HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Drug Issues. 2017 ; 47(1): 132–142. doi:10.1177/0022042616678614.

Comparing Black and White Drug Offenders: Implications for

Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice and Reentry Policy and
Programming
Alana Rosenberg, MPH1, Allison K. Groves, PhD2, and Kim M. Blankenship, PhD3
1Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Author Manuscript

2Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

3Department of Sociology, American University, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract
Despite knowledge of racial bias for drug-related criminal justice involvement and its collateral
consequences, we know less about differences between Black and White drug offenders. We
compare 243 Blacks and White non-violent drug offenders in New Haven, CT for demographic
characteristics, substance use, and re-entry services accessed. Blacks were significantly more
likely to have sales and possession charges, significantly more likely to prefer marijuana, a less
addictive drug, and significantly less likely to report having severe drug problems. For both races,
drug treatment was the most common service accessed through supervision. These comparisons
suggest different reasons for committing drug-related crimes and thus, different reentry
Author Manuscript

programming needs. While drug treatment is critical for all who need it, for racial justice, we must
also intervene to address other needs of offenders, such as poverty alleviation and employment
opportunities.

Keywords
race difference; drug of choice; drug offense; drug treatment; reentry

Introduction
The overwhelming increase in incarceration, attributed to the drug war, has
disproportionately impacted Black communities. In 2011, Blacks were incarcerated at a
Author Manuscript

dramatically higher rate than Whites (5–7 times) and accounted for almost half of all
prisoners incarcerated with a sentence of more than one year for a drug-related offense
(Carson and Sabol 2012). Accordingly, researchers and policy analysts have sought to
understand both the causes and effects of the nation’s war on drugs and its implications for

Authors’ Note
The funders played no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors
and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
 Rosenberg et al. Page 2

racial equality (Ghandoosh 2015; Travis, Western, & Redburn 2014; Alexander, 2012;
Author Manuscript

Drucker 2013; Mauer 2006). They have explored racial bias in the criminal justice system
and criminal justice outcomes, including police practices, arrest rates, convictions, sentence
lengths, diversionary opportunities, and community supervision; judicial policies and laws
such as precedent-setting court cases and mandatory minimum sentences; and media trends
and their influence on public opinion. This literature demonstrates greater likelihood of
Black involvement in the criminal justice system through policing practices and sentencing
policies for drug-related crime, differences in sentencing practices and case processing, and
the heightened disadvantage Blacks face once they are removed from their communities, and
upon return, as labeled felons and drug offenders.

While a decades-long war on drugs has ravaged Black communities, lately attention has
turned to the recent surge in heroin and painkiller use and overdose among Whites,
particularly those in suburbs. Local police and state governments are alarmed and are
Author Manuscript

working to address the epidemic as a health issue, reexamining criminal justice policies and
the decades-long emphasis on punishment (Seelye 2016). Many are advocating for the return
of the rehabilitative role in judicial and correctional efforts as it relates to drug-related
offenders (National Institute on Drug Abuse 2014). The Comprehensive and Addiction
Recovery Act of 2015 will be considered by Congress to help states address the dramatic
increases in prescription opioid and heroin use in the United States through prevention and
rehabilitation efforts. The response to the current opioid epidemic, a public health crisis with
a “white face,” has been contrasted to the crack epidemic that hit Black communities hard in
the 90s and was met with war tactics in affected communities rather than compassion for
offenders (Yankah 2016). Such contrasting policy responses have prompted some to raise the
question of racially biased motivations and their implications (Mauer 2016). We need race-
specific research that is sensitive to differences among offenders in their drug trade
Author Manuscript

involvement to understand the impact of our criminal justice policies. To ensure that policies
do not reflect racial bias and continue to perpetuate race-biased outcomes, it is important to
consider the demographic, drug use, and service need differences between Black and White
drug offenders.

