Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in Texas prisons fell 37%, from 5.7-to-1 to 3.6-to-1, during the period from 2005 to 2019. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults decreasing by 68% and the rate for White adults increasing by 5%.
- 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 50% during the study period, while length of stay disparity increased by 27%.
- 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 Texas 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 2005 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 Texas' 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 Texas
Between 2005 and 2019, the overall Black-White adult imprisonment rate disparity2 in Texas fell by 37%, from 5.7-to-1 to 3.6-to-1. This decrease was primarily driven by a 70% drop in the drug offense racial disparity ratio, which fell from over 8 to 2.5. For violent and property crimes, racial disparity ratios decreased by 23% and 46%, respectively (Figure 1).3
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2005–2020
In general, disparity fell because the Black imprisonment rate fell faster than the White rate, with the exception of the drug offense imprisonment rate. From 2005 to 2020, the overall Black imprisonment rate fell by 54%, compared to a drop of 28% for the White rate (Figure 2). Although prison populations decreased dramatically in 2020 due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, this did not cause the steeper decrease in the overall Black imprisonment rate compared to the White imprisonment rate. For example, from 2005 to 2019, the Black rate fell by 45%, while the White rate fell by 14%. Similarly, for violent and property crimes, the decrease in the Black rate exceeded that of the White rate. For example, the Black violent crime imprisonment rate fell by 39% from 2005 to 2020, while the White rate fell by 18% during the same period. Trends in drug offense imprisonment rates differed from rates for other crime categories. Both the Black and White drug offense imprisonment rates fell from 2005 to 2012, but after 2012, the White rate increased (from 76 per 100,000 in 2012 to 97 per 100,000 in 2019) while the Black rate continued to fall (from 460 per 100,000 in 2012 to 243 per 100,000 in 2019). Over this period, the increase in the White drug offense imprisonment rate, combined with the continued decrease in the Black rate, accelerated the pace of the decrease in disparity for drug crime imprisonment. For example, from 2005 to 2012, the drug offense imprisonment disparity ratio fell by 27%, while from 2012 to 2019, it fell by 59%. In 2020, both the Black and White drug imprisonment rates fell substantially due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic that lowered the admissions rate and increased releases. During 2020, the White and Black drug imprisonment rates dropped by the same margin—29%—which resulted in no change to the drug offense imprisonment disparity ratio.
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2005–2020
Differential growth rates of imprisonment across crime categories contributed to changes in the race-specific composition of the Texas prison population. For the Black incarcerated population, the major change was a large increase in the share of people held for violent crime and a decrease in shares held for other offenses. The share of the Black incarcerated population held for violent crime rose from 52% in 2005 to 65% in 2019, and then increased to 70% in 2020 (Figure 3). The shares of Black people incarcerated for drug offenses fell by half during the period, from just under 25% in 2005 to 12% in 2020. The share held for property offenses fell from 19% to 10% during the same timeframe. By comparison, the share of White people incarcerated for violent crime hovered at about 50% from 2005 to 2019, and increased to 56% in 2020. The share of White people held for drug offenses remained relatively constant throughout the period, while the share of White people incarcerated for property crimes fell from 20% to 14%.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2005–2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
Disparity in the overall admission rate fell faster than did disparity in the overall imprisonment rate. For example, the overall admission rate disparity ratio fell from 5.2 in 2005 to 2.6 in 2019 (Figure 4), while the imprisonment rate disparity ratio fell from 5.7 in 2005 to 3.6 in 2019. Similarly, the admission rate disparity for each offense category fell more rapidly than the imprisonment rate disparity.
Figure 4: Black-White Admissions Rate Disparity by Offense Category, 2005–2020
The decrease in admission rate disparity was caused by decreases (overall and by offense category) in the Black rate coupled with flatness, slower rates of decrease, and even increases in the White rate (Figure 5). For example, overall, the Black admission rate fell by 57% from 2005 to 2019, compared to a 15% decrease in the White rate over the same period. Most of the decrease in the overall White admission rate occurred from 2005 to 2010, after which point it leveled off. For both Black and White people, admission rates fell considerably in 2020 due to responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall admission rate patterns for Black and White people were roughly mirrored in rates for violent and property crimes; one exception was that the White property crime admission rate began to decline around 2015, several years before the White violent crime admission rate fell. Black admission rates for violent and property crimes fell throughout the study period, although at different rates. For example, most of the decrease in the Black violent crime admission rate occurred after 2012, as it had been relatively flat prior to then, whereas the Black property crime admission rate fell from 2005 to 2012 and then decreased at an accelerated rate starting in 2012. The White drug offense admission rate mirrored the White imprisonment rate, decreasing from 2006 to 2012 and then increasing until 2018. During this same period, the Black drug offense admission rate maintained a steady decrease.
Figure 5: Admissions Rates by Offense Category and Race, 2005–2020
Overall
Violent Offenses
Property Offenses
Drug Offenses
The larger decrease in admission rate disparity than in imprisonment rate disparity was offset partially by small increases in disparity in length of stay. In 2005, Black and White people could expect to serve roughly the same amount of time in prison, overall and for each major offense group (Figure 6). By 2019 and across all offense categories, Black people could expect to serve about 30% longer than their White counterparts. The disparity in length of stay was higher for drug offenses, where Black people admitted for these offenses also could serve about 30% more than their White counterparts in 2019. For violent and property offenses, disparity in length of stay did not change much over the study period. Contributing to the overall disparity in length of stay for drug offenses was a higher Black admission rate for drug trafficking when compared to the rate for White people convicted of this crime (not shown in a table). This higher rate persisted throughout the study period. In addition, although the Black-White drug trafficking commitment rates converged, the higher share of Black people convicted of drug trafficking among all Black people convicted of drug crimes, compared to this same share of White people, was associated with the overall increase in length of stay for Black people convicted of drug offenses.
Figure 6: Disparity in Length of Stay by Offense Category, 2005–2019
New Court Commitments per Arrest
Disparity in admission rates, however, does not capture the effect of arrests on admissions. Taking arrests into account, disparity in new court commitment admissions per arrest fell over time in Texas, and decreased the most for drug offenses. From 2005 to 2010, the disparity ratio in new court commitments per arrest for drug offenses averaged about 3.5. After 2010, it fell continuously through 2020, and by 2020, the new court commitment to arrest disparity for drug offenses approached parity (Figure 7). For violent and property crimes, the new commitment per arrest disparity was relatively steady at about 2.5 until about 2010, when it began to fall. By 2020, the ratio of new court commitments to arrests for Black people for violent and property crimes was about 1.8. Throughout the study period, disparity in new court commitments per arrest (Figure 7) was lower than the disparity in new court commitments per resident population. The difference between the two disparity ratios was two times larger for population-based commitment rates than arrest-based commitment rates, which indicates that racial differences in involvement in arrests explain about half of the disparity in the overall admission rate.
Figure 7: Disparity in New Court Commitments per Arrest
Disparity in arrest rates fell for drug offenses, remained flat for property crimes, and trended upward in the last five years of the study period for violent crime (Figure 8). For drug offense arrests, the decrease in disparity observed since 2010 resulted from an increase in White drug trafficking arrest rates combined with a decrease in the Black drug possession arrest rates (not shown in a figure). The relatively constant disparity ratios in arrest rates for violent and property crimes, compared to the decrease in arrest disparity for drug offenses, correspond with increases in the use of methamphetamines during the early 21st century and growth in the use of opioids such as heroin and fentanyl—drugs more commonly associated with White people—starting around 2013.4
Figure 8: Disparity in Arrest Rates
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
Texas underwent a well-publicized reform effort beginning in 2007. Referred to colloquially as “the Texas model,” the initiative focused on providing significant funding for county-level probation and other alternatives to state-level incarceration. In the years since the implementation of the Texas model, the state has not made major additional statutory reforms. But multiple stakeholders reported that Texas has undergone political, cultural, and practice changes, especially at the local level. Many stakeholders believe these non-statutory changes likely affected overall prison admissions as well as racial disparities within the corrections population.
Political Context
Both chambers of the Texas legislature, and the Governor’s office, have been under continuous Republican control since 2003. Texas underwent a prison building boom in the 1990s and reached a peak prison population in 2000. As a result of budgetary pressure caused by growth in corrections spending since 2000, state officials—including Governor Rick Perry, who served from 2000 to 2015—publicly voiced a desire to avoid the construction of new prisons. This led to a noticeable flattening of the growth in the Texas prison population. Also, many cite State Senator John Whitmire (D) and Representative Jerry Madden (R) as key figures in advancing the 2007 reforms and highlighting the need for other changes and increased funding to support alternatives to incarceration.
Practice Reforms
Despite the limited changes to state law during the last 15 years, several Texas stakeholders referenced a modest cultural shift toward rehabilitation and treatment in the state. This change was particularly true for probation officers (who had greater access to local services) and prosecutors. In large population hubs—including Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio—several prosecutors pledged to focus on serious and violent crime and not seek long sentences for lower-level offenses like drug possession. Changes to local district courts also likely played a role, as stakeholders reported shifts in the makeup of county district courts, noting an increase in more reform-minded judges in Austin, Dallas, and Houston. Stakeholders voiced a belief that these practice changes were a likely reason why the prison population had stayed flat in recent years despite the growth in the state’s resident population.
Additional Contextual Factors
In 2004, Texas had the nation’s second-highest state incarceration rate, and its prison population was projected to grow by tens of thousands during the following decade. As a response, Texas enacted a set of reforms intended to reduce the state corrections population. Specifically:
- In 2005, the state allocated $55 million to county probation departments with the explicit goal of providing resources to reduce probation revocations to prison, a large driver of admissions at the time. These policies included focusing resources on people early in their supervision, using graduated sanctions instead of incarceration, and greatly decreasing officer caseloads.
