SCI Somerset during a media tour on Wednesday, June 2, 2021. (photo by Commonwealth Media Services)
What has turned out to be one of the more controversial pieces of Gov. Josh Shapiro’s 2025-2026 budget proposal was never mentioned during his 90-plus minute speech laying out the spending plan Tuesday.
In budget documents, the governor proposed closing two Pennsylvania prisons, which his office says could save the state $100 million per year. He also proposed closing two community corrections centers for another $10 million in annual savings. The Shapiro administration has said falling incarceration rates in Pennsylvania make the closures possible.
But the proposal has drawn varied reactions. The prison guards’ union has come out strongly against it, though the Department of Corrections said in an email to employees that all current workers would be able to hold on to a job with the same pay if they choose. Advocates for prisoners in Pennsylvanians have expressed cautious optimism that the move could improve lives in prisons, depending on how it’s done. And some lawmakers who represent districts with prisons in them have expressed concern about the economic impacts on nearby communities.
The Department of Corrections says the specific facilities have yet to be chosen based on the recommendation of a “steering committee.”
‘Depends on how it’s executed’
Whether or not the move improves conditions for inmates by increasing access to rehabilitative programming and avoiding overcrowding in part depends on the durability of the trend of decreasing incarceration, as well as how the prisons slated for closure are chosen. How the plan is enacted could also have major impacts on communities with economies that rely on those prisons.
“Anything depends on how it’s executed,” said Claire Shubik-Richards, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, a nonprofit that offers support services for incarcerated Pennsylvanians and their families, including prison monitoring, transportation for visitation and mentoring.
In theory, Shubik-Richards approves of the idea to close the prisons.
“Most states, including Pennsylvania, have seen the footprint of their state prison population shrink,” Shubik-Richards said. “So this is really, I would say, belatedly keeping with a national trend.”
Both locally and nationally, prison populations have fallen since the COVID-19 pandemic saw many non-violent offenders released over health concerns. And the lower incarceration numbers have stuck. That’s led states like Illinois and New York to close prisons in the last few years.
In Pennsylvania, the state’s 23 prisons collectively hovered around 100% capacity before the pandemic, with some individual facilities overfilled. But the latest state Department of Corrections monthly population report paints a different picture, with facilities operating at just over 82% capacity. According to the Department of Corrections, there are more than 37,000 people in the state’s 23 prisons and one boot camp on any given day, and monthly reports show that number is often higher by thousands.
Jill McCorkel, a professor of criminology and sociology at Villanova University, said this is in part because of releases during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because of a bipartisan trend of support for legislation rolling back war-on-drugs era policies that started to stem incarceration rates in the late 2000s and 2010s.
At the time, America’s prison population was growing explosively, and increasingly costing taxpayers. Ethical and cost concerns brought together lawmakers and advocates on both the left and the right. Groups as disparate as Americans For Prosperity, a political advocacy group funded by The Koch brothers, and the American Civil Liberties Union can often still find common cause pushing laws intended to reduce mandatory sentencing laws around the country that were born out of the crackdown on drug use in the 1980s.
Shubik-Richards said she believes the lower incarceration numbers are here to stay, barring a “large external shock.”
But there are other considerations the Department of Corrections and the governor should take into account, she said. Right now, most Pennsylvania prisons are facing a severe shortage of reintegration-focused programs, whether those are educational, vocational or dealing with mental health and substance abuse issues. Consolidating staff at fewer facilities, Shubik-Richards said, could be one way to improve the situation. But that will depend in part on how many specialized staff can be retained.
And importantly, one of the best predictors of post-incarceration success for inmates is whether or not their families are able to visit them behind bars according to Shubik-Richards and other advocates. Numerous academic studies support a small to moderate reduction in recidivism associated with family visitation. Shubik-Richards wants any decision on which facilities to close to take into account the population centers where detainees are coming from.
Philadelphia and Allegheny County residents make up the largest share of the state’s prison population.
‘Potential powder kegs”
The Pennsylvania State Correction Officers Association came out against the plan to shutter prisons almost as soon as Shapiro announced it. John Eckenrode, the PSCOA’s president, said he learned about the proposal that morning.
Shortly after Shapiro’s budget address concluded, the union released a statement citing concerns about staff and inmate safety. When the state’s prisons were near capacity before the pandemic, Eckenrode wrote, violent incidents were occuring more often, both between inmates alone and inmates and staff.
“Closing these jails will create potential powder kegs of trouble that many of us thought were a relic of the past,” he said in the statement.
Eckenrode also raised concerns about the impacts on staff. In a letter to employees, the Department of Corrections said all staff “will be guaranteed an offer of a job at their existing pay and classification.”
Still, Eckenrode worries that closing prisons could force employees to choose between finding a new job, taking on long commutes, or relocating entirely.
“Some of these people are very involved in their communities. We have people who are volunteer firefighters, people who coach youth sports ,” Eckenrode said in an interview. “We’re completely upsetting lives. I realize their reason is saving money, but at what cost?”
The union also warned about the economic concerns for communities around prisons.
“This proposal also ignores how it will devastate both local economies,” he said in his statement Tuesday about the areas around the prisons slated for closure. “In nearly every case, a state prison is the primary economic development engine of its area. Families in these communities deserve better.”
