Spatial Geographies of Correctional Supervision in PA
Carceral Landscapes Final Project
Probation and Parole in Pennsylvania
There is a recognizable and prominent difference in correctional supervision across counties in Pennsylvania. This is based on both the population and the demographic make-up of each county. By examining statistics, charts, and maps regarding rural and city parole and probation rates in Pennsylvania, we can look at the differing caseloads, offenses, and demographics of people under correctional supervision. This allows us to pinpoint counties with staggering differences in their parolee and probation populations. Highlighting such counties will allow us to take a closer look at how those who are on parole or probation interact with the geographical area.
We begin by looking at the population of approximately sixty-three of the sixty-seven counties in Pennsylvania. This allows us to categorize the counties into rural, suburban, or urban subgroups. This is essential in understanding how more or less populated counties handle their correctional supervision. We closely examine whether more populated counties have higher rates of parole and probation. With this, we are able to break down the demographic of the county to determine any biases or patterns at play. To further evaluate correctional supervision in Pennsylvania we included statistics regarding intermediate punishment and accelerated rehabilitative disposition (a legal program used as an intervention preceding first-time offenders’ trials and sentencing. In order to qualify, individuals must have no prior criminal record and be considered a non-violent offender), probation without verdict (a Pennsylvania law that is used in the event that a first-time offender is found guilty for a misdemeanor drug conviction, but not convicted to serve time in jail or prison. This law is protected under Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Controlled Substances Act (Zuckerman)), inactive cases (refers to a criminal case that has expired within the legal system), and absconders (fugitives who have escaped legal custody or containment as a means to avoid arrest or prosecution) to gain a stronger understanding of the carceral net in each county. By combining the number of people on parole and probation in each county, as well as other cases of supervision, and comparing those statistics to the population of the county, we are able to make a definitive statement regarding the connection between correctional supervision and population density geographies in Pennsylvania. After classifying each county based on the population, we delve a bit deeper into the make-up of the county. This includes the gender, race, ethnicity, and other identifiers of people under correctional supervision. With census data, we compare the number of people with specific characteristics or identifiers across the state of Pennsylvania. Census data allows us to be able to check for any state-wide patterns regarding those who are more or less likely to be under correctional supervision. Recognizing the innate biases and prejudices already present in the criminal justice system, exploring specific counties that present outlying data helps us establish counties with practices that differ greatly from the majority and how that presents itself in the correctional supervision of the particular area.
Information regarding correctional supervision rates in Pennsylvania comes in the following categories: PA DOC census data, tables and charts, and enhanced ArcGIS visual online maps. Census data from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections provides the following background information on correctional supervision throughout the state's counties. Table 1 shows the caseload of various forms of correctional supervision from the 2018 calendar year. Summing together the cases from each county into one chart to describe the state's overall caseload. Out of a total of 246,995 different cases; 52,618 include people on parole, 77,684 people on probation, 15,466 intermediate punishment, 26,806 on Active Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD), 1107 cases of probation without verdict (PWV), 7,455 on bail, 30,364 inactive cases and 27,361 cases of absconders. It is also noted in the 2018 CAPP report that from 2017-2018 when this information was updated, there was a 3.8% decrease in the number of adults who are supervising a correctional caseload.
Table 1: Displaying state totals of each type of correctional supervision (2018 Capp Report - Parole Board Home.)
In addition to the available charts, two maps are included to provide further background information on correctional supervision in PA. The first map gives us population density information which is used in conjunction with an ArcGIS map created by the Pennsylvania department of corrections to understand the caseload rates. The ArcGIS map includes information spanning from 2013 up to 2021 when it was last updated and details important data such as population, total releases, completed sentences, paroled and average age at release. Each of the maps are separated by county boundaries and include interactive aspects that provide information on the caseloads of each county.
Table 1 above provides valuable statistical information on the total number of correctional cases in Pennsylvania but does not identify any important factors that contribute to the numbers provided. In order to understand the differences in correctional supervision across the state of Pennsylvania, we provide an overview of important factors contributing to the differences between correctional supervision rates discussed throughout the story map. These factors have been separated into two primary categories which are population and demographic impacts. Each category includes three subgroups which are urban, suburban and rural environments for the population impacts, and race/ethnicity, gender and age for the demographic impacts. Each subgroup contributes to the varying rates of correctional supervision and is discussed in the following story map.
Population's Effect on Correctional Supervision
The size, culture, and communities of a given population have a profound effect on the number of people under correctional supervision in a certain area. Population plays a role in determining who will be placed under supervision and how serious the punishment will be. Certain cultures and environments can affect the justice system through social pressures for policemen, judges, and the media. Here we define three different types of communities based on the population and environment in which they are in. The population of these communities influences community values and beliefs in ways that disproportionately affect who and how many people are placed on carceral supervision as well as how strict their punishment is.
