The Intersection of Incarceration and Injustice: Environmental Burdens in Prison Communities

Incarceration rates

Ten U.S. states with a range of incarceration rates were selected (Table 2). ³¹ Louisiana and Oklahoma had the highest incarceration rates, whereas Massachusetts and Maine represented states with the lowest incarceration rates. Other states were selected to represent the 50th percentile (Pennsylvania, Oregon), 25th percentile (Connecticut, Alaska), and 75th percentile (Ohio, South Dakota) of state incarceration rates.

Prison communities

A list of prisons under jurisdiction of state departments of corrections (DOCs) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) ³² was compiled for a total of 165 prisons (Table 3). Most of the state facilities were for adult inmates. Inmate population data were also accessed through state DOC and Federal BOP reports. ³³ Where state or federal data were not available, prison population was based on reports from Prison Policy Initiative. ³⁴

Because there is variation in how states identify areas as cities and towns, ³⁵ the degree of urbanization of the area surrounding each prison was determined using World Bank guidelines. ³⁶ Areas were characterized as cities if population exceeded 50,000 and population density was >1500 people per km ² (3886 per mi ² ). The threshold for towns/semidense areas was a population >5000 and density of 300 people per km ² (777 per mi ² ). Rural areas had a lower population and lower population density than towns/semidense areas.

EJSCREEN data

EJSCREEN (Version 2020) reports ³⁷ were produced for a 3.2 km radius (32.56 km ² area) around each prison using the physical address of the facility or its coordinates. This is larger than the smallest, most accurate Census Block Group unit, ^{38 , 39} but larger than the standard 1.6 km radius (8.13 km ² area) in EJSCREEN to ensure the population around the prison was included in calculation of the EJ Indexes. Other studies have similarly used a 2-mi radius. ^{40 , 41}

Additional environmental data

Five of the 165 prisons in the study were examined in further detail; their case studies are presented in the Discussion section. Supplemental environmental data for communities surrounding these prisons was accessed through EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) (zip code level), ⁴² My Environment (using facility address), ⁴³ Cleanups in My Community (using facility address), ⁴⁴ and Integrated Compliance Information System (zip code level) ⁴⁵ portals. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMettes) ⁴⁶ were also created to identify flooding risk of these facilities. Google Maps were also used to identify industry and notable land uses around these five prisons.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required, as this work did not involve human subjects, personally identifiable information, or biospecimens.

EJSCREEN results

EJ Indexes equal to or exceeding the 80th percentile statewide were used as a screening threshold to highlight an area with potential EJ concerns. ⁴⁷ If a specified geographic area has an EJ Index in the 80th percentile statewide, the environmental indicator is affecting the population in that area in a manner different than 80% of the state. Examination of the EJ Index calculation illustrates that an elevated EJ Index could be the result of high levels of pollution, demographics very different than the rest of the state, a large population in the selected area, or a combination of these factors. Therefore, an EJ Index at/above the 80th percentile statewide is an indicator that further examination of the environmental conditions and the population of the area is warranted.

Of the 165 prisons in this study, the area surrounding one prison (Goose Creek Correctional Center in Alaska) had no reported data in EJSCREEN. Of the remaining 164 prison areas with data in EJSCREEN, areas surrounding 66 of the prisons (40% of the prison communities) had single EJ Indexes at or over the 80th percentile stateside. Almost one-quarter (39/164, about 24%) of the prison communities exceeded 80th percentile EJ Indexes for a majority (6 of 11 or more) of the EJ Indexes calculated in EJSCREEN. The EJ Indexes most commonly at or over the 80th percentile statewide are NATA Diesel PM, RMP proximity, hazardous waste proximity, and PM2.5. Statewide data on prisons and exceedances of EJ Index 80th percentile values are summarized in Table 4.

Communities around prisons

For 158 of 165 prison areas studied, the population of the 12.57 mi ² area surrounding the prison exceeded the inmate population reported by either the state DOC or the Federal BOP. This is important to confirm that the EJSCREEN results reflect a community broader than the inmate population of the prison. Although the Usual Residence Rule ⁴⁸ specifies that prisoners should be counted at the prison, there appears to be variation in that practice as evidenced through the areas surrounding seven prisons (including Goose Creek, mentioned earlier) where the Census Bureau-reported populations in EJSCREEN in the selected area did not exceed the reported inmate populations.

A summary of the degree of urbanization of areas surrounding prisons in this study is presented in Table 5. Based on population density, 69% of the prisons in these 10 states were in rural areas and 4% were in cities. This shifts when total population thresholds are used instead of population density: 47% of prison areas are considered rural based on total population, but the same 4% of prisons are considered to be in cities.

