During Incarceration. Participants shared troubling accounts of inadequate care while incarcerated. One participant with HIV described her 42-day experience in county jail, stating her health was managed “horribly” (P12). She was isolated in a cell for two weeks while waiting for a doctor, explaining, “They felt like I would infect everybody as soon as I came out the cell” (P12). She only saw a doctor “that one time in 42 days,” and added, “I think that if they could have, they would have just kept me in the cell for 42 days” (P12). Pregnant women also faced significant challenges. One participant recalled, “I got arrested while I was pregnant for one of those probation-related warrants. Went to the juvenile hall […] and I had to go to juvenile court. And then after that they transferred me over to the jail” (P9). She reflected on this time: “That's the day my juvenile stuff rolled over into my adulthood and became my new adult record” (P9).

Another described her probation officer's harsh treatment during her pregnancy, causing emotional distress: “The first time I met this man, he yells, and the second time I meet him he's trying to send me back to jail […] I was pregnant, so I'm just bawling my head off” (P5). The participant described her probation officer at the time as “determined to lock me up” and the experience as “really unpleasant” (P5). These testimonies underscore the systemic inadequacies in carceral healthcare systems, particularly for marginalized populations, including those living with HIV or those experiencing pregnancy. Research on healthcare in carceral settings aligns with these findings, emphasizing the frequent neglect of adequate reproductive and general healthcare services, especially for vulnerable groups like women and people living with chronic health conditions (Liauw et al., 2021).

Barriers to Post-Release Healthcare Access. Participants also encountered barriers to accessing healthcare post-release. Scheduled appointments could be disrupted by arrests, leading to untreated conditions: “Every time I scheduled the appointment […] I ended up being arrested” (P2). She elaborated: “So, while I'm sitting in jail, I'm suffering and I'm going through these pains” (P2). Other participants described difficulty accessing care for serious concerns like potential uterine cancer (P7). One participant talked about establishing care post-incarceration and post-partum, explaining that it took several months to schedule an appointment: “My appointment isn’t until August” (P9). Participants also identified gaps in social services: “We need counseling with the social worker, we need mental health, we need transportation” (P12). Another participant who was seeking support while pregnant described delays in receiving services from a local organization, wishing they had access sooner (P3). These responses highlight the ongoing healthcare inequities faced by people post-release, with systemic delays worsening pre-existing conditions. The need for comprehensive and accessible post-release healthcare is well documented in literature, stressing the importance of timely medical intervention and integrated social services (Sufrin et al., 2019).

Economic Challenges and Homelessness

The third theme, economic challenges and homelessness, captures the barriers and challenges faced by people impacted by the legal system, including inadequate support, biased law enforcement, and financially punitive legal environments. Housing and financial support were crucial and yet often inaccessible. This theme is organized into two sub-themes: housing instability and financial barriers.

Housing Instability. When asked to describe the largest gaps in support, a participant responded, “Housing was the biggest” (P1). Participants frequently described their experiences with homelessness: “I was homeless, I was one of the consumers […] Housing is a big, is a big issue” (P12). Participants reported long periods without housing, with one stating, “I was homeless for five years” (P4), while another noted, “I was homeless […] probably about maybe three or four years” (P5). Another participant stated, “I was homeless for 19 months” (P10), while another explained, “I've been homeless for eight and a half years” (P8). Another participant described being pregnant while experiencing homelessness: “I was homeless and pregnant” (P5).

Accessing housing programs like Section 8 provided stability for some, as one participant who experienced homelessness for three years explained: “I finally got Section 8. It's been a bit, I'm in a better space now. Yeah. I have a house, a yard, all my kids are with me” (P3). However, many faced barriers related to housing vouchers, a form of government assistance that aims to help individuals and families afford housing (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023). In the US, these vouchers typically have a limited timeframe for use, often expiring after a set period if housing isn’t secured. Time limitations and barriers related to these voucher expirations, as well as credit score requirements, hindered access to housing for participants. One explained, “The voucher was only good for 90 days and then it expired” (P1). Interactions with law enforcement also disrupted housing, as described by one participant who lost her housing following a police incident: “It took effect on me and I lost my housing. And that's what sent me to homelessness and the whole life shift changes” (P3).

