Jail Displacement ATI Programs 02 Execsum 02

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL USTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

ESTIMATING JAIL DISPLACEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-INCARCERATION PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D. Project Director

August 2002

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

ESTIMATING JAIL DISPLACEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-INCARCERATION PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D. Project Director Aïda Tejaratchi Programmer/Analyst Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Taehyon Kim Junior Research Programmer Elizabeth Walton Research Assistant Bernice Linen-Reed Administrative Assistant

August 2002

© 2002 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mary A. Eckert, former Associate Director for Research, laid the groundwork for this study and developed the research proposal upon which it is based. Other colleagues at CJA, in addition to project staff listed on the cover page, also deserve credit for their generous contributions. From the Research Department, these include: Richard Peterson (Associate Director for Research), Marian Gewirtz, Elyse Revere, Jukka Savolainen, and Bernice Linen-Reed. From the Systems Department, Barbara Geller Diaz and Duane Sadowski provided valuable assistance with programming and the procurement of data from outside agencies. Mari Curbelo, Fanny Castro, and Joann DeJesus of the ATIIS staff maintained the program database and contributed enormously to our understanding of operational issues. Frank Sergi, Director of Planning, aided in unraveling data puzzles. The author also wishes to thank Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director, for his ongoing support and suggestions. Rachel Porter, Rachel Kramer, and Eileen Sullivan of the Vera Institute of Justice have also made indirect contributions to this research, which borrows from methodological procedures used in their work.

The author wishes to give special thanks to Debbie Eliyahu, a former CJA programmer whose work for this project came long after her departure from the Agency. Her skilled assistance as an outside programming consultant helped to speed things along at crucial junctures.

We are also grateful to the NYC Department of Probation, the NYC Department of Correction, and to the Office of Court Administration for providing us with supplemental data. None of these agencies is responsible for the methodology, findings, or conclusions of this study.

ESTIMATING JAIL DISPLACEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-INCARCERATION PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background New York City, through the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (OCJC), funds a variety of Alternative-to-Incarceration (ATI) programs for defendants charged with misdemeanor and felony offenses. One of the primary goals of these programs is to reduce time that eligible defendants would spend serving incarcerative sentences. By intervening with a program of community service for misdemeanants, and programs that offer drug treatment, educational, and vocational services to felons, the ATI programs are able to secure non-incarcerative sentences, or reduced incarceration, for many defendants who would otherwise receive substantial jail or prison sentences.

OCJC has specific goals for the length of sentences it hopes to displace by the funded programs: the goal is to displace misdemeanor sentences of at least 20 days in jail, and felony sentences of at least six months. The goals were set as averages, with the understanding that some targeted defendants would not be facing sentences long enough to displace the goal, while others would be facing longer sentences.

As part of an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the ATI programs, OCJC contracted with the New York Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA) to conduct research to assess the displacement effects of the funded programs. Seven ATI programs designed for felony offenders and one program for repeat misdemeanor offenders are included in the displacement research.

The misdemeanor program is the Community Service Sentencing Project (CSSP) of the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment services (CASES). The felony programs included in this research are: Youth Advocacy Project (YAP) of the Center for Community Alternatives, Court Employment Project (CEP) of CASES, Freedom Program of the Fortune Society, DAMAS Program of the Fortune Society, El Rio Day-Treatment Program of the Osborne Association, FlameTree Program of the Fortune Society, and Women’s Day-Treatment Program of the Project Return Foundation.1 This document summarizes briefly the methodology and findings that are presented in more detail in the full report, available upon request from CJA. Overall Methodology Each ATI participant was individually matched with a defendant who was very similar demographically and in terms of case characteristics, except that the comparison case was not diverted to one of the ATI programs in the study. Sentences received by the comparison cases were compared to sentences received by the ATI participants. A displacement effect for each ATI participant was calculated by subtracting his or her incarceration time from that of the comparison case. If the comparison case received a longer jail or prison sentence than the ATI participant, time was displaced. If neither received an incarcerative sentence, or they received incarcerative sentences of equal length, no time was displaced. If the ATI participant was sentenced to more time than the comparison case, displacement was negative. Average displace1

OCJC funding for the Women’s Day-Treatment Program was discontinued as of 7/31/02, after completion of this study.

