Pretrial Recommendation Analysis 03

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SCHEMES IN NEW YORK CITY: A PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS

Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D. Project Director

FINAL REPORT December 2003

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SCHEMES IN NEW YORK CITY: A PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS

Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D. Project Director

Elizabeth Walton Senior Research Assistant Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Elyse Revere Junior Research Analyst

Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst Bernice Linen-Reed Administrative Associate

Š2003 NYC Criminal Justice Agency December 2003

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author extends special thanks to Marian Gewirtz, Senior Research Analyst, for supervising the extraction of the Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset. The author would also like to thank Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director of CJA, and Dr. Richard Peterson, Director for Research at CJA, for their helpful suggestions.

The author is also grateful to the project staff for their contributions: Elizabeth Walton, Raymond Caligiure, Elyse Revere and Wayne Nehwadowich.

Thanks to Bernice Linen-Reed

for her administrative assistance.

Finally, the author would like to thank the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for providing supplemental criminal history data. DCJS bears no responsibility for the methods of analysis used in this report or its conclusions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 I. Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme............................................................7 II. New Recommendation Scheme .........................................................................8 III METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................11 A. Sampling and Data Sources ...............................................................................11 B. Research Design ................................................................................................14 IV. RESULTS ...........................................................................................................17 A. Defendant Characteristics ..................................................................................17 B. Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by pretrial FTA ........................23 C. New Recommendation Scheme by Pretrial FTA ................................................23 D. Applying the New Recommendation Scheme to all Cases Arraigned: Citywide and Borough Distributions...................................................................26 E. Judicial Release Decision at Arraignment .........................................................33 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................38 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 41

LIST OF TABLES Table 1

New Recommendation Scheme...................................................................10

Table 2

New Pointscale Stamps for Adult Defendants ............................................12

Table 3

Arraignment Outcome ................................................................................15

Table 4

Release Status for Cases Adjourned at Arraignment .................................16

Table 5

Characteristics of Defendants Released Pretrial Regardless of Court of Disposition: A Comparison of the 2002 at-risk Sample with the 2001 at-risk Sample..............................................................................................18

Table 6

Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Actual Numbers) ..........................................................24

Table 7

New CJA Recommendation by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Projected Numbers) .....................................................................25

Table 8

A Comparison of the Alternative Risk-Classification Scheme with Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme: The Difference in the Number and FTA Rate of Low-, Moderate-, and High Risk Defendants ................................................................................................27

Table 9

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned: First Quarter of 2001 Dataset................28

Table 10

New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All cases Arraigned First Quarter of 2001 Dataset..................................................29

Table 11

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset .............30

Table 12

New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset ................................................31

Table 13

Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: First Quarter of 2001 Dataset........................34

Table 14

New CJA Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: First Quarter of 2001 Dataset........................35

ii

Table 15

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset .....36

Table 16

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset ......................37

iii

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SCHEMES IN NEW YORK CITY: A PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS Introduction The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA) makes pretrial releaseon-recognizance (ROR) recommendations for defendants arrested in New York City and held for arraignment in the lower court (Criminal Court).

The recommendation is

submitted to the arraigning judge who makes the first release decision, as well as to the prosecutor and defense attorney.

Although Section 510.30 of the New York State

Criminal Procedure Law permits judges to consider many factors including a defendant’s community-ties, prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, previous record of flight, and the weight of the evidence against the defendant, in their pretrial release (and bail) decisions, CJA’s existing release recommendation scheme was based solely upon a defendant's ties to the community, leaving to the arraignment judge consideration of all other factors from other sources.

Defendants having strong community ties were considered “good risks” to return for scheduled court appearances. Through interviews with arrestees and verification of the information they provided with a third party, CJA determined a defendant’s risk by assigning “points” for specific community ties found in previous research to distinguish defendants who were more likely to appear at subsequent court dates from those less likely to appear. The points were then summed to arrive at the recommendation category assigned to the defendant.

The existing point scale was based on research that was validated in 1974 (Lazarsfeld, 1974). This validation was based solely on Brooklyn data and looked only at risk of flight in Criminal Court. In the years since this research, CJA’s standard reports continued to show that those defendants recommended for release on recognizance and actually released at arraignment were less likely to fail to appear in Criminal Court than those

not recommended, even for defendants prosecuted in the other counties comprising the city.1 However, the existing point scale may not be valid for determining flight risk for Supreme Court (upper court) defendants and, given the length of time that had elapsed since the last validation, the point scale could no longer be considered the best statistical scheme even for the Criminal Court. Furthermore, in considering only the defendant's community ties, the relationship between other factors (such as a defendant's criminal history and the type of top arrest charge) and pretrial failure to appear (FTA) was unknown.

To address these concerns, CJA began a research project with three major objectives: 1) to assess the predictive ability of the existing point scale; 2) to identify other predictors of FTA; and 3) to formulate other alternative risk-classification schemes based on potentially new predictors.

The study used a random sample of 15,359 arrests that were made in the five boroughs comprising the New York City area in 1989. The study found that although the existing scheme differentiated defendants on risk of flight, there was room for improvement. Therefore, a number of statistical models were developed. The best model from that analysis was used to develop a point scale by assigning points to all of the significant variables. It contained information on a defendant’s community ties, criminal history, and the type of top arrest charge.

The 1989 model was statistically validated on the 1998 and 2001 samples of defendants (Siddiqi, 2000, 2002).

All of the variables that were significant in the

construction sample remained significant in the validation samples. However, for some of the variables, changes were observed in the magnitude of the relationship. The point scale was adjusted to address those changes. Furthermore, changes were also made to

1 CJA has a Semi-Annual Report series beginning in 1980, which supports this statement.

-2-

address policy concerns.2 To be specific, the variable reflecting the type of top arrest charge was excluded from the point scale. The re-adjusted scale was used to develop a new risk classification scheme.

The new scheme categorized defendants into low, medium, and high risk. The cutting scores were chosen by considering a number of criteria. The first criterion was to create subgroups of defendants, which would have different average FTA rates and as such represent different risk levels. The second criterion was setting a target proportion of defendants to be recommended for ROR. It was agreed that the proportion of defendants in the low-risk category of the new scheme should be higher than that under the current scheme, without increasing the FTA rate for that category. Finally, the FTA rates under the current scheme were used as a guide to classify defendants as low risk. The FTA rates for individual points comprising the low-risk group should not exceed the average FTA rate for the recommended category of the current scheme. The cutting scores for the moderate-risk category were guided by the criterion that its FTA rate should be considerably higher than the FTA rate of the low-risk category.