Financial Barriers. Financial instability further exacerbated participants’ struggles with housing and legal issues. One participant described the high cost and inaccessibility of legal representation: “You would have to go out […] get a lawyer and pay big money in order to not have to do damn near half of your life” (P10). This is consistent with broader research indicating that access to legal representation is often limited for individuals with low incomes, disproportionately affecting marginalized populations who face longer sentences and harsher penalties (Clemens et al., 2020). Others mentioned fines and tickets for issues related to homelessness, such as jaywalking or camping on the sidewalk. One participant shared, “They keep giving people tickets for being homeless or homeless encampments, you know, or camping on the sidewalk, or jaywalking […] No way I'll ever be able to pay it back” (P13). She added, “Making sure the poor people stay poor. And the fines are so ridiculously outrageous […] People are gonna end up in jail because of the fact that they can’t pay their fines” (P13). These fines can perpetuate cycles of poverty, disproportionately target unhoused individuals who lack the financial means to comply, worsen economic disparities, and even lead to re-incarceration when nonpayment is criminalized.

Post-release, participants encountered additional challenges. One expressed frustration with the “runaround” when trying to access services (P2). Another highlighted the importance of transitional programs, rather than being released without support and being “chopped off at the knees so to speak” (P8). One participant suggested that making jail calls free could help women connect with programs prior to release: “There's people who can’t get out because they have nowhere to go, nowhere to report their probation” (P3). This shared struggle with accessing support motivated participants to assist others: “I hope that I can be available to help people get straight through to the services that they need” (P2). Overall, they emphasized the importance of financial support, accessible housing, and integrated social services that address both immediate and long-term needs. These findings align with existing literature on the structural barriers that impede financial stability for people impacted by the legal system and the need for policy reform to address economic inequities (Pager, 2007).

Systemic Bias and Discrimination

The fourth and final theme, systemic bias and discrimination, captures individuals’ experiences with unfair treatment, rights violations, and targeted harassment based on race, gender, and other identities. Participants described systemic bias and harm in their interactions with the criminal legal system, including police brutality, gender discrimination, and racism. They also discussed how these experiences eroded their trust in law enforcement. This theme is organized into three sub-themes: police brutality and gender-based discrimination, racial discrimination and differential treatment, and trust and trauma in law enforcement interactions.

Police Brutality and Gender-Based Discrimination. Participants described police officers as “aggressive” and “rough.” One participant stated, “Like this one officer […] he was like real rough. And I'm like, okay, you know, I’m a woman. I'm not a male. But it was just like, it seemed like he just had like a hate for women“ (P1). Another participant also described officers as “extremely rough” (P2). Observations of physical aggression were common, with another recounting a “really awful” incident where an officer placed his knee on a woman's throat, despite her protests that she couldn’t breathe (P10). These experiences of gender-based violence reflect broader concerns about excessive force and police brutality impacting women, and particularly women of color (Richie, 2012).

Participants reported being searched by male officers instead of female officers, in direct violation of protocol. One stated, “I've always been searched by a man, even though I know for sure I'm supposed to be searched by a woman” (P12), while another recalled feeling “groped” during a search by male officers (P2). A third participant shared a similar experience, noting that the officer was unnecessarily rough while searching her (P1). One participant who identified as a trafficking victim reported being sexually harassed and physically assaulted by officers, stating, “My experience with law enforcement in total has been absolutely horrible” (P9). She described “Sexual harassment inside, you know, in the prisons. Obviously, sexual assault outside” (P9). These participants’ stories emphasize the urgent need for the protection of women's safety and autonomy in interactions with law enforcement.

Racial Discrimination and Differential Treatment. Women of color shared their experiences of racial discrimination and differential treatment in the legal system. One participant stated, “Race plays the biggest part in this whole system” (P12), while another stated, “Some of them are very, very racist” (P10). One participant recalled different treatment between Black and white women in jail, where white women were provided with cleaner uniforms upon intake (P4). Describing the legal system as “messed up,” one participant stated, “They would rather see a Black person be gone for the rest of their lives” (P10). When discussing police brutality, another stated, “I don't believe that Black people should be shot the way they shoot them” (P5). These responses align with research consistently showing that the legal system disproportionately affects people of color and reinforces systemic oppression and inequities (Richie, 2012).