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

ment effects were calculated for each ATI program, and for various categories of defendants, by summing displacement for all ATI participants in the group and dividing by the number of cases.

The displacement effects reported here are net displacement amounts. Net displacement is an estimate of the amount of time the defendant would have had to serve if he or she had not been diverted into an ATI program. The net displacement takes into account time off for good behavior, as well as the amount of time spent in pretrial detention that would have been credited towards a sentence. The good behavior allowance is one-third off sentences of less than one year, and the minimum amount of pretrial detention time is normally two days before the first opportunity for release. Thus, the City’s goals of displacing sentences of at least 20 days for misdemeanor cases and 6 months for felonies would be met if the programs achieved net displacements of 11 days and 120 days respectively. Those figures represent the most time that a program could hope to displace for sentences of the target lengths.

The estimation of net displacement began by subtracting the sentence imposed on the ATI participant, less the good behavior allowance, from the sentence imposed on the matched comparison case, less the good behavior allowance. For example, an ATI participant who was sentenced to a conditional discharge and community service might be matched to a similar defendant who was sentenced to 20 days. With one-third off for good behavior, the defendant in the matched comparison case would be eligible for release after 13 days. The gross displacement effect would thus be 13 days (13 minus zero). Subtracting the time the ATI participant had spent in pretrial detention would produce net displacement. If the ATI participant had spent 5 days in pretrial detention, there would be only 8 days left to serve on the sentence, so the net displacement effect would be 8 days.

The general methodology as described above applies to both misdemeanor and felony analyses, but specific procedures diverged. The data sets developed for the two groups and the findings are thus described separately.

MISDEMEANOR PROGRAM: CSSP The Misdemeanor Data Set The misdemeanor data set included all CSSP participants who exited the program between July 1, 1998, and March 31, 2000. The data file included information on program entry and exit, case processing and outcomes, pretrial detention, and resentencing on violations of conditional discharge. After the deletion of cases with missing data, the completed misdemeanor research file contained 1,646 cases.

Characteristics of the Misdemeanor ATI Participants Over half of the CSSP clients in the study sample were prosecuted in Manhattan and Brooklyn; they were mostly male (81%), in their 30s (50%), and charged with petit larceny (50%). The program is designed specifically for repeat misdemeanor offenders, and most clients had lengthy histories of convictions for misdemeanors (72% had 5 or more).

CSSP advocates in court for clients to be given sentences of conditional discharge rather than jail time; the condition is then a specified amount of community service, usually 10 days.

The proportion of program participants in the sample who completed their community service successfully was 72 percent. Failure in the program was likely to trigger a filing of a Violation of Conditional Discharge (VOCD), which could result in a resentence to jail. Indeed, it has long been CSSP’s policy to ask the court to impose substantial jail time on program failures in order

-2-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

to enhance the credibility of the program in the eyes of the participants and the courts. Of those who did not complete their community service successfully, 70 percent were resentenced to jail, for an average of 90 days.

Procedures for Calculating Displacement for Misdemeanor Cases Analytic Groups for Misdemeanor Cases Misdemeanor cases were first grouped according to the timing of the disposition and the severity of the arraignment charge, into three categories: • Cases disposed at arraignment (n=1,010).

• Cases disposed post-arraignment, with a misdemeanor affidavit charge (n=546).

• Cases disposed post-arraignment, with a felony affidavit charge (n=90).

Each of these categories was then subdivided by borough, creating 12 analytic groups. (The four largest boroughs of New York City were included. Staten Island was not included in the research since the ATI programs did not operate there.)

Matching Misdemeanor Cases Each case in the misdemeanor file was matched to a case in the CJA database with a misdemeanor conviction during the same date range as the ATI participants (1/12/98 through 3/20/00). Cases were matched by analytic group, disposition charge type (drug/non-drug) and severity, the number of open cases at the time of arrest, the number of prior felony convictions, the number of prior misdemeanor convictions (4 range categories), detention status leaving arraignment, whether the instant case was the defendant’s first arrest, gender, and age (8 range categories). Exact matches were found for 92 percent of the ATI participants; by taking the next closest age category, matches rose to 98 percent. The few remaining cases were matched by relaxing the criteria for gender or prior criminal history.

Calculated Sentence Length for Misdemeanor Cases The calculated sentence length (CSL) for misdemeanor cases was computed in days for both the ATI participant and the comparison case.

