NEW WINDSOR JAIL ANGST IS AN EXERCISE IN OLD NEWS

The old news is that in about 80 percent of prison construction experiences there is some initial resistance by area residents. The usual concerns fall into the categories of safety and financial issues. Obvious things like increased crime in the immediate area, the threat of escapes, impacts on property values, stress on local infrastructure and environmental concerns. The same appears to be the case with the residents of Joy, Ray and Baseline Roads even though we are talking about a municipal jail as opposed to a prison which most research is based on.

As it turns out, all concerns are quickly dismissed with a little rationalization, history and experience. Let’s look at the examples above. Crime will actually go down because of the expanded security and police presence. What criminals want to conduct business in an area with such a high density of coppers? Can anyone remember an escape from the current Windsor Jail? That facility has been there for 80 years. Today we are dealing with a modern, state of the art facility with double capacity.

The big item from previous posts is the fear that property values will decrease. History, in fact, shows that property values remain neutral or go up because of the physical nature of the development and because of the benefits that follow it. There has been one exception worth noting: “The only instances where property values actually decrease after a correctional facility is built is in communities where there is strong, vocal opposition to the prison. It is believed that the vocal opposition to the prison actually drives away potential homeowners and investors in an area, due to the negative media coverage of the community and its prison” (Abrams & Lyons, 1987). In other words, when an opposing community keeps harping about declining property values, the media picks it up for wider and more frequent broadcast and eventually their collective message becomes the truth. Investors and buyers stay away because of a false perception impinged on them. Property values decline. This is much like shooting one self in the foot. As infrastructure goes, it is always developed to meet the need of the operation and usually expands in such a way as to improve upon what area residents currently have. Since jails do not pollute there are no environmental concerns.

Local media and City Hall were slow to get the correct information out with respect to the new jails actual location. This caused a lot of public commotion because Windsorites were fed and left with the impression that the new jail’s location was actually in a shopping plaza at the corner of Walker Road and the 401. Over the last couple of months the general public seems content with the actual location on the Eighth Concession leaving residents of Joy and Ray Roads as the core objectors. They, by coarse and at least for the moment, fear all of the above. They initially defined the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services as public enemy number one. Of course…the Ministry has seen all of this many times before and every time everything worked out for the better.

A reader sent in this report prepared by the University of Cincinatti. Good background.

