Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* From WBEZ…

A controversial measure that would change how the U.S. Census counts Illinois prison inmates is advancing in Springfield.

The census counts Illinois’ prison inmates as residents of the town the prison is in, not the town they came from.

That population can affect a region’s eligibility for government money.

State House members narrowly approved a bill Wednesday saying the state will start keeping track of an inmates’ last known address for census purposes.The measure passed with the bare minimum of favorable votes, 60-55.

The bill’s passage upset Republican State Rep. Chad Hays from Danville, which has a prison that currently holds about 1,800 inmates, according to the Illinois Department of Corrections.

“I just lost 2,000 residents,” Hays said after the vote.

* The Question: Should prisoners be counted by the Census at their current prison address or at their last known home address? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

polls & surveys

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:11 pm

Comments

At the prison. They are not spending into the local economy, paying taxes, or even interacting socially with the residents of their former neighborhood.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:16 pm
Prison. It’s where they’ll be for at least a year and possibly the rest of their life. It’s not unlike college students that may get reported under their parents or may consider themselves permanent-ish residents of their college town. Students get to choose where to vote too. I suppose you could let the inmates choose but they’d have to have a default (prison address?) in case they don’t make a choice.

Tracking their last address is too much work for little value. If anything, change the funding distribution to subtract inmate populations from the prison towns. How does this work in federal prisons anyway? Are we going to count inmates in Terre Haute in an Illinois census? How do we get Indiana to not double-count them?

Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:22 pm
urban democrats have fought extremely hard on this in other states wanting the prisoners counted where they came from because of funding allocations. I think they should be counted where they’re imprisoned since there’s no guarantee they’ll return to where they came from when/if they leave.

Comment by Shore Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Prison. That’s where they’re living at the time of the census.

Geez, this is really looking for change in the couch cushions.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Here is what the U.S. Census Bureau has to say about where to count prisoners:

http://directorsblog.blogs.census.gov/2010/03/01/so-how-do-you-handle-prisons/

Comment by Joe M Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:27 pm
All the studies show that prisoners end up where they came from the overwhelming majority of the time upon release- and they need support services when released, which are often publicly funded services. So they are consuming services without being counted towards the population when funding for those services was divided up.
The census is only taken every ten years, and the average time served in Illinois is less than 2 years according to a 2012 Pew report. So, for a snapshot in time, funding levels are set- even though it’s likely that 80% of the following decade that prisoner will reside elsewhere.

Comment by BethB Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:29 pm
Last known address. Prisoners don’t burden the schools, social services or infrastructure where they are imprisoned. Their kids are still in schools where they came from and where they will likely return. While imperfect, it’s certainly better than using their prison address.

Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:33 pm
Prison Address

While inmates don’t use all the services of the area they are incarcerated they do put a large drain on the infrastructure of the communtity. I.e. water, sewer, etc. Census numbers are used as date for Loan and Grant apps to repair the same.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:38 pm
This goes into my pile of “who cares” but if I have to give an opinion I would say count them at their prison address. This would have to benefit Chicago the most (I’m guessing) if this change were made.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:41 pm
Not when half the community works at the prison, Mason.

Comment by PublicServant Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Seems as though the bill would reward incarceration, and the places where prisons are situated.

Considering the state of prisons in IL, why would we want to in any way encourage that?

Comment by The Doc Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Home address. The politics otherwise just get too skeevy for me. You create an incentive for downstate representatives to try and incarcerate Chicagoans, just so they can be shipped downstate, create local jobs -and- help them hang on to their district population numbers, while not actually having to represent them.

State reps shouldn’t be incentivized to try and lock people up and hold them there for as long as possible, for their own personal political benefit.

Comment by ZC Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:47 pm
I think that it should be last known address. These Census numbers affect populations for redistricting purposes. Prisoners cannot vote while in prison. That means that if you include prisoners in the prison town Census numbers, the votes of non-inmate voters that live in prison districts have a greater weight than those of non-prison districts.

