RECIDIVISM AMONG DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONY NARCOTICS, WEAPONS OR SEX OFFENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

CJA

NEW NEWYORK YORKCITY CITYCRIMINAL CRIMINALJUSTICE USTICE AGENCY, AGENCY INC.

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

RECIDIVISM AMONG DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONY NARCOTICS, WEAPONS OR SEX OFFENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

Marian Gewirtz Project Director

FINAL REPORT

June 2009

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

RECIDIVISM AMONG DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONY NARCOTICS, WEAPONS OR SEX OFFENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

Marian Gewirtz Project Director and Senior Research Analyst

Research Assistance: Steve Mardenfeld Data Analyst David James Hauser Research Assistant Raymond P. Caliguire Graphics and Production Specialist

Information Systems Programming: Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst

Administrative Support: Annie Su Administrative Associate

June 2009

Š 2009 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report has benefited from the contributions of many colleagues at CJA. The author acknowledges the advice, information, and editorial suggestions from Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director of CJA, and Richard R. Peterson, Director of the Research Department, as well as Mary T. Phillips, and Freda F. Solomon.

The author also thanks those who provided research and other assistance for this study. Wayne Nehwadowich extracted the demographic and case processing data from the CJA database. Steven Mardenfeld programmed length of detention across criminal and supreme court data and gathered the re-arrest data for this project from the hundreds of thousands of arrest records in the CJA database. Raymond P. Caligiure assisted in the preparation of the dataset and checked the draft of the manuscript.

Annie Su prepared the final report and provided administrative assistance.

The contribution of David J. Hauser has been invaluable, both to the effort to assemble the dataset as well as to the analysis of the data. The research was greatly enhanced by his analytical abilities.

The methodology, findings, and conclusions of the study, as well as any errors, omissions or misinterpretations, remain the sole responsibility of the Project Director.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................

1

I.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................

A. The Research Population .......................................................................................

B. Collecting Re-Arrest Data .......................................................................................

C. Measurement of Recidivism ...................................................................................

D. Sources of Data ......................................................................................................

2 2 3 4 6

II.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................

A. Gender, Age and Ethnicity ......................................................................................

B. CJA Interview Items................................................................................................

6 6 7

III.

CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT ..................................................................

8

IV.

COMPARISON OF CASE PROCESSING ....................................................................

A. Borough of Prosecution ..........................................................................................

B. Criminal versus Supreme Court..............................................................................

C. Release Status and Bail at Criminal Court Arraignment .........................................

D. Detention Status and Length of Detention ..............................................................

9 9 9 10 10

V.

DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING ..........................................

A. Failure to Appear ....................................................................................................

B. Re-Arrest ................................................................................................................

12 12 12

VI.

CASE OUTCOME .........................................................................................................

A. Conviction ...............................................................................................................

B. Convicted or Acquitted at Trial................................................................................

C. Sentencing..............................................................................................................

D. Length of Case .......................................................................................................

12 12 13 13 14

VII.

RE-ARREST AFTER CASE COMPLETION .................................................................

A. Defendants Ever at Risk for Re-Arrest....................................................................

B. All Re-Arrests..........................................................................................................

C. The First Re-Arrest .................................................................................................

1. Days Elapsed from Case Completion to the First Re-Arrest .............................

2. Standardizing the At-Risk Period to the First Re-Arrest ....................................

3. Charge Severity for the First Re-Arrest within Four Years ................................

4. Charge Type for the First Re-Arrest within Four Years .....................................

D. The First Felony Re-Arrest......................................................................................

1. Days Elapsed from Case Completion to the First Felony Re-Arrest..................

2. Standardizing the At-Risk Period to the First Felony Re-Arrest.........................

3. Charge Severity for the First Felony Re-Arrest within Four Years.....................

4. Charge Type for the First Felony Re-Arrest within Four Years..........................

16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 22 22

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

VIII. MULTIVARIATE MODELS ............................................................................................

Figure 1: Survival Function by Sample Case Charge at Arraignment ...................

A. Predicting Survival for Narcotics Cases..................................................................

23 24 25

MODEL A-1: Variables predicting risk for re-arrest for narcotics cases .................

MODEL A-2: Variables predicting risk for felony re-arrest for narcotics cases.......

Figure 2: Re-Arrest Survival Function by First Arrest on NYSID Report for Narcotics Cases .....................................................................................

Figure 3: Re-Arrest Survival Function by Re-Arrest Before Case Completion for Narcotics Cases .....................................................................................

Figure 4: Re-Arrest Survival Function by Sale of a Controlled Substance for Narcotics Cases .....................................................................................

B. Predicting Survival for Weapons Cases..................................................................

26 27

MODEL B-1: Variables predicting risk for re-arrest for weapons cases .................

MODEL B-2: Variables predicting risk for felony re-arrest for weapons cases.......

32 32

C. Predicting Survival for Sex Offenses Cases ...........................................................

33

MODEL C-1: Variables predicting risk for re-arrest for sex offenses cases ...........

MODEL C-2: Variables predicting risk for felony re-arrest for sex offenses cases .

34 34

IX.

SUMMARY OF MULTIVARIATE FINDINGS.................................................................

34

X.

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................

Figure 5: Re-Arrest Survival Function by Sample Case Charge at Arraignment ...

Figure 6: Felony Re-Arrest Survival Function by Sample Case Charge at Arraignment............................................................................................

35 36

28 29 30 31

37

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I. PENAL LAW CODES ENTERING CRIMINAL COURT BY CHARGE SEVERITY ...........................................................................................................

38

TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERICS ......................................................................

A. Gender, Age and Ethnicity ......................................................................................

B. CJA Interview Items................................................................................................

40 40 41

TABLE III. CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSIDE REPORT .......................................................

43

TABLE IV. CASE PROCESSING...........................................................................................

A. Borough of Prosecution ..........................................................................................

B. Criminal or Supreme Court Processing...................................................................

C. Release Status and Bail at Criminal Court Arraignment .........................................

D. Detention Status .....................................................................................................

45 45 45 45 46

TABLE V. DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING ..................................

A. Failure to Appear ....................................................................................................

B. Re-Arrest Before Case Completion.........................................................................

47 47 47

TABLE VI. CASE OUTCOME ................................................................................................

A. Conviction ...............................................................................................................

B. Convicted or Acquitted at Trial ................................................................................

C. Sentencing..............................................................................................................

D. Length of Case .......................................................................................................

48 48 49 49 51

TABLE VII. RE-ARREST AFTER CASE COMPLETION........................................................

A. Defendants with No Time at Risk for Re-Arrest After Case Completion .................

B. All Re-Arrests..........................................................................................................

C. The First Re-Arrest .................................................................................................

D. The First Felony Re-Arrest......................................................................................

53 53 53 55 57

RECIDIVISM AMONG DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FELONY NARCOTICS, WEAPONS OR SEX OFFENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

INTRODUCTION: Previous New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) research on recidivism has focused either on the development of the Agency point scale to predict re-arrest for all defendants or on re-arrest for specific sub-populations of defendants such as juveniles, misdemeanants, or those charged with domestic violence.

Most of the

recidivism research conducted at CJA has been restricted to pretrial rather than postdispositional re-offenses. The research discussed in this report explores recidivism among defendants in three specific felony-level charge categories: narcotics, weapons, and sex offenses. The focus is on re-arrests for offenses that occurred after the instant cases were completed.

We begin with a comparison of the three types of cases in terms of defendant and case characteristics as well as case processing from arraignment through disposition and sentencing. We then examine re-arrest in terms of rates of re-arrest, severity of re-arrest charges, and elapsed time at risk to the first re-arrest and to the first felony-level re-arrest, before exploring the factors associated with the risk of re-arrest.

Cases were tracked for as long as 5 ½ years, long enough to provide an opportunity to study the long-term impact of the various demographic and court-related factors on rearrest. The research addresses three questions: 1. What are the differences in defendant characteristics, court processing and case outcome?

2. Do re-arrest rates or characteristics of the re-arrests differ?

3. Do differences in defendant characteristics, court processing or case outcome make a difference in re-arrest?

The study includes 6,473 defendants, including 5,127 charged with felony narcotics offenses, 936 charged with felony weapon offenses, and 410 charged with felony sex

offenses, who were arraigned in the New York City (NYC) Criminal Courts between July 1 and September 30, 2002.

The cases were tracked for re-arrest through December,

2007, so that most defendants, even those sentenced to jail or prison, had some time at risk for re-arrest after their study cases were completed. Defendant characteristics that were compared include defendant age, gender, ethnicity and criminal history. Among court processing and case outcome factors that were considered are borough of prosecution, release status, length of pretrial detention, disposition, sentence and length of case. We also touch on defendant pretrial behavior in terms of failure to appear as scheduled prior to disposition and re-arrest during case prosecution (excluding any rearrests while the defendants were in pretrial custody).

This report will be presented in several sections. The first section discusses the sources of the data used in the report and other data considerations including how recidivism is measured.

The second and third sections compare defendant

characteristics and criminal history, respectively, for those charged with narcotics, weapons, or sex offenses. Section four examines the processing of the cases and section five reports on defendant pretrial behavior. outcome.

The fifth section presents case

The re-arrests are the focus of the next section which addresses the total

number of re-arrests, the first re-arrest, the first felony re-arrest, and time at risk for rearrest.

Multivariate analysis of the factors associated with the risk of re-arrest is

presented in the seventh section. The report ends with a summary of the major findings and a conclusion.

I. DATA AND METHODOLOGY A. The Research Population The research includes the first docketed, felony-level narcotics1, weapon, or sex offense case for defendants arraigned in the Criminal Courts of NYC between July 1, 2002 and September 2002.

Court outcomes and re-arrests were tracked until

December 31, 2007.

1

Felony narcotics charges include felony charges in 220 and 221 Penal Law sections

2

The specific charges are listed in Table I. Nearly two thirds of the defendants in this research faced B-felony charges, including 78 percent of the defendants charged with narcotics offenses. Barely half of the sex offenses charges were B felonies as were only two percent of the weapons charges. Most of the weapons offenses were D felonies.

Nearly eight of every ten defendants in this research were charged with a felonylevel narcotics offense, including felony charges in 220 and 221 Penal Law sections.

