Key Findings
- The Black-White imprisonment disparity in New York prisons fell 42%, from 14-to-1 to 8-to-1, during the period from 2000 to 2019. The largest disparity reduction occurred in imprisonment for drug offenses, with the rate for Black adults declining by 76% while the rate for White adults increased by 3%.
- Changes in prison admissions were the primary drivers of the disparity reduction, while changes in length of stay also contributed. The overall admissions rates fell by 51% for Black adults and rose by 11% for White adults during the study period.
- Statutory changes to sentencing appeared to have had less effect on disparity. Analysis indicates that one statute, which adjusted sentencing for Class B and Class C drug possession offenses, had statistically detectable but small effects.
Research by the Council on Criminal Justice Pushing Toward Parity project shows that the gap between Black and White state imprisonment rates nationwide has narrowed significantly since the start of the 21st century. To better understand the trends and identify policies and practices that may drive them, the Council chose 12 states for closer investigation.
This brief on New York outlines the key state disparity trends, summarizes the potential influences on them, and statistically assesses the impact of those influences on the trends.
Notes
Although this brief acknowledges trends and factors from the pre-study period of 2000 to 2009, the scope of the analyses is limited to circumstances present in the state between 2010 and 2019. This brief also acknowledges potential disparity trend factors that implicate variables beyond the scope of this brief. For more details on methodology, framing considerations, and limitations, see the supplemental methodology report.
Click here for an overview of New York's resident and prison population demographics.
GLOSSARY
- Disparity ratios are a measure that compares imprisonment rates across two groups of people. A Black-White imprisonment disparity ratio of 3-to-1, for example, means that Black adults are incarcerated at three times the rate of White adults. A ratio of one indicates no difference between the two groups, or “parity.” A disparity ratio lower than one means that Black adults are less likely to experience imprisonment than White adults.
- New court commitments refer to prison admissions that result from a conviction for a new crime rather than for violations of community supervision.
- Rates are calculated per 100,000 respective adults. For example, the Black imprisonment rate is calculated per 100,000 Black adults. All rates refer to adult state prison populations; those in federal prisons and local jails are excluded.
- Parity refers to a disparity ratio of 1 (1-to-1).
Racial Disparities in New York
Between 2000 and 2019, the overall Black-White imprisonment rate disparity1 in New York fell by 42% from 14-to-1 to 8-to-1. This decrease was led by a nearly 77% drop in drug offense imprisonment disparity ratio. The smallest decrease in disparity occurred for violent crime, but the violent crime disparity ratio mirrored the overall disparity ratio until after 2010, when it exceeded the rate of decrease of the overall disparity ratio.
Figure 1: Black and White Imprisonment Rate Disparity Ratios by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
Between 2000 and 2019, the Black imprisonment rate fell by 46% compared to an 8% drop in the White imprisonment rate (Figure 2). The largest decrease in Black imprisonment rates occurred for drug offenses, where the Black rate fell by 76%; for White people, the largest relative decrease in imprisonment rates was for property crimes (down 18%). Given the relatively small changes in White rates (between 4% and 18% across offenses), the vast majority of the changes in disparity ratios came from decreases in Black imprisonment rates (which fell by between 40% and 76% across offense categories).
Figure 2: Black and White Imprisonment Rates by Major Offense Category, 2000–2020
People convicted of violent crimes accounted for the majority of both Black and White incarcerated populations in 2000 as well as in 2019. For White people, the violent crime share remained at about 53% throughout the 20-year period; for Black people, it increased from 52% to 58% (Figure 3). The share of the Black incarcerated population sentenced for drug offenses fell from 31% to 14% from 2000 to 2019.
Figure 3: Shares of Incarcerated Population by Race, 2000 and 2019
Disparity in Prison Admissions and Length of Stay
The change in Black imprisonment rates from 2000 to 2019 occurred primarily because of decreases in Black admission rates. From 2000 to 2019, the overall Black admission rate fell by 51% (Figure 4) compared to the 46% drop in the overall Black imprisonment rate. Similarly, the decreases in the Black admission rate for property and drug crimes were larger than the drop in the respective Black imprisonment rate. By comparison, expected length of stay across all offenses for Black people fell by much smaller amounts than admissions; and for some offense categories, length of stay increased, which exerted upward pressure on the growth in Black imprisonment rates. Both expected length of stay and admissions for violent crimes decreased among Black people, which combined to help push the Black violent crime imprisonment rate down.
Figure 4: Change in Admission Rates and Length of Stay by Race and Offense Category, 2000–2019
In short, disparity in New York’s imprisonment rates fell primarily because of decreases in the Black imprisonment rates (overall and by offense category). The decreases in Black imprisonment rates, in turn, were driven primarily by decreases in Black admission rates (overall and by offense).
Potential Disparity Trend Factors
New York State has seen a steady overall prison population decline since about 2007. Much of that change is reported to be due to reduced imprisonment of people in New York City,2 which, stakeholders say, can be attributed to several factors: changes in policing practices that reduced arrests, investment in programs and alternatives to incarceration, shifts in prosecutorial leadership, grassroots advocacy for incarceration reduction, and changes to drug laws.
