Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in North Dakota prisons fell 48%, from 9-to-1 to 4.6-to-1, during the period from 2002 to 2019. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for violent offenses, with the rate for Black adults decreasing by 27% and the rate for White adults increasing by 58%.
- Changes in prison admissions were the primary drivers of the disparity reduction, while changes in length of stay provided a slight counter-balancing effect.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had no effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that none of the laws implemented during the study period had statistically detectable effects on racial disparity.
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 North Dakota 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 2002 to 2009,1 the scope of the analyses is limited to circumstances present in the state between 2010 and 2019. 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 North Dakota'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 North Dakota
Between 2002 and 2019, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity2 in North Dakota fell by 49%, from 9-to-1 to 4.6-to-1 (Figure 1). The bulk of the decrease took place after 2010, when racial disparity ratios fell from 8.7 to 4.6. This post-2010 decrease in overall disparity occurred primarily because of the drop in the disparity ratio for drug offenses, which fell from 10.7 to 4.6, and for violent crimes, which fell from 9.9 to 5.8.
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2002–2020
North Dakota’s relatively small incarcerated and resident population sizes causes shifts in these populations to have larger impacts on the state’s imprisonment rates, especially for Black people. The total number of Black people imprisoned increased from 54 in 2002 to 194 in 2019 and then fell to 176 in 2020 due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Black prison population was never larger than four-tenths the size of the White prison population during the study period. These small counts affect year-to-year changes in Black imprisonment rates. For example, the Black imprisonment rate for violent crimes increased from about 800 per 100,000 people in 2002 to about 1,000 in 2003 (Figure 2), but this change resulted from an increase of just eight Black people imprisoned for violent offenses statewide. Similarly, the Black drug imprisonment rate increased from 304 per 100,000 in 2008 to 501 in 2010, representing an increase of nine Black people imprisoned for drug crimes. Consequently, year-over-year changes in race-specific imprisonment rates in North Dakota must be interpreted with caution. Two major trends in Black imprisonment rates occurred during the study period. First, the overall Black imprisonment rate was about 1,500 per 100,000 from 2002 to 2010, and then dropped to ultimately plateau at about 1,000 from 2012 to 2020. Second, the Black violent crime imprisonment rate fell from an average of about 850 between 2002 and 2010 to about 600 during the period from 2012 to 2020. Conversely, Black property crime and drug offense imprisonment rates exhibited relatively flat trends with fairly wide fluctuations from year to year. The decrease in the Black violent crime imprisonment rate beginning in 2010, coupled with the increase in the White violent crime imprisonment rate over the same period, was the primary driver of change in imprisonment rate disparity (both violent crimes and overall) in North Dakota.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2002–2020
The race-specific composition of North Dakota’s prison population changed over time because of the increase in the share of Black and White people held for violent crimes. For Black people, the share of the prison population held for violent crimes rose from 50% to 55% from 2002 to 2019, and increased from 15% to 28% for drug offenses over the same period (Figure 3). For White people, the share serving sentences for violent crimes increased from 36% to 53% between 2002 and 2019, while the share held for property and drug offenses declined.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2002–2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
For Black people in North Dakota, the overall prison admission rate decreased between 2002 and 2019, and violent, property, and drug offenses admission rates decreased from about 2010 onward (Figure 4). For White people, the overall admission rate, as well as both the violent and drug admission rates, increased from 2010 to 2019. The decreases in admission rates observed in 2020–which were particularly steep among White people–were due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and reflect national trends.
Figure 4: Admissions Rates by Offense Category and Race, 2002–2020
Overall
Violent Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
The differential rates of change in admissions for Black and White people contributed to decreasing racial disparity in admission rates overall—and particularly for violent crime (Figure 5). For the violent crime admission rate, most of the drop in disparity occurred between 2002 and 2010. For overall admissions, and admissions for property and drug crimes, disparity fell after 2010.
Figure 5: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2002–2020
The study period also saw a decline in the Black-White disparity in length of stay for violent crimes (Figure 6). By 2019, Black people sentenced for violent crime could expect to serve about 83% of the time served by White counterparts. Across all other offense categories, disparity in length of stay increased, and disparity in overall length of stay increased from parity to a 15% longer expected length of stay for Black people. This increase in overall disparity occurred largely because of the increase in disparity in length of stay for drug offenses, for which Black people could expect to serve about 36% longer in prison than their White counterparts by 2019.
Figure 6: Disparity in Length of Stay by Offense Category, 2002–2020
New Court Commitments per Arrest
Disparity in new court commitment admissions per arrest hovered at about parity throughout the study period, with exceptions during a few years where this disparity reached 3.5 for violent crimes and 4 for drug offenses (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Arrest
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
Criminal justice system reform in North Dakota largely occurred through internal Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR) policy change as the department began to shift the culture of incarceration from punitive to more rehabilitative. Lawmakers passed relatively few bills related to criminal sentencing, aside from penalty enhancements in the first half of the study period. Statutory efforts to reduce the prison population began in 2010 as the number of incarcerated people continued to increase. This sustained population growth, and its associated rising costs, eventually led to a 2017 Justice Reinvestment Initiative engagement that influenced several legislative changes. These included reduced drug penalties, the establishment of probation as the presumptive sentence for low-level and non-violent felonies, funding for community-based substance use disorder treatment, and reduced mandatory minimum penalties for certain drug offenses. Although prison population decreases may not have reached desired levels, stakeholders described the Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort as a significant shift away from a strictly punitive model to more data-driven policy development.
