The article assigned for reading in unit five, prepared by, Rosenberg, Groves, and Blankenship (2017) involves the idea of racial disparities associated with the criminal justice system. The article provides a summary of the information gained from the research of differences between Black and Whites who have experienced activities within the criminal justice system associated with violation of controlled substance law. The article also shares demographic information about the participants of the research study.  

1) Please review the article and identify two theory’s which may be applicable to the information shared. Please explain your reasoning for the selected theory’s.   

Journal of Drug Issues
2017, Vol. 47(1) 132 –142

© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022042616678614

jod.sagepub.com

Article

Comparing Black and White Drug
Offenders: Implications for Racial
Disparities in Criminal Justice and
Reentry Policy and Programming

Alana Rosenberg1, Allison K. Groves2, and Kim M. Blankenship3

Abstract
Despite knowledge of racial bias for drug-related criminal justice involvement and its collateral
consequences, we know less about differences between Black and White drug offenders.
We compare 243 Black and White non-violent drug offenders in New Haven, Connecticut,
for demographic characteristics, substance use, and reentry services accessed. Blacks were
significantly more likely to have sales and possession charges; significantly more likely to
prefer marijuana, a less addictive drug; and significantly less likely to report having severe drug
problems. For both races, drug treatment was the most common service accessed through
supervision. These comparisons suggest different reasons for committing drug-related crimes
and, thus, different reentry programming needs. Although drug treatment is critical for all who
need it, for racial justice, we must also intervene to address other needs of offenders, such as
poverty alleviation and employment opportunities.

Keywords
race difference, drug of choice, drug offense, drug treatment, reentry

Introduction

The overwhelming increase in incarceration, attributed to the drug war, has disproportionately
affected Black communities. In 2011, Blacks were incarcerated at a dramatically higher rate than
Whites (5-7 times) and accounted for almost half of all prisoners incarcerated with a sentence of
more than 1 year for a drug-related offense (Carson & Sabol, 2012). Accordingly, researchers and
policy analysts have sought to understand both the causes and effects of the nation’s war on drugs
and its implications for racial equality (Alexander, 2012; Drucker, 2013; Ghandoosh, 2015;
Mauer, 2006; Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014). They have explored racial bias in the criminal
justice system and criminal justice outcomes, including police practices, arrest rates, convictions,
sentence lengths, diversionary opportunities, and community supervision; judicial policies and
laws such as precedent-setting court cases and mandatory minimum sentences; and media trends

1School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
2Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
3Department of Sociology, American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:
Alana Rosenberg, School of Public Health, Yale University, 60 College Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Email: alana.rosenberg@yale.edu

678614 JODXXX10.1177/0022042616678614Journal of Drug IssuesRosenberg et al.
research-article2016

mailto:alana.rosenberg@yale.edu

https://sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

https:// doi: 10.1177/0022042616678614

https://jod.sagepub.com

Rosenberg et al. 133

and their influence on public opinion. This literature demonstrates greater likelihood of Black
involvement in the criminal justice system through policing practices and sentencing policies for
drug-related crime, differences in sentencing practices and case processing, and the heightened
disadvantage Blacks face once they are removed from their communities, and upon return, as
labeled felons and drug offenders.

Although a decades-long war on drugs has ravaged Black communities, lately, attention has
turned to the recent surge in heroin and painkiller use and overdose among Whites, particularly
those in suburbs. Local police and state governments are alarmed and are working to address the
epidemic as a health issue, reexamining criminal justice policies and the decades-long emphasis
on punishment (Seelye, 2016). Many are advocating for the return of the rehabilitative role in
judicial and correctional efforts as it relates to drug-related offenders (National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 2014). The Comprehensive and Addiction Recovery Act of 2015 will be considered by
Congress to help states address the dramatic increases in prescription opioid and heroin use in the
United States through prevention and rehabilitation efforts. The response to the current opioid
epidemic, a public health crisis with a “white face,” has been contrasted to the crack epidemic
that hit Black communities hard in the 90s and was met with war tactics in affected communities
rather than compassion for offenders (Yankah, 2016). Such contrasting policy responses have
prompted some to raise the question of racially biased motivations and their implications (Mauer,
2016). We need race-specific research that is sensitive to differences among offenders in their
drug-trade involvement to understand the impact of our criminal justice policies. To ensure that
policies do not reflect racial bias and continue to perpetuate race-biased outcomes, it is important
to consider the demographic, drug use, and service-need differences between Black and White
drug offenders.