• CSL equals two-thirds of the imposed sentence length for incarcerative sentences (one-third is taken off the sentence for good behavior).

• CSL equals zero for non-incarcerative sentences (including conditional discharge and probation).

• CSL for a sentence of time served equals the pretrial detention time.

• For ATI participants who were resentenced following a VOCD, the resentence is the basis for the CSL. It is important to note that this aspect of the calculation suppresses the displacement effect on CSSP program failures because 70 percent of them received sentences averaging 90 days, and because violation and resentencing data were not available for comparison cases given non-incarcerative sentences.

Calculation of Displacement for Misdemeanor Cases Gross displacement was computed by subtracting the CSL for the ATI participant from the CSL for the comparison case. Net displacement was computed by taking into account time spent in pretrial detention.

• If gross displacement was zero, pretrial detention time was not counted.

• If gross displacement was positive, the ATI participant’s pretrial detention time was subtracted from gross displacement to produce net displacement.

-3-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

• • •

If gross displacement was negative, the comparison case’s pretrial detention time was added to gross displacement (reducing the negative amount) to produce net displacement.

If a portion of the pretrial detention time was credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant received, that portion was not discounted from displacement.

Time spent in detention post-sentence but prior to re-sentence was discounted according to the rules above, if it was not sentenced time.

Net displacement was the figure used in reporting the results.

Misdemeanor Program Results These are the highlights of the findings and conclusions: • CSSP displaced an average of 14 days for successful program completers. This exceeded the maximum net displacement time possible for a 20-day sentence, which is 11 days. Thus, the City’s displacement objective was easily met for the 72% of CSSP participants who completed their community service successfully.

• For defendants who did not complete their community service successfully, displacement was negative (–27 days). Resentences for unsuccessful terminations averaged 90 days, in accordance with the program’s policy of requesting jail time as a threat for failure. Thus, failing the program often resulted in a longer sentence than if the program had never intervened.

• Overall average displacement was 2 days, averaging the successful and unsuccessful program participants together. Successfully completing the program was the factor most strongly associated with higher displacement.

• The next most powerful predictor of higher displacement was the analytic grouping (cases disposed at arraignment; cases disposed post-arraignment with a misdemeanor affidavit charge; cases disposed post-arraignment with a felony affidavit charge).

CSSP displaced an average of 32 days for cases entering arraignment on a felony charge (subsequently reduced to a misdemeanor and disposed post-arraignment).

• Displacement for cases disposed at arraignment was negative (–6 days). Most comparison cases in this group were not sentenced to jail, so there was little jail time to displace. Even among defendants who completed the program successfully, displacement was much less for cases disposed at arraignment (5 days) than for cases disposed postarraignment (26 days).

• Borough, charge type, gender, and age were all associated with displacement in a bivariate analysis, but none of these differences was statistically significant when other variables were controlled for in a multivariate analysis.

• CSSP displaced some jail time for 45 percent of its clients in the sample (53% of successful completers). This means that when displacement was achieved, it was substantially greater than the averages would imply.

Table ES-1 (page 10) presents the average amount of displacement achieved by CSSP for various subgroups of program participants, and the number and percent of cases within each group with any positive displacement.

-4-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

FELONY PROGRAMS The Felony Data Set The felony data set included participants of the seven felony programs who exited between July 1, 1998, and March 31, 2000 (the date range was the same as for the misdemeanor cases). The data file contained program data, case-processing information, pretrial detention data, and Supreme Court case outcomes. Cases still awaiting sentencing when the final file was compiled in December 2000 were dropped from the data set (n=177), as were 52 cases in which the defendant entered an ATI program as a result of a Violation of Probation (VOP). Resentencing data were not available for the VOP cases because most of the defendants were Youthful Offenders and their cases had been sealed. After the VOP cases and other cases for which there was missing information were dropped from the sample, the number in the final felony data set was 1,014 cases.

Characteristics of the Felony ATI Participants The felony program participants were less homogeneous than the misdemeanor participants, because seven programs were represented, each with its own distinct client profile. The two largest programs are CEP (for 16-to-19-year-olds) and Freedom (for the 19-and-older population), which together accounted for over half (55%) of all the felony defendants in the sample.

