Disparity in state imprisonment rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White (“White”) adults1 has decreased over the past two decades. The extent of the remaining disparity between these two groups, however, depends on how race and Hispanic ethnicity are measured and the data sources used to make the comparisons. In 2020, one data source showed that Hispanic people were nearly three times as likely as White people to be imprisoned. Data from a second source, however, showed an imprisonment disparity of 1.5-to-1. The gap between these disparity measures has increased over time, even as changes in how race and ethnicity are measured have allowed more detailed comparisons of the race of those who identify as of Hispanic origin. Both data sources show that disparity is declining, but the rate of that decline differs. This brief examines imprisonment rate disparity between Hispanic and White adults, highlights how measurement of race and ethnicity affect understanding of this disparity, and describes how improvements made to self-report surveys provide opportunities for more in-depth analysis of the race and ethnicity of those in prison. The brief is part of CCJ’s Pushing Toward Parity research series, which explores racial disparities in correctional control by race and sex.
Disparity ratios are a measure that compares imprisonment rates across two groups of people. A Hispanic-White imprisonment disparity ratio of 3-to-1, for example, means that Hispanic 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 Hispanic adults are less likely to experience imprisonment than White adults.
Key Takeaways
- Disparity between Hispanic and White state imprisonment rates declined during the first two decades of the 21st century, but estimates of the disparity ratio produced from state and federal data sources differ substantially. For example, in 2020 the Hispanic-White disparity ratio was 1.5-to-1 based on the state data source, but 2.6-to-1 based on the federal source.
- The gap in disparity ratios derived from each source has increased over time. In 2000, the two disparity ratios were roughly equivalent. By 2020, however, the federal data disparity ratio was 80% larger than the ratio derived from the state data source.
- The state data show a larger decrease in the imprisonment rate for Hispanic people and a smaller drop in the White imprisonment rate than are shown by the federal data. If these trends continued, the Hispanic-White disparity measure drawn from state data would reach parity by about 2026, while the measure from federal data would reach parity about 30 years later.
- In 2016, the most recent year for which comparative data are available, the state data showed fewer Hispanic (16% compared to 21%) and multiracial people (0.1% compared to 11%) and more White people (41% compared to 31%) in prison than the federal data.
- The federal data source reveals disparities between Hispanic people and other racial groups. In 2016, the incarceration rate of:
- people who identified as Hispanic and White (279 per 100,000 adults) was 20% higher than the rate for White people;
- people identified as Hispanic and Black (4,826 per 100,000 adults) was 19 times higher than the rate for White people; and,
- people identified as American Indian/Alaska Native (7,100 per 100,000 adults) was 29 times higher than the rate for White people.
- State corrections data can be improved by capturing more refined demographic information to improve our understanding of disparity trends in an increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-racial society.
All data used to produce this brief were collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This brief focuses on the racial and ethnic composition of people within state prisons, as they comprise a majority of the total incarcerated population in the U.S.
The "State Source"
The BJS compiles state data from two sources that rely on annual reports from state corrections departments–the National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) and National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP). In these data, measures of race and ethnicity are derived from state officials’ administrative records systems, are recorded using a variety of methods that may include observer-identified rather than self-identified methods, and may not allow for reporting of multiple races. Throughout this brief, we refer to this state administrative data method as the “state” source.
The "Federal Source"
The other source is the Survey of Prison Inmates (SPI), an in-person, self-report survey conducted periodically by BJS among people in state and federal prisons. In these data, respondents self-identify race and ethnicity. They may select Hispanic ethnicity, a single race group, more than one race group, or one or more race groups in addition to Hispanic ethnicity. Throughout this brief, we refer to this self-report survey method as the “federal” source. For more information on the data sources and how data sources are combined, please see the supplemental methodology report.
Measuring Matters: Explaining Variation in Hispanic-White Incarceration Disparity
The disparity gap between Hispanic and White people in state prison has narrowed, but the pace of the narrowing differs between data sources. The disparity measurement gap between the state and federal sources stems from how race and ethnicity are recorded and classified in each source. In the state data, corrections officials may obtain information on race and ethnicity in one of several ways: by asking incarcerated people to self-identify, by using data from official documents, or by using observer identification (that is, relying on information provided by correctional staff). Most state data systems do not capture multiple racial identities. This affects the number of people who are classified as White rather than as a person of two or more races.
The federal data are derived from BJS surveys that obtain self-report information on race and ethnicity from people in prison following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.2 The guidance allows respondents to select multiple categories; respondents may self-identify as Hispanic and as a member of one or more races. For statistical counting purposes, people who identify as Hispanic in the federal data are counted only as Hispanic, even if they indicate that they also belong to a racial group (e.g., American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Black, or White). White people who also identify as a member of another race are classified and counted as having two or more races. Therefore, a Hispanic person whose race is White might be classified as Hispanic or White in the state data, but they will only be classified as Hispanic in the federal data. In addition, while a person may be classified as White in the state data, they may be classified as having two or more races in the federal data. To comply with OMB standards for reporting on the race and ethnicity of those in prison, BJS generates estimates of the race and Hispanic origin of people in prison by combining information from the NPS with the self-report SPI survey data.3 This results in differences between the state and federal data in the estimates of the number of people by race and ethnicity. Figure 1 shows these differences for 2016, the year of the most recent SPI survey.
