Ncia Masking the Divide Racial Statistics 2001
Download original document:
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/4c/dc/4cdc03a5b6e866c0d02ae7d034701fca.jpg)
Document text
![Brief thumbnail](/media/cache/4c/dc/4cdc03a5b6e866c0d02ae7d034701fca.jpg)
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY REPORT MAY 2001 Masking The Divide: How Officially Reported Prison Statistics Distort the Racial and Ethnic Realities of Prison Growth Barry Holman 3125 Mt. Vernon Avenue Alexandria, VA 22305 703-684-0373 • Fax: 703-684-6037 www.ncianet.org/ncia MASKING THE DIVIDE: How Officially Reported Prison Statistics Distort the Racial and Ethnic Realities of Prison Growth Introduction Academics, politicians and citizen groups are re-examining the choice of focusing so many resources on criminal justice. In particular, the efficacy of incarceration as a crime control measure has come under scrutiny.1 Just in the last year, a number of studies have called into question the assumption that higher incarceration results in lower levels of crime.2 Still others have focused on what has been termed the “racial disparity” in criminal justice, particularly in prisons.3 The United States Department of State, in its report to the United Nations Commission on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), asserts that “[d]iscrimination in the criminal justice system” is a “principal causative factor” hindering progress toward ending racial discrimination in society.4 Findings from the 2000 census show that the racial/ethnic composition of American society is rapidly changing. The Hispanic/Latino population grew by 60 percent during the 1990s. 5 This brings the number of Hispanic/Latinos equal to the number of African Americans. And according to the Census Bureau, more than 90% of Hispanic/Latinos in American choose “white” as their race. While the census has attempted to differentiate non Hispanics of any race from Hispanic/Latinos, prison statistics have not followed suit. We do know that there are The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 2 over 200,000 Hispanic/Latinos in prison. But we also know that all of these men and women are also counted as white, African American, Native American, Asian, Hawaiian or of an undetermined race. We are left then without an accurate picture of the racial/ethnic breakdown of prisoners.6 Given the demographic shift in the country’s population and the knowledge that many Hispanic/Latino prisoners may be hidden in other racial categories, we question whether “racial disparity” in the criminal justice system can be understood in stark black and white differences. This study, the first of its kind, simultaneously differentiates between whites, African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos under the jurisdiction of correctional authorities. Because prison statistics don’t separate out Hispanic/Latinos from other racial groups, we believe the scale of the racial divide in American prisons is masked. This study tracks the change in prison populations on a state-by-state basis between 1985 and 1997, adding Hispanic/Latinos to the analysis. We ask a number of fundamental questions. What is the magnitude of racial and ethnic disparity in incarceration when Hispanic/Latinos are separated from other racial groups? How does this disparity differ from state to state? And how has it changed over time? The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 3 Findings A. Whites Systematically Overcounted in Prison Statistics Without distinguishing between Hispanic/Latinos, whites and African Americans, the number of white prisoners is significantly overstated. In 1985, we find white prisoners over estimated by 22% or 47,276 more than their actual number because thousands of Hispanic/Latinos were included in the count of white prisoners. Whites were reported to be 52% of the total prison population in 1985 when they actually constituted only 42.5%. Because very few Hispanic/Latinos identify African American as their race, the reported percent of the total prison population that is African American remains virtually unchanged, from 45.2% to 44.7%. Hispanic/Latinos accounted for 11% of the prison population in 1985. Figure 1: Reported vs. Actual Percent of Prison Population by Race,1985 60% 52% 50% 43% 45% 45% 40% Reported Act ual 30% 20% White Overcount =47 276 11% White prisoners overestimated when Hispanic/ Latinos are counted as whites. 10% 0% White African American Hispanic/Latino By 1997 (the most recent data available) the reported white percentage of the prison population had dropped from the 52% in 1985 to 41%. Again, by accounting for the Hispanic/Latino population being lumped in with whites in many states, we find an The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 4 inflated reporting of white incarceration. In fact, a 17% (74,074) over-count in the number of whites occurs when Hispanic/Latino prisoners are distinguished from whites. This brings the percent of the prison population that is white down to 35% — meanwhile, white non Hispanics are 75% of the adult population. African Americans are 47% of the prison population (11% of the adult population) and Hispanic/Latinos increased to 16% of all prisoners (10% of the adult population). Figure 2: Reported vs. Actual Percent of Prison Population by Race,1997 60% 48% 50% 40% 47% 41% reported actual 35% 30% 20% 10% White Overcount = 74,074 16% By 1997, the number of white prisoners had fallen to just over one-third of the total prison population. 0% W hite African American Hispanic/Latino It is clear that each year the gap between the proportion of white prisoners and non white prisoners is vastly understated because of how some states and the federal government classify Hispanic/Latinos. As Figure 3 shows, the divide between white and non white prisoners doubled over the twelve years examined. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 5 Figure 3: Percent Difference Between Non White and White Prisoners reported 4% actual 1985 -15% -19% 1997 -30% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% The divide between whites and non whites doubled between 1985 and 1997 when Hispanic/Latino prisoners were accurately counted. Non white prisoners outnumber white prisoners by 30% in 1997 10% With more than 47,000 Hispanic/Latino prisoners counted as white in 1985, it appears that there are 4% more white prisoners (52%) than non white (48%). When Hispanic/Latinos are taken from the white category the racial imbalance becomes a gap, with non white prisoners outnumbering white prisoners by 15%. In 1997, what was reported to be a 19% difference between whites (40.7% of the prison population) and non whites (59.3%) is actually a much wider 30% difference when Hispanic/Latinos are removed from the other racial categories. Between 1985 and 1997 the divide between the percent of the prison population that is white and non white doubled from 15% to 30%. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 6 B. Reporting of Race Statistics Masks the Truth Behind Bars. Figure 4 provides data on race and ethnicity for eleven jurisdictions whose reporting of prisoner race masks the reality of who is incarcerated (Appendix Tables 1 & 2 provide this analysis for all jurisdictions). Most of these states reported more than 1,000 Hispanic/Latino prisoners in 1997 and all categorized some or all Hispanic/Latinos as white for at least one of the two years. In New Jersey, the “official” percent of white prisoners was already very low at 34% in 1985. Removing the state’s Hispanic/Latino prisoners from whites drops New Jersey’s white prisoners to only 21% of the total 1985 prison population (that year white non Hispanics were 80% of the state’s population). By 1997, the official count had New Jersey’s white prisoners at 26% of the total population. However, by subtracting Hispanic/Latinos, the white percent bottoms out at 18% while non whites rise to 82% of prisoners. The divide between white and non white prisoners in New Jersey is 64 percentage points -- in the state as a whole, whites outnumber non whites 3 to 1. Between 1985 and 1997, while the New Jersey prison population was tripling in size, the percent of white New Jersey prisoners dropped 3.5 points. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 7 Figure 4: Percent of Prison Population that is White, 1985 & 1997 1985 % White Prisoners 1997 %White Prisoners STATE Reported Actual White Overcount Reported Actual White Overcount New Jersey 33.9% 21.2% 12.7% 25.8% 17.7% 8.1% New York 49.1% 27.1% 22.0% 42.9% 18.3% 24.6% Texas 58.5% 38.0% 20.5% 27.6% 27.6% 0.0% New Mexico 83.7% 34.2% 49.5% 83.0% 28.9% 54.1% California 61.9% 35.8% 26.1% 30.1% 30.1% 0.0% Federal 64.9% 41.7% 23.2% 58.0% 31.3% 26.7% Florida 50.1% 43.1% 7.0% 42.5% 36.0% 6.5% Colorado 77.9% 54.0% 23.9% 71.0% 45.0% 26.0% Arizona 79.9% 55.4% 24.4% 79.6% 48.8% 30.8% Utah 88.0% 70.9% 17.1% 86.2% 68.2% 18.0% Idaho 93.6% 84.5% 9.1% 80.9% 68.8% 12.1% New York reported that nearly one half (49%) of its prison population was white in 1985 when in fact the white non Hispanic population was closer to half of that (27%). In 1997, New York reported only a slightly lower percentage of whites (43%) then it had in 1985. The reality is that whites were actually less than one-fifth (18.3%) of the state’s prison population, a 25% difference in the number of whites. This change in the racial composition of prisons is even more pronounced in Arizona where in both 1985 and 1997 it appears that 80% of the state’s prisoners are white. By removing Hispanic/Latinos from the whites we find that in 1985 whites fall to 55% of the prison population. In 1997, the difference between the reported and actual white prisoner percentage drops 31 points from 80% to 49%. Similarly, Colorado reports The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 8 in 1997 that 71% of its prison population is white. But by accounting for Hispanic/Latinos this number is lowered 26 points to 45%. But without correctly counting Hispanic/Latinos, the Mile High State appears to have a prison population that is racially proportional to the overall state population. Two states from Figure 4 can be examined for the effect that the change in the process of recording and reporting prisoner race statistics has had. In 1985, Texas and California counted Hispanic/Latino prisoners with other races. Texas’ white prisoners were reported to be 58.5% of the population when they actually were 38%; California’s white prisoners in 1985 were reported to be 62% of all prisoners when they actually were 36%. By 1997 these two states had changed the way they counted Hispanic/Latino prisoners by placing them in the “other” category of the race table. For these two states the reported white, African American and Hispanic/Latino figures do not need adjusting. In Texas in 1997, whites accounted for 27.6% of the prison population, ten percentage points lower than in 1985. In California whites shrunk to 30% of the prison population. What must be remembered, however, is that using the reported race numbers in 1985 for these states will blur our understanding of how much non whites have contributed to the growth in prison populations from the mid 1980s through the late 1990s. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 9 C. Seventy Percent of Prison Growth Borne by Communities of Color During the twelve years we examined, the U.S. prisoner population more than doubled from 502,376 to 1,240,962. Nationally, non whites accounted for 70% of this growth in state and federal prisons. African Americans were 49% of the increase and Hispanic/Latinos 20% with Native Americans, Asians and others contributing 3% of the increase (Figure 5). Without separating Hispanic/Latinos from the whites, we would instead find that whites accounted for 33% of the prisoner increase, African Americans 49% and “others” 18%. Figure 5: Percent Increase in Prison Population by Race from 1985 to1997 African American 48.5% Hispanic/ Latino 19.5% Other 2.5% White 29.5% Between 1985 and 1997 the prison population more than doubled. Communities of color bore 70% of this growth. D. 90%of Prisoners added in New York between 1985 and 1997 were