The Effects of a New Prison on the Local Community
Prepared by
Brittany Groot, M.S.
Research Assistant
&
Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.
Professor & Division Head
University of Cincinnati
Center for Criminal Justice Research
Division of Criminal Justice
PO Box 210389
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0389
January, 2007 _____________________________________________________________________
This report was prepared through a contract with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough with the coordination of the University of Alaska, College of Health and Social Welfare, Justice Center in order to have an independent third party address the most commonly raised concerns and issues during the Phase II site selection public hearings. Introduction
With the consistent increase in incarceration rates and the ever-climbing numbers of inmates (Harrison & Beck, 2005), the prisons in Alaska are overcrowded. Alaskan prisons are in particularly difficult circumstances since over 1,000 inmates from Alaska are currently incarcerated in Arizona; with these inmates being transported between the two states and housed at a great cost to the taxpayers (RISE Alaska, 2006). The Alaskan Department of Corrections (ADOC) determined that Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su) would become the site of the newest correctional facility, saving the State’s and taxpayers’ money, bringing jobs into the area, and helping the ADOC run a more efficient agency (RISE Alaska, 2006).
The decision of where to site a prison is a long and difficult process in which many factors and community characteristics are examined. The goal is to select the best community for the facility, however, due to the stereotypes of prisons and prisoners, resistance to hosting a correctional facility within a community is often present (Martin, 2000; Cherry & Kunce, 2001). While a prison may seem to be unsavory in a community, the fears that opponents raise have been found to be unsubstantiated. Most research has found that rather than being a hardship on a community, prisons are actually beneficial to the host community. The purpose of this policy paper is to review the available research pertaining to the impact of a prison on the local community. The following will be discussed: the disadvantages of prisons cited by opponents; why they are not valid; and, the potential benefits for communities that host prisons.
Unfounded Fears of Prison Proponents
Prisons are facilities that are needed in states, but the fears of the potential damage that they may cause in a community lead some to protest their construction locally (Krause, 1992). It has been estimated that in about 80 percent of prison construction experiences, resistance is found (Silas, 1984). The fears expressed by opponents of prisons fall into two basic categories: 1) safety concerns and 2) financial concerns. The following sections of this paper are going to examine the arguments of the opposition to prison construction and what researchers have found regarding these concerns.
Safety Concerns
The safety concerns of communities surrounding prisons are focused in three areas 1) the potential increase in crime rates, 2) the threat of escapes, and 3) the prospect that inmates’ families may relocate to be near the facility (Martin, 2000; Martin & Myers, 2005). These concerns can be especially salient in areas where crime rates have traditionally been lower and personal safety is perceived to be high (Silas, 1984).
Safety Concern #1: Crime Rates
The most often cited concern by opponents of prison construction is that crime rates will increase in the host community (Martin & Myers, 2005). The idea seems to be that having a prison nearby will bring crime to an area, or that the areas surrounding prisons are suddenly places where crime will be prevalent, which may result from the stereotypes people hold about prisons that may be media induced (Shichor, 1992). Repeatedly and consistently studies have found that communities with prisons do not experience increased crime rates (Abrams & Lyons, 1987; Sechrest, 1992; Abrams & Martin, 1987). In fact, some host communities have actually experienced a drop in crime rates after a prison has been built in a community (Theis, 2000; Abrams & Lyons, 1987). In Abrams & Lyons’ (1987) federally funded study on the effects of correctional facility on their host communities, the crime rates in all but one of the sites did not increase due to a correctional facility being built. In the last site, the crime rates actually dropped. There are multiple explanations why crime rates remain stable after a prison is constructed. One reason is the increased presence of criminal justice personnel in the area. More sheriff deputies, state police, and correctional officers will be in an area, providing increased protection with the increased numbers of visible representatives of the criminal justice system (Shichor, 1992). For example, Alaska state statute requires that an offender be released where they were arrested.
Opponents to prison siting also argue that crime rates could rise as more visitors associated with the prison come to the host community, as these individuals may be crime prone (Martin & Myers, 2005). Studies have found that these visitors, mostly family, are generally non-criminal and do not cause problems to the areas they are visiting (Abrams & Lyons, 1987; Shichor, 1992). Another concern voiced is that inmates will be released into the community that they were incarcerated in (Shichor, 1992). This is not the case, since most correctional agencies do not simply let prisoners walk out the front gate when they are released from incarceration. Most are provided transportation to the community they are from (Shichor, 1992), so they are not a potential criminal threat to the host community of the prison.
Safety Concern #2: Escapes
The ADOC plans to build a medium-security, secured prison in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (RISE Alaska, 2006). As with any secured facility, there is always the potential that inmates may escape from the prison. The public, in general, has the perception that prison escapes are common and sensational, usually due to media coverage when the event occurs (Thies, 2000). In reality, prison escapes are relatively rare and the number of escapes has been declining over the last 20 years, as prisons are becoming more secure and as characteristics of offenders are changing causing them to be less of a flight risk. In addition to escapes being rare, escapees are nearly always caught quickly after they abscond. Escapees rarely commit crimes when they do escape (Culp, 2005), and if crimes are committed they tend to be minor thefts and larceny, not crimes that result in harm to individuals in the host community (Abrams & Martin, 1987; Culp, 2005). Finally, correctional facilities know immediately when a prisoner has escaped and many have implemented warning systems to provide the local community with information on the escapee and what to do when there is an escaped prisoner in the area (Culp, 2005). The result is that in the event inmates do escape, they usually do not pose much of a threat to the community surrounding a prison. Since escapes are rare, declining in rate, short in duration, and rarely result in heinous crimes being committed, the fear of prison escapees posing a danger to the host community is unfounded. Prisons and correctional officials do an excellent job of containing inmates and incapacitating them from committing harm against the community.
