Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in Arizona prisons fell 40%, from 8-to-1 to 4.8-to-1, during the period from 2000 to 2018. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults decreasing by 32% and the rate for White adults increasing by 99%.
- Changes in prison admissions were the primary drivers of the disparity reduction, while changes in length of stay provided a slight counter-balancing effect. The overall admission rate disparity fell by 47% during the study period, while length of stay disparity increased by 14%.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had less effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that one statute—which allowed people with eligible drug offenses to participate in a program that provided services in the community for up to 90 days post-release—had statistically detectable but small effects.
Research by the Council on Criminal Justice Pushing Toward Parity project shows that the gap between Black and White state imprisonment rates nationwide has narrowed significantly since the start of the 21st century. To better understand the trends and identify policies and practices that may drive them, the Council chose 12 states for closer investigation.
This brief on Arizona outlines the key state disparity trends, summarizes the potential influences on them, and statistically assesses the impact of those influences on the trends.
Notes
Although this brief acknowledges trends and factors from the pre-study period of 2000 to 2009, the scope of the analyses is limited to circumstances present in the state between 2010 and 2018.1 This brief also acknowledges potential disparity trend factors that implicate variables beyond the scope of this brief. For more details on methodology, framing considerations, and limitations, see the supplemental methodology report.
Click here for an overview of Arizona's resident and prison population demographics.
GLOSSARY
- Disparity ratios are a measure that compares imprisonment rates across two groups of people. A Black-White imprisonment disparity ratio of 3-to-1, for example, means that Black adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of White adults. A ratio of one indicates no difference between the two groups, or “parity.” A disparity ratio lower than one means that Black adults are less likely to experience imprisonment than White adults.
- New court commitments refer to prison admissions that result from a conviction for a new crime rather than for violations of community supervision.
- Rates are calculated per 100,000 respective adults. For example, the Black imprisonment rate is calculated per 100,000 Black adults. All rates refer to adult state prison populations; those in federal prisons and local jails are excluded.
- Parity refers to a disparity ratio of 1 (1-to-1).
Racial Disparities in Arizona
Between 2000 and 2018, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity2 in Arizona fell by 40%, from 8-to-1 to 4.8-to-1 (Figure 1). This decrease was led by a 66% drop in the drug offense imprisonment rate disparity ratio. The smallest decrease in disparity occurred for violent crimes, where the disparity ratio fell by 27%, from 8.2 to 6.
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2018
The overall imprisonment rate disparity fell faster between 2000 and 2009 compared to 2010 to 2018. Nearly 75% of the total decrease in disparity occurred between 2000 and 2009 and was fueled by increasing imprisonment rates for White people. From 2000 to 2009, the overall White imprisonment rate increased by 35% (from 384 to 517 per 100,000 people), while the Black imprisonment rate fell by 3% (from 3,053 to 2,958 per 100,000 people) (Figure 2). During this same time period, imprisonment rates for White people grew by 18% for violent crime and by 52% for property crimes; rates for Black people, by contrast, decreased by 7% for violent crime and by 16% for property crimes. Imprisonment rates for drug offenses increased for both groups, although the White drug offense rate increased by 54%, while the Black drug offense rate increased by only 2%. From 2010 to 2018, imprisonment rate disparity ratios decreased, but these drops were associated with different drivers for each offense category. For violent crime, the imprisonment disparity ratio fell slightly (from 6.5 to 6), driven by a 17% drop in the Black imprisonment rate between 2010 and 2018 and an increase in the White imprisonment rate from 2010 to 2015 before a decrease from 2015 to 2018. Specifically, a decrease in the White violent crime imprisonment rate from 2015 to 2018 slowed the decrease in the violent crime imprisonment rate disparity ratio. There was little change in the property crimes imprisonment rate disparity from 2010 to 2018, as the rates decreased for both Black and White people. The drug offense imprisonment rate disparity ratio decreased from 7.6 in 2010 to 4.3 in 2018 due to a 24% decrease in the Black drug offense imprisonment rate and a 35% increase in the White drug offense imprisonment rate.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2018
The differential growth rates of imprisonment across crime categories led to changes in the race-specific composition of Arizona’s prison population. The share of the Black incarcerated population in prison for violent crime rose from 44% in 2000 to 49% in 2018, whereas the shares held for property and drug crimes fell by 5.5 and 3 percentage points, respectively (Figure 3). The share of the White incarcerated population in prison for violent crime fell from 43% in 2000 to 39% in 2018; the share held for drug offenses grew from 16% to 24%. In contrast, the share of White people in prison for property crimes fell by 2 percentage points.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000 and 2018
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
Admission rate disparity fell and generally followed the imprisonment rate disparity trajectories described above. The overall admission rate disparity fell from 8.6 in 2000 to 4.6 in 2018, a drop of 47%. This decrease was led by decreases in drug crime admission rate disparity ratios, which dropped 72%, from 14 in 2000 to 3.9 in 2018 (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2000–2018
Trends in admission rates for violent and property crime were generally mirrored between Black and White people, with a few yearly exceptions early in the study period (Figure 5). Black and White admission rates for drug offenses, however, diverged beginning in 2010. when the Black rate fell and the White rate increased.
