4.8 Article

Concentrated incarceration and the public-housing-to-prison pipeline in New York City neighborhoods

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2123201119

Keywords

concentrated incarceration; public-housing-to-prison pipeline; hypersurveillance

Funding

  1. Center for Justice at Columbia University
  2. Center for Urban Research at The Graduate Center of City University of New York

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research explores the link between disadvantaged context and incarceration, focusing on the public housing-to-prison pipeline. Through a case study of New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing developments, the study reveals that the incarceration rates in NYCHA tracts are 4.6 times higher than in non-NYCHA tracts. Furthermore, a significant portion of New York State's incarcerated population originates from just 372 NYCHA tracts, highlighting the concentrated disadvantage in these areas. The findings emphasize the need for policies and programs to disrupt community-based pipelines to prison.
Using public housing developments as a strategic site, our research documents a distinct pathway linking disadvantaged context to incarceration-the public-housing-to-prison pipeline. Focusing on New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing developments as a case study, we find that incarceration rates in NYCHA tracts are 4.6 times higher than those in non-NYCHA tracts. More strikingly, 94% of NYCHA tracts report rates above the median value for non-NYCHA tracts. Moreover, 17% of New York State's incarcerated population originated from just 372 NYCHA tracts. Compared with non-NYCHA tracts, NYCHA tracts had higher shares of Black residents and were significantly more disadvantaged. This NYCHA disadvantage in concentrated incarceration is also robust at different spatial scales. Our findings have implications for policies and programs to disrupt community-based pipelines to prison.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available