Participants also described differential treatment based on intersections between social identities, like race and economic status: “I think white women get treated differently […] and they had their white families representing them. Showing up to court for them. Yeah. You know, and my people showing up to court were Brown” (P8). Another echoed, “Because we are low, low-income Black people, that's how we get treated” (P10). When another participant was asked if they think any of her identities impacted how police treated her, she responded, “Yes, especially my age and ethnicity. Me being a woman” (P12). Another described bias related to criminal records: “I totally believe that I was treated different because I had a criminal record” (P9). As Crenshaw's (1989) intersectionality framework suggests, multiple axes of identity compound these challenges and create additional barriers to justice.

Trust and Trauma in Law Enforcement Interactions. Participants described a deep mistrust of law enforcement due to past experiences. One stated, “You want to stay as far away from any type of law enforcement because you never know, you know, what they're going to do” (P10). She added, “Nothing is ever okay when it comes to the law” (P10). Another participant recounted a traumatic traffic stop where police drew guns on her and her young children: “Please don't point that gun towards my kids…they’re just babies in their car seats” (P1). Many participants described ongoing trauma from their interactions with law enforcement. One reported to experiencing fear and anxiety during any encounter with police: “You feel like every time you see that person, or that car, or black and white, you feel intimidated” (P7). This participant described a recent traffic stop, stating, “I was shaking so bad […] if he only knows how traumatized I’ve been in the past […] My heart was beating out of my chest” (P7). She added, “I haven’t been in trouble in over 30 years […] but I still suffer with that trauma” (P7). She explained the uncertainty and potential for harm: “You get the wrong one, and he's not even just gonna ruin his day, he's gonna ruin your day and maybe, possibly, take your life” (P7).

Participants also highlighted how lack of information, communication, and knowledge about rights contributed to mistrust. One stated, “We supposed to be able to trust them, you know, and I feel like they try to take advantage of you if you don't know your rights” (P2). She added, “And I'm, I'm trying to figure it out. But it's like, nobody wants to tell me anything” (P2). These experiences echo broader systemic issues related to law enforcement exploiting knowledge gaps, especially among vulnerable populations, which only further erodes trust (Tyler, 2005).

Participants also suggested improvements, such as involving social workers in police interactions to provide support: “I think it would be better for a social worker to talk to the person. Kind of less threatening I feel. At least it would be for me” (P8). Others described the importance of empathy and understanding: “Have an understanding about what's going on with us […] If they have more understanding, I don't think a lot of the mess would be going on” (P5). These recommendations are consistent with research that highlights the value of trauma-informed and restorative approaches to build trust between communities and law enforcement (Patterson, 2019). The importance of women supporting each other was also emphasized: “It's very important that women support women. No matter what you do in your life, whether you're a police officer, whether you're CPS, we need to support each other. Especially when we're going through something” (P12).

Discussion

This secondary analysis highlights the intersecting experiences of formerly incarcerated women, particularly within the contexts of mass incarceration and reproductive injustice. The findings highlight systemic inadequacies that demand urgent reforms in areas like protection of parental rights, freedom from violence, and access to housing, healthcare, and legal assistance. These issues are closely linked to social work practice and theory, particularly through intersectional and critical feminist perspectives.

Ethics and Challenges for Forensic Social Work

The findings from this study shed light on the tensions that arise when attempting to apply social work values and ethics in carceral settings. Social workers are committed to values like justice, self-determination, and dignity of all people (NASW, 2021). However, these values are often challenged within systems that operate on control, punishment, and surveillance. Several participants in this study shared experiences with CPS and the legal system that highlighted systemic inequities and barriers to reproductive justice, including those related to parenting, accessing reproductive healthcare, and maintaining bodily autonomy. Social workers practicing in these settings are tasked with navigating these ethical dilemmas – we advocate for human rights while working within systems that consistently undermine them. This study highlights the importance of this ethical obligation to challenge systems of oppression while advocating for systemic change (Butler-Mokoro & Grant, 2018).

Intersectionality and Critical Feminist Perspectives

Critical feminist theory emphasizes women's empowerment, challenges power imbalances, and calls for systemic reforms that center the rights and experiences of marginalized communities (Eyal-Lubling & Krumer-Nevo, 2016). Integrating intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989), it explains how overlapping systems of oppression shape women's experiences in the criminal legal system. This study provides various examples of the system disproportionately impacting women of color and low-income women, limiting their ability to access resources and maintain bodily and parental autonomy. For many participants, their gender, race, and socioeconomic status further compounded their challenges and experiences of reproductive injustice.