Political Context
During the study period, North Dakota had three Republican governors and the legislature was also controlled by Republicans. The number of Democrats steadily decreased in both chambers throughout the period. North Dakota’s current governor, Doug Burgum, has supported efforts to reform the criminal justice system, emphasizing a need for improved behavioral health and substance use disorder treatment options both in prisons and communities. In recent sessions, the legislature has put significant emphasis on juvenile justice system reforms. Due to the legislature meeting only every other year, there are limited opportunities for statutory change in the state.
Practice Reforms
North Dakota underwent a transformation in how it operates state correctional facilities during the study period. Under new leadership that began in 2005, the North Dakota DOCR began instituting in-prison changes that focused on programming and reentry policies to better prepare individuals for release. Such changes included expanding the types of training received by staff. In 2010, for example, motivational interviewing training was incorporated for all levels of staff and paired with a year-long review to ensure proper implementation. In 2015, DOCR leadership visited Norway to observe its model of corrections and returned with a new focus on integrating a “human-centered” approach to managing correctional facilities. Correctional leaders put in place changes at multiple levels. “Inmates” became “residents,” staff began addressing incarcerated people by their first names, new dorms allowed for restorative practices such as peer mentorship and cognitive behavioral programming, and the state began limiting the use of restrictive housing. Many of these changes in practice resulted from internal policies at the North Dakota DOCR and did not require new legislation.
Additional Contextual Factors
North Dakota has also made significant financial investments to improve mental health and substance use disorder treatment for individuals in the criminal justice system. As part of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort, the legislature appropriated more than $7 million to launch the Free Through Recovery initiative, a community-based behavioral health program run by the Department of Health and Human Services in partnership with the North Dakota DOCR. The program provides treatment, case management, and peer support through various providers across the state to support reentry and reduce recidivism. Initial funding has been continued in subsequent budgets. Recognizing the need to better understand population trends, especially disparate impacts on the Native American population, the North Dakota DOCR established a public-facing data dashboard in 2020. The dashboard updates daily and provides information on the number of people incarcerated and on probation or parole, broken down by race.
Statutory Reforms
Between 2009 and 2020, North Dakota passed or implemented 29 bills (containing 34 provisions) that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 23 bills for further study.3 A review of the 23 candidate bills produced five themes that characterized sentencing reform in North Dakota during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in North Dakota were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (21 laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (seven laws)
- creating new offense categories (six laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- good time or early release (four laws)
- treatment programming (four laws)
Nineteen of the 23 bills focused on specific offense classes, while four broadly applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., people on probation or parole). Of those that focused on specific offenses, six targeted violent crimes, four were directed at human trafficking/sexual offenses, five focused on drug offending, and two targeted theft and property crimes. Many of the provisions in the 23 candidate bills were beyond the scope of the study data, or had too small of a case base (the number of observable instances that provide complete and relevant data). Because of this, the following analysis only addresses subsets of reforms whose elements could be measured:
- HB 1115 (March 2013), a bill that addressed parole release and required the parole board to review every incarcerated person’s eligibility for parole, not just the eligibility of people who applied for parole.
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. All analyses used the regression methods and statistical tests outlined in the supplemental methodology report.4 The results show no racial differences in post-reform effects.
HB 1115
The analysis of the plausible effects of this reform on parole release showed no racial differences in the probability of parole release. Prior to the bill, enacted in March 2013, Black-White trends in the probability of parole release were converging; after enactment, there were no statistically significant differences in the probability of parole release.
Discussion
Racial disparity in North Dakota imprisonment rates fell, especially after 2010, largely because of a decrease in disparity for violent crime. Changes in admission rates contributed more to the decrease in disparity than did length of stay, partly because disparity in length of stay for violent offenses was less than one (meaning less prison time was served by Black people than by White people). By comparison, the White admission rate for violent offenses increased from 2010 to 2019 as the Black admission rate fell. Due primarily to limitations in the data, the impacts of most reforms enacted between 2009 and 2020 could not be analyzed; the one bill that could be analyzed (parole release) appeared to have no effect on racial disparity. With disparity in the ratio of new court commitments to arrests trending at about parity (with some wide fluctuations in a few years), admissions disparity was primarily driven by disparity in arrest rates. Without race-specific data on offending behavior, the effects of racial differences in crime on racial differences in admission rates cannot be disentangled from the effects of racial differences in enforcement. And because the disparity in admissions per arrest trended towards parity, a conclusion that other pre-sentencing practices had any impact on imprisonment rate disparity cannot be made.
North Dakota, 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.