Political Context
New York was under Democratic gubernatorial control throughout the study period. Representation in the state Senate remained relatively even until 2019, shifting back and forth in majority control, while the House remained solidly in the hands of Democrats. Mayoral leadership in New York City fluctuated during the study period, switching from Republican leadership in the early years to Democratic leadership in 2014.
Practice Reforms
Policing practices had a significant effect during this study period, as felony arrests dramatically dropped in New York City. In the late 20th century, police practice included the use of heavy narcotics enforcement and the “broken window” theory of enforcement, which targeted quality-of-life crimes such as vagrancy and disorderly conduct. Under Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who was appointed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 2000, there was a steep decline in both felony and misdemeanor drug arrests, a trend that continued for several years.3 By 2011, arrests for misdemeanor drug offenses began to rise again, which advocates largely attributed to police department “stop and frisk” policies. In response to an organized campaign to stop these arrests, then-Commissioner Ray Kelly issued clarification memos and changed department policies to be more lenient toward marijuana offenses. Changes in prosecution and sentencing also contributed to decreases in felony drug arrests as diversion options became more available, according to New York stakeholders and studies. Stakeholders said the availability of diversion options, as well as their expansion in New York City, made a difference during this time by providing judges with more options other than incarceration. New York City succeeded in implementing many practice changes aimed at reducing the use of incarceration, with some occurring through the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice. In 2015, the city announced the creation of Supervised Release with an initial $17.8 million investment of city and asset forfeiture funds. The effort, developed by judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, was launched in March 2016 to divert people awaiting trial into services and programming that ensured they return to court, avoided arrest, and received needed services. In 2017, the city also launched the Alternatives to Incarceration effort, funding community programs specifically designed to reduce the number of people serving short jail sentences and to keep people from returning to jail. In 2018, the city launched Jails to Jobs, a reentry initiative to provide paid transitional employment, job training, education, and community services.
Additional Contextual Factors
In 1973, then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller signed into law measures creating lengthy prison sentences for felony drug convictions. Known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws, these statutes triggered passage of similar policies across the country, leading to dramatic increases in state prison populations and contributing to racial disparities. In New York, the laws resulted in increases in felony drug arrests, indictments, and prison commitments. For example, felony drug arrests rose from just under 15,000 in 1973 to a peak of more than 62,000 in 1989; even when the number of arrests eventually declined, it remained substantially higher than the level prior to the Rockefeller Drug Laws.4 A series of other statutory changes followed the Rockefeller Drug Laws throughout the 1990s; these measures lengthened sentences, eliminated parole for violent offenders, and limited judicial discretion. Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, grassroots opposition to the Rockefeller Drug Laws began to build, with several organizations initiating protests, media and public education campaigns, and other efforts to overturn the laws.5 By 2009, efforts to reform drug laws led to passage of provisions that removed mandatory sentences or reduced sentences for some crimes, while expanding diversion to treatment options, and giving judges more discretion to order diversion. These rollbacks to the Rockefeller Drug Laws were the most sweeping changes to criminal justice statutes in New York during the study period. Additional policy changes have followed. Lawmakers passed a bill in 2017 that raised the age a juvenile could be tried as an adult to 18. And in 2019, the legislature passed bail reform measures that sought to reduce pretrial detention, limit the role of money in bail decisions, shrink racial disparities, and protect public safety. Those measures took effect in January 2020, just outside of the study period for this analysis.
Statutory Reforms
Between 2010 and 2020, New York passed or implemented 10 bills that included changes to criminal sentencing. Although beyond the scope of the study period, one reform enacted prior to 2010 (Bill A 00156B in 2009), also could have impacted prison populations during the study period. This bill allowed judges to sentence people convicted of certain classes of felony drug offenses to probation and made felony sexual offenses ineligible for parole. A review of the 10 candidate bills produced five themes that characterized sentencing reform in New York during the study period. Based solely on the frequency of the themes, sentencing reforms in New York were dominated by those that focused on:
- increasing or decreasing sentencing severity (all 10 laws)
- expanding or restricting the discretion of criminal justice agency actors (seven laws)
Less prevalent were reforms that focused on:
- treatment programming and individualized justice (two laws)
- good time or early release (one law)
- bail/pretrial release (one law)
Half of the 10 bills focused on specific offense classes, while the other half broadly applied to justice-involved groups, such as probationers and parolees. Of the bills that focused on specific offenses, two focused on sex trafficking and prostitution, one targeted domestic violence, one was directed at certain property crimes, and one involved weapons offenses. The limited scope of New York’s reform efforts during the study period resulted in few bills available for analysis. Because of this, the following analysis only addresses subsets of reforms whose elements could be measured:
- A 2388/S 2230 (May 2013), bills that enhanced penalties for certain classes of 3rd-degree weapons offenses.