minority. This widening of the racial divide in incarceration is even more dramatic as we look at the prison populations of selected states (Figure 6). The state of New York offers The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 10 the prime example of how racial disparity in incarceration has grown to a gaping divide. Between 1985 and 1997, as the state’s prison population doubled, more than 90% of the change in the number of New York’s prisoners were from minority communities. Of the 34,396 prisoners added to New York’s prison population, 16,647 (48%) were African American, 13,148 (38%) Hispanic/Latino, but only 3,253 (9.5%) were white. Yet New York is a state whose adult minority population is 31.7% of the state’s citizenry. With nine of ten new prisoners added being an ethnic or racial minority, New York outstrips all other states in the pace at which it incarcerates non whites. Figure 6: States with 80% or More of Prison Growth from 1985-1997 that is Accounted for by People of Color. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 non white white NY MD NJ NC IL LA SC In neighboring New Jersey whites make up 72% of the state’s adult population. But in terms of prison growth, non whites were 85% of the increase—with African Americans accounting for nearly 11,000, Hispanic/Latinos 3,500 and whites 2,600 of the 17,000 state prisoners added between 1985 and 1997. Maryland (85%), Illinois The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 11 (82%), North Carolina (82%), Louisiana (80%) and South Carolina (80%) are also states whose prison growth was more than 80% non white but whose state-wide population is two-thirds or more white. The same pattern holds true for federal prisons as well. During the time studied, federal prison growth is 75% accounted for by people of color. Blacks were 41% of the growth and Hispanic/Latinos 32%. These statistics for federal courts and corrections are important because in 1987 Congress enacted “sentencing guidelines.” These guidelines were largely implemented to bring fairness to the sentencing process. With statistics like these, fairness seems more like a fallacy. E. In Most States the Majority of the Prison Growth Accounted for by Non Whites In 37 states (74%) non whites accounted for more than half the growth in the number of prisoners (Figure 7). Yet in only Hawaii and the District of Columbia does the non white population outnumber the white population. In Connecticut the prison population almost tripled from 6,149 in 1985, to 17,241 in 1997. Even though 17% of Connecticut’s adult population is non white, 82% of the growth in the prison population in Connecticut came from minority communities (78% of it from African American and Hispanic/Latino communities). In Massachusetts, where white adults make up 88% of the population and the prison population doubled, 61% of the increase was comprised of non white prisoners. In Alabama, which is 75% white, 71% of the growth in the prison population was African American. 66% white The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 12 Mississippi had a prison population that more than doubled (from 6,392 to 14,296), with 80.2% of that increase African American. In California (73%), New Mexico (76%) and Pennsylvania (74%) non white prisoners far outpace their white counterparts in populating the expanding state prison systems. Appendix Table 3 reports the percent of prison growth from 1985 to 1997 that is accounted for by each racial/ethnic group. The trend of non whites fueling the growth in prison populations holds true for every state and the federal prisons. In no state is the growth in prison racially or ethnically proportional to the group’s overall population. Whites are systematically excluded from prison in every jurisdiction while people of color are locked up at levels that far exceed their proportion of the population or their involvement in crime. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 13 Figure 7: Percent of Prison Increase that is Non White from 1985 to 1997 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% NY HI MD NJ NC IL LA SC MS CT NM TX DE GA PA VA CA AL FL AK MN WI OH AR MA MI In 3 of 4 states, the percent of prison growth between 1985 and 1997 that is non white was 50% or more. KS CO IN RI TN AZ WA In no state is the growth in prison accounted for by whites equal to or greater than the white proportion of the state’s population. MO OK The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 14 F. Rate of Incarceration Nearly Four Times Higher for Hispanic/Latinos, Nine Times Higher for African Americans African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos are not only much more likely to be incarcerated than whites, their rate of incarceration far outpaces that of white non Hispanics. Hispanic/Latinos have a rate of incarceration (1,058) that is nearly four times the rate of whites and the African American rate (2,629) is nine times that of whites (289).7 Figure 8 charts rates of incarceration (number per 100,000 adults) for eight states. The states with the lowest and highest rates were chosen from each of the four regions of the country. Along with the overall rate, the rates for whites, Hispanic/Latinos and African Americans are provided. Figure 8: Rates of Incarceration for Selected States, 1997 5000 White Rate Overall Rate Hispanic/Latino Rate African American Rate 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 MN MI NH NY WV TX UT NV Minnesota has the lowest overall rate of incarceration in the country (155), the rate in Texas (1,018) is the highest of any state (except Washington, D.C.) and nearly seven times that of Minnesota’s. The Texas white rate of incarceration (467) is nearly six times Minnesota’s (80), and the African American (4,115) and The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 15 Hispanic/Latino (1,045) rates in Texas are 1.7 and 1.5 times Minnesota’s rate. Yet within each of these states, both African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos are incarcerated at rates that dwarf whites. In Texas the African American rate