Research demonstrates how the US criminal legal system disproportionately impacts oppressed groups, both reflecting and reproducing structural and intersecting inequalities related to gender, race, and class (Butler-Mokoro & Grant, 2018). Black women, for example, are imprisoned twice as often as white women (Sufrin et al., 2019). These overlapping forms of oppression not only impact experiences, but also function as social determinants of health (Baradi, 2023). Social workers who adopt a critical feminist perspective must engage with these intersectional realities, working to dismantle the systems that perpetuate them, as Fong (2021) emphasizes in their call for abolition as a means to address systemic racism within social work. This requires advocacy not only within micro level clinical social work practice, but also in macro level policy development, where intersectional feminist insights are needed.

Abolition and Reproductive Justice

Reproductive justice and critical feminist theory recognize the inequitable distribution of reproductive choices, with many denied the right to make decisions about their bodies (Hayes & Gomez, 2022; Shankar et al., 2020). Women's bodies are often regulated and exploited as a method of social control, and incarceration exemplifies this, disrupting and undermining fundamental tenets of reproductive justice and perpetuating health disparities (Novisky et al., 2021). As findings from this study demonstrate, women impacted by the legal system lack access to reproductive rights and services both during and after incarceration, leading to a range of health issues and increased vulnerability (Clarke et al., 2006; Geana et al., 2021; Liauw et al., 2021).

Since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, women's rights have faced increasing and varied restrictions across the US (Guttmacher Institute, 2024). Global organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) have called for the protection of reproductive and sexual rights, particularly for marginalized populations like women experiencing incarceration (Liauw et al., 2021; WHO, 2024). As access to services decline and health risks rise for those impacted by the legal system, advocates have called for measures like diversion programs, early release for women experiencing pregnancy, or complete abolition of carceral systems to ensure reproductive autonomy (Davis, 2022; Hayes & Gomez, 2022; Paynter & Heggie, 2023).

Reproductive justice aligns closely with feminist and abolitionist frameworks, which call for the dismantling of systems that control and exploit women's bodies. Participants in this study described how incarceration and CPS interactions stripped them of autonomy, separated them from their children, and restricted their access to reproductive healthcare. These systemic violations highlight the need for abolitionist approaches that seek to replace carceral systems with community-based alternatives. Social workers, as advocates for social justice, are well-positioned to engage in abolitionist principles and advocate for the right of all individuals to parent and make reproductive decisions free from state control (Hayes & Gomez, 2022).

Implications for Social Work Practice and Research

The findings from this study provide important insights for social work practice, particularly in carceral and statutory settings. Social workers must navigate the tensions between upholding ethical values and working within systems that often contradict these values. Feminist-informed social work provides a framework to critically examine power structures, advocate for systemic reform, and prioritize the lived experiences of marginalized individuals. In practice, social workers should prioritize trauma-informed care, recognizing the intersectional oppression that women face within the legal system. Policy makers and practitioners must advocate for systemic changes that protect women's rights, promote family reunification, and provide access to integrated social and reproductive healthcare services. Additionally, social work research must continue to explore the intersections between abolition, feminist theory, and reproductive justice, further strengthening the connection between social work and broader social justice movements.

Summary

This analysis highlights how mass incarceration perpetuates reproductive injustice through intersecting systems of oppression. Through a critical feminist lens, this study amplifies the voices of formerly incarcerated women, underscoring the urgent need for systemic reform and equitable support. These insights offer social work practitioners, researchers, and policy makers in community and criminal legal settings a fuller understanding of the systemic challenges faced by individuals impacted by the legal system. The author hopes this work will encourage further research and coordinated efforts to ensure reproductive justice and transformative change.