The logistic regression model used to develop the new point scale did not control for the effect of ethnicity and therefore, could result in misclassification of minority defendants. To illustrate, in the new point scale defendants having a telephone in the residence/cellular phone were less likely to FTA and would earn points on the scale.

Now, let us assume that the telephone variable was significantly correlated with ethnicity; blacks and Hispanics were less likely to have a telephone in the residence/cellular phone than white defendants. If the effect of ethnicity were not controlled in the logistic 2When controlling for other variables in the model, the type of top arrest charge was a significant predictor

of FTA. Defendants arrested for property, drug, criminal mischief, and VTL (Violation of Traffic Law, excluding DWI offenses) offenses were more likely to FTA than the mean effect of that variable and would score negative points on the new scale. In contrast, defendants arrested for gambling or driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol were less likely to fail and would score positive points. Concern was expressed over assigning positive points to those defendants. CJA decided to assign zero points to defendants arrested for gambling and DWI offenses. However, even with this change, Criminal Court judges suggested that this variable be excluded. As a result of this suggestion, and because of difficulties in operationalizing, this variable was excluded from the final scale.

-3-

regression model, blacks and Hispanics would lose points because of their relationship with the telephone variable. The same could be said about the other community ties variables in the scale.

Additional analysis was conducted to determine whether this was an issue for the new recommendation scheme. The analysis showed that in the 2001 at-risk sample, the proportion of defendants having a telephone in the residence/cellular phone was slightly higher for white defendants (84%) than for black (76%) and Hispanic defendants (70%).

The same was true for being engaged in a full time activity; white defendants had slightly higher rates (59%) than black (52%) and Hispanic (54%) defendants. In contrast, white defendants had the lowest proportion expecting someone at arraignment (33% for whites, 38% for blacks and 42% for Hispanics). The three groups did not differ with respect to having a New York City area address.

Although these differences were not substantial, the final logistic regression model was re-estimated with ethnicity as an additional control variable. All of the variables that were statistically significant in the original model remained significant in the re-estimated model. Ethnicity was also found to be a significant predictor of pretrial FTA.

When controlling for the other variables in the model, black and Hispanic

defendants were more likely to FTA than those with the mean effect of the variable. In contrast, white defendants were less likely to FTA than defendants with the mean effect of that variable.

Points were assigned to all significant variables in the re-estimated model.3 These points were identical to those computed for the original model, suggesting that the exclusion of ethnicity did not make the point scale biased.

The new recommendation scheme had several advantages over the existing recommendation scheme. Firstly, it took into consideration a defendant’s community ties and criminal history. The existing scheme, on the other hand, assessed a defendant’s risk 3

For policy reasons, no points were assigned to the ethnicity variable.

-4-

of flight based solely on his/her ties to the community. Secondly, the new scheme was based on research that was conducted on a citywide sample of defendants. The existing scheme was based on research that was conducted on a sample of Brooklyn defendants only. Thirdly, the new scheme would identify the at-risk population regardless of the court of disposition. The existing CJA recommendation, by contrast, was limited in its application; it identified the at-risk population exclusively in Criminal Court.

Finally,

relative to the existing CJA recommendation scheme, the new scheme would classify a substantially higher proportion of defendants as low risk, while keeping their FTA rate at the same level.

The new risk-classification scheme was presented to criminal justice practitioners for their feedback. In those meetings, concern was expressed over the reliability of the “open case” variable. CJA interviewers use the rap sheet to record the number of open cases on the interview form. Several judges and defense attorneys believed that the information on rap sheet is often inaccurate, as many of the open cases are no longer open at the time of the CJA interview. Defendants would then lose points due to inaccurate information. Suggestions were also made to limit the prior FTA information to ten years prior to the sample arrest.4 To address these concerns, the two variables were further examined. Based on the findings from that analysis, the value for the open case variable was reduced from two points to one point in the final scale.5 No changes were

4

The prior FTA variable provides an overall count of failure to appear prior to the sample arrest. It also includes post-disposition and post-sentencing warrants. Out of state warrants and warrants issued on summon appearances (SAP) are excluded from this count.

5In that analysis, it was assumed that half of the defendants with open cases did not actually have an open case at the time of arraignment. A new “open case” variable was computed by randomly selecting 50 percent of the defendants with open cases and assigning them a value of zero (no open case). This new variable was substituted with the original variable and the final model was re-estimated. The new opencase variable was also a significant predictor of pretrial FTA. Furthermore, the value of the points assigned to the revised variable did not change.

Since it was not known which defendants were incorrectly identified as having an open case, the values for the revised open case variable were flipped. Defendants who had at least one open case both in the original and the revised variable were collapsed with defendants having no open cases. The remaining half of the defendants who were assigned a value of zero were recoded as having one open case. When included in the logistic regression model, the variable was still significant. However, the point value decreased to one point.

-5-

made to the prior FTA variable.6 In January of 2003, the new scheme was presented to the Criminal Justice Cocoordinator, and at his recommendation, the cutting scores for the moderate-risk group were slightly altered.

The new recommendation scheme was implemented citywide on June 30, 2003.

Pre- and post implementation analyses will be conducted to assess its performance. These analyses will attempt to answer the following research questions: 1. Is the the performance of new recommendation better than the existing scheme in terms of classifying more defendants as low risk, while keeping their FTA rate at the existing level?

2. Since the implementation of the new recommendation scheme, has there been any shift in existing judicial release/detention practices?

The pre-implementation analysis will provide information about the performance of the existing recommendation scheme and projected distributions for the new recommendation scheme. Furthermore, judges’ release decisions at arraignment will be examined. These distributions will be compared with the actual distributions obtained from the post-implementation data.

The report is organized into five sections. The first two sections describe the existing and new recommendation schemes. The third section presents the research methodology. The last two sections report the findings and conclusions.