With this analysis we contribute to the dialogue on racial bias in the criminal justice system
by comparing characteristics of Blacks and Whites convicted of a non-violent drug offense
in New Haven, CT. Specifically, we describe racial differences in the characteristics of
offenders, charge, drug of choice, severity of drug problem, and reentry opportunities that
were mandated or referred by probation or parole, and consider their implications for
criminal justice reforms.
Author Manuscript

Methods
Study overview
Data for this analysis comes from a larger study, Structures, Health And Risk among
Reentrants, Probationers and Partners (SHARRPP) that aims to analyze whether movement
between the criminal justice system and the community is associated with Black/White
disparities in HIV-related sexual risk. Non-violent drug offenders (N=302) in New Haven,
CT were eligible for the parent study if they were over 18, and released from prison or

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 3

placed on probation within one year of screening (conducted from July 2010 through
Author Manuscript

February 2011) for a non-violent drug-related charge. We verified their charges with the
Department of Corrections (DOC) or Court Support Services Division (CSSD). When the
charge was not for a violent crime, but not obviously related to drugs (e.g. not a charge
related to possession or sales of drugs), participants were asked if the crime was committed
in order to buy drugs, if the crime was committed while high, or if the crime was drug-
related in some other way and then were asked to give an explanation.

After eligibility was established, research staff explained to participants the study’s purpose,
procedures, risks, and benefits, as well as measures taken to protect the confidentiality of
subjects, as detailed in the informed consent form. If participants were still interested in and
willing to participate, they signed the consent form and then took a computer-based
structured survey of about 90 minutes in length that included questions on family history,
criminal justice history, and history of housing, employment, drug use, sexual activities, and
Author Manuscript

health problems. Participants were paid US$40 in compensation. Four rounds of follow up
interviews were conducted at 6-month intervals, although for this paper, we rely only on
baseline data. The study protocol was approved by IRBs at both Yale University and
American University.

Sample
Because the primary aim of this paper is to focus on differences between Blacks and Whites
in the crimes they are charged with, drug-use profiles, and services they access, this analysis
is restricted to the 243 participants who self-identified as Black (n=146, 60%) or White (n=
97, 40%).

Measures
Author Manuscript

Demographic variables—Participants responded to questions about race, gender, sexual

orientation, education, marital status, number of children they had, current employment
status, history of homelessness, and current income. Age was determined through date of
birth given at time of screening.

Criminal justice variables—The number of adult convictions is based on the question,

“How many times have you been convicted of a crime when you were 18 or over?” The
number of times incarcerated was measured through the question, “What is the total number
of times you have been incarcerated, in an adult prison or jail? Do not include times in
which you were ONLY in police lock-up.” Self-reported drug sales was measured by the
question, “Have you ever sold drugs?”
Author Manuscript

For the variable on the most recent charge, we utilized information received about most
recent charge from the DOC or CSSD during eligibility confirmation. If there was more than
one charge for the most recent arrest, we used the controlling, or main charge, as defined by
DOC or CSSD. Any charge related to possession (i.e., possession of narcotics) was coded as
‘1’. Any charge related to sales (i.e., sale of controlled substance) was coded as ‘2’. Any
charge that was not sales or possession, but related to drugs in some other way (e.g., larceny

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 4

in order to obtain drugs, violation of probation on a previous drug-related charge) was coded
Author Manuscript

as ‘3’.

We used the dates of entry and release received from the DOC to calculate the length of the
most recent criminal justice experience. If this value was missing for a participant, we used
participant’s self-reported dates from the baseline survey. All participants who entered the
study via probation received a ‘0’.

Drug-use variables—Drug of choice was assessed through the survey question: “Now we
would like to ask you about your drug of choice. This is the substance that you would most
likely pick up if you were using. It is probably the substance that you have used most in your
lifetime. What would you consider to be your drug of choice?” Participants were then asked
to identify their drug of choice from an extensive list of options.
Author Manuscript

To assess whether participants had used drugs in the six months prior to the most recent
criminal justice event, they were asked, “Did you use any of the following drugs in the 6
months before [your most recent incarceration/you were placed on probation]? Participants
who had used any of the drugs listed were coded as a ‘1’ and those who had not used any
drugs were coded as a ‘0’.

Self-reported drug problem was assessed by the question, “In the 30 days before [your most
recent incarceration/you were placed on probation] how many days did you experience drug
problems? By drug problems we mean craving, withdrawal symptoms, disturbing effects of
use, or wanting to stop and being unable to.” We reported on the number of participants that
reported 0 days, at least one day, and all 30 days, as well as average number of days
experiencing a drug problem in the 30 days before the most recent criminal justice event.
Author Manuscript

We measured self-reported drug sales with the question, “Have you ever sold drugs?”
Participants who responded yes were coded as a ‘1’ and those that said no were coded as a
‘0’. Lifetime drug treatment experience was measured by the question, “Have you ever been
in any of the following drug treatment programs? Participants were then asked to select from
an exhaustive list of drug treatment programs. Those who had participated in at least one
program were coded as ‘1’, and those who had not received a ‘0’.