Safety Concern #3: Families will Relocate
The final safety concern of opponents to prisons being built in their community is that families of inmates will move into the area surrounding the prison in order to be closer to their incarcerated family members (Martin & Myers, 2005; Shichor, 1992). This concern is understandable since the link between criminal tendencies in a family and criminal tendencies of an individual has been found (Paternoster & Bachman, 2001). This fear also includes the idea that the influx of the families of offenders will place a strain the schools and social services of the area, which would result from the increase in community membership (Martin & Myers, 2005). Studies, however, find that families of inmates rarely move to be closer to a correctional facility, since most of these families are not financially able to relocate or are not that concerned with being in close proximity with their incarcerated family member (Shichor, 1992; Thies, 2000). For example, California Department of Corrections did not experience inmate families relocating near the prisons where their family members are located (Sechrest; 1992). This is because families of inmates only move to the area surrounding the correctional facility if it is located near an urban area, rather than a smaller community (Shichor, 1992). In addition, since crime rates do not rise in the communities surrounding a prison (Abrams and Lyons, 1987), the concern that inmates’ families will move to an area, engage in criminal activity, and burden the social services of a community is not supported.
Financial Concerns
There are a number of financial concerns expressed by opponents including negative impact on property values, increases in cost of living, stress on infrastructure, and impact on the environment. Each of these issues will be discussed below.
Financial Concern #1: Property Values
The greatest financial concern that opponents have is the impact that the prison location will have on property values (Martin, 2000; Smykla et al., 1984; Abrams & Lyons, 1987; Shichor, 1992). Opponents of prison siting in their community often feel that the value of their homes and property will drop once the facility is built, as is the concern with any unwanted facility, such as a landfill or nuclear facility (Shichor, 1992). However, this has not been found to be the case. Many researchers have found that property values are not affected when a prison is located nearby (Abrams & Lyons, 1987; Shichor, 1992). For example, the state of California found that the location of their prisons did not negatively affect property values in host communities (Sechrest, 1992). In some cases, evidence is found that property values actually increase after a prison is built (Smykla et al., 1984; Abrams & Martin, 1987). The only instances where property values actually decrease after a correctional facility is built is in communities where there is strong, vocal opposition to the prison. It is believed that the vocal opposition to the prison actually drives away potential homeowners and investors in an area, due to the negative media coverage of the community and its prison (Abrams & Lyons, 1987). The concern about property values lowering is unfounded, especially since prisons can generate economic development that would in turn increase property values (Smykla et al., 1984).
Financial Concern #2: Cost of Living
An increase in cost of living for an entire community is another financial concern that is commonly raised by opponents of prison construction (Martin, 2000). The concern is that the prison will cause a rise in prices of goods and services in an area. There is no support for this claim, and research has found that there is no increase in cost of living associated with a prison being constructed in an area (Abrams & Lyons, 1987). That is, prices for food, gas, rent, and other commodities will not increase because of a prison being present in the local area.
Financial Concern #3: Infrastructure
The infrastructure of an area can be stressed by additional buildings, so it follows that a concern for potential host communities to a prison is whether or not their existing infrastructure can handle the increased demand caused by a prison (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). Additional infrastructure includes sewer, water, waste, roads, and other services that are needed for a community to function. Research has found that policy makers usually take into account the capacity of the existing infrastructure when deciding where to locate a new prison (Cherry & Kunce, 2001; Shichor, 1992). Moreover, if constructing a prison in a region will stress the existing infrastructure, state officials usually improve the infrastructure in an area so that the prison can be built, increasing the services for both the prison and the community at large. In addition, many prisons are self-contained, having their own sewers, power plants, and other facilities, so that the additional construction does not affect existing services (Shichor, 1992). Furthermore, an increase in tax revenue collection from induced development where a prison is built provides additional funding so that communities can improve the infrastructure, if necessary, without straining the local budget (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). According to the Mat-Su Borough Prison Project Site Selection Report, the State of Alaska has taken into account the stress a prison will impose on the infrastructure of the region in which it will be built and are planning for this potential problem (RISE Alaska, 2006).
Financial Concern #4: Environment
A final concern raised by opponents to prison construction within their community is environmental. Although little research has looked at this topic, challenges to prison location for environmental reasons are few, with environmental groups rarely raising eyebrows at the sites chosen (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). This is explained by the fact that prisons are non-polluting. They are not factories or toxic waste facilities, which can harm the environment. Their only environmental impact is an increase in road, water, sewer, and waste usage (Schlosser, 1998), which would result from any economic development in an area.
Benefits Prisons Bring To Their Host Communities