The aggregate characteristics of the felony program participants, therefore, largely reflect the client profiles of these two programs.

Success rates were lower than for CSSP (54% for the combined felony programs), a result of the longer time commitment required for completion (six months to a year). As a group, the felony ATI participants were much younger than the CSSP participants (59% were 18 or younger) and had less extensive criminal records. Many prosecutors are reluctant to agree to day treatment programs for predicate felons; as a result, almost all of the felony ATI participants in the sample had no prior felony conviction (94%). In addition, 82 percent had no prior misdemeanor conviction; and 64 percent had no open cases at the time of the instant arrest. Most participants were male (86%); two of the programs serve only women, but they are the two smallest programs (DAMAS and Project Return).

The great majority of felony defendants were held on bail leaving Criminal Court arraignment (87%). A small proportion waived indictment by a Grand Jury and were charged by a Supreme Court Information (SCI) (13%). Most were convicted on a class-B (42%) or a class-C (29%) felony. The most common conviction charges were robbery (31%) and drug sales (34%).

Half were sentenced to probation (51%). For those who were sentenced to incarceration (46%), 15 percent were sentenced to less than 6 months, and 61 percent were sentenced to a year or less.

Procedures for Calculating Displacement for Felony Cases Analytic Groups for Felony Cases Felony cases were grouped analytically by charge type, YO-eligibility, and predicate status (with separate groups for treatment-court cases and juvenile offenders). For categories with enough cases, the groups were further subdivided by charging instrument (Grand Jury indictment versus SCI) and gender, resulting in a total of 18 mutually exclusive analytic groups.

(Categorization in the treatment-court and juvenile offender groups took precedence for cases that also fit the criteria for one of the other groups.)

-5-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

The 18 analytic groups (and the number in each) were: • Drug treatment court (n=38) • Juvenile Offenders (n=148) • Drug cases: YO-eligible (n=118) Further subdivided by charging instrument (SCI=11, GJ=107) • Drug cases: Not YO-eligible, non-predicates (n=222) Further subdivided by charging instrument (SCI=12, GJ=210) Grand Jury cases further subdivided by gender (males=156, females=54) • Drug cases: Not YO-eligible, predicates (n=38) • Violent Felony Offense (VFO) cases: YO-eligible (n=260) Further subdivided by charging instrument (SCI=29, GJ=231) Grand Jury cases further subdivided by gender (males=203, females=28) • Violent Felony Offense (VFO) cases: Not YO-eligible, non-predicates (n=91) Further subdivided by charging instrument (SCI=9, GJ=82) SCI cases were male only • Violent Felony Offense (VFO) cases: Not YO-eligible, predicates (n=6) All cases were Grand Jury cases • Other offense cases: YO-eligible (n=43) Further subdivided by charging instrument (SCI=13, GJ=30) SCI cases were male only • Other offense cases: Not YO-eligible, non-predicates (n=42) • Other offense cases: Not YO-eligible, predicates (n=8) Matching Felony Cases Each case in the data file of felony ATI participants was matched to a case that was disposed in Supreme Court in one of the four largest boroughs of New York City between 1/01/98 and 3/31/00, roughly the same date range as was found in the ATI participant sample. Cases were matched by analytic group, borough of prosecution, severity class of the top indictment charge, open cases at the time of arrest (yes/no), detention status leaving Criminal Court arraignment, gender, and age (recoded into ranges). Exact matches were found for 95 percent of the cases; matches were selected for the remainder by relaxing the criteria for age or borough.

Calculated Sentence Length for Felony Cases The calculated sentence length (CSL) for felony cases was computed in days for both the ATI participant and the comparison case.

• CSL equals two-thirds of the imposed sentence length for definite sentences; twothirds of the maximum imposed sentence length for indeterminate sentences; and sixsevenths of the imposed sentence length for determinate sentences. These fractions reflect the good behavior allowance for different types of sentences.

• CSL equals zero for non-incarcerative sentences.

• CSL for a sentence of time served equals the pretrial detention time.

• The original sentence is the basis for the calculation in all felony cases.

-6-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

This differs from the calculation of CSL for misdemeanor cases in two respects: first, the formula for time off for good behavior differs according to the type of sentence; second, resentences were not used in the calculations because the data were not available to us (cases for which the resentence was crucial were dropped from the analysis).

