Oppressed Populations and Discriminatory Policy: The Crack Cocaine Sentencing Disparity (Social Work Paper Example)

Assignment: Oppressed populations and discriminatory policy

This assignment asks you to identify an oppressed population that has been negatively impacted by a local, state, or federal policy, including demographic distinctions and the number of people affected. You will describe the specific discriminatory issues in the given policy or program and explain the mechanisms that led to the discriminatory issues. You will describe the original intent of the policy and how it has changed over time, indicating the reasons for those changes. Remember to support all main points, assertions, arguments, conclusions, or recommendations with relevant, credible, and convincing evidence.

In a 3-page paper (APA formatting):

• Describe specific discriminatory issues in a given policy or program and connect a core value or standard from the NASW Code of Ethics.
• Explain the mechanisms that lead to the discriminatory issues.
• Describe how a public program or policy has changed over time in response to issues of oppression, alienation, or discrimination.
• Describe the rationale for these changes.
• Describe a specific population or subgroup (demographic distinctions, how many) impacted by the selected public policy.
• Provide relevant, real-world examples that demonstrate the impacts of the policy.
• Support main points with relevant, credible, and convincing evidence; synthesize evidence; apply APA style and correct stylistic conventions.

Original example for study purposes (about 1,050 words, roughly three to four double-spaced pages).

The Crack Cocaine Sentencing Disparity and Its Impact on Black Americans

Few federal policies illustrate structural discrimination as clearly as the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Although the two forms of cocaine are pharmacologically the same drug, federal law has punished crack offenses far more harshly. Because crack offenses have been prosecuted overwhelmingly against Black Americans, this policy has contributed to racial disparities in incarceration, family separation and community disadvantage. This paper describes the discriminatory issues in the policy, the mechanisms that produced them, how the policy has changed and why, and its impact on the affected population.

Discriminatory Issues and the NASW Code of Ethics

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established mandatory minimum sentences based on drug quantity and created a 100-to-1 ratio: 5 grams of crack cocaine triggered the same five-year mandatory minimum as 500 grams of powder cocaine (“Attorney General Orders,” 2022). The policy was race-neutral on its face, but its effect was profoundly unequal. Crack was more commonly sold and used in low-income Black neighborhoods, while powder cocaine was more often associated with White and wealthier users. As a result, Black defendants received much longer sentences than White defendants for comparable conduct. Even today, 73% of people sentenced for federal crack cocaine trafficking are Black, compared with 10% who are White (United States Sentencing Commission [USSC], 2025).

This policy conflicts with the NASW Code of Ethics value of social justice, which calls on social workers to pursue social change on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed people and to challenge injustice, and with the ethical standard that social workers should act to prevent and eliminate discrimination based on race and other characteristics (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2021). It also conflicts with the value of the dignity and worth of the person, because excessive, unequal punishment denies people fair treatment and opportunities for rehabilitation.

Mechanisms Leading to Discrimination

Several mechanisms produced these discriminatory outcomes. First, the law was passed quickly during a moral panic following highly publicized drug-related deaths in 1986, with limited evidence that crack was more harmful than powder cocaine. Second, mandatory minimums removed judicial discretion, preventing judges from considering individual circumstances. Third, quantity thresholds targeted street-level sellers, who were more likely to be Black and poor, rather than high-level traffickers. Fourth, enforcement patterns, such as concentrated policing in urban neighborhoods of color, increased the likelihood that Black residents would be arrested and federally charged. Finally, prosecutorial discretion in deciding which cases to charge federally and which mandatory minimums to apply amplified these effects. Together, these mechanisms turned a facially neutral law into one with racially disparate outcomes, a pattern described as structural or institutional discrimination (Alexander, 2010).

How the Policy Has Changed Over Time

The policy has been revised several times. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the disparity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1 and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack. However, the change applied only to new cases. The First Step Act of 2018 made the Fair Sentencing Act’s reductions retroactive, allowing people already serving sentences to apply for resentencing. By April 2019, courts had granted 1,051 sentence reductions under this provision; 91.3% of recipients were Black, and the average sentence was reduced by about 73 months, or 29% (USSC, 2019). In December 2022, the Attorney General directed federal prosecutors to seek charges and sentences for crack offenses equivalent to those for powder cocaine and to avoid charging quantities that trigger mandatory minimums for certain lower-level defendants (“Attorney General Orders,” 2022). In February 2025, however, a new Attorney General rescinded that drug charging memo and directed prosecutors to charge the most serious readily provable offenses, including those carrying mandatory minimums (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2025). Legislation to eliminate the disparity entirely, the EQUAL Act, passed the House with bipartisan support but has not been enacted (“Attorney General Orders,” 2022).

Rationale for the Changes

Reforms were driven by accumulating evidence that the disparity lacked scientific justification and produced racial injustice. The U.S. Sentencing Commission repeatedly reported to Congress that the 100-to-1 ratio was unwarranted and recommended reducing it. Civil rights organizations, faith groups, judges and bipartisan coalitions argued that the policy undermined public trust in the justice system. Rising concerns about mass incarceration and its costs also contributed to bipartisan support for the First Step Act. Policy shifts in 2025 reflect a different rationale, prioritizing uniform charging of the most serious offenses, which illustrates how executive policy can expand or reverse reforms.

Population Affected

The primary population affected is Black Americans, particularly Black men from low-income urban communities. In fiscal year 2025, 472 people were sentenced for federal crack cocaine trafficking, 73% of whom were Black and 16% Hispanic, with an average sentence of 70 months (USSC, 2025). Although annual numbers have declined, tens of thousands of people have been sentenced under the harsher crack thresholds since 1986. Their families, especially children who lost a parent to long incarceration, and their communities, which lost workers and income, have also been affected.

Real-World Impacts

Real-world examples demonstrate the policy’s effects. Under the original law, a person convicted of selling a small amount of crack could receive the same mandatory sentence as someone convicted of selling 100 times as much powder cocaine. Many people served decades in prison for nonviolent offenses until the First Step Act allowed resentencing, and the high proportion of Black recipients of those reductions shows who was most harmed (USSC, 2019). Beyond prison time, a felony drug conviction can limit access to employment, housing, student aid and voting, extending punishment long after release and contributing to cycles of poverty in affected communities (Alexander, 2010).

Synthesis and Implications for Social Work

Together, the evidence shows that a facially neutral policy, combined with mandatory minimums and unequal enforcement, produced severe racial disparities that reforms have reduced but not eliminated. Social workers can respond by advocating for full elimination of the disparity, supporting reentry services and expungement, providing culturally responsive services to justice-involved individuals and families, and using data to expose disparities, consistent with the NASW commitment to social justice.

References

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

Attorney general orders prosecutors to end crack cocaine sentencing disparity as Congress dithers. (2022, December 16). Reason. https://reason.com/2022/12/16/attorney-general-orders-prosecutors-to-end-crack-cocaine-sentencing-disparity-as-congress-dithers

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2025). A return to failed and racist “tough on crime” policies. https://www.splcenter.org/?p=149217

United States Sentencing Commission. (2019). First Step Act of 2018 resentencing provisions retroactivity data report.

United States Sentencing Commission. (2025). Quick facts: Crack cocaine trafficking offenses, fiscal year 2025. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Crack_Cocaine_FY25.pdf