	n	Percent*
Age:
	Mean in Years	53.15
Race / Ethnicity:
	Multi-racial**	6	46%
	Black/African American	4	31%
	Native American	2	15%
	Hispanic/Latinx***	1	8%
Education Level:
	Some High School	2	15%
	High School Degree	3	23%
	Some General Education [GED]	1	8%
	General Education Degree [GED]	1	8%
	Some College	6	46%
Relationship Status:
	Single	7	54%
	Married	2	15%
	Separated	2	15%
	Divorced	1	8%
	Widowed	1	8%
Sexuality:
	Straight	11	84%
	Bisexual	1	8%
	Declined to Answer	1	8%
Income:
	Supplemental Security Income [SSI]	3	23%
	Social Security Disability Income [SSDI]	3	23%
	Social Security Retirement	2	15%
	Government Assistance / CalWorks	3	23%
	Part-time / Full-time Employment	1	8%
	Friends, Family, Other Help	1	8%

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This secondary analysis utilized qualitative data collected in 2023 by the author and two co-researchers. The author hired and supervised two IRB-approved graduate student assistants from the CSUS Master of Social Work program in 2023 to assist with some aspects of literature review and data collection and analysis for the original study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Frances Furio

Author Biography

Frances Furio, PsyD, LCSW (she/her) is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). As an instructor, licensed clinician, and qualitative researcher, she is interested in understanding people's lived experiences and highlighting the strength and resiliency of communities that continue to face barriers and injustice. She is passionate about the promotion of equity, inclusion, and peaceful and progressive social work practice. Her research primarily explores reproductive in/justice in the context of mass incarceration.

References

Advocacy and Research on Reproductive Wellness of Incarcerated People (ARRWIP). (2023). Working with key stakeholders, including directly impacted people and policy makers. ARRWIP. https://arrwip.org/

Amnesty International. (2019). Europe: Addressing the impact of austerity measures on women’s reproductive rights. Amnesty International.

Artiga

Hill

Ranji

Gomez

(2022). What are the implications of the overturning of Roe v. Wade for racial disparities? Racial Equity and Health Policy. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/what-are-the-implications-of-the-dobbs-ruling-for-racial-disparities/

Astalin

P. K.

(2013). Qualitative research designs: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Social Science, 2(1), 118–124.

Baradi

(2023). Advocating for abolition in health law: A theory and praxis to liberate Black incarcerated women. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 51(1), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.56

Butler-Mokoro

Grant

(2018). Feminist perspectives on social work practice: The intersecting lives of women in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.

Cavanagh

Shamsheri

Shen

Gaber

Liauw

Vanstone

Kouyoumdjian

(2022). Lived experiences of pregnancy and prison through a reproductive justice lens: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Social Science and Medicine, 307, Article 115153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115179

Clarke

J. G.

Hebert

M. R.

Rosengard

Rose

J. S.

DaSilva

Stein

M. D.

(2006). Reproductive health care and family planning needs among incarcerated women. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 834–839. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.060236

Clemens

Hamilton

Myers

(2020). The economic consequences of bail, fines, and fees in the US justice system. Brookings Institution.

10.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1998(1), 139–167.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

12.

Davis

M. F.

(2022). The state of abortion rights in the US. Ethical and Legal Issues in Reproductive Health, 159(1), 324–329.

13.

Dettlaff

A. J.

Boyd

(2020). Racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system. Child Welfare, 99(3), 21–42.

14.

Eyal-Lubling

Krumer-Nevo

(2016). Feminist social work: Practice and theory of practice. National Association of Social Workers, 61(3), 245–254.

15.

Fong

(2021). From social justice to abolition: Living up to social work’s grand challenge of eliminating racism. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 31(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2021.1939875

16.

Ford

Lawlor

Henning

(2019). Trauma-informed case management with justice-involved populations. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22120

17.

Geana

M. V.

Anderson

Lipnicky

Wickliffe

J. L.

Ramaswamy

(2021). Managing technology, content, and user experience: An mHealth Intervention to improve women’s health literacy after incarceration. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 32(2), 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2021.0053

18.

Gomes

L. C.

Ortega

Santana

(2020). Women and imprisonment in Latin America: The case of Argentina and Mexico. Social Justice Journal, 47(2), 156–175.

19.

Gulaid

McCoy

E. F.

(2022). Reproductive healthcare in carceral facilities: Identifying what we know and opportunities for further research. Justice Policy Center.

20.

Guttmacher Institute (2024). Interactive map: U.S. abortion policies and access after roe. https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/

21.

Hayes

C. M.

Gomez

A. M.

(2022). Alignment of abolition medicine with reproductive justice. AMA Journal of Ethics, 24(3), E188–E193. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2022.188

22.