Figure 1: Total Number of People on Probation or Parole (2018 CAPP Report)
Urban
Urban environments are the most populated areas in a given community and these neighborhoods tend to have more minorities overall. Some urban environments can be described as low income communities with high unemployment rates and cheap housing. Urban communities tend to have disproportionately higher rates of crime and tend to be more heterogeneous when compared to suburban and rural environments. (Feld, 158) This makes them more susceptible to racial disparities and ultimately makes people living in these communities more likely to enter the carceral system in some form or another. According to the 2018 CAPP the counties surrounding cities such as Philadelphia, Pittsburg, State College, and Harrisburg have the highest numbers of people under supervision when compared to counties in more rural and suburban areas. Because urban communities are less stable and more diverse, the juvenile court system in that the court process is more formal for youth offenders and therefore more severe in its sentencing, thus leading to more individuals and communities who are supervised by police and the justice system.
Suburban
Suburban environments are defined as neighborhoods or areas with a moderate population and usually are located outside of major cities and in smaller towns. These communities are more homogenous and tend to have less minorities overall compared to urban areas. The data collected from the 2018 CAPP report shows a substantial difference in the number of people who are placed under correctional supervision. Counties that lie on the outskirts of major cities tend to have lower rates of probation and parole sentences but not the least amount. Due to the lower size of the population and the homogenous demographics the courts in suburban environments are less harsh and the court process is less formal than in urban environments. (Feld,158) The income and poverty level, economic status and education level of people in these environments tend to be to a higher degree than those in cities which plays a role in probation and parole rates in the county. (U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts)
Rural Environments
Rural environments are the furthest from cities and have the lowest and often most homogenous populations. The 2018 CAPP report shows that counties composed of rural communities tend to have probation and parole numbers below about 3000 people. This is substantially less than the numbers seen in urban counties which tend to rise above around 13,000 people under carceral supervision. The difference in correctional supervision sentencing between these two environments is obvious and although population as a whole is higher in cities when compared to rural areas the number of offenders is disproportional between the two areas.
Overall, differences in population seem to have profound effects on the number of individuals that are placed under correctional supervision. Cities tend to have harsher judges due to more social pressure on the court system which leads to more people on probation or parole. Suburban and rural environments, mainly of one demographic, have lower rates of correctional supervision due to their homogenous nature and more forgiving court procedures. Population plays a key role in determining whether or not the number of people on correctional supervision will be high or low due to the social context of each area.
Demographic Impacts
One’s demographic makeup influences their rate of correctional supervision. On a broader scale, this manifests itself nationwide in the rate of probation and parole for people with certain identifiers. Race, ethnicity, gender, age, and employment status all predict how someone will fare in the correctional supervision systems. There are patterns throughout history where biases and trends impact how or if one is placed on correctional supervision. Since the 1970s, people with marginalized identities have had a greater chance of being placed on correctional supervision, reinforcing demographic patterns of parole and probation rates on a county, state, and national level (Daly and Tonry).
Figure 2: PA Department of Corrections Number of Releases per County
Table 2: Demographics of people under supervision for the U.S.
Race/Ethnicity
People who identify as Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, or a combination of any of those origins have the highest rate of parole and probation. Looking at Figure 2, in every single county, the highest success rates for completed correctional supervision are attributed to people who identify as White. In Northumberland County, less than 25% of the community identifies as non-White (U.S. Census). Of the 118 total people released under correctional supervision, 96 were White, meaning that less than 20% of the released people were of a racial or ethnic background other than White. Despite populations of people with diverse races and ethnicities on correctional supervision, it is more likely that success will be reached by White people, leaving other people on parole and probation. According to a 2016–2017 analysis by Phelps, "compared to the total noninstitutionalized population, adults on probation are significantly more likely to be racial or ethnic minorities" (Phelps 266). Specifically, people who identify as either Black or Hispanic make up the greatest number of people on probation or parole. Race and ethnicity are prime indicators that there are disparities amongst the correctional supervision system, allowing for minorities to continuously make up the greatest percentage of parolees and probationers.
Gender
Overall, females are less likely to be on probation or parole than males. Making up less than twenty percent of the correctional supervision population, gender is yet another characteristic that results in parole and probation rate discrepancies. The rates at which females commit crimes and are placed under correctional supervision have increased in recent years but are still less than the rate at which males are placed on probation and parole (Brown, Jones, and Greiner 151). A little more than half of Northumberland County's population is female, but the number of females that have completed correctional supervision is 17 compared to the 101 males. The PA Department of Corrections Calendar Year Releases show that males are more likely to have successfully completed correctional supervision programs, predominantly due to the fact that they represent a larger population of parolees and probationers. Those who identify as female have a much smaller chance of being placed on parole or probation than those who identify as male.
