New on Dec 12, 2008:

Three timely actions that could help end prison-based gerrymandering
By Peter Wagner

Changing how the Census Bureau counts people in prison

The problems created by the prisoner miscount can be solved in a number of different ways, at different stages of the redistricting process. Some of these solutions require more time than is available before Census 2010, and some are solutions that can be carried out with much less time, on the state and local level.

In a report commissioned by the Census Bureau, the National Research Council of the National Academies made a two-part recommendation:

1. The Census Bureau should run a major "research and testing program, including experimentation as a part of the 2010 Census" to evaluate assigning incarcerated people to their home addresses. As part of larger methodology overhauls, the panel also recommended that that the Census Bureau rely less on administrative records and more on specialized forms and interviews to count people in prison. The results of the home address experimentation would then inform a decision on the best method of counting people in prison for the 2020 Census.
2. As an interim solution, the Bureau should publish an alternative version of the PL94-171 redistricting data in the 2010 Census, so that states and counties can choose to redistrict without prison populations.

Our report, Why the Census Bureau can and must start collecting the home addresses of incarcerated people (2006) provided arguments for prisoner-count reform and proposed solutions to the modest logistical difficulties of changing the current method. The major short-term and long-term solutions to the problem of prisoner miscount printed below are adapted from that report:

1. The Census Bureau can change its method of counting people in prison.
   
   The Census Bureau could create a new group quarters housing type for prisoners: "temporarily incarcerated." This would involve changing the prisoners' "usual residence" rule so that it resembled the rule for non-institutional group quarters: it would count prisoners at the facility only if they did not report a valid address elsewhere. The new prisoner count would appear in all data products based on the short form: PL94-171, Summary File 1, and Summary File 2. People in prison and other group quarters populations are not included in statistics based on households, so there would be no change to tables on households.
   
   Alternatively, the Census Bureau could collect both home and prison addresses for prisoners and create two versions of the PL94-171 redistricting data, one that counts prisoners at the facility and one that counts them at home. This would allow data users to make their own decisions about where to count prisoners. This way, according to Census Bureau expert Nathaniel Persily, "the Bureau would remain true to its mission as information provider without having to take a stand on exactly where states and localities should place prisoners." This proposal would not change how prisoners are counted in Summary File 1 or 2.
2. The Census Bureau can create a version of the PL94-171 redistricting data file that excludes people in correctional facilities. Because PL94-171 is a relatively small data set and Census 2000 identified prisoners in only 5,692 Census blocks, the Bureau could easily tabulate a special version of the PL94-171 tables without the prisoners.
   
   Some jurisdictions have had success correcting the PL94-171 file using data from Summary File 1, the only Census data product to identify correctional facilities. There are slight incompatibilities between PL94-171 and Summary File 1, however, that would complicate this process in jurisdictions covered by the Voting Rights Act. Worse, several states have laws that require redistricting shortly after the PL94-171 data is released and before the Summary File 1 data is available. An alternate version of the PL94-171 data would allow states to redistrict on time and still exclude the correctional population. The National Research Council of the National Academies, the editorial board of the New York Times and other groups have endorsed this sensible interim solution.
3. States can fix the Census data by creating a special state-level census that collects the home addresses of people in prison and then adjusts the U.S. Census counts prior to redistricting. Legislation with these goals is currently pending in New York and Illinois.
4. Counties and towns can subtract prisoners from population data when drawing legislative districts. We maintain a list of counties and towns that remove prison populations prior to redistricting.

Speaking engagements:

• July 13, 2009: Executive Director Peter Wagner will be speaking about prison-based gerrymandering at a 2010 Census workshop at the NAACP's 100th annual convention in NYC and on a "Census and Redistricting" panel at the CLE held during the convention.
• July 21, 2009: Peter Wagner will be speaking about technical solutions to avoid prison-based gerrymandering on a panel at the National Conference of State Legislature's Legislative Summit in Philadelphia.
• August 6, 2009: Peter Wagner will discuss our sentencing enhancement zone reports at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers conference in Boston.

Not near you? Invite Peter to your town.

Stay informed

Sign up for our weekly newsletter and stay informed about the ongoing movement to change the U.S. Census' method of counting people in prison.