Pretrial Recommendation System 04

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

AN EVALUATION OF THE NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY: PHASE I OF THE POST-IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH

Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D. Project Director

FINAL REPORT June 2004

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

AN EVALUATION OF THE NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY: PHASE I OF THE POST-IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH

Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D.

Project Director Marian Gewirtz Senior Research Analyst Elyse Revere

Junior Research Analyst Elizabeth Walton

Senior Research Assistant Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst Bernice Linen-Reed

Administrative Assistant

June 2004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director of CJA, and Dr. Richard Peterson, Director for Research at CJA, for their suggestions.

The author extends special thanks to Marian Gewirtz, Senior Research Analyst, for supervising the extraction of the post-implementation data. The author is also grateful to the Project staff for their contributions: Elyse Revere, Elizabeth Walton and Wayne Nehwadowich.

Thanks to Bernice Linen-Reed for her administrative assistance.

The methodology, findings, and conclusions of the study, as well as any errors, are the sole responsibility of the author.

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ ii INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 I.

OLD CJA RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM ................................................3

II.

NEW RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM .......................................................5

III. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................9 A. Sampling and Data Sources ...................................................................9 B. Research Design...................................................................................10 IV. RESULTS .....................................................................................................12 A. Defendant Characteristics ....................................................................12 B. Applying the New Recommendation System to All Cases Arraigned: Citywide and Borough Distributions................................16 C. Judicial Release Decisions at Arraignment..........................................22 V.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Items in the New Recommendation System.....................................................6 Table 2: New Recommendation System for Adult Defendants......................................8 Table 3: Arraignment Outcome ....................................................................................11 Table 4: Defendant Characteristics: A Comparison of the Pre-Implementation Dataset with the Post-Implementation Dataset ...............................................13 Table 5: New Recommendation System by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned in the Pre-Implementation Dataset (Projected Distributions).........................18 Table 6: New Recommendation System by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned in the Post-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions)...........................19 Table 7: Old CJA ROR Recommendation System by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned in the Pre-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions) ...........21 Table 8: Old CJA ROR Recommendation System by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment in the Pre-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions) ..................................................................................................23 Table 9: New CJA Recommendation System By Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment in the Post-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions) ......24

ii

AN EVALUATION OF THE NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY: PHASE I OF THE POST-IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH 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). 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, risk of flight, and the weight of the evidence against the defendant, in their pretrial release (and bail) decisions. However, prior to July 2003, CJA’s release recommendation system 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.

The old recommendation system was based on research that was validated in 1974 on a sample of Brooklyn defendants. In the years since that research, CJA’s data continued to show that those defendants recommended for ROR and actually released at arraignment were less likely to fail to appear in Criminal Court than those not recommended. This was true citywide, even though the validation research had been limited to Brooklyn. However, it was not known if the recommendation system had the ability to predict FTA in upper courts (Supreme Courts). Furthermore, given the length of time that had elapsed since the last validation, CJA wanted to re-assess the predictive accuracy of the community ties comprising the existing system and to identify other predictors of FTA, if any.

The re-evaluation study was originally conducted on a random sample of arrests that were made in the five boroughs comprising the New York City area in 1989. The study found that although the old system differentiated defendants on risk of flight, there was room for improvement.

Therefore, a number of other statistical models were

developed. The best model from that analysis was used to develop a point scale by assigning points to all the significant items in the model.

The new point scale was statistically validated on more recent samples of defendants (1998 and 2001). 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 as well as practical and policy concerns. The final scale contained information on a defendant’s community ties and criminal history.

The distribution of defendants on the scale and their corresponding FTA rates were used to develop a new recommendation system, which was implemented citywide on June 30, 2003. Pre- and post-implementation evaluations are being conducted to measure its performance.

The pre-implementation research was completed in December of 2003. It was based on a cohort of arrests made in the third quarter of 2002 (July 1 through September 30, 2002).

The post-implementation research will focus on defendants arrested in

November 2003 through January 2004. The data will be extracted in two phases. In Phase I, a defendant’s arrest and arraignment information will be drawn from the CJA database.

