Monthly Archives: August 2012

Who Do We Lock Up? Four Key Characteristics of Cal’s Prison Population

Includes: interactive charts and maps

Who’s actually behind bars in California? Here are four key characteristics of California’s prison population:

Geography

The majority of inmates come from the southern part of the state. A whopping 50,000 – or 34 percent of all prisoners – come from Los Angeles County alone. But the highest incarceration rates are concentrated in poorer counties in the Central Valley and the Inland Empire. Leading the charge is Kings County in the San Joaquin Valley, where nearly 1 percent of the entire population is in state prison.

Click on the map below for info on the number of prisoners who come from each county in California, what percent of the prison population each county contributes, and what percent of each county’s total population is in prison.

Source: CDCR 2011 data

Race

The majority of prisoners are non-white. The largest group is Hispanic. But African Americans – who make up less than 7 percent of the general population and almost 30 percent of the prison population – are dramatically more likely to be imprisoned than any other group.

prison stats

Source: Public Policy Institute of California (using 2010 CDCR and 2010 Census data)

 

Age

The prison population is aging. Currently nearly 20 percent of inmates are age 50 and up, about quadruple the rate from 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the percent of prisoners under age 25 has steadily dropped.

Source: CDCR 2010 data

Gender

California’s prison population is overwhelmingly male. Men make up nearly 95 percent of all inmates. 30 of the system’s 33 facilities are for men.

Source: CDCR 2010 data

California’s 33 State Prisons (and the people inside them): An Interactive Map

As of August 15, 2012, California’s 33 prisons (30 for men, 3 for women) held about 120,000 inmates. That’s a lot of people behind bars, for sure, but it’s also a pretty significant drop from the year before, when there were roughly 27,000 more prisoners in the system. Today, most of the state’s prisons still remain overcrowded – about 150 percent above intended capacity – but progress has undoubtedly been made in thinning out the ranks. California no longer has the largest prison system in the country (things really are bigger in Texas). And it can almost entirely be attributed to the state’s public safety realignment program, which was put into effect last October with the goal of reducing the inmate population by about 33,000 within two years.

Mouse over the map below for information about each prison in California’s system, the current number of inmates, the change in population since realignment began, and each facility’s intended design capacity. Note that marker size is relative to the current inmate population in each prison. (It may be necessary to adjust the map zoom in to see specific details.)
Data source: California Department of Corrections

Teacher Invite: KQED’s Back-to-School 2012 Election Bash

http://u.s.kqed.net/2012/03/22/election480x86.gif

Teachers!

You’re cordially invited to KQED Education’s back-to-school election bash (October 3, 5 p.m.). Join us for a fun, free evening of food and drink.

  • Network with colleagues
  • Learn about our recently launched News Education project
  • Discover our large selection of dynamic 2012 election-related classroom resources.
  • Hear from California Report host/reporter Scott Shafer on key topics in the presidential election
  • See Bay Area Urban Debate League participants go head-to-head on election-related issues

Note: you must be a professional educator to attend.

Eventbrite - Free KQED Education Back-to-School Election Bash (for teachers)

Questions? Contact newsed@kqed.org

 

Realignment Explained

Last October California began a dramatic overhaul of its severely overcrowded prison system. Assembly Bill 109 – known as realignment – had the objective of shedding more than 30,000 inmates from in-state prisons and significantly cutting the prison budget. At the time the law took effect, there were more than 143,000 inmates behind bars in California’s 33 prisons. That’s almost twice the system’s design capacity. Meanwhile, California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation received about $10 billion a year from the state’s thinning general fund – over 11 percent of last year’s entire spending plan, more than was spent on the University of California and California State University systems combined. Continue reading

Is California’s Prison Realignment Experiment Working?

Depends whom you ask (real helpful, huh?).

On the one hand, the state has significantly reduced its prison population since realignment went into effect last October. At the end of September 2011, there were 144,456 inmates in the state’s 33 prisons, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (Note: that does not represent California’s total prison population, which also includes prisoners in in-state and out-of-state private facilities, and those in work camps).

California’s 33 prisons are designed to hold about 80,000 prisoners (based on one inmate/cell). So at the start of realignment, the prisons were at about 180% overcapacity. Continue reading

Shouldering the Burden: California’s New Jail Boom (interactive map)

California’s realignment process has resulted in many more new low-level offenders placed under county supervision rather than being put in the state prison system. Although the overall jail population has not changed significantly, many counties across the state have experienced a significant increase in their local sentenced inmate populations.