is 8.8 times higher than the white rate while the Hispanic/Latino rate is 2.2 times that of whites. In Minnesota, these rate differentials are even more pronounced. African Americans are incarcerated at a rate 30.8 times that of whites and Hispanic/Latinos at 8.6 times the white rate. In 1997, the state with the lowest overall rate of incarceration has the largest gap between the rates of African Americans and whites. Appendix Table 4 provides rates by jurisdiction for each racial/ethnic group. G. The Divide Can Not Be Explained by Criminal Activity There are those who believe the relationship between crime and incarceration is as easy as “connecting the dots.”8 This simplistic reasoning may also lead some to assume that the increase in minority incarceration rates resulted from higher levels of criminal activity. As we previously reported, there are instances when the opposite actually occurs. For example, whites, African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos all consume drugs at a rate that is nearly identical to their proportion of the population. Yet at every juncture of the criminal justice system whites receive disproportionately lenient outcomes while non whites are many times more likely to be arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated. Further analysis of the Uniform Crime Reports9 data also show that the proportion of serious crime that is committed by non whites has not increased over the time period The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 16 examined in this study. In 1985, whites were arrested for 53% of violent crimes and 62% of index crimes. Twelve years later those percentages remain virtually unchanged with whites arrested for 56% of all violent crimes and 62% of index crimes while African Americans were arrested for 40% of violent and 36% of index crimes. What is largely driving the expanding prison population is the “war on drugs” and the associated laws, enforcement practices and sentencing schemes that fuel the divide in how the drug issue is dealt with in communities. The outcome of this system is higher rates of entry into prison for drug offenses and communities of color experiencing the pains of prison at a level far exceeding whites. Admissions to prison for drug offenses increased a whopping 1040% between 1986 and 1996. Non violent admissions rose 200% while violent admissions were 11 times less than drug offenses (82%). Overall, the rate of prison admission for drug offenses increased six fold for African Americans while the rate of white admissions doubled. In seven states the rate of admission for drug offenses declined between 1985 and 1995 for whites. In the same seven states the rate of admission for African Americans increased by an average of 285%.10 If prison growth was driven by crime, especially serious crimes warranting a year or more behind bars, we would expect to find the increase in the number of prisoners aligned with the level of crime for each racial or ethnic group. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 17 Conclusion No where do we believe the issue of race and ethnicity needs to be more closely scrutinized than in America’s prisons. Dosteovsky, Tocqueville and Churchill each saw prison as a barometer of society. Others have called prison the “canary in the coal mine of society.”11 Early on, scholars recognized that the poorest, most dispossessed and least powerful groups in a society populate prisons.12 America’s prisons are full to overflowing with half of all prisoners confined for non violent offense and half of these for drug offenses. While the racial disparity between the number of white and African American prisoners has received a fair share of attention, the reality of the racialized nature of prison growth has not been adequately explored along lines that clearly spell out the burden borne by racial and ethnic minority communities. Our analysis reveals that understanding the demographics of America’s prisons is not as simple as black and white. When Hispanic/Latino prisoners are disaggregated from whites the percent of the prison that is white is much lower than previously reported. Communities of color are far and away bearing the brunt of the escalation in the prison population. New York has the dubious distinction of leading the nation in populating its prisons with minorities – 90% of the nearly 35,000 prisoners added in New York were from communities of color. In 75% of all states, minorities accounted for more than half of this increase. Even in some states where 3/4ths of the population is white, more than 80% of new prisoners over a twelve year The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 18 period were minority. The once presumed racial disparity in incarceration is actually a gaping divide and the canary has no breath left to sing. Recommendations The overuse of incarceration is causing severe and potentially irreparable divisions in society. Below are few simple recommendations that could help turn the criminal justice system off its racist path and begin to repair the damage it is causing. A. States and the federal government should adopt uniform guidelines for gathering and reporting prisoner data on race and ethnicity. Specifically, a separate category for Hispanic/Latino prisoners that is comparable to currently gathered racial categories should be adopted. B. Any proposed expansion of state or federal prison systems, including new construction, should be subject to a “racial impact” assessment. C. In jurisdictions where the race/ethnicity of the prison population is incongruent with the racial/ethnic proportions of the general population and the racial/ethnic crime rate, a thorough assessment of the processes leading to this imbalance should be undertaken. D. End the systematic use of civil disabilities resulting from criminal conviction. These forms of “civil death” weigh heavily on individuals and communities. Being barred from voting, certain types of employment, education, public assistance and participation in other forms of civil life can seriously hinder the integration of an ex-offender into the community. When these civil penalties are implemented across communities of color they severely impinge on those communities right and ability of self determination. E. Invest in correctional policies that eschew bricks and mortar. Building new prisons diverts much needed resources from the communities that need them most. Community corrections strategies of supervision, safety and rehabilitation can work if they are properly supported. $25,000 spent sending a non violent offender from an inner city to a rural prison is a disinvestment of $25,000 in a community desperate for help. Savings realized through alternatives to incarceration should be put into prevention programs in at-risk communities. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 19 Methodology Three sets of data are used to calculate the statistics for this study: 1985 prisoner data: Correctional Populations in the United States 1985. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. December 1987. Table 5.6, p. 57 and Table 5.9, p. 60. Also see explanatory notes pp. 75-81. 1997 prisoner data: Correctional Populations in the United States 1997. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. November 2000. Table 5.6, p. 77 and Table 5.9, p. 80. Also see explanatory notes pp. 95-104. 1985 and 1997 population data by state from http://www.census.gov/outgoing/. Tables 5.6 and 5.9 from the 1985 and 1997 Correctional Population series are used to calculate the number of white, African American and Hispanic prisoners under the jurisdiction of each state. We use the under jurisdiction count as it gives a more complete and accurate portrait of those under the control of prison authorities. “In custody” counts underestimate the number of prisoners by excluding state prisoners held in local jails due to overcrowding, those temporarily held in another facility such as a hospital or those from one state held in another state’s prison. There is variation from state to state in how and who is counted as a prisoner under jurisdiction. A few smaller states include their jail population and a number of states report only “in custody” figures. Please see the explanatory notes in the Correctional Population series for state-by-state details. Correctional Populations Table 5.6 reports the racial breakdown of under jurisdiction prisoners as “White”, “Black”, American Indian”, “Asian” or “Unknown” but does not include the number of Hispanics. Table 5.9 in Correctional Populations reports The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 20 prisoners of Hispanic origin but does not break those numbers down by race. Thus “official” statistics provide a prisoner count that is most accurate for Hispanics but is actually an estimate for the racial groups. To separate out the number of Hispanic/Latino prisoners counted in white, African American or other race categories we examined census reports for each jurisdiction. While most Hispanic/Latinos report their race as white, 91.2% nationally in 1997, there is variation in this figure over time and from state to state. In those states that count Hispanic/Latino prisoners in race categories (white, black, American Indian, Asian, other/not known), we used the percent of Hispanic/Latinos who report their race as white, black, etc. in that state’s general population. We then multiplied that percentage by the number of Hispanic/Latino prisoners in that state. This number is then subtracted from the race categories to give the actual number of whites, African American and Hispanic/Latino prisoners. For example, New York had a prison population of 69,108 in 1997. New York reported 29,655 whites, 37,488 African Americans, 204 American Indians, 391 Asians and 1,370 others/unknown race prisoners. However, NY also separately reported that distributed throughout these races were 22,421 Hispanic/Latino prisoners. In New York State 75.8% of Hispanic/Latinos report their race as white to the census bureau, 21.6% as African American and 2.6% as some other race. We multiplied the 22,421 Hispanic/Latino prisoners by .758. This yields 17,000 Hispanic/Latinos in New York prisons that report their race as white. We then The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 21 subtract these 17,000 from the 29,655 whites New York originally reported. The remaining 12,655 equal the true number of white prisoners in New York prisons in 1997. These new figures for each state are then used to calculate the proportion of the change in the prison population that is accounted for by African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos and whites. In some states this procedure was not possible and we therefore believe that a white prisoner overcount still exists. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 22 Acknowledgments Barry Holman is the primary author of this report. Substantial and invaluable research and statistical assistance was provided by Mary Cate Rush who also laid out the report. Herbert Hoelter and Jerome Miller provided editorial assistance and encouragement. Special thanks to Julie Laudenslager who designed the figures, Vince at MJ who made the national release possible and Jason “Keeper of the Watch” Ziedenberg who was originally a primary author of the report but had to leave the project. About NCIA The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives is a non profit that promotes fair and humane treatment for those who come in contact with justice and human services systems. NCIA provides alternatives to institutionalization through national and local initiatives in the criminal justice, juvenile justice, education, mental health and developmental disability fields. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 23 Appendix 1 Number of Prisoners by Race/Ethnicity Before and After Removing Hispanic/Latinos From Race Categories, 1985 and 1997 White 1985 African American 1997 After Before After Before 1985 U.S.Total 260,847 213,571 505,513 431,439 227,137 224,396 590,454 582,439 54,672 54,672 198,673 198,673 4,436 4,435 7,615 7,614 6,560 Alaska 1,309 1,305 1,895 1,895 218 218 600 Arizona 6,813 4,730 18,686 11,451 1,362 1,341 Arkansas 2,347 2,328 2,264 2,260 31,027 17,963 Before After Before After 65,539 35,343 13,066 12,604 43,786 41,932 10,053 10,053 33,110 33,110 Alabama California After 1997 Before 26,123 16,774 Before 1997 State Federal After 1985 Hispanic/Latino 4,448 4,382 6,560 14,594 14,594 1 1 1 600 5 5 138 3,523 3,323 2,164 2,164 5,543 5,538 23 23 1 138 7,732 7,732 74 74 46,957 46,957 16,954 16,694 48,331 48,331 13,793 13,793 53,580 53,580 Colorado 2,624 1,818 9,562 6,051 705 695 3,320 3,219 833 833 3,731 3,731 Connecticut 2,210 2,210 4,630 4,630 2,765 2,765 8,059 8,059 1,162 1,162 4,471 4,471 Delaware 1,107 1,045 1,942 1,759 1,443 1,433 3,481 3,458 74 74 172 172 91 88 6,232 6,232 9,096 9,095 District of Columbia Florida Georgia 14,330 12,329 n/a n/a 27,445 23,275 14,142 14,069 35,771 35,544 2,088 2,088 11,983 11,720 n/a n/a 6,483 6,483 9,531 24,392 24,366 504 504 1,034 900 102 102 232 223 73 Idaho 1,258 1,135 3,165 2,690 32 31 65 50 Illinois 6,052 6,052 9,995 9,995 11,132 11,132 26,522 26,522 Indiana 6,433 6,351 10,132 9,753 3,464 3,460 7,707 Iowa 2,177 2,177 4,800 4,800 568 568 Kansas 2,975 2,807 4,608 4,131 1,678 Kentucky 3,382 3,382 8,976 8,920 1,592 Louisiana 3,858 3,858 Maine 1,193 Maryland 4 212 4 5,542 5,542 300 300 73 238 238 128 128 513 513 1,345 1,345 7,685 88 88 413 413 1,696 1,696 46 46 283 283 1,671 3,028 3,002 181 181 525 525 1,592 5,586 5,581 n/a n/a 64 64 6,852 6,852 10,032 10,032 22,360 22,360 n/a n/a 1,191 1,469 1,469 15 3,609 3,609 4,998 4,998 9,370 9,370 17,196 17,196 Massachusetts 3,527 3,067 5,590 5,590 1,849 1,776 Michigan 7,332 7,332 Minnesota 1,563 1,563 2,559 2,559 502 Mississippi 1,940 1,932 3,560 3,553 Missouri 5,878 5,878 12,917 12,653 Montana 889 859 2,058 2,058 16 16 35 35 34 Nebraska 1,173 1,117 2,237 2,056 553 552 1,008 999 Nevada 2,236 2,236 5,049 5,049 1,240 1,240 2,407 2,407 Hawaii 9,531 212 15 58 2 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 3,448 542 542 18,482 18,482 10,076 10,076 24,936 24,936 206 206 953 953 1,964 86 86 330 330 4,324 4,320 10,663 10,662 13 13 54 54 3,918 3,918 10,968 10,949 296 296 34 48 48 59 59 197 197 215 215 502 3,448 58 4,149 4,149 1,964 The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color n/a 2,634 2,634 n/a 1268 1268 24 White 1985 State Before African American 1997 After Before 1985 After Before New Hampshire New Jersey 669 662 2,019 1,930 14 3,841 2,406 7,316 5,022 7,483 New Mexico 1,935 791 3,892 1,354 239 17,032 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Hispanic/Latino 1997 After Before After Before 7,353 18,572 18,294 1,565 1,565 5,029 5,029 499 1,161 1,161 2,640 2,640 9,402 29,655 12,655 17,497 15,996 37,488 32,643 9,273 9,273 22,421 22,421 7,591 7,591 10,044 10,044 n/a n/a 344 342 10,986 10,837 611 576 5 21,846 21,072 11,188 11,188 545 9,341 20,418 20,418 5 20 n/a 98 n/a 18 2 2 40 40 9,553 9,541 25,938 25,876 165 165 864 864 2,434 2,434 7,097 7,097 112 112 762 762 5,839 503 501 1,010 1,010 158 158 867 867 11,632 11,632 8,035 5,259 5,259 Oregon 3,718 3,570 Pennsylvania 6,184 6,184 Rhode Island 926 838 2,157 1,749 378 South Carolina South Dakota 4,159 4,136 6,282 6,273 6,326 785 778 1,705 1,705 22 22 99 99 Tennessee 3,904 3,904 8,114 8,114 3,153 3,153 8,437 8,437 21,961 14,264 98 After 7 Oklahoma Texas Before 7 235 120 After 1997 113 9,341 14 1985 5,839 8,035 19,847 19,847 365 1,175 n/a 3291 3291 1,096 103 103 504 504 6,317 14,762 14,761 34 34 119 119 9 9 38,697 38,697 15,548 15,424 63,883 63,883 149 n/a Utah 1,437 1,157 3,709 2,933 146 Vermont n/a n/a 1,193 1,172 n/a n/a Virginia 4,914 4,914 9,221 9,221 Washington 4,863 4,863 9,376 West Virginia 1,465 1,464 Wisconsin 3,224 Wyoming 690 n/a n/a n/a n/a 7,821 7,821 37,137 37,137 292 75 292 75 328 303 836 836 36 35 n/a n/a 22 22 7,111 7,111 18,970 18,970 n/a n/a 91 91 7,731 1,273 1,273 2,962 2,885 384 384 2,643 2,640 260 260 502 502 1 1 3 2,938 7,910 7,027 2,072 2,060 7,788 7,738 307 307 974 974 628 1,190 1,190 36 36 82 82 64 64 182 182 1,858 1,858 Note: U.S. total may not add due to rounding The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 25 3 Appendix 2 Percentage of Prisoners by Race/Ethnicity Before and After Removing Hispanic/Latinos From Race Categories, 1985 and 1997 White 1985 Jurisdiction African American 1997 1985 Before After Before After Hispanic/Latino 1997 Before After 1985 Before After 1997 Before After Before After U.S. Total 51.9% 42.5% 40.7% 34.8% 45.2% 44.7% 47.6% 46.9% 10.9% 10.9% 16.0% 16.0% Federal 64.9% 41.7% 58.0% 31.3% 32.5% 31.3% 38.8% 37.1% 25.0% 25.0% 29.3% 29.3% Alabama 40.3% 40.3% 34.2% 34.2% 59.6% 59.6% 65.5% 65.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Alaska 56.2% 56.0% 45.5% 45.5% 9.4% 9.4% 14.4% 14.4% 0.2% 0.2% 3.3% 3.3% Arizona 79.9% 55.4% 79.6% 48.8% 16.0% 15.7% 15.0% 14.2% 25.4% 25.4% Arkansas 50.9% 50.5% 44.4% 43.7% 49.1% 49.0% 55.3% 55.3% 0.5% 0.5% California 61.9% 35.8% 30.1% 30.1% 33.8% 33.3% 31.0% 31.0% 27.5% 27.5% 34.4% 34.4% Colorado 77.9% 54.0% 71.0% 45.0% 20.9% 20.6% 24.7% 23.9% 24.7% 24.7% 27.7% 27.7% Connecticut 35.9% 35.9% 26.9% 26.9% 45.0% 45.0% 46.7% 46.7% 18.9% 18.9% 25.9% 25.9% Delaware 43.4% 40.9% 35.7% 32.4% 56.5% 56.1% 64.0% 63.6% 2.9% 2.9% 3.9% 3.9% 2.7% 2.7% 32.9% 32.9% 0.7% 0.7% District of Columbia Florida 1.0% 0.9% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.2% n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% 50.1% 43.1% 42.5% 36.0% 49.4% 49.2% 55.4% 55.0% 7.3% 7.3% 8.6% 8.6% Georgia 40.5% 40.5% 32.8% 32.1% 59.5% 59.5% 66.8% 66.7% n/a n/a 0.8% 0.8% Hawaii 23.9% 23.9% 20.8% 18.1% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.5% 3.5% 3.5% 4.8% 4.8% Idaho 93.6% 84.5% 80.9% 68.8% 2.4% 2.3% 1.7% 1.3% 9.5% 9.5% 13.1% 13.1% Illinois 32.5% 32.5% 24.5% 24.5% 59.7% 59.7% 65.0% 65.0% 7.2% 7.2% 10.2% 10.2% Indiana 65.0% 64.1% 56.6% 54.5% 35.0% 34.9% 43.0% 42.9% 0.9% 0.9% 2.3% 2.3% Iowa 76.9% 76.9% 69.2% 69.2% 20.1% 20.1% 24.4% 24.4% 1.6% 1.6% 4.1% 4.1% Kansas 62.9% 59.3% 58.2% 52.2% 35.5% 35.3% 38.3% 37.9% 3.8% 3.8% 6.6% 6.6% Kentucky 68.0% 68.0% 61.5% 61.1% 32.0% 32.0% 38.3% 38.2% n/a n/a 0.4% 0.4% Louisiana 27.8% 27.8% 23.4% 23.4% 72.2% 72.2% 76.4% 76.