1. Slide 1 October 18, 2015 A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing drug law policy change in New York City Jim Parsons, Ashley Schappell, Qing Wei, and Talia Sandwick

2. Slide 2 October 18, 2015 Overview Study aims Design Findings Conclusions

3. Slide 3 October 18, 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

4. Slide 4 October 18, 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 4

5. Slide 5 October 18, 2015 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. Slide 6 October 18, 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

7. Slide 7 October 18, 2015 5 yr Felony Drug Trends by Quarter – all cases

8. Slide 8 October 18, 2015 5 yr Felony Drug Trends by Quarter - DLR eligible

9. Slide 9 October 18, 2015 Case processing – pre-reform

10. Slide 10 October 18, 2015 Case processing – post-reform

11. Slide 11 October 18, 2015 Pre- and post-reform diversion, all cases

12. Slide 12 October 18, 2015 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. Slide 13 October 18, 2015 Pre- and post-reform diversion, matched cases

14. Slide 14 October 18, 2015 Pre-reform diversion: Manhattan 2008 Total treatment diversion: 72 cases 29%64%7%

15. Slide 15 October 18, 2015 Total treatment diversion: 131 cases 6%15%4%76% Post-reform diversion: Manhattan 2010

16. Slide 16 October 18, 2015 Pre-reform diversion: Brooklyn 2008 Total treatment diversion: 94 cases 65%33%2%

17. Slide 17 October 18, 2015 Post-reform diversion: Brooklyn 2010 Total treatment diversion: 195 cases 67%29%2%

18. Slide 18 October 18, 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

19. Slide 19 October 18, 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.