Click on each county below for average jail population rates of sentenced inmates between the third quarter of 2011 (before realignment began) and the first quarter of 2012.

jail legend

Data Source: California Board of State and Community Corrections

Eight Neighboring Nations with the World’s Largest Wealth Disparities (in GDP per Capita)

The world is not an equal place, and some places are a lot more unequal than others.

A national political border can have incredible significance; an abstract line separating neighboring peoples, economies, even life expectancies. Using GDP per capita as an indicator (sourcing the most recent Central Intelligence Agency data), the wealth divide between these four pairs of countries is vast … even though they geographically sit side by side.

(GDP defined)

Click on each country below to see the extent of the financial divide.
(I’ll leave it to you to figure out why this is.)

1.Kuwait and Iraq

Difference in GDP per capita: $38,300

2.United States and Mexico
Difference in GDP per capita: $34,200

3. Brunei and Malaysia
Difference in GDP per capita: $34,200 (tied with U.S.- Mexico)

4. North Korea and South Korea

Difference in GDP per capita: $30,000

GDP per Capita Around the World

Now that you can drop the concept of GDP per capita like the pros do, check out this interactive map that lists just about every country in the world (226) and their respective GDP per capita ranks in U.S. dollars. These figures are based on the most recent CIA data, with estimates derived from purchasing power parity (a complicated theory used to determine the relative value of currencies). It’s also worth noting that both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank compile their own GDP per capita data with slightly differing results.

The highest GDP per capita goes to Liechtenstein. Never heard of it? It’s really, really tiny, has a population of less than 40,000 and a GDP per capita of more than $141,000. In short,  Liechtensteinians are living large.

At the bottom of the list is the Democratic Republic of Congo in Sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 71 million people on an average of $400 a year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Are Israelis So Much Wealthier Than Their Palestinian Neighbors? (and yes, there’s a bit more to it than “culture”)

Includes Daily Show clip; radio clip

Romney was absolutely correct when noting that Israel’s GDP per capita is significantly higher than that in the Palestinian territories. But he was actually way off on the specifics: in suggesting that Israelis produced roughly twice as much as do the Palestinians, he vastly understated the disparity. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimated Israel’s per capita GDP at about 10 times (or 1000% more) that of the Palestinians.

In 2011 Israel had a per capita GDP of roughly $31,000, while in 2008 — the last year the CIA listed data for the Palestinians — the per capita GDP. of the West Bank and Gaza combined was about $3,000.

That’s a 1000% difference! Continue reading

Oh No He Didn’t! Wait, But What Does GDP per Capita Actually Mean?

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

During his recent trip abroad, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney caused a political stir in Israel (among other places he went) when he said that “culture makes all the difference” in explaining the vast difference in GDP per capita between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.

And it’s not hard to understand why Palestinians might have been a bit ticked off by the remark: it’s basically saying that you’d be more financially successful if you changed your lifestyle. Harder to grasp, though, is the economic concept that Romney used in his comparison.

GDP per capita: One of those terms journalists and politicos throw out there as though it was something that normal humans conversed about at the dinner table. But what does it actually mean? And how is it relevant – or not – in determining a country’s well-being?

Put simply, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one (of many) ways to measure a nation’s income and level of productivity. The textbook definition will tell you: it’s the the market value of all goods and services that a country produces in a given period of time (generally a year).

In normal speak: it’s all the (legal) things that are produced and sold in a country, and all the wages and profits that are earned. Basically, an indicator of economic health and wellness.

GDP per capita, then, is the total GDP value divided by the number of people who live in that country.

So, for instance, let’s imagine your family’s house is a nation unto itself (work with me here): your dad’s a carpenter and makes, say, $50,000 a year selling his furniture. Your mom’s a lawyer and makes a salary of $70,000/year. You, however, are still in school and not working and thus, not making any income (freeloader!). So, the GDP of your household would be the sum of all those incomes: $120,000.

The GDP per capita, then, would be $120,000 divided by the number of people under your roof – the three of you. So … GDP per capita = $40,000.

GDP per capita is often used as a rough estimation of a nation’s general standard of living; the higher the GDP, the higher that standard. Of course, just looking at that figure alone can be pretty misleading, especially if there’s a lot wealth inequality within a particular country. Remember, that GDP per capita is just an average – it’s the income of a representative individual in a given country.

Take the United States, for instance: GDP per capita here is one of the highest in the world. And although the overall standard of living here is pretty high compared to a lot of other countries, there are also a lot of Americans who live in poverty.

Check out this explanatory animation on GDP per capita (I know, I know –  it’s econ – but it’s kind of interesting!)