Age
The youngest age group of offenders is the least likely of all age categories to be under correctional supervision. Those under 21 make up approximately 12% of the population on parole or probation. People between the ages of 21 and 30 are the most likely to be on parole or probation, at 35.3%. Additionally, people over the age of 31 are slightly less likely, if not just as likely, to be on parole or probation as those between the ages of 21 and 30 (Lurigio and Olson 78). Parole and probation are not often granted to younger people because they are seen as still being at risk for committing crimes. When people are a bit older, the correctional supervision system views them as more trustworthy and is willing to place them on parole or probation. The PA Department of Corrections map above confirms this by showing that for all of the counties, the average age of release from probation and parole is above 36, with Northumberland being exactly 36.
Employment Issues
Employment opportunities play a role both before and after an individual has been sentenced to probation or parole. In urban environments with low income or minority families jobs are harder to obtain because of preconceived notions about certain communities and the social context of the region. This, among other factors, leads to more crime in an area and in turn, an increase in the amount of policing an area receives. Being placed under correctional supervision also means that it will be substantially more difficult to get a job after release or while on probation or parole. (Klingele) This creates a perpetual cycle of release and recapture, ultimately producing higher incarceration and correctional supervision rates. The map above displays the unemployment rates for each county in Pennsylvania. The majority of Pennsylvania, being rural and suburban, can be described as having unemployment rates similar to those in the rest of the country but the largest most urban city in the state, Philadelphia, has a much higher unemployment rate. This coincides with the high number of individuals currently on probation and parole in cities like Philadelphia.
Figure 3: Map of Unemployment rates in PA counties
Experiences in Correctional Supervision
The case studies examined demonstrate how individuals under correctional supervision in Northumberland County and the surrounding areas are treated by prosecutors, judges, prison staff and probation/parole officers. The verdicts of these cases, often resulting in the plaintiff being dismissed without action, underline how the complaints and concerns of inmates and parolees are either not seriously considered or not given a fair trial due to various hyper-specific guidelines that state and federal courts are ordered to follow. Each case discussed, to some extent, has to do with due process and the inmates' rights being in question throughout the process of their cases being heard, specifically regarding the 13th and 14th amendment. This pattern highlights how prosecutors regard inmate cases with bias and take advantage of the fact that federal courts “enjoy sovereign immunity”(casetext, Farrow v. Western District of PA) during the trial process. Prejudice is actively used when prosecuting inmates under correctional supervision or parolees appealing supervised release due to past criminal conduct or previously stated records.
Additionally, the conduct of courts and prosecutors throughout the examined cases shows a blatant disregard for the lives of the inmates post-release, as well as their families and their wellfare while being without the primary income provider in their union. Alex vs. Northumberland County Prison is a perfect example of this fact, in conjunction with courts following frivolous and situational guidelines when considering cases proposed by inmates. Alex’s work-release job was well-paid and he had transportation to go to work, but courts claimed that his transportation was ineligible because it was a family member. However, law states that family can be used as a “last resort”, which in Alex’s case, it was. Alex ended up having to take a job that paid half as much as his previous job, leaving his wife and child in a significantly financially unstable situation(casetext, Alex v. Northumberland). The treatment of this case by the Northumberland County Prison further highlights the treatment of inmates in central Pennsylvania and how cases are discriminated against without logical reason.
Finally, there is a clear indication that inmates who seek to gain rights to parole instead of serving their entire sentence have continuously been denied that right. Even if the plaintiff was shown to have had good behavior throughout their entire sentence up until the time of their proposal, courts more often than not will deny the plaintiff parole. Further, there have not been accurate records kept of the conduct of all inmates during their sentencing, as seen in the case of Farrow vs. Western District of Pennsylvania. Another issue with parole being denied to inmates lies in the treatment of inmates by prison staff. Freeman vs. Miller outlines how medical staff within SCI Cresson harassed the plaintiff, causing him to experience indecent exposure. Because of this and other factors, Freeman petitioned for parole which was ultimately denied by the courts(casetext, Freeman v. Miller). It is far too common that inmates are treated improperly by prison staff and are unable to advocate for the trauma they endure. In central Pennsylvania and especially in the highlighted cases within our story map, this fact is evident.
What does this mean?
The differences in probation and parole rates across Pennsylvania are obvious. While the United States has one of the largest carceral systems in the world, an examination of the correctional supervision of Pennsylvania counties reveals that the same patterns present nationwide are seen statewide and countywide. With that being said, the larger the population of the county, or how urban it is, the higher and stricter the rates of parole and probation. Additionally, more rural counties with lower population density have smaller rates of correctional supervision. Within such areas, the demographic makeup of the population also contributes to the likelihood of correctional supervision. People who identify as non-white, specifically Black or Hispanic, male, and unemployed, have the highest rates of parole and probation. Age also plays a factor in the rate of correctional supervision, with people between the ages of 21 and 30 making up the majority of people on probation or parole. These patterns in correctional supervision are seen everywhere, including in Northumberland County, where recent cases of correctional supervision were brought to the court’s attention. No county in the state is exempt from the patterns that contribute to the rate of correctional supervision in the United States. By identifying common factors that lead to higher rates of parole and probation, there is a deeper understanding of the system of correctional supervision in Pennsylvania as well as which counties follow or differ from nationwide patterns.