Figure 5: Admissions Rates by Offense Category and Race, 2000–2018
Overall
Violent Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
The overall disparity in length of stay increased over time, because of increased disparity for drug offenses; there was no disparity in length of stay for violent and property crimes during the study period (Figure 6). There was no Black-White disparity in length of stay (overall or for drug offenses) in 2000; from 2000 to 2015, the underlying trend was slightly upward, although the annual estimates show a nonlinear pattern. From 2015 to 2018, length of stay disparity increased; by 2018, Black people could expect to serve about 20% longer than White people.
Figure 6: Disparity in Length of Stay by Offense Category, 2000–2018
Racial disparity arising from admissions contributed more to the change in imprisonment disparity than did disparity arising from length of stay. For drug offenses, post-arrest court processing decisions added to disparity in admissions.
New Court Commitments per Arrest
Figure 7a shows the resident population-based disparity in new court commitments, by offense type. The trend generally follows the same trajectory as admission rate disparity. Figure 7b details the arrest rate disparity for violent, property, and drug offenses; Figure 7c shows the new court commitment to arrest rate disparity for these same offenses. Disparity in the violent crime arrest rate (Figure 7b) increased beginning in 2010, although the population-based new court commitment rate for violent crime (Figure 7a) was relatively flat between 2010 and 2018. This implies that disparity in the new court commitment per arrest rate (Figure 7c) for violent crime was lower than disparity in the violent crime arrest rate. Violent crime arrest rate disparity increased from about 2.6 in 2010 to 3.2 in 2018, while disparity in new court commitments per arrest fell from 2.2 to 1.8. The disparity in new court commitments per arrest for property crimes was also lower than disparity in property crime arrest rates throughout the period. These results indicate that decisions associated with court processing (i.e., charging and admission decisions) reduced arrest rate disparity for both violent and property crimes. This pattern, however, was not reflected in trends for drug offenses. Throughout the study period, disparity in new court commitments per arrest for drug offenses (Figure 7c) was greater than the corresponding arrest rate disparity (Figure 7b). This indicates that court processing decisions added to admissions disparity. Additionally, disparity in the new court commitment per arrest rate for drug offenses fell faster than did disparity in arrest rates; by 2018, disparity in these two rates were equal. This implies that court processing decisions contributed less to admissions disparity over time, and by the end of the study period, they did not contribute to the disparity.
Figure 7a: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Resident Population
Figure 7b: Disparity in Arrest Rates
Figure 7c: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Arrest
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
Arizona’s prison population rose from 2000 to 2018, despite relatively flat populations from 2009 to 2013–a period during which stakeholders said major changes were taking place in probation and community corrections. Few statutory changes made throughout the study period could be classified as reform, as the majority of laws passed enhanced penalties for existing crimes or created new criminal offenses. Many states have rolled back “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which required most people to serve 85% of their sentence in a facility and the remaining 15% under supervision, or have amended those laws to focus only on violent crime.3 Arizona, however, has maintained laws that require most people to serve at least 85% of their sentence, regardless of crime type.
Political Context
Arizona’s legislature has remained in solid Republican control over the past two decades, though voting margins have narrowed in the Senate in recent years. The executive branch, by contrast, has fluctuated between Republican and Democratic control since 2000. In 2003, Janet Napolitano became the first Democrat to win the governor’s office since 1987. During her tenure, stakeholders said changes to executive leadership in corrections and other justice agencies indicated that Arizona might engage in sustainable reforms, but for the most part, these did not materialize. In 2015, Republican Governor Doug Ducey renamed the Department of Corrections the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) and required an emphasis on rehabilitation and expanded reentry services.