Sen. Lisa Baker (R-Luzerne), the chair of the Judiciary committee that deals with criminal justice related issues, shares Eckenrode’s concerns about the economic impact, particularly in rural communities.
In 2020, the SCI Retreat prison was closed in her district, and she said the impact on the local community was massive. She also represents the community around another prison, SCI Dallas.
“Many of these facilities are the largest employers in their economy or in their community,” Baker said. “Many are located in rural areas, so other potential job opportunities in those communities with that level of salary and benefits would be much more challenging.”
Baker said that the impact of the Retreat closure on local businesses was estimated around $13 million annually. The prison’s staff spent money in town. The facility bought food and other goods from local vendors. And jobs provided decent salaries to many locals.
Now, she said, many prison staff in her district are already voicing the same concerns she heard then.
“I’m already hearing from corrections officers and their families, some of whom actually went through the Retreat closure,” Baker said. “It just creates that anxiety for folks because of the unknown.”
When Retreat was closed, however, Baker said the potential harms were offset somewhat by economic development initiatives and aid from the state government. A service provider for the local sewer authority, for example, received state funding to modify their lines that ran to the prison, a cost that would have otherwise been borne by ratepayers.
Baker said she’s not necessarily against closing prisons in principle. She is in favor of the move as a cost saving measure. But ultimately, her support may depend on the projected impact on local communities, and whether or not the state promises aid in economic development afterwards.
The decision on which prisons to close isn’t ultimately up to the legislature, but she believes they can have significant sway during budget negotiations.
Conflicting aims
Baker and Eckenrode’s concerns about the impacts of a prison closure on local communities, and Shubik-Richards and McCorkel’s concerns about the impact on detainees, aren’t necessarily at odds.
However, McCorkel, the Villanova professor, said that if the Shapiro administration prioritized access to rehabilitative programs and proximity to inmates’ families, they would likely lean towards closing rural prisons.
In 2023, around 23% of inmates were Philadelphia County residents, and nearly 7% were from Allegheny, according to a Department of Corrections report. And the city’s universities provide a source of staff and specialists who can assist with rehabilitative programming. Many students, studying subjects like social work, are willing to work or intern for the programs at low cost, McCorkel said.
McCorkel teaches classes in a program at the SCI Phoenix prison in Montgomery County, where Villanova professors teach inmates and guards alike.
“I’ve seen what it does. It fundamentally changes the course,” McCorkel says. “So many of our program graduates are incredible successes now. Literally leading nonprofit organizations, featured speakers at law school. Some have picked up law degrees.”
But rural counties are more likely to be more reliant on their prisons as economic engines.
“The loss of industry and the loss of a lot of farms has meant that for rural counties, prison became one of the only options for working class folks as a good source of employment,” McCorkel said.
Lawmakers are likely to raise this concern.
Sen. Dave Argall’s district has two prisons, Frackville and Mahanoy.
“There were a lot of places in Pennsylvania 20, 30, 40 years ago when these were being built saying, ‘We don’t want them! We don’t want them,’” Argall, a Republican from Schuykill County, said. “In some areas in rural Pennsylvania, we said, ‘OK! Find an isolated spot and build them.’”
Argall said one of his primary concerns with Shapiro’s proposal is the impact it would have on communities like Frackville and Mahanoy, which collectively employ nearly 1,100 full-time staff.
According to a 2023 report for the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, the Department of Corrections employs over 15,000 people and has hundreds of vacancies.
There are also conflicting concerns: Eckenrode’s warning that the closures could lead to overpopulation again, and Shapiro and other lawmaker’s hope that the move will cut costs.
McCorkel, like Shubik-Richards, is generally hopeful that the trend of lower incarceration over the past years will stick. However, changing political tides have her concerned that the country could face a new wave of pushes for increased sentencing and aggressive prosecution.
“There’s been calls from the Trump administration to unleash new categories of prosecution that we haven’t seen before, so I don’t know what that does to the prison population,” McCorkel said.
Moreover, she pointed to a recent executive order signed by President Donald Trump reversing a ban on private prison contracts with the Department of Justice, which she said could indicate an anticipation of increased prosecutions and convictions. She also pointed to another historical trend.
“It’s certainly the case from a historical perspective that, when facilities exist, they fill up,” McCorkle said. She called it “system inertia.”
But that works both ways. Closing prisons in Pennsylvania, she argues, could lead to decreased incarceration, or force lawmakers to find other ways to deal with convicts.
And she believes that there’s plenty of things Pennsylvania lawmakers can do to both decrease incarceration and improve outcomes for detainees.
One would be to reduce the elderly population in prisons. According to a 2024 Department of Corrections report, more than a quarter of the prison population is over 50, which the department noted as particularly costly, largely because of medical care. And, statistically, they pose less risk to public safety than younger people.
“That’s one of the truisms of criminology,” McCorkel said. “People age out of crime.”
Another option would be funding educational, vocational and mental health-focused programs in prison that are proven to decrease recidivism. Or focusing more on community-based correctional programs for nonviolent criminals, where convicts are able to remain in their communities, work and focus on rehabilitation.
McCorkel said these programs have numerous benefits. They often have lower recidivism rates, allow people to work and pay taxes, and it can have benefits for convicts’ families, especially if they have children under 18.
“In closing the institutions, there are opportunities to rethink what effective responses look like to people who commit criminal harms and criminal violence,” McCorkel said. “Closing institutions doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the end of correctional supervision.”