Disparities in Women’s Prison Sentences: Exploring the Nexus Between Motherhood,Drug Offense,and Sentence Length

Abstract

Drawing upon focal concerns and familial paternalism frameworks, we explore the effects of motherhood, various maternal indicators, and type of offense on prison sentences using official and self-report data on 419 incarcerated women in the United States. Results revealed that drug offenders were sentenced more leniently than other offenders, whereas mothers were not sentenced differently from women without children. Mothers who lived with their children received shorter prison terms than mothers who were absent prior to arrest. This study fills gaps in knowledge on discretion in punishment in light of growing rates of female imprisonment.

Keywords

sentencing women motherhood drug offenders imprisonment

Introduction

Gender disparities in sentencing have been extensively examined over the past several decades (Albonetti, 1997; Doerner & Demuth, 2014; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Steffensmeier, Kramer, & Streifel, 1993). Although most research has demonstrated that women are sentenced more leniently than men (Bontrager, Barrick, & Stupi, 2013; Rodriguez, Curry, & Lee, 2006; Spohn & Beichner, 2000; Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006), less attention has been devoted to understanding sentencing disparities among women (Tillyer, Hartley, & Ward, 2015). What is more, scholarship has largely examined in and out decisions where women more often fall along the lower end of the criminal justice spectrum (i.e., offenders with shorter criminal records, those who committed less serious offenses; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Tillyer et al., 2015). Although this group is undeniably a significant portion of offenders, we know very little about differential treatment in sentence length, notably for those sentenced to prison terms. It may be that factors that afforded some women leniency at other decision points—such as the in-and-out decision—may be weighed differently by judges when determining how long a woman will be incarcerated in prison. The rise in female imprisonment underscores the need to understand disparities in prison sentences as the ramifications of lengthy periods of incarceration are profound (Carson, 2015; Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003; Rodriguez, 2016; Turanovic, Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012).

The sentencing literature indicates that favorable treatment tends to be reserved for certain women, particularly mothers (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Daly, 1987a, 1987b, 1989; Doerner & Demuth, 2010; Embry & Lyons, 2012; Pierce & Freiburger, 2011; Spohn, 1999). Focal concerns and familial paternalism theories suggest that this effect might be a result of mothers being subjected to greater social control than women without children, thereby lowering their perceived risk of reoffending (Daly, 1987b; Kruttschnitt, 1984; Kruttschnitt & Green, 1984; Kruttschnitt & McCarthy, 1985; Steffensmeier et al., 1993; Ulmer & Kramer, 1996). As well, judges often consider the consequences for children and the expenses the state may have to assume if a mother is removed from the home, particularly if she will be incarcerated for a long period of time (Daly, 1987b; Kruttschnitt, 1984). Yet, research on how particular facets of motherhood affect sentencing is sparse (Blackwell, Holleran, & Finn, 2008; Mustard, 2001; Pierce, 2013). Maternal factors, such as number of minor children, maternal involvement prior to arrest, and history of contact with child welfare services, can complicate perceptions of a mother’s culpability, risk, and the social costs of her imprisonment.

Offense type also plays a critical role in perceptions of women by the court (Embry & Lyons, 2012; Mustard, 2001; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Steffensmeier et al., 1993). To be sure, common labels of female drug offenders as “dope whores” and “crack moms” paint these particular women as promiscuous, irresponsible, and even threatening to child well-being (Harper, Harper, & Stockdale, 2002; Rodriguez et al., 2006; Spohn, 1999; Zatz, 2000). At the same time, public support for sentencing low-level drug offenders to lengthy prison sentences is decreasing (Cullen & Jonson, 2011; Drakulich & Kirk, 2015; Sundt, Cullen, Thielo, & Jonson, 2015). Women’s ancillary roles in drug markets may also lessen their perceived culpability and risk of reoffending by the court (Maher & Daly, 1996; Miller & Carbone-Lopez, 2015; Ryder & Brisgone, 2013). In short, the interplay between motherhood, type of offense, and sentence length is complex and poorly understood.

Accordingly, we draw upon focal concerns and familial paternalism frameworks to address two primary research objectives using official and self-report data on 419 women sentenced to prison in Arizona. First, we assess whether mothers and drug offenders are sentenced differently from women without children and other offenders (i.e., violent, property, and public order offenders). Second, we focus on mothers specifically to assess the influence of number of minor children, the nature of their prior parental involvement, and contact histories with child protective services (CPS), on prison sentence length. We then examine these maternal effects separately by drug and nondrug offenders. In so doing, we contribute to the broader literature on gender, sentencing, and punishment.

Theoretical Framework

Dominant theoretical explanations used to account for gender effects in sentencing include focal concerns and familial paternalism. The focal concerns perspective maintains that judges’ decisions reflect assessments of offenders’ culpability, public safety concerns, and practical consequences of their sentences (Steffensmeier, 1980; Steffensmeier et al., 1993; Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). Familial paternalism focuses on the differential treatment of offenders based on traditional roles in the family (Daly, 1987a, 1989). According to this perspective, mothers tend to be sentenced more leniently than men and women without children because caregivers of children are not easily replaceable and mothering responsibilities are thought to reduce reoffending risk (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Kruttschnitt, 1984; Kruttschnitt & Green, 1984). Judges are also sensitive to the social costs of breaking up families (Pierce, 2013). Although these frameworks have primarily been used to explain gender differences in decisions to incarcerate (Daly & Tonry, 1997; Stacey & Spohn, 2006), they are also useful in theorizing about sentence length. Women facing prison sentences tend to have lengthy criminal records and/or convictions for serious classifications of felonies that might shape assessments of blameworthiness, dangerousness, and social costs of incarceration differently than in other punishment decisions (Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Spohn, 1999; Tillyer et al., 2015).