Practice Reforms
Many practice reforms enacted during the study period were designed to reduce prison populations in Arizona and directly affected post-incarceration policies. For example, probation practices overseen by the judicial branch were altered which led to the development of community supervision requirements, including case management and pre-release planning, inside the corrections department. Additionally, in 2008, the Safe Communities Act4 modified the state’s approach to probation supervision and led to fewer revocations to prison over the next 10 years. Under new judicial leadership in 2002–and for several years after–changes were also made to the judicial code, mandating the use of evidence-based practices and validated risk assessments in probation and shifting to a case management-focused method of supervision. After Arizona passed its truth-in-sentencing law in 1993, most people convicted of a crime were required to serve 85% of their sentence in prison, and parole was eliminated for anyone committing an offense after January 1, 1994. Under the new statute, the remaining 15% of the judicial sentence is served under community corrections, which is overseen by the ADCRR. In addition, Arizona law allows judges to include a period of probation separate from the term of incarceration set during the sentencing process. These probation sentences are known as “tails” and were initially introduced via county attorney plea bargains and other sentencing practices in the courts.5 Officials refer to people with tails as “reentry probationers” and began noting an increase in their numbers starting about 2009, according to a 2017 state auditor’s report. By 2012, probation authorities reported that reentry probationers comprised 61% of all people on probation, a figure that had risen to 81% by 2017. As reentry probation sentences increased, individuals leaving prison were supervised by both the ADCRR community supervision division and the judicial-run state probation office. Stakeholders said that having a large number of people supervised by two different agencies simultaneously caused confusion and a range of logistical problems. Specifically, they reported that a lack of communication between the two entities, along with different supervision practices, hampered case management and led to revocations to prison that could have been avoided. Beginning around 2012, the two supervision agencies implemented complimentary assessment tools and began to stagger supervision, with individuals completing ADCRR community corrections supervision prior to serving their probation tail. Stakeholders said this led to less confusion for both supervisors and those under supervision, as communication and collaboration between the two agencies improved, resulting in a decrease in revocations. The Adult Probation Services Division implemented many practice changes during the study period to better serve clients and reduce recidivism. The passage of the Safe Communities Act in 2008 provided financial incentives to probation offices throughout the state to reduce probationer revocations. Funding for these initiatives was terminated in 2011 due to budget decisions, which ultimately led to the repeal of the Act. Also in 2008, the judicial branch adjusted the judicial code to require the use of evidence-based practices. This began years of work that ultimately led to the adoption of a validated risk assessment tool, increased training for probation officers, adjustments in case management processes, and the implementation of uniform conditions of parole. Stakeholders credited much of the reform in probation to the latitude the judiciary had to establish its own processes through the judicial code. As the Adult Probation Services Division was overhauling practices, the ADCRR Community Corrections Bureau also reevaluated the assessment tools and supervision practices it was using. ADCRR changed hiring practices for supervision officers and shifted its probation focus from surveillance to case planning. ADCRR established two community reentry centers, with the first opening in Pima County in 2012. The centers were designed to provide programming, address housing gaps, and offer support to keep people from violating terms of their supervision and returning to prison. The second center opened in Maricopa County in July 2016, but it faced opposition from community members and eventually scaled back its programming to focus on substance use disorder treatment.
Statutory Reforms
Between 2010 and 2022, Arizona passed or implemented 42 bills (containing 46 provisions) that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 20 bills for further study.6 A review of the 20 candidate bills produced five themes that characterized sentencing reform in Arizona during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in Arizona were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (20 laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- diversion or community supervision (four laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (three laws)
- people committing repeat offenses (three laws)
- good time sentencing credits or early release (two laws)
Nineteen bills focused on specific offense classes, while the others broadly applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., probationers and parolees) or special populations (e.g., gang members). Of those focused on specific offenses, nine bills targeted violent crimes, five focused on human trafficking and child sex crimes, two dealt with drug offenses, and one each addressed vandalism, terrorism, and drug trafficking. Many of the provisions in the candidate bills were beyond the scope of the study data. Because of this, the following analysis only addresses subsets of reforms whose elements could be measured:
- HB 2238 (May 2010), which set sentencing provisions for certain classes of sexual offenses and expanded the definition of child sex trafficking.
- HB 2373 (April 2012), a bill that enhanced penalties for 2nd-degree murder.
- HB 2411 (April 2011), which established consecutive sentences for certain child prostitution offenses.
- HB 2454 (April 2014), which set sentencing standards for child prostitution when the victim is 15, 16, or 17 years old.
- HB 2374 (March 2016), a bill that established that child prostitution includes when a person provides the means for a child to be prostituted.
- SB 1496 (August 2018), which defined the type of drug offenses that were eligible for participation in a transition program that provided services in the community for up to 90 days post-release.
Analysis
The analysis of the impacts of reforms on disparity included an analysis of Black-White differences in preexisting trends and patterns, shifts in preexisting levels associated with the implementation of reforms, and post-reform trends. Analyses are detailed in the supplemental methodology report.7 With one exception, the results show no significant racial differences in post-reform trends.