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a Maine 97.3% 97.1% 90.7% 90.7% 1.2% 1.2% 3.6% 3.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Maryland 27.8% 27.8% 22.5% 22.5% 72.0% 72.0% 77.3% 77.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a Massachusetts 65.4% 56.9% 46.8% 46.8% 34.3% 33.0% 28.9% 28.9% 10.1% 10.1% Michigan 41.3% 41.3% 41.3% 41.3% 56.8% 56.8% 55.7% 55.7% 1.2% 1.2% 2.1% 2.1% Minnesota 66.7% 66.7% 48.0% 48.0% 21.4% 21.4% 36.9% 36.9% 3.7% 3.7% 6.2% 6.2% Mississippi 30.4% 30.2% 24.9% 24.9% 67.6% 67.6% 74.6% 74.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% Missouri 60.0% 60.0% 53.8% 52.7% 40.0% 40.0% 45.7% 45.6% n/a n/a 1.2% 1.2% Montana 78.7% 76.0% 81.8% 81.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 3.0% 3.0% 1.9% 1.9% Nebraska 64.7% 61.6% 65.8% 60.5% 30.5% 30.4% 29.6% 29.4% 3.3% 3.3% 5.8% 5.8% Nevada 59.3% 59.3% 56.0% 56.0% 32.9% 32.9% 26.7% 26.7% 5.7% 5.7% The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 22.0% 22.0% 14.1% 14.1% 26 White 1985 Jurisdiction African American 1997 Before After Before After 1985 Hispanic/Latino 1997 Before After 1985 Before After 1997 Before After Before After New Hampshire 98.0% 96.9% 93.3% 89.2% 2.0% 2.0% 5.5% 5.2% 1.0% 1.0% 4.5% 4.5% New Jersey 33.9% 21.2% 25.8% 17.7% 66.0% 64.9% 65.5% 64.5% 13.8% 13.8% 17.7% 17.7% New Mexico 83.7% 34.2% 83.0% 28.9% 10.3% 10.2% 11.6% 10.6% 50.2% 50.2% 56.3% 56.3% New York 49.1% 27.1% 42.9% 18.3% 50.4% 46.1% 54.2% 47.2% 26.7% 26.7% 32.4% 32.4% North Carolina 43.8% 43.8% 31.8% 31.8% 53.9% 53.9% 64.6% 64.6% North Dakota 81.5% 81.0% 76.7% 72.3% 1.2% 1.2% 2.5% Ohio 52.7% 51.9% 45.5% 43.9% 45.8% 45.7% Oklahoma 63.1% 63.1% 54.5% 54.5% 29.2% Oregon 83.5% 80.2% 73.0% 73.0% Pennsylvania Rhode Island 43.5% 43.5% 33.3% 70.8% 64.2% 64.0% South Carolina n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.3% 0.5% 0.5% 5.0% 5.0% 54.0% 53.9% 0.8% 0.8% 1.8% 1.8% 29.2% 34.5% 34.5% 1.3% 1.3% 3.7% 3.7% 11.3% 11.2% 12.6% 12.6% 3.5% 3.5% 10.8% 10.8% 33.3% 51.9% 56.5% 28.9% 56.5% 27.9% 56.8% 34.9% 56.8% 32.5% n/a 7.9% n/a 7.9% 9.4% 9.4% 15.0% 15.0% 39.6% 39.3% 29.7% 29.6% 60.2% 60.1% 69.7% 69.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% South Dakota 75.0% 74.2% 76.0% 76.0% 2.1% 2.1% 4.4% 4.4% 0.9% 0.9% n/a n/a Tennessee 54.8% 54.8% 48.7% 48.7% 44.2% 44.2% 50.6% 50.6% n/a n/a 0.5% 0.5% Texas 58.5% 38.0% 27.6% 27.6% 41.4% 41.1% 45.5% 45.5% 20.8% 20.8% 26.5% 26.5% Utah 88.0% 70.9% 86.3% 68.2% 9.1% 8.9% 7.6% 7.0% 17.9% 17.9% 19.4% 19.4% 94.0% 92.4% n/a n/a 2.8% 2.8% n/a n/a 1.7% 1.7% Virginia 40.7% 40.7% 32.5% 32.5% 58.9% 58.9% 66.8% 66.8% n/a n/a 0.3% 0.3% Washington 70.4% 70.4% 71.0% 58.5% 18.4% 18.4% 22.4% 21.8% 5.6% 5.6% West Virginia 84.9% 84.9% 84.0% 83.9% 15.1% 15.1% 15.9% 15.9% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Wisconsin 59.2% 54.0% 48.6% 43.2% 38.1% 37.9% 47.8% 47.5% 5.6% 5.6% 6.0% 6.0% Wyoming 91.0% 82.8% 76.8% 76.8% 4.7% 4.7% 5.3% 5.3% 8.4% 8.4% Vermont n/a n/a The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 14.1% 14.1% 11.7% 11.7% 27 Appendix 3 Percent Increase in Prison Population Accounted for by Race/Ethnicity, 1985 to 1997 Jurisdiction U.S. total Federal Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota White Prison Pop Change Percent Change in Black Change Percent Hispanic Change Percent Other Change Percent 738,586 217,869 29.5% 358,043 48.5% 144,001 19.5% 18,673 2.5% 72,750 11,275 1,836 14,953 5,410 105,679 10,092 11,092 2,882 2,949 18,569 3,179 590 6,721 2,054 28,994 4,233 2,420 714 -84 25.5% 28.2% 32.1% 44.9% 38.0% 27.4% 41.9% 21.8% 24.8% -2.9% 29,328 8,034 382 1,982 3,278 31,637 2,523 5,294 2,025 2,863 40.3% 71.3% 20.8% 13.3% 60.6% 29.9% 25.0% 47.7% 70.3% 97.1% 23,057 0 133 5,568 51 39,787 2,898 3,309 138 4 31.7% 0.0% 7.2% 37.2% 0.9% 37.6% 28.7% 29.8% 4.8% 0.1% 1,796 62 731 681 27 5,261 437 69 6 166 2.5% 0.5% 39.8% 4.6% 0.5% 5.0% 4.3% 0.6% 0.2% 5.6% 36,026 20,491 2,867 2,567 22,154 7,999 4,106 3,179 9,625 15,375 394 9,227 6,557 27,016 2,983 7,904 14,202 1,388 1,588 5,253 1,481 17,026 2,375 34,396 14,268 375 27,152 12,212 3,545 20,737 2,064 10,663 1,195 10,947 5,237 396 1,555 3,943 3,402 2,623 1,324 5,538 2,994 278 1,389 2,523 11,150 996 1,621 6,775 1,199 939 2,813 1,268 2,616 563 3,253 2,453 234 10,235 5,929 2,269 5,448 911 2,137 927 30.4% 25.6% 13.8% 60.6% 17.8% 42.5% 63.9% 41.7% 57.5% 19.5% 70.5% 15.1% 38.5% 41.3% 33.4% 20.5% 47.7% 86.4% 59.1% 53.6% 85.6% 15.4% 23.7% 9.5% 17.2% 62.3% 37.7% 48.6% 64.0% 26.3% 44.1% 20.0% 77.6% 21,475 14,835 121 19 15,390 4,225 1,128 1,331 3,989 12,328 43 7,826 1,672 14,860 1,462 6,342 7,031 19 448 1,167 100 10,941 265 16,647 11,077 13 16,335 4,663 509 11,812 731 8,444 77 59.6% 72.4% 4.2% 0.7% 69.5% 52.8% 27.5% 41.9% 41.4% 80.2% 10.9% 84.8% 25.5% 55.0% 49.0% 80.2% 49.5% 1.4% 28.2% 22.2% 6.7% 64.3% 11.1% 48.4% 77.6% 3.5% 60.2% 38.2% 14.4% 57.0% 35.4% 79.2% 6.5% 3,454 300 165 385 2,804 325 237 344 64 0 -2 0 2,092 747 244 41 296 14 138 1,053 91 3,464 1,479 13,148 0 38 699 650 709 3,291 401 85 -9 9.6% 1.5% 5.8% 15.0% 12.7% 4.1% 5.8% 10.8% 0.7% 0.0% -0.5% 0.0% 31.9% 2.8% 8.2% 0.5% 2.1% 1.0% 8.7% 20.0% 6.1% 20.3% 62.3% 38.2% 0.0% 10.1% 2.6% 5.3% 20.0% 15.9% 19.4% 0.8% -0.8% 151 120 2,184 608 17 47 118 180 34 53 75 12 271 259 281 -100 100 155 63 220 22 5 68 1,348 738 90 -117 970 58 186 21 -3 199 0.4% 0.6% 76.2% 23.7% 0.1% 0.6% 2.9% 5.7% 0.4% 0.3% 19.1% 0.1% 4.1% 1.0% 9.4% -1.3% 0.7% 11.2% 4.0% 4.2% 1.5% 0.0% 2.9% 3.9% 5.2% 24.0% -0.4% 7.9% 1.6% 0.9% 1.0% 0.0% 16.7% The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 28 State Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Change in White Black Hispanic Other Prison Pop Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent Change Percent 9,532 4,210 44.2% 5,284 55.4% 75 0.8% -37 -0.4% 102,819 24,433 23.8% 48,459 47.1% 29,316 28.5% 611 0.6% 2,668 1,776 66.6% 157 5.9% 544 20.4% 191 7.2% 593 1,172 197.7% 35 5.9% 22 3.7% -637 -107.4% 16,312 4,307 26.4% 11,859 72.7% 91 0.6% 55 0.3% 6,305 2,868 45.5% 1,612 25.6% 1,474 23.4% 350 5.6% 1,423 1,176 82.7% 242 17.