As shown in Table 1, one charge, PL 220.39, sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, a B felony, accounted for more than half of the felony narcotics cases. Second in frequency among the narcotics cases was another B felony, PL 220.16, possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which accounted for nearly a quarter of those entering Criminal Court charged with felony-level narcotics offenses.

About one in every seven defendants in this research was charged with a felonylevel weapons offense.

The most common of the weapons charges was PL 265.02,

possession of a weapon in the third degree, a D felony, followed by PL 265.03, possession of a weapon in the second degree, a C felony; the two accounted for 64 percent and 34 percent of weapons charges, respectively.

Only six percent of the defendants in this research were charged with a felonylevel sex offense.

The most frequent sex offense charge was PL 130.35, rape in the

first degree, a B felony (36%), followed by PL 130.65, sex abuse in the first degree, a D felony.

B. Collecting Re-Arrest Data Re-arrest data were collected from the first date the defendant was at risk for rearrest after case completion. If the defendant was sentenced to serve jail or prison time, the defendant was not considered to be at risk for re-arrest until after release from custody. Some defendants were not at risk for re-arrest at all for this research. Some cases were still pending disposition or sentence at the close of data collection, including defendants who failed to appear and had not returned on the warrant.

Some

defendants were not at risk for re-arrest because they were in custody serving prison sentences at the close of data collection, or because they were deceased or deported.

3

In New York State (NYS), the NYS Identification number (NYSID) is the number that is associated with a defendant’s fingerprints. It is challenging to collect re-arrest data in NYC because of the way the NYSID is used for cases that are dismissed, adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD), or which result in conviction at the violation level or in which the defendant is adjudicated as a ‘Youthful Offender.’2 The central problem is that defendants may be assigned a new NYSID number if the arrest on the prior NYSID number resulted in any outcome other than conviction at a misdemeanor or felony level. Defendants may have one NYSID number for their first arrest, a new NYSID number for a second arrest if the first arrest resulted in dismissal, and a third NYSID if the second arrest resulted in conviction for an infraction, such as turnstile jumping, possession of a small quantity of marijuana, or disorderly conduct.

Once there is a felony or misdemeanor conviction recorded on a NYSID, subsequent arrests will be associated with the same NYSID.

For this reason, re-arrest data were

collected using the NYSID number, but we also relied on database searches using name and date of birth and common variations on the name and birth date.

C. Measurement of Recidivism It is simple to state that recidivism was measured by official records of re-arrest, as recorded in the CJA database, but there are issues that impinge on measuring recidivism in a meaningful manner. Some re-arrests may reflect the police decision to clear another reported crime that was not associated with the defendant at the time of the initial arrest, so we tallied re-arrest only when the date of the offense followed the completion date for the sample arrest, ensuring that all re-arrests were for incidents that followed the close of the sample case. All post-disposition re-arrests that occurred while the defendant was in custody were excluded. It was more difficult to exclude subsequent in-custody re-arrests from re-arrest tallies because we did not collect pretrial detention nor sentencing data for the earlier re-arrests.

We attempted to

exclude the subsequent in-custody re-arrests by meticulously checking re-arrests associated with arrest charges that seemed likely to have been committed in-custody, 2

A Youthful Offender adjudication relieves certain first-time defendants under 19 years old of a criminal record by vacating a misdemeanor or felony conviction.

4

such as contraband charges. We also examined the defendant’s address at re-arrest to exclude re-arrests associated with common Riker’s Island addresses.

Re-arrests for

other authorities (FOAs) are also excluded.

The severity of the re-arrest may also be important. Some re-arrests were for violent felony offenses while other defendants faced subsequent charges that were far less serious (i.e., Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions). For some purposes, any rearrest counts as recidivism, so all re-arrests were tallied for this research. However, rearrests with felony charges were also tallied separately. We also separately tallied rearrest cases that were docketed in the criminal court, in contrast to cases that were declined prosecution by the district attorney’s office without arraignment in the criminal court.

Defendants who had no time at risk after case completion were excluded from analysis of re-arrest. These are defendants whose cases did not reach disposition or sentencing and those who were still serving jail or prison time at the close of data collection.

Defendants who died during the processing of their sample cases or in

prison and the 147 defendants who were transferred to the United States Department of Immigration for deportation after completing their prison sentences did not have any time at risk for re-arrest in NYC. We measure time at risk for re-arrest for defendants who were not re-arrested as the number of days between the date of sample case completion and December 31, 2007, the close of data collection. This probably over-estimates time at risk since some of these defendants may have died, moved to other cities, states or countries, or been imprisoned in other jurisdictions. We also over-estimate time at risk for any defendants who are imprisoned for parole or probation violations after case completion if the violation is not a consequence of re-arrest.

Use of re-arrest to measure recidivism has two familiar disadvantages. First, and most important, re-arrest is likely to underestimate recidivism because new offenses may not lead to re-arrests. This underestimate of recidivism rates is a common problem for studies that use re-arrest to measure recidivism. Here we attempt to compensate for this problem to some extent by using a long data-collection period. Since it is likely that recidivists are likely to re-offend multiple times, using a long period increases the

5

chances that at least one of the re-offenses will lead to a re-arrest.

The second

limitation is that the re-arrest data collected for this research are restricted to arrests that occur in NYC. However, some geographic limitation is common to most studies of re-arrest. The re-arrests in the CJA database, despite its limitation to NYC, probably include most of the re-arrests for the defendants in this research.

D. Sources of Data The data for this study were drawn primarily from the CJA database.

This

database contains information about the arrest, case processing and case outcomes for most NYC arrestees, taken from the CJA pre-arraignment interview, the NYC Police Department’s Online Booking System (OLBS), and the NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA) court appearance history files.

The NYS Department of

Correctional Services (DOCS) Inmate Population Information Search on-line database was consulted for prison release information for every defendant sentenced to prison.

Re-arrest and time-at-risk information were supplemented with data from the Division for Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).

II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS A. Gender, Age and Ethnicity Nearly nine of every ten defendants charged with felony narcotics, weapons, or sex offenses were male. Defendants in felony narcotics cases were more likely to be female (13%) than those in weapons (6%) or sex offenses cases (1%).3 Defendants in felony weapons cases were younger than defendants in narcotics or sex offenses cases (mean of 27 years, compared to 32 and 33 years). Half of the defendants in weapons cases were under age 24, compared to 29 and 31 for those in narcotics and sex offenses cases, respectively. More than a quarter of the defendants in weapons cases were 20 or younger, compared to 18 percent of defendants in narcotics cases and 17 percent of those in sex offenses cases (Table II-A).

3

Hereafter, the terms “narcotics defendants,” “weapons defendants,” and “sex offenses defendants” will be used to refer to the defendants arraigned in narcotics, weapons and sex offenses cases.

6

CJA personnel interview virtually all arrestees who are held for arraignment to determine their ties to the community. During the CJA interview, arrestees are asked if they are Hispanic. Then ethnicity is recorded from observation, or, if it is unclear to the interviewer, the arrestee is asked to choose the best category. Just over a third of the defendants in the cases included in this research were Hispanic, over half were nonHispanic black, and seven percent were non-Hispanic white. Most of the remaining defendants, categorized as “other,” were Asian.

B. CJA Interview Items After CJA personnel complete the interview, they telephone defendants’ families and friends to verify the information provided by the defendant. The cases in this research were interviewed prior to the transition from paper interviews to hand-held computers; thus limited interview information is available.

Also, a new system for

recommending adult defendants for release on recognizance (ROR) was introduced in 2003, again after the arraignment date range for the cases in this research. We report here only on the interview items that were included among the criteria for CJA’s release recommendation to the Court in 2002.

The responses to the interview items suggest weaker community ties among defendants arraigned on felony narcotics charges than for those arraigned on felony weapons or sex offenses charges (Table II-B). Defendants in felony narcotics cases were less likely to report that they were employed, in school, or in training programs full time (34%) than were defendants in weapons (50%) or sex offenses (55%) cases. The defendants in narcotics cases were also less likely to report that they lived with their parent, spouse or grandparent (56%, compared to 65% and 60% for those in weapons or sex offenses cases, respectively). The proportion of defendants with a telephone in their residence was also far lower for those charged with narcotics offenses (57%) than for their counterparts charged with weapons or sex offenses (74% and 75%, respectively.)

Defendants in narcotics cases were less likely to indicate that they

expected ‘someone’ at their arraignment (36%) than were those in weapons (49%) or sex offenses (42%) cases.

7

In contrast, there was little difference across the charge categories in the proportion of defendants who indicated that they had lived at their current address for 18 months or longer. Defendants charged with sex offenses were less like to report an out-of-NYC area address (out of the five boroughs, Long Island and Westchester) than were those in other cases. Only four percent of defendants in the sex offenses category resided outside NYC, compared to 10 percent and 11 percent of those in the weapons or narcotics categories, respectively.

In summary, roughly two thirds of the defendants arraigned on felony-level weapons or sex offenses charges were recommended for ROR, based on verified or unverified community ties information, compared to only half of the defendants arraigned on felony narcotics charges.

A third of those in the narcotics category,

compared to less than a quarter of those in the other charge categories, were deemed to have insufficient community ties to qualify for a recommendation for release.

III. CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT There were wide differences in criminal history across the defendants in the three charge type categories (Table III). Only a quarter of the defendants charged with narcotics offenses had no prior arrests on their NYSID reports compared to 36 percent of those charged with weapons offenses and half of those charged with sex offenses.

At the other side of the criminal history spectrum, defendants in narcotics cases were roughly twice as likely to have two or more felony convictions (22%) than were those in weapons (13%) or sex offenses (10%) cases.

Defendants charged in felony-level narcotics cases had a higher average (mean) number of misdemeanor convictions (2.7, compared to less than one for the other charge categories) and felony convictions (0.8, compared to 0.5 and 0.4 for the weapons and sex offenses categories).

More than four of every ten defendants in

narcotics cases, but just over three of every ten in weapons cases and two of ten sex offenses cases, had at least one felony conviction.

Defendants in the narcotics

category were about twice as likely to have two or more felony convictions as their counterparts in the other charge categories (23%, compared to 13% and 10%, for the weapons and sex offenses categories, respectively).

8

Many defendants had been adjudicated “Youthful Offenders” on a previous arrest.

Defendants charged with sex offenses (4%) were far less likely to have a

previous “YO” than were those charged with narcotics or weapons offenses (14% and 15%).

