Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in Pennsylvania prisons fell 50%, from 15.5-to-1 to 7.8-to-1, during the period from 2000 to 2019. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults decreasing by 50% and the rate for White adults increasing by 119%.
- Changes in prison admissions contributed more to the disparity reduction than did length of stay. The overall admission rate fell 8% for Black adults and rose 161% for White adults during the study period.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had no effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that none of the laws implemented during the study period led to 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 Pennsylvania 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 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 Pennsylvania'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 Pennsylvania
Between 2000 and 2020, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity1 in Pennsylvania fell by 50%, from 15.5-to-1 to 7.7-to-1 (Figure 1). This decrease was led by a nearly 80% drop in the drug offense imprisonment rate disparity, which fell from 42 to 8.4. The smallest decrease in imprisonment disparity (40%) occurred for violent crime.
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
From 2000 to 2020, the Black imprisonment rate fell by 31%, while the White rate increased by 39% (Figure 2).2 There were decreases in Black imprisonment rates for all offense categories; the drug offense rate dropped by 62%, the property crime rate fell by 62%, and the violent crime imprisonment rate decreased by 22%. During this same time period, an 89% increase in the drug offense rate led the increase in the overall growth of the White imprisonment rate. The changes in imprisonment rates seen throughout the study period did not result in clear, linear trends within racial groups or offense categories, indicating that the causes of the drop in disparity varied. For example, from 2000 to about 2009, the drop in overall imprisonment rate disparity in Pennsylvania occurred because the White rate increased, not because the Black rate fell. After 2009, imprisonment rate disparity fell because the Black rate declined even as the total White rate began to level off. The violent and property crime imprisonment disparity trends largely mirrored overall imprisonment disparity, although there were differences in timing and the trajectory of the White rate after 2009 (Figure 2). After 2009, while the overall White imprisonment rate was leveling off, the White violent and property crime imprisonment rates continued to rise. Drug offense imprisonment disparity fell from 2001 to about 2009 because, despite increases in both Black and White drug imprisonment rates, the White rate rose relatively faster than the Black rate. After 2010, the White drug offense imprisonment rate plateaued before dropping somewhat while the Black rate fell consistently, driving the continued decrease in drug offense imprisonment disparity.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Because of the differential growth rates of imprisonment across offense categories, the race-specific composition of the prison population in Pennsylvania changed during the study period. The share of the Black incarcerated population held for violent crime increased from 62% in 2000 to 67% in 2019, while the shares of Black people held for both property and drug crimes fell (Figure 3). For White people, the share held for violent crime decreased from 60% in 2000 to 51% in 2019. This decrease occurred due to an increase in the shares held for drug offenses (from 7% to 10%) and public order crimes (from 7% to 15%) during the study period.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000 and 2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
Admission rate disparity trends largely mirrored overall imprisonment disparity, although the levels of disparity in prison admission rates were generally lower. Overall, admission rate disparity in the state fell by 71% during the study period, from 15 in 2000 to 4.4 in 2020 (Figure 4). The largest absolute and relative disparity change observed was for drug offense admissions, which dropped by 86%, from 43 to 6. Disparity in violent and property crime admission rates also fell substantially.
Figure 4: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2000–2020
The drop in admission rate disparity was caused mainly by an increase in White admission rates from 2000 to 2015 (Figure 5). For example, the decrease in violent crime admission disparity observed through 2018 occurred almost exclusively because of an increase in the White rate, as the Black rate was mostly flat during this time. By comparison, the decrease in drug offense disparity from 2000 to 2005 was due solely to an increasing White rate; after 2005, drug offense disparity fell due to declining Black rates.
Figure 5: Admissions Rates by Offense Category and Race, 2000–2020
Overall
Violent Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
From 2000 to 2020, length of stay fell faster for White people admitted to prison than for Black people. Overall, length of stay fell 3% for Black people and fell 36% for White people in Pennsylvania from 2000 to 2020 (Figure 6).3 For Black people admitted for drug and property crimes, length of stay fell by 30% and 26%, respectively, while for Black people admitted for violent offenses, it increased by 6%. Admission rates fell faster than and by larger absolute amounts than length of stay for Black people. Black admission rates for property, drug, and public order offenses all decreased by about 70%. For White people, the overall admission rate increased by 41% while length of stay decreased by 36%.
