So, How do You Handle Prisons?

Print This Post Print This Post
Bookmark and Share

Written by: Director Robert Groves

In my travels around the country, I get a lot of questions about unusual housing situations and how the 2010 Census will enumerate people who live there. A common one concerns prisons.

The decennial census has the goal of counting everyone living in the country in the “right” place. That is, it is insufficient for us to have a perfectly accurate count of the total population if we cannot place each person enumerated in some location. (This burden flows from the need to reapportion the House across states and then to redistrict the states based on counts down to the block level.)

Since the Census Act of March 1790, we have placed each enumerated person at their “usual residence.” With some persons, where they are living now is not where they might think of themselves usually living. For example, I’ve blogged earlier about how many of the victims of Hurricane Katrina think of themselves as living on the Gulf Coast even though, since the event, they’ve lived far inland. I talked about how some college students in dormitories think of themselves as really living in their parental home, even though they only spend summers there. So too, many prisoners may think of themselves as living somewhere other than prison.

For some prisoners, however, they are only temporarily incarcerated. For persons in short-term jails, awaiting a hearing, we direct that the person should be included at their residence that they usually occupied before the jail incident. For those in hospitals for a short-term stay we direct that they be counted among their usual household.

Thus, conceptually there needs to be some time-based cutoff. The Census Bureau rules note that if in the last year the majority of the months were spent at a residence, then the person should be included in that residence’s count. Could such a rule be used for prisoners?

One can easily see that the problem is a logistical one. There are logistical issues and conceptual issues:

Enumerating in prisons. We seek to have each prisoner fill out an individual census form, but we don’t succeed in all institutions. In some prisons with very large security issues, prison management directs us to use the administrative records of the institution to enumerate.

Defining “usual residence” outside the prison. There are several optional definitions that could be used:

  • Where the prisoner lived immediately prior to the arrest.
  • Where the prisoner lived at the time of the arrest.
  • Where the prisoner lived at the time of the sentencing.
  • Where the prisoner’s former household now lives.
  • Where the prisoner wants to live after exiting the institution.

Administrative records for state prisons vary widely in content and how they’re updated. When we have used records from institutions we have missing data rates that approach 50 percent. So changing the residence rule for prisoners would probably demand a greatly increased level of use of individual census forms in prisons; this requires more cooperation from prison officials.

Choosing which definition of a non-prison residence is best is not obvious; logical arguments can be made for each of the five above.

Some have argued that different rules could be used for different prisoners. For example, those who serving long term sentences, have been at the prison for some time and will be there for years more, might be counted as residents of the prison. Others, the argument goes, could be counted as residents of one of the five ideas above. Such a design would also require linking to some administrative rules to apply the sentence length rule.

Some users of census data care about this for redistricting purposes within states. They observe that prisoners often resided in areas far removed from the location of the prison and should be counted where they’re from. They note that the former homes of the prisoners are “cheated” of the benefits derived from the census counts. They argue that the locales of the prisons unfairly benefit from the counted prisoners, even though the prisoners do not enjoy the benefits that the census counts provide to the area.

This decade we are releasing early counts of prisoners (and counts of other group quarters), so that states can leave the prisoners counted where the prisons are, delete them from the redistricting formulas, or assign them to some other locale.

As a nonpartisan scientific organization, the Census Bureau is not involved in redistricting. We collect the information under uniform rules that offer the promise of accurate counts. We provide this early release to allow users more information in doing their jobs.

Counting members of all group quarters is complicated; we re-evaluate our “residence rules” after each census, to keep pace with changes in the society. We’ll do that again after the 2010 Census.

Please submit any questions pertaining to this post to ask.census.gov.

This entry was posted in Group Quarters. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to So, How do You Handle Prisons?

  1. It is the burden placed upon the infrastructure at the place of incarceration that should be the primary determinant of prisoner residence. Inmates place significant demand on local water, sewer, electric, transportation, courts, law enforcement and public safety where they are imprisoned. No such demand is made of their former hometowns to which they may or may not returen upon release.

  2. Lili H says:

    That makes sense, as walla walla has the largest prison in the state and is not home to the majority of its inmates. I suppose most prisons are in similar situations. I wonder though, as prisons are generally the heart of the e conomy in their respective communities, if this change may vastly alter the quality of life in those communities.

  3. Dr Data says:

    There is a big difference in the demands that prisons put on communities compared to college students. Both are counted in the communities in which they live, but college students actually put an imprint the community in terms of community policing, demand for services (retail), voting, children in schools, etc. Prisoners mostly provide jobs for those out-state communities.
    The Census Bureau is going to release a GQ count in time for states to decide whether these populations should be included in the drawing up of new legislative districts – college students (yes and they aren’t all in dorms anyway); prisoners less so.

  4. Yugo Nakai says:

    Funding might be another matter, but most state constitutions says that for purposes of representation, a person’s residence is not changed by incarceration. That’s why states and counties are considering drawing state and county districts without regard to the prison populations.

  5. laguna says:

    It is interesting to see the comments regarding economic factors in real-time. Another view is that of the genealogist, who will view these records 72 years hence (or longer). What interests them is where the inmate lived at the time the census was taken. It will surely be confusing to know that they were incarcerated from January 1, 2000 through August 20, 2014, yet find them listed as living at home according to the census taken in April 2010.

  6. Master Chief says:

    As I understand the etymology of the word; “enumerate” it comes from the Latin; “enumeratus.” Enumeratus is a past participle of “enmuerare” meaning; TO COUNT. From the Latin; “numerous”, meaning; NUMBER. “ENUMERATE” is constructed thusly from the Latin; e + numerare; this is to mean – TO COUNT or NUMBER.
    Now understanding that; what in the hell does my race, the time I depart for work, whether or not I sometimes “sleep over” at a different location for a period of time, my sex, age or my relation to anyone that is or might be living in my home, whether they might or might not stay anywhere else for a given period of time etc..; have anything whatsoever to do with an action meant “TO COUNT” or “ENUMERATE” the people of the United States of America, irregardless of their location – in prison or not?
    Don’t hurt your brain attempting to feed me a “government issue” answer or reply. I KNOW the answer. IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH AN ENUMERATION OF THE PEOPLE.
    Understanding the above and aforementioned; I find this 2010 Census to be of illegal construction with a certain (obvious to me) agenda or agendas attached therein.

  7. DP says:

    What you are referring to is the American Community Survey and NOT the 2010 Census form.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*