IV. COMPARISON OF CASE PROCESSING A. Borough of Prosecution Felony narcotics, weapon and sex offenses cases are not evenly drawn from the five boroughs of NYC. The borough composition of the research cases reflects the borough composition of the narcotics cases; that is, since the vast majority of cases were narcotics cases, the borough with the most cases also had the most narcotics cases (Table IV-A). More cases were prosecuted in Manhattan (37%) than in any other borough, and Manhattan cases constituted 42 percent of the felony narcotics cases in this research. Manhattan cases were underrepresented among the weapons (19%) and sex offenses (26%). The Bronx accounted for just over one of every three cases and about the same percent of the narcotics cases (32%).

While cases prosecuted in

Brooklyn accounted for less than a fifth of the cases included in this research, more than a third of the weapons cases were processed in Brooklyn. Queens cases, which accounted for little more than a tenth of the cases in this research, are also overrepresented among the weapons cases (19%).

B. Criminal versus Supreme Court4 Defendants charged with felony-level sex offenses were more likely to be prosecuted in the Supreme Court than were defendants charged with felony-level weapons or narcotics offenses (66%, compared to 48% and 50%, Table IV-B).

4

Note that the arraignment date range for this research precedes the restructuring of the Bronx Criminal and Supreme Courts to create a single, integrated, court of criminal jurisdiction. As of November 2004, criminal cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment in the Bronx are transferred directly to Supreme Court for adjudication.

9

C. Release Status and Bail at Criminal Court Arraignment Two thirds of the defendants in this research whose cases were continued at arraignment in Criminal Court were detained on bail or remanded with no bail set at the first appearance in the lower court (Table IV-C). Similarly, one third of the defendants were released at that early stage of processing. The rate of release was higher for the defendants facing narcotics charges (36%) than for those facing sex offenses (30%) or weapons offenses (27%).

The amount of bail set5 at arraignment was higher for defendants charged with sex offenses, followed by those charged with weapons offenses, and lowest for those with narcotics charges.

Bail was set over $10,000 for more than a third of the

defendants charged with sex offenses, compared to barely a fifth of those charged with weapons offenses and only twelve percent of the defendants in the narcotics category.

Bail was set at $1,500 or less for more than a quarter of the narcotics defendants and for nearly that proportion (22%) of the weapons defendants, but for only twelve percent of the sex offense defendants.

The mean (average) and median (midpoint) bail amount set at arraignment in Criminal Court were quite high for the defendants in this research ($12,923, and $3,500, respectively).

The average bail amount set at arraignment was highest for the

defendants in the sex offenses category (mean of $20,109 and median of $7,000), followed by those in the weapons category (mean of $12,935 and median of $5,000) and was lowest for those charged with narcotics offenses ($12,233 and $3,500).

D. Detention Status and Length of Detention Most of the defendants were released at some point during case processing (Table IV-D).

More than a quarter (28%) were released throughout the prosecution of

the charges and seven percent were released at arraignment but were later detained.

Nearly four of every ten defendants in this research were held at Criminal Court

5

The bail was summed across all dockets and is the amount the defendant would forfeit if the bail were posted and the defendant failed to appear. That is, the bail amount is the lower of the bond and the cash alternative set, if any.

10

arraignment but were later released.

A quarter of the defendants were detained

throughout case prosecution.

Examination of detention status by charge category at least in part reflects differences in the release status set at arraignment.

Defendants in the narcotics

category showed the highest rate of release at arraignment (36%, compared to 27% and 30% for the weapons and sex offenses categories) and showed the highest proportion detained after release at arraignment (8%, compared to 3% and 2% for the weapons and sex offenses categories). The defendants who faced narcotics charges showed the lowest rate of detention at arraignment (64%, compared to 73% and 70% for those facing weapons and sex offense charges) and showed the lowest proportion of release after detention (37%, compared to 49% and 51% for those facing weapons or sex offense charges). However, it is the defendants charged with sex offenses that are least likely to be held throughout case prosecution (19%, compared to 25% of defendants charged with weapons offenses and 27% of those charged with narcotics offenses).

Length of detention was measured from the first day that the defendant was held to the date of release, summed across all admissions to custody on the sample case.

This includes days of detention through the date of disposition and, if the case was adjourned for sentencing, through the date of the sentence. Although defendants who faced narcotics charges were less likely to be detained at arraignment (64%) than their counterparts who were charged with weapons or sex offenses (73% and 70%), those who were detained spent more days in detention.

Narcotics defendants were about

half as likely to be detained three days or less (14%, compared to 26% and 23% for weapons and sex offenses defendants, respectively) and they were about a third more likely to be detained more than three months (30%, compared to 23% and 22%). The median number of days in detention was 30 for the defendants in the narcotics category, 12 for those charged with weapons offenses, and 10 for defendants charged with sex offenses.

11

V. DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING A. Failure to Appear A defendant was considered to have ‘failed to appear’ if he or she missed a scheduled court appearance and a warrant was ordered. The number of appearances that were not missed was not tallied for this research.

As shown in Table V-A, defendants arraigned on felony narcotics charges were more likely to miss at least one scheduled appearance (13%) than were defendants arraigned on sex offenses (10%) or weapons charges (9%).

B. Re-Arrest The research presented in this report focuses on re-arrest after case prosecution was completed. Here we discuss re-arrest during the course of prosecution for the sample arrest, excluding any re-arrests that may have taken place while the defendant was in pretrial custody. The pretrial re-arrest data have not been adjusted to account for time at risk, nor do we report the type or severity of the re-arrest charges. Rearrests were included if the date of the incident followed the date of the arrest for the sample case and preceded the date of sentencing, if any, or the date of disposition.

Narcotics defendants were more likely to be re-arrested pretrial and were rearrested more often than defendants in the other charge type categories (Table V-B).

Twenty-one percent of defendants in the narcotics category were re-arrested prior to case disposition, compared to 18 percent of those in the weapons category and 15 percent of those in the sex offenses category. Eight percent of narcotics defendants were re-arrested two or more times prior to case completion, compared to six percent and four percent of defendants in the weapons and sex offenses categories, respectively.

VI. CASE OUTCOME A. Conviction Conviction rates were much higher for the defendants in narcotics cases (73%) than for the defendants in other cases in this research (53%, Table VI-A).

The 12

defendants arraigned on narcotics charges also showed the highest rate of conviction at the felony level (46% of all narcotics cases, compared to 41% of all weapons cases and 28% of all sex offenses cases). While the conviction rate was the same for defendants in weapons cases as for those in sex offenses cases, the rate of felony-level conviction was far higher for those in weapons cases (41% of all weapons cases, compared to 28% of all sex offenses cases).

Among the cases that resulted in convictions, the weapons cases were most likely to show conviction at the felony level (77%), and those convictions were concentrated at the D-felony level. Sixty-three percent of the defendants in narcotics cases that resulted in convictions were convicted of felonies as were 53 percent of the convicted defendants in sex offenses cases. As one might expect, the most severe conviction charge was of the same type as the charge at affidavit on the sample case for most of the convicted defendants in this research: The conviction charge was a narcotics offense for 84 percent of narcotics cases, a weapons offense for 81 percent of weapons cases, and a sex offense charge for 68 percent of sex offenses cases.

B. Convicted or Acquitted at Trial The data on trials that is presented here is restricted to convictions or acquittals at trial and does not include trials that result in pleas, dismissals, or any other dispositions. Convictions and acquittals at trial are rare in the NYC courts. As of the close of data collection in December 2007, two percent of the defendants in the sample cases arraigned between July 1 and September 30, 2002, had been convicted or acquitted at trial (Table VI-B). Convictions and acquittals at trial were more common among the defendants in sex offenses cases (6%) than among those in weapons (3%) or narcotics (2%) cases.

C. Sentencing Defendants in narcotics cases were far more likely to be sentenced to serve time in jail or prison than were the other defendants in this research (Table VI-C). Of all the defendants who were arraigned on narcotics charges, nearly four of every ten were

13

sentenced to time, and an additional twelve percent were sentenced to time already served.

Little more than a third of all defendants arraigned on weapons charges and

little more than a quarter of all defendants arraigned on sex offenses charges were sentenced to time.

Once the defendants were sentenced to time, however, the sentences were longest for defendants prosecuted for sex offenses. More than a third of defendants arraigned on sex offenses charges who were sentenced to time were sentenced to serve four years or more, compared to only 16 percent of their counterparts in the weapons category and only eight percent of those in the narcotics category.

New York State provides for different sentences to be imposed based on the type of offense, the defendant’s age and the defendant’s criminal history. Nearly one in every ten defendants in this research was sentenced as a Violent Felony Offender (VFO), including more than half of the defendants in weapons cases and more than a third of those in sex offenses cases. As one might expect, few defendants in narcotics cases were sentenced as VFOs. Twelve percent of the defendants in this study were sentenced as Second Felony Offenders, Second Violent Felony Offenders, Persistent Felony Offenders, or Persistent Violent Felony Offenders.

The sentences for all of

these defendants were increased to reflect the special conditions of sentence.

In contrast, four percent of the defendants were sentenced as Youthful Offenders and therefore received lesser sentences as part of the Youthful Offender adjudication.

More of the defendants in weapons cases were adjudicated Youthful Offenders (8%) than were those in narcotics (4%) or sex offenses cases.

D. Length of Case We measured length of case at three intervals in this research: from arraignment in Criminal Court to disposition, from arraignment in Criminal Court to sentencing6, if any, or disposition, and from disposition to sentencing for defendants who were sentenced. We attempted to exclude from our tallies any delay caused by defendants

6

For 181 cases (177 narcotics, 2 weapons and 2 sex offenses) that were dismissed after the defendants pled guilty, the date of dismissal was used in lieu of a date of sentencing to measure the length of the case.

14

failing to appear for scheduled adjournments which resulted in the issuance of bench warrants, but the failure-to-appear data were complete only for the first warrant in Criminal Court and the first warrant in Supreme Court prior to the disposition in that court. This includes the overwhelming bulk of pre-disposition warrants in both courts, so the number of days between any missed appearances to the return on the warrant was subtracted from the tallies of days from arraignment to disposition and from the tallies of days from arraignment to sentencing, if any. However, data on second and later failures to appear prior to disposition and data on any warrants ordered between conviction and sentencing was not available, and the applicable measures of length of case are therefore inaccurate. We present the distribution of length of case and the mean and median number of days between case processing milestones because the data are strong enough to permit comparison by type of charge.