Prisons, EJ, and rural communities

EJ Indexes for the 11 environmental indicators were averaged across prison communities each of the 10 states (Fig. 1). Of the 107 resulting data points (EJSCREEN was missing 3 EJ Indexes for Alaska), 84 (79%) exceeded the 50th percentile statewide. This analysis confirms that prisons tend to be located in communities that are more polluted and/or more demographically distinct than state averages.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 1.

EJ index averages for 2-mi radius around prisons in each state. EJ, environmental justice.

Environmental exposures of incarcerated people will vary somewhat from exposures of unincarcerated community members; however, air pollution is a regional problem of concern to all groups, and a majority of the EJSCREEN environmental variables are directly related to air quality. Incarcerated individuals may be exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution through time outdoors, infiltration into prison buildings, or in instances where mechanical ventilation is used. ⁴⁹

This study also confirms that a significant number of U.S. prisons are located outside of U.S. cities. Approximately 40% of the areas surrounding the 165 prisons in this study also raise EJ concerns based on one EJ Index exceeding an 80th percentile statewide. But a significant number of the prison communities (almost 24%) present multiple potential EJ concerns; 39 of the prisons included in the study exceeded 80th percentile for the majority of EJ Indexes.

These are prison communities with multiple environmental concerns and markedly different conditions than other parts of the state. Rural communities do not always experience the economic promise of a new prison, with a decrease in per capita income observed in an analysis of towns around 29 prisons in Appalachia ⁵⁰ ; low-income population is reflected in demographic indicators used to calculate EJ Indexes. These two measures—degree of urbanization and EJSCREEN analysis—together highlight rural EJ concerns.

More broadly, rural issues are often intertwined with race and class, ⁵¹ with the intersection of race and criminal justice noted earlier in this article. The use of rural communities to serve the needs of urban areas—for example, factory farming to feed a growing urban population—transfers environmental, health, and other impacts from urban to rural settings, ⁵² a “minority sacrifice to majority interest.” ⁵³

Incarceration rates and EJ

States with higher incarceration rates tended to have more prisons in areas with EJ concerns. Siting prisons in areas with disproportionately high levels of pollution exposes inmates to potential health risks that they are unable to escape and exposes communities surrounding prisons to additional pollutants generated by prison operations. ⁵⁴ The data presented in Figure 2 show a positive moderate correlation (R ²  = 0.4246) between the percent of prisons in a state exceeding the 80th percentile for a majority of EJ Indexes and incarceration rate per 100,000 population.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 2.

Plot of state incarceration rate and percent of prisons in state exceeding 80th percentile for a majority of the EJ indexes calculated in EJSCREEN.

Louisiana has both the highest incarceration rate (680 per 100,000) and the greatest portion (4/10, or 40%) of prison communities exceeding the 80th percentile value for a majority of EJ Indexes. Maine has the second-lowest incarceration rate (146 per 100,000); none of the prisons in Maine exceed the 80th percentile value for a majority of EJ Indexes.

Contributions of multiple pollution sources

Confirming findings of an earlier study, ⁵⁵ Superfund (National Priority List) sites were found near just five of the prisons in this study: Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women near Devil's Swamp Lake; MCI-Concord near W.R. Grace & Co., Inc., Acton Plant in Massachusetts; Devens FMC near Fort Devens, a federal facility in Massachusetts; and Maine Correctional Center and Southern Maine Women's Reentry Center both near the Keddy Mill site. Although there are notable occurrences of Superfund sites affecting environmental conditions in prisons, ⁵⁶ this study finds that typically many pollution sources exist—not a single site—that can contribute to air, water, or land pollution.

Of the facilities near Superfund sites, the Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women is the only one located near a Superfund site and in a community with multiple EJ Indexes exceeding 80th percentiles statewide. Multiple pollution sources and distinct demographics of communities surrounding prisons can raise EJ concerns, as described in the case studies, hereunder.

Case studies

This section presents narratives of areas surrounding five prisons that exceeded the 80th percentile statewide for every EJSCREEN EJ Index, expanding on the geographic, environmental, and population characteristics of the areas surrounding each prison. Facilities are grouped based on their degree of urbanization to demonstrate that EJ concerns are not limited to urban areas.

In addition to the data available on current conditions surrounding prison facilities, there is likely also a less visible set of factors contributing to ongoing EJ concerns. In 1844, the Oregon Territory passed a Black Exclusion Law, ⁵⁷ expelling former enslaved people and banning black people from entering the territory. Fort Sill, where Apache individuals and Japanese Americans were incarcerated, ⁵⁸ is a mere 3 mi from Lawton Community Corrections Center.

Youngstown, Ohio is one of many communities in the United States that was heavily redlined. ⁵⁹ And residents in Chester, Pennsylvania have been fighting for EJ in the community for decades. ⁶⁰ However, even today, some state governments are refusing to confront historical racism, ⁶¹ making it unlikely that addressing EJ will be a universal priority. With this as an important yet incomplete backdrop, a summary of environmental and demographic indicators and EJ Indexes is presented in Table 6.