Figure 6: Percent Change in Admission Rates and Length of Stay by Offense Category, 2000–2019
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 both imprisonment and admissions 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 crimes. Disparity in the new court commitment rate for drug offenses fell sharply between 2000 and 2020, from 36 to 4 (Figure 7a). For violent crime, disparity dropped from 11 to 4, and it fell from 6 to 2 for property crimes over the same time period. Although disparity decreased for all offense categories, different patterns were observed. There was no disparity in the new court commitment per arrest rate for violent and property crimes (Figure 7c), implying that the disparity in the resident-population-based new court commitment rate for these offenses was due to racial disparity in arrest rates (Figure 7b). The arrest rate disparity for violent crime fell slightly, from 10 to 9, while for property crimes it fell from 5 to less than 3. These changes in arrest rate disparity correspond with disparity in the new court commitment rate for violent and property crimes shown in Figure 5a. Disparity in the new court commitment per arrest rate contributed to disparity in the population-based new court commitment rate for drug offenses. The contribution of new court commitment per arrest disparity was generally smaller than the contribution of arrest rate disparity. Over time, disparity in both the arrest rate and the new court commitment per arrest ratios fell for drug offenses, but the new court commitment per arrest rate disparity did not fall to parity, as it did with violent and property crimes. Rather, court processing decisions leading to new court commitments added to the disparity in resident-population based new court commitments for drug offenses.
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
Reform in Pennsylvania occurred throughout the study period, largely through two Justice Reinvestment Initiative engagements in 2012 and 2018. As in other states, legislative efforts prior to the Justice Reinvestment Initiative tended to be reactive to specific incidents and were more punitive in nature.
Political Context
Pennsylvania has long been considered a swing state in national elections. The progressive politics in the densely populated areas of the state contrasts with the conservative viewpoints of the geographically widespread rural areas. Democrats held the governor’s office throughout the study period, except between 2011 and 2015, when Republican Tom Corbett served as governor. Republicans largely controlled the two chambers of the Pennsylvania Legislature throughout much of the study period, although Democrats controlled the House from 2007 through 2010. Republicans have controlled the Senate since 1993.
Practice Reforms
During the study period, several practice changes occurred inside the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC), especially after new leadership took over in 2011. Generally, the department placed greater emphasis on understanding population data, using it to drive operational efficiency. Internal assessments were conducted to determine whether processes could be streamlined to more effectively manage program delivery, the movement of incarcerated people, and release hearing processes. Stakeholders said these assessments led to more efficiency, allowing incarcerated people to complete programming and meet release requirements more quickly. A significant process change was the unification of parole supervision under the DOC, an action that was initially authorized by Governor Wolf under a 2017 Memorandum of Understanding and formalized in 2021 through legislation. The agreement consolidated overlapping, shared resources and functions while keeping DOC and parole operations separate. This allowed the agencies to collaborate on reentry planning by combining community supervision under a centralized chain of command. The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, a legislative agency tasked with creating discretionary sentencing guidelines for judges, also implemented changes to improve the system during the study period. Beginning in 2014, leaders in Pennsylvania set out to improve sentencing guidelines by making them more uniformly applicable and less punitive. Prior to 2014, stakeholders said the legislature usually passed a small number of sentence enhancements every session, changes that added confusion to the uniformity of the guidelines. After 2014, the commission began working with state leaders to amend the use of mandatory minimum sentences. Although changes to the guidelines took effect in 2023, attention to this issue may have impacted decision-making during the study period.
Additional Contextual Factors
In response to two murders of Philadelphia police officers by people under parole supervision, Governor Ed Rendell issued a moratorium on parole in 2008. The moratorium lasted three months, and Pennsylvania stakeholders said it led to revocation decisions that sent a significant number of people back to prison. Although the parole moratorium was short-lived, stakeholders reported that it had the effect of reducing the parole rate for years to follow. Stakeholders also said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States had an impact on court commitments to prison in Pennsylvania. This June 2013 decision changed the way cases were identified as suitable for a mandatory minimum penalty, requiring juries—not judges—to determine whether a mandatory minimum sentence was warranted based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Statutory Reforms
Pennsylvania has gone through two phases of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, which is federally funded technical assistance to states tackling criminal justice analysis and policy development. The first phase began in 2012. It led to the passage of SB 100, which lowered mandatory minimums for certain drug trafficking crimes and created more options for less restrictive confinement (e.g., pre-release centers, community corrections centers, and specialized drug treatment programs) for people convicted of low-level offenses prior to release from prison. The omnibus bill also created guidelines concerning intermediate sanctions for eligible people with technical parole violations and provided opportunities for shorter recommitment times after a violation when an individual had completed required programming and met other good behavior standards. Building on the work of SB 100, state leaders engaged in a second Justice Reinvestment Initiative effort in 2018, leading to the passage of Act 115. This effort had three primary goals: to improve sentencing and parole practices, to provide resources to the county probation system, and to expand support for crime victims and survivors. The three bills below were passed and signed into law by Governor Wolf in December 2019.