As shown in Table VI-E, sex offense cases moved slower to disposition (mean 161 days, median 133 days) than did weapons (mean 145 days, median 86 days) or narcotics (mean 129 days, median 69 days) cases.

However, after conviction, the

pattern becomes more complex. Narcotics cases showed the highest proportion of cases in the shortest category (31% sentenced within 3 days of disposition, compared to only 21% of sex offenses cases and only 16% of weapons cases) and also the highest proportion of cases in the longest category (13% sentenced more than one year after disposition, compared to only 5% for cases of both of the other charge types). The narcotics cases also showed the highest mean (138 days, compared to 84 and 72 for the weapons and sex offenses cases, respectively) and the lowest median (28 days, compared to 43 and 38, again, respectively).

The high number of days between

disposition and sentencing for narcotics cases reflects, at least in part, the inclusion of cases that were eventually dismissed after the defendants had pled guilty. These are overwhelmingly cases in which defendants had participated in drug-treatment programs.

15

VII. RE-ARREST AFTER CASE COMPLETION A. Defendants Ever at Risk for Re-Arrest Re-arrest data were collected for re-offenses that occurred between the date the defendant’s case was completed and December 31, 2007, for all defendants arraigned on a felony-level narcotics, weapons, or sex offenses charges in the third quarter of 2002. Cases were considered completed when they reached the end of prosecution in Criminal or Supreme Court and fulfilled any jail or prison time mandated by their sentence. Data on release from prison was available from the NYS DOCS Inmate Population Information Search online database. For defendants sentenced to local jail time, an approximate release date was created based on the “Calculated Sentence Length� (CSL) developed by Mary T. Phillips for a study estimating jail displacement for defendants mandated to alternative-to-incarceration programs in NYC (Phillips, 2002)7.

The CSL8 was devised as a way of estimating time likely to be served, assuming time off for good behavior. Any pre-sentence detention time was subtracted from the CSL to estimate credit for time served.

Cases that were not completed were excluded from re-arrest analysis, but only two percent of the arraigned cases were not completed by the close of data collection.

An additional five percent of the cases were excluded because they had no time at risk following their sentence and prior to December 31, 2007, either because they were still incarcerated on that date or because they were released from prison for deportation9.

Nearly one percent of the defendants were excluded because they were deceased, either during case prosecution or while they were in prison (Table VII-A).

There were slight variations in these exclusions by type of charge. Defendants in sex offenses cases were more likely to remain incarcerated at the close of data collection (7%, compared to 3% for defendants in weapons cases and 2% for those in narcotics cases).

Defendants in narcotics cases may be slightly more likely to be

7

Phillips, Mary T. Estimating Jail Displacement for Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs in New York City. The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, August 2002, pages 46-47.

8

The CSL two thirds (.667) of definite sentences, two thirds (.667) of the maximum for indeterminate sentences, and six sevenths (.857) of determinate sentences.

9

147 defendants were transferred to the United States Department of Immigration for deportation after completing their prison sentences.

16

deported (2%, compared to 1% for the other charge type categories).

In total, 11

percent of the sex offenses cases, eight percent of narcotics cases and seven percent of weapons cases were excluded because the defendants had no time at risk after case completion.

B. All Re-Arrests There were 15,336 re-arrests for the 5,968 defendants in this research who were ever at risk for re-arrest after completion of their cases. Nine percent of these re-arrests were not docketed, but this varied little by the charge type for the third quarter 2002 case.

The average (mean) number of re-arrests was higher for the defendants

arraigned on narcotics charges (2.7 re-arrests) than for those arraigned on weapons (2.1 re-arrests) or sex offenses (1.6 re-arrests) charges (Table VII-B).

Less than four of every ten re-arrests were for felony-level charges, four of every ten were for A misdemeanors, 17 percent were for B or unclassified misdemeanors, and five percent were for violations, infractions, or other non-Penal Law charges (Table VIIB.1).

The most common single re-arrest charge was possession of a controlled substance in the 7th degree (PL 220.03), an A misdemeanor, which is the most severe arrest charge for 14 percent of the re-arrests. The second most common re-arrest charge is also a narcotics offense, sale of a controlled substance in the 3rd degree, a B felony, the most severe arrest charge for 12 percent of the re-arrests.

Nearly half of the re-arrests were for a narcotics offense, including 21 percent at the felony level and 26 percent at the misdemeanor or lesser severity level. Fully half of the re-arrest charges were narcotics offenses for defendants initially arraigned in felony narcotics cases, but narcotics offenses were also the most common type of re-arrest for defendants arraigned in weapons (37%) or sex offenses (19%) cases (Table VII-B.2).

Few of the re-arrests were for weapons (4%) or sex offenses (less than 1%), even among those initially arraigned on weapons charges (8% were of the same type) or sex offenses (3% were of the same type). However, while only eight percent of the re-arrests were for any type of assault, 16 percent of the re-arrests among defendants

17

initially charged with sex offenses were for an assault. Less than one percent of all of the re-arrests were for murder or attempted murder.

C. The First Re-Arrest Sixty-three percent of the defendants in this research who were at-risk for rearrest were re-arrested between the completion of their third quarter 2002 case and the close of data collection on December 31, 2007. The proportion of defendants who were re-arrested was highest for those initially arraigned on felony narcotics charges (65%), followed by those arraigned on weapons charges (59%), and lowest in the sex offenses category (50%).

1. Days Elapsed from Case Completion to the First Re-Arrest To calculate days elapsed to the first re-arrest, we tallied the days from the completion of the sample case to the date of the re-arrest. The completion date is the date of release from jail or prison for defendants sentenced to serve time, the date of sentencing for defendants who were not sentenced to serve time in jail or prison, and the date of disposition for defendants who were not convicted.

The first re-arrest tended to occur fairly quickly after case completion (Table VIIC.1). Of the defendants who were re-arrested, eleven percent of them were first rearrested within one month after the completion of their 2002 sample case, a quarter were re-arrested within three months, 43 percent were re-arrested within six months, 62 percent were re-arrested within a year and 82 percent were re-arrested within two years. Conversely, however, more than two years elapsed before the first re-arrest for 18 percent of the defendants, more than three years elapsed for eight percent of the defendants and more than four years elapsed before the first re-arrest for three percent of the defendants.

Of all the defendants who were re-arrested, those in the narcotics category tended to be first re-arrested more quickly than those in the other categories. For example, 27 percent of the defendants in narcotics cases were re-arrested with three months of the completion of their initial case, compared to 18 and 19 percent of those in weapons and sex offenses cases, respectively.

18

2. Standardizing the At-Risk Period to the First Re-Arrest The re-arrest rates discussed earlier include all defendants who were ever at risk for re-arrest after the completion of their sample case, but the comparisons across the charge type categories may be affected by any differences in the length of time at-risk by charge type. That is, if the defendants in one of the charge type categories had less time at risk than defendants in other categories, those with less time at risk would have had a reduced opportunity to be re-arrested, and less time at risk could constrain the rearrest rate for that charge type category.

The at-risk period was standardized by

including only defendants who were at risk for re-arrest for a specific number of years or who were re-arrested within that time. Although 5,968 defendants were at risk for rearrest for at least one day after case completion and prior to the close of data collection, 91 of these defendants were at risk for less than one year and were not re-arrested within that time. Thus, these 91 defendants are not included in the base of the re-arrest rate for defendants at risk for one year or more. There were 130 defendants who were at risk for one year or more who were not at risk for two years or more and who were not re-arrested during their time at risk and are therefore excluded from the two-yearsor-more-at-risk re-arrest rate.

We examined rates of first re-arrest for four standardized time periods at one year intervals (Table VII-C.2). The defendants in felony narcotics cases showed the highest rates of re-arrest for each standardized period examined. Barely a quarter of the defendants charged with sex offenses who were at risk for one year or more were re-arrested within one year, compared to about a third of those charged with weapons offenses and 41 percent of the defendants charged with narcotics offenses. At four years at risk, more than half of the defendants in sex offenses cases but nearly two thirds of those in weapons cases and nearly three quarters in narcotics cases had been re-arrested.

3. Charge Severity for the First Re-Arrest within Four Years Roughly four of every ten first re-arrests within four years of case completion were for felonies, with very little difference across charge type categories: 43 percent

19

for defendants in narcotics cases, 40 percent for those in weapons cases, and 39 percent for those in sex offenses cases (Table VII-C.3).

4. Charge Type for the First Re-Arrest within Four Years The first re-arrest was a narcotics offense for nearly half of the defendants rearrested within four years.

The first re-arrest was more likely to be for narcotics

offenses for narcotics defendants (53%) than for weapons (36%) or sex offense defendants (18%). First re-arrests for narcotics defendants were also more likely to be for felony-level narcotics offenses (28%) than were the first re-arrests for other defendants (15% for those in weapons cases and 5% for those in sex offenses cases).

The first re-arrest was for a weapons offense for only four percent of the first re-arrests, and for only nine percent of the re-arrests for defendants in the weapons category. The first re-arrest was a sex offense charge for only one percent of the first re-arrests, and for only four percent of the first re-arrests for defendants in the sex offenses category (Table VII-C.4).

D. The First Felony Re-Arrest Given that the sample arrest was a felony for each of the defendants included in this research, it is not surprising that the many of the defendants were charged with felonies at one of their subsequent arrests. In this section, we discuss defendants’ first re-arrests with felony-level charges. Forty six percent of the defendants who had any time at risk for re-arrest were re-arrested for a felony at some time after their sample case was completed. Defendants arraigned on felony narcotics charges were more likely to be re-arrested for a felony (48%) than were those arraigned on weapons (41%) or sex offenses (29%) charges.

1. Days Elapsed from Case Completion to the First Felony Re-Arrest While nearly two thirds (63%) of all first re-arrests occurred within a year of the completion of the sample case, only half of all first re-arrests for felony charges took place within the first year that the defendant was at risk. Nearly two of every ten of all

20

the felony-level re-arrests occurred within three months at risk and nearly a third occurred within six months. Defendants in the narcotics category were re-arrested for the first felony more quickly than were defendants in the other charge categories at nearly every period of elapsed time at risk. For example, nearly three quarters of the narcotics defendants who were re-arrested for a felony were re-arrested within two years of completing their sample case, compared to 43 percent and 41 percent of weapons and sex offenses defendants, respectively, who were re-arrested for a felonylevel charge. The median elapsed number of days to the first felony re-arrest was 354 for defendants in narcotics cases, 479 for defendants in weapons cases, and 533 for defendants in sex offenses cases.