6The

analysis of the prior FTA variable at a 10 year cut point revealed that its effect on pretrial FTA was similar to that for the FTA at any time prior to the sample arrest; after rounding, both would yield five points to a defendant’s total score on the new point scale. Therefore, for practical reasons, the original variable was kept in the point scale; recording this information would be easier and faster.

-6-

I. Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme The existing CJA release recommendation scheme for adult defendants (16 years of age or older) in 2002 was based upon a defendant's ties to the community. The scheme included the following items: 1. whether there was a working telephone in the defendant's residence; 2. whether the defendant had resided at his or her current address for one and one-half years or longer; 3. whether the defendant expected someone (other than the complainant or defense attorney) at Criminal Court arraignment; 4. whether the defendant lived with a parent(s), spouse, common-law spouse, grandparent, or legal guardian; 5. whether the defendant was employed, in school, or in a job-training program (or some combination of these) full time; 6. whether the defendant's address was in the New York City area (the five boroughs of the City, and Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties).

With the exception of expecting someone at arraignment, there were five possible outcomes for each question: "yes," "yes verified," "no," "no verified," or "unresolved conflict." The "yes" and "no" outcomes indicated that the defendant's response had not been verified.

The "yes verified" and "no verified" outcomes were used when the

information provided by the defendant had been verified through a third-party contact. “Unresolved conflict� meant that the information provided by the defendant in the interview did not match the information given by the verifier and attempts to resolve the conflict were unsuccessful. Expecting someone at arraignment had only "yes" and "no" responses.

The recommendation was comprised of four main categories, two of which had subcategories, as follows: 1. "Recommended": Verified Community Ties (defendant needed a verified New York City area address, and items 2, 4, or 5 verified, and at least two other true items); -7-

2. "Qualified": Unverified Community Ties (defendant had an unverified New York City area address and had three other items assessed in the affirmative); 3. No Recommendation due to: A. Insufficient community ties (less than three items were answered affirmatively) B. Residence outside the New York City area C. Conflicting residence information (defendant and verifier did not agree) D. Incomplete interview; 4. No Recommendation due to: A. Open bench warrant attached to the New York State criminal history sheet B. Criminal history not available C. Bail jumping charge D. For Information Only: murder charge.

The first three categories summarized the strength of the defendant’s communityties. The fourth category of the risk-assessment scheme primarily consisted of excluding from the ROR recommendation those defendants who had demonstrated their inability to attend scheduled court appearances on a previous, pending case or those for whom the absence of a rap sheet precluded ascertaining that information. Defendants were also excluded if arrested on a bail jumping offense, which may be charged in New York State after a defendant does not return to court for thirty days or more after failing to appear while on bail or ROR. Previous failures to appear, for which the defendant returned to court and the warrant was vacated, did not preclude ROR recommendation on a new arrest.

II. New Recommendation Scheme As mentioned previously, CJA’s new recommendation scheme is based on a defendant’s ties to the community and criminal history. As with the existing scheme, all items appear in question format. They appear on the interview form as follows: 1. Does defendant report a NYC area address?

2. Does defendant have a working telephone/cellular phone in his or her residence?

-8-

3. Is defendant employed, or in school, or training program full time?

4. Does defendant expect someone at arraignment?

5. Does the prior bench warrant count equal zero?

6. Does the open case count equal zero?

Questions 1 through 4 were also part of the existing recommendation scheme.

Questions 5 through 6 are new additions to the recommendation scheme and have only two response options: “Yes” and “No.” Under the new recommendation scheme, points are assigned to a defendant’s response to the items on the scale. The point values are displayed in the boxes located to the right of the point-scale questions and the ROR interviewers are asked to circle the appropriate values. The points associated with each response option are shown in Table 1.

As can be seen from the table, the prior bench warrant question is the strongest contributor to a defendant’s total score; defendants with a prior bench warrant will have five points subtracted from their total scores, whereas defendants with no history of failure to appear will have five points added. Living at a New York City area address is also a strong contributor to a defendant’s total score on the point scale; defendants categorized as “Yes, Verified” will have three points added to their point-scale scores.

Defendants with a negative response (“No” or “No, Verified”) to that question will lose two points.

The points for each column are summed to obtain column totals. The subtotal for the positive points is obtained by summing up the totals for the “Yes” and “Yes, Verified” columns. Similarly, the subtotal for the negative points is obtained by adding points for the “No,” “No, verified” and “Unresolved Conflict” responses. A defendant’s total score is calculated by subtracting the negative subtotal from the positive subtotal. If the negative subtotal is higher than the positive subtotal, a negative sign is assigned to a defendant’s total score. A defendant’s total score can range from -12 to 12 points and is used to determine CJA’s new release recommendation.

-9-

Table 1: New Recommendation Scheme

1 Does the defendant have a working telephone in his or her residence?

2 Does the defendant report a NYC area address?

3 Is the defendant employed, or in school, or training program, full 4 Does the defendant expect someone at arraignment?

5 Does the prior bench warrant count equal zero?

6 Does the open case count equal zero?

Subtotals (Y+YV), (N+NV+UC)

Yes

Yes Verified

No

No Verified

Unresolved Conflict

1

1

-2

-2

0

0

3

-2

-2

0

1

1

-1

-1

-2

1

-1

5

-5

1

-1

Total Score (Y+YV) - (N+NV+UC)

-10-

The new recommendation scheme classifies defendants into four categories, which are as follows: A. Recommended for ROR; B. Moderate Risk for ROR; C. Not Recommended for ROR due to: 1. Open bench warrant attached to the New York State criminal history sheet 2. Bail jumping charge 3. Conflicting Residence Information 4. High Risk for FTA; C. No Recommendation due to: 1. No NYSID available 2. For information only 3. Interview Incomplete The first two categories (A and B) and fourth subcategory of category C are based on a defendant’s total score on the point scale. Table 2 presents those categories and their corresponding scores. In order to receive a “Recommended for ROR” stamp, a defendant needs seven or more points. This is the CJA’s highest positive rating for ROR recommendation.

Defendants with scores ranging from three to six points receive

the second highest recommendation, Moderate Risk for ROR. Defendants scoring less than three points are considered high risk and are not recommended for ROR. The third and fourth categories of the new recommendation scheme reflect policy exclusions, with the exception of C4. Defendants with missing information on an item do not receive a recommendation.