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.2% 10,835 4,089 37.7% 5,678 52.4% 667 6.2% 401 3.7% 791 562 71.0% 46 5.9% 118 14.9% 65 8.2% The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 29 Appendix 4 Prisoners by Race/Ethnicity, 1997 and 1985 Rate per 100,000 Adult Residents White Rate U.S. total Federal Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1997 289 24 315 594 473 282 366 259 224 406 65 289 306 329 341 151 250 236 243 332 326 158 195 137 308 80 275 362 340 185 543 227 116 209 136 238 128 289 558 267 145 261 315 349 240 467 237 270 242 218 197 199 372 African American Rate 1985 151 12 200 470 261 160 138 91 104 272 112 179 204 193 177 90 174 106 173 135 176 141 148 75 130 53 156 179 154 102 374 91 53 138 94 209 73 155 258 193 77 121 237 164 130 182 121 0 146 167 107 89 193 1997 2,629 189 1,906 4,011 3,510 2,111 3,128 3,067 4,240 3,609 3,672 2,610 1,706 960 1,577 2,220 2,368 4,807 3,046 2,869 2,452 1,411 1,754 1,652 2,640 2,459 1,645 2,735 1,869 2,439 3,144 2,109 2,447 2,166 1,739 1,818 780 3,010 4,302 2,784 2,551 4,369 1,894 3,232 1,414 4,115 3,193 1,679 2,009 2,310 1,206 4,476 3,434 1985 1,221 69 1,015 1,750 2,300 969 1,266 857 1,780 2,144 1,998 1,476 915 654 1,609 1,028 1,289 2,077 1,930 920 1,207 561 1,297 1,039 1,272 1,127 774 1,131 1,166 1,698 3,246 387 1,156 1,356 946 1,019 244 1,303 1,666 1,964 1,106 1,746 984 1,227 644 1,226 2,267 0 972 1,584 606 1,670 1,577 The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color Hispanic/Latino Rate 1997 1985 1,058 471 176 87 4 5 940 58 1,281 657 274 198 865 372 1,062 341 2,697 1157 1,365 965 14 0 350 234 225 0 392 178 1,046 508 561 284 468 159 873 266 649 388 313 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 1,187 429 596 197 684 361 365 101 549 0 506 540 485 310 796 408 900 135 754 384 589 342 1,294 725 0 0 985 83 778 213 1,052 258 767 312 1,722 0 1,298 508 384 162 0 370 200 0 1,045 340 1,051 707 588 0 56 0 921 419 42 14 1,272 705 1,019 408 Overall Rate 1997 626 57 689 993 710 538 669 469 695 977 2213 577 664 561 455 462 411 326 411 499 932 171 576 256 619 155 725 600 387 281 732 247 468 384 507 569 167 574 844 330 382 450 748 424 411 1018 314 285 557 319 225 423 445 30 1985 286 23 379 664 369 269 257 142 254 549 1296 324 371 276 197 221 248 134 265 184 444 143 395 121 269 77 350 265 191 157 527 92 199 231 259 372 86 265 350 225 159 176 433 209 202 324 158 171 283 214 121 156 217 Endnotes 1 Former President Clinton, Republican Governors George Pataki of New York, and Gary Johnston of New Mexico and other elected officials have called for a reform of drug sentencing laws. In California, 62% of voters favored an initiative [Proposition 36] that will divert more than 35,000 people convicted of drug crimes from prison to treatment programs. 2 Gainsborough, Jenni and Mauer, Marc. “Diminishing Returns: Crime and Incarceration in the 1990s.” Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, 2000; Rose and Clear in Cose, Ellis. “The Prison Paradox.” Newsweek. November 17, 2000; Schiraldi, Vincent, Holman, Barry and Philip Beatty. “Poor Prescription: the Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States.” Washington, D.C.: The Justice Policy Institute, 2000; Spelling, William “The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion.” In The American Crime Drop. Blumstein, Alfred and Wallman Joel, eds. Boston: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Rosenfeld Richard. “Patterns in Adult Homicide: 1980-1995.” In The American Crime Drop. Blumstein, Alfred and Wallman Joel, eds. Boston: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 3 Tonry, Michael, Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Miller, Jerome G. Search and Destroy: African-American Males in the Criminal Justice System. Cambridge University Press: 1996; Kennedy, Randal. Race, Crime and Law. New York: Pantheon Books, 1997 Cole, David. No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Justice System. New York: New Press, 1999 Mauer, Marc. Race to Incarcerate. New York: New Press, 1999 4 “Initial Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.” U.S. Department of State. Washington, D.C.: September 2000. Available on-line at http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/cerd_report 5 “Hispanic” is defined as those who have Spanish-speaking ancestry but may belong to any race. Schmidt, Eric. “Census figures Show Hispanics Pulling Even with Blacks.” The New York Times. March 8, 2001. 6 Prison populations and prisoner demographics are compiled in the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics publication entitled “Correctional Populations in the United States.” Prisoner race and ethnicity for each state is reported in two separate tables. One table (5.6) reports the race of each prisoner. “Hispanic” is not included as a racial category in this table, however Hispanic prisoners are contained somewhere within the other five racial categories. In addition, there is great variability in the way the states decide which racial category Hispanic/Latino prisoners will be reported in. Some states put all or some Hispanic/Latinos in the “other” category. Other states put them only in “white” and some allow Hispanic/Latino prisoners to choose which racial category they The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 31 6 prefer. In this last scenario Hispanic/Latinos may be distributed across all racial categories. A second table (5.9) reports ethnic origin as either “Hispanic” or “Non Hispanic” but does not break down these numbers by race. 7 Rate of incarceration is calculated using the adult population as prisons hold very few youth. Because of the way census data were reported in 1985, “adults” are those ages 20 and over. For 1997, the ages 18 and over are used. 8 Morgan Reynolds in Cose, Ellis. “The Prison Paradox.” Newsweek. November 17, 2000. 9 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports 1985 and 1997. 10 Schiraldi, Holman and Beatty, 2000. 11 Miller, Jerome G., “American Gulags”. Yes Magazine. August 2000 12 Reusche, George and Kirchheimer, Otto. Punishment and Social Structure. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939. The Divide: Incarceration and its Disparate Impact on Communities of Color 32