2. Standardizing the At-Risk Period to the First Felony Re-Arrest The at-risk period was standardized by including only defendants who were at risk for a felony re-arrest for a specific number of years or who were re-arrested within that time. For defendants who were not re-arrested for a felony, we calculated time at risk by tallying the days between the date the sample case was completed and the close of data collection on December 31, 2007. For defendants who were re-arrested for a felony, we tallied the days between the date the sample case was completed and the date of the re-arrest. We did not consider any days the defendant might have spent in custody, either for pretrial detention or to serve a sentence, for any prior non-felony level re-arrests.

The number of defendants in the base of the standardized re-arrest rate decreases as the number of years at risk rises. A total of 5,968 defendants were at risk for re-arrest for at least one day after case completion, but only 5,855 were at risk for at least one year or were re-arrested for a felony within that time. There were only 5,687 defendants at risk for two years or re-arrested for a felony within that time. Only 4,982 defendants were at risk for four years or were re-arrested for a felony within four years.

More defendants were re-arrested as more time at risk elapsed. The standardized rearrest rate for felonies increased from 23 percent, to 35 percent, to 44 percent and to 52 percent as the number of years at risk increased from one year to four years.

21

As shown in Table VII-D.2, the standardized first felony re-arrest rates were higher for defendants in narcotics cases for each of the four at risk periods examined.

A quarter of the defendants charged with narcotics offenses were re-arrested for a felony within a year, compared to 18 percent of those charged with weapons offenses and only 12 percent of those charged with sex offenses. Among defendants at risk for four years, 56 of the defendants in narcotics cases, compared to 44 percent in weapons cases and 30 percent in sex offenses cases, were re-arrested for a felony-level charge.

3. Charge Severity for the First Felony Re-Arrest within Four Years The charge at the first felony-level re-arrest within four years of case completion was a B felony for more than half of the first felony re-arrests. Defendants arraigned on narcotics charges who were re-arrested for a felony-level charge were more likely to have B-felony charges on their first felony re-arrest (58%) than were defendants arraigned on weapons (36%) or sex offenses (31%) charges.

4. Charge Type for the First Felony Re-Arrest within Four Years The type of charge at the first felony re-arrest within four years was more likely to be a narcotics offense than any other type of offense. More than six of every ten defendants in the narcotics category who were re-arrested for a felony-level charge within four years were re-arrested for a narcotics offense. More than a third of the defendants in the weapons category who were re-arrested for a felony within four years were re-arrested for a narcotics charge and 17 percent were re-arrested for a weapons charge. Re-arrests for narcotics charges were less frequent among defendants in the sex offenses category who were re-arrested for a felony within four years (16%).

However, the sex offenses defendants were more likely to be charged with murder or attempted murder (3%) or other felony level assaults (16%) at the first felony-level rearrest than were defendants in the narcotics (1% and 6%) or weapons (2% and 11%) categories.

22

VIII. MULTIVARIATE MODELS In this section, we present multivariate analyses of the factors that are associated with the hazard of re-arrest after case completion10 for defendants arraigned on felonylevel narcotics, weapons or sex offenses in New York City in the third quarter of 2002.

The rationale for undertaking multivariate analysis is that, unlike descriptive comparisons, it yields information about, and takes into account, the impact of the many variables included in the analysis on recidivism.

The multivariate analysis uses Cox proportional hazards regression. This type of survival analysis examines how variables affect the hazard of failure over time, which in our models is the hazard of re-arrest over time. Models will examine the first re-arrest and the first felony re-arrest, separately for defendants in narcotics, weapons and sex offenses cases. All defendants who were at risk for re-arrest will be included in the analyses.

Also, unlike our standardized time at-risk tables of re-arrest rates, Cox

modeling does not require that we restrict analysis to cases with equivalent time at risk for re-arrest. Rather, it is possible to include all of the cases that were ever at risk for re-arrest.

The survival function presented in Figure 1 graphically illustrates the proportion of the defendants in the study surviving by the number of years at risk for defendants in each charge type category. By definition, at time equal to zero, a full 100 percent (1.0 in the graph) survives, that is, has yet to be re-arrested. As time at risk elapses, the proportion of defendants surviving declines.

The top line (gold) in Figure 1 represents the survival function for defendants arraigned on sex offenses charges, the middle line (green) is for those charged with weapons offenses, and the bottom line (blue) is for defendants in narcotics cases.

Narcotics defendants have a lower survival function than do weapons defendants who in turn have a lower survival function than do defendants in sex offenses cases. This means that the hazard of re-arrest over time is greatest for the narcotics defendants, followed by the weapons defendants and the risk of re-arrest is lowest for the sex offenses defendants.

10

Cases were considered completed when they reached the end of prosecution in Criminal or Supreme Court and fulfilled any jail or prison time mandated by their sentence.

23

Figure 1. Survival Function by Sample Case Charge at Arraignment

To identify factors associated with re-arrest for defendants in each charge type category, a series of Cox regressions was performed in which many possible explanatory variables were included as potential predictors.

We chose to enter

variables into the equations in blocks that mirror the chapters of this report. The goal was to allow the factors that could not be altered to account for as much effect on the hazard of re-arrest as possible before we addressed the case processing variables.

That is, demographic characteristics were entered first, followed by CJA interview items and criminal history. These were followed by the two measures of defendant behavior during case processing, the case processing factors, and then the case outcome variables.

In the end, all of the factors included in the models were strong enough to

retain their predictive strength regardless of the sequence in which they were entered, even if they were entered together. We found the chapter/blocks conceptual approach so helpful to our analysis that the models will each be discussed from this perspective.

As will be seen, there were many predictors for first re-arrest and for first felony rearrest among narcotics cases, but few predictors among the weapons and sex offenses cases, probably, at least in part, due to the comparatively large volume of narcotics cases.

24

It is important to note that for all variables with more than two categories “deviation” rather than “indicator” comparisons were used to measure the strength of the effects.

Deviation contrasts assess whether the hazard of a single category differs

significantly from the average hazard of all categories. The dichotomous variables use indicator contrasts in which the hazard of one category is compared to the hazard of other.

A. Predicting Survival for Narcotics Cases The Cox regression models predicting the hazard of first re-arrest or first felony re-arrest for narcotics cases were very similar (Models A-1 and A-2).

The models

differed in only one factor (employed or in school) and in the predictive strength of some categories of pretrial detention and some case outcomes.

The Cox model provides an estimate of the effect of variables on the hazard of re-arrest after adjustment for significant explanatory variables. It allows us to estimate the hazard (or risk) of re-arrest for defendants, given their scores on predictive variables. A positive regression coefficient (B) for an explanatory variable in a Cox model means that the hazard of re-arrest is higher for defendants with higher values, while, conversely, negative coefficients indicate a lower hazard of re-arrest. A negative coefficient for the age variable means that as defendants get older, their hazard or risk of re-arrest decreases. In other words, older defendants survive longer.

Three of the demographic variables were significantly associated with the hazard of re-arrest and of felony re-arrest: age, ethnicity and gender. Older defendants, whites, and females were at a lower hazard of re-arrest while younger defendants, blacks, black Hispanics, and males were at a greater hazard of re-arrest.

Only one of the CJA interview items was a significant factor in both of the models for the narcotics cases:

The defendants who reported residence outside the NYC

area11 were at a lower risk of re-arrest, suggesting the possibility of non-residents recidivating outside the NYC area. This finding points to one of the limitations of the way recidivism is measured for this research since only re-arrests within the five boroughs of NYC are included. A second interview item was statistically significant in 11

The NYC area includes both Long Island and Westchester, but not New Jersey.

25

MODEL A-1: Variables predicting risk for re-arrest for narcotics cases.

Predictor Variables

B

Odds Ratio

-.024

Who has less risk?

Who has more risk?

Older defendants

Younger defendants

Females

Males

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISITICS Age Ethnicity Black White Hispanic Other Black Hispanic White Hispanic Gender (1 = Male)

.091 -.224 .043 -.083 .205 -.032 .390

.976** ** 1.095* .800* 1.044 .920 1.227* .968 1.477**

CJA INTERVIEW ITEMS Lives in NYC area? (1 = no)

-.351

.704**

Out of NYC-area residents

NYC-area residents

CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT First arrest on NYSID? (1 = yes) Number of felony convictions Number of misdemeanor convictions

-.690 .053 .028

.502** 1.055* 1.028**

Fewer felony convictions Fewer misd. convictions

Prior arrest(s) More felony convictions More misd. convictions

Blacks Whites

Black Hispanics

DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING Re-arrested before case completion?

-.327 .721** (1 = no) CASE PROCESSING Sale of a controlled substance?

(1 = no) Pretrial detention Never detained Released then detained Detained then released Never released Length of pretrial detention 0 to 3 days 4 to 7 days 8 to 30 days 31 to 90 days 91+ days Length of case (in months) Borough of prosecution Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx CASE OUTCOME Case outcome Dismissed in Criminal Court Dismissed in Supreme Court Adjourned in contemplation of dismissal Acquitted Dismissed after conviction Sentenced to fine Sentenced to conditional discharge Sentenced to probation Imprisoned – 1 year or less Imprisoned – 1 or 2 year minimum Imprisoned – 3 year minimum or more Adjudicated a Youthful Offender?

(1 = no) Convicted of a felony? (1 = no) CHI-SQUARE = 1,146.75** N = 4733

-.303

.739**

.174 -.067 -.161 .000 .054

* .985 .963 .939 1.123* * 1.010 1.132* .976 .872* 1.028 .967** ** 1.190** .935 .851* 1.000 1.056

-.155 -.535 .122 .076 -.046 .247 -.002 .189 .266 .171 -.332

** .856* .586** 1.130 1.079 .955 1.280 .998 1.208* 1.305** 1.186* .717*

-.415

.660**

-.015 -.038 -.063 .116 .010 .124 -.025 -.137 .027 -.034

.395

1.484**

Re-arrested before case completion

Charged with possession

Charged with sale

Never released

Detained 4 to 7 days Detained 31 to 90 days Longer cases

Shorter cases Brooklyn

Queens

Dismissed in CC Dismissed in SC

Probation Imp. 1 year or less Imp. 1 or 2 year min.