III. METHODOLOGY A. Sampling and Data Sources Data for the pre-implementation analysis were drawn from a cohort of arrests made in the third quarter of 2002 (July 1 through September 30, 2002). The data set

-11-

Table 2: New Pointscale Stamps for Adult Defendants

STAMP

POINTS

A.

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

+7 Points to +12 Points

B.

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

+3 Points to +6 Points

C.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR Bench Warrant Attached to NYSID Bail-Jumping Charge Conflicting Residence Information High Risk for FTA

D.

NO RECOMMENDATION No NYSID Available For Information Only Interview Incomplete

-12-

+2 Points to –12 Points

excludes cases that were not docketed in the CJA database (UDIIS), unless there was an indication that they were prosecuted as “A” dockets in Manhattan, or as direct indictments (cases for which prosecution information is not available in CJA’s database).7 The data set contained 86,997 docketed arrests. The arrest volume was slightly lower than that for the first quarter of 2001 (91,728). Six percent of the arrestees were given Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs). The remaining 94 percent were held for arraignment in Criminal Court (summary arrests). Since CJA does not make recommendations for defendants with DATs, they were excluded from the analysis.

The primary data source was the CJA database.8 The Criminal Court data were tracked through May 6, 2003.9 By that time, 98 percent of the cases had reached a disposition in Criminal Court. The Supreme Court data were extracted on June 16, 2003.

Approximately 20 percent of the cases had not reached final outcomes by that date.

Warrant information for these incomplete cases was updated on October 10, 2003. By this date, most of these cases had reached a disposition in Supreme Court.

The criminal history information was supplemented with data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).10 In the third quarter of 2002, 11 percent of the defendants had multiple arrests.

Because the objective of the point scale analysis was to examine defendant behavior, the arrest-based file was converted into a defendant-based file, where only the defendant’s

7CJA’s database does not contain court data for dockets with the same docket number. Thus, court data for “A” dockets in Manhattan (the designation used in Manhattan to distinguish between two court cases with the same docket number, one of which receives a suffix “A”) were not available for analysis. Felony prosecution in the Supreme Court as the result of a direct indictment by a grand jury is also unavailable.

Arrest information is available for both these types of records, and defendant information may be available for arrests receiving “A” dockets. To the extent that these records could be distinguished from other types of non-docketed arrests, they were retained in the dataset to maintain a complete cohort of prosecuted arrests.

8 Information about the arrest is provided by an on-line feed from the New York City Police Department.

9 If a case had multiple dockets, the Criminal Court information, including warrants, was pulled from the docket having the most severe affidavit charge (Penal Law severity).

10 DCJS did not provide data for sealed cases. The New York City Police Department, DCJS, or any agency providing data bear no responsibility for the methods of analysis used in this report or its conclusions.

-13-

first arrest during the sampling period was taken.

This file contained 56,413

defendants.11 Their arraignment dispositions are presented in Table 3.

As shown by the table, in the third quarter of 2002, 17 percent of the defendants had their cases dismissed at arraignment. Slightly more than one-fourth pled guilty and more than one-half had cases adjourned pending further appearances.12 The pre-implementation study focused on defendants whose cases were not completed at Criminal Court arraignment and who were released on ROR or bail prior to the disposition of all charges in Criminal or Supreme Court. Table 4 presents the release status for defendants whose cases were adjourned at Criminal Court arraignment. As shown by the table, in the 2002 dataset, 18748 (60%) percent of the defendants were released at arraignment, 17,375 were ROR’d and 1,373 percent made bail. Of those not released at arraignment, 6,276 were released subsequent to arraignment in Criminal or Supreme Court.

To be specific, approximately 80 percent of the

defendants whose cases were adjourned at arraignment were released pretrial in Criminal or Supreme Court. The study sample included all those 25,024 released defendants (1,8748+6,276). These distributions were similar to those reported for the 2001 dataset.

B. Research Design The new recommendation scheme was applied to the 2002 sample of at-risk defendants and their distributions in various risk categories and corresponding pretrial FTA rates were projected. The pretrial FTA measured the issuance of a bench warrant at any appearance prior to the disposition of a defendant's case in Criminal or Supreme Court. The projected distributions were compared with the actual distributions for the existing scheme. To ease interpretation, the third and fourth categories of both existing and new schemes were collapsed into one category, which was labeled as “Not

11This

number excludes juvenile delinquents whose cases were transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, non-juvenile cases transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, voided arrests, defendants who were declined prosecution, defendants who had a missing stamp under the existing recommendation system and defendants who were under sixteen years of age.

12 A comparison with the 2001 dataset showed some differences in arraignment distributions. The proportion of defendants whose cases were adjourned at arraignment increased from 51% in 2001 to 55% in 2002. In contrast, the proportion of defendants who pled guilty at arraignment dropped from 33% in 2001 to 28 percent in 2002. The two datasets did not differ with respect to their dismissal rates.

-14-

Table 3: Arraignment Outcome (Defendant-based) 2001 Dataset 2002 Dataset N=65,362 N=56,413 ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOME N % N % NON-DISPOSED

33111

51

31256

55

PLED GUILTY

21391

33

15563

28

DISMISSED

10843

16

9569

17

17

0

25

0

65362

100

56413

100

OTHER1

TOTAL 1

Other includes transfer to other borough and family court.

-15-

Table 4: Release Status for Cases Adjourned at Arraignment (Defendant-based) 2001 Dataset1

2002 Dataset2

N

%

N

%

426

1

394

1

BAIL SET, NOT MADE

11870

36

11863

38

BAIL MADE

1663

5

1373

4

ROR

18925

58

17375

56

32884

100

31005

100

RELEASE STATUS AT ARRAIGNMENT REMAND

TOTAL3 1

The release status at arraignment was missing for 227 defendants.

2

The release status at arraignment was missing for 251 defendants.

3

In the 2002 dataset, of those not released at arraignment, 6,276 were later released pretrial in Criminal or Supreme Court.

-16-

Recommended for ROR.” More specifically, this category included defendants who were either considered high risk for an ROR recommendation or who, for policy reasons, did not receive a CJA recommendation At the next step of the analysis, judges’ release decisions at arraignment were examined for defendants whose cases were adjourned. The release decisions were categorized into 1)ROR, 2)bail set, and 3)remand. Finally, to determine its performance, the new recommendation scheme was applied to all of the adult, docketed, summary cases in the dataset that were arraigned in the Third Quarter of 2002. This included both disposed and non-disposed cases at arraignment, and defendants who were never released pretrial. Comparisons were made with the existing scheme.