Although opposition to prison construction cites many fears about what constructing a prison will do to a community, these concerns are generally unfounded. Additionally, the benefits that a prison can contribute to a community are significant (Sechrest, 1992). The advantages that prisons bring to an area outweigh the fears of opponents to prisons (Carlson, 1992). The following section of this paper will examine the benefits that can potentially result from a prison being located in an area.
Economic Benefits
Economic benefits are the greatest advantages that a prison can contribute to the community and region in which they are located. Therefore, economic factors often play an important role in where to locate a new correctional facility (Cherry & Kunce, 2001; Gibbons & Pierce, 1995), with the idea that a prison in a community will aid in economic development and growth of an area (Shichor, 1992; Hoyman & Weinberg, 2006; Cherry & Kunce, 2001). For example, the California Department of Corrections locates their prisons to help struggling areas rejuvenate economic development (Cherry & Kunce, 2001). Resistance to prisons being built in communities tends to reduce over time as the economic benefits of building a prison in an area have been more strongly established (Martin & Myers, 2005). Generally, the economic benefits that prisons bring to an area are significant (Sechrest, 1992) and rural areas may recruit prisons in order to develop their region economically (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). Abrams and Lyons (1987) found that prison construction had a positive economic benefit, if only a small boost, on all their study sites. Greater economic development was found for larger facilities, like the one the ADOC is planning on building. For example, in Washington State the host community of the Clallum Bay Correctional Center experienced economic benefits, which helped the area recover from the loss of its previous major industry. The model of that facility developing its local economy is now admired throughout Washington State (Carlson, 1992). It appears that Alaskan officials want to bring those economic benefits to the State of Alaska and out of Arizona, where the economic advantages of a prison holding Alaskans are currently being felt (RISE Alaska, 2006). When communities are faced with the prospect of being a site for a new prison, most business and civic leaders welcome the facility for the potential boost it can provide for the local economy (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004), and economic benefits are found after the prison has been built (Thies, 2000). The magnitude of economic benefits experienced by a particular community is also related to the community’s “pre-prison” economic status, the existence of service businesses and a trained and educated workforce.
Economic Benefit #1: Jobs
The most obvious economic benefit that constructing a prison in a community will bring is jobs (Gibbons & Pierce, 1995; Abrams & Lyons, 1987; Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). Most of these jobs would be filled by area residents (Shichor, 1992). Prisons can bring in many jobs into an area that are well paying, secure, and have guaranteed pensions. These jobs are often better than many of the employment opportunities in the host community outside of the prison (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). Additionally, prison jobs are not affected by globalization and cutbacks, since these jobs cannot be outsourced and are funded with public dollars, not private ones (Thies, 2000). Therefore, prison construction in an area can be a tool used to combat unemployment and a slumping local job market (Hoyman & Weinberg, 2006) by providing potentially hundreds of jobs for a region. The prison in Mat-Su Borough could bring over 1,000 jobs to the area, since the state of Alaska intends to hire mostly locals to fill positions in the facility (Shichor, 1992; RISE Alaska, 2006).
Economic Benefit #2: Goods and Services
Other than the increase in employment opportunities through the prison, further economic development results from a prison being constructed in a community (Abrams & Lyons, 1987; Hoyman & Weinberg, 2006). Local businesses are often in support of prisons being built in their communities (Martin & Myers, 2005). The advantage that local businesses often find is that a local correctional facility will increase demand for goods and services, such as contracting local companies to construct the prison or to provide food (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004; Shichor, 1992). This can result in increased profits for local businesses and the development of further employment opportunities within the community, but outside the prison (Abrams & Lyons, 1987). Economic development also results from businesses moving into an area in order to serve the needs of the prison. These businesses are prison based industries and move into areas with newly constructed prisons to meet the needs of the facility that local businesses would not be able to fulfill (King, Mauer, & Huling, 2004). This business development will further increase employment opportunities in an area and also help develop the local economy.Economic Benefit #3: Retain Youth and Political CloutThe economic development of a region through a prison has two additional affect that are quite unanticipated. The first is that younger residents of rural areas are less likely to leave an area if prison jobs are available to them (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). This is due to the boost that the local economy will experience by siting a prison within their community. The second is that an area will gain political influence, since prisoners are counted among residents of a community in the U.S. Census. Since representation locally, state-wide, and federally is determined by population, host communities often get more political sway than if they did not have a prison within their boundaries (Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). Economic Benefit #4: Tax Revenues
Another benefit that a host community of a prison can experience is an increase in tax revenues. This increase in revenues results from the increase in sales of goods and services to the prison and prison employees and boost in property tax collection (Shichor, 1992; Blankenship & Yanarella, 2004). With careful planning and judicious use of public funds, the improvement in the tax base due to economic development can fuel further development and improvements in an area.
Economic Benefit #5: Inmate Labor
One last potential benefit for an area surrounding a community is the work inmates will do to improve the local area. When prisons allow inmates to work outside of the facility, these prisoners perform public works projects (i.e. landscaping, maintenance, litter collection), saving money for the local government and improving the local community (Shichor, 1992; Abrams & Lyons, 1987). The value of this work cannot be estimated, however it is one way a local prison can serve the needs of the community it resides in.

