CONSTRUCTION - 1929

     Graterford Prison, established in 1929, was Pennsylvania's largest maximum-security prison until its closure in 2018. Situated in Skippack Township, the facility occupied a vast 1,730-acre area, including a 62-acre prison compound surrounded by imposing 30-foot high walls topped with nine staffed towers. The construction of Graterford marked a significant shift, replacing functions previously held at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia.

     Originally, Graterford featured five major cellblocks, each with around 400 cells. These blocks were supplemented by a security unit known as the Behavior Adjustment Unit (BAU) or Restricted Housing Unit (RHU). The prison's original 1929 plan envisioned eight major cellblocks, a design aimed at accommodating 3,200 individual cells. The construction of Graterford was part of an ambitious vision. The plans depicted a hall wall with sentry boxes commanding a full sweep of the compound. The prison's layout aimed for plenty of light and air, with each of the eight buildings positioned 75 feet apart from its nearest neighbor. This design decision allowed for a spacious and airy environment, crucial for both guards and prisoners.

     The prison was designed to be as self-sustaining as possible, with inmates engaged in various activities. Workshops, supervised by prison staff, were established within the prison walls, including garment factories, shoe factories, and a mail distribution center. Additionally, farming operations were conducted under strict supervision, with prisoners raising food for their own consumption. Graterford's primary objective was to ensure that every inmate was engaged in daily work. Apart from employment in workshops, inmates were involved in farm work, contributing to the prison's self-sufficiency. While sports and recreational activities were part of the plan, they were not emphasized. The construction of Graterford relied heavily on inmate labor. Around 72 prisoners were engaged in clearing the ground for the erection of the first unit, overseen by Deputy Warden Leitheiser and a detail of guards from the penitentiary. Despite weather-related challenges, progress was steady, with the work proceeding better than expected.

     Graterford's self-sustainability extended to its internal operations, with various industries established within the prison, generating revenues and providing employment for both inmates and civilian staff. These industries included garment manufacturing, shoe production, and a mail distribution center, among others. Additionally, the prison conducted farming operations, aiming to produce food for its own consumption.

PHILOSOPHY

This source discusses the prison system classifications and how prisoners are sorted and classified by level of offense. These classifications were similar to that of Eastern, except prisoners were given more space and access to sunlight – a stark contrast to Eastern. There is also mention of the educational opportunities afforded to inmates at Graterford, like the option to earn a diploma or work the 1000+ acre prison farm. Such options were not available at Eastern, so on the surface, this prison appears to be an improvement.  

However, this newspaper article is a prime example of why it’s important to examine context and parse out what people are saying versus what they mean. For example, in the article, Dr. Cooper uses particular words to shed light on the positive aspects of Graterford. He uses “Dining Room” instead of “cafeteria” which, in some ways, evokes a sense of elegance and cleanliness that “cafeteria” would not have. He also says that the prison was constructed to allow for a maximum amount of natural sunlight. This is all well and good, but in the sentence before he states that inmates built the prison itself, with an implied “unpaid” statement. 

Overall, the value of this piece is twofold: it offers a glimpse into what things were like, from a person who was present, but it is an excellent lesson in being critical and of what you read. The words have a “sugarcoat” feel to them, which can be supported by a mountain of evidence of malpractice in prisons both historically and in the present. 

       This report, written by Dr. Wayne N. Welsh, a professor from Temple University, conducts research evaluating the relationship between inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes on behalf of the Department of Justice. This project is funded by grants from the Department of Justice. The purpose is to answer the research question- if in-prison therapeutic community programs for hard-core drug users are effective. The study hopes to present evidence that refutes critic claims that the program’s results are inadequate by examining the individual and programmatic factors of effective drug treatment across multiple prisons, including Graterford. The study utilizes race as a control variable, this primary source’s research is funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, thus they are the primary audience since the project is a product owned by the State. Other primary audiences include the critics and supporters of in-prison therapeutic treatment. In addition to academics, prisoners, and families are interested in prison drug programs. The demographic of audiences interested in this research is vast. However, the families and friends of prisoners participating in the drug program have a more invested interest in the results.