IV. RESULTS A. Defendant Characteristics Table 5 displays characteristics of defendants from the 2002 sample who were at risk for FTA in either Criminal or Supreme Court.

To facilitate comparisons,

distributions for the ’01 sample are also provided.

As shown by the table, the 2001 and 2002 samples did not differ with respect to defendants’ demographics. The majority of the defendants in both samples were male.

Almost half of the defendants were black, one-third were Hispanic, and the remainder were white or other ethnicity. The median age was 29 years.

In the 2002 sample, Manhattan had the highest proportion of defendants arrested (31%), followed by Brooklyn (27%), the Bronx (19%), Queens (19%) and Staten Island (4%). The 2001 sample had similar distributions.

In both samples, an overwhelming majority of the defendants were released on recognizance. Slightly more than one-tenth had their cases disposed in Supreme Court (12% in 2001 and 13% in 2002). The two samples did not differ with respect to their

-17-

Table 5: Characteristics of Defendants Released Pretrial Regardless of Court of Disposition: A Comparison of the 2002 At-Risk Sample with the 2001 At-Risk Sample

2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821 Defendant Characteristics

2002 At-Risk Sample 25,024

N

%

N

%

22455 4354 26809

84 16 100

20927 4094 25021

84 16 100

Other1

12343 9114 3476 1484

47 34 13 6

11410 8551 3241 1485

46 35 13 6

Total

26417

100

24687

100

Age at Arrest 18 and under 19-20 years 21-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 years 35- 39 years 40-78 years Total Median Age (Years)

3063 2244 4132 3818 3851 3643 6070 26821 30

11 8 15 14 14 14 23 100

2616 2272 4059 3915 3299 3218 5645 25024 29

10 9 16 16 13 13 23 100

Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx Total

7938 7905 4397 1078 5503 26821

30 30 16 4 20 100

6705 7747 4721 978 4873 25024

27 31 19 4 19 100

Type of Court Criminal Court Supreme Court Total

23616 3205 26821

88 12 100

21842 3182 25024

87 13 100

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES Sex Male Female Total Ethnicity Black Hispanic White

CASE-PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS Borough of Arrest

Page 1 of 4

-18-

Table 5 (contd.)

Defendant Characteristics CASE-PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS Type of First Release ROR Bail Total

Median Time From Arrignment to Disposition (Days) FTA Regardless of Court of Disposition Yes No Total

2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821 N %

21081 5600 26681

79 21 100

87

2002 At-Risk Sample 25,026 N %

19501 5445 24946

78 22 100

93

4223 22598 26821

16 84 100

3845 21179 25024

15 85 100

Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total

16902 7291 1289 156 314 25952

65 28 5 1 1 100

15314 7174 1337 177 290 24292

63 29 6 1 1 100

Verified Length of residence of at least 18 months Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total

12696 5811 5515 1432 532 25986

49 22 21 6 2 100

11576 5699 5144 1398 489 24306

48 23 21 6 2 100

Verified Family Ties With in Residence Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total

9834 5712 8337 1700 386 25969

38 22 32 6 2 100

9075 5595 7592 1667 343 24272

37 23 31 7 2 100

COMMUNITY-TIES ITEMS Verified NYC Area Address

Page 2 of 4

-19-

Table 5 (contd.)

Defendant Characteristics

2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821 N %

2002 At-Risk Sample 25,026 N %

COMMUNITY-TIES ITEMS Expects Someone at Arraignment Yes No Total

9866 16013 25879

38 62 100

8162 16021 24183

34 66 100

12472 7115 5380 324 668 25959

48 27 21 1 3 100

11141 6901 5086 402 714 24244

46 28 21 2 3 100

9784 4233 8657 2704 563 25941

38 16 33 10 2 100

8680 4055 8225 2870 435 24265

36 16 34 12 2 100

Yes No Total

10953 15284 26237

42 58 100

11175 13599 24774

45 55 100

Prior Violent Felony Convictions Yes No Total

2031 24790 26821

8 92 100

1970 23054 25024

8 92 100

Yes No Total

5950 20287 26237

23 77 100

5414 19376 24790

22 78 100

Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Yes No Total

7505 18732 26237

29 71 100

6868 17922 24790

28 72 100

Verified Telephone Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Verified Full Time Employment/ School/ Training Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total

CRIMINAL HISTORY First Arrest

Prior Felony Convictions

Page 3 of 4

-20-

Table 5 (contd.)

2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821

2002 At-Risk Sample 25,026

N

%

N

%

Yes No Total

6221 20016 26237

24 76 100

4891 19899 24790

20 80 100

Type of Warrant Attached to Rap Sheet Bench Warrant No Bench Warrant Total

2413 23945 26358

9 91 100

965 23818 24783

4 96 100

Yes No Total

6924 19897 26821

26 74 100

6222 18804 25026

25 75 100

TOP ARREST CHARGE SEVERITY A Felony B Felony C Felony D Felony E Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Other2 Total

335 4275 1430 5114 2618 9956 1503 1441 26672

1 16 5 19 10 37 6 5 100

308 3435 1500 5379 2510 9101 1606 1047 24886

1 14 6 22 10 37 6 4 100

8663 3380 6221 1090 870 915 870 4665 26674

32 13 23 4 3 3 3 18 100

8958 3404 5224 1134 820 428 814 4072 24854

36 14 21 5 3 2 3 16 100

Defendant Characteristics Open Cases

Prior FTA

TOP ARREST CHARGE 3

TYPE Violent Property Drug Weapon Criminal Mischief VTL DWI Other Total 1

Other includes Asian, American Indian, and others.

2

OTHER includes Unclassified Misdemeanors, Violations, Infractions, and charges outside the N.Y. State Penal Law and Vehicle and Traffic Law (e.g., Administrative and Public Health Codes).

3 VIOLENT CRIMES include: murder, negligent murder, non-negligent murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and kidnapping.

PROPERTY CRIMES include: burglary, larceny-theft, forgery & counterfeiting, stolen property, and possession of burglary tools.

