1 / 19

A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing drug law policy change in New York City

A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing drug law policy change in New York City. Jim Parsons, Ashley Schappell, Qing Wei, and Talia Sandwick. Overview. Study aims Design Findings Conclusions. Study aims.

coty
Download Presentation

A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing drug law policy change in New York City

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing drug law policy change in New York City Jim Parsons, Ashley Schappell, Qing Wei, and Talia Sandwick

  2. Overview • Study aims • Design • Findings • Conclusions

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. 5 yr Felony Drug Trends by Quarter – all cases

  8. 5 yr Felony Drug Trends by Quarter - DLR eligible

  9. Case processing – pre-reform

  10. Case processing – post-reform

  11. Pre- and post-reform diversion, all cases

  12. 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)

  13. Pre- and post-reform diversion, matched cases

  14. Pre-reform diversion: Manhattan 2008 Total treatment diversion: 72 cases 29% 64% 7%

  15. Post-reform diversion: Manhattan 2010 Total treatment diversion: 131 cases 6% 76% 15% 4%

  16. Pre-reform diversion: Brooklyn 2008 Total treatment diversion: 94 cases 65% 33% 2%

  17. Post-reform diversion: Brooklyn 2010 Total treatment diversion: 195 cases 67% 2% 29% 2%

  18. 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

  19. 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.

More Related