Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in South Carolina prisons fell 31%, from 6-to-1 to 4-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 64% and the rate for White adults increasing by 91%.
- Changes in prison admissions were the primary drivers of the disparity reduction, while changes in length of stay provided a counter-balancing effect. The overall admission rate disparity fell by 61% during the study period, while length of stay disparity increased by 76%.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had less effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that two statutes—one that adjusted penalties, distinctions, and class severities for drug-related offenses; established penalty schedules for repeat controlled substance offenses; and established penalties for weapons possession by people who have been convicted of a violent crime; and one that equalized penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine and established a consolidated assault and battery statute—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 South Carolina 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 South Carolina'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 South Carolina
Between 2000 and 2019, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity1 in South Carolina fell by 31%, from 6-to-1 to 4-to-1. This decrease was primarily driven by an 81% drop in the drug offense racial disparity ratio. For violent and property crimes, the racial disparity ratios fell by 10% and 26%, respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Black and White imprisonment rate trends generally mirrored each other for both violent and property offenses during the study period, which explains the relatively small decreases in disparity for these two crime categories. Changes in drug offense imprisonment disparity, however, were less consistent. The drug offense imprisonment rate disparity fell from 2000 to 2005 primarily because the rate for White people convicted of drug crimes increased by 65% while the Black rate increased and then fell back to the 2000 level. Between 2006 and 2010, drug imprisonment disparity increased because the White rate fell faster than the Black rate. But from 2010 to 2019, the Black drug offense imprisonment rate decreased by 64% while the White rate increased by 3% (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
The differential growth rates of imprisonment across offense categories led to changes in the race-specific composition of South Carolina’s prison population. Notably, for both Black and White incarcerated populations, the share of people held for violent offenses increased between 2000 and 2019. The share of Black adults incarcerated for violent crimes grew from 42% to 61%; for White adults, this share increased from 45% to 50% (Figure 3). For drug offenses, the respective shares of the Black and White incarcerated populations moved in opposite directions. The share of the Black incarcerated population that was held for drug offenses fell from 28% to 18%, while it more than doubled, from 8% to 18%, for the White incarcerated population.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000 and 2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
Disparity in the admission rate generally fell faster than the imprisonment rate disparity, indicating that racial differences in length of stay contributed to increased disparity. Admission rate disparity fell overall and for all offenses in South Carolina. Overall, the admission rate disparity fell by 61% from 2000 to 2019 (Figure 4); by comparison, overall imprisonment rate disparity fell by 31%. Similarly, larger decreases in admission disparity when compared to imprisonment disparity occurred within the major offense categories.
Figure 4: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2000–2020
In general, the decrease in admission rate disparity occurred because the Black admission rate fell slightly faster than the White rate (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Admissions Rates by Offense Category and Race, 2000–2020
Overall
Violent Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
Disparity in average length of stay increased overall and in each major offense category (Figure 6). In 2000, overall expected length of stay was roughly equivalent for Black and White people admitted to prison. By 2019, however, the average Black person admitted to prison could expect to stay in prison about 50% longer than their White counterparts. This disparity was driven by a 67% increase in overall length of stay for Black people from 2000 to 2019, raising their expected length of stay from two to three years. Length of stay for White people remained steady at roughly two years at both time points. Substantial drops in length of stay were observed in 2020 due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic that lowered admission rates and increased releases. The overall trend held for offense categories. Disparity in length of stay for drug offenses increased faster than for violent and property crimes. From 2000 to 2019, Black people admitted with drug offenses could expect to serve about 50% more than their White counterparts. This disparity was driven by an increase in length of stay for Black people convicted of drug offenses, which rose from 1.4 years in 2000 to 2.4 years in 2019. A major contributor driving length of stay up for this group was an elevated concentration of drug trafficking offenses observed among Black admissions (69%) when compared to White admissions (58%), and a higher prevalence of prior felony sentences among Black admissions (44%) compared to White admissions (34%). For violent and property offenses, disparity in length of stay indicated that a Black person admitted for these offenses could expect to serve 20% more time in prison than their White counterpart in 2019 than they would have in 2000.
Figure 6: Disparity in Length of Stay by Offense Category, 2000–2019
New Court Commitments per Arrest
New court commitment decisions contributed to disparity in admission rates for all offense categories in South Carolina. The post-arrest disparity in admission rates fell considerably for drug offenses (Figure 7), dropping from 6-to-1 to 1-to-1 (parity) in 2000 to below parity in 2018 and to 0.7 in 2020 (when Black people arrested for drug offenses entered prison on a new court commitment at 70% of the rate of White people). The shift downward in the new court commitment to arrest disparity ratio for drug offenses was correlated with the increase in opioid use and its accompanying criminal activity.2 In South Carolina between 2000 and 2020, there was a more than 15-fold increase in the number of White people who died from opioid overdoses.3 In 2020, 82% of opioid-related fatalities were experienced by White people, compared to 15% experienced by those who were Black. The first Black person to die of opioid overdose was not recorded in South Carolina until 2014. By comparison, new court commitments per arrest for violent and property offenses fell more slowly, from about 1.5 in 2000 to less than one in 2020. Parity in the commitment to arrest ratio occurred in 2016 for violent offenses and in 2019 for property offenses.