Comment by Fred's Mustache Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:52 pm
==You create an incentive for downstate representatives to try and incarcerate Chicagoans==

That’s just kooky. So we’re rounding up people from Chicago now to boost our population? Give me a break.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:52 pm
I’ve been to Danville and I think Rep. Hays is off just a bit. I have a feeling Danville produces its share of prison inmates, so he hasn’t really “lost” 2,000 residents.

I don’t mind town getting the funding based on prison populations. I have a bigger problem with counting them as residents of the prison town when it comes to re-apportionment.

Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:53 pm
What BethB said.

Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:54 pm
At prison. It is where they sleep regularly. The support services around them all have a local cost (roads, employees, utilities, etc.) just like a university or state facility. The last community address can easily be the last of dozens of addresses all over the state.

Comment by zatoichi Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:57 pm
I’m not sure it matters for the QOTD, by Kelly Cassidy clarified what the bill actually does:

“I was proud to support this bill. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the bill very specifically will not affect the census count for the purpose of distributing federal or state funds. This will only count inmates at their last address for the purposes of redistricting. Ironically enough, many of the same communities that are crying foul over this bill make the same corrections to their populations for their local district maps. It’s just the right thing to do.”

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:59 pm
This Illinois after all, so I would count them twice. Once in each location. And given the high number of inmates it would help “increase” our population and we might not lose anymore congressional seats and get a little more federal largesse. (snark intended)

Comment by Living in Machiaville Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:09 pm
“They are not spending into the local economy, paying taxes, or even interacting socially with the residents of their former neighborhood. ”

Not spending, paying taxes or interacting much in their prison neighborhood, either.

“At prison. It is where they sleep regularly. The support services around them all have a local cost (roads, employees, utilities, etc.) just like a university or state facility.”

So we should have a statute requiring that students are counted at school, not their home address?

Comment by Chris Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:26 pm
At home. They are not spending into the local economy, paying taxes, or even interacting socially with the residents of their current neighborhood.

Comment by Bigtwich Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:32 pm
At home. As has been stated above, that is where they return when they get out.

As a test, how would Rep. Hays vote on a bill that required newly released prisoners to reside within 25 miles of the prison for at least 1 year after their release? He knows they are not residents and will not remain in his district when they get out.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:39 pm
Another test: Since this impacts redistricting, would Rep. Hays allow inmates to vote in state and local elections?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:43 pm
Beth B ++++

Comment by Amalia Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:45 pm
The bill only counts the inmates at the “last known address” for redistricting purposes. They will continue to be counted at the prison for the federal census (impacting federal resources and federal districting). Many inmates will never return to their home district (because they are serving life sentences or a term of years so long that they will die in prison), others have a “last address” that no longer exists (i.e. they entered prison 10 years ago when there was a Cabrini Green and now it’s gone and the neighborhood has gentrified). Other inmates don’t give an honest address where they last lived (either listing the CC Jail or the girl’s house they last flopped at). Count them where they are (prison). That is the only was to ensure everyone is actually counted (not sure what happens when the address provided doesn’t actually exist anymore). If you want the census changed, change it at the Federal level for everyone.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:55 pm
Last known address. For the same reasons some others have already posted. I do find it a bit sad and ironic that the same people who want to benefit for the allocation of resources those imprisoned will provide to the community but do not want those individuals as real residents of the community once they are eligible for release.

Comment by carbaby Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:05 pm
Why should this be a controversial issue? If their current address is the prison: the prison. That’s their residence. Why should this even be debated?

Comment by Steve Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:25 pm
The notion that the prison is their home is silly. The driver’s license the inmate had before incarceration didn’t list the prison. His domicile is likely where he lived before, because sarcasm aside, he wants to, and intends to, return to that place.

Comment by Mongo Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:40 pm
At their last known address. This bill is a critical step forward in protecting the democratic rights of Illinois’ almost 50,000 prisoners and the communities which they come from and return to.

Comment by John Howard Association Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:49 pm
Residency is typically defined by where you dwell the majority of the year.