A large number of studies have documented the influence of maternal status on various court outcomes and most justice-involved women are mothers (Barnes & Stringer, 2014; Carson, 2015; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2012; Daly, 1987a; Freiburger, 2011; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Kruttschnitt, 2010; Spohn, 1999; Tillyer et al., 2015; West, Sabol, & Greenman, 2010). Research indicates that mothers are less likely to be sentenced to an incarceration term, and more likely to receive shorter sentences, compared with similarly situated offenders without children (Daly & Bordt, 1995; Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Koons-Witt, 2002; Spohn & Beichner, 2000; Spohn & Spears, 1997; Steffensmeier et al., 1993; Ulmer & Kramer, 1996). Familial paternalism suggests that the intersection between motherhood and sentencing is far more nuanced than simply whether or not an offender is a mother (Daly, 1987a; Freiburger, 2010; Pierce & Freiburger, 2011). That is, preferential treatment might not be afforded to all mothers, but rather granted to those fulfilling parental responsibilities in socially acceptable ways (Farrell, 2004; Pierce, 2013).

To date, only a handful of studies have explored how the enactment of parenting roles influences the sentencing decisions of women (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Freiburger, 2011; Pierce & Freiburger, 2011). There is some evidence to support the notion that judges take into account offenders’ involvement in children’s lives when rendering decisions (Pierce, 2013; Zingraff & Thomson, 1984). This is reflected in research that shows living with children is associated with reduced odds of incarceration whereas providing financial support alone is not (Freiburger, 2010, 2011). These findings may stem from traditional views of mothering in which women are expected caretakers and nurturers of children and not easily replaced (Pierce, 2013). Judges may also weigh these consequences in sentence length decisions as well in that lengthy maternal absences exacerbate social and fiscal costs associated with incarceration.

Nevertheless, women sentenced to prison are a particularly vulnerable and high-risk population (Hanlon, O’Grady, Bennett-Sears, & Callaman, 2005; Martin & Hesselbrock, 2001). These realities tend to complicate the extent and nature of involvement in children’s lives for those who are mothers. The female prison population commonly suffers from complex needs related to substance abuse, mental health, poverty and trauma, which have contributed to histories of cycling in and out the criminal justice system (Belknap, 2014; Greene, Haney, & Hurtado, 2000; Van Voorhis, 2012). National estimates indicate that less than half of mothers in prison were primary caretakers or financial providers of their children prior to arrest, and most women inmates have multiple minor children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Mothers who are thought to have “abandoned” their children while in the community are considered more blameworthy than mothers who were living with and supporting their children before arrest (Freiburger, 2010; Spohn & Beichner, 2000). Moreover, mothers who have many children are frequently described as irresponsible and a burden on tax payers—particularly women with histories of incarceration (Belknap, 2014; Berry, Smith-Mahdi, 2006). The challenges faced by these mothers also contribute to high rates of involvement with CPS as well (Genty, 1995; Greene et al., 2000; Raeder, 2006). Judges may deem mothers with a high number of children, those who fail to fulfill their parental obligations, and those with histories of involvement with child welfare, as deserving of more severe punishment than their counterparts in light of violating societal expectations of motherhood, on top of involvement in crime (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Brennan, 2009; Daly, 1987b; Freiburger, 2011; Kruttschnitt, 2010; Pierce & Freiburger, 2011; Robbins, Martin, & Surratt, 2009).

Type of offense further guides perceptions of women by the court. Although men’s imprisonment rates have stabilized or even decreased in some jurisdictions, women’s rates continue to rise (Carson, 2015). Much of the growth in female imprisonment has been tied to punitive drug laws (Bloom & Brown, 2011; Chesney-Lind, 1995; Pierce, 2013). A stereotypical image of a female drug user is inextricably linked to maternal roles in which assumptions are made about parental fitness in ways different from other types of offenders (Belknap, 2014; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2012; Freiburger, 2011; Harper et al., 2002; Mumola, 2000; Spohn, 1999). Drug-offending mothers tend to be thought of as unreliable caretakers of children and especially high-risk of child neglect, abuse, and maltreatment (Belknap, 2014; Freiburger, 2011; Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Herzog & Oreg, 2008). In one study that examined the presence of dependents on sentencing outcomes among a sample of felony drug offenders, results revealed that drug-offending mothers were punished more harshly than their female counterparts without children (Spohn, 1999). A separate study found that residing with children reduced odds of incarceration among female property offenders, while the same effect was not found among drug offenders (Freiburger, 2011). These studies suggest that mothers convicted of drug offenses are sentenced more severely than drug offenders without children and mothers convicted of nondrug offenses.

At the same time, there are growing concerns surrounding the collateral harms of incarceration, and the public is becoming less supportive of punitive laws that target drug users (Cullen & Jonson, 2011; Drakulich & Kirk, 2015; Sundt et al., 2015). Furthermore, men are often the gatekeepers of women’s entry into drug use and drug markets, which might soften perceptions of their culpability by the court (Maher & Daly, 1996; Miller & Carbone-Lopez, 2015; Ryder & Brisgone, 2013; Sterk, 1999). As such, judges might extend leniency to drug offenders relative to other types of offenders in light of shifting societal views of addiction as well as concerns over the use of resources to house these particular offenders for lengthy periods of confinement. Taken together, no study to date has fully considered the interplay between motherhood and type of offense on sentence length, particularly with respect to prison sentences. Understanding disparate outcomes among justice-involved women across the sentencing continuum is critical for advancing theory and research, as well as for informing policy.

Current Study

In the current study, we test two primary research objectives using official and self-report data from a representative sample of women incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC; N = 419). First, we assess whether women who are mothers and drug offenders are sentenced differently from women without children and nondrug offenders (i.e., violent, property, and public order offenders), net of theoretically relevant controls. We then focus on mothers only to examine the influence of maternal indicators (i.e., number of minor children, prior parental involvement, and child welfare histories) on sentence length. We also explore these relationships comparing drug and nondrug offenders.

This study is an important contribution to the literature given our inclusion of nuanced maternal measures, which allow us to empirically test the effects of motherhood on prison term length. In addition, we examine disparities in a key sentencing decision among a growing and understudied population (Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Tillyer et al., 2015). This is especially important considering the widely recognized collateral consequences of imprisonment (Arditti, 2012; Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003; Rodriguez, 2016; Turanovic et al., 2012). The ways in which discretion manifests at this particular stage of punishment is an underdeveloped area of inquiry, and thus, a major contribution of this work.

Method

Study Setting

Arizona is the setting for the current study. This state uses sentencing guidelines, which establish ranges of sentencing options based on prior record and offense seriousness. Judges retain discretion within the sentencing grid allowing for the rendering of mitigated, presumptive, and aggravated sentences. The sentences available to judges within these ranges can vary considerably and judges rely on standardized presentence reports to inform their decisions. The presentence reports are compiled by county probation departments and are comprised of uniform criteria including evidence-based criminogenic factors, risk/needs assessments, and relevant social history (Stodola, 2009). Of particular relevance to the current study, presentence reports in this state capture information regarding family status including parental involvement. Thus, judges have knowledge regarding the family circumstances of each offender prior to sentencing.

Data

To carry out this research, we use official records and self-report data gathered from a larger project on maternal and paternal incarceration in Arizona. Given our current focus, we will describe data and collection procedures specific to the female sample.¹ Official records were obtained from the ADC on 435 female inmates who were randomly identified and agreed to participate in the original study in early 2010.² These data contain measures of sentence length, current offense, criminal history, and offender characteristics. Among the 435 inmates willing to take part in the research project, those who reported being the parent of at least one biological, step, or adopted child below the age of 18 years were interviewed (n = 300).³ Therefore, the self-report data come from structured interviews with incarcerated mothers regarding their maternal roles, responsibilities, and risk factors. After excluding missing data, our final sample was comprised of 419 women sentenced to prison, which included official records and interview data collected from 288 mothers.⁴ By relying on a combination of data sources, we are able to fully explore the nexus between motherhood, drug offending, and sentence length among women inmates—an increasing segment of the justice-involved population.

Measures

Dependent variable

Sample characteristics for all women are presented in Table 1. Sentence length served as the dependent variable, reflecting the number of years an offender was sentenced to prison (M = 4.0 years). In analysis, a logged measure of sentence length was used (ln = 1.1 years).⁵

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	All women	Mothers	Women without children
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Dependent variable
Sentence length	4.0 (3.8)	3.8 (3.5)	4.5 (4.3)
Sentence length (ln)	1.1 (0.8)	1.0 (0.8)	1.2 (0.8)*
Independent variables
Maternal indicators
Mother	68.7	—	—
Number of minor children	—	2.5 (1.5)	—
Maternal involvement
Financial provider	—	3.1	—
Lived together	—	22.9	—
Financial × Lived	—	30.2	—
Uninvolved	—	43.8	—
CPS	—	34.4	—
Type of offense
Drug	32.5	30.9	35.9
Violent	19.6	18.4	22.1
Property	34.4	38.5	25.2**
Public order	13.6	12.2	16.8
Extralegal factors
Age	36.2 (9.6)	33.8 (7.5)	41.3 (11.6)***
Race/ethnicity
White	48.0	47.6	48.9
Black	11.5	11.5	11.5
Latina	31.5	32.3	29.8
Native American	9.1	8.7	9.9
Low education	66.1	70.1	57.3**
Married	14.6	15.6	12.2
Legal factors
Prior felonies	3.2 (2.2)	3.2 (2.2)	3.1 (2.4)
Offense seriousness
Felony Class 1 or 2	22.2	19.4	28.2*
Felony Class 3	29.1	31.3	24.4
Felony Class 4	32.7	31.9	34.4
Felony Class 5 or 6	16.0	17.4	13.0
Weapon used	19.3	18.4	21.4
N	419	288	131

Note. Chi-square and t tests were used to compare mothers and women without children. CPS = child protective services.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Independent variables

