Why Correctional Service Providers and Researchers Should Focus on Intersectionality and Recommendations to Get Started

• DOI: 10.1177/00938548221074369
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 6, June 2022, 930 –946.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221074369

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

930

WHY CORRECTIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

AND RESEARCHERS SHOULD FOCUS ON

INTERSECTIONALITY AND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GET STARTED

ASHLEY B. BATASTINI

The University of Memphis

ASHLEY C. T. JONES

The University of Southern Mississippi

MEERA PATEL

SARAH M. PRINGER

The University of Memphis

Across disciplines, there has been increased attention to understanding and addressing compounded oppression and margin-

alization associated with intersecting identities. We argue that involvement with the criminal justice system can, in itself,

represent an identity (self-ascribed or not) that interplays with other demographic and systemic variables, making it more

difficult for these clients to disconnect from the system. We offer our perspective on integrating conversations and tools

focused on intersectionality into assessment and interventions that address criminogenic risks, recommendations for adopting

a mixed-methods approach to researching intersectionality in correctional settings that better accounts for individual vari-

ability, as well as suggestions for advocacy, policy reform, and graduate-level training. With its emphasis on diversity and

multiculturalism, health service psychology and related professions are uniquely poised to help correctional agencies move

in a more inclusive direction that will likely improve client well-being and prosocial reengagement as well as reduce contin-

ued systemic oppression.

Keywords: intersectionality; justice-involved; diversity; correctional psychology

“Intersectionality” has become a popularized term in social justice advocacy that describes

multilayered experiences of discrimination that result when an individual’s collective

identity is comprised of two or more (typically nonmajority) characteristics or identity

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We have no interests to disclose. Dr. Ashley B. Batastini is a first-generation college

graduate, cisgender, White woman who earned her PhD in counseling psychology in 2015 and is a tenure-track

assistant professor. Ashley C. T. Jones is a first-generation college graduate, cisgender, White woman. Meera

Patel is a cisgender, second-generation Indian American woman. Sarah M. Pringer is a first-generation col-

lege graduate, cisgender, mixed race/ethnicity (White and Filipino American) woman. A.C.T.J., M.P., and

S.M.P. are counseling psychology doctoral students under the advisement and mentorship of. A.B.B. All

authors are dedicated to efficacious, culturally informed, and humane care of people who are in contact with

the criminal justice system.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ashley B. Batastini,

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology & Research, The University of Memphis, 100 Ball Hall,

Memphis, TN 38152; e-mail: Ashley.batastini@memphis.edu.

1074369CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221074369Criminal Justice and BehaviorBatastini et al. / Intersectionality in Corrections

article-commentary2022

Batastini et al. / INTERSECTIONALITY IN CORRECTIONS 931

categories. Intersectionality theory considers the complex and multiplicative ways in which

discriminatory stereotypes can impede the fair and just treatment of an individual or group

(Hester et al., 2020). These multiple biological, social, and/or cultural identities can com-

bine in unique ways to increase the potency of marginalization (see Crenshaw, 1989).

There are perhaps few other groups that exemplify the existence of intersectionality more

than those who are involved in the criminal justice system1; yet, these individuals are less

often at the center of discussions on marginalization and oppression in clinical work. When

they are, the focus tends to be predominantly on issues of race or ethnicity while ignoring

other relevant sociocultural and labeling barriers. Racial disparities in the criminal justice

system are inarguably important. As a glaring example, an estimated one in three Black men

will be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime compared with only one in 17 White men

(see American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.), and Black people tend to receive harsher sen-

tences than their White counterparts (Franklin, 2018). We have also seen racism become

center stage once again with the unjust police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and

Adam Toledo, among many other people of color. Race and ethnicity, however, are pieces

of a much larger puzzle. For example, justice-involved persons are also poorer (Rabuy &

Kopf, 2015), less educated (Western et al., 2003), and have a higher prevalence of mental

illness (Prins, 2014) than the general population despite research consistently showing

mental illness is not a primary predictor of crime or violence (Bolaños et al., 2020; Bonta

et al., 1998). Regarding gender, some scholarship suggests reentry for justice-involved

women is particularly difficult due to intersectional vulnerabilities, including economic dis-

advantage, racism, and sexism (Wesley & Dewey, 2018). Thus, understanding the impacts

of intersectionality among justice-involved populations requires consideration of a multi-

tude of characteristics and circumstances.

Still, for many people who are justice-involved, the most damaging part of their identity

composition is having a criminal record. Being an “ex-con” is associated with immense

challenges and discriminatory practices, including problems securing employment and

being denied a voice in choosing elected officials. Using employment outcomes as an

example, many returning residents remain jobless within the first year of their release. A

2011 study reported a 35% unemployment rate for people who had been released from

prison 8 months (Visher et al., 2011); the average national unemployment rate for that same

year was only 8.9% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012). Consider how

the inherent consequences of a criminal identity or label2 could be multiplied for a woman

of color, a person from diverse sexual or gender communities, a veteran, someone with

psychiatric risks, or myriad other identities and combinations thereof that are likely to

engender faulty assumptions and stereotypical judgments.

It is important to acknowledge that individuals who become seriously involved in the

criminal justice system typically do so for a reason and should be held accountable for their

behavioral choices—choices that have, in many cases, violated the rights or well-being of

others, sometimes causing serious bodily injury and death. But, if we want to ensure a

higher rate of success among returning residents and prevent continued contacts with the

system, we must work to understand and reduce compounded experiences of disadvantage

and discrimination among this group in our practice and research. “Victim” and “offender”

are themselves intersecting for many justice-involved people (Creek & Dunn, 2014). What

the general public often fails to consider is that 90% to 95% of incarcerated individuals will

return to their communities (Kaeble et al., 2016). Furthermore, estimates suggest that