       This source discusses the potential of in prison Therapeutic Communities (TCs) to help address drug abuse and recidivism among inmates. Specifically, it examines the relationship between inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes across five state prisons in Pennsylvania. Shortly before this study took place, in 1994 Bill Clinton signed a crime bill which heavily militarized the police force, increasing the crack down on drug crimes, and the establishment of the three-strike rule. They “forced millions of people, who would not otherwise be in prison today, into prison” (13th). Additionally, the report talks about how some of these TCs have high turnover rates due to the people running the programs having little discretion when rejecting or removing participants. This parallels directly with the concept of how rehabilitation was seen in Colored Amazons by Kali Gross. In the text, Gross states that “criminality lay largely in the eye of the beholder, and those individuals most likely to be gazing did so through a distorted lens” (Gross, 128). This is important to note because there were many people that used racial stigmas and biases to justify if someone was worth rehabilitating or not in Asylums. This can be paralleled to how people are identified as good candidates for the drug program in prisons.  

       Due to what we have learned in class about the use of drugs to incarcerate African Americans in the U.S., this source plays a pivotal role in seeing how Pennsylvania has responded to those who need assistance. This report highlights the philosophies and strategies employed at SCI-Graterford to help inmates enrolled in TCs. Firstly, TC supervisors at Graterford believe it is vitally important to have a rehabilitation model that parallels society so that those enrolled will be taught how to be a productive member of society. These programs' outcomes were positive overall. Those who completed TCs showed higher self-esteem, self-efficacy, and social conformity with lower rates of depression, anxiety, hostility, and risk taking. This sounds great; however, it is up to the supervisors of these TCs on who can be enrolled and once enrolled, who can stay in the program. Thus, the TCs at Graterford have a termination rate of 71%, the highest amongst the five state prisons studied. This is a staggering number as those who may need help the most are unable to fully complete the programs designed just for that use. This source is a notable example of how to read between the lines of reports on the successes of prison programs. Many of these treatment groups boast their positive effects while disregarding the actual availability of them. In the overall review of Graterford’s TC, the supervisors even mention how “severe mental health issues may preclude admission” (195). Another example of how people who need the most help are often ignored.  

       On the morning of August 25, 1934, more than 200 prisoners at New Eastern Penitentiary at Graterford rioted for two hours, totaling around $40,000 (almost $1 million today). At around 10:30 AM, forty to fifty prisoners stopped a truck approaching the kitchen platform and took control of it. After backing the truck up to the entrance of the kitchen, inmates poured into the assistant mess steward's office, breaking anything they could get their hands on. The group of inmates then made their way to the butcher shop, taking the staffs' knives and cleavers. By the time they had reached the cell blocks, the group was around 200 strong, all armed with real or makeshift weapons. The rioters began to pile up mattresses and set them ablaze. Within the hour, Pennsylvania State Police came to reenforce the prison guards, who are not permitted to be armed. It was here the rioters retreated to a hill within the walls and began demanding for better food, more liberties, and reduction of penalties. As the 72 police officers advanced onto the hill, the riot quickly collapsed. Instead of sending the prisoners back to their cells, they were kept in an "outdoor cage" all night. 

       The direct cause of this riot is still not fully known. Assistant Warden Captain Elmer Leithiser believes this was in response to a prisoner being transferred from one cell block to another as punishment for a misdemeanor. As far as the prisoners' demands, prison officials do not believe they are rooted in fact. The conditions at New Eastern Penitentiary at Graterford are described to be modern with plenty of space, as over 350 cells are vacant. Additionally, prison officials describe the cells to be "more comfortable than the quarters provided by the State for patrolmen." 

       Following the riot, 1,700 prisoners went on strike and refused to work, making it impossible to carry on the regular daily routine of the prison. Warden Herbet A. Smith was given the power "to take whatever means necessary to maintain order at the institution." Thus, while guards were previously not permitted to use firearms in these cases, "machine guns, rifles, pistols, and riot clubs" all recieved the green light to be used. 

The Report of the Governor’s Panel to Investigate the 1981 Hostage Incident at Graterford State Correctional Institution

     This report was written by the Governers panel to investigate the failed escape attempt and later hostage incident at Graterford on October 28,1981. The board consisted of the chairman; Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Malcolm L Lazin, Ralph Scalera, Ian Lennox, Representative Warren H, Reverend Thomas Ritter Senator T. Milton. The authors and members of the panel were appointed by Governor Thomburgh. This source's main purpose was to create an accurate retelling of events during the hostage Incident for the state of Pennsylvania's records. From this, it was determined the errors within the prison's operations leading up to the hostage situation. The report discusses how the errors could have been avoided and will be avoided in the future.