DRUG OFFENSES include A) controlled substances sale/manufacture; opium, cocaine, or derivatives, marijuana, synthetic narcotics, and other dangerous drugs, and B) use/possession; opium, cocaine, or derivatives, marijuana, synthetic narcotics, and other dangerous drugs.

Dangerous weapons comprise the WEAPON category. The DWI category refers to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The CRIMINAL MISCHIEF category refers to vandalism.

VTL offenses includes all traffic offenses excluding DWI. The OTHER category consists of all other offenses not included in the aforementioned categories.

Page 4 of 4

-21-

average FTA rate (16 percent for the 2001 sample and 15 percent for the 2002 sample).

The arraignment to disposition time increased from 87 days in 2001 to 93 days in 2002.13 Examining the community ties items, an overwhelming majority of the defendants in both samples reported living at a New York City area address (92% in the 2002 at-risk sample). Three-fifths reported living with someone at the time of their arrest. Slightly less than three-fourths reported living at their current address for 18 months or longer and had a working telephone in the residence or had a cellular phone. In both samples, about one-half of the defendants reported being employed, in school, or in a training program full time and over one-third expected a relative or friend at arraignment.

In both the 2001 and 2002 at-risk samples, over half of the defendants had been arrested previously. Slightly more than one-fourth had been convicted previously on misdemeanor charges and slightly less than one-fourth had a prior felony conviction(s).

Less than one-tenth had been convicted previously on violent felony offenses. The proportion of defendants having one or more open cases at the time of the sample arrest dropped from 24 percent in the 2001 at-risk sample to 20 percent in the 2002 at-risk sample.

The percentage of defendants with a bench warrant attached to their rap sheet also dropped from 9 percent in 2001 to 4 percent in 2002. In both samples, one-fourth of the defendants had a history of FTA. One-half of the defendants in the 2002 at-risk sample were arrested for felony charges, primarily B and D felonies. Slightly less than two-fifths were arrested for A misdemeanors.14 The 2001 sample had virtually the same distributions.

A comparison of the 2002 sample with the 2001 sample revealed no differences in the type of offenses defendants were arrested for, with the exception of violent crimes.

The proportion of defendants arrested for violent offenses increased from 32 percent in 13For

cases that had not reached a disposition by the time data were extracted, the arraignment to disposition time was calculated by subtracting the date of arraignment from the date of last appearance in the datafile.

14 The at-risk sample only includes defendants whose cases were adjourned at arraignment and who were released pretrial. Approximately two-thirds of the defendants with misdemeanor or lesser charges had their cases either dismissed or pled guilty at arraignment.

-22-

2001 to 36 percent in 2002. One-fifth of the defendants in both samples were arrested for drug offenses and slightly more than one-tenth were arrested for property offenses.

To summarize the findings from this section, the 2001 and 2002 at-risk samples were virtually identical with respect to their characteristics, with the exception of slight differences in the number of defendants having an open case(s), an open bench warrant and the type of top arrest charge.

B. Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by pretrial FTA Table 6 presents the distribution of defendants under the existing CJA recommendation and their corresponding FTA rates for the 2001 and 2002 sample of atrisk defendants.

In both samples, under the existing scheme, one-quarter of the

defendants were recommended for ROR release, with an FTA rate of ten percent.

Slightly more than one-third of the defendants received a “qualified” recommendation.

Their FTA rate was 12 percent. The remaining defendants (40% for the 2001 sample, 37% for 2002 sample) were not recommended for ROR, with an FTA rate of 22 percent.

C. New Recommendation Scheme by Pretrial FTA Table 7 presents the projected numbers from the application of the new recommendation scheme to the 2001 and 2002 at-risk samples.15

In the 2001 at-risk

sample, the new scheme would classify 42 percent of the defendants as “recommended for ROR,” 19 percent as “moderate risk” and the remaining 39 percent as “not recommended for ROR/no recommendation.” Their FTA rates would be 9 percent, 14 percent and 24 percent, respectively.

In the 2002 sample, the same proportion of

defendants would be classified as low risk. However, the proportion of moderate-risk 15Due

to missing data, the N (total number of defendants) for the new scheme in both samples was lower than that for the existing scheme. When running a logistic regression model, if a defendant had a missing information on a variable, the whole case was excluded from the analysis. In the 2002 final model, 1,213 cases had missing values. In practice, most of these cases would not receive a recommendation. This will slightly change the distribution for the collapsed category of “Not Recommended for ROR/No Recommendation.” This issue will be further addressed in the post-implementation phase.

-23-

-2410648

NOT RECOMMENDED (High Risk)

26820

9569

QUALIFIED (Moderate Risk)

TOTAL

6603

N

RECOMMENDED (Low Risk)

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

100

40

36

25

%

Defendants Classified

4223

2348

1197

678

N

16

22

12

10

%

Defendants with FTA

2001 At-Risk Sample

25024

9355

9021

6648

N

100

37

36

27

%

Defendants Classified

3845

2094

1106

645

N

15

22

12

10

%

Defendants with FTA

2002 At-Risk Sample

Table 6: Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Actual Numbers)

-259756

NOT RECOMMENDED (High Risk)

25277

4864

QUALIFIED (Moderate Risk)

TOTAL

10657

N

RECOMMENDED (Low Risk)

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

100

39

19

42

%

Defendants Classified

3971

2356

671

944

N

16

24

14

9

%

Defendants with FTA

2001 At-Risk Sample

23811

8355

5146

10310

N

100

35

22

43

%

Defendants Classified

3639

2051

737

851

N

15

24

14

8

%

Defendants with FTA

2002 At-risk Sample

Table 7: New CJA Recommendation Scheme by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Projected Numbers)

defendants would increase slightly (by three percentage points), whereas the proportion of high-risk defendants would decrease by four percentage points. The two samples did not differ with respect to their FTA rates.

Table 8 presents differences in the distribution of defendants and their relative FTA rates between the existing and new schemes. When applied to the 2002 at-risk sample, the new scheme would recommend 16% more defendants for ROR, while decreasing their FTA rate by two percentage points. The new scheme would decrease the proportion of moderate-risk defendants by 14 percentage points and increase their FTA rate by two percentage points. Finally, in comparison to the “not recommended� category of the existing CJA scheme, the new scheme would contain slightly fewer defendants (35% versus 37%), while increasing their FTA rate by two percentage points. Similar differences were obtained for the 2001 sample.