Services Accessed during Reentry

To understand accessibility of drug treatment programs compared to other reentry programs
during community supervision, we looked at responses to the question, “Has a Probation or
Parole officer ever helped you to access any of the following services? (Choose all that
apply): Outpatient drug treatment, Inpatient drug treatment, Housing subsidy, Job training,
Author Manuscript

Education (adult education, G.E.D., college), Mental Health Services, Bus passes,
Government benefits (SAGA, food stamps, or welfare, etc), Social service organization/case
manager, Access to Recovery (ATR), Other, No, PO never helped me to access these
services.

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 5

Analysis
Author Manuscript

We used chi-square and t-tests to describe the differences across Blacks and Whites in terms
of demographics, drug use and services accessed while involved in the criminal justice
system. We used multinomial logistic regression techniques to estimate whether race was
associated with the likelihood of having a particular drug-related charge, using “other
charge” as the referent group. SAS (version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for
all analyses.

Results
As seen in Table 1, we found significant differences between Blacks and Whites for the
following sociodemographic characteristics: gender, number of children, education, and
homelessness. More Blacks were male, and Blacks had more children on average than
Whites. Whites were more likely to have at least their high school diploma or general
Author Manuscript

education development (GED) equivalency, but were also more likely to report ever having
been homeless.

There were also substantial race differences in criminal justice histories. As seen in Table 1,
Blacks were convicted significantly fewer times than Whites (8.43 vs 11.29 times), but they
had significantly more sentences resulting in incarceration than Whites (9.09 vs 6.15) and
significantly longer last sentences than Whites (1.74 vs .71 years). As seen in Table 2, the
charge for the most recent incarceration differed significantly by race. Blacks were more
frequently charged with drug sales or possession than Whites (27% vs 4%; 20% vs 16%,
respectively). Whites had more charges indirectly related to drugs, such as committing a
crime in order to buy drugs, or being high while committing a crime (80% vs. 53%). Further,
as seen in Table 3, Blacks were 2.2 times (95% OR: 1.07–4.55) more likely than Whites to
Author Manuscript

have a possession charge as compared to an “other” charge even after adjusting for other
sociodemographic factors. Similarly, Blacks were 8.24 times more likely than Whites to
have a sales charge as compared to an “other” charge, after adjusting for other
sociodemographic factors (95% OR: 2.73–24.90). Finally, while Blacks were significantly
more likely than Whites to have been arrested most recently for drug sales, we found no
statistical race difference in self-reports of ever having sold drugs (79% of Blacks vs. 70% of
Whites).

Because addressing drug abuse is a key component of rehabilitative initiatives for offenders,
yet drugs vary widely in addictiveness and effect, it is important to understand drug of
choice among drug offenders. In our sample, drug of choice differed significantly by race (p
<.0001) (see Table 4). Blacks were significantly more likely to prefer marijuana (49%) while
Author Manuscript

Whites were more likely to prefer heroin (52%). Crack was the second most likely single
drug of choice for both racial groups (28% of Blacks and 13% of Whites).

Further, we see differences in Black and White self-report of drug use, severity of drug
problem, and drug treatment (see Table 5). Blacks and Whites report similar rates of any
drug use in the six months before their most recent criminal justice event (90% of Blacks
and 89% of Whites). However, self-report of having a drug problem in the month prior to
incarceration or placement on probation differed significantly by race (p<.0002). Thirty-

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 6

seven percent of Blacks and 13% of Whites reported experiencing no drug problems in the
Author Manuscript

month before their most recent criminal justice event. Twenty percent of Blacks and 51% of
Whites reported experiencing a drug problem all thirty days in the month before the most
recent criminal justice event. On average, Whites experienced drug problems on 19 (SD=12)
of the 30 days while Blacks experienced drug problems on 9 (SD= 12). Finally, the majority
of both Blacks (80%) and Whites (94%) report having ever been in drug treatment, though
significantly more Whites report being in in drug treatment at some point in their life (p<.
004).

