Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
State and County Incarceration Rates: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Race and
Inequality
Author(s): Thomas M. Arvanites and Martin A. Asher
Source: The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp.
207-221
Published by: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3487495
Accessed: 12-10-2016 04:41 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc., Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Economics and Sociology
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
State and County Incarceration Rates:
The Direct and Indirect Effects of Race and Inequality
ABSTRACT. This study examines the direct and indirect effects of race and
income inequality on imprisonment rates across states. The analysis is de-
signed to: 1) investigate whether race and income inequality are signifi-
cantly related to imprisonment when controlling for crime, 2) assess the
relative magnitudes of the direct and indirect effects; and 3) assess the
relative magnitudes of race and income inequality. Crime is found to be
the strongest predictor of incarceration rates in five of the six equations
estimated. Income inequality is significantly related to incarceration rates
in two of the six equations. There was no clear evidence of a direct race
effect. The indirect effect of race was greater than the direct effect in four
of the six equations.
Introduction
WITHIN THE LAST DECADE there has been a tremendous increase in the lev
of incarceration in the United States. Between 1988 and 1993, the impris-
onment rate (number of adults incarcerated per 100,000 civilian adult pop
ulation) increased from 244 (BJS, 1989) to 351 (BJS, 1994a) -an increase
of 44%. This increase far exceeded the increase in crime. According to the
FBI (Uniform Crime Reports, 1989 and 1994) the Index Crime Rate1 in-
creased by two percent during the same period. Other researchers also
have reported that in the United States during the 1980s, the increases in
crime lagged far behind the increases in imprisonment rates.2 Thus, th
increase in the level of crime alone is insufficient to explain the increas
in imprisonment.
The impact of race and income inequality on punishment levels is sup-
ported by competing sociological theories. Durkheimian theory holds that
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
208 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
II
Prior Research
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 209
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
210 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Variables
Unresolved Issues
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 211
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
212 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
interstate variations in both prison and jail incarceration rates. This is the
first multi-state study that examines both types of incarceration. It tests the
following hypotheses: controlling for crime, interstate variations in incar-
ceration rates are: (1) positively related to the percent of the population
that is nonwhite, and (2) positively related to income inequality. Addition-
ally, the relative magnitudes between the direct and indirect effects are to
be assessed, as are the relative effect among the extra-legal variables. The
analysis will further investigate the sensitivity of findings to alternative
specifications of imprisonment and crime.
III
Methodology
A CROSS-SECTIONAL DATA SET for all 50 states and the District of Columbia
for 1993 was used for this analysis. This year was selected because it is the
most recent year for which state-level jail census data are available. Incar-
ceration rate is defined as the number of adults incarcerated per 100,000
adult civilian population. Since McCarthy reported that the effects of the
extra-legal variables "vary with the type of confinement" (1990:322), sep-
arate analyses were conducted for incarceration rates in federal and state
prisons (PRATE) and for the rate of incarceration in county jails (JRATE).
These data were collected from Prisoners in 1993 (BJS, 1994a) and Census
of LocalJails 1993 (BJS, 1994b). Further, a total incarceration rate (TRATE)
for each state was calculated by summing JRATE and PRATE.
According to the theories presented, imprisonment is a function of crime
and extra-legal variables such as race and economic inequality. The partic-
ular variables included in the analysis are described below. Existing studies
have employed differing measures of crime. To determine the sensitivity
of the findings to the choice of the crime measure, we examine separately
the effect of all index offenses and violent crime (homicide, rape, assault,
and robbery).3 Crime data were extracted from the Uniform Crime Reports
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1989 and 1994) and are expressed in rates
per 100,000 population.
Two extra-legal variables were examined. First was the racial composi-
tion of each state. The percent of the nonwhite population was collected
from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992(U.S. Census Bureau,
1993). Second, a measure of economic inequality was included. According
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 213
IV
Results
THE PRINCIPAL TASK of the empirical analysis was to test whether two extra-
legal variables-minority populations (PNW) and economic inequality
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
214 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Table 1
Zero Order Correlationsa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
a Because 6 jurisdictions do not report separate jail data, JRATE equations were
states. The values below the diagonal are based on 51 observations and those abov
b JRATE correlations, based on 45 cases, are reported above the diagonal.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 215
Table 2
Regression Results, Direct Effects
TRATE PRATE JRATE TRATE PRATE JRATE
EQ 1 EQ2 EQ3 EQ4 EQ 5 EQ 6
* p< .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
Of special interest are the values in bold type. These are the
coefficients for the independent variables used in each equatio
pected, there was a strong correlation between PNW and TCRIM
and VCRIME (.775 and .723 across the 51 cases and .820 and .870 across
the 45 cases). Given the strength of this relationship, it is very difficult to
disentangle the separate effects of race and crime on incarceration. As a
result, an examination of the indirect effect of race (through crime) on
incarceration is critical.
The correlation between $INEQ and the two crime indicators was not
problematic. It ranged from a low of .425 to a high of .586. The correlation
between TCRIME and VCRIME is not a problem because the regression
equations reported below include either total crime or violent crime.
Table 2 reports six equations explaining each of the three incarceration
rates, controlling for either the total crime rate or the violent crime rate.
Consistent with Durkheimian theory, crime rate was significantly related to
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
216 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
each incarceration rate. With two exceptions, it was also the strongest pre-
dictor of incarceration. The two exceptions were the models predicting
JRATE (equations 3 and 6). Because of the high correlation between the
crime variables and PNW across the sample with 45 cases, it is very possible
that the PNW variable is "stealing" some of the effect of the crime variables.
The results reported here provide no support for the cultural conflict per-
spective, which suggests that minority populations directly influence incar-
ceration rates when controlling for crime. With one exception (equation 6),
PNW is not significantly related to incarceration rates. Given the level of
multicollinearity existing between PNW and VCRIME in this model (.870),
no definitive conclusion should be drawn from this equation. The data also
provide weak support for the Neo-Marxist hypothesis which predicts that,
when controlling for crime, income inequality is positively related to incar-
ceration. In two equations (1 and 6), income inequality was a significant
predictor of incarceration. In one of the two equations examining the total
incarceration rate, $INEQ was a significant predictor (equation 1).
Each of the control variables was significant in one or more equations.
Percent crime-prone (PCP) was positively related to TRATE and PRATE
(equations 1 and 2), and percent urban (URBAN) was a significant predictor
of PRATE (equation 5). These variables are not relevant to the two theories
examined here. Their significance demonstrates the need to control for
them in future studies of incarceration rates.
In order to examine indirect effects, auxiliary regressions were per-
formed in which total and violent crime were regressed separately on per-
cent nonwhite and income inequality. These results are reported in Ap-
pendices A and B. The indirect effects of the extra-legal variables were
calculated by taking the product of the beta coefficients linking the effect
of crime on imprisonment with: (1) the effect of percent nonwhite on crime;
and (2) the effect of inequality on crime. Table 3 reports the direct and
indirect effects of PNW and $INEQ.
Two comparisons must be made in order to fully assess the impact of
indirect effects. First is the comparison of the total effect of the extra-legal
variables (direct and indirect) with the effect of crime. In all four cells ex-
amining TRATE and PRATE, the effect of crime was greater than the total
effect of PNW and $INEQ. In the two JRATE equations, however, the total
effect of PNW and $INEQ exceeded the effect of crime. This, most likely,
is the result of the multicollinearity that exists in these models.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 217
Table 3
Indirect Effects
PNW -.039 .253 .214 .030 .260 .290 .239 .078 .317
$INEQ .363 .114 .477 .208 .117 .325 .313 .008 .321
PNW .056 .159 .215 .103 .185 .288 .514 .197 .711
$INEQ .143 .333 .476 -.060 .388 .328 .397 .076 .473
Conclusion
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
218 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
The goal of this study was to investigate whether race and income
equality were significantly related to imprisonment when controlling f
crime. While the impact of these variables has been the focus of a cons
erable amount of research, two areas have not received adequate inves
gation. First, prior research has focused on either state imprisonmen
county (jail) incarceration. Most other studies have focused only on th
number of people incarcerated in state and federal facilities, thereby u
derestimating by as much as one-third the actual level of imprisonment th
exists in the U.S. This is the first multi-state study to examine the effect
extra-legal variables on the states' total incarceration rate (in prisons
jails). Second, most of the previous research has ignored the indirecteff
of race and economic inequality. That is, racial discrimination and/or lo
socio-economic status contributes to crime which, in turn, contributes
imprisonment.