It will be used to examine the distribution of defendants under the new

recommendation system and judicial release behavior at arraignment. In the second phase, data will be drawn on post-arraignment appearances, including bench warrants that were issued pretrial. All the cases will be tracked to final disposition in Criminal or Supreme Court. To allow most of the cases to reach a disposition, Phase II data will be extracted one year after the last day of the sampling period. The Phase II data will be used to determine whether the new system improved upon the old system by recommending more defendants for ROR while maintaining their FTA at the same level.

-2-

The current report describes preliminary findings from data that were extracted in Phase I.

The analyses presented herein attempt to answer the following research

questions: 1. Relative to the old recommendation system, does the new system recommend more defendants for ROR? 2. Since the implementation of the new recommendation system, has there been a shift in judicial release/detention decisions at arraignment?

The report is organized into five sections. The first two sections describe the old and new recommendation systems. The third section presents the research methodology.

The last two sections report the findings and conclusion.

I. OLD CJA RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM The old CJA release recommendation system for adult defendants (16 years of age or older) was comprised of the following six 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 item: "yes," "yes verified," "no," "no verified," and "unresolved conflict." The "yes" and "no" outcomes indicated that the defendant's response had not -3-

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. That information was used to determine a defendant’s risk of flight in Criminal Court.

Under the old system, a defendant could receive one of the following recommendations: 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); 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 recommendations summarized the strength of the defendant’s community ties. The fourth category excluded from the ROR recommendation those defendants who had an active bench warrant at the time of the interview and 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 -4-

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. Finally, defendants arrested for murder charges did not receive a recommendation.

II. NEW RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM CJA’s new recommendation system is based on a defendant’s ties to the community as well as criminal history. It is comprised of the following items: 1. Does defendant report a NYC area address?

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

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 old recommendation system.

Questions 5 and 6 are new additions to the point scale. Questions 1 through 3 have five response options: "yes," "yes verified," "no," "no verified," and "unresolved conflict." As in the old recommendation system, the "yes" and "no" outcomes indicate that the defendant's response has not been verified, the "yes verified" and "no verified" outcomes are used when the information provided by the defendant has been verified through a third-party contact, and “unresolved conflict” means that the information provided by the defendant in the interview does not match the information given by the verifier and attempts to resolve the conflict were unsuccessful. Questions 4 through 6 have only "yes" and "no" options. Under the new system, points are assigned to a defendant’s response to the above items. Table 1 presents the points assigned under the new system.

-5-

Table 1: Items in the New Recommendation System

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?

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

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

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

-6-

As shown by the table, the prior bench warrant item contributes the most to a defendant’s total score; defendants with a prior bench warrant have five points subtracted from their total score, whereas defendants with no history of failure to appear have points added.1 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” have three points added to their point scale scores. Defendants with a negative response (“no” or “no verified”) to that question lose two points. Expecting someone at Criminal Court arraignment and having an open case contribute least to a defendant’s total score. Defendants who expect someone at arraignment or have no open cases score only one point on each item.

Defendants who do not expect anyone at arraignment or have an open case lose one point each.

With respect to the remaining variables in the system, defendants with affirmative responses (“yes” and “yes verified”) to having a telephone in the residence earn one point on the new scale.

In contrast, defendants recorded as “no” or “no verified” score

negative two points. Because of their statistical insignificance, no points are assigned to defendants who were categorized as “unresolved conflict” on the telephone variable.

With regard to being engaged in a full-time activity, defendants with verified affirmative responses score one point. Defendants recorded as “no” or “no verified” score negative one point. Defendants categorized as “unresolved conflict” receive negative two points.

Defendants with a “yes” response to this variable receive 1 point. A defendant’s total score can range from -12 to +12 points and is used to determine CJA’s new release recommendation.

The new recommendation system classifies defendants into four categories, which are presented in Table 2. The table also displays the points required to receive one of the recommendations.