- A 00156B/S 00056B (April 2009), bills implemented just prior to the study period, that focused on Class B or Class C drug possession offenses.
Three other reforms that focused on violent crimes (firearms and domestic violence) and a property offense (burglary) were implemented too late in the study period to provide a sufficient follow-up period for analysis.
Analysis
Table 1 summarizes the findings of Black-White differences in preexisting trends and patterns, shifts in preexisting levels associated with the implementation of reforms, and post-reform trends. Analyses are detailed in the supplemental methodology report.6 All estimates in Table 1 are differences between the Black and White regression parameters (the degree to which a line slopes upward or downward). A positive post-reform trend difference indicates that the population outcome grew faster for Black people than for White people; if that difference is negative, that means a population outcome either grew more slowly or declined more rapidly for Black people than White people.
Table 1: Summary of Statistical Analysis of Racial Differences in Effects of New York Reforms
Although both sets of analyzed reforms focused on the severity of sentences, the analysis also looked at the impacts of the reforms on prison admissions to assess the potential impact of sentencing on the decision to incarcerate. As such, the post-reform disparity in sentencing and the impacts on the number of new court commitments to prison are included in this analysis. In general, the results show little evidence of racial differences in post-reform outcomes, with exceptions. There is no evidence of racial differences in impacts of the weapons offense reform implemented in 2013, either on sentence lengths imposed or admissions. There is also no evidence of racial differences on sentences imposed under the drug law reforms, but there were some differences in impacts on admissions. The impacts on admissions, however, were comparatively small.
A 00156B/S 00056B
A comparison of sentences imposed before and after implementation of the drug law reforms shows evidence of a change in sentencing patterns. This is illustrated in Figure 5a, which depicts sentences imposed for Class B drug possession offenses, which include offenses like possession of marijuana in a public space, and possession of a narcotic. Upon initial inspection, Figure 5a shows that the average (maximum) sentences imposed on people convicted of Class B drug possession declined from 2000 to 2009 and then increased following the reform.
Figure 5a: Maximum Sentence Imposed on Class B Drug Possession Offenses, by Race
A closer look at the data, however, reveals that the average (maximum) sentences imposed for these offenses began to decline in 2006. When this pre-reform decrease trend is accounted for (Figure 5b), it becomes clear that there is no effect of the drug law reform on sentence length imposed. Rather, the findings indicate that about three years prior to the reforms, average (maximum) sentences imposed fell from about 75 months to about 40 months for both Black and White people. Following this decrease, the average (maximum) sentences imposed for both Black and White people remained at about the same level; the slight upward trend is not statistically significant.
Figure 5b: Maximum Sentence Imposed on Class B Drug Possession Offenses, Accounting for 2006 Decline, by Race
The results for people convicted of Class C drug possession follow a similar trend. Combined, these results for sentences imposed imply that New York’s practice of imposing less severe sentences for these drug offenses occurred about three years prior to the law that was implemented in 2009, meaning the new statute did not initiate the trend change. The drug law reforms were associated with two racial differences in admissions. First, the level of new court commitments for Black people convicted of Class B drug possession fell by a larger amount than did the level for White people (a difference of about 12 people, shown in Table 2). Second, the White admission rate for drug offenses rose faster the Black rate after the drug law reform was implemented, due to an increase in White admissions and a flat rate of Black admissions. The difference in rates amounted to about one-tenth of a person per month, which suggests that post-reform practices tended toward equal rates of admissions between Black and White people for these offenses. A similar set of findings was obtained for Class C drug possession admissions.
Discussion
Racial disparity in imprisonment rates in New York fell primarily because of declining Black imprisonment rates, which dropped by between 40% and 76% from 2000 to 2019, depending on the type of offense. White imprisonment rates fell by much smaller amounts (about 8% on average). The Black admission rate fell by amounts that were similar to decreases in the Black imprisonment rate; the decrease in the Black admission rate was primarily responsible for the drop in the Black imprisonment rate. Admissions of Black people for drug offenses, which accounted for half of all Black admissions in 2000, fell by 78% during the study period. Half of that decrease occurred before reforms aimed at reducing sentencing for some types of drug possession offenses were implemented in 2009. At most, the law change contributed to reducing disparity by about 40 persons per year on a base of more than 2,000 annual Black drug offense admissions. Drug law changes related to the severity of sentences for certain classes of drug possession crimes, which accounted for between one-third and one-half of all admissions for drug offenses, did not result in racially different impacts. Rather, because the reform’s implementation occurred well after changes in sentencing practices that led to a convergence in sentences imposed for Black and White people convicted of these crimes, the law change reflected rather than caused the shift in practice.
New York, like any state, has a distinct political and demographic history that influences the discussion of what does or does not work when addressing disparity in the criminal justice system. This state brief is one of 12 in the Pushing Toward Parity project, all of which seek to identify, what, if any, policy changes are associated with shifts in racial disparity and can serve as examples for states pursuing equity in their criminal justice system.