Imp. 3 year min or more Youthful Offenders Felony-level convicts * Sig. p < .05 ** Sig. p < .001

26

MODEL A-2: Variables predicting risk for felony re-arrest for narcotics cases.

Predictor Variables

Who has less risk?

Who has more risk?

.972** * 1.099* .847 1.048 .820 1.290** .969 1.565**

Older defendants

Younger defendants

Females

Males

CJA INTERVIEW ITEMS Employed/in school full time? (1 = no) .115 -.434 Lives in NYC area? (1 = no)

1.122* .648**

Full time employees/students Out of NYC-area residents

NYC-area residents

CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT First arrest on NYSID? (1 = yes) Number of felony convictions Number of misdemeanor convictions

.554** 1.068** 1.022**

Fewer felony convictions Fewer misd. convictions

Prior arrest(s) More felony convictions More misd. convictions

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISITICS Age Ethnicity Black White Hispanic Other Black Hispanic White Hispanic Gender (1 = Male)

B

Odds Ratio

-.028 .095 -.167 .047 -.198 .255 -.032 .448

-.590 .066 .022

Blacks

Black Hispanics

DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING Re-arrested before case completion?

-.343 .710** (1 = no) CASE PROCESSING Sale of a controlled substance?

(1 = no) Pretrial detention Never detained Released then detained Detained then released Never released Length of pretrial detention 0 to 3 days 4 to 7 days 8 to 30 days 31 to 90 days 91+ days Length of case (in months) Borough of prosecution Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx CASE OUTCOME Case outcome Dismissed in Criminal Court Dismissed in Supreme Court Adjourned in contemplation of dismissal Acquitted Dismissed after conviction Sentenced to fine Sentenced to conditional discharge Sentenced to probation Imprisoned – 1 year or less Imprisoned – 1 or 2 year minimum Imprisoned – 3 year minimum or more Adjudicated a Youthful Offender?

(1 = no) Convicted of a felony? (1 = no) CHI-SQUARE = 809.62** N = 4733

-.213

.808**

.145 -.055 -.143 .022 .031

** .852* 1.012 .957 1.211** * 1.128* 1.073 .945 .860* 1.016 .969** * 1.156* .947 .867* 1.022 1.031

.004 -.200 .148 .348 -.155 -.156 -.058 .180 .377 .129 -.617

** 1.004 .819 1.159 1.416 .856 .855 .944 1.197* 1.457** 1.137 .540*

-.346

.707*

-.273

.761**

-.160 .012 -.044 .192 .121 .071 -.056 -.151 .016 -.031

Re-arrested before case completion

Charged with possession

Charged with sale

Never detained

Never released Detained 0 to 3 days

Detained 31 to 90 days Longer cases

Shorter cases Brooklyn

Queens

Probation Imp. 1 year or less Imp. 3 year min or more Youthful Offenders Felony-level convicts * Sig. p < .05 ** Sig. p < .001

27

one of the narcotics models: Defendants who were employed or in school full time were at a lower risk of felony re-arrest, but this variable did not affect the risk of a first rearrest.

Criminal history was a strong factor in the first re-arrest and felony re-arrest models. As shown in Figure 2, when we compare defendants for whom the narcotics case was the first arrest on the NYSID report to those who had prior arrests, given all of the other variables in the model, those with no prior arrests survived longer. A higher risk of re-arrest was associated with more prior felony convictions and with more prior misdemeanor convictions.

Figure 2. Re-Arrest Survival Function by First Arrest on NYSID Report for Narcotics Cases

Given the other factors in the models, defendants who were re-arrested12 before their sample narcotics case reached sentencing or, if not convicted, before the case reached disposition, were at greater risk for re-arrest (Figure 3).

12

We did not consider re-arrests while the defendant was in jail or prison serving a sentence.

28

Figure 3. Re-Arrest Survival Function by Re-Arrest Before Case Completion for Narcotics Cases

The variables grouped here as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;case processingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; all relate to the course of prosecution on the sample narcotics arrest. Defendants charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance (rather than criminal possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia) were at great risk for re-arrest (see Figure 4), as were defendants in cases processed in Brooklyn. Defendants whose cases were processed in Queens survived significantly longer. Longer length of case is associated with longer survival without re-arrest, given the effects of all of the other variables.

29

Figure 4. Re-Arrest Survival Function by Sale of a Controlled Substance for Narcotics Cases

The pattern of findings for pretrial detention and length of detention were more subtle and differed for the first re-arrest and first felony re-arrest models. Narcotics defendants who were not released during case prosecution were at a high risk for rearrest and for felony re-arrest.

Those who were never detained were at significantly

lower risk for felony re-arrest, but this factor did not enter the first re-arrest model. In the first re-arrest model, pretrial detention of four to seven days was associated with a higher risk of re-arrest while in the model for first felony re-arrest, pretrial detention of less than three days was associated with a greater risk. In both models, those detained for 31 to 90 days were at a significantly reduced risk of re-arrest.

Case outcome variables were statistically significant in the survival models for narcotics cases for both first re-arrest and first felony re-arrest. Narcotics defendants who were convicted of a felony were at reduced risk of re-arrest compared to defendants who were not convicted of a felony. These include defendants convicted of lesser charges, but also defendants whose cases did not result in convictions. Given all of the other variables in the models, defendants who were adjudicated Youthful Offenders on their sample narcotics case were at significantly greater risk of re-arrest,

30

even though the models account for the effect of the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s age and several measures of criminal history.

The categories of the case disposition and sentence variable (case outcome) differed in statistical significance in the two models for the narcotics cases. Defendants whose cases were dismissed in Criminal Court and especially in Supreme Court were at a lower risk for re-arrest, but case dismissal did not affect the risk of felony re-arrest.

Defendants who were sentenced to probation on their narcotics case were at greater risk for re-arrest and for felony re-arrest, as were defendants who were sentenced to imprisonment of one year or less. Defendants who were sentenced to a minimum of one or two years of imprisonment were at greater risk of re-arrest, but this factor did not affect the risk of felony re-arrest. Defendants who were sentenced to a minimum of three years or more in prison survived significantly longer to re-arrest and to felony rearrest.

B. Predicting Survival for Weapons Cases The Cox regression models predicting the risk for re-arrest and the risk for felony re-arrest for defendants in weapons cases (Model B-1 and Model B-2) were very similar to each other but included far fewer factors than the models for narcotics cases. As in the narcotics models, older defendants and female defendants in weapons cases survived longer to re-arrest and to felony re-arrest, but ethnicity was not a significant covariate for either model.

Residence outside the NYC area was statistically associated with longer survival for both the first re-arrest and first felony re-arrest for defendants in weapons cases.

Again, it is important to recognize that this finding reflects a limitation in the measurement of recidivism in this research.

The lower risk for re-arrest found for

defendants who reside outside the NYC area is not likely to be a consequence of low recidivism but, instead, probably reflects the fact that we do not have re-arrest data from these defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; jurisdictions of residence.

31

MODEL B-1: Variables predicting risk for re-arrest for weapons cases.

Predictor Variables

B

Odds Ratio

Who has less risk?

Who has more risk?

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISITICS Age Gender (1 = Male)

-.047 .982

.954** 2.669**

Older defendants Females

Younger defendants Males

CJA INTERVIEW ITEMS Lives in NYC area? (1 = no)

-.738

.478**

Out of NYC-area residents

NYC-area residents

CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT First arrest on NYSID? (1 = yes) Number of misdemeanor convictions

-.584 .051

.558** 1.052**

Fewer misd. convictions

Prior arrest(s) More misd. convictions

DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING Re-arrested before case completion?

-.546 .579** (1 = no) CASE PROCESSING Pretrial detention Never detained Released then detained Detained then released Never released Borough of prosecution Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx

.227 -.577 .281 .069 .163 -.072 -.120 .185 -.155

* 1.254* .562* 1.325* 1.072 * 1.177* .930 .887 1.203 .856

Re-arrested before case completion

Never detained Released then detained Detained then released

Brooklyn

CHI-SQUARE = 198.45** N = 872

* Sig. p < .05 ** Sig. p < .001

MODEL B-2: Variables predicting risk for felony re-arrest for weapons cases.

B

Odds Ratio

Who has less risk?

Who has more risk?

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISITICS Age Gender (1 = Male)

Predictor Variables

-.049 .934

.953** 2.545*

Older defendants Females

Younger defendants Males

CJA INTERVIEW ITEMS Lives in NYC area? (1 = no)

-.603

.547*

Out of NYC-area residents

NYC-area residents

CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT First arrest on NYSID? (1 = yes) Number of misdemeanor convictions

-.600 .057

.549** 1.059**

Fewer misd. convictions

Prior arrest(s) More misd. convictions

DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING Re-arrested before case completion?

-.745 .475** (1 = no) CASE PROCESSING Length of case (in months) CHI-SQUARE = 141.52** N = 872

-.034

.966*

Re-arrested before case completion Longer cases

Shorter cases * Sig. p < .05 ** Sig. p < .001

Defendants in weapons cases with no prior arrests on their NYSID reports survived longer in both models, as did defendants with fewer misdemeanor convictions.

32

The number of felony convictions was not significant in either model for the defendants in weapons cases.

Re-arrest during case processing significantly increased the risk of re-arrest and the risk of felony re-arrest for defendants charged with weapons offenses.

None of the case processing factors entered both Cox models.

Borough of

prosecution was a significant factor in the first re-arrest model for weapons cases, but only one borough significantly affected survival to re-arrest. Defendants in weapons cases processed in Brooklyn were at greater risk of re-arrest than the citywide risk. It is not clear from this research if the greater hazard of re-arrest for Brooklyn defendants might be a consequence of the enhanced police training associated with Brooklyn’s pilot Gun Court Initiative which began in April, 2003.13 The pretrial detention variable was a significant covariate in the first re-arrest model for the weapons cases, but was not related to the risk of felony re-arrest and is not easily interpreted. The findings show that, given the other factors in the model, defendants in weapons cases who were not detained pretrial had a higher risk of rearrest, as did those who were detained before pretrial release. Defendants who were initially released but then detained survived longer to first re-arrest.

