Census counts of prisoners stymie Arizona’s efforts to create equally sized districts

by Peter Wagner, March 29, 2004 Link

On March 1, 2004, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission released the new maps for the state legislature. The maps are currently open to public comment and will be presented to the Court and the Justice Department for approval in April.

The Commission did a relatively good job of keeping district size deviations to a minimum. (See first map at right.) Ensuring that districts are of equal size is how each resident is guaranteed equal representation under the “one person one vote” principle.

Updating district boundaries after each Census is important so that the districts can reflect the new population. This is doubly important in Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the country. Arizona was 40% larger in 2000 than it was in 1990.

But the Arizona Redistricting Commission failed to account for an even faster growing population: prisoners. The population of state, local, federal and private prisons and jails more than doubled from 1990 to 2000. On Census Day 2000, the U.S. Census counted 45,783 people in correctional facilities in Arizona and assigned each of these individuals to the prison’s address.

This method of counting prisoners may have made sense when the Census began, but it is not helpful for redistricting which requires accurate counts of actual residents. Hidden in the Census data is a measurable shift in the population of the state. In fact, when the Redistricting Commission relies on Census data that counts prisoners as residents of the prison, it violates the Arizona Constitution’s definition of residence: “no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence … while confined in any public jail or prison.”

The Arizona Redistricting Commission’s carefully drawn districts are markedly less equal when state, federal, and private prison populations are removed. One district, number 23, is under-populated 7%. (See second map at right.)

If the prisoners had been counted at home, the proposed district boundaries would likely create some overpopulated districts. Huge Maricopa County is 59% of the state population but supplies 64% of the state’s prisoners. Unfortunately, more detailed information on where prisoners in Maricopa County originate has not yet been published. But the geographic disparity in incarceration is obvious regardless, because only 19% of the Arizona prisoners in state prisons are incarcerated in Maricopa County. Said another way, at least 71% of Maricopa County’s state prisoners are incarcerated and represented outside the county.

The Arizona Redistricting Commission did a good job getting their districts to match what the Census reported as the population. The next step towards democratically empowered districts would be for the Census to count the population in a way that complies with the Arizona constitution. Prisoners should be counted where they actually reside: at home.

Sources: Rose Heyer analyzed the district populations and made the maps that accompany this article. The article is based on the following: U.S. Census Summary File 1 for 1990 and 2000; Arizona American Friends Service Committee Overview of Prison Privatization in Arizona; Arizona Constitution Article 7, Section 3; Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission district outlines & population tables.

Miscounting prisoners complicates Census portrait of New Jersey

by Peter Wagner, March 22, 2004 Link

Eighteen percent of New Jersey’s prisoners are from Essex County which includes Newark. Thirty percent of the state’s prisoners are incarcerated in Cumberland County far to the south.

Essex County (which includes the city of Newark) sends more residents to prison than any other county in New Jersey. Essex County is home for 18% of New Jersey’s prisoners, but only 9.4% of the state’s population. With only 11% of the state’s prison cells located in Essex County, many prisoners are incarcerated outside the county.

The U.S. Census counts prisoners not at their homes but as if the prisoners were residents of the prison town. This changes county populations and skews their demographics.

[The situation in Camden County is similar. Camden County has 6% of the New Jersey’s population but supplies 14% of the state’s prisoners. Only 5% of the state’s prisoners are are incarcerated in Camden County.]

Rural Cumberland County is 120 miles to the south of Newark on Delaware Bay. Only 2% of New Jersey’s prisoners call Cumberland County home, but almost 30% of the state’s prisoners are incarcerated in three large prisons in the county. This shift in the population affects how much representation each of these counties receives in the legislature. But attempts by policy makers to examine the needs of these counties is complicated by the impact of prisoners on other statistics.

Essex County is troubled by more than its high incarceration rate. Of all the counties in the state, it has the highest portion of its households making less than $10,000 a year (13%) and the highest portion of its households receiving public assistance (6.5%).

Rural prison-hosting Cumberland County is also an impoverished county. Cumberland County ranks 3rd in counties with large portions of their households making under $10,000 a year. It is the only county in New Jersey where the median household income in 1999 was below $40,000.

Unfortunately, the Census Bureau’s enumeration of prisoners as residents of the prison towns complicates research and frustrates efforts at the state level to shift resources appropriately. Prisoners are excluded from the household income figures cited above, but the Census includes prisoners in per capita income calculations. Cumberland County has the lowest per capita income in New Jersey, at $17,376. If we assumed that prisoners have no income and we deduct them from the calculations, the per capita income for Cumberland County would rise a significant $897.

More research needs to be done as to the impact of prisoners on per capita income. What do prisoners in various states report as their income? In states where Census forms are completed administratively, how is this data calculated? My own informal research suggests that prison wages are inadequate for subsistence and that many prisoners rely on gifts from family members. Are these funds counted as income, and should they be? And of course, should every user of Census county income data be required to first receive a degree in prison studies?

Most critically, we need more accurate information about where prisoners come from. New Jersey is one of a number of states that publishes county of commitment information. This data provides the shocking data that Essex County has the highest incarceration rate in the state, but it does not tell us whether the prisoners are spread out throughout Essex County or concentrated in Newark. For proper planning, accurate statistics are essential.

A recent Urban Institute study of prison admissions data shows that prisoners sent to prison from Essex County overwhelming originate in Newark and its neighboring communities. (See map at right.) In a number of parts of Newark, as many as 1% to 5% of the population was sent to prison during 2001. The cities of Newark, Orange and East Orange each lost about 5 residents to prison for each 1,000 people in the community. Seven municipalities in the western portion of the county incarcerated their residents at a rate one-tenth of that.

While single year admissions data can’t be used to recalculate the Census, it does show that that incarceration has radically different effects on different communities within a county. Knowing precisely how many prisoners incarcerated during the Census come from each of the communities in a state would give us an accurate portrayal of our communities and help policymakers make informed decisions. Where are all of New Jersey’s prisoners from? That is a question that the Census Bureau should answer for us in 2010.

Redistricting explained

by Peter Wagner, March 15, 2004 Link

We’ve written two new articles that explain how redistricting works. The first is a theoretical introduction to the topic and the second explains how the transfer of prisoners can change the outcome of elections on the border between different regions of the state.

Redistricting Matters: Small changes in the boundary lines mean huge electoral effects uses some simple illustrations to illustrate why redistricting matters.

Hanging in the balance? is about New York State Senate district 34 which straddles the border of NYC’s Bronx county and Westchester county in such a way as to use Bronx residents to create a Westchester district.