Figure 7: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Arrest
The disparity in arrest rates for violent offenses remained relatively constant throughout the study period, standing at nearly 4-to-1 (Figure 8). Disparity in both property and drug offense arrest rates fell slightly after 2010. For violent and property offenses, the disparity in the new court commitment per arrest ratios was lower than that for the arrest rates throughout the study period. This indicates that disparity in arrest rates was more impactful in reducing disparity in new court commitment per resident population than decisions made in the post-arrest commitment to prison decision. For drug offenses, disparity in commitments per arrest fell throughout the study period and approached 1 by 2020, indicating that by the end of the study period, disparity in population-based drug offense commitment rates stemmed almost exclusively from disparity in drug arrest rates.
Figure 8a: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Resident Population
Figure 8b: Disparity in Arrest Rates
Figure 8c: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Arrest
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
Prior to 2011, the majority of statutory changes in South Carolina focused on enhancing penalties and establishing new felony charges. A 2011 effort with the Justice Reinvestment Initiative through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and The Pew Charitable Trusts led to several changes via SB 1154, including reductions in sentencing and increases in monetary thresholds for certain property crimes. SB 1154 also equalized penalties for drug offenses to target and eliminate racial sentencing disparities related to crack and powder cocaine possession.
Political Context
South Carolina has had Republican governors since 2003. Governors Mark Sanford and Nikki Haley served two terms each, and the seat now is held by Governor Henry McMaster. The history of gubernatorial leadership in South Carolina was primarily Democratic until 1975, when Governor James Burrows Edwards was elected the first Republican in 100 years. Currently, the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state are all Republicans, and there is a Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This majority has been present throughout the study period.
Practice Reforms
While some state reforms resulted from major changes in statutory or executive-led initiatives, South Carolina’s changes were also influenced by case law. In 2015, Hayes v. South Carolina4 resulted in changes to jail time credits. The court found that pretrial detention time should apply against a probation revocation whenever a person on probation receives a split sentence. A computer system now calculates all time-served credits. In 2016, Bolin v. South Carolina Department of Corrections5 (DOC) challenged the application of some of the 2011 changes to drug statutes that resulted from SB 1154. According to stakeholders, the resulting drug statute changes were misinterpreted and applied incorrectly to 85% “no parole” offenses. The omnibus bill amended sections 44-53-370 and -375 of the drug statute to allow those convicted of a first and second drug distribution offense the opportunity for community supervision on a suspended sentence, notwithstanding any other provisions of the law. After the court’s ruling, the South Carolina DOC corrected its implementation of the law, and hundreds of releases were made to rectify the past misinterpretation.6 How the South Carolina DOC handled releases was also affected by the 2011 case Tant v. South Carolina DOC,7 which addressed how sentencing orders were interpreted. Prior to this case, if a court’s order on the sentencing sheet was unclear, DOC officials would contact the court for clarification on intent, which sometimes resulted in judges changing the sentencing order to make an individual’s sentence longer. This case restricted DOC officials from contacting the courts and required them to follow what is written on the sentencing sheet; stakeholders said this change in practice reduced the incidence of prison sentences becoming lengthened outside of the formal sentencing process.
Additional Contextual Factors
Stakeholders reported a change in the supervision of youthful offenders (ages 17 to 25) in fiscal year 2011-2012 that was aimed at reducing high recidivism rates among this population.8 Historically, this age group had a recidivism rate of about 50%. Stakeholders also reported a shift in thinking about how this group was supervised. Through the Division of Young Offender Parole and Reentry Services, the South Carolina DOC established Intensive Supervision Services, which utilizes the evidence-based practices of the Intensive Aftercare Program model to improve family and individual functioning while reducing recidivism and ensuring community safety.9
Statutory Reforms
Between 2010 and 2019, South Carolina passed or implemented 20 bills (containing 32 provisions) that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 12 bills for further study.10 A review of the 12 candidate bills produced seven themes that characterized sentencing reform in South Carolina during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in South Carolina were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (11 laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (6 laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- treatment programming (three laws)
- people convicted of repeat offenses (three laws)
- creating new offense categories (two laws)
- bail/pretrial release (one law)
- good time or early release (one law)
Eight of the 12 bills focused on specific offense classes, while the other four broadly applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., people on probation and parole) or special populations (e.g., veterans and people with mental health disorders). Of those focused on specific offenses, five bills targeted violent crimes, two dealt with drug offenses, one addressed property offenses, and one related to driving under the influence (DUI) offenses. Many of the provisions in the 12 candidate bills were beyond the scope of the study data (the South Carolina offense codes did not contain sufficient detail to identify or distinguish many of the statutory reforms). Because of this, the following analysis section addresses a subset of the 12 bills whose elements could be measured:
- HB 3545 (May 2016), a bill that established penalty schedules for repeat controlled substance offenses and established penalties for weapons possession by people who have been convicted of a violent crime.