With this analysis, we contribute to the dialogue on racial bias in the criminal justice system
by comparing characteristics of Blacks and Whites convicted of a non-violent drug offense in
New Haven, Connecticut. Specifically, we describe racial differences in the characteristics of
offenders, charge, drug of choice, severity of drug problem, and reentry opportunities that were
mandated or referred by probation or parole, and consider their implications for criminal justice
reforms.

Method

Study Overview

Data for this analysis come from a larger study, Structures, Health and Risk Among Reentrants,
Probationers and Partners (SHARRPP), that aims to analyze whether movement between the
criminal justice system and the community is associated with Black/White disparities in HIV-
related sexual risk. Non-violent drug offenders (N = 302) in New Haven, Connecticut, were eli-
gible for the parent study if they were above 18, and released from prison or placed on probation
within 1 year of screening (conducted from July 2010 through February 2011) for a non-violent
drug-related charge. We verified their charges with the Department of Corrections (DOC) or
Court Support Services Division (CSSD). When the charge was not for a violent crime, but not
obviously related to drugs (e.g., not a charge related to possession or sales of drugs), participants
were asked whether the crime was committed to buy drugs, whether the crime was committed
while high, or whether the crime was drug-related in some other way and then were asked to give
an explanation.

After eligibility was established, research staff explained to participants the study’s purpose,
procedures, risks, and benefits, as well as measures taken to protect the confidentiality of partici-
pants, as detailed in the informed consent form. If participants were still interested in and willing
to participate, they signed the consent form and then took a computer-based structured survey of

134 Journal of Drug Issues 47(1)

about 90 minutes in length that included questions on family history, criminal justice history, and
history of housing, employment, drug use, sexual activities, and health problems. Participants
were paid US$40 in compensation. Four rounds of follow-up interviews were conducted at
6-month intervals, although for this article, we rely only on baseline data. The study protocol was
approved by institutional review boards (IRBs) at both Yale University and American University.

Sample

Because the primary aim of this article is to focus on differences between Blacks and Whites in
the crimes they are charged with, drug-use profiles, and services they access, this analysis is
restricted to the 243 participants who self-identified as Black (n = 146, 60%) or White (n = 97,
40%).

Measures

Demographic variables. Participants responded to questions about race, gender, sexual orienta-
tion, education, marital status, number of children they had, current employment status, history
of homelessness, and current income. Age was determined through date of birth given at time of
screening.

Criminal justice variables. The number of adult convictions is based on the question, “How many
times have you been convicted of a crime when you were 18 or over?” The number of times
incarcerated was measured through the question, “What is the total number of times you have
been incarcerated, in an adult prison or jail? Do not include times in which you were ONLY in
police lock-up.” Self-reported drug sales were measured by the question, “Have you ever sold
drugs?”

For the variable on the most recent charge, we utilized information received about most recent
charge from the DOC or CSSD during eligibility confirmation. If there was more than one charge
for the most recent arrest, we used the controlling, or main charge, as defined by DOC or CSSD.
Any charge related to possession (i.e., possession of narcotics) was coded “1.” Any charge related
to sales (i.e., sale of controlled substance) was coded “2.” Any charge that was not sales or pos-
session, but related to drugs in some other way (e.g., larceny to obtain drugs, violation of proba-
tion on a previous drug-related charge), was coded “3.”

We used the dates of entry and release received from the DOC to calculate the length of the
most recent criminal justice experience. If this value was missing for a participant, we used the
participant’s self-reported dates from the baseline survey. All participants who entered the study
via probation received a “0.”