Hayes

C. M.

Sufrin

Perrit

J. B.

(2020). Reproductive justice disrupted: Mass incarceration as a driver of reproductive oppression. American Journal of Public Health, 110(51), S21–S24. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305407

23.

Liauw

Jurgutis

Nouvet

Dineley

Kearney

Reaka

Fitzpatrick-Lewis

Peirson

Kouyoumdjiam

(2021). Reproductive healthcare in prison: A qualitative study of women’s experiences and perspectives in Ontario, Canada. PloS One, 16(5), e0251853. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251853

24.

Marques

McCall

(2005). The application of interrater reliability as a solidification instrument in a phenomenological study. The Qualitative Report, 10(3), 439–462.

25.

Marquis

(2018). “Nothing less than the dignity of man”: Women prisoners, reproductive health, and unequal access to justice under the eighth amendment. California Law Review, 106(1), 203–230.

26.

Merriam

Tisdell

E. J.

(2019). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage Publications.

28.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2021). Code of ethics. NASW.

29.

Novisky

M. A.

Nowotny

K. M.

Jackson

D. B.

Testa

Vaughn

M. G.

(2021). Incarceration as a fundamental social cause of health inequalities: Jails, prisons and vulnerability to COVID-19. The British Journal of Criminology, 61, 1630–1646. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab023

30.

Pager

(2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. University of Chicago Press.

31.

Patterson

G. T.

(2019). Trauma-informed policing: A model for integrating trauma-informed approaches into law enforcement practices. Social Work, 64(2), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12500

32.

Paynter

Heggie

(2023). Distance between institutions of incarceration and procedural abortion facilities in Canada. Contraception, 122, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2023.07.001

33.

Peart

M. S.

Knittel

A. K.

(2020). Contraception need and available services among incarcerated women in the United States: A systematic review. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine, 5(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-020-00105-w

34.

Prison Policy Initiative. (2020). A look at the rising incarceration rate of women. Giving Compass. https://givingcompass.org/article/a-look-at-the-rising-incarceration-rate-of-women?gclid=CjwKCAjw38SoBB6EiwA8EQVLo1K9PajxCRATU8xfeZK1V-PAPcVcQqWhRrj45N9N0pLEzxIom1LvRoCiosQAvD_BwE

35.

Quandt

K. R.

Wang

(2021). Recent studies shed light on what reproductive “choice” looks like in prisons and jails. Prison Policy Initiative.

36.

Ramdath

Young

(2023). Transforming prisons through research: An agenda for sweeping reform. The Urban Institute.

37.

Richie

B. E.

(2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. NYU Press.

38.

Roberts

(2020). Torn apart: How the child welfare system destroys black families – and how abolition can build a safer world. Basic Books.

39.

Ross

(2017). Reproductive justice as intersectional feminist activism. Souls, 19(3), 286–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999949.2017.1389634

40.

Ross

Solinger

(2017). Reproductive justice: An introduction. University of California Press.

41.

Saldana

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.

42.

Shankar

Williams

McClintock

A. H.

(2020). True choice in reproductive care: Using cultural humility and explanatory models to support reproductive justice in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(4), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2020.1776645

43.

Smith

Osborn

(2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain, 9(1), 41–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2049463714541642

44.

Sudbury

(2005). Global lockdown: Race, gender, and the prison-industrial complex. Routledge.

45.

Sufrin

Beal

Clarke

Jones

Mosher

(2019). Pregnancy outcomes in U.S. prisons, 2016-2017. American Journal of Public Health, 109(5), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305006

46.

Sufrin

Kolbi-Molinas

Roth

(2015). Reproductive justice, health disparities and incarcerated women in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 47(4), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1363/47e3115

47.

Sufrin

Oxnard

Goldenson

Simonson

Jackson

(2015). Long-acting reversible contraceptives for incarcerated women: Feasibility and safety of on-site provision. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 47(4), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1363/47e5915

48.

Tyler

T. R.

(2005). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271105

49.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2023). Housing choice vouchers fact sheet. US Department of Housing and Urban and Development.

50.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2024). Joint UN statement calling for sexual and reproductive health and rights for all. WHO: Sexual and Reproductive Health Research.