Multiple maternal indicators were included as key independent variables in analyses. Maternal status was measured as a dichotomous variable reflecting whether a woman reported being the mother of at least one minor child (0 = no, 1 = yes; 68.7%). Among mothers specifically, we included measures for number of minor children, prior maternal involvement, and histories of contact with CPS. Mothers reported how many of their children were below 18 years at the time of interview, which was capped at eight (M = 2.5 children). Maternal involvement focused on the month before arrest and was captured using four mutually exclusive dichotomous variables (0 = no; 1 = yes): (a) whether the mother reported that she provided primary financial support for her children (but did not live in their home, 3.1%), (b) whether the mother reported that she lived with her children (but was not providing primary financial support, 22.9%), (c) whether the mother reported that she lived with and also provided primary financial support for her children (30.2%), and (d) whether the mother reported that she neither lived with nor provided primary financial support for her children (i.e., uninvolved, 43.8%). Uninvolved mothers served as the reference category.⁶ CPS history reflected whether mothers reported ever having involvement with CPS (0 = no, 1 = yes; 34.4%).⁷

The type of offense for which women were sentenced to prison was captured from official records and measured using dummy variables for drug (32.5%), violent (19.6%), property (34.4%), and public order crimes (13.6%). In analyses, multiple reference categories were explored. This measure was subsequently collapsed to compare drug offenders and nondrug offenders.

A series of extralegal factors obtained from official records were also accounted for in analyses. Specifically, we controlled for age (M = 36.2 years) and race/ethnicity, using dummy variables for White (48%), Black (11.5%), Latina (31.5%), and Native American (9.1%), in which Whites served as the reference category. Low educational attainment indicated whether an offender received a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED) (0 = received high school diploma or GED, 1 = no high school diploma or GED; 66.1%). A dummy measure of marital status was also included (0 = not married, 1 = married; 14.6%).

We controlled for key legal factors gathered from official records as well. First, we included a continuous measure of women’s prior felony convictions (M = 3.2). In Arizona, felony classes range from one to six, with the first class being the most serious. Offense seriousness was captured using dichotomous measures reflecting the class of felony for which the offender was convicted, that is, Class 1 or 2 (22.2%), Class 3 (29.1%), Class 4 (32.7%), Class 5 or 6 (reference category, 16%). Finally, a dummy measure for use of a weapon during the commission of the crime was included (0 = no, 1 = yes; 19.3%).

Analytic Strategy

Analyses proceeded in several stages. Bivariate analyses were initially conducted to explore differences between mothers and women without children across dependent and independent variables, using t tests for continuous measures and chi-square tests for categorical measures. A series of ordinary least square (OLS) linear regression models followed. Specifically, we first examined whether maternal status and drug offense affected sentence length among all women sentenced to prison (N = 419). Next, focusing on mothers only (n = 288), we investigated the impact of maternal indicators (i.e., number of minor children, maternal involvement, and CPS history) on sentence length. Models were then estimated separately for mothers convicted of drug and nondrug offenses. Coefficients in the drug and nondrug offender models were compared using two-tailed z tests (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998). Variance inflation factor (VIF) values indicated that there were no issues with multicollinearity (i.e., 2.0 range or below). Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors are reported.⁸

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Bivariate analyses comparing mothers and women without children across dependent and independent variables are also presented in Table 1. Mothers were sentenced to significantly shorter prison terms relative to women without children. To be sure, mothers received average prison terms of 3.8 years (ln = 1.0) compared with 4.5 years among women without children (ln = 1.2). Regarding type of offense, mothers were significantly more likely to be property offenders than their counterparts (38.5% vs. 25.2%). Although slightly fewer mothers were sentenced to prison for drug, violent, and public order offenses than women without children, these differences were not statistically significant.

With respect to extralegal factors, mothers were significantly younger than women without children (33.8 years vs. 41.3 years). A substantially higher proportion of mothers also lacked a high school diploma or GED relative to women without children (70.1% vs. 57.3%). There were no significant racial and ethnic or marital status differences between groups.

In terms of legal factors, a significantly smaller proportion of mothers were convicted of a Class 1 or Class 2 felony (i.e., more serious felony offenses) than women without children (19.4% vs. 28.2%). There were no other statistically significant differences between mothers and women without children for other legally relevant measures.

OLS Regression Models

Table 2 displays the results of OLS regression models examining the effect of maternal status and drug offense on sentence length. Maternal status was not a statistically significant predictor of sentence length. That is, prison sentences were not influenced by whether a woman was a mother of a minor child.⁹

Table 2.

Maternal Status and Drug Offense on Sentence Length Among All Women.

	b	SE
Maternal status
Mother^a	−0.011	0.057
Type of offense
Drug^b	−0.217***	0.054
Extralegal factors
Age	0.009**	0.003
Race/ethnicity^c
Black	−0.110	0.080
Latina	−0.040	0.058
Native American	−0.086	0.089
Low education	−0.055	0.054
Married	−0.093	0.070
Legal factors
Prior felonies	0.036**	0.011
Offense seriousness^d
Felony Class 1 or 2	1.720***	0.084
Felony Class 3	1.177***	0.077
Felony Class 4	0.727***	0.075
Weapon used	0.311 ***	0.067
Constant	−0.215	0.142
Adjusted R²	.62
N	419

Note. CPS = child protective services.

Women without children (referent).

Nondrug offense (referent).

Whites (referent).

Felony Class 5 or 6 (referent).

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Interestingly, women who were convicted of drug offenses were sentenced more leniently than all other offenders. As shown, women received shorter sentences than those convicted of nondrug crimes (b = −0.217). This effect was consistent when drug offenders were compared with specific types of offenders as well (see Appendix A for offense type comparisons).