Drug-use variables. Drug of choice was assessed through the following survey question:

Now we would like to ask you about your drug of choice. This is the substance that you would most
likely pick up if you were using. It is probably the substance that you have used most in your lifetime.
What would you consider to be your drug of choice?

Participants were then asked to identify their drug of choice from an extensive list of options.
To assess whether participants had used drugs in the 6 months prior to the most recent criminal

justice event, they were asked, “Did you use any of the following drugs in the 6 months before
[your most recent incarceration/you were placed on probation]?” Participants who had used any
of the drugs listed were coded a “1,” and those who had not used any drugs were coded a “0.”

Self-reported drug problem was assessed by the following question:

Rosenberg et al. 135

In the 30 days before [your most recent incarceration/you were placed on probation] how many days
did you experience drug problems? By drug problems we mean craving, withdrawal symptoms,
disturbing effects of use, or wanting to stop and being unable to.

We reported on the number of participants who reported 0 days, at least 1 day, and all 30 days, as
well as average number of days experiencing a drug problem in the 30 days before the most
recent criminal justice event.

We measured self-reported drug sales with the question, “Have you ever sold drugs?”
Participants who responded yes were coded a “1,” and those who said no were coded a “0.”
Lifetime drug-treatment experience was measured by the question, “Have you ever been in any
of the following drug-treatment programs?” Participants were then asked to select from an
exhaustive list of drug-treatment programs. Those who had participated in at least one program
were coded as “1,” and those who had not received a “0.”

Services accessed during reentry. To understand accessibility of drug-treatment programs com-
pared with other reentry programs during community supervision, we looked at responses to the
question,

Has a Probation or Parole officer ever helped you to access any of the following services? (Choose
all that apply): Outpatient drug treatment, Inpatient drug treatment, Housing subsidy, Job training,
Education (adult education, G.E.D., college), Mental Health Services, Bus passes, Government
benefits (SAGA, food stamps, or welfare, etc), Social service organization/case manager, Access to
Recovery (ATR), Other, No, PO never helped me to access these services.

Analysis

We used chi-square and t tests to describe the differences across Blacks and Whites in terms of
demographics, drug use, and services accessed while involved in the criminal justice system. We
used multinomial logistic regression techniques to estimate whether race was associated with the
likelihood of having a particular drug-related charge, using “other charge” as the referent group.
SAS (Version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina) was used for all analyses.

Results

As seen in Table 1, we found significant differences between Blacks and Whites for the following
sociodemographic characteristics: gender, number of children, education, and homelessness.
More Blacks were male, and Blacks had more children on average than Whites. Whites were
more likely to have at least their high school diploma or general education development (GED)
equivalency but were also more likely to report ever having been homeless.

There were also substantial race differences in criminal justice histories. As seen in Table 1,
Blacks were convicted significantly fewer times than Whites (8.43 vs. 11.29 times), but they had
significantly more sentences resulting in incarceration than Whites (9.09 vs. 6.15) and signifi-
cantly longer sentences than Whites (1.74 vs. .71 years). As seen in Table 2, the charge for the
most recent incarceration differed significantly by race. Blacks were more frequently charged
with drug sales or possession than Whites (27% vs. 4%; 20% vs. 16%, respectively). Whites had
more charges indirectly related to drugs, such as committing a crime to buy drugs, or being high
while committing a crime (80% vs. 53%). Furthermore, as seen in Table 3, Blacks were 2.2 times
(95% odds ratio [OR]: [1.07, 4.55]) more likely than Whites to have a possession charge as com-
pared with an “other” charge even after adjusting for other sociodemographic factors. Similarly,
Blacks were 8.24 times more likely than Whites to have a sales charge as compared with an

136 Journal of Drug Issues 47(1)

“other” charge, after adjusting for other sociodemographic factors (95% OR: [2.73, 24.90]).
Finally, although Blacks were significantly more likely than Whites to have been arrested most
recently for drug sales, we found no statistical race difference in self-reports of ever having sold
drugs (79% of Blacks vs. 70% of Whites).