1

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

-7-

Table 2: New Recommendation System for Adult Defendants

Recommendation

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

-8-

+2 Points to –12 Points

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. In order to be categorized as “Recommended for ROR,” a defendant needs seven or more points. This is 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 system reflect policy exclusions, with the exception of C-4. These exclusions were also applied under the old system. The “Not Recommended for ROR” category includes defendants with a bench warrant attached to the rap sheet (C-1), defendants charged with bail jumping (C-2), defendants with conflicting residence information (C-3) and defendants considered at high risks for FTA due to their point scale scores (C-4). No recommendation is offered to defendants with a missing NYSID (D-1), defendants charged with a homicide (D-2) or those with an incomplete interview (D-3).

The order of priority used to assign a stamp is D (1,2,3), followed by C (1,2,3,4), followed by B and then A. Thus, defendants with any of the policy exclusions listed in C or D are not recommended for ROR even if their point scale score is well above 7.

III. METHODOLOGY A. Sampling and Data Sources Data for Phase I of the post-implementation analysis were drawn from a cohort of arrests made November 1, 2003 through January 31, 2004. The primary data source 2

was the CJA database.

The data set contained 82,933 arrests. The arrest volume was

slightly lower than that for the pre-implementation dataset (86,997). Eight percent of the arrestees were given Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs). Since CJA does not make 2

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

-9-

recommendations for defendants with DATs, they were dropped from the analysis. After excluding arrests that were not docketed, had unavailable NYSIDs or were made for juvenile offenders (under sixteen years of age), the dataset contained 59,551 defendants who were held for arraignment in Criminal Court. Of this number, 90 percent of the defendants had only one case in the sampling period. The remaining 10 percent were arrested more than once in the sample. To present a picture of the classification of all cases under the new recommendation system, the analyses for this report will be performed on a case-based file.

B. Research Design As mentioned previously, analyses presented in this report will be limited to the information available at Criminal Court arraignment. First, we will compare the pre- and post-implementation datasets with respect to defendant characteristics. Then, using all cases in the post-implementation dataset, we will run a frequency of the new CJA recommendation system. Both citywide and borough distributions will be examined.

These distributions will be compared with the projections that were made with the preimplementation data. Comparisons will also be made with the old recommendation system.

Next, both systems will be examined with respect to judges’ release decisions at arraignment. These analyses will be performed on cases that were continued and adjourned at Criminal Court arraignment. Table 3 shows that in the post-implementation dataset, 14 percent of the defendants had their cases dismissed at arraignment. Less than one-third pled guilty and more than one-half had cases adjourned pending further appearances. These numbers were similar to those obtained from the pre-implementation dataset.

-10-

Table 3: Arraignment Outcome

Pre-Implementation

Post-Implementation

1

2

Dataset N=66,541 ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOME

Dataset N=59,551

N

%

N

%

NON-DISPOSED

36947

56

33153

56

PLED GUILTY

19269

29

17760

30

DISMISSED

10289

15

8602

14

36

0

36

0

66541

100

59551

100

3

OTHER

TOTAL 1

Pre-implementation dataset includes third quarter of 2002

2

Post-implementation dataset includes November 2003 thru January 2004

3

Other includes transfer to other boroughs and family court and abated

-11-

IV. RESULTS A. Defendant Characteristics Table 4 displays characteristics of defendants from the post-implementation dataset who were arraigned in Criminal Court. This included both disposed and nondisposed cases at arraignment, and defendants who were never released pretrial. To facilitate comparisons, distributions from the pre-implementation dataset are also provided.

As shown by the table, in both datasets, the majority of the defendants were male.

About half of the defendants were black, one-third were Hispanic and one-tenth were White. The median age in the post-implementation dataset was 30 years.

In the post-implementation dataset, Manhattan had the highest proportion of defendants arrested (32%), followed by Brooklyn (26%), the Bronx (21%), Queens (18%) and Staten Island (3%). The pre-implementation dataset had similar distributions.

