Transcript Main Presentation title: Subtitle of Presentation

A Natural Experiment in Reform:
Analyzing drug law policy change in New
York City
Jim Parsons, Ashley Schappell, Qing Wei, and Talia Sandwick
Slide 1 • July 20, 2015
Overview
• Study aims
• Design
• Findings
• Conclusions
Slide 2 • July 20, 2015
Study aims
To document New York City’s experience of the
2009 drug law reforms (DLR), including;
• A detailed description of DLR implementation
• Public safety implications of the reforms
• The costs and cost-savings of DLR
Slide 3 • July 20, 2015
Study Design
Implementation
• Quantitative description of judicial diversion, other diversions
and sentences using administrative records
• Case file reviews (50 pre-DLR cases and 50 post-DLR cases)
• In-depth interviews with Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense
Attorneys in three NYC counties
• Using a matched comparison group design to control for
historical trends in arrest and charging
Slide 4 • July 20, 2015
4
Data Sources
NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services
• 2006-2011 NYC arrests on felony drug and specified property charges;
charge information; conviction and sentencing; criminal history
NYS Office of Court Administration
• drug court and judicial diversions; treatment type and requirements;
revocation of orders
County DA offices
• Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison (DTAP)
NYS Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives
• ATI data
NYC Department of Correction
• Detention (pretrial and sentenced)
Slide 5 • July 20, 2015
Treatment Diversion in NYC, pre DLR
• Bronx: Treatment court, DTAP, and TASC
• Kings: Treatment court, STEP, DTAP, and TASC
• Manhattan: Treatment court and DTAP
• Queens: Treatment court, DTAP, and TASC conditional plea
• Richmond: Treatment court, DTAP, and Two-step plea
Slide 6 • July 20, 2015
5 yr Felony Drug Trends by Quarter – all cases
Slide 7 • July 20, 2015
5 yr Felony Drug Trends by Quarter - DLR eligible
Slide 8 • July 20, 2015
Case processing – pre-reform
Slide 9 • July 20, 2015
Case processing – post-reform
Slide 10 • July 20, 2015
Pre- and post-reform diversion, all cases
1000
2008 All Treatment Diversions
2008 Judicial Diversion
2010 All Treatment Diversions
2010 Judicial Diversion
184
900
800
0
700
600
897
500
400
27
758
300
0
7
0
451
200
264 291
100
0
144
131
48
0
Citywide
Kings
284
0
52
4
78
11 • July 20, 2015
Manhattan Slide
Bronx
Queens
0
2
27
29
Richmond
Matched comparison group
• Cases from 2008 arrest cohort (pre-reform) linked to
2010 cases (post-reform)
• Propensity Score Match (nearest neighbor, without
replacement)
• Matched on:
 Demographics (age, gender, race)
 County of arrest
 Current charge (type and severity)
 Criminal history (number and type of prior charges,
arrests, convictions)
Slide 12 • July 20, 2015
Pre- and post-reform diversion, matched cases
700
2008 All Treatment Diversions
2008 Judicial Diversion
2010 All Treatment Diversions
2010 Judicial Diversion
121
600
500
400
0
14
300
200
557
4
0
356
100
0
94
0
Citywide
Kings
275
191
0
71
99
158
0
20
31
Manhattan
Bronx
2
44
Queens
Slide 13 • July 20, 2015
0
2
13
16
Richmond
Pre-reform diversion: Manhattan 2008
Total treatment diversion:
72 cases
29%
64%
7%
Slide 14 • July 20, 2015
Post-reform diversion: Manhattan 2010
Total treatment diversion:
131 cases
76%
6%
15%
4%
Slide 15 • July 20, 2015
Pre-reform diversion: Brooklyn 2008
Total treatment diversion:
94 cases
65%
33%
2%
Slide 16 • July 20, 2015
Post-reform diversion: Brooklyn 2010
Total treatment diversion:
195 cases
2%
67%
29%
2%
Slide 17 • July 20, 2015
Conclusions
• There is significant variation in the implementation of DLR
by NYC county
• Pre-existing relationships between judges, DAs and
defenders are important determinants
• Monitoring the impact of sentencing reforms requires a
mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches
• System-wide and case by case comparisons produce
different results
• It is important to track cases from the point of arrest, even
if sentencing reforms focus on indictment
Slide 18 • July 20, 2015
Acknowledgements
This project is supported by Award No. 2010-IJ-CX
0030, awarded by the National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Program, U.S. Department of Justice.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this exhibition are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Department of Justice.
Slide 19 • July 20, 2015