Calculation of Displacement for Felony Cases Gross displacement was computed by subtracting CSL for the ATI participant from CSL for the comparison. Net displacement was computed by taking into account pretrial detention.

• If gross displacement was zero, pretrial detention time was not counted.

• If gross displacement was positive, the ATI participant’s pretrial detention time was subtracted from gross displacement to produce net displacement.

• If gross displacement was negative, the comparison case’s pretrial detention time was added to gross displacement to reduce the net amount of negative displacement.

•

If a portion of the pretrial detention time was credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant received, that portion was not discounted from displacement. This procedure is virtually identical to the procedure used for misdemeanor cases. The only difference is that post-sentence detention time served prior to resentence was also taken into account for misdemeanor cases. This is not an issue for felony cases because resentences were not used for the calculated sentence length.

Aggregate Felony Program Results • Average displacement for cases entering the programs on or prior to 3/31/99 was 142 days — the equivalent of a 7-month sentence. The City’s goal of displacing sentences of 6 months was thus met for cases with at least a year in which to complete the program.

The reason for looking first at this subset — cases entering a program on or before 3/31/99 — is that the later cases are biased towards program failure. Defendants who entered a felony program after 3/31/99 did not have a full year in which to complete the program before the cutoff date. As a consequence, those who entered after 3/31/99 and had already exited by 3/31/00 tended to include the failures but not the successes; many of the successes finished the program too late to be included in the sample. As will be seen, program success was strongly related to displacement for the felony programs, just as it was for CSSP, so a bias towards failed cases unfairly reduces the displacement effect.

• Even when the full felony sample is included, the programs overall came very close to reaching the City’s displacement goal of 120 days (the equivalent of a 6-month sentence). The combined felony programs displaced 116 days, on average, for each participant in the full sample.

• As with the analysis of misdemeanor cases, completion success surfaced as the most important factor in displacement, controlling for all other factors. Average displacement for successful completers was 334 days.

• The lower average displacement overall was attributable in great part to the large minority of clients who did not succeed (46%). Their average displacement was a negative amount (–139 days), not because the wrong cases were targeted for participation,

-7-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

•

•

• •

but because a promise of probation typically was contingent on success in the program; the price of failure was substantial incarceration.

The analytic groups most likely to displace a large amount of time consisted of defendants who were not YO eligible and who were charged with a violent felony offense (all but a few of these were non-predicates). Those who were indicted on drug charges were likely to displace a large amount of time only if the defendant was a predicate offender. Over half of each of these types of cases displaced some incarceration time.

Controlling for completion success and other variables, the factors significantly associated with higher displacement were charge severity, detention leaving Criminal Court arraignment, predicate status, and being charged by means of a Supreme Court Information (rather than an indictment).

Borough, charge type, gender, age, and eligibility for YO status were all associated with displacement in a bivariate analysis, but were not significant when other factors were controlled for.

The felony programs together displaced incarceration time for 42 percent of their clients, about the same percentage as for the misdemeanor program. Again, it is worth pointing out that although displacement was achieved for under half of the cases, the amount of jail time displaced for the remainder was much greater than the overall average would suggest.

Table ES-2 (page 11) presents average displacement for various subgroups of the combined felony program participants, as well as the number and percent of cases within each group with positive displacement.

Results for Individual Felony Programs The programs varied greatly in their displacement effects, but the fact that the different programs are designed for different defendant populations should be kept in mind in assessing variations in displacement. Programs that serve predominantly YOs, for instance, would not be expected to displace as much time as programs that serve defendants who are not YO-eligible.

• At the high end were two of the Fortune Society programs, FlameTree and Freedom, with over 200 days displaced on average for each participant, regardless of whether the full sample or the subset (of cases with at least a year to complete the program) was used for the calculation. A displacement effect of 200 days is the equivalent of displacing a 10-month sentence.

• El Rio and Damas also exceeded the City’s displacement goal for felony programs (for the subset of cases with at least a year to complete the program), with displacement effects of 175 and 174 days respectively — equivalent to a sentence greater than 8 months.

• YAP and CEP displaced 75 and 71 days respectively (for the subset), equivalent to a sentence of almost four months.