With the exception of age, none of the extralegal factors predicted sentence length. Older women received longer prison sentences than their younger counterparts (b = 0.009). All legally relevant factors were statistically significant and in the expected direction. Specifically, women who had a higher number of prior felony convictions received longer sentences than those with fewer prior felonies (b = 0.036). Women who committed more serious felonies were sentenced more severely than those who committed a Class 5 or 6 felony (Class 1 or 2 [b = 1.720], Class 3 [b = 1.177], Class 4 [b = 0.727]). Sentences were also longer for women who used a weapon during the commission of their offenses (b = 0.311).

Table 3 presents results of three OLS regression models that assessed the impact of maternal indicators on sentence length as well as interactions with drug and nondrug offenses.¹⁰ The first model explored key relationships of interest among all mothers. Results revealed that mothers who lived with their children prior to arrest received prison sentences that were 18% shorter than mothers who were uninvolved with their children (b = −0.179). Living with children was the only significant predictor of sentence length among the maternal indicators.¹¹ Similar to findings in the full sample of all women, mothers convicted of drug offenses were also treated leniently compared with mothers convicted of nondrug offenses (b = −0.208). That is, mothers who were drug offenders received 21% shorter sentences than mothers who were convicted of nondrug offenses. This effect also held across reference categories (see Appendix B for offense type comparisons).

Table 3.

Maternal Indicators and Drug Offense on Sentence Length Among Mothers and by Offense Type.

	Mothers		Drug offenders		Nondrug offenders		z score
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	z score
Maternal indicators
Number of minor children	0.008	0.022	−0.002	0.026	0.024	0.032	0.63
Maternal involvement^a
Financial provider	−0.058	0.184	−0.283	0.195	0.312	0.304	1.63
Lived together	−0.179*	0.084	−0.126	0.115	−0.190	0.111	−0.40
Financial × Lived	0.024	0.078	−0.001	0.105	0.049	0.103	0.34
CPS	0.056	0.067	0.040	0.102	0.077	0.088	0.27
Type of offense
Drug^b	−0.208**	0.069	—	—	—	—	—
Extralegal factors
Age	0.005	0.004	0.005	0.005	0.005	0.006	0.01
Race/ethnicity^c
Black	−0.163	0.104	−0.195	0.133	−0.137	0.143	0.29
Latina	−0.041	0.075	−0.019	0.102	−0.035	0.099	−0.11
Native American	−0.054	0.116	−0.038	0.138	−0.121	0.168	−0.73
Low education	−0.058	0.070	0.077	0.099	−0.075	0.096	−1.10
Married	−0.006	0.090	−0.049	0.113	0.037	0.125	0.51
Legal factors
Prior felonies	0.044**	0.015	0.042*	0.020	0.050**	0.021	0.06
Offense seriousness^d
Felony Class 1 or 2	1.706***	0.108	1.349***	0.145	1.853***	0.145	3.03***
Felony Class 3	1.202***	0.093	1.094***	0.136	1.250***	0.122	1.11
Felony Class 4	0.717***	0.094	0.537***	0.134	0.801***	0.122	1.88***
Weapon used	0.279***	0.085	0.373**	0.135	0.279**	0.109	−0.54
Constant	−0.132	0.189	−0.251	0.249	−0.274	0.263
Adjusted R²	.58		.67		.55
N	288		88		198

Note. CPS = child protective services.

Uninvolved mothers (referent).

Nondrug offense (referent).

Whites (referent).

Felony Class 5 or 6 (referent).

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Although none of the extralegal factors were statistically significant, all legal factors predicted mothers’ prison sentences and were in the expected direction. Mothers with extensive criminal records received significantly longer sentences compared with those with fewer prior felony convictions (b = 0.044). Mothers who committed more serious felony class offenses were punished more harshly than those who committed Class 5 or 6 felonies (Class 1 or 2 [b = 1.706], Class 3 [b = 1.202], Class 4 [b = 0.717]). Sentences were also more punitive for mothers who used a weapon when committing their offenses (b = 0.279).

The next two models examined these relationships among mothers separately by drug and nondrug offenders (also shown in Table 3). None of the maternal indicators were statistically significant predictors of sentence length in the offense-specific models. Extralegal factors also did not emerge as significant predictors of sentence length in either drug or nondrug offense models. All legally relevant factors were statistically significant and in the expected direction and results among both models were similar. For example, criminal record was positively related to sentence length for drug and nondrug offenders. More serious felony convictions as well as the use of a weapon increased the sentence lengths for mothers convicted of both drug and nondrug crimes.

To assess differential impacts of the independent variables on the sentence length decision for mothers convicted of drug and nondrug offenses, a coefficient magnitude test was conducted. The maternal indicators did not reach significance in either model, nor was the z score significant. There were statistically significant differences in the coefficients for offense seriousness measures, however. Specifically, being charged with a Class 1 or 2 felony offense (z = 3.03) and Class 4 felony offense (z = 1.88) had greater impacts on nondrug offenders’ sentences than drug offenders’ sentences.¹²

Discussion

Using focal concerns and familial paternalism as theoretical foundations, this study explored disparities in women’s prison sentences. We used a combination of official records and interview data obtained on 419 women sentenced to prison in the ADC to examine two research objectives. We first tested whether maternal status (i.e., being the parent of at least one minor child) and drug offense affected prison sentence length. Next, using a subsample of mothers, we investigated the influence of number of minor children, prior parental involvement, and CPS history on sentence length, and also examined these relationships separately for drug and nondrug offenders. In so doing, we fill gaps in knowledge regarding discretion in the punishment of women.