Examining the community-ties items, an overwhelming majority of the defendants in both datasets reported living at a New York City area address. More than one-half reported living with someone at the time of their arrest. Two-thirds reported living at their current address for 18 months or longer. The proportion of defendants having a telephone or cellular phone increased from 65 percent in the pre-implementation dataset to 68 percent in the post implementation dataset. In both datasets, less than onehalf of the defendants reported being employed, in school, or in a training program full time. In the post-implementation data, 26 percent of the defendants expected someone at Criminal Court arraignment versus 28 percent in the pre-implementation data.

With regard to differences between “yes” and “yes verified” categories for the community-ties variables, the proportion of defendants with affirmative, but unverified responses increased in the post-implementation dataset. The differences ranged from seven-percentage points for living at a New York City area address and having a

-12-

Table 4: Defendant Characteristics: A Comparison of the Pre-Implementation Dataset with the Post-Implementation Dataset

Pre-Implementation Dataset N=66,541 Defendant Characteristics

Post-Implementation Dataset N=59,551

N

%

N

%

56557 9979 66536

85 15 100

50632 8904 59536

85 15 100

Other1

32651 22311 7963 2772

50 34 12 4

26911 18634 5998 2995

49 34 11 6

Total

65697

100

54538

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)

7143 6152 10670 9473 8477 8816 15809 66540 29

11 9 16 14 13 13 24 100

6310 5308 8892 8229 7049 7692 16071 59551 30

11 9 15 14 12 13 27 101

17367 20902 11482 2074 14716 66541

26 31 17 3 22 99

15526 18930 10785 1676 12634 59551

26 32 18 3 21 100

40422 15422 4855 400 841 61940

65 25 8 1 1 100

39514 9679 4767 183 453 54596

72 18 9 0 1 100

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

CASE-PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS Borough of Arrest Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx Total CASE-PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS COMMUNITY-TIES ITEMS Verified NYC Area Address Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total

Page 1 of 3

-13-

Table 4 (contd.)

Defendant Characteristics COMMUNITY-TIES ITEMS Verified Length of residence of at least 18 months Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total

Pre-Implementation Dataset N=66,541 N %

Post-Implementation Dataset N=59,551 N %

29551 12158 15919 3009 1324 61961

48 20 26 5 2 101

29268 7850 15331 1788 701 54938

53 14 28 3 1 99

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

22298 12045 23114 3476 968 61901

36 20 37 6 2 101

22605 7979 22019 1933 468 55004

41 15 40 4 1 101

Expects Someone at Arraignment Yes No Total

17393 44283 61676

28 72 100

13996 40623 54619

26 74 100

25496 14669 18628 955 2040 61788

41 24 30 2 3 100

27791 9486 16157 369 1024 54827

51 17 30 1 2 101

19642 7926 26398 6745 1146 61857

32 13 43 11 2 100

19221 5172 25787 4190 590 54960

35 9 47 8 1 100

21977 41265 63242

35 65 100

19706 37235 56941

35 65 100

Yes No Total

18029 44548 62577

29 71 100

16995 40044 57039

30 70 100

Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Yes No Total

23993 38584 62577

38 62 100

22396 34643 57039

39 61 100

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 Yes No Total Prior Felony Convictions

Page 2 of 3

-14-

Table 4 (contd.)

Pre-Implementation Dataset N=66,541

Post-Implementation Dataset N=59,551

N

%

N

%

Open Cases Yes No Total

16383 46194 62577

26 74 100

14349 42690 57039

25 75 100

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

4102 59078 63180

7 94 101

3657 52912 56569

7 94 101

Yes No Total

23928 42613 66541

36 64 100

21098 35830 56928

37 63 100

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

676 6708 2530 8307 4396 25957 14025 2660 65259

1 10 4 13 7 40 22 4 100

480 5356 2128 6616 3867 26529 10487 2524 57987

1 9 4 11 7 46 18 4 100

12871 8238 25191 2052 1414 1512 1037 12997 65312

20 13 39 3 2 2 2 20 100

10412 7781 19845 2013 1252 1077 1345 14282 58007

18 13 34 4 2 2 2 25 100

Defendant Characteristics

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 3 of 3

-15-

telephone/cellular phone to four-percentage points for being engaged in a full-time activity.

In both datasets, two-thirds of the defendants had been arrested previously.

