As the pendulum swings away from mass incarceration, feminist criminologists must be alert to the ways in which forms of invisible punishment continue to oppress and marginalize crime-processed women. Institutional ethnography is a mode of inquiry that examines work processes and how they are coordinated, often through texts and discourses. Through illustrative examples from a sample of formerly incarcerated women in post-realignment California, we demonstrate institutional ethnography’s importance as a feminist research tool that places the reentry work of crime-processed women in conversation with the invisible punishments imposed on them after and in lieu of incarceration.
AcocaL. (1998). Defusing the time bomb: Understanding and meeting the growing health care needs of incarcerated women in America. Crime & Delinquency, 44, 49-69.
2.
ArdittiJ.FewA. (2006). Mothers’ reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 103-123.
3.
BeckettK.MurakawaN. (2012). Mapping the shadow carceral state: Toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theoretical Criminology, 16, 221-244.
4.
BelknapJ. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
5.
BergsethK. J.JensK. R.Bergeron-VigesaaL.McDonaldT. D. (2011). Assessing the needs of women recently released from prison. Women & Criminal Justice, 21, 100-122.
6.
BrownM.BloomB. (2009). Reentry and renegotiating motherhood: Maternal identity and success on parole. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 313-336.
7.
Brown v. Plata 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011)
8.
BurawoyM. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16, 4-33.
9.
Bush-BasketteS. (1998). The war on drugs is a war against Black women. In MillerS. (Ed.), Crime control and women: Feminist implications of criminal justice policy (pp. 113-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2012). Public safety realignment. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/realignment/
11.
CampbellM. (2008). (Dis)continuity of care: Explicating the ruling relations of home support. In DeVaultM. (Ed.), People at work: Life, power, and social inclusion in the new economy (pp. 266-288). New York: New York University.
12.
CampbellM.GregorF. (2004). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
13.
CarsonE.GolinelliD. (2013). Prisoners in 2012. (NCJ 243920). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
14.
Chesney-LindM. (2002). Criminalizing victimization: The unintended consequences of pro-arrest policies for girls and women. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 81-90.
15.
Chesney-LindM. (2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1, 6-26.
16.
CohenS. (1979). The punitive city: Notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crises, 3, 339-363.
17.
ConnollyD. (2000). Homeless mothers: Face to face with women and poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
18.
CovingtonS.BloomB. (2006). Gender responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women & Therapy, 29, 9-33.
19.
de MontignyG. (1995). Social working: An ethnography of front-line practice. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto.
20.
DeVaultM. (2006). Introduction: What is institutional ethnography?Social Problems, 53, 294-298.
21.
DeVaultM. (Ed.). (2008). People at work: Life, power, and social inclusion in the new economy. New York: New York University.
22.
DeVaultM.McCoyL. (2006). Institutional ethnography: Using interviews to investigate ruling relations. In SmithD. (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 15-44). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
DiamondT. (1992). Making grey gold: Narratives of nursing home care. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
24.
FramptonC.KinsmanG.ThompsonA.TilleczekK. (Eds.). (2006). Sociology for changing the world: Social movements/social research. Black Point, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Press.
25.
GlazeL.BonczarT. (2007). Probation and parole in the United States, 2006. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
26.
GrahameP. (1998). Ethnography, institutions, and the problematic of the everyday world. Human Studies, 21, 347-360.
27.
GriffithA. (1995). Mothering, schooling, and children’s development. In CampbellM.ManicomA. (Eds.), Knowledge, experience, and ruling relations: Studies in the social organization of knowledge (pp. 108-121). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto.
28.
GriffithA.André-BechelyL. (2008). Institutional technologies: Coordinating families and schools, bodies, and texts. In DeVaultM. (Ed.), People at work: Life, power, and social inclusion in the new economy (pp. 40-56). New York: New York University.
29.
HaneyL. (2010). Offending women: Power, punishment, and the regulation of desire. Berkeley: University of California.
30.
Hannah-MoffatK.YuleC. (2011). Gaining insight, changing attitudes, and managing “risk”: Parole release decisions for women convicted of violent crimes. Punishment & Society, 13, 149-175.
31.
HeslinK.SingzonT.AimiuwuO.SheridanD.HamiltonA. (2012). From personal tragedy to personal challenge: Responses to stigma among sober living home residents and operators. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(3), 379-395.
32.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM.MorashM. (2004). Poverty, state capital, and recidivism among women offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 185-208.
33.
JasonL.OlsonB.FerrariF.Lo SassoA. (2006). Communal house settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1727-1729.
34.