A sizeable share of both Blacks (19%) and Whites (25%) reported that a probation or parole
officer has never helped them access services. Among those who had been helped,
participants described a wide range of services that probation or parole officers helped them
access (See Table 6). Of these, outpatient and inpatient drug treatment were the most
common, with half of Blacks and Whites indicating that probation or parole officers had
Author Manuscript

helped them access outpatient drug treatment, and approximately one-third of Blacks and
Whites reporting they had help in accessing inpatient drug treatment. It is notable that while
more Whites reported ever having been in drug treatment, roughly equal percentages of
Blacks and Whites report accessing this service through their probation or parole officer. We
found significant differences between Blacks and Whites for the categories of job training,
education, and government benefits, with Blacks accessing these services through their
probation or parole officer more often.

Discussion
These findings point to differences between Blacks and Whites in a non-violent drug
offender population in New Haven, CT. These differences, in turn, have important
Author Manuscript

programming and policy implications.

First, relative to Whites, Blacks in our study were at an economic disadvantage, as

demonstrated by their lower income and education levels. Consistent with these findings, in
2011, Black men were unemployed at a rate of 25% in the city of New Haven compared to
12% for White men (Rawlings 2013). The median income for Black families was US
$37,547 compared to an average White family income of US$77,443 (Rawlings 2013). It is
reasonable to suggest, as others have (Friedman, Flam, et al. 2003; Saxe, Kadusshin et al.
2001), that the involvement of Blacks in the drug trade may be at least partly a response to
their poverty and lack of employment opportunities. To ensure Black drug offenders will
fully benefit from criminal justice diversionary, prison, or reentry programming, it is
important to be cognizant of the economic reasons for their involvement in the drug trade
and address their economic needs. Accordingly, investment in quality inner-city education,
Author Manuscript

youth programming, and effective job generation, training and placement should be an
important part of efforts to address crime prevention and recidivism.

Second, Blacks were more likely to be charged with possession and sales, while Whites
were more likely to be charged for illegal activity related to drug use, such as stealing to
support their drug habit. Yet, Whites and Blacks in our study both reported the same degree
of drug sales. Drug sales may be more visible in inner city, overcrowded Black

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 7

neighborhoods where they are more likely to take place outdoors (Stark 1987). Recent
Author Manuscript

research in the ecology of crime has focused our attention away from individual
characteristics and social capital within neighborhoods to the characteristics of
neighborhoods themselves, such as the activity level on streets (Browning and Jackson
2013). The widespread and well known over-policing of Black neighborhoods during the
war on drugs (Cooper 2015, Goffman 2014, Rios 2011) can further stigmatize and
disillusion those in contact with police, and lead to more law-breaking (Wiley, Slocum, and
Esbensen 2013) and punishments beyond their sentences. For example, with regard to the
latter, to the extent that Blacks in our study were more likely to be incarcerated on charges
explicitly labeled as drug-related, Blacks would also be more likely to suffer the collateral
consequences specifically associated with drug charges, such as exclusion from certain
forms of financial aid, housing benefits, and job screening scrutiny (Drucker 2013).

Third, Blacks in our study reported preferring marijuana to harder drugs, and having less
Author Manuscript

serious drug problems. Though almost equal percentages of Blacks and Whites in our study
reported using drugs in the thirty days before their most recent criminal justice event, Blacks
reported experiencing significantly fewer drug problems. The latter could be due to the way
in which we defined drug problem: craving, withdrawal symptoms, disturbing effects of use,
or wanting but being unable to stop. To the extent that marijuana does not cause the same
withdrawal symptoms or disturbing effects that heroin or cocaine causes but can still be
abused, problems related to marijuana use may not have been reported, a potential weakness
of the study. Alternatively, lower self-reported drug problems in the 30 days prior to
participants’ most recent criminal justice event could be related to increased criminal justice
involvement for Blacks during those 30 days in the form of incarceration, probation, or
parole, which may lessen their ability to use drugs. We were unable to control for criminal
justice involvement in the 30 days prior to most recent criminal justice event, as we did not
Author Manuscript

ask participants about this in the survey. However, the finding may point to real differences
in use and severity of drug problem, and thus real differences in the need for and subsequent
fit of drug treatment. Research suggests that in general, the community supervision system is
blind to drug type and severity when offering drug treatment programs, which may account
for why program success is less common for marijuana users mandated by probation to
treatment (Taxman & Thanner, 2006). Future research should explore the specific treatment
needs of marijuana users and whether available drug treatment programming reflects
adequate attention to marijuana abuse. As our country turns toward decriminalizing
marijuana in some states, we will also need effective tools for discerning the difference
between abuse and recreational use. Without attention to these issues, racial bias in the
criminal justice system is likely to continue.
Author Manuscript