Approximately two-fifths had been convicted previously on misdemeanor charges and more than one-fourth had a prior felony conviction(s). One-fourth of the defendants had one or more open cases at the time of the sample arrest. Slightly more than one-third had a history of FTA. Seven percent had an open bench warrant attached to their rap sheet.

One-third of the defendants in both datasets were arrested for felony charges. The proportion of A misdemeanants increased from 40 percent in the pre-implementation dataset to 46 percent in the post-implementation dataset, whereas a four-percentage point decrease was observed in arrests made for B misdemeanors. The two datasets were quite similar with respect to the type of top arrest charge, with the exception of drug charges.

The proportion of defendants arrested for drug charges dropped from 39 percent in the 2002 dataset to 34 percent in the 2003-4 dataset. In contrast, the post-implementation dataset showed an increase of 5 percentage points in arrests made for “other� types of charges.

To summarize the findings from this section, the two datasets were quite similar with respect to their characteristics, with the exception of slight differences in ethnicity, type and severity of the top arrest charge, and expecting someone at arraignment.

B. Applying the New Recommendation System to All Cases Arraigned: Citywide and Borough Distributions To assess whether the new system performed as well as projected, pre- and postdistributions for the release recommendations were examined. Comparisons were then

-16-

made with the old recommendation system to determine the new system’s ability to recommend more defendants for ROR. 3 Table 5 presents the pre-implementation distributions for the new recommendations. Table 6 displays the post-implementation distributions. Using the pre-implementation data, we projected that citywide 31 percent of the defendants would be recommended for ROR, 19 percent would be considered moderate risks and remaining 50 percent would either be not recommended or receive no recommendation (Table 5).4

Similar distributions were observed for the post-

implementation dataset, where 30 percent of the defendants were recommended for ROR, 20 percent were considered moderate risks and 50 percent were not recommended for release.

The comparison among boroughs also produced the same results (Tables 5 and 6). The actual and projected distributions for the “Recommended for ROR� category are as follows: Queens, 43 versus 45 percent; Brooklyn, 35 versus 36 percent; Staten Island, 35 percent for both distributions; Bronx, 27 percent for both distributions and Manhattan, 21 versus 23 percent. Similarly, no differences were observed for the

3 It should be noted that the new recommendation system was developed to achieve two major objectives: 1) to improve upon the old CJA ROR recommendation system by categorizing more defendants as low risks without increasing the FTA rate and 2) to classify defendants by their relative risk of flight.

Defendants classified as good risks for an ROR recommendation would have the lowest FTA rate. The FTA rate for moderate-risk defendants would be approximately midway between the FTA rates for lowrisk and high-risk defendants, and high-risk defendants would have the highest FTA rate. However, in the absence of FTA data at this time, we measured the performance of the new system in terms of its ability to classify more defendants for ROR. The FTA rates corresponding to the new recommendations will be examined in Phase II of the post-implementation research.

4 We used SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) to analyze data for this and previous reports.

SPSS did not assign points to cases that had missing information on one or more of the items comprising the new system. In the pre-implementation dataset, 6,855 (10%) cases had missing information. When making projections about the new recommendation system, these cases were dropped from the sample.

1,985 of these cases were not recommended under the existing system because of policy exclusions including conflicting residence information, bench warrant attached to NYSID, incomplete interview and for information only. Since the same exclusions are applied under the new system, we included those cases in the analysis and re-computed the new recommendation categories. For this reason, the numbers reported in Table 5 are slightly different than those presented in the December 2003 report. To be specific, although the number of defendants who were recommended for ROR was not affected, their percentage declined by 2 points due to an increase in the sample size. Both the number and percentage shifted slightly for defendants who were not recommended for ROR.