- SB 500, a bill that established a County Adult Probation and Parole Advisory Committee under the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The committee was charged with ensuring technical assistance incorporated evidence-based practices and overseeing all matters pertaining to the administration of the county’s adult probation and parole system.
- SB 501, which authorized the use of a new risk assessment tool in conjunction with enhanced sentencing guidelines that focus on probation terms and alternative sentencing options such as drug treatment programs and motivational boot camps.
- SB 502, a bill that amended the Crime Victims Act of 1998 to enhance support mechanisms for victims and survivors of certain crimes.
Though stakeholders in varying system areas mark the two Justice Reinvestment Initiative phases as being vital to reform in Pennsylvania, they note that delays in implementation occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholders said that the intended reductions in recidivism and the state prison population were not realized until 2022. Between 2009 and 2020, Pennsylvania passed or implemented 29 bills (containing 88 provisions) that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 25 bills for further study.4 A review of the 25 candidate bills produced eight themes that characterized sentencing reform in Pennsylvania during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in Pennsylvania were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (20 laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- good time or early release (four laws)
- new offense categories (three laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (three laws)
- treatment and programming (two laws)
- repeat offenders (two laws)
- risk assessment instruments (two laws)
- bail/pretrial (one law)
Fourteen bills focused on specific offense classes, while the others broadly applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., probationers and parolees) or larger offense categories. Of those focused on specific crimes, eight bills targeted drug and driving under the influence (DUI) offenses, three focused on property crimes, three dealt with sexual offenses, two addressed homicide, and one focused on human 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:
- SB 125 (April 2010), SB 126 (June 2010), and HB 196 (Jan. 2010), all of which addressed elements of methamphetamine production, sale, and delivery.
- HB 396 (October 2011), SB 731 (February 2013), and HB 112 (August 2014), bills that addressed drug delivery mechanisms as well as theft of controlled substances and “designer drugs,” defined as substances with similar chemical structure or effect as a controlled substance.
- SB 1024 (April 2014), a bill that changed sentencing provisions and offense classifications for arson, and also addressed murder.
- SB 539 (July 2012), which focused on repeat offenses and set maximum terms for certain subsequent DUI offenses.
- SB 1161 (May 2010), a bill authorizing the diversion of people convicted of technical parole violations away from prison and into a range of community-based sanctions, unless diversion presents a risk to public safety.
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.5 The results show no significant racial differences in post-reform trends.
SB 125, SB 126, HB 196, HB 396, SB 731, and HB 112
During the study period, eight drug reform provisions (housed within six bills) were enacted; four of these provisions were implemented in 2010 (SB 125, SB 126, HB 196), or about the time that both the Black imprisonment and admission rates for drug offenses began to fall. The other four (HB 396, SB 731, HB 112) were implemented in 2011, 2013, and 2014, respectively, after these decreases had already begun. Due to limitations in the data submitted to the National Correctional Reporting Program by the Pennsylvania DOC, the analysis examines trends for all drug offenses and not specific types of drug crimes (such as possession or trafficking). As shown in Figure 8, the trends in new court commitments for drug offenses indicate the following:
- From 2000 to 2019, the number of monthly new court commitments for drug offenses for Black people followed a curvilinear path of increase through early 2009, followed by a steeper decrease than occurred during the period of increase. The number of monthly Black new court commitments peaked at 210 in February 2009; by the end of 2019, that number had fallen to about 50.
- The number of monthly White new court commitments for drug offenses increased from about 20 in January 2000 to about 75 in 2010, after which it remained relatively constant through 2019.
- Decreases in new court commitments for drug offenses during 2020 for both Black and White people correlated with national reductions due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.
- None of the drug reforms implemented between 2010 and 2014 shifted the levels of admissions or the pre-reform trends. Hence, Figure 6 presents only overall trends.