Summary and Conclusions
With the overcrowding issues in Alaskan prisons and the high cost of housing and transporting inmates to Arizona, the ADOC made the decision to build a new prison in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, after determining it would be the best location for a new facility (RISE Alaska, 2006). Resistance to prisons locating within a community is found with nearly all prison construction experiences (Martin, 2000). Nevertheless, the resistance to prisons in communities is often based upon incorrect information and is at odds with the numerous beneficial effects that a prison can have in an area (Carlson, 1992). As demonstrated throughout this paper the benefits of prisons outweigh the fears of opponents, since their concerns are unfounded. Based on our review of available research, the following summary and conclusions can be made:

• Prisons do not lead to an increase in crime in a local community. There is some evidence that crime rates actually decline, since there is a greater presence of criminal justice personnel.

• An inmate escaping from prison is a rare occurrence and is becoming even rarer. When an escape does occur, it is short in duration, it seldom results in serious criminal activity, and the local community is alerted of the situation.

• Families of inmates rarely move near the prison where their family member is incarcerated. Most of these families do not have the resources or desire to relocate.

• Prisons do not usually cause a decrease in property values in a host community. The only situation where property values decrease is when there is strong, vocal opposition to the facility, which drives away potential buyers and investors.

• There is no increase in cost of living associated with constructing a prison in a community; prices of goods and services do not rise.

• The infrastructure of a local community will usually be unaffected by a prison being built. Alaskan officials are already planning for any issues with the infrastructure of the chosen area.