• Project Return appears to have been the only program that was unsuccessful in displacing any incarceration time, but caution must be exercised in interpreting these results. First, the number is very small: only 21 cases in the subset, and 38 in the full sample. That alone would be enough to cast doubt on the stability of the results, but

-8-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

more serious is that these cases may not even be representative of Project Return’s clients. There were 57 participants who exited from Project Return within the study period, but 19 of them (33%) were dropped from the sample because they were VOP cases for which resentencing data were not available. Also, Project Return was in its first year of operation and may have not have been operating yet at full efficiency.

• Every program, including Project Return, exceeded the City’s goal for its successful clients, and in fact 6 out of the 7 programs displaced more than a one-year sentence on average for each successful client (one-year sentence = 243 days maximum displacement).

None of the individual programs was a statistically significant predictor of displacement in the multivariate analysis. This means that the differences in displacement found from program to program were wholly accounted for by factors such as participant success and charge severity.

Table ES-3 (page 12) presents average displacement for various subgroups of the individual felony programs, for the subset (cases that entered the program on or prior to 3/31/99) as well as for the full sample.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The ATI programs included in this research were quite effective in displacing sentence time for participants in the study sample who completed the programs successfully. All of the programs exceeded the City’s displacement goals for defendants who completed successfully, which indicates that selection procedures worked well to identify the defendants facing sentences greater than the minimum targeted length. In fact, for successful program completers, more than double the City’s goal was displaced by six of the seven felony programs, and five of the programs displaced triple (or nearly so) the target amount.

The ATIs did not usually manage to displace any jail time when defendants failed to complete the program, a direct result of a policy of punishing failure with harsh sentences. The high failure rate, especially among the felony programs, greatly reduced the average displacement per client when all cases were averaged together. For the misdemeanor program, the inclusion of cases likely to be disposed at arraignment also depressed the average displacement because defendants in cases fitting this profile were likely to be sentenced to non-incarcerative sentences even without ATI program intervention.

Because success in the program emerged as the most important factor in determining whether the case would displace any jail time or not, this suggests that further efforts to maximize displacement should be directed towards increasing program success rates.

-9-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

Table ES-1.

Displacement for CSSP: Overall and by Categories Mean number of days displaced CSSP (overall)

2

N= 1643

By Completion Success Successful N= 1179 Not successful N= 464

By Analytic Grouping Disposed at arraignment N= 1010 Disposed post-arraignment, misdemeanor affidavit charge N= 544 Disposed post-arraignment, felony affidavit charge N= 89

By Borough Brooklyn N= 474 Manhattan N= 525 Queens N= 307 Bronx N= 337

By Charge Type Drug affidavit charge N= 367 Petit larceny affidavit charge N= 754 Other charge N= 522

By Gender Males N= 1329 Females N= 314

By Age 17-19 N= 41 20-24 N= 128 25-29 N= 148 30-34 N= 385 35-39 N= 448 40-44 N= 278 45-49 N= 145 50+ N= 70

2

Number (%) of cases with positive displacement

2.23

732

(45%)

13.62 –26.71

629 103

(53%) (22%)

–6.32

436

(43%)

13.20

260

(48%)

32.31

36

(40%)

5.83 2.31 –1.74 0.66

240 248 142 102

(51%) (47%) (46%) (30%)

3.23

148

(40%)

–3.30

337

(45%)

9.53

247

(47%)

2.61 0.64

601 131

(45%) (42%)

2.23 0.52 0.83 3.96 –1.12 4.0 5.27 7.03

16 52 56 175 206 124 71 32

(39%) (41%) (38%) (46%) (46%) (45%) (49%) (46%)

Three non-YO cases that were matched to a comparison case with YO status were not included in the analysis.

- 10 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

Table ES-2.