Additionally, data limitations in the Pennsylvania state offense codes hampered the isolation of the effects of reforms on methamphetamine crimes. However, if Pennsylvania followed recent drug offense admission trends seen in other states affected by opioids, a portion of the increase in White drug offense admissions that began early in the study period is likely attributable to methamphetamines. That said, the leveling off of White drug offense admissions between 2010 and 2019 implies that the methamphetamine reforms did not shift the overall rate of drug admissions. For Black people admitted for drug offenses, the monthly number of admissions began to fall at least eight months before the SB 125 and SB 126 reforms were implemented. Consequently, these reforms are not responsible for the decrease in Black drug offense admission rates. In addition, methamphetamine admissions are more highly correlated with White drug crime admissions than Black admissions, so it is likely that the new laws’ focus on methamphetamine would have little to no effect on Black drug offense admission rates. In short, some factor, or combination of factors, other than these reforms accounted for the reversal in the direction of the trend in the Black drug offense admission rate, as well as its relatively rapid decrease. Similarly, Justice Reinvestment Initiative reforms implemented in 2012 that focused on alternatives to incarceration also cannot explain the downward shift in the Black drug offense admission rate that occurred more than two years earlier. It is plausible that the Justice Reinvestment Initiative reforms codified practices already in place prior to their enactment.
Figure 8: New Court Commitments for Drug Offenses, by Race
The analysis found no racial differences in the effects of the other four drug law bills on the length of sentences imposed on people admitted for drug offenses.
SB 1024
SB 1024 provided for a 40-year cap on arson sentences when there was bodily injury to a first responder or serious bodily injury to a civilian. It also made arson a first-degree felony when the defendant intentionally started a fire with the intention of hurting another person, and made arson a second-degree murder charge when a person was killed in the fire. About 37% of the new court commitments for arson made between 2000 and 2020 had Pennsylvania state codes that identified arson as either endangering a person or causing bodily injury to a civilian, consistent with the SB 1024 reform. The remaining arson codes were insufficiently detailed to distinguish the elements of arson detailed in the reform. This lack of specificity limits any disparity analysis. Regarding the change that made arson a first-degree felony when the defendant intentionally started a fire with the intention of hurting another person, there were no statistically significant differences in the length of sentences imposed on Black and White people entering prison with these charges following its implementation. For all other arson offenses, there were no racial differences in sentences imposed subsequent to the reform.
SB 539
DUI reform under SB 539 focused on repeat offenses and set maximum terms for a person’s third (or subsequent) DUI offense when a minor was in the vehicle. The focus on a third (or subsequent) offense limits the analysis of the impacts of this reform on disparity since the data detail only prior imprisonments for DUI, rather than all prior convictions. Examining all DUI offenses, there were no racial differences in sentences imposed after the new law was implemented.
SB 1161
Following the implementation of SB 1161, technical parole violation admissions increased for both Black and White people until about 2016 or 2017, and then declined for both racial groups (Figure 9). There were no statistically significant racial differences in the rates of parole violation admissions, either in linear or nonlinear terms.
Figure 9: Admissions for Technical Parole Violations, by Race
Discussion
Overall, racial disparity in Pennsylvania imprisonment rates dropped by half from 2000 to 2020, falling from 15.5-to-1 to 7.7-to-1. Disparity for drug offense imprisonment rates fell by 80%, from 42 to 8, during the same time period, but as of 2020, the Black-White drug imprisonment disparity in the state was twice that of the national level. Admission rate disparity fell at about the same rate as imprisonment rate disparity. Racial differences in new court commitments per arrest for violent and property crimes were comparable throughout the study period, and although the disparity fell, Black people arrested for drug offenses were twice as likely to be committed to a prison term by the end of the study period than their White counterparts. The analysis of statutory reform enacted in Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2020 indicated that there was no relationship between implementation of the reforms and change in disparity. The two main reasons for this conclusion are:
- Among the few reforms that affected large numbers of people, no post-reform changes in Black-White admissions or length of stay were found that could contribute to change in disparity.
- Many reforms affected relatively small numbers of people. These small numbers could not support reliable statistical analysis. In addition, the relatively narrow focus of reforms on specific types of crimes that generally did not affect relatively large numbers of people implies that the reforms could not have large impacts on prison disparity.
Some changes in practices that led to changes in disparity occurred prior to statutory reform implementation. For example, decreases in drug admissions for Black people and increases for White people occurred before a set of new drug laws were implemented. That changes in practice preceded statutory reforms suggests that statutory reforms enacted in Pennsylvania may have been influenced by a shift in practice, rather than the the other way around.
Pennsylvania, 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.