Because addressing drug abuse is a key component of rehabilitative initiatives for offenders,
yet drugs vary widely in addictiveness and effect, it is important to understand drug of choice
among drug offenders. In our sample, drug of choice differed significantly by race (p < .0001; see Table 4). Blacks were significantly more likely to prefer marijuana (49%), while Whites were more likely to prefer heroin (52%). Crack was the second most likely single drug of choice for both racial groups (28% of Blacks and 13% of Whites).

Furthermore, we see differences in Black and White self-report of drug use, severity of drug
problem, and drug treatment (see Table 5). Blacks and Whites report similar rates of any drug use
in the 6 months before their most recent criminal justice event (90% of Blacks and 89% of
Whites). However, self-report of having a drug problem in the month prior to incarceration or

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics by Race, SHARRPP 2011-2012.

Full sample
(N = 243)

Black
(n = 146)

White
(n = 97)

p value % (n) or M (SD) % or M (SD) % or M (SD)

Demographic characteristics
Male 81% (198) 86% 75% .04
Heterosexual 93% (225) 92% 93% .93
Never married 62% (151) 65% 58% .24
High school degree, GED

equivalency, or greater
72% (176) 67% 80% .02

Not currently working 74% (180) 71% 78% .22
Ever had a job 96% (234) 95% 98% .32
Ever homeless 60% (147) 54% 70% .01
Age 39.39 (10.55) 40.06 38.36 .22
Children (n = 234) 1.80 (1.93) 2.13 1.28 0
Average monthly income US$2,335 (8,022) US$1,913 US$2,957 .34
Criminal justice history
No. of adult convictions 9.57 (9.69) 8.43 11.29 .02
No. times incarcerated 7.92 (10.84) 9.09 6.15 .03
Average length of last

sentence, in years
1.33 (2.55) 1.74 0.71 0

Note. SHARRPP = Structures, Health and Risk among Reentrants, Probationers and Partners; GED = general
education development. Bolded p-values indicate p < .05.

Table 2. Charge for Most Recent Criminal Justice Event by Race.

Black (n=146) White (n=97)

% (n) % (n) χ2, p-value

Charge 25.05, <.0001 Possession 20% (29) 15% (15) Sales 27% (40) 4% (4) Other 53% (77) 80% (78)

Note. Bolded p-values indicate p < .05.

Rosenberg et al. 137

Table 3. Multinomial Logistic Regression Assessing Whether Charge is Associated With Race After
Adjusting for Other Sociodemographic Variables.

Possession versus other drug-
related charge

Sales versus other drug-related
charge

AOR [95% CI] p value AOR [95% CI] p value

Black 2.20 [1.07, 4.55] .03 8.24 [2.73, 24.90]

.0002

More than HS degree or

GED equivalency
1.99 [0.83, 4.78] .12 0.67 [0.30, 1.52] .34

Ever homeless 0.82 [0.40, 1.67] .58 0.19 [0.09, 0.41] <.0001 Males 0.65 [0.28, 1.51] .31 1.65 [0.51, 5.30] .40

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; HS = high school; GED = general education development.
Bolded p-values indicate p < .05.

Table 4. Drug of Choice by Race, 2011-2012*.

Black (n=146) White (n=95)

% (n) % (n) p-value

Drug of Choice <.0001 Marijuana 49% (68) 10% (9) Heroin 7% (10) 50% (47) Crack 28% (41) 13% (12) All Other Drugs 13% (20) 24% (23) No Drug of Choice 5% (7) 4% (4) Ever Injected 14% (20) 60% (57) <.0001

Note. Bolded p-values indicate p < .05. *Data missing for 2 participants.

Table 5. Drug Use, Self-Reported Drug Problem*, and Drug Treatment 2011-2012.