HB 2238
No post-reform racial differences were found in sentence lengths imposed on people committed via new court commitments for two classes of child sexual offenses and child sex trafficking offenses. For sex trafficking crimes, the variance around the post-reform trend for Black and White people was large, suggesting that there was extreme variation in the specific sex trafficking offenses people were sentenced for. The details of these offenses and their circumstances were not recorded in the Arizona offense codes and, therefore, further analysis was not possible.
HB 2373
Sentence lengths for second-degree murder increased following the enactment of this law, enhancing penalties for the crime, but there was no post-reform evidence of racial differences in sentence lengths imposed. Rather, post-reform trends were parallel between Black and White people sentenced for second-degree murder.
HB 2411, HB 2454, and HB 2374
No racial differences were found in child prostitution sentences imposed after these laws related to penalties for that crime were implemented.
SB 1496
This bill set eligibility requirements for a post-release transition program, stipulating the type of qualifying drug offenses. It also established that participants must not have been convicted of any other crime at the time of sentencing and must not have been incarcerated for any violent crime in the previous 10 years. Using these criteria for analysis, results indicate that when SB 1496 was implemented in 2018, a linear increase in the number of eligible White people, coupled with a decrease in the number of eligible Black people, was already occurring. The number of eligible White people more than tripled between 2000 and 2012 (from 10 per month to more than 30 per month), increasing to 40 per month following implementation (Figure 8). The number of eligible Black people admitted also increased during the first decade of the study period, from about five per month in 2000 to nearly 20 per month in 2010. Beginning in 2012, however, the number of eligible Black people began to decrease. The annual gap between the number of eligible White and Black people increased from 2012 to 2018; by May 2018, about 30 more eligible White people were admitted than Black people per month. These admission trends suggest that SB 1496 was enacted in response to an increase in the overall number of people admitted for eligible drug offenses; this overall number was driven by the increase in eligible White people. Although it is not clear what fueled the increase in White drug offense admissions, this trend is strongly correlated with opioid and methamphetamine use and overdose fatalities among White people in Arizona, which increased sharply beginning in 2012.8 Although there were short-term increases observed for both White and Black people after SB 1496 was implemented, the short six-month post-reform follow-up period does not allow for solid conclusions about the impact of the law on disparity.
Figure 8: Monthly New Court Commitments for Eligible Drug Offenses, by Race
Discussion
Racial disparity in Arizona’s imprisonment rates fell by 40% during the study period, dropping from 8-to-1 in 2000 to 4.8-to-1 in 2018 (the most recent year for which NCRP data were available at the time this report was written), and was led by a 66% drop in disparity for drug offense imprisonment. The decrease in racial disparity in drug offense admissions (caused by decreasing Black admissions and increasing White admissions) accounted for most of the drop in drug offense imprisonment disparity. Analyses found no racial disparity in overall length of stay or length of stay for violent crime. But disparity in length of stay for drug and property offenses increased from 1-to-1 to about 1.2-to-1 between 2000 and 2018. Given arrest rates, the effect on disparity of court processing decisions that lead to prison admission (e.g., charging and prison sentence decisions) differed by crime type. For drug offenses, the disparity in aggregate rates of new court commitments per arrest fell from about 4-to-1 to 2-to-1, while for property and violent offenses, the disparity of roughly 2-to-1 remained relatively constant. Disparity in court processing decisions for drug offenses decreased during the study period, but disparity in drug arrest rates did not change. Most reforms enacted during the study period were beyond the scope of analysis or affected too few people to substantially impact disparity. The one exception was SB 1496, a law that provided opportunity for people convicted of certain classes of low-level drug offenses to participate in a transition program and receive services in the community for up to 90 days post-release. SB 1496 was enacted after the number of eligible White people increased more rapidly than did the number of eligible Black people. One reason for this is that from 2010 to the implementation of the bill in 2018, the number of Black admissions for low-level drug offenses had fallen from about 18 per month to about 16 per month while the number of White admissions had increased from about 22 to 40 per month. The increase in the number of White admissions for drug offenses was consistent with the decrease in disparity in the rate of new court commitments per arrest, which occurred as the result of an increase in the new court commitments per arrest rate for White people and a decrease in that rate for Black people. Drug arrest rates for White and Black people were relatively constant over the 2010 to 2018 period. Combined, these factors imply either a shift in the specific types of drug offenses leading to imprisonment (both the type of drug and severity of offense) or that court processing decisions since 2010 moved toward greater equality in treatment of Black and White drug offenses.
Arizona, like any state, has a distinct political and demographic history that influences the discussion of what does or does not work when addressing disparity in the criminal justice system. This state brief is one of 12 in the Pushing Toward Parity project, all of which seek to identify, what, if any, policy changes are associated with shifts in racial disparity and can serve as examples for states pursuing equity in their criminal justice system.
