Prisons in North Carolina: are they a viable strategy for rural communities?

• Author: Hoyman, Michele

Abstract

A prison construction boom is currently underway nationwide. Non-urban areas are forming the impetus behind this movement. As rural areas become the sites of these new prisons, the local economies are experiencing associated growth through the provision of stable employment in often economically depressed locales. This is the case in North Carolina. North Carolina has effectively used its increased capacity needs for prisons to promote economic development in rural counties. Most of the academic and policy studies of economic development success to date focus solely on community level variables and their effectiveness. This article looks at the importance of state level siting procedures on host communities' experiences with prisons. The North Carolina Department of Corrections siting policies and procedures have contributed greatly to the success of this construction program. This paper will discuss factors affecting community receptivity to prisons with a focus on the effect that the state's, in this case North Carolina's siting procedures has on the community's perception. (1)

**********

Rural America has been increasingly eager to house prisons (Welch 1991; Young, 1994). (2) The logistical reasons are straightforward. These locales are more likely to pursue and obtain economic opportunities to offset their losses stemming from de-industrialization and the demise of the agricultural base of the economy.

Numerous articles and studies have been published regarding the booming "prison economy" across the United States. However, most of the literature has focused on community-level variables of residents' perceptions of what having a prison in the vicinity entails compared with the reality of the situation (Parcells & Farrington, 1988; Hodge and Staeheli, 1988; Poole and Lidman, 1988; Poole and Lidman, 1988; Carlson, Katherine, 1988), (Lidman, Russell, 1988; Rogers and Haimes, 1987; Sechcrest, 1992; Schicor; Smykla, Cheng, Ferguson, Trent, French, and Waters, 1984; Stanley, Craig, 1978). What will make a rural community define a potential prison siting in its midst as an economic development trophy? Alternatively, what will make a prison an unwelcome nuisance to be avoided (NIMBYISM--not in my backyard)? The question does not seem to be one of rational calculations, but of issue definition and intuitive decision-making. Many factors of varying importance determine the community's attitude and perception of what the prison means as an issue.

One factor that has been largely overlooked in the literature is the effect that the state's siting strategy (or model) has on determining whether the community is enthusiastic or negative in its views of a prison siting. This article examines prison sitings from 1979 to the present, in one state, North Carolina. The author addresses the factors affecting community receptivity to a siting and describes the state-promoted "good neighbor" policy that characterizes the manner in which new prison locales are identified and approved within this state.

Research shows that a prison siting in a community results in little or no negative impact on the host community's objective reality. Incidences of escapes, in-migration of prison families, and changes in real estate prices represent improbable events (Thies, 1998; Thies, 2000; Carlson, 1988; Lidman and Poole; Lidman, 1988; Abram & Lyons, 1988). Economic benefits do result from job creation and other additional industrial and commercial activity, even though additional tax revenues are not significant.

Prison sitings are inherently controversial. As one North Carolina Department of Corrections official stated, "whenever you site a prison, someone is going to be upset" (Interview, N.C. Department of Corrections, 2000). Historically, most communities shunned prison sitings. Until the mid-to-late 1980's it was unheard of that a community would actually seek out a prison. Prisons, like landfills were viewed as a NIMBYISM--or as a collective "bad". Recently, in Midwest states such as Missouri and Illinois, rural communities have been clamoring for prisons via overt and open bidding wars in front of the relevant committees of the state legislatures.

The author suggests that what is going on here is a change in issue definition regarding prisons. In one community, the prison may be defined in the following way: "Prison Equals Jobs or Prison Equals Economic Vitality. In another community the issue is defined as: Prison equals Higher Crime or Prison Equals A New Image as a Prison Town. The same objective impacts accompany the siting of the prison in each case, but the perceptions vary nonetheless. This variation may exist even within a community. One person may define the prison as the economic salvation and another may define it as the bane of the community.

Existing research has set some objective criteria by which a community can measure the disadvantages and advantages of the prison as economic development proposition (Hoyman, 1991). This research found that the siting of a prison would be beneficial to rural communities, assuming the absence of other more attractive, i.e. less stigmatized, economic development opportunities, such as large industrial sitings. Yet the answer to the question of whether a prison is a good thing still seems to vary with each host community. For instance, assessing whether the jobs created are considered "good" has two very important components: 1) the average salary on the prison payroll compared to the average current salary for the county, and 2) the goodness of the fit between the educational level of the workers who are unemployed and the entry level requirements of jobs. This second criterion is important to insure that the jobs will go to residents of the host county, as opposed to the residents from the adjacent county or from two counties over. Impacts of a large economic development project are often much more diffuse than local leaders think they will be when they recruit them (Hoyman, 1999).

A community's perception of what a prison siting means varies rather dramatically by community, with some being wildly enthusiastic and others being hysterical in opposition. Variation can also exist over time, within the same community, depending on factors such as the community's economic status and its political leadership. Within different constituencies, there can be variation among the political elite, the general public, and the business community. Finally, there is variation across states, depending on the state siting criteria and the process by which communities are invited (or not invited) to bid. Next, the author will address some of the more salient issues affecting a community's attitude toward hosting a prison.

Factors affecting community's attitude to prisons

1) Community's history of hosting a prison

One factor of importance to the host community's attitude is whether the host community had a past experience with a correctional facility. It is much easier to site a prison in a community that already is home to at least one existing prison or that is home to another governmental facility. In such cases, the groundwork has already been laid in dispelling fears and educating the populace of the reality of having a prison in the community. The more contentious sitings arise when business and community leaders are required to "sell" their constituents on the prospect of having a first-time prison in the community and allay the associated panic.

2) Security Level of Facility

Usually communities prefer maximum (or what are referred to in North Carolina and other places as close custody) facilities. Why? This may seem counter-intuitive at first, since these facilities contain society's hard-core criminals. However, according to a NC DOC official, residents have a higher comfort level with maximum-security facilities because of the extent of the safeguards (i.e. wired fencing, armed guard tower, larger buffer area) associated with these prisons. For these reasons, the risks to the surrounding community are perceived to be less.

The least desirable facilities include work camps and other facilities where occupants may be working outside in the community and interacting with residents. Medium and minimum security prisons generally fall between these two options in terms of acceptability. Abrams and Lyon (1987) also found that people tend to prefer a county jail over a state or federal facility.

3) Jobs and other economic activity

There are several questions that a community must answer before deciding whether the prison is good for it economically. First of all, how many jobs are generated? New prisons constructed in North Carolina can employ between 240 and 400 persons per facility depending on the security level and inmate population. (3) (There is a lot of variation in the number depending on the type of facility with the number currently employed at each facility displayed in Chart 2.)

Second, what is the salary? North Carolina correctional officers' salaries start at nearly $21,000 and progress up to a maximum of $37,500 based on the civil service pay scale. A third issue is whether the jobs go to county residents or to persons outside the county? As mentioned earlier, is there a match between the requirements of the job and the qualifications of county residents? The educational requirement associated with the correctional officer position is a high school diploma.

Chart 1 (4): Economic Data shows counties that had sitings from 1979 to 2000 and the educational data for their population. The chart illustrates the fact that the vast majority of adults in the counties that were host counties of prisons since 1993 did not have college degrees in 1990, the last year for which data was available. High school diploma rates for the seventeen recently hosted counties in 1990 ranged from 53.7% to 75.9%. So it would appear for the baseline jobs, as well as for the correctional...