       In the document, Graterford has selected issues examined and recommendations made for solutions to these issues. One such issue that is all too common in prisons across the country is overcrowding. The document discusses how crime in Pennsylvania rises in the 1970s and attributes this rise in crime to “the post-war baby boom generation was in its ‘high-crime years’ of the late teens and early twenties” (26). Additionally, the document states that prison populations have risen since “the social tolerance for crime has dropped substantially” (26). With this tolerance dropping, “judges have been giving longer sentences...and tough anti-crime mandatory sentencing and sentencing guideline measures have been enacted into law” (26). Looking at the time periods this document discusses, it is clear to relate this information to the documentary 13th. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon created this law-and-order period where police officers were given the go ahead to be tougher on crime. Specifically, President Nixon used the word “war” to communicate how he planned on fighting crime, by enacting an all-out war on it. Here, we saw more and more mandatory sentencing policies get signed into law, sending people to prison for low-level offenses. Additionally, the specific crime that President Nixon attempted to fight was drug crimes, hence starting the War on Drugs. In the documentary, clear evidence is shown of a Nixon administration official admitting that the war on drugs was all about sending black people to prison. Following President Nixon’s reign, in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was sworn in and continued the war on drugs with elevated tactics. In 1982, the same year this document was written, Reagan declared the modern war on drugs. Thus, it is no wonder the document talks about seeing an increase in crime. This is exactly what was happening all around the country. Additionally, the document admits that as of June 30, 1982, Graterford was “152 inmates over capacity” (26). Mass incarceration in the Reagan era was beginning to take form and was finally being noticed by the prisons, however, they did not take any steps to fix this issue.  

       This document holds prime examples of how life was viewed in prisons during the rise of modern mass incarceration in the 1970s and 1980s. All of the information given in this document talks about how great Graterford is and how it is always improving, but is, for the most part, an excellent prison. This document was written in response to an escape attempt and a hostage situation. An event like this does not sound like it would happen in a functional prison. Understanding that documents from the prisons are not going to tell the full story of what happens inside its walls is integral in discerning the truth about prisons during this time. The piece that directly relates to mass incarceration is the section of this document that discusses overcrowding. As stated before, the document hints at the reasons prison populations have grown by just saying laws have been enacted, not going into detail about what laws and how they were being used by law enforcement. Additionally, this document admits that sharing a cell is not ideal because of the space availability in one of these cells. Graterford is supposed to be one man to a cell, however, with it being over capacity, this is not possible. Thus, some people are forced to share cells, and because of this, “aggression grows” (26). Thus, because aggression grows due to unsuitable living conditions, there are increases in assaults in the prisons, thus lengthening the stays of these inmates even more, combining for more overcrowding. This cycle is clearly outlined if one reads between the lines of the document, a skill many have used to study the history of African Americans in U.S. History.

     Generations of Philly Families are Incarcerated Together

     Samantha Melamed's article, "Generations of Philadelphia Families Are Incarcerated Together," delves deeply into the intricate and often devastating impact of incarceration on families in Philadelphia. Melamed paints a vivid picture of the issue, starting with striking statistics that highlight the exponential growth of the prison population over the years. From approximately 12,000 inmates in 1986 to nearly 52,000 in 2011, the numbers tell a story of a system that has expanded significantly over the decades. The article then delves into the personal stories and expert opinions that reveal the complex web of factors contributing to this phenomenon. Secretary of Corrections John Wetzel sheds light on the backgrounds of many inmates, revealing that a significant percentage come from the foster care system, lack high school diplomas, and have been exposed to trauma. Wetzel emphasizes the crucial role of education and economic opportunities in driving prison populations. Melamed also explores the lasting impact of labeling individuals as criminals, noting how this stigma can perpetuate criminal behavior across generations. She discusses the role of genetics, referencing research by Kevin Beaver, a criminology professor, who suggests a genetic predisposition to criminality. However, Beaver underscores that environmental factors play a significant role and can either activate or suppress certain genetic traits. Personal narratives further illustrate the profound impact of incarceration on families. For instance, Makkah Dillard's story highlights the cycle of trauma and neglect that often precedes criminal behavior. Dillard's childhood was marked by abuse and instability, factors that researchers link to increased risk of involvement in the criminal justice system. Similarly, the experiences of Preston Grimes and his son Tyler shed light on the challenges faced by incarcerated parents. Grimes reflects on his own failures as a father and the difficulty of maintaining meaningful relationships with his children while incarcerated. Tyler's perspective offers insight into the struggle of growing up in an environment where incarceration is normalized, leading to a sense of inevitability about one's own involvement in the system. The article also showcases moments of resilience and hope. Inmates like Cintron Jr. strive to break the cycle of incarceration by advocating for programs that strengthen family bonds. Cintron's initiative, Fathers and Children Together, aims to provide incarcerated fathers with the tools and resources they need to maintain relationships with their children and positively impact future generations.