The length of pretrial detention was not a significant factor in either model for weapons cases. Longer length of case was not related to the risk of re-arrest but was associated with longer survival to the first felony re-arrest.

Case disposition and

sentence were not related to the risk of re-arrest or of felony re-arrest among defendants charged with weapons offenses.

C. Predicting Survival for Sex Offenses Cases Very few variables entered the Cox regression models for the risk of re-arrest and for felony re-arrest for defendants charged with sex offenses (Model C-1 and Model C-2). It is possible that the research sample of defendants charged with sex offenses who had any time at risk for re-arrest was too small, or the re-arrest patterns for 13

See Solomon, Freda F. 2005. “New York City Gun Court Initiative: The Brooklyn Pilot Program.” New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

See also Solomon, Freda F. 2006. “New York City’s Gun Court Initiative: A Pilot Program Study.”

Research Brief series, no. 11. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

33

defendants in these cases might be more idiosyncratic than that for their counterparts in other charge-type categories.

Nevertheless, several variables significantly associated with the risk of re-arrest and the risk of felony re-arrest. Older defendants and those with no prior arrests on their NYSID reports survived longer in both models. Defendants who were re-arrested during the prosecution of their sex offense case were at greater risk for re-arrest and for felony re-arrest.

A greater number of prior misdemeanor convictions was associated with a greater risk of re-arrest, but not felony re-arrest.

MODEL C-1: Variables predicting risk for re-arrest for sex offenses cases.

Predictor Variables B Odds Ratio DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISITICS -.033 .968** Age CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT First arrest on NYSID? (1 = yes) -.970 .379** Number of misdemeanor convictions .061 1.063* DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING Re-arrested before case completion?

-.655 .520** (1 = no) CASE OUTCOME Adjudicated a Youthful Offender?

-1.391 .249* (1 = no) CHI-SQUARE = 85.54** N = 363

Who has less risk?

Who has more risk?

Older defendants

Younger defendants

Fewer misd. convictions

Prior arrest(s) More misd. convictions Re-arrested before case completion Youthful Offenders * Sig. p < .05 ** Sig. p < .001

MODEL C-2: Variables predicting risk for felony re-arrest for sex offenses cases.

Predictor Variables B Odds Ratio DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISITICS -.040 .960** Age CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT First arrest on NYSID? (1 = yes) -1.340 .262** DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING Re-arrested before case completion?

-.466 .627* (1 = no) CHI-SQUARE = 58.69** N = 363

Who has less risk?

Who has more risk?

Older defendants

Younger defendants Prior arrest(s) Re-arrested before case completion * Sig. p < .05 ** Sig. p < .001

Defendants who were adjudicated Youthful Offenders on their sex offense case were at greater risk for re-arrest, but not felony re-arrest.

34

IX. SUMMARY OF MULTIVARIATE FINDINGS We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with the hazard of rearrest and of felony re-arrest after taking into account the effect of other significant predictors.

Only three variables were significant predictors of the risk of re-arrest and

felony re-arrest for narcotics, weapons and sex offenses cases:

Defendant age,

whether the case was the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first arrest, and if the defendant was re-arrested during the prosecution of the sample case.

Female defendants in narcotics and

weapons cases were at lower risk of re-arrest. Gender did not predict the hazard of rearrest for defendants in sex offenses cases probably because there were few women charged in this type of case.

Defendants in both narcotics and weapons cases who

indicated that they did not reside in the NYC area survived longer without re-arrest as did those with fewer prior misdemeanor convictions.

It is interesting to note that longer length of case is associated with reduced risk of re-arrest, again for the defendants in the narcotics and weapons categories, especially because speedy trial is viewed as a valuable goal. Defendants in these charge type categories who were processed in Brooklyn were at greater risk of re-arrest and those processed in Queens were at a significantly less risk.

Finally, despite the fact that the Cox models included the explanatory effects of both age and prior arrests, defendants who were granted Youthful Offender status on their narcotics or weapons case were at increased risk of re-arrest.

X. CONCLUSION This research documents marked differences between narcotics, weapons and sex offenses cases in terms of almost every variable included in this research.

Re-arrest rates were high.

More than two thirds of the defendants were re-

arrested within four years at risk and about half were re-arrested for a felony in that time. Re-arrest rates were highest for defendants in narcotics cases, followed by those in weapons cases who, in turn, were more likely to be re-arrested than were their counterparts in sex offenses cases.

35

We conducted multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to determine which factors were associated with the hazard of any re-arrest and with the hazard of a felony re-arrest. For the most part, the same variables were significant in the models within type of charge, and the effects were about as strong.

Only three variables were statistically significant in all of the models. Older defendants, those without prior arrests, and those who were not re-arrested during the prosecution of the sample case were at lower risk of re-arrest. Female defendants were at lower risk in both the narcotics and weapons models, as were defendants who resided outside the NYC area, those with longer processing time on their sample case, and those prosecuted in Queens. Brooklyn defendants in these charge type categories as well as those who were adjudicated Youthful Offenders of their sample case had higher hazard of re-arrest.

After the conclusion of the multivariate analyses for the separate charge type categories, we conducted a final Cox regression predicting the hazard of re-arrest using only the explanatory factors that were statistically significant across all of the first rearrest models and another using the significant explanatory factors predicting the hazard of felony re-arrest. The goal was to learn, given the effects of the significant factors, if the risk of re-arrest still varied by type of charge.

The results for the first re-arrest model showed significantly higher risk for defendants in narcotics cases even after controlling for the effects of the age, first arrest, prior misdemeanor convictions and re-arrest during case processing variables (Figure 5).

36

Figure 5. Re-Arrest Survival Function by Sample Case Charge at Arraignment

For the model predicting survival to first felony re-arrest, the risk was significantly higher for narcotics defendants and significantly lower for those charged in sex offenses cases, even after the effects of age, first arrest, and re-arrest during case processing (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Felony Re-Arrest Survival Function by Sample Case Charge at Arraignment

37

Felony Narcotics,14 Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002)

TABLE I. PENAL LAW CODES ENTERING CRIMINAL COURT BY CHARGE SEVERITY

% Within Charge Type

NARCOTICS CASES

A Felonies:

B Felonies:

C Felonies:

D Felonies:

E Felonies:

PL 220.21 PL 220.18 PL 220.43 PL 220.41 Other

PL 220.16 PL 220.39 PL 220.44

PL 220.09 PL 220.34 Other

PL 220.06 PL 220.31 PL 221.25 Other

Other

Possession of a Controlled Substance 1 Possession of a Controlled Substance 2 Sale of a Controlled Substance 1 Sale of a Controlled Substance 2 Attempted PL 220.18, 220.21, 220.41 Subtotal*

5 3 2 1 <1 10

Subtotal*

24 53 <1 78

Possession of a Controlled Substance 3 Sale of a Controlled Substance 3 Sale of a Controlled Substance Near a School

Possession of a Controlled Substance 4 Sale of a Controlled Substance 4 PL 221.30 (Possession of Marijuana 1), PL 221.55 (Sale of Marijuana 1), Attempted PL 220.39 Subtotal*

3 <1 <1

Possession of a Controlled Substance 5 Sale of a Controlled Substance 5 Possession of Marijuana 2 PL 221.50 (Sale of Marijuana 2), Attempted 220.09, PL 220.55 (Using Drug Paraphernalia) Subtotal*

4 1 2 <1

PL 221.20 (Possession of Marijuana 3), PL 220.46 (Criminal Injection of a Narcotic), PL 221.50 (Sale of Marijuana 3)

14

*

7

<1 Subtotal*

All Narcotics Charges (N of cases)

4

<1 100 (5127)

Includes felony charges in 220 and 221 Penal Law sections.

May not sum to subtotal due to rounding.

38

% Within Charge Type

WEAPONS CASES B Felonies:

C Felonies:

D Felonies:

PL 265.04 PL 265.09

PL 265.03 PL 265.09

PL 265.02 Other

Possession of a Weapon 1 Criminal Use of a Firearm 1 Subtotal

<1 1 2

Subtotal

34 <1 34

Possession of a Weapon 2 Criminal Use of a Firearm 2

Possession of a Weapon 3 PL 265.11 (Criminal Sale of a Firearm 3), Attempted PL 265.03

63 <1

Subtotal All Weapons Charges (N of cases)

% Within Charge Type

SEX OFFENSES CASES

B Felonies:

64 100 (936)

PL 130.35 PL 130.50 Other

Rape 1 Sodomy 1 PL 130.70 (Aggravated Sex Abuse 1), PL 130.75 (Sexual Conduct with a Child 1)

36 11 2 Subtotal

C Felonies:

Att PL130.35 Other

49

Attempted Rape 1 PL 130.67 (Aggravated Sex Abuse 2), Attempted PL130.50

6 2 Subtotal

D Felonies:

E Felonies:

PL 130.30 PL 130.45 PL 130.65 Other

PL 130.25 PL 130.40 Other

8

Rape 2 Sodomy 2 Sex Abuse 1 PL 130.66 (Aggravated Sex Abuse 3), PL 130.80 (Sexual Conduct with a Child 2)

7 5 16 2 Subtotal

30

Subtotal All Sex Offenses (N of cases)

10 3 <1 14 100 (410)

Rape 3 Sodomy 3 Attempted PL 130.45, Attempted PL130.65

39

Felony Narcotics, Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002)

TABLE II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS A. Gender, Age and Ethnicity Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Gender

%

%

%

%

Male Female

87 13 100

94 6 100

99 1 100

89 11 100

Total (N of cases)

(5127)

(936)

(410)

(6473)

Age 20 or under 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 Over 50

18 35 25 17 6 100

Total* Mean Median (N of cases)

31.5 29.0 (5126)

27 48 15 6 4 100 27.1 24.0 (936)

17 33 26 16 8 100 32.6 31.0 (410)

19 36 24 15 6 100 31.0 28.0 (6472)

Ethnicity Black White Hispanic-Black Hispanic- White Hispanic-Other Other (non-Hispanic) Total* (N of cases) Not available (Total cases)

*

50 7 7 14 20 2 100 (5124) 3 (5127)

66 6 4 10 12 2 100 (934) 2 (936)

43 8 5 17 22 4 100 (410) (410)

52 7 7 13 19 2 100 (6468) 5 (6473)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