Finally, both Blacks and Whites reported that drug treatment was the service most accessed
through parole and probation officers. Certainly, drug treatment for criminal justice involved
populations is a necessary rehabilitation service, and it is vital for drug offenders to be able
to access drug treatment services through the criminal justice system. However, treatment
needs of Blacks and Whites may differ by drug type and severity of problem. Race-sensitive
research is needed on the types of services offered, client-centered perspectives on such
treatment, and degree of success of treatment, in order to enhance systems of drug treatment
accessed through the criminal justice system. Further, it is critical that our criminal justice

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 8

policies acknowledge the overall context of drug offending. The Second Chance Society
Author Manuscript

Bill, passed in Connecticut in 2015, is an example of an integrated approach that attempts to

address the structural issues offenders face (State of Connecticut 2015). It incorporates
criminal justice reform with education, employment and housing opportunities for ex-
offenders while working to reduce the school to prison pipeline through expansion of a
school based diversion program.

The small sample size of this study and location within a single city are limitations that
caution against the generalizability of findings. More research is needed on differences
between Black and White drug offenders in multiple and diverse locations and with larger
samples. As noted earlier, more explicit questions related to drug problems may have
enhanced our ability to understand the nature of drug use among our study sample. Finally,
further information about criminal justice involvement during the 30 days prior to the most
recent criminal justice event may have helped us to understand differences in reported drug
Author Manuscript

problems during this period for Blacks and Whites, but we did not collect this information.

The findings from our study point to the different characteristics of Blacks and Whites
within the criminal justice system and suggest a need to acknowledge these differences in
the provision of services to both populations. It also suggests that as long as there are
distinct penalties and post-incarceration consequences associated with possession and sale of
drugs, there will be disproportionate negative consequences for Blacks. If we don’t
specifically pay attention to race, when race is a fundamental organizing principal of society,
our policies regarding treatment and reentry services will by default guarantee racial
inequality. As Alexander (2012) writes in The New Jim Crow: “….racial caste systems do
not require racial hostility or overt bigotry to thrive. They need only racial indifference, as
Martin Luther King Jr. warned more than forty five years ago.”
Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the study participants for their time and contribution to this project; the Connecticut
Department of Correction and Court Support Services Division for their support in implementing the project; and
Gia Badolato, Justin Morgan, Penelope Schlesinger, and Weihai Zhan for their research assistance.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article: The project described was supported by 5R01DA025021 (Principal Investigator [PI]: Blankenship,
Kim) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Structures, Health And Risk among Reentrants,
Probationers and Partners’ (SHARRPP’s) implementation benefited from services provided by Yale University’s
Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) P30MH062294, PI:
Cleary, Paul). This publication also was made possible, in part, by services provided by the District of Columbia
Developmental Center for AIDS Research, an NIH-funded program (P30AI087714), which is supported by the
following NIH Co-Funding and Participating Institutes and Centers: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Author Manuscript

Disease, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Heart
Lung and Blood Institute, NIDA, NIMH, National Institute on Aging, Fogarty International Center, National
Institute of General Medicine Sciences, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the
Office of AIDS Research.

References
Alexander, M. The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press;
2012.

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 9

Browning CR, Jackson AL. The social ecology of public space: Active streets and violent crime in
urban neighborhoods. Criminology. 2013; 51(4):1009–1043.
Author Manuscript

Carson, EA., Sabol, WJ. Prisoners in 2011. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics;
[Link] 239808. Published December 2012 [Accessed
March 9, 2016]
Cooper, Hannah LF. War on drugs policing and police brutality. Substance use & misuse. 2015; 50(8–
9):1188–1194. [PubMed: 25775311]
Drucker, E. A plague of prisons: The epidemiology of mass incarceration in America. New Press;
2013. The
Friedman SR, Flam PL, Kottiri BJ, Neaigus A, Sandoval M, Curtis R, … Des Jarlais DC. Drug dealing
and attitudes and norms about drug dealing among young adults and their peers in a high-risk
community. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2003; 14(3):261–268.
Ghandoosh, N. [Accessed February 9, 2016] Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequality in the
Criminal Justice System. [Link]
The Sentencing Project. Published 2015
Goffman, A. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Author Manuscript