Figure 1: Racial and Ethnic Composition of the State Prison Population, 2016
Note: The most recent Survey of Prison Inmates was conducted in 2016; therefore, comparative data are drawn from 2016.
These differences in measurement between sources affect Hispanic and White disparity ratios. The state data show a larger percentage of White people and a smaller percentage of Hispanic people than do the federal estimates. Fewer White adults in prison in the federal data means that the denominator of the disparity ratio is smaller in the federal than in the state data. A larger number of Hispanic people in the federal data means that the numerator of the federal disparity ratio is larger than in the state data. Combining a smaller denominator with a larger numerator yields a federal disparity ratio that is nearly double the state ratio. This explains the discrepancies in Hispanic-White imprisonment rates4 (Figure 2) and the imprisonment rate disparity ratios (Figure 3) generated from each source.
Figure 2: Hispanic-White Imprisonment Rates, 2000-2020
Over time, differences in how race and ethnicity are measured have resulted in diverging disparity ratios. As measured by the state data, the Hispanic-White imprisonment rate disparity ratio fell from 2.6 to 1.5, or by 42%, between 2000 and 2020. As measured by the federal data, the disparity ratio declined by 19% during the timeframe, from a peak of 3.2 in 2002 to 2.6 in 2020. The gap in disparity ratios between the two sources increased over time. In 2000, the two disparity ratios were roughly equivalent; by 2020 the federal data disparity ratio was 80% larger than the state data disparity ratio (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Hispanic-White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratio, 2000-2020
Note: A disparity ratio of one indicates no difference between the two groups, or "parity."
Given measurement issues, the level of disparity in imprisonment rates between Hispanic and White adults depends upon the data source: Hispanic adults in 2020 were imprisoned at either 2.6 times or 1.5 times the rate of White adults. Assuming the trends continue, the state data trend would lead to parity in Hispanic and White imprisonment rates around 2026; the federal data suggests parity would not be reached for at least three decades.
A Federal Data Benefit: Racial Identities of People Who Identify as Hispanic
The federal data allow for further analysis of the racial identities of incarcerated people who also identify as Hispanic. Among all people who identified as Hispanic in the 2016 SPI survey data, approximately 30% identified as Hispanic only, while 70% also identified with at least one racial group. The race-specific imprisonment rates of those who identify as Hispanic and also as a member of a race group vary widely (Figure 4). For example, Hispanic people who also identify as American Indian/Alaska Native had the highest imprisonment rate among all those who identified as both Hispanic and as a member of a race group. By comparison, Hispanic people who also identified as White had an imprisonment rate roughly comparable to that for non-Hispanic White people. The Hispanic-White imprisonment rate of 279 per 100,000 adults was 20% higher than the White rate of 242 per 100,000 adults. By contrast, the Hispanic-Black imprisonment rate (4,826 per 100,000 adults) was nearly four times higher than the non-Hispanic Black rate5 and 19 times higher than the White rate. The Hispanic-American Indian/Alaska Native rate (7,100 per 100,000 adults) was 29 times higher than the White rate.
Figure 4: Hispanic Imprisonment Rate by Racial Group, 2016
The Path Ahead: Reckoning with the Measurement Gap
Because the findings drawn from state and federal correctional data differ, conclusions about Hispanic-White disparity in prison populations depend upon the sources and measures used. Both sources indicate that the disparity rate between Hispanic and White people has declined over the past two decades, but at different rates. However, differences in measurement of race and ethnicity and their associated findings can complicate the accurate assessment of how Hispanic people transition into and out of correctional populations. These issues are not unique to state and federal prison populations; on the contrary, they affect racial disparity for jail, probation, and parole populations as well. In each case, the disparity ratio generated using self-report data would most likely be larger than a disparity ratio estimated solely from observer-identified data. The differences in how race and ethnicity are measured between the two sources, however, also present an opportunity to study race and ethnic disparities in greater depth than could be achieved by a single source of data. At a minimum, the conflicting findings make clear that analysts should consider how race and ethnicity are measured when estimating disparity ratios. As this research shows, while Hispanic-White imprisonment rate disparity has declined in both the state and federal sources, the precise size of the gap and how measurement of race and ethnicity in specific states influence that gap remain unclear. The concepts of race and ethnicity are neither simple nor static. National measures of race and ethnicity—in correctional data and elsewhere—must adapt to changing understanding of race and ethnicity, how these constructs are measured, and changes in the population. As part of that adaptation, it will become increasingly imperative to develop methodologies that adjust data drawn from one source with data drawn from another to generate more accurate conclusions. Transparency in how these procedures are conducted is critical to increasing confidence in those findings and, ultimately, our understanding of how the justice system impacts racial, ethnic, and other demographic groups.