-17-

-185607 2637 7365

15609

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

New CJA ROR Recommendation System

100

47

17

36

%

Brooklyn

19526

11050

4056

4420

N

101

57

21

23

%

Manhattan

10791

3784

2114

4893

N

35

20

45

%

100

Queens

1904

929

313

662

N

100

49

16

35

%

Staten Island

Borough of Arrest

13931

7566

2550

3815

N

Bronx

Table 5: New Recommendation System by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned in the Pre-Implementation Dataset (Projected Distributions)

99

54

18

27

%

61761

30694

11670

19397

N

100

50

19

31

%

Citywide Total

-196869

14826

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

100

46

19

35

%

18097

10542

3731

3824

N

100

58

21

21

%

Manhattan

Citywide, four percent of the defendants had a missing recommendation.

2778

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

1

5179

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

New CJA ROR Recommendation System

Brooklyn

10548

3652

2344

4552

N

35

22

43

%

100

Queens

1460

698

254

508

N

100

48

17

35

%

Staten Island

Borough of Arrest

12213

6538

2353

3322

N

Bronx

Table 6: New Recommendation System by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned in the Post-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions)1

100

54

19

27

%

57144

28299

11460

17385

N

100

50

20

30

%

Citywide Total

moderate- and high-risk categories.

The new recommendation system was then compared with the old system to determine whether it did a better job in terms of recommending more defendants for ROR. Table 7 presents the distribution for the old system when applied to the preimplementation dataset. The numbers presented in that table represent actual distributions.

As shown by Table 7, under the old recommendation system, citywide 22 percent of the defendants were recommended for ROR. In comparison, the new recommendation system classified a considerably higher proportion (30%) of the defendants as good risks for ROR (Table 6). This was also true for each borough. The largest increase was observed for Staten Island where under the new system 35 percent of the defendants were recommended for ROR versus 21 percent under the old system. The lowest increase was found for Brooklyn where under the new system 35 percent received an ROR recommendation versus 30 percent under the old system. The increases for the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens were nine percentage points (27% versus 18%), eight percentage points (21% versus 13%), and 12 percentage points (43% versus 31%), respectively.

Tables 6 and 7 further show that relative to the old system, the proportion of moderate-risk defendants under the new system decreased for the city as well as for each borough. The citywide decrease was 11 percentage points (20% versus 31%). The borough differences ranged from 19 percentage points for Staten Island (17% versus 36%) to 8 percentage points for Manhattan (21% versus 29%).

The decreases for

Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx were 9 percentage points (19% versus 28%), 11 percentage points (22% versus 33%), and 17 percentage points (19% versus 36%), respectively.

-20-

-216982

16473

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

100

42

28

30

%

20112

11746

5773

2593

N

100

58

29

13

%

Manhattan

Citywide, four percent of the defendants had a missing recommendation.

4605

QUALIFIED FOR ROR

1

4886

N

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

Old CJA ROR Recommendation System

Brooklyn

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

46

36

18

%

100

Table 7: Old CJA ROR Recommendation System by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned in the Pre-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions)1

64005

30141

19940

13924

N

100

47

31

22

%

Citywide Total

Finally, relative to the old system, the new recommendation system classified a slightly higher proportion of defendants as high risks (50% versus 47%).5 The highest increase was observed for the Bronx (8 percentage points), followed by Staten Island (5 percentage points), Brooklyn (4 percentage points) and Queens (1 percentage point).

The two systems did not differ with respect to defendants classified as “not recommended for ROR” for Manhattan.

In both systems, four percent of the cases had missing

recommendations.

To summarize, the new recommendation system after its implementation performed as projected. Relative to the old system, it recommended more defendants for ROR and decreased the proportion of moderate-risk defendants

C. Judicial Release Decisions at Arraignment The old and new recommendation systems were compared with respect to judicial release decisions at arraignment (Tables 8 and 9). These analyses were performed on cases that were adjourned at arraignment.

As shown by the tables, the two systems differed slightly with respect to judicial release/bail decisions at arraignment. Under the old recommendation system, 54 percent of the defendants were released on ROR whereas 45 percent had bail set (Table 8). The comparable figures for the post-implementation data were 56 percent and 43 percent, respectively (Table 9). The slight increase in the ROR rate could be attributed to random variations in judicial behavior. However, changes in ROR decisions were much larger when examined by the type of recommendation CJA had made.