- SB 1154 (January 2011), which equalized penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine11 and established a consolidated assault and battery statute, with graduated penalties for more serious conduct or harm.
Analysis
Table 1 summarizes the analyses’ findings 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.12 All estimates in Table 1 are differences between the Black and White regression parameters (the degree to which a line slopes upward or downward). A positive post-reform trend difference indicates that the population outcome grew faster for Black people than for White people; if that difference is negative, that means a population outcome either grew more slowly or declined more rapidly for Black people than White people.13
Table 1: Summary of Statistical Analysis of Racial Differences in Effects of South Carolina Reforms
The statutory analysis flows from the finding that both admissions and length of stay contributed to the change in the state’s Black and White imprisonment rates. As such, the analyses assessed whether there were impacts on admissions as well as sentences imposed. While the results show no significant differences in post-reform trends, five reforms were associated with other statistically significant differences.
HB 3545
The broad effects of HB 3545 were two-fold:
- For new court commitments, there was an immediate decrease in the Black rate and an increase in the White rate.
- For sentences imposed, there was a one-time increase in the length of sentences imposed on Black people convicted of drug offenses (about four additional months on a base of 25 months). The reform did not alter the trends in length of stay. The increase in sentences imposed for Black new court commitments was associated with the fact that a larger share of Black people admitted to prison had two or three prior convictions when compared to White people admitted.
There was no effect of the reform on prison admission trends. Prior to implementation, the number of White people admitted for the relevant offenses increased while the number of Black people admitted decreased; these trends persisted after implementation.
SB 1154
SB 1154 was associated with a shift to decreased cocaine/methamphetamine admissions among Black people (Figure 9). Even though Black admissions peaked in mid-2006 and were trending downward prior to SB 1154 implementation in January 2011, the introduction of SB 1154 marked an immediate shift downward in the number of new court commitments among Black people for cocaine/methamphetamine offenses (a decrease of about 20 people from the prior month’s level of about 60 people). After one year, there was no statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-SB 1154 admission trends. The net effect of SB 1154 was the short-term drop in level observed during 2011; this amounted to about 120 fewer Black people admitted. Over the 10 years following the reform, this one-time drop accounted for less than 2% of all Black people admitted for drug offenses.
Figure 9: Monthly New Court Commitments for Cocaine/Methamphetamine Offenses for Black People
SB 1154 was also associated with a statistically significant difference in admissions for assault and battery. The effect was a larger, downward shift in the level of admissions for Black people than for White people (Figure 10). The Black-White difference in the shift was about 8 people per month. There were no post-reform differences in the subsequent trends in new court commitments between Black and White people. If the effects of this reform persisted during the nine years following its implementation, the decrease in Black people admitted for assault and battery would have accounted for about 10% of the reduction in the Black-White difference in admissions for violent crime.
Figure 10: Monthly New Court Commitments for Assault/Battery Offenses, by Race
Discussion
Drug crime imprisonment disparity experienced the largest disparity decrease among major offense categories in South Carolina, falling from about 20-to-1 to about 4-to-1 during the study period. The SB 1154 reform intended to equalize penalties for crack and powder cocaine likely contributed to the decrease in drug offense imprisonment disparity after 2011. But due to measurement limitations, a precise assessment of the impact of SB 1154 on drug offense disparity is not possible. Still, even when all observed effects are attributed to the legislation, it would have caused the reduction of roughly 120 Black people imprisoned for drug offenses in the year of implementation. This effect represents about 10% of all drug commitments among Black people in that year. A second reform enacted under SB 1154 consolidated assault and burglary in one statute, and it, too, was associated with racial differences in outcomes. The maximum effect of this reform in the nine years following implementation was to reduce the Black-White gap in violent crime admissions by 10% at most. There were no racial differences in effects on sentences imposed. The magnitude of the reduction in drug offense imprisonment rates was much larger than reductions caused by reforms enacted through SB 1154. As a result, it’s clear that variables other than the legislation account for the decrease in disparity. Among those variables is the drop in new court commitments per arrest for drug offenses. As detailed above, this decrease appears to be correlated with an increase in opioid deaths among White people and attendant increases in White arrest rates for drug offenses. In summation, it appears that forces beyond sentencing reforms and post-arrest processing explain the decrease in racial disparity for drug crimes, which stand out among all offenses for the greatest reduction in South Carolina’s Black-White imprisonment disparity.
South Carolina, 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.