Press; 2014.
Mauer, M. Race to incarcerate. The New Press; 2006.
Mauer, M. Our compassion for drug users should not be determined by race. The Guardian. Jan 7.
2016 [Link]
policy-racism-white-heroin-users-politics
National Institute on Drug Abuse. [Accessed February 9, 2016] Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment
for Criminal Justice Populations: A Research-Based Guide. (NIH Publication No. 11-5316.) http://
[Link]/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/
principles. Published April 2014
Rawlings, J. [Accessed March 9, 2016] Urban Apartheid: A Report on the Status of Minority Affairs in
the Greater New Haven Area. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
Greater New Haven Branch. [Link]
NAACP_UrbanApartheid_print_final.pdf. Published March 2013
Rios, VM. Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. NYU Press; 2011.
Author Manuscript

Saxe L, Kadushin C, Beveridge A, Livert D, Tighe E, Rindskopf D, … Brodsky A. The visibility of

illicit drugs: implications for community-based drug control strategies. American Journal of Public
Health. 2001; 91(12):1987–1994. [PubMed: 11726381]
Seelye, KQ. Massachusetts Chief’s Tack in Drug War: Steer Addicts to Rehab, Not Jail. The New York
Times. Jan 24. 2016 [Link]
[Link]
Stark R. Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology. 1987; 25(4):893–910.
State of Connecticut Gov. [Accessed March 9, 2016] Malloy Signs ‘Second Chance Society’ Bill to
Further Reduce Crime and Successfully Re-Integrate Nonviolent Offenders into Society. 2015.
[Link]
Press_Releases/2015/07-2015/
Gov__Malloy_Signs__Second_Chance_Society__Bill_to_Further_Reduce_Crime_and_Successfu
lly_Re-Integrate_Nonviolent_Offenders_into_Society/
Taxman FS, Thanner M. Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency.
2006; 52(1):28–51. [PubMed: 18542715]
Author Manuscript

Travis, J., Western, B., Redburn, FS. The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring
causes and consequences. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2014.
Wiley SA, Slocum LA, Esbensen FA. The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: An
exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent
delinquency. Criminology. 2013; 51(4):927–966.
Yankah, EN. [Accessed March 9, 2016] When addiction has a white face. The New York Times. Feb 9.
2016 [Link]

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 10

Biographies
Author Manuscript

Alana Rosenberg, MPH, is a research associate at the Yale School of Public Health. She
has managed a number of mixed methods research projects at the Yale School of Public
Health and is interested in using research to better understand structural barriers to health
and promote social justice.

Allison K. Groves, PhD, is a research assistant professor at the Dornsife School of Public
Health, Drexel University. She has spent the past 10 years working to improve women’s
reproductive health globally. She uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to better
understand the contextual and interpersonal processes that contribute to women’s risk of
poor reproductive health.

Kim M. Blankenship, PhD, is a professor and the chair of the Department of Sociology; the
Author Manuscript

director of Center on Health, Risk and Society at American University; and the director of
Social and Behavioral Sciences Core of the District of Columbia Center for AIDS Research.
Her research and publications focus on social determinants of health and structural
interventions.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 11

Table 1

Descriptive Characteristics by Race, SHARRPP 2011–2012

Author Manuscript

Full sample (n=243) Black (n=146) White (n=97) p-value

% (n) or mean (SD) % or mean (SD) % or mean (SD)
Demographic characteristics
Male 81% (198) 86% 75% .04
Heterosexual 93% (225) 92% 93% .93

Never married 62% (151) 65% 58% .24

High school degree, GED equivalency, or greater 72% (176) 67% 80%* .02

Not currently working 74% (180) 71% 78% .22

Ever had a job 96% (234) 95% 98% .32

Ever homeless 60% (147) 54% 70% .01
Age 39.39 (10.55) 40.06 38.36 .22
Author Manuscript