Several key findings emerged from our analyses. In the full model, maternal status was not a significant predictor of sentence length. Interestingly and importantly, women convicted of drug offenses received shorter prison sentences than women convicted of violent, property, and public order crimes. When analyses were restricted to mothers, those who were living with children received shorter sentences than mothers who were uninvolved with their children. The other maternal indicators did not affect sentence length in this model nor did motherhood factors matter in the offense-specific models. With few exceptions, women’s prison sentences were explained by legally relevant factors. Several broad implications can be drawn from these findings.

First, the nonsignificant effect of maternal status is consistent with a small number of studies that suggest favorable treatment by the court is not about parenthood per se (Bickle & Peterson, 1991; Freiburger, 2011; Pierce, 2013; Pierce & Freiburger, 2011). This null finding is substantively meaningful and informs theories of punishment given the decision point examined. These women had particularly lengthy criminal histories, averaging three prior felony convictions. Although prior studies suggest that mothers are often granted leniency relative to women without children in other punishment decisions (Griffin & Wooldredge, 2006; Pierce, 2013; Spohn, 1999), our findings indicate that mothers sentenced to prison are not afforded that break. From a focal concerns perspective, these women’s ongoing involvement in crime might mean that judges deem them as especially blameworthy and at risk of reoffending. As such, maternal status among this group is not given special consideration. When looking at mothers specifically, there was partial support for familial paternalism in prison sentencing. Consistent with prior research (Daly, 1987a; Freiburger, 2011), mothers who lived with their children before arrest received shorter sentences than their uninvolved counterparts (i.e., neither living with nor providing primary financial support). These mothers, while far from “traditional” in their offending histories, are closest to adhering to gender role expectations of parenthood (Daly, 1989; Farrell, 2004; Pierce, 2013; Zingraff & Thomson, 1984). That is, they reside in the home with their children, but are not solely responsible for their financial well-being. When we separated mothers by drug and nondrug offenders, the number of children, prior maternal involvement, and contact with child welfare did not matter.

Second, the negative relationship between drug offense and sentence length shows that women sentenced to prison for drug crime are viewed differently from other types of offenders. Relative to other “high-risk” women sentenced to prison, judges deemed drug offenders as deserving of less severe punishment. With respect to theory development, this finding points to potential changes in assessments of blameworthiness, dangerousness, and risks to public safety among female drug offenders by the court. After more than four decades of the “war on drugs,” there is some evidence of waning support for sending drug offenders to prison, especially for long periods of time (Cullen & Jonson, 2011).¹³ The sheer cost of corrections coupled with greater understanding of the collateral harms of incarceration play key roles in these attitudes toward punishment (Drakulich & Kirk, 2015; Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Sundt et al., 2015). As the drug epidemic continues to spread, holding the view of users as “addicts” instead of only as “criminals” is less controversial than it once was. Leniency toward drug offenders may also reflect the views of women as ancillary to men in these crimes and less culpable as a result (Miller & Carbone-Lopez, 2015; Ryder & Brisgone, 2013). At the same time, mandatory sentences remain in effect in most jurisdictions. For felony offenders with criminal histories, leniency typically means less prison time within a bounded range of incarceration term options available to judges under sentencing guidelines. As the women in our study were sentenced to prison, it was drug offenders who were afforded such leniency.

Third, our work suggests that extralegal and legal factors play out differently depending on the sentencing outcome examined. For women sentenced to prison, older offenders were punished more harshly than their younger counterparts. This finding is in contrast to previous work; however, most studies examine the in/out decision and include women less embedded in the criminal justice system (Freiburger, 2011; Spohn, 1999; Tillyer et al., 2015). Although merely speculative, judges may view older women in this high-risk group of offenders as more culpable for not “aging out” of crime. Finally, the fact that prison sentence length was largely explained by legal factors in this study is noteworthy in light of widespread concerns surrounding inequities in punishment.

Despite the strengths of this research, several caveats are in order. First, data from one state system are used; we cannot speak to whether similar patterns would emerge in other jurisdictions. Second, our sample size is limited to 419 women which included 288 mothers. We acknowledge that statistical power is a valid concern, but we balance this limitation against the theoretical contributions of this work. We further acknowledge that it is possible that some information collected from interviews may not have been presented to the judge during sentencing. Although presentence reports follow a uniform template in this state (which includes detailed social and family histories and circumstances of each offender), inconsistencies may exist in some instances. In addition, we cannot determine the roles women played in the commission of these offenses, which may explain why female drug offenders were sentenced more leniently than other types of offenders. Future studies should assess the relationships between maternal roles, responsibilities, risk factors, and type of offense on sentencing decisions in multiple jurisdictions, drawing upon larger samples. These studies should explore a range of specific offenses, maternal measures, and co-offending roles as we recognize our indicators are not exhaustive. The ways in which these factors shape court outcomes should be investigated at various decision points in that we know far too little about these relationships in the sentencing literature. We encourage researchers to continue to explore disparities in prison sentences among both women and men as lengthy incarceration terms can have damaging impacts on children, families, community stability, and re-entry success.