D. Applying the New Recommendation Scheme to All Cases Arraigned: Citywide and Borough Distributions At the next step of the analysis, the new recommendation scheme was applied to all of the adult, docketed, summary cases in the dataset that were arraigned in Criminal Court.16

This included both disposed and non-disposed cases at arraignment, and

defendants who were never released pretrial. Comparisons were made with the distributions for the existing scheme. Tables 9 and 10 display the citywide and borough distributions for the existing and new schemes for the 2001 dataset. Tables 11 and 12 show these distributions for the 2002 dataset.

The tables show that relative to the existing scheme, the new recommendation

16The

analysis excludes juvenile delinquents whose cases were transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, non-juvenile cases transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, voided arrests, defendants who were declined prosecution, and defendants who had a missing stamp under the existing recommendation system.

-26-

-27-892

NOT RECOMMENDED (High Risk)

-1543

-4705

QUALIFIED (Moderate Risk)

TOTAL

4054

N

0

-1

-17

17

%

-252

8

-526

266

N

0

2

2

-1

%

Defendants with FTA

Defendants Classified

RECOMMENDED (Low Risk)

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

Difference In

Difference in

2001 At-Risk Sample

-1213

-1000

-3875

3662

N

0

-2

-14

16

%

Defendants Classified

Difference in

-206

-43

-369

206

N

0

2

2

-2

%

Defendants with FTA

Difference In

2002 At-Risk Sample

Table 8: A Comparison of the Alternative Risk-Classification Scheme with Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme: The Difference in the Number and FTA Rate of Low-, Moderate-, and High-Risk Defendants

-286238 5363 10378

21979

QUALIFIED FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

100

47

24

28

%

Brooklyn

23674

14408

6619

2647

N

100

61

28

11

%

Manhattan

11951

4389

4263

3299

N

37

36

28

%

100

Queens

1981

918

823

240

N

100

46

42

12

%

Staten Island

Borough of Arrest

16208

8140

5417

2651

N

Bronx

Table 9: Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned First Quarter of 2001 Dataset

100

50

33

16

%

75793

38233

22485

15075

N

Total

100

50

30

20

%

-297081 3103 10109

20293

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

100

50

15

35

%

Brooklyn

21710

12677

4034

4999

N

100

58

19

23

%

Manhattan

11268

4120

2115

5033

N

36

19

45

%

100

Queens

1701

752

320

629

N

100

44

19

37

%

Staten Island

Borough of Arrest Bronx

15281

8773

2349

4159

N

Table 10: New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned First Quarter of 2001 Dataset

100

58

15

27

%

70253

36431

11921

21901

N

Total

100

52

17

31

%

-304886 4605 6982

16473

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

100

42

28

30

%

Brooklyn

20112

11746

5773

2593

N

100

58

29

13

%

Manhattan

11240

4009

3728

3503

N

36

33

31

%

100

Queens

1966

851

707

408

N

100

43

36

21

%

Staten Island

Borough of Arrest

14214

6553

5127

2534

N

Bronx

Table 11: Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset

100

46

36

18

%

64005

30141

19940

13924

N

Total

100

47

31

22

%

-315599 2619 6882

15100

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

100

46

17

37

%

Brooklyn

18389

9917

4053

4419

N

100

54

22

24

%

Manhattan

10671

3663

2116

4892

N

34

20

46

%

100

Queens

1743

768

313

662

N

100

44

18

38

%

Staten Island

Borough of Arrest Bronx

13754

7395

2545

3814

N

Table 12: New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset

100

54

18

28

%

59657

28625

11646

19386

N

Total

100

48

19

33

%

scheme when applied to either dataset citywide, would classify a larger proportion of defendants as low risk. Beginning with the 2001 dataset, in comparison to 20 percent under the existing scheme, the new recommendation scheme would classify 31 percent of defendants as low risk (Tables 9 and 10). The comparable numbers for the 2002 dataset were 22 percent and 33%, respectively (Tables 11 and 12).

The same was true for each borough. In both datasets, relative to the existing scheme, the new scheme would classify a considerably higher proportion of defendants as low risk. For the 2001 dataset, the increase in low risk defendants would range from 25 percentage points for Staten Island to 7 percentage points in Brooklyn.17 The increases for the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens were 11, 12, and 17 percentage points, respectively. Similar increases were observed for the 2002 dataset, ranging from 17 percentage points for Staten Island to 7 percentage points for Brooklyn. The increases for Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx were 15, 11, and 10 percentage points, respectively.

The tables further show that relative to the existing scheme, the proportion of moderate risk defendants under the new scheme would decrease for the city and each borough. The citywide decrease for the 2001 dataset would be 13 percentage points. The comparable number for the 2002 dataset was 12 percentage points. The two schemes did not differ with respect to the proportion of defendants who were not recommended for ROR. It should be noted that in both the 2001 and 2002 datasets, the citywide distributions for the low and moderate risk defendants under the new recommendation scheme were lower than those reported for the at-risk sample. In contrast, the proportion of defendants who were not recommended was higher for the full dataset. Despite these 17

In Staten Island, the increase in the proportion of defendants considered low risk dropped from 25 percentage points in the 2001 dataset to 17 percentage points in the 2002 dataset. This was mainly due to an increase in the proportion of defendants considered low risk under the existing scheme in the 2002 dataset (21 percent in the 2002 dataset versus 12 percent in the 2001 dataset). The two datasets did not differ with respect to the proportion of defendants, who would be considered low risk under the new scheme (37 percent in 2001 and 38 percent in 2002).

-32-

differences, the classification of defendants into low, moderate, and high risk was consistent with that reported for the at-risk sample. Relative to the existing scheme, the new recommendation scheme would classify more defendants as low risk, decrease the proportion of moderate-risk defendants, and classify the same proportion of defendants as high risk.

E. Judicial Release Decision at Arraignment The existing and new schemes were also compared with respect to judicial release decisions at arraignment. These distributions were run on docketed cases that were adjourned at arraignment.18 It should be noted that the distributions for the new scheme reflect existing release/detention practices and might shift after its implementation.