Aggregate Displacement for Felony Cases: Overall and by Categories Mean number of days displaced Felony cases (overall)

N= 1014

By Completion Success Successful N= 547 Not successful N= 467

By Borough Brooklyn N= 278 Manhattan N= 292 Queens N= 137 Bronx N= 307

By Charge Severity Class-B (or higher) felony N=597 Class-C (or lower) felony N=416

By Charge Type Drug indictment charge N= 417 VFO indictment charge N= 502 Other indictment charge N= 95

By YO Eligibility YO eligible N= 565 Not YO eligible N= 443

By Predicate Status Predicate N= 60 Not Predicate N= 948

By Filing Instrument Grand Jury Indictment N= 882 SCI N= 132

By Detention Status Leaving Criminal Court arraignment Detained N= 884 Not detained N= 124

By Gender Males N= 867 Females N= 147

By Age 14-15 N= 143 16-18 N= 457 19-29 N= 243 30-39 N= 91 40+ N= 80

Number (%) of cases with positive displacement

116.17

429

(42%)

334.43 –139.49

291 138

(53%) (30%)

175.19 91.11 22.07 128.54

125 119 45 140

(45%) (41%) (33%) (46%)

180.74 23.77

280 149

(47%) (36%)

105.86

185

(44%)

144.65

211

(42%)

10.92

33

(35%)

65.37 176.15

211 215

(37%) (49%)

376.19 97.46

34 392

(57%) (41%)

110.08 156.84

377 52

(43%) (39%)

138.61 –50.30

397 29

(45%) (23%)

119.25 97.95

372 57

(43%) (39%)

37.33 68.11 192.13 185.35 222.18

47 180 122 46 34

(33%) (39%) (50%) (51%) (43%)

- 11 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

Table ES-3 Displacement Effect and Distribution of Participant Characteristics Associated with Displacement

By Felony ATI Program SUBSET (cases entered program on or prior to 3/31/99) Average displacement effect (in days) Percent of cases that displaced incarceration Success rate FULL SAMPLE Average displacement effect (in days) Average displacement effect: successful completers only Success rate Percent of cases that displaced incarceration Defendant & case characteristics Brooklyn Class-B (or higher severity) felony charge VFO charge Not YO eligible Predicate felon SCI Detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment Male Age 19+

FlameTree N=107 (80% of full sample)

Freedom N=189 (85% of full sample)

El Rio N=57 (75% of full sample)

DAMAS N=48 (73% of full sample)

YAP N=125 (86% of full sample)

CEP N=232 (70% of full sample)

Project Return N=21 (55% of full sample)

295

211

175

174

75

71

–131

51%

51%

53%

42%

36%

40%

19%

57%

68%

37%

67%

55%

57%

43%

FlameTree N=133

Freedom N=223

El Rio N=76

DAMAS N=66

YAP N=145

CEP N=333

Project Return N=38

213

230

114

103

33

57

–28

418

352

482

342

356

266

181

56%

69%

29%

62%

48%

52%

34%

47%

53%

49%

44%

33%

38%

26%

30%

25%

0

35%

26%

26%

3%

70%

48%

76%

70%

77%

45%

84%

35% 65% 14% 9%

41% 77% 8% 15%

5% 95% 15% 25%

35% 71% 8% 9%

98% 1% 1% 8%

58% 9% 1% 13%

5% 92% 11% 18%

89%

92%

83%

83%

88%

89%

61%

99% 59%

100% 75%

86% 92%

5% 70%

90% 1%

93% 4%

5% 92%

- 12 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC, Executive Summary

APPENDIX The Eight Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs Included in the Displacement Study •

Community Service Sentencing Project (CSSP) of the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), which was contracted to supervise the performance of community service by repeat-misdemeanor offenders likely to receive incarcerative sentences of at least 20 days on a misdemeanor conviction.

•

Court Employment Project (CEP) of CASES, which was contracted to provide six months of community-based supervision with in-house educational and vocational services for the 16-to-19-year-old population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of more than six months on a felony conviction.

•

Freedom Program of the Fortune Society, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of community-based supervision with in-house educational and vocational services for the 19-and-older population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

El Rio Day-Treatment Program (El Rio) of the Osborne Association, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of day-treatment substance abuse services to the 18-and-older population residing in upper Manhattan and the Bronx and who were likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

FlameTree Program of the Fortune Society, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of day-treatment substance abuse services to the 18-and-older population residing in lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, and who were likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

Youth Advocacy Project (YAP) of the Center for Community Alternatives, which was contracted to provide a year of community-based supervision and other rehabilitative services to the 13-to-15-year-old population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

DAMAS Program of the Fortune Society, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of community-based supervision and other gender-specific services to women likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

Women’s Day Treatment Program of the Project Return Foundation (Project Return), which was contracted to provide outpatient substance abuse treatment services for women likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

Appendix - 13 -