It is hard for me to accept the argument that an incarcerated individual is residing anywhere other than their cell.

Comment by Endangered Moderate Species Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:59 pm
At prison. The prison does utilize local water and sewer capacity. It takes land off the tax roles. The inmates do reside 24 hours a day in the community in which the prison is located.

Comment by One of the 35 Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:00 pm
Since this is merely a snapshot in time who really gives a flying fig! Don’t we have much more important matters to focus on here in Illinois? Let’s keep our eye on the ball folks.

Comment by Kerfuffle Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:12 pm
At the prison. That’s were they live. What about the inmate who doesn’t have an outdate?? Prison is his residence…

Comment by gallerywalker Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:16 pm
The logical answer seems to be at the prison but it troubles me that the John Howard folks think otherwise.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:39 pm
At their original home.

Hays says he’d “lose 2000 residents”.

Sure. 2000 residents that the other 13,000,000 residents in the state are paying to house, clothe, feed and secure.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:22 pm
Towns like sumner Illinois have built state of the art sewer treatment plants to accomadate the penal facility. Without the federal dollars they will not be able to pay their bills.

Comment by Darren Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:32 pm
If none of your prisoners are from the district why was a prison built there? Hmmm I wonder.

Comment by Lil Squeezy Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:33 pm
At the prison. But then, during next redistricting, gerrymander a district to include only prisons and one house just for fun.

Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:47 pm
Since the prisoners have no choice where the live and they are not actually part of t he incarcerating it makes no sense to count them as part of the hosting community.

Kind of a perverse reward isn’t it?

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 6:04 pm
@Darren - what does this have to do with pork from the Feds?

The prison would still be funded at the same levels whether the inmates are counted as ghosts or not.

Again, 13 million state residents are paying for the couple of thousand inmates at each prison regardless of whether the inmates are considered residents of those prison towns or residents of their home towns.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:08 pm
Downstate pols get to count inmates for redistricting purposes, even though none of the inmates can vote for the pols.

I can’t remember any downstate legislators advocating on behalf of their inmates “constituents.” Instead, they are reliable voters for longer prison terms and more mandatory sentences.

It seems concern about poor prison conditions, such as at Tamms, comes from Chicago legislators.

Comment by reformer Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:26 pm
This question can be answered by looking at how long this practice of residence assignment has been in place. If this is a fairly recent one, then should be amended to comport with traditional practice. Otherwise, it should stay in place.

Comment by Downstater Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 8:06 pm
Residence means where one resides. If it’s in Prison, THAT’S where the person resides. Period. This is a ridiculous change, meant to spread the limited monies of Government to places where more people supposedly live than in fact live. This uncalled-for change is politics replete with old-fashioned smoke and mirrors–and beneath the dignity of the good people of Illinois…!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 8:19 pm
A prison is a kind of factory. The prisoners are not the workers, they are the work product. Manufacturing tractors requires water and roads, but we don’t count them in the census. While it seems this legislation does not envision counting the incarcerated in their home communities for purposes of funding allocation, we should- because ultimately, that’s where the expense is born.

Comment by WestSider Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:13 pm
The community where the prison is located is providing all the services to the prison and inmates that tax dollars are used for: water, sewer, fire protection, ambulance service, hospital care, and more. The local community should receive the tax dollars for those inmates.

Comment by Reformed Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:18 pm
As if it the job of the ILGA to make rules for the US Census.

Waste of time, but apparently it is decided at state level (thanks for the link JoeM), meaning inconsistent application of the rules over the whole country. I would have expected better from the Census.

I am a purist for data, all prisoners nationwide should be counted where they actually lived on Census day, in prison. States should not get to change that and should consistently report this population.

Comment by CarrollCounty Friday, May 17, 13 @ 8:34 am
If politicians who represent prisons actually advocated on behalf of their incarcerated constituents, then I’d say keep the status quo. In my experience, however, those pols are hardliners who support longer prison terms and who accuse liberals of taking a “hug-a-thug” approach.

Comment by reformer Friday, May 17, 13 @ 8:50 am