• Prisons are non-polluting; therefore, the local environment will not be affected by a correctional facility being built. However, site specific concerns such as wetlands should be addressed through proper construction techniques.

• The siting of a prison can lead to economic development and benefits for a community. These benefits have been established and Alaskan officials hope to bring these benefits to their state. These economic developments can lead to unexpected positives, such as more young people staying in the area and more political sway for the local area.

• Prison jobs are secure and well-paid. Many of the employees in a prison are hired from those living in the local community.

• Local businesses tend to welcome prison construction as it results in an increase in demand for their goods and services, leading to profits for businesses and more employment opportunities.

• Corporations and businesses more into an area to serve the needs of a correctional facility that cannot be met by local industry. This increases the number of employment opportunities in a region and furthers economic development.

• Prisons can increase tax revenues in an area, due to the increased property tax and increase in sales. This increase in revenue can be used to improve the local community. Public works projects completed by inmates can also improve the community and serve its needs.
Works CitedAbrams, K.S., & Lyons, W. (1987). Impact of correctional facilities on land values and public safety. North Miami, FL: FAU-FIV Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems.
Abrams, K.S., & Martin, A.T. (1987). Prisons as LULUs: A sequel. Environmental and Urban Issues, 14, 18-21.
Blankenship, S.E., & Yanarella, E.J. (2004). Prison recruitment as a policy tool of local economic development: A critical evaluation. Contemporary Justice Review, 7(2), 183-198.
Carlson, K.A. (1992). Doing good and looking bad: A case study of prison/community relations.
Crime & Delinquency, 38(1), 56-69.
Cherry, T.L., & Kunce, M. (2001). Do policymakers locate prisons for economic development? Growth & Change, 32, 533-547.
Culp, R.F. (2005). Frequency and characteristics of prison escapes in the United States: An analysis of national data. The Prison Journal, 85(3), 270-291.
Gibbons, S.G. & Pierce, G.L. (1995). Politics and prison development in a rural area. The Prison Journal, 75(3), 380-389.
Harrison, P.M. & Beck, A.J. (2005). Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Prisoners in 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hoyman, M. & Weinberg, M. (2006). The process of policy innovation: Prison sitings in rural North Carolina. The Policy Studies Journal, 34(1), 95-112.
King, R.S., Mauer, M., & Huling, T. (2004). An analysis of the economics of prison siting on rural communities. Criminology and Public Policy, 3(3), 453-480.
Krause, J.D. (1992). The effects of prison siting practices on community status arrangements: A framework applied to the siting of California state prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 38, 27-55.
Martin, R. (2000). Community perceptions about prison construction: Why not in my backyard?. The Prison Journal, 80(3), 265-294.
Martin, R., & Myers, D.L. (2005). Public response to prison siting: Perceptions of impact on crime and safety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2), 143-171.
Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining criminals and crime. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
RISE Alaska. (2006). Mat-su Borough Prison Project: Site Selection Report. Anchorage, AK: Author. Sechrest, D.K. (1992). Locating prisons: Open versus closed approaches to siting. Crime & Delinquency, 38(1), 88-104.
Schlosser, E. (1998). The prison-industrial complex. Atlantic Monthly, 282, 51-77.
Shichor, D. (1992). Myths and realities in prison siting. Crime & Delinquency, 38(1), 70-87.
Silas, F.A. (1984). Not in my neighborhood. American Bar Association Journal, 70(27), 27-29.
Smylka, J.O., Cheng, D.C., Ferguson, C.E., Trent, C., French, B., & Waters, A. (1984). Effects of a prison facility on the regional economy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 521-539.
Thies, J.M. (2000). Prisons and host communities: Debunking the myths and building community relations. Corrections Today, 62, 136-139.

To Alan Halberstadts blog:

http://www.alanhalberstadt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10023&Itemid=87#jreactions