Blacks Whites

% (n) or mean (SD) % (n) or mean (SD) p-value

Drug Use in the Six Months Before
Most Recent CJE

90% (128/142) 89% (86/97) .71

Number of Days of Drug Problems in
Month Before Most Recent CJE

.0002

0 Days of Drug Problems in Month
Before Most Recent CJE

37% (49/133) 13% (11/86)

At Least One Day but Less Than 30
Days of Drug Problems in Month
Before Most Recent CJE

43% (57/133) 36% (31/86)

30 Days of Drug Problems in Month
Before Most Recent CJE

20% (26/133) 51% (44/86)

Average Number of Days of Drug
Problems in Month Before CJE

8.84 (11.61) 19.47 (12.28) .0001

Ever in Drug Treatment 80% (117/146) 94% (89/95) .004

Note. CJE = criminal justice experience. Bolded p-values indicate p < .05. *Drug problem was defined as craving, withdrawal symptoms, disturbing effects of use, or wanting to stop and being unable to.

138 Journal of Drug Issues 47(1)

placement on probation differed significantly by race (p = .0002). Thirty-seven percent of Blacks
and 13% of Whites reported experiencing no drug problems in the month before their most recent
criminal justice event. Twenty percent of Blacks and 51% of Whites reported experiencing a drug
problem all 30 days in the month before the most recent criminal justice event. On average,
Whites experienced drug problems on 19 (SD = 12) of the 30 days, while Blacks experienced
drug problems on 9 (SD = 12). Finally, the majority of both Blacks (80%) and Whites (94%)
report having ever been in drug treatment, although significantly more Whites report being in
drug treatment at some point in their life (p = .004).

A sizable share of both Blacks (19%) and Whites (25%) reported that a probation or parole
officer has never helped them access services. Among those who had been helped, participants
described a wide range of services that probation or parole officers helped them access (see
Table 6). Of these, outpatient and inpatient drug treatment were the most common, with half of
Blacks and Whites indicating that probation or parole officers had helped them access outpatient
drug treatment, and approximately one third of Blacks and Whites reporting they had help in
accessing inpatient drug treatment. It is notable that although more Whites reported ever having
been in drug treatment, roughly equal percentages of Blacks and Whites report accessing this
service through their probation or parole officer. We found significant differences between Blacks
and Whites for the categories of job training, education, and government benefits, with Blacks
accessing these services through their probation or parole officer more often.

Discussion

These findings point to differences between Blacks and Whites in a non-violent drug-offender
population in New Haven, Connecticut. These differences, in turn, have important programming
and policy implications.

First, relative to Whites, Blacks in our study were at an economic disadvantage, as demon-
strated by their lower income and education levels. Consistent with these findings, in 2011, Black
men were unemployed at a rate of 25% in the city of New Haven compared with 12% for White

Table 6. Services Accessed Through Help of a Parole or Probation Officera.

Services

Black (n = 134) White (n = 94)

p valueb% (n) % (n)

Outpatient drug treatment 47% (63) 52% (49) .45
Inpatient drug treatment 28% (37) 36% (34) .17
Housing subsidy 8% (10) 5% (5) .52
Job training 20% (27) 8% (7) .008
Education 10% (13) 2% (2) .02
Mental health services 11% (14) 13% (12) .59
Bus passes 21% (28) 17% (16) .47
Government benefits 11% (15) 3% (3) .03
Social service organization/case manager 2% (3) 8% (7) .10
Access to recovery 11% (15) 15% (14) .41
Other 8% (10) 5% (5) .52
PO never helped 19% (25) 25% (23) .29

Note. PO = probation officer. Bolded p-values indicate p < .05. aData missing for 15 participants. bp values were obtained using chi-square test except for social service organization/case manager, which was obtained using Fisher’s exact test.

Rosenberg et al. 139

men (Rawlings, 2013). The median income for Black families was US$37,547 compared with an
average White family income of US$77,443 (Rawlings, 2013). It is reasonable to suggest, as oth-
ers have (Friedman et al., 2003; Saxe et al., 2001), that the involvement of Blacks in the drug
trade may be at least partly a response to their poverty and lack of employment opportunities. To
ensure Black drug offenders will fully benefit from criminal justice diversionary, prison, or reen-
try programming, it is important to be cognizant of the economic reasons for their involvement
in the drug trade and address their economic needs. Accordingly, investment in quality inner city
education, youth programming, and effective job generation, training, and placement should be
an important part of efforts to address crime prevention and recidivism.

Second, Blacks were more likely to be charged with possession and sales, while Whites were
more likely to be charged for illegal activity related to drug use, such as stealing to support their
drug habit. Yet, Whites and Blacks in our study both reported the same degree of drug sales. Drug
sales may be more visible in inner city, overcrowded Black neighborhoods where they are more
likely to take place outdoors (Stark, 1987). Recent research in the ecology of crime has focused
our attention away from individual characteristics and social capital within neighborhoods to the
characteristics of neighborhoods themselves, such as the activity level on streets (Browning &
Jackson, 2013). The widespread and well-known over-policing of Black neighborhoods during
the war on drugs (Cooper, 2015; Goffman, 2014; Rios, 2011) can further stigmatize and disillu-
sion those in contact with police, and lead to more law breaking (Wiley, Slocum, & Esbensen,
2013) and punishments beyond their sentences. For example, with regard to the latter, to the
extent that Blacks in our study were more likely to be incarcerated on charges explicitly labeled
drug-related, Blacks would also be more likely to suffer the collateral consequences specifically
associated with drug charges, such as exclusion from certain forms of financial aid, housing ben-
efits, and job-screening scrutiny (Drucker, 2013).

Third, Blacks in our study reported preferring marijuana to harder drugs and having less seri-
ous drug problems. Although almost equal percentages of Blacks and Whites in our study
reported using drugs in the 30 days before their most recent criminal justice event, Blacks
reported experiencing significantly fewer drug problems. The latter could be due to the way we
defined drug problem: craving, withdrawal symptoms, disturbing effects of use, or wanting but
being unable to stop. To the extent that marijuana does not cause the same withdrawal symptoms
or disturbing effects that heroin or cocaine causes but can still be abused, problems related to
marijuana use may not have been reported, a potential weakness of the study. Alternatively, lower
self-reported drug problems in the 30 days prior to participants’ most recent criminal justice
event could be related to increased criminal justice involvement for Blacks during those 30 days
in the form of incarceration, probation, or parole, which may lessen their ability to use drugs. We
were unable to control for criminal justice involvement in the 30 days prior to most recent crimi-
nal justice event, as we did not ask participants about this in the survey. However, the finding
may point to real differences in use and severity of drug problem, and thus real differences in the
need for and subsequent fit of drug treatment. Research suggests that in general, the community
supervision system is blind to drug type and severity when offering drug-treatment programs,
which may account for why program success is less common for marijuana users mandated by
probation to treatment (Taxman & Thanner, 2006). Future research should explore the specific
treatment needs of marijuana users and whether available drug-treatment programming reflects
adequate attention to marijuana abuse. As our country turns toward decriminalizing marijuana in
some states, we will also need effective tools for discerning the difference between abuse and
recreational use. Without attention to these issues, racial bias in the criminal justice system is
likely to continue.

Finally, both Blacks and Whites reported that drug treatment was the service most accessed
through parole and probation officers. Certainly, drug treatment for criminal justice involved
populations is a necessary rehabilitation service, and it is vital for drug offenders to be able to

140 Journal of Drug Issues 47(1)

access drug-treatment services through the criminal justice system. However, treatment needs of
Blacks and Whites may differ by drug type and severity of problem. Race-sensitive research is
needed on the types of services offered, client-centered perspectives on such treatment, and
degree of success of treatment, to enhance systems of drug treatment accessed through the crimi-
nal justice system. Furthermore, it is critical that our criminal justice policies acknowledge the
overall context of drug offending. The Second Chance Society Bill, passed in Connecticut in
2015, is an example of an integrated approach that attempts to address the structural issues
offenders face (State of Connecticut, 2015). It incorporates criminal justice reform with educa-
tion, employment, and housing opportunities for ex-offenders while working to reduce the school
to prison pipeline through expansion of a school-based diversion program.

The small sample size of this study and location within a single city are limitations that cau-
tion against the generalizability of findings. More research is needed on differences between
Black and White drug offenders in multiple and diverse locations and with larger samples. As
noted earlier, more explicit questions related to drug problems may have enhanced our ability to
understand the nature of drug use among our study sample. Finally, further information about
criminal justice involvement during the 30 days prior to the most recent criminal justice event
may have helped us to understand differences in reported drug problems during this period for
Blacks and Whites, but we did not collect this information.

The findings from our study point to the different characteristics of Blacks and Whites within
the criminal justice system and suggest a need to acknowledge these differences in the provision
of services to both populations. They also suggest that as long as there are distinct penalties and
post-incarceration consequences associated with possession and sale of drugs, there will be dis-
proportionate negative consequences for Blacks. If we do not specifically pay attention to race,
when race is a fundamental organizing principal of society, our policies regarding treatment and
reentry services will by default guarantee racial inequality. As Alexander (2012) writes in The New
Jim Crow, “. . . . racial caste systems do not require racial hostility or overt bigotry to thrive. They
need only racial indifference, as Martin Luther King Jr. warned more than forty five years ago.”

Authors’ Note

The funders played no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data. The content is solely the
responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute
on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the study participants for their time and contribution to this project; the
Connecticut Department of Correction and Court Support Services Division for their support in implement-
ing the project; and Gia Badolato, Justin Morgan, Penelope Schlesinger, and Weihai Zhan for their research
assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: The project described was supported by 5R01DA025021 (Principal Investigator [PI]:
Blankenship, Kim) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Structures, Health And Risk among
Reentrants, Probationers and Partners’ (SHARRPP’s) implementation benefited from services provided by
Yale University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) P30MH062294, PI: Cleary, Paul). This publication also was made possible, in part, by services

Rosenberg et al. 141

provided by the District of Columbia Developmental Center for AIDS Research, an NIH-funded program
(P30AI087714), which is supported by the following NIH Co-Funding and Participating Institutes and
Centers: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Cancer Institute, National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, NIDA, NIMH, National
Institute on Aging, Fogarty International Center, National Institute of General Medicine Sciences, National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the Office of AIDS Research.

References

Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York,
NY: The New Press.

Browning, C. R., & Jackson, A. L. (2013). The social ecology of public space: Active streets and violent
crime in urban neighborhoods. Criminology, 51, 1009-1043.

Carson, E. A., & Sabol, W. J. (2012). Prisoners in 2011 (NCJ 239808). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11

Cooper, H. L. F. (2015). War on drugs policing and police brutality. Substance Use & Misuse 50, 1188-1194.
Drucker, E. (2013). A plague of prisons: The epidemiology of mass incarceration in America. New York,

NY: The New Press
Friedman, S. R., Flom, P. L., Kottiri, B. J., Neaigus, A., Sandoval, M., Curtis, R., & Des Jarlais, D. C.

(2003). Drug dealing and attitudes and norms about drug dealing among young adults and their peers
in a high-risk community. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14, 261-268.

Ghandoosh, N. (2015). Black lives matter: Eliminating racial inequity in the criminal justice system. The
Sentencing Project. Retrieved from http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Black_Lives_
Matter

Goffman, A. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.

Mauer, M. (2006). Race to incarcerate. New York, NY: The New Press.
Mauer, M. (2016, January 7). Our compassion for drug users should not be determined by race. The

Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/compassionate-
drug-treatment-policy-racism-white-heroin-users-politics

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2014). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice popula-
tions: A research-based guide (NIH Publication No. 11–5316). Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.
gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/principles

Rawlings, J. (2013). Urban apartheid: A report on the status of minority affairs in the Greater New Haven
area (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Greater New Haven Branch).
Retrieved from http://www.naacpnewhaven.org/wp-content/uploads/NAACP_UrbanApartheid_print_
final

Rios, V. M. (2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. New York: New York University
Press.