Children (n=234) 1.80 (1.93) 2.13 1.28 0

Average monthly income US$2,335 (8,022) US$1,913 US$2,957 .34

Criminal justice history

# of adult convictions 9.57 (9.69) 8.43 11.29 .02
# times incarcerated 7.92 (10.84) 9.09 6.15* .03
Average length of last sentence, in years 1.33 (2.55) 1.74 0.71 0

Note. SHARRPP = Structures, Health and Risk among Reentrants, Probationers and Partners; GED = general education development. Bolded p-
values indicate p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 12

Table 2

Charge for most recent criminal justice event by race

Author Manuscript

Black (n=146) White (n=97) X2, p-value

% (n) % (n)
Charge 25.05, <.0001

Possession 20% (29) 15% (15)

Sales 27% (40) 4% (4)
Other 53% (77) 80% (78)

Note: Bolded p-values indicate p < .05

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 13

Table 3

Multinomial Logistic Regression Assessing Whether Charge is Associated with Race After Adjusting for
Author Manuscript

Other Sociodemographic Variables

Possession vs Other Drug-Related Charge Sales vs Other Drug-Related Charge

AOR (95%CI) p-value AOR (95%CI) p-value

Black 2.20 (1.07–4.55) .03 8.24 (2.73–24.90) .0002

More than HS degree Education or GED equivalency 1.99 (.83–4.78) .12 .67 (.30–1.52) .34

Ever homeless .82 (.40–1.67) .58 .19 (.09–.41) <.0001

Males .65 (.28–1.51) .31 1.65 (.51–5.30) .40

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; HS = high school; GED = general education development. Note: Bolded p-values
indicate p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 14

Table 4

Drug of Choice by Race, 2011–2012*

Author Manuscript

Black (n=146) White (n=95) p-value

% (n) % (n)
Drug of Choice <.0001

Marijuana 49% (68) 10% (9)

Heroin 7% (10) 50% (47)
Crack 28% (41) 13% (12)
All Other Drugs 13% (20) 24% (23)
No Drug of Choice 5% (7) 4% (4)
Ever Injected 14% (20) 60% (57) <.0001

*
Data missing for 2 participants
Author Manuscript

Note: Bolded p-values indicate p < .05

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 15

Table 5

Drug Use, Self-Reported Drug Problem*, and Drug Treatment 2011–2012

Author Manuscript

Blacks Whites p-value

% (n) or mean (SD) % (n) or mean (SD)
Drug Use in the Six Months Before Most Recent CJE 90% (128/142) 89% (86/97) .71

Number of Days of Drug Problems in Month Before Most Recent CJE .0002
0 Days of Drug Problems in Month Before Most Recent CJE 37% (49/133) 13% (11/86)

At Least One Day but Less Than 30 Days of Drug Problems in Month Before 43% (57/133) 36% (31/86)
Most Recent CJE

30 Days of Drug Problems in Month Before Most Recent CJE 20% (26/133) 51% (44/86)

Average Number of Days of Drug Problems in Month Before CJE 8.84 (11.61) 19.47 (12.28) .0001
Ever in Drug Treatment 80% (117/146) 94% (89/95) .004

*
Drug problem was defined as craving, withdrawal symptoms, disturbing effects of use, or wanting to stop and being unable to.
Author Manuscript

Note: CJE=Criminal Justice Experience. Note: Bolded p-values indicate p < .05
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.

 Rosenberg et al. Page 16

Table 6

Services Accessed Through Help of a Parole or Probation Officer*

Author Manuscript

Services Black (n=134) White (n=94) p-value+

% (n) % (n)
Outpatient drug treatment 47% (63) 52% (49) 0.45

Inpatient drug treatment 28% (37) 36% (34) 0.17

Housing subsidy 8% (10) 5% (5) 0.52

Job training 20% (27) 8% (7) 0.008

Education 10% (13) 2% (2) 0.02
Mental health services 11% (14) 13% (12) 0.59

Bus passes 21% (28) 17% (16) 0.47

Government benefits 11% (15) 3% (3) 0.03

Social service organization/case manager 2% (3) 8% (7) 0.10
Author Manuscript

Access to Recovery 11% (15) 15% (14) 0.41

Other 8% (10) 5% (5) 0.52

PO never helped 19% (25) 25% (23) 0.29

*
Data missing for 15 participants
+
p-values were obtained using chi-square test except for social service organization/case manager which was obtained using Fisher’s exact test.

Note: Bolded p-values indicate p < .05

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Drug Issues. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.