Prisons in towns/semidense areas

The area surrounding SCI Chester (Chester, PA) approaches characterization as a city according to World Bank guidelines. Figure 3 shows some of the facilities in the community surrounding the prison. Chester is in a nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 8-hour standard, not surprising due to its proximity to major transportation routes, including I-95 that bisects the 19013 zip code. This also results in an environmental indicator for traffic proximity and volume in the 97th percentile statewide. Industry in the zip code includes chemical manufacturing, water and sewage processing facilities, paper mills, and metal works; 11 facilities in the zip code report to the TRI.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 3.

EPA My Environment map for region around SCI Chester (noted on the map by a star). EPA, Environmental Protection Agency.

Despite this, and the 22 facilities permitted as air pollution sources (including 5 majors), the area around SCI Chester does not exceed an 80th percentile threshold statewide for EJ Indexes related to air quality. The 101 facilities with reported hazardous waste activities ⁶² increase the percentile of the Hazardous Waste Proximity indicator. Although only a portion of the environmental indicators for the area around SCI Chester are over the 80th percentile statewide, all EJ Indexes exceed the 80th percentile statewide, with EJ Indexes for traffic and wastewater discharge exceeding the statewide 95th percentile.

In the area surrounding the South Dakota State Penitentiary and Jameson Annex (Sioux Falls, South Dakota), there are two synthetic minor permitted air pollution sources and only one facility reporting toxic releases to the TRI. However, several environmental indicators exceed the 80th and 95th percentiles statewide. The prison is near many industries and other polluting activities: Sioux Falls Regional Airport is adjacent to the facility, as are an industrial park, two major highways, and a meat processing facility. This prison is situated in an area with high levels of pollutants (particularly air toxics) and a population significantly different in demographics than the rest of the state.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study. First, and most notably, is that data are inadequate for characterizing the variety and nuance of the lived experiences of people in prison or people living in the communities included in this article; desktop analysis is not a substitute for direct engagement with communities. This study also does not attempt to answer the question of whether prisons were purposefully sited in areas that are more polluted or demographically distinct, or whether prisons contributed to environmental degradation of the surrounding area.

Rather, the focus on prisons surfaces environmental concerns for inmates and for rural areas more generally; prisons are the anchor point to apply an EJ lens to rural issues. There are inherent uncertainties in environmental and demographic data on which EJSCREEN relies. The study makes no attempt to directly assign pollutant levels to emission sources, nor health impacts to pollutants; environmental conditions should be considered a proxy for exposure. The study also did not look at correctional facilities housing juveniles, nor did it include data on drinking water quality.

The Justice40 initiative

Although the definition of disadvantaged communities in the Justice40 interim guidance ⁶³ does not specifically include inmates, formerly incarcerated individuals, or others interacting with the U.S. criminal justice system, the definition could be broadly interpreted to include these individuals due to the racialized nature of the U.S. criminal justice system and underemployment of those released from prison. The list of covered programs does include job training and workforce development for formerly incarcerated individuals; these individuals should also be included in Justice40 Initiative stakeholder consultations.

In the context of this study, the absence of BOP as a Justice40 participating agency represents a notable gap. There are a range of possibilities for this gap, with purposeful omission at one end of the continuum and a blind spot at the other, with neither extreme likely. Perhaps it is the lack of an obvious connection between imprisoned people and action on renewable energy and climate change, although with some creativity, those connections become more apparent.

BOP can incorporate EJ in siting, renovation, and operation of prisons. Siting renewable energy and designing green stormwater infrastructure on prison grounds could provide community-wide environmental benefits, while inmates could be trained on renewable energy installation, green infrastructure maintenance, and sustainable agriculture in support of the Initiative's workforce development priority.

The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool proposed in the Justice40 Initiative would be a valuable complement to EJSCREEN analyses. As climate change continues, environmental conditions shift and economic impacts accrue. Air quality is affected as wildfires increase in frequency and severity. Drought will continue to push us to access lower-quality, more distant, or more expensive water sources for consumption and irrigation. Flooding not only jeopardizes health and safety of communities, and presents a significant burden in cleanup costs, it has the potential to mobilize contaminants, amplifying health and safety risks.

Incarceration also presents a barrier to climate resilience, as incarcerated people lack resources and evacuation capabilities in times of natural disasters. ⁶⁴ In prisons, specifically, more frequent heat waves will contribute to already dangerously hot conditions. ⁶⁵ BOP could use a climate-focused screening tool to make federal prisons climate-ready, implementing climate adaptation features to ensure the safety of the individuals in their charge and to benefit communities surrounding prisons. Adding BOP to the list of Justice40 pilot programs would provide proof of concept for state DOCs to take similar actions in prisons in their jurisdiction.