Saxe, L., Kadushin, C., Beveridge, A., Livert, D., Tighe, E., Rindskopf, D., & Brodsky, A. (2001). The vis-
ibility of illicit drugs: Implications for community-based drug control strategies. American Journal of
Public Health, 91, 1987-1994.

Seelye, K. Q. (2016, January 24). Massachusetts chief’s tack in drug war: Steer addicts to rehab, not jail.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/25/us/massachusetts-chiefs-
tack-in-drug-war-steer-addicts-to-rehab-not-jail.html

Stark, R. (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25, 893-910.
State of Connecticut. (2015). Gov. Malloy signs “second chance society” bill to further reduce crime

and successfully re-integrate nonviolent offenders into society. Retrieved from http://portal.ct.gov/
Departments_and_Agencies/Office_of_the_Governor/Press_Room/Press_Releases/2015/07-2015/
Gov__Malloy_Signs__Second_Chance_Society__Bill_to_Further_Reduce_Crime_and_
Successfully_Re-Integrate_Nonviolent_Offenders_into_Society/

Taxman, F. S., & Thanner, M. (2006). Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime &
Delinquency, 52, 28-51.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Black_Lives_Matter

http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Black_Lives_Matter

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/compassionate-drug-treatment-policy-racism-white-heroin-users-politics

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/compassionate-drug-treatment-policy-racism-white-heroin-users-politics

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/principles

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/principles

http://www.naacpnewhaven.org/wp-content/uploads/NAACP_UrbanApartheid_print_final

http://www.naacpnewhaven.org/wp-content/uploads/NAACP_UrbanApartheid_print_final

http://portal.ct.gov/Departments_and_Agencies/Office_of_the_Governor/Press_Room/Press_Releases/2015/07-2015/Gov__Malloy_Signs__Second_Chance_Society__Bill_to_Further_Reduce_Crime_and_Successfully_Re-Integrate_Nonviolent_Offenders_into_Society/

http://portal.ct.gov/Departments_and_Agencies/Office_of_the_Governor/Press_Room/Press_Releases/2015/07-2015/Gov__Malloy_Signs__Second_Chance_Society__Bill_to_Further_Reduce_Crime_and_Successfully_Re-Integrate_Nonviolent_Offenders_into_Society/

http://portal.ct.gov/Departments_and_Agencies/Office_of_the_Governor/Press_Room/Press_Releases/2015/07-2015/Gov__Malloy_Signs__Second_Chance_Society__Bill_to_Further_Reduce_Crime_and_Successfully_Re-Integrate_Nonviolent_Offenders_into_Society/

http://portal.ct.gov/Departments_and_Agencies/Office_of_the_Governor/Press_Room/Press_Releases/2015/07-2015/Gov__Malloy_Signs__Second_Chance_Society__Bill_to_Further_Reduce_Crime_and_Successfully_Re-Integrate_Nonviolent_Offenders_into_Society/

142 Journal of Drug Issues 47(1)

Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring
causes and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Wiley, S. A., Slocum, L. A., & Esbensen, F. A. (2013). The unintended consequences of being stopped or
arrested: An exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent
delinquency. Criminology, 51, 927-966.

Yankah, E. N. (2016, February, 9). When addiction has a White face. The New York Times. Retrieved from

Author Biographies

Alana Rosenberg, MPH, is a research associate at the Yale School of Public Health. She has managed a
number of mixed methods research projects at the Yale School of Public Health and is interested in using
research to better understand structural barriers to health and promote social justice.

Allison K. Groves, PhD, is a research assistant professor at the Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel
University. She has spent the past 10 years working to improve women’s reproductive health globally. She
uses qualitative and quantitative research methods to better understand the contextual and interpersonal
processes that contribute to women’s risk of poor reproductive health.

Kim M. Blankenship, PhD, is a professor and the chair of the Department of Sociology; the director of
Center on Health, Risk and Society at American University; and the director of Social and Behavioral
Sciences Core of the District of Columbia Center for AIDS Research. Her research and publications focus
on social determinants of health and structural interventions.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.