40

B. CJA Interview Items Narcotics Employed, In School, or In Training Program Full Time Yes, verified Yes, unverified Subtotal No, verified No, unverified Conflicting information Total* (N of cases) Not available (Total cases)

Subtotal No, verified No, unverified Conflicting information

Total

%

%

%

8 26 34 14 50 2

16 34 50 14 34 2

18 37 55 12 31 2

10 29 39 14 46 2

100

Yes, verified Yes, unverified

Sex Offenses

%

(4919) 208 (5127)

Lives with Parent, Spouse, Grandparent

Total (N of cases) Not available (Total cases)

Weapons

100 (884) 52 (936)

100 (391) 19 (410)

100 (6194) 279 (6473)

%

%

%

%

18 38 56 5 37 2

25 40 65 7 26 2

24 36 60 6 32 2

20 38 58 5 35 2

100 (4925) 202 (5127)

100 (886) 50 (936)

100 (392) 18 (410)

100 (6203) 270 (6473)

Telephone in Residence

%

%

%

%

Yes No

57 43

74 26

75 25

61 39

Total (Total cases)

100 (5127)

100 (936)

100 (410)

100 (6473)

Expects Someone at Arraignment

%

%

%

%

Yes No and donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

36 64

49 51

42 58

38 62

Total (N of cases) Not available (Total cases) *

100 (4906) 221 (5127)

100 (879) 57 (936)

100 (386) 24 (410)

100 (6171) 302 (6473)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

41

Narcotics 18 Months or Longer at Current Address Yes, verified Yes, unverified Subtotal No, verified No, unverified Conflicting information Total (N of cases) Not available (Total cases)

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

%

%

%

%

18 50 68 4 25 3

24 47 71 6 20 3

23 45 68 6 24 2

19 49 68 5 24 3

100 (4962) 165 (5127)

100 (897) 39 (936)

100 (396) 14 (410)

100 (6255) 218 (6473)

Address Outside NYC Area

%

%

%

%

Address outside NYC Address within NYC

11 89

10 90

4 96

10 90

Total (Total cases)

100 (5127)

CJA Release Recommendation (2002) Recommendedverified community ties Qualified â&#x20AC;&#x201C; unverified community ties Subtotal Recommended Not Recommendedinsufficient ties Not Recommendedresidence outside NYC, conflicting residence info., incomplete interview No Recommendation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; active bench warrant, no NYSID, other Total (N of cases) Not available (Total cases)

100 (936)

100 (6473)

%

%

%

%

20

27

29

22

30

36

38

31

50 34

63 22

67 24

53 31

9

9

5

9

7

6

4

7

100 (5050) 77 (5127)

100 (410)

100 (909) 27 (936)

100 (402) 8 (410)

100 (6361) 112 (6473)

42

Felony Narcotics, Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002)

TABLE III. CRIMINAL HISTORY ON NYSID REPORT Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Prior Arrests

%

%

%

%

No prior arrests No convictions Open cases only Misdemeanor convictions only One felony conviction Two or more felony convictions

25 12 8 14

36 15 8 10

50 13 7 9

28 13 8 13

19 22

18 13

11 10

18 20

Total (N of cases)

100 (5127)

100 (936)

100 (410)

100 (6473)

Number of Prior Misdemeanor Convictions

%

%

%

%

0 1 2 3 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 10 11 or more

56 12 7 5 13 7

73 12 4 4 6 1

77 10 4 3 3 2

59 12 7 4 12 6

Total* Mean Median (N of cases)

100 2.7 0.0 (5127)

100 0.9 0.0 (936)

100 0.8 0.0 (410)

100 2.3 0.0 (6473)

Number of Prior Felony Convictions

%

%

%

%

0 1 2 3 4 or more

58 19 11 6 6

69 18 7 4 2

79 11 6 2 2

61 19 11 5 5

Total* Mean Median (N of cases)

*

100 0.8 0.0 (5127)

100 0.5 0.0 (936)

100 0.4 0.0 (410)

100 0.8 0.0 (6473)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

43

Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Total Number of Prior Convictions

%

%

%

%

0 1 2 3 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 10 11 or more

45 13 8 6 19 9

60 13 9 6 11 2

70 10 6 5 7 2

49 13 8 6 17 8

Total* Mean Median (N of cases)

100 3.5 1.0 (5127)

Prior Youthful Offender (YO) Status Prior YO No prior YO Total (N of cases) Not available (Total cases)

*

100 1.4 0.0 (936)

%

14 86

%

15 85 100

(4960) 167 (5127)

100 1.2 0.0 (410) %

4 96 100

(873) 63 (936)

100 3.1 0.0 (6473) %

13 87 100

(394) 16 (410)

100 (6227) 246 (6473)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

44

Felony Narcotics, Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002)

TABLE IV. CASE PROCESSING A. Borough of Prosecution Narcotics Borough of Prosecution Brooklyn Bronx Manhattan Queens Staten Island Total (N of cases)

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

%

%

%

%

15 32 42 9 2 100

35 24 19 19 3 100

20 36 26 13 5 100

18 31 37 11 3 100

(5127)

(936)

(410)

(6473)

B. Criminal or Supreme Court Processing15 Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Criminal or Supreme Court Processing

%

%

%

%

Criminal Court Supreme Court

48 52

50 50

66 34

50 50

Total (N of cases)

100 (5127)

100 (936)

100 (410)

100 (6473)

C. Release Status and Bail at Criminal Court Arraignment Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Release Status at Criminal Court Arraignment

%

%

%

%

Released Detained

36 64

27 73

30 70

34 66

Total (N of cases) Disposed at arraignment (Total cases)

100 (5101) 26 (5127)

100 (931) 5 (936)

100 (410) (410)

100 (6442) 31 (6473)

15

Note that this data precedes the restructuring of the Bronx Criminal and Supreme Courts in November 2004 to create a single, integrated, court of criminal jurisdiction.

45

Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Bail Set at Arraignment

%

%

%

%

$1,500 or less $1,800 to $5,000 $5,500 to $10,000 $11,500 to $50,000 $52,500 to $950,000

27 47 14 8 4

22 41 18 16 3

12 34 19 28 7

25 45 15 11 4

Total (N of cases) Mean Median $1 (held on another case) ROR at arraignment Remand at arraignment Disposed at arraignment (Total cases)

100 (3363) $12,233 $ 3,500 17 1575 146 26 (5127)

100 (761) $12,935 $ 5,000 1 151 18 5 (936)

100 (322) $20,109 $ 7,500 1 74 13 (410)

100 (4446) $12,923 $ 3,500 19 1800 177 31 (6473)

D. Detention Status Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Detention Status

%

%

%

%

Never held Released at arraignment, held later Held at arraignment, later released Never released

28 8

24 3

28 2

28 7

37

49

51

39

27

25

19

26

Total* (N of cases) Disposed at arraignment (Total cases)

100 (5101) 26 (5127)

100 (931) 5 (936)

100 (410) (410)

100 (6442) 31 (6473)

Length of Detention for Cases Ever Held 3 days or less 4-7 days 8-30 days 31-90 days More than 3 months Total Mean Median (N of cases) Never held Disposed at arraignment (Total cases)

*

14 22 14 20 30

26 20 15 16 23

100 88 30 (3661) 1440 26 (5127)

23 25 13 17 22

100 67 12 (712) 219 5 (936)

16 22 15 19 28

100 72 10 (297) 113 (410)

100 84 25 (4670) 1772 31 (6473)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

46

Felony Narcotics, Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002)

TABLE V. DEFENDANT BEHAVIOR DURING CASE PROCESSING A. Failure to Appear Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Failure to Appear

%

%

%

%

Failed to appear as scheduled Attended all scheduled appearances

13 87

9 91

10 90

12 88

Total (N of cases) Disposed at arraignment (Total cases)

100 (5101) 26 (5127)

100 (931) 5 (936)

100 (410) (410)

100 (6442) 31 (6473)

B. Re-Arrest Before Case Completion Narcotics Number of Re-Arrests Before Case Completion (excluding re-arrests while in custody) 0 (Not re-arrested) 1 2 3 or more Total* (N of cases) Disposed at arraignment (Total cases)

*

Weapons

Total

%

%

%

%

79 14 5 3

82 11 4 2

85 11 3 1

80 13 5 3

100 (5101) 26 (5127)

Sex Offenses

100 (931) 5 (936)

100 (410) (410)

100 (6442) 31 (6473)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

47

Felony Narcotics, Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002) TABLE VI. CASE OUTCOME A. Conviction Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Conviction Rates

%

%

%

%

Convicted - Felony Convicted - Non-Felony

46 27

41 12

28 25

44 25

73 27

53 47

53 47

69 31

Subtotal Convicted Not convicted Total (N of cases) Other (Total cases)

100 (5035) 92 (5127)

100 (915) 21 (936)

100 (405) 5 (410)

100 (6355) 118 (6473)

Severity of Charge at Conviction A felony B felony C felony D felony E felony Subtotal Felony A misdemeanor B or unclassified misdemeanor Violation or other

Subtotal Non-Felony Total (N of cases) Charge not available (Total convicted cases)

3 18 24 15 3

2 7 50 18

10 5 24 14

3 16 22 19 5

63

77

53

65

28 1 8

16 2 5

31 5 11

27 1 7

37

23

47

35

100 (3674) 7 (3681)

100 (485) 1 (486)

100 (213) (213)

100 (4372) 8 (4380)

48

Narcotics Type of Charge at Conviction Narcotics Weapons Disorderly conduct Criminal facilitation Sex offenses Assault 16 Other

Total* (N of cases) Charge not available (Total convicted cases)

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

%

%

%

%

84 1 7 7 <1 1

2 81 4 <1 4 9

<1 5 68 7 20

70 10 7 6 3 1 3

100 (3674) 7 (3681)

100 (485) 1 (486)

100 (213) (213)

100 (4372) 8 (4380)

B. Convicted or Acquitted at Trial Narcotics Convicted or Acquitted at Trial Convicted at Trial Acquitted at Trial Subtotal Disposed at Trial Not Disposed at Trial Total (N of cases)

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

%

%

%

%

1 1 2

2 1 3

4 2 6

1 1 2

98

97

94

98

100 (5127)

100 (936)

100 (410)

100 (6473)

C. Sentencing Narcotics Sentencing Rates

% 39 12 22 27

Sentenced to time Sentenced to time served Convicted - no time17 Not convicted Total* (N of cases) Convