An historical review of racial bias in prison-based substance abuse treatment design

Abstract

This study leverages critical race and legal epidemiological frameworks to illustrate the race-based historical evolution of U.S. rehabilitation paradigms directed at imprisoned heroin and opioid users. What began as a racist early-20th-century federal antinarcotic trafficking effort has since assumed a state-based treatment agenda whose programmatic operations are largely based in correctional settings disproportionately reserved for poor substance abusers of color. Even in contemporary carceral facilities, where incarcerated populations are teeming with White addicts, in the aggregate, White drug abusers have been protected from the depraved, incorrigible, and inherently pathological drug-using caricature assigned to their non-White counterparts. This historical examination demonstrates how links between broader drug policy and prison-based drug treatment support a legally codified White supremacist narrative that erodes health and wellbeing for program participants of color, and the communities to which they inevitably return.

Health and Justice: Framing incarceration as a social determinant of health for Black men in the United States

“…Mandatory requirement of co‐pays, hygiene issues, administration of wrong medications, medications stopped by mistake, delay in obtaining needed medications, allergic reactions to medications, and other errors on the part of the facility all contribute negatively to the health of persons who are incarcerated (Hatton, Kleffel, & Fisher, ). These issues are confounded by the increasing privatization of prison‐based health care provision since profit‐driven medicine must rely on the continuing profitability of inmate illness (Kerrison, ; McCorkel, ).…”

Can “race‐neutral” program eligibility requirements in criminal justice have disparate effects? An examination of race, ethnicity, and prison industry employment

“…Racial disparities tend to be most pronounced in high‐discretion scenarios (Peterson, 2017; Schlesinger, 2005; Sheldon, 1988; Smith & Levinson, 2011; Spohn, 2015; Tomic & Hakes, 2008) and correctional staff are allowed a vast amount of discretion (Liebling et al., 2010). For example, existing research finds that correctional staff employ discretion and strategically enforce prison rules (Freeman, 2003; Haggerty & Bucerius, 2020; Liebling et al., 2010; see also, Crittenden et al., 2018; Kerrison, 2017, 2018; Poole & Regoli, 1980; Ramirez, 1983). OPI employment decisions are similarly discretionary.…”

“…At the same time, racial and ethnic disparities sometimes extend beyond what is imposed by formal policy in the face of discretionary decision making (Peterson, 2017;Sheldon, 1988;Smith & Levinson, 2011;Spohn, 2015;Tomic & Hakes, 2008). Such "extralegal" disparities have been found at various points in criminal case processing and may extend into a prison setting in situations where correctional staff are granted considerable discretion (e.g., Crittenden et al, 2018;Kerrison, 2017Kerrison, , 2018Poole & Regoli, 1980;Ramirez, 1983). Taken together, race and ethnicity may reduce high-quality job opportunities due to formal policy that relies upon racially stratified factors but also exert unique effects given the room for discretion in job allocation.…”

Disciplining the Akratic user: Constructing digital (un) wellness

“…American media often depicts drug users and addicts as Black; the current opioid crisis being somewhat of an exception (Netherland & Hansen, 2016; Revier, 2020). When digital use critics opt for labels such as “addicts” or depicting people as “slaves” to their devices, they reinforce racialized discourse (see also Dingel & Koenig, 2008; Kerrison, 2017). Digital harm and addiction remain controversial in the psychology community.…”