- In 2007, a legislative-led effort to reduce the number of people in prisons was put into effect. Among other reforms, the state appropriated funds toward alternatives to prison for low-level, nonviolent offenders, and invested in programs designed to treat drug addiction and mental illness.
Statutory Reforms
In the 2010s through the present day, the few notable statutory reforms adopted in Texas included an increase to the felony theft threshold in 2015, as a result of SB 393. However, stakeholders generally agree—and legal research confirms—that impactful statutory change has been minimal. In fact, recent legislation, including the Sandra Bland Act, which would have restricted the ability to arrest people suspected of the lowest level crimes, was vetoed by the governor despite its approval by the legislature. It is also worth noting that when a reform effort has had some explicit racial justice component included (as did the Bland Act), it has failed to become law. Between 2009 and 2021, Texas passed or implemented 35 bills (containing 41 provisions) that included changes to criminal sentencing. These bills were reviewed for inclusion in this analysis based on targeted populations, scope, and content, yielding 14 bills for further study. A review of the 14 candidate bills produced six themes that characterized sentencing reform in Texas during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in Texas were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (14 laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (six laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- treatment programming (two laws)
- good time or early release (two laws)
- repeat offenders (one laws)
- bail/pretrial release (one laws)
Half of the 14 bills focused on specific offense categories, while the other half applied to justice-involved groups (e.g., probationers and parolees), special populations (e.g., gang members), or special criminal activities such as organized crime. Of those that focused on specific offense categories, two bills focused on violent crime, two targeted drug offenses, two addressed human trafficking, one addressed property crimes, and one affected synthetic cannabis offenses. Many of the provisions in the 14 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:
- SB 549 (September 2013), a bill which amended the penalties for engaging in organized criminal activity, broadened the definition of “criminal street activities,” and eliminated parole eligibility for people serving life sentences for engaging in organized criminal activities.
- HB 431 (June 2013), which addressed mandatory supervision and gave the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles discretion not to consider parole for a person convicted of 2nd or 3rd degree felony injury to a child until they had served at least five years in prison.
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.5 The results show no racial differences in post-reform effects.
SB 549
The analysis of the effects of SB 549 focused on racial differences in the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for relevant criminal street gang offenses since data showed no relevant Life Without the Possibility of Parole sentences given after the bill’s implementation. Controlling for the number of counts on the most serious offense, other offenses, and the age of the incarcerated person, the analysis found no racial differences in the probability of receiving a mandatory sentence (Figure 9). Prior to SB 549, mandatory sentences were rarely used. After implementation, the predicted probability indicates that the use of mandatory sentences increased for both Black and White people, but there was no difference in the use of mandatory sentences for the identified criminal gang offenses by race.
Figure 9: Probability of Receiving a Mandatory Minimum Sentence, by Race
The results also show no differences by race in the average length of maximum sentences imposed for offenses involving criminal street activities (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Average Length of Maximum Sentence Imposed
HB 431
Limiting the analysis to those who served at least five years for second- or third-degree felony injury to a child, and comparing parole release probabilities from new court commitments, the results showed no racial differences in the post HB 431 period. Prior to HB 431, parole release probabilities for these offenses were increasing for both Black and White people (Figure 11), and there was no difference by race in the rate of increase in those probabilities. After implementation, the rate of increase in parole release probability immediately leveled off for both Black and White people and even dropped slightly. Three years after HB 431, the trend in parole release probability increased slightly for both groups, and there was not a statistical difference in the parole release probabilities by race. For Black people, the variability in the post HB 431 release probability was greater than for White people due to the smaller number of Black people admitted for this crime.
Figure 11: Probability of Parole, by Race
Discussion
The limited opportunities to analyze the impacts of Texas’ sentencing reforms on disparity limits the validity of any generalizations about their plausible contributions. The exceptions were the two reforms related to gangs and injuring children, which had no evident effect on racial disparity. Taken together with the disparity trends discussed earlier, all of the findings imply that the increase in White drug offense admissions—which contributed significantly to the drop in the overall admission disparity—arose from changes in drug use patterns among White people which resulted in increased enforcement of drug offenses among this group. Racial disparity in new court commitments per arrest fell over time, a trend that suggests more racially equitable treatment of people who were arrested. For drug offenses, disparity was nearly eliminated; for violent and property crimes, the rates fell to 1.7-to-1 and 1.5-to-1, respectively. The movement toward more comparable treatment of Black and White people who are arrested and admitted to prison was offset partially by increases in length of stay, especially for drug offenses. As with national data, prison admissions account for most of the imprisonment disparity in Texas. But as the influence of admissions on disparity has diminished, the influence of length of stay has increased.
Texas, 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.