All things considered, the continued growth in female imprisonment is troubling particularly in the context of recent criminal justice reform efforts and increased public awareness regarding the collateral consequences of mass incarceration. The ramifications of the tough-on-crime movement are profound and exacerbated by lengthy periods of confinement mandated by existing sentencing laws. Thus, it is essential to continue to grow the knowledge base on punishment decisions in an effort to inform policy and promote the fair and effective administration of justice.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Drug Offense on Sentence Length Among All Women Comparing Specific Offense Types.

	b	SE
Violent offense^a
Drug	−0.458***	0.079
Property	−0.275***	0.081
Public order	−0.427***	0.097
Property offense^a
Drug	−0.183**	0.060
Violent	0.275***	0.081
Public order	−0.152	0.079
Public order^a
Drug	−0.031	0.079
Violent	0.427***	0.097
Property	0.152*	0.079
N	419

Note. Each model controlled for the full set of covariates.

Referent.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Appendix B

Offense Type on Sentence Length Among All Mothers.

	b	SE
Violent offense^a
Drug	−0.531***	0.098
Property	−0.320***	0.097
Public order	−0.647***	0.123
Property offense^a
Drug	−0.193**	0.074
Violent	0.320***	0.097
Public order	−0.326***	0.100
Public order^a
Drug	0.133	0.103
Violent	0.647***	0.123
Property	0.326***	0.100
N	288

Note. Each model controlled for the full set of covariates.

Referent.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Ahram Cho is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research focuses on correctional experiences and outcomes, gender, crime, and justice, and quantitative methods.

Melinda Tasca is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include correctional policy, the collateral consequences of incarceration, and the influence of gender and race/ethnicity in the criminal justice system. Her work has been published in outlets such as Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Punishment and Society.

References

Albonetti

C. A.

(1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law and Society Review, 31, 789-822.

Arditti

J. A.

(2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. New York: New York University Press.

Barnes

S. L.

Stringer

E. C.

(2014). Is motherhood important? Imprisoned women’s maternal experiences before and during confinement and their postrelease expectations. Feminist Criminology, 9, 3-23.

Belknap

(2014). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Berry

P. E.

Smith-Mahdi

(2006). Doing mothering behind bars: A qualitative study of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 29, 101-121.

Bickle

G. S.

Peterson

R. D.

(1991). The impact of gender-based family roles on criminal sentencing. Social Problems, 38, 372-394.

Blackwell

B. S.

Holleran

Finn

M. A.

(2008). The impact of the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines on sex differences in sentencing. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 38, 372-394.

Bloom

Brown

(2011). Incarcerated women: Motherhood on the margins. In Lawston

J. M.

Lucas

A. E.

(Eds.), Razor wire women: Prisoners, activists, scholars, and artists (pp. 51-66). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bontrager

Barrick

Stupi

(2013). Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender Race & Justice, 16, 349-372.

10.

Brennan

P. K.

(2009). Race and sentencing outcomes among female drug offenders in North Carolina: An exploratory consideration of earlier case processing outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 32, 77-115.

11.

Carson

A. E.

(2015). Prisoners in 2014 (NCJ 248955). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf

12.

Chesney-Lind

(1995). Crime control and ethnic minorities: Legitimizing racial oppression by creating moral panics. In Hawkins

D. F.

(Ed.), Ethnicity, race and crime: Perspectives across time and place. Albany: State University of New York Press.

13.

Chesney-Lind

Pasko

(Eds.). (2012). Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2011). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In Wilson

J. Q.

Petersilia

(Eds.), Crime and public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Daly

(1987a). Discrimination in the criminal courts: Family, gender, and the problem of equal treatment. Social Forces, 66, 152-175.

16.

Daly

(1987b). Structure and practice of familial-based justice in a criminal court. Law & Society Review, 21, 267-290.

17.

Daly

(1989). Neither conflict for labeling nor paternalism will suffice: Intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, and family in criminal court decisions. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 136-168.

18.

Daly

Bordt

R. L.

(1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12, 141-175.

19.

Daly

Tonry

(1997). Gender, race, and sentencing. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 22, pp. 201-252). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

20.

Doerner

J. K.

Demuth

(2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27, 1-27.

21.

Doerner

J. K.

Demuth

(2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts are women treated more leniently? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 242-269.

22.

Drakulich

K. M.

Kirk

E. M.

(2015). Public opinion and criminal justice reform: Framing matters. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 171-177.

23.

Embry

Lyons

P. M.

(2012). Sex-based sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7, 146-162.

24.

Farnworth

Teske

R. H.

Jr. (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing: Three hypotheses of disparity. Women & Criminal Justice, 6, 23-44.

25.

Farrell

(2004). Measuring judicial and prosecutorial discretion: Sex and race disparities in departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Justice Research and Policy, 6, 45-78.

26.

Freiburger

T. L.

(2010). The effects of gender, family status, and race on sentencing decisions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 378-395.

27.

Freiburger

T. L.

(2011). The impact of gender, offense type, and familial role on the decision to incarcerate. Social Justice Research, 24, 143-167.

28.

Genty

(1995). Termination of parental rights among prisoners: A national perspective. In Gabel

Johnston

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 167-182). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

29.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

30.

Greene

Haney

Hurtado

(2000). Cycles of pain: Risk factors in the lives of incarcerated mothers and their children. The Prison Journal, 80, 3-23.

31.

Griffin

Wooldredge

(2006). Sex-based disparities in felony dispositions before versus after sentencing reform in Ohio. Criminology, 44, 893-923.

32.

Hagan

Dinovitzer

(1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. In Tonry

Morris

(Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 26, pp. 121-162). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

33.