To illustrate, of those recommended under the old system, three-fifths were ROR’d at arraignment and more than one-third had bail set. Under the new system, the

5

The citywide increase in the proportion of the “not recommended” category under the new system was mainly due to an increase in cases with incomplete interviews (2.7% for the old system versus 4.5% for the new system).

-22-

-23-

N 58 94 288

440

Old CJA ROR Recommendation System

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 8: Old CJA ROR Recommendation System by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment in the Pre-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions)

35161

15086

11760

8315

N

Total

100

100

101

100

%

-24-

N 57 50 265

372

New CJA ROR Recommendation System

RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

MODERATE RISK FOR ROR

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR

TOTAL

Remand

1

2

1

1

%

13496

9322

1861

2313

N

Bail Set

43

61

29

22

%

17853

5555

4374

7924

N

ROR

56

37

70

77

%

Release Status at Arraignment

Table 9: New CJA Recommendation System By Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment in the Post-Implementation Dataset (Actual Distributions)

31721

15142

6285

10294

N

Total

100

100

100

100

%

proportion of defendants recommended and released on own recognizance rose to 77 percent, indicating an increase of 17 percentage points over the old system. Of those who received a qualified recommendation for ROR by the old system, 60 percent were ROR’d. In comparison, the ROR rate for the moderate-risk group under the new system was 70 percent, 10 percentage points higher than that for the old system. In contrast to these increases, the ROR rate for the “not recommended” declined from 45 percent to 37 percent.

To summarize, although the two datasets behaved similarly with respect to the overall ROR rate, the new recommendation system showed somewhat greater consistency with the judicial release decisions at arraignment. The proportion of defendants released on ROR was highest for the low-risk category (recommended for ROR), followed by the moderate- and high-risk groups. In comparison, no differences were observed in the ROR rates of the low- and moderate-risk groups of the old recommendation system.

V. Summary and Conclusion In June of 2003, based on several years of research work at CJA, a new releaseon-recognizance recommendation system for adult defendants was implemented in New York City lower courts. Pre- and post-implementation studies are being conducted to measure its performance. The pre-implementation research was completed in December of 2003. It was based on data collected on arrests made in the third quarter of 2002. The post-implementation analysis will be performed on a 3-month cohort of 2003-04 arrests (November 1, 2003 to January, 31 2004). Currently, data on a defendant’s arrest and arraignment have been extracted. These data were used to conduct preliminary evaluation analyses.

The analyses showed that the pre-and post-implementation datasets were quite similar with respect to defendant’s characteristics, with the exception of slight differences -25-

in expecting someone at arraignment and type and severity of the top arrest charge.

Fewer defendants in the post-implementation dataset reported expecting someone at their arraignment in Criminal Court than in the pre-implementation dataset. The postimplementation dataset showed an increase in defendants arrested for A misdemeanors and a decrease in defendants arrested for B misdemeanors. A slight decrease was also observed in arrests made for drug charges.

To measure its performance, the new recommendation system was compared with the old system in terms of the distribution of defendants in various risk categories. The findings indicated that the new system, after its implementation, performed as well as predicted. Relative to the old system, it recommended a substantially higher proportion of defendants for ROR and decreased the proportion of moderate-risk defendants.

The new recommendation system was also examined in relation to judges’ release decisions at arraignment. The overall ROR rate for the new system was slightly higher than that for the old system. Relative to the old system, the new system showed an increase of two-percentage points in the overall ROR rate at arraignment. This may be attributed to random variations in judicial behavior. However, more differences emerged when release decisions were examined across recommendation categories. The new recommendation system was found to be somewhat more consistent with release decisions than the old system. Under the old system, the low- and moderate-risk groups did not differ with respect to release decisions at arraignment. Under the new system, defendants recommended for ROR had the highest ROR rate, which was followed by the moderate-risk group. Defendants who were not recommended by CJA had the lowest ROR rate.

In the next phase of the analyses, FTA rates associated with various categories of the new recommendation system will be examined. To determine whether the new recommendation system has improved prediction by recommending more defendants for -26-

ROR without increasing the FTA rate, comparisons will be made with the old recommendation system.

-27-