Tables 13 and 14 show the distributions for the existing and new schemes for the 2001 dataset. Tables 15 and 16 display the distributions for the 2002 dataset.

As can be seen from the tables, in both datasets, the new recommendation scheme showed greater consistency with the judges’ release decisions at arraignment than the existing scheme. To be specific, when applied to the 2001 dataset, 73 percent of the defendants recommended for ROR would be ROR’d at arraignment versus 64 percent under the existing scheme (Tables 13 and 14). The numbers for the moderate-risk category were 67 percent for the new scheme and 61 percent for the existing scheme.

With respect to the not recommended category, 39 percent would be ROR’d under the new scheme versus 47 percent under the existing scheme.

The same pattern was observed for the 2002 sample. Under the existing scheme, the proportion of low, moderate, and high risk defendants released on ROR was 61 percent, 60 percent and 45 percent, respectively (Table 15). The comparable numbers for the new scheme would be 72 percent, 65 percent and 35 percent, respectively (Table 16).

18These

distributions exclude juvenile delinquents whose cases were transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, non-juvenile cases transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, voided arrests, defendants who were declined prosecution, defendants who had a missing stamp under the existing recommendation system and defendants who were under sixteen years of age.

-33-

-34-

N 46 108 351

505

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

QUALFIED FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

Remand

1

2

1

1

%

16426

8817

4680

2929

N

Bail Set

45

51

38

35

%

20989

7986

7662

5341

N

ROR

54

47

61

64

%

Release Status at Arraignment

Table 13: Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme By Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment First Quarter of 2001 Dataset

37920

17154

12450

8316

N

Total

100

100

100

100

%

-35-

N 95 73 278

446

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

Remand

1

2

1

1

%

15462

10275

1975

3212

N

Bail Set

45

59

32

26

%

19775

6731

4105

8939

N

ROR

54

39

67

73

%

Release Status at Arraignment

Table 14: New CJA Recommendation Scheme By Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment First Quarter of 2001 Dataset

35683

17284

6153

12246

N

Total

100

100

100

100

%

-36-

N 58 94 288

440

Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

QUALIFIED FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

Remand

1

2

1

1

%

15785

7962

4674

3149

N

Bail Set

45

53

40

38

%

18936

6836

6992

5108

N

ROR

54

45

60

61

%

Release Status at Arraignment

Table 15: Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset

35161

15086

11760

8315

N

Total

100

100

101

100

%

-37-

N 67 65 281

413

New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

Remand

1

2

1

1

%

14918

9552

2186

3180

N

Bail Set

45

63

34

27

%

17954

5312

4200

8442

N

ROR

54

35

65

72

%

Release Status at Arraignment

Table 16: New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset

33285

15145

6451

11689

N

Total

100

100

100

100

%

In sum, if judicial release practices remain unchanged, the proportion of defendants released on ROR would be highest for the low-risk category, followed by the moderate- and high-risk groups. Under the existing scheme, defendants in the low- and moderate-risk categories did not differ with respect to the judges’ release decisions at arraignment.

V. Summary and Conclusions At CJA, a new recommendation scheme was developed using a 1989 sample of defendants. The scheme was validated on the 1998 and 2001 datasets. It contained information on a defendant’s community ties and criminal history. The research showed that in comparison to the existing recommendation scheme, the new recommendation scheme would classify a substantially higher proportion of defendants as low risk, while keeping their FTA rate at the same level. As such, it had the potential of reducing the jail population while awaiting trial if followed by judges at arraignment. If all defendants classified as low risk under the new scheme were released on ROR, the population of defendants currently held in the City’s jails and the costs associated with it could be reduced. Furthermore, the identification of defendants at moderate and high risk for FTA would allow considering other release options, such as supervised release, aimed at reducing their risk of FTA. It should be noted that the supervised release is not currently an option in New York City.

The new recommendation scheme was implemented citywide in June of 2003. Its performance will be measured by conducting pre-and post implementation analyses. The present research reported findings from the pre-implementation analysis. The study was conducted on a cohort of defendants who were arrested in the third quarter of 2002. To determine changes in defendant population and case processing characteristics, comparisons were made with the 2001 dataset.

-38-

The study showed that the 2001 and 2002 samples are virtually identical with respect to their characteristics, with the exception of slight differences in the number of defendants having an open case(s), an open bench warrant, and the type of top arrest charge. Relative to the 2001 sample, the proportion of defendants with an open case(s) or open bench warrants decreased slightly. In contrast, a slight increase was observed in the proportion of defendants arrested for violent offenses. The arraignment to disposition time also increased from 87 days (median) in 2001 to 93 days in 2002.

The new recommendation scheme was applied statistically to the 2002 sample of at-risk defendants. Comparisons were made with the existing recommendation scheme with respect to the distribution of defendants in various risk categories and their corresponding FTA rates. When applied to the 2002 at-risk sample, the new scheme would recommend a substantially higher proportion of defendants for ROR, while slightly decreasing their FTA rate. It would considerably decrease the proportion of moderate-risk defendants and slightly increase their FTA rates. Finally, in comparison to the “Not Recommended� category of the existing CJA scheme, the new scheme would contain slightly fewer defendants. Relative to the existing scheme, their FTA rate would increase slightly. These distributions were similar to those reported for the 2001 at-risk sample, suggesting that the new scheme was consistent when applied across different samples.

The new scheme was also applied to the full dataset that comprised both disposed and non-disposed cases and defendants who never gained release pretrial. The findings indicated that although the proportion of defendants classified as low risk decreased somewhat, the classification of defendants into low, moderate, and high risk was consistent with that reported for the at-risk sample.

In the next phase of the analysis, the findings presented in this report will be compared with the post-implementation data. The data extraction will begin in January

-39-

of 2004. A report presenting preliminary findings will be submitted to the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator on June 30, 2004.

-40-

REFERENCES Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1974). An Evaluation of the Pretrial Service Agency of the Vera Institute of Justice. New York.

Siddiqi, Qudsia. 2000. Prediction of Pretrial Failure to Appear and Alternative Risk Classification Schemes in New York City, A Validation Study. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

Siddiqi, Qudsia. 2002. Prediction of Pretrial Failure to Appear and an Alternative Pretrial Release Risk-Classification Scheme in New York City, A Reassessment Study. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

-41-