Hanlon

T. E.

O’Grady

K. E.

Bennett-Sears

Callaman

J. M.

(2005). Incarcerated drug-abusing mothers: Their characteristics and vulnerability. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 31, 59-77.

34.

Harper

R. L.

Harper

G. C.

Stockdale

J. E.

(2002). The role and sentencing of women in drug trafficking crime. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 101-114.

35.

Herzog

Oreg

(2008). Chivalry and the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism: Individual differences in crime seriousness judgments. Law & Society Review, 42, 45-74.

36.

Koons-Witt

B. A.

(2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40, 297-328.

37.

Kruttschnitt

(1984). Sex and criminal court dispositions: The unresolved controversy. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 21, 213-232.

38.

Kruttschnitt

(2010). The paradox of women’s imprisonment. Daedalus, 139, 32-42.

39.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

(2003). Women’s imprisonment. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 30, pp. 1-81). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

40.

Kruttschnitt

Green

D. E.

(1984). The sex-sanctioning issue: Is it history? American Sociological Review, 49, 541-551.

41.

Kruttschnitt

McCarthy

(1985). Familial social control and pretrial sanctions: Does sex really matter. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76, 151-175.

42.

Maher

Daly

(1996). Women in the street-level drug economy: Continuity or change. Criminology, 34, 465-491.

43.

Martin

M. E.

Hesselbrock

M. N.

(2001). Women prisoners’ mental health: Vulnerabilities, risks and resilience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 25-43.

44.

Miller

Carbone-Lopez

(2015). Beyond ‘doing gender’: Incorporating race, class, place, and life transitions into feminist drug research. Substance Use & Misuse, 50, 693-707.

45.

Mumola

C. J.

(2000). Incarcerated parents and their children (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

46.

Mustard

D. B.

(2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285-314.

47.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

48.

Pierce

M. B.

(2013). Examining the impact of familial paternalism on the sentencing decision: Gender leniency or legitimate judicial consideration? In Russell

(Ed.), Perceptions of female offenders (pp. 181-190). New York, NY: Springer.

49.

Pierce

M. B.

Freiburger

T. L.

(2011). Assessing the influence of familial paternalism on child neglect sentencing decisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 421-433.

50.

Raeder

M. S.

(2006). Gender-related issues in a Post-Booker federal guidelines world. McGeorge Law Review, 37, 691-756.

51.

Robbins

C. A.

Martin

S. S.

Surratt

H. L.

(2009). Substance abuse treatment, anticipated maternal roles, and reentry success of drug-involved women prisoners. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 388-411.

52.

Rodriguez

(2016). Bridging the gap between research and practice: The role of science in addressing the effects of incarceration on family life. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665, 231-240.

53.

Rodriguez

S. F.

Curry

T. R.

Lee

(2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do effects vary across violent, property, and drug offenses? Social Science Quarterly, 87, 318-339.

54.

Ryder

J. A.

Brisgone

R. E.

(2013). Cracked perspectives: Reflections of women and girls in the aftermath of the crack cocaine era. Feminist Criminology, 8, 40-62.

55.

Spohn

(1999). Gender and sentencing of drug offenders: Is chivalry dead? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 365-399.

56.

Spohn

Beichner

(2000). Is preferential treatment of female offenders a thing of the past? A multisite study of gender, race, and imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11, 149-184.

57.

Spohn

Spears

J. W.

(1997). Gender and case processing decisions: A comparison of case outcomes for male and female defendants charged with violent felonies. Women & Criminal Justice, 8, 29-59.

58.

Stacey

A. M.

Spohn

(2006). Gender and the social costs of sentencing: An analysis of sentences imposed on male and female offenders in three U.S. district courts. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 11, 43-76.

59.

Steffensmeier

(1980). Assessing the impact of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime & Delinquency, 26, 344-358.

60.

Steffensmeier

Demuth

(2006). Does gender modify the effects of race–ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 241-261.

61.

Steffensmeier

Kramer

Streifel

(1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31, 411-446.

62.

Steffensmeier

Ulmer

Kramer

(1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763-798.

63.

Sterk

C. E.

(1999.). Fast lives: Women who use crack cocaine. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

64.

Stodola

(2009). Presentence report. Retrieved from https://www.azcourts.gov/apsd/Evidence-Based-Practice/Presentence-Report

65.

Sundt

Cullen

F. T.

Thielo

A. J.

Jonson

C. L.

(2015). Public willingness to downsize prisons: Implications from Oregon. Victims & Offenders, 10, 365-378.

66.

Tillyer

Hartley

R. D.

Ward

J. T.

(2015). Differential treatment of female defendants: Does criminal history moderate the effect of gender on sentence length in federal narcotics cases? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 703-701.

67.

Turanovic

J. J.

Rodriguez

Pratt

T. C.

(2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50, 913-959.

68.

Ulmer

J. T.

Kramer

J. H.

(1996). Court communities under sentencing guidelines: Dilemmas of formal rationality and sentencing disparity. Criminology, 34, 383-408.

69.

Van Voorhis

. (2012). On behalf of women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 111-145.

70.

West

H. C.

Sabol

W. J.

Greenman

S. J.

(2010). Prisoners in 2009 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

71.

Zatz

M. S.

(2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision making: Looking toward the 21st century. Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal, 3, 503-552.

72.

Zingraff

Thomson

(1984). Differential sentencing of women and men in the USA. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 12, 401-413.