KrisbergB.Taylor-NicholsonE. (2011). Criminal justice realignment: A bold new era in California corrections. Berkeley, CA: Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy.
LeverentzA. (2006). The love of a good man? Romantic relationships as a source of support or hindrance for female ex-offenders. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 43, 459-488.
37.
LeverentzA. (2011). Being a good daughter and sister: Families of origin in the reentry of African American female ex-prisoners. Feminist Criminology, 6, 239-267.
38.
LynchM. (2001). From the punitive city to the gated community: Security and segregation across the social and penal landscape. University of Miami Law Review, 56, 89-112.
39.
MaeveM. K. (1999). Adjudicated health: Incarcerated women and the social construction of health. Crime, Law and Social Change, 31, 49-71.
40.
MauerM. (2013). The changing racial dynamics of women’s incarceration. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
41.
MauerM.Chesney-LindM. (Eds.). (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York, NY: The New Press.
McMahonM. (1995). Engendering motherhood: Identity and self-transformation in women’s lives. New York, NY: Guilford.
44.
MehtaS. (2013, August2). L.A. County officials fear crime, costs because of jail decision. Los Angeles Times. Available from http://www.latimes.com
45.
MertonR.BarberE. (1976). Sociological ambivalence. In MertonR. (Ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Free Press.
46.
MillerP.RoseN. (2008). Governing the present. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
47.
MorashM. (2010). Women on probation and parole: A feminist critique of community programs and services. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.
48.
NgR. (1996). The politics of community services: Immigrant women, class and state (2nd ed.). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
49.
O’BrienP. (2001). “Just like baking a cake”: Women describe the necessary ingredients for successful reentry after incarceration. Families in Society, 82, 287-295.
50.
OwenB.BloomB. (1995). Profiling the needs of California’s female prisoners: A needs assessment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
51.
OwenB.MobleyA. (2012). Realignment in California: Policy and research implications. Western Criminology Review, 13, 46-52.
52.
PenceE. (2001). Safety for battered women in a textually mediated legal system. Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 7, 199-229.
53.
PenceE.McMahonM. (1997). A Coordinated community response to domestic violence. Available from www.praxisinternational.org
54.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University.
55.
PetersiliaJ.SnyderJ. (2013). Looking past the hype: 10 questions everyone should ask about California’s prison realignment. California Journal of Politics & Policy, 5(2), 266-306.
56.
PorterN. (2013). The state of sentencing: Developments in policy and practice. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
57.
PorterR. (2010). Diversion programs. In GideonL.SungH. E. (Eds.), Rethinking correction: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration (pp. 129-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
PotterH. (2006). An argument for Black feminist criminology: Understanding African American women’s experiences with intimate partner abuse using an integrated approach. Feminist Criminology, 1, 106-124.
RichieB. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 368-389.
61.
SchramP.Koons-WittB.WilliamsF.McShaneM. (2006). Supervision strategies and approaches for female parolees: Examining the link between unmet needs and parolee outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 450-471.
62.
SchurE. (1983). Labeling women deviant: Gender, stigma, and social control. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
63.
SévignyC. (2012). Starting from refugees themselves: Towards an institutional ethnography of resettlement. Geneva, Switzerland: The United Nations Refugee Agency, Policy Development, and Evaluation Service.
64.
SmithD. (1974). Women’s perspective as a radical critique of sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 44, 7-13.
65.
SmithD. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.
66.
SmithD. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
67.
SmithD. (1996). Contradictions for feminist social scientists. In GottfriedH. (Ed.), Feminism and social change: Bridging theory and practice (pp. 46-59). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
68.
SmithD. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
SmithD.GriffithA. (1990). Coordinating the uncoordinated: Mothering, schooling, and the family wage. Perspectives on Social Problems, 2, 25-43.
71.
SmithS.LipskyM. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
72.
Social Security Administration Website. (2013). Available from http://ssa.gov
73.
SpencerJ.PetersiliaJ. (2013). Voices from the field: California victims’ rights in a post-realignment world. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25, 226-232.
74.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
75.
TravisJ. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In MauerM.Chesney-LindM. (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15-36). New York, NY: The New Press.
76.
United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services Website. (2013). Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic
77.
WacquantL. (2010). Prisoner reentry as myth and ceremony. Dialectical Anthropology, 34, 605-620.
78.
WesternB.PettitB. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8-19.
79.
WiderbergK. (2004). Institutional ethnography: Towards a productive sociology—An interview with Dorothy Smith. Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, 12(2), 179-184.
80.
WilsonA.PenceE. (2006). U.S. legal interventions in the lives of battered women: An indigenous assessment. In SmithD. (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice (pp. 199-226). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