The data reported here clearly support the Durkheimian view over
conflict view. Crime rate across states was significantly related to state
prisonment rates in four of the six equations estimated. The only mo
in which crime was not related to incarceration were the equations es
mated for county jail incarceration rates. These were the two equations
which percent nonwhite and crime were highly correlated. Definitive c
clusions should not be drawn from these results because the level of multi
collinearity present biases the t-statistics downward.
There was very little support for the hypothesis that extra-legal fact
are significant predictors of incarceration when controlling for crime.
nomic inequality was a significant predictor in only two of the six eq
tions. Percent nonwhite was significant in one equation, but because it
the one with the highest level of multi-collinearity, this finding must
viewed with caution.
The present study was also the first to examine the indirect effects of
race and income inequality (through crime) on the state's total incarceration
rate. Percent nonwhite appears to have a greater indirect than direct effect.
The indirect effect of percent nonwhite was greater than the direct effect
in four of the six equations. This suggests that research on the effect of race
must examine indirect as well as direct effects. Unlike percent nonwhite,
the indirect effect of economic inequality was weaker than the direct effect.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 219
Notes
1. Index crimes are identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the most se-
rious. These include homicide, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, arson, larceny and motor
vehicle theft. The rate is the number of offenses per 100,000 population.
2. Michalowski and Pearson (1990) reported that between 1970 and 1980, the rate of
imprisonment increased 50 percent while the official crime rate increased only 39 percent.
In terms of violent crime and incarceration, Steffensmeier and Harer (1993) reported that
between 1981 and 1984, the incarceration rate increased 25 percent while the violent
crime rate actually decreased 9 percent, and when the crime rate increased 42 percent
(between 1985 and 1992), the incarceration rate increased 78 percent.
3. Several studies (Michalowski and Pearson, 1990; Bridges, et al. 1987; Galster and
Scaturo, 1985) included only the violent crime rate, while Colvin (1990) used total crime
rate. In studies where only violent crime was included, it was argued that violent crime
is the most relevant because it is comprised of the most serious crimes and thus, is the
most likely to result in state imprisonment. Clearly, jails confine less serious offenders.
While the majority of state prison inmates (55 percent) were arrested for a violent offense
(BJS, 1988), less than one-quarter (22 percent) of the jail inmates were arrested for a
violent crime (BJS, 1991). Further, 23 percent of jail inmates were arrested for a public
order crime while only 5 percent of state prison inmates were arrested for similar offenses.
Since this study includes jail data, total crime data, which includes these less serious
offenders, are more relevant.
References
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
220 American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Bureau of Justice Statistics 1995a. Prisoners in 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
--1995b. Jails and Jail Inmates 1993-94.
1994a. Prisoners in 1993. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
--1994b. Census of Local Jails, 1993 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C.
--1991. Profiles of Jail Inmates, 1989. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
Joubert, Paul, J. Steven Picou and W. Alex McIntosh. 1981. "U.S. Social Structure, Crime
and Punishment," Criminology, 19: 344-59.
Liska, Allen E. 1987. "A critical examination of macro perspectives on crime control,"
Annual Review of Sociology, 13: 67-88.
Liska, Allen, J. Lawrence and Andrew Sanchirico. 1982. "Fear of crime as a social fact,"
Social Forces, 60: 760-71.
Lizotte, Alan and David Bordua. 1980. "Firearms ownership for sport and protection,"
American Sociological Review, 45: 229-43.
McCarthy, Belinda. 1990. "A micro-level analysis of social structure and social control:
Intrastate use of jail and prison confinement," Justice Quarterly, 7: 325-340.
Meyers, Greg and James Inverarity. 1992. "Strategies of Disaggregation in Imprisonment
Rate Research," Presented at the American Society of Criminology, New Orleans,
LA.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Incarceration Rates 221
Steffensmeier, Darrell and Miles D. Harer. 1993. "Bulging prisons, an aging population,
and the Nation's violent crime rate," Federal Probation, 57: 3-10.
Swigert, Victoria and Ronald Farrell. 1976. Murder, Inequality and the Law: Differential
Treatment in the Legal Process, Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Turk, Austin. 1969. Criminality and Legal Order. Chicago: Rand McNally.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1993. StatisticalAbstract of the United States, 1992. U.S. Government
Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
Yeager, M. 1979. "Unemployment and imprisonment," Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 70: 586-588.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 04:41:02 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms