End of an Era? - Technical Report

274 Pages·2015·3.56 MB·English

by  Qing Wei

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been
published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice
and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Policy
Change In New York City, Final Report
Authors: Jim Parsons (Principal Investigator), Qing Wei, Joshua Rinaldi,
Christian Henrichson, Talia Sandwick (Vera Institute of Justice)
Travis Wendel and Ernest Drucker (Co-Principal Investigator)
(John Jay College of Criminal Justice)
Michael Ostermann, Samuel DeWitt, and Todd Clear (Co-
Principal Investigator) (School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers
University)
Document No.:
Date Received: January 2015
Award Number: 2010- IJ-CX-0030

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better
customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-funded grant final report available
electronically in addition to traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the U.S. Department
of Justice.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been
published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Policy Change In New
York City

Final Report to the National Institute of Justice
Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030

Jim Parsons (Principal Investigator), Qing Wei, Joshua Rinaldi, Christian Henrichson, and Talia
Sandwick
The Vera Institute of Justice

Travis Wendel and Ernest Drucker (Co-Principal Investigator)
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

Michael Ostermann, Samuel DeWitt, and Todd Clear (Co-Principal Investigator)
School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University

January 2015
This research was supported by grant number NIJ 2010-IJ-CX-0030 from the National Institute
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view expressed in
this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the support and participation of
many people from organizations across New York State. We would like to express our
appreciation to the following organizations and individuals and apologize to anyone that we have
neglected to mention.
Teresa Salo, Leslie Kellam, Leigh Bates, Jeehoon Kim, Renee Konicki, and Diane Cavin
at the New York State Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for preparing administrative data for us,
responding to numerous questions, and graciously sharing their many insights on drug law
reform. Joseph Pariso, Kevin Lasko and Alison Hamanjian at the New York State Office of
Court Administration for providing data for the study, advising on the operation of the courts and
facilitating interviews with judges. Eric Sorensen and his research team at the New York City
Department of Correction (DOC) for his patience and support providing data from the New York
City jail. District Attorneys in the five boroughs of New York City and the Office of Special
Narcotics Prosecutor for allowing us to interview their staff and granting access to DTAP data.
Staff-members at The Bronx Defenders‘ office and Legal Aid Society who assisted us with the
casefile review portion of the study.
Members of our expert panel for providing invaluable guidance and assistance to this
project, including: Sandeep Varma from the New York Therapeutic Community, Inc.; Reginald
Fluellen from Forensic Health Services, Addiction Research and Treatment Corporation;
William Gibney from the Legal Aid Society Criminal Practice Special Litigation Unit; Elizabeth
Brady from the New York City Police Department; Corinne Carey from the New York Civil
Liberties Union; Daliah Heller from the New York City Department of Health and Mental
Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 iv
Hygiene Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Use Prevention, Care and Treatment; Rhonda Ferdinand
from the New York City Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor; Nestor A. Ferreiro from
Bronx District Attorney‘s Office; David Heslin and Anne J. Swern from Kings District
Attorney‘s Office; Douglas Knight from Queens District Attorney‘s Office; Timothy Koller from
Richmond District Attorney‘s Office; Martin F. Horn from the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice of the City University of New York; Leslie Kellam, Chief of Research and Evaluation,
New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; Glenn E. Martin, at The Fortune Society,
Inc.; Anita R. Marton, at the Legal Action Center; Gabriel Sayegh from the Drug Policy
Alliance; and Robin Steinberg and Justine Olderman at The Bronx Defenders.
All of the interviewees who took time out from their busy lives to answer our sometimes
confused queries, and to attempt to explain this very complex system to us all, and give their
own assessments of how it may have changed in response to the 2009 DLRs and other factors
that we now know have had great importance in the patterns of outcomes that so many are now
trying to understand.
John Jay Department of Anthropology undergraduates Leonardo Dominguez, who
performed an enormous amount of procedural and analytic labor on the casefile component of
the case records, and Adriana Synné Alicea, who assisted with coding and transcription of
interview files. John Jay Department of Anthropology undergraduates Leonardo Dominguez and
Robert Riggs for reaching out treatment service providers to gather treatment information.
The John Jay Office of Sponsored Programs and Office for the Advancement of Research
for support and bureaucratic ninja skills, and colleagues at the John Jay Social Network Research
Group for inspiration, solidarity, and fellowship.
Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 v
Our current and former colleagues at the Vera Institute of Justice for their collegiality,
support, guidance and good humor, including Ayesha Delaney-Brumsey, Olivia Sideman, David
Cloud, Valerie Levshin, Shelley Azumbrado, Siobhan Carney, Tina Chiu, Alice Chasan, Michael
Mehler, Mary Crowley, Adair Iacono, Vera‘s director, Nick Turner, and our former director
Michael Jacobson, as well as interns—Ashley Schappell, Neha Mehta, Nnenna Onyema, and
Sara Gorman.
At the National Institute of Justice, we want to thank our program officer Linda Truitt for
her support and encouragement.
Finally, we would like to thank our families for putting up with us, and giving us a reason
to go to work in the morning.

Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 vi
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
List of Appendices xii
Part I. Introduction 1
Chapter 1. Review of Literature 3
Chapter 2. Overview of NYS Drug Law Reform 11
Chapter 3. Overview of court-mandated treatment diversion programs in New York City 16
Chapter 4. Overview of the study 26
Part II. Implementation of DLR 30
Chapter 5. Overview of Implementation Analysis of DLR 30
Chapter 6. Trend Analysis 34
Chapter 7. Quantitative Implementation Analysis 50
Chapter 8. Qualitative Analysis of Implementation of Reform 99
Qualitative interview results by interview topic 103
Case file analysis results 127
Part III. The Impact of Drug Law Reform on Reoffending 132
Chapter 9. Methodology 134
Chapter 10. Recidivism Analysis Findings 141
Part IV Cost-Benefit Analysis 151
Chapter 11: Methodology 153
Chapter 12. Findings and Discussion 172
Part V. Conclusion and Recommendations 191
References 204
Appendices 214
Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 vii
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Summary of DLR Changes Drug Conviction Charge Level .................................... 14
Table 3-1. Eligible Offenses for Different Types of Diversion ................................................. 17
Table 3-2. Treatment Diversion Programs by NYC Jurisdiction .............................................. 23
Table 6-1. Felony Drug Arrests Imprisonment Rate, by Race and Year.................................... 44
Table 7-1. Comparison of Cases Characteristics for Felony Drug Arrests between Unmatched
Samples and Matched Samples .............................................................................................. 57
Table 7-2. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Average
Prison Sentence, Jail Sentence, and Probation Sentence .......................................................... 66
Table 7-3. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Sentencing
Length for B Felony Drug Arrests .......................................................................................... 77
Table 7-4. Characteristics of Drug Court Participants.............................................................. 85
Table 7-5. Predictors of Residential Treatment Services among Drug Court Treatment
Participants ........................................................................................................................... 93
Table 7-6. Predictors of Treatment Graduation among Drug Court Participants ....................... 96
Table 8-1. Case Outcomes for Bronx Arrestees, Pre- and Post-DLR ...................................... 129
Table 8-2. Case Outcomes for Kings County Arrestees, Pre- and Post-DLR .......................... 129
Table 10-1. Descriptive Characteristics for Unmatched and Matched Reoffending Analysis
Samples .............................................................................................................................. 142
Table 10-2. Characteristics of Drug Court Participation, Matched Post-DLR Diverted Sample143
Table 10-3. Breakdown of Sentence Outcomes, Matched Pre-DLR Sentence Sample............. 144
Table 10-4. Results from Cox Regression Analysis on Time to First Re-arrest ....................... 146
Table 10-5. Comparing Re-arrest Rate between Matched Pre-DLR Sentenced Sample and Post-
DLR Diverted Sample ......................................................................................................... 148
Table 11-1. Comparison on the Measure of Case Outcomes between Quantitative
Implementation Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis ............................................................. 156
Table 11-2. Comparison of Matched Sentenced Sample and Matched Diverted Sample: Resource
Use ..................................................................................................................................... 158
Table 11-3. Marginal Taxpayer Costs per Offender (In 2009 Dollars).................................... 162
Table 12-1. Summary of Annual Costs and Benefits of DLR in NYC, Matched Implementation
Samples .............................................................................................................................. 174
Table 12-2. Detail of System Resource Use, Matched Implementation Samples..................... 175
Table 12-3. Prison Resource Use, Matched Implementation Samples .................................... 175
Table 12-4. Treatment Resource Use, Matched Implementation Samples............................... 176
Table 12-5. Number of Rearrests: Matched Implementation Samples .................................... 177
Table 12-6. Costs and Benefits of Drug Court Diversion in NYC (per Individual), Matched
Sentenced and Diverted Sample ........................................................................................... 179
Table 12-7. Detail of System Resource Use (per Individual), Matched Sentenced and Diverted
Samples .............................................................................................................................. 180
Table 12-8. Prison Resource Use, Matched Sentenced and Diverted Samples ........................ 180
Table 12-9. Treatment Resource Use, Matched Sentenced and Diverted Samples .................. 181
Table 12-10. Number of Rearrests, Matched Sentenced and Diverted Samples ...................... 182
Table 12-11. Net Cost by Unit of Government for the Matched Implementation Samples....... 188
Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 viii
Benefit/ (Cost)..................................................................................................................... 188
Table G-1. Balance of 51 Covariates for Felony Drug Samples, Pre-Matching....................... 235
Table G-2. Balance of 66 Covariates for Specified Property Samples, Pre-Matching.............. 236
Table G-3. Balance Across 51 Covariates for Felony Drug Samples, Post-Matching .............. 239
Table G-4. Balance Across 66 Covariates for Specified Property Samples, Post-Matching ..... 240
Table G-5. Balance Across 78 Covariates for Full Sample, Pre-Matching .............................. 244
Table G-6. Balance Across 70 Covariates for Full Sample, Post-Matching ............................ 247
Table L-1. Method for calculating weighted averages for victim‘s costs ................................ 257
Table N-1. Comparison of methods for imputing average Length of Stay in Residential
Treatment............................................................................................................................ 262

Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 ix
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Drug Offenders and Total Offenders Under Custody in New York State Prisons
1973-2008 ............................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-1. The Flow of Felony Cases in New York City Court System................................... 22
Figure 5-1. Implementation of DLR: Research questions by analytical strategies ..................... 32
Figure 6-1. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter: Arrests, Indictments, and Prison Sentence ........... 37
Figure 6-2. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter: Arrests by County............................................... 38
Figure 6-3a. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter: Indictments by Disposition County .................... 39
Figure 6-3b. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter: Indictment rates by Disposition County ............. 39
Figure 6-4a. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter: Number of Prison Sentence by Disposition County
............................................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 6-4b. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter: Prison Sentence Rate by Disposition County ..... 41
Figure 6-5. Felony Drug Trends by Year: Arrests by Race ...................................................... 42
Figure 6-6. Felony Drug Trends by Year: Prison Sentence Rate by Race ................................. 43
Figure 6-7. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter for DLR Eligible Cases: Arrests, Sentence, and Drug
Court Diversion ..................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 6-8. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter for DLR Eligible Cases: Rate of Prison Sentence,
Jail Sentence, Probation Sentence, and Drug Court Diversion ................................................. 47
Figure 6-9. Felony Drug Trends by Quarter for DLR Eligible Cases: Rate of Drug Court
Screening and Admission....................................................................................................... 48
Figure 7-1. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Unmatched Felony Drug Arrests Samples: Case
Outcomesa ............................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 7-2. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Unmatched Felony Drug Arrests Samples: Arrest
Charges ................................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 7-3. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Charge
Pattern................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 7-4. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Case
Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 63
Figure 7-5. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Sentence
Type a.................................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 7-6. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Case
Outcomes for DLR Eligible Cases.......................................................................................... 65
Figure 7-7. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Prison
Sentence by Race of Defendant .............................................................................................. 67
Figure 7-8. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Prison
Sentence by Disposition Jurisdictions ..................................................................................... 68
Figure 7-9. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Jail
Sentence by Disposition Jurisdictions ..................................................................................... 69
Figure 7-10. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Probation
Sentence by Disposition Jurisdictions ..................................................................................... 70
Figure 7-11. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Dismissed
or Discharged by Disposition Jurisdictions ............................................................................. 71
Figure 7-12. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: ........... 72
Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 x