NCJ Number
205532
Date Published
April 2004
Length
60 pages
Annotation
Focusing on the 10 States that have experienced the largest growth in the number of prisons during the 1980's and 1990's, this study developed information on the geographic locations of prison facilities.
Abstract
The researchers consider the location of a prison as having significant consequences for inmates and their families. Prisons located in communities far away from inmates' homes make visitation more difficult. Prison location also affects the distribution of political power, the allocation of government resources, and the local economies of the communities in which new institutions are built, as well as the communities from which inmates are drawn. The primary data sources of the analyses were the Decennial Census and the Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities. The study used national-level data as well as data from the 10 States to assess the magnitude of prison growth. The geographic dispersion of prison facilities, the mix of prisons by type of county (metro or nonmetro), and the mix of inmates by type of county were also examined. The 10 States examined in the study were California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and Texas. Maps show prison systems changes at the county level, and prisoner populations are compared with total populations at the county level. Sentencing counties are compared with counties of incarceration. The study found a pervasive growth of prisons across jurisdictions, and new prisons were more geographically dispersed. The share of counties in the 10 States that were home to at least 1 prison increased from 13 percent in 1979 to 31 percent of counties in 2000. The number of prisons increased significantly in both metro and nonmetro counties, challenging the view that prison expansion has occurred primarily in nonmetro counties. In each of the 10 States, there were several counties in which a notable share of the total population was incarcerated. All 10 States had at least 5 counties where 5 percent or more of the population was imprisoned. Most of these counties were nonmetro counties. There was a mismatch between the places inmates considered home and the places they were incarcerated. A series of maps is presented to show large disparities between the sentencing counties and the counties of imprisonment. 28 figures, a 74-item bibliography, and appended descriptions of types of facilities in State and Federal correctional systems, the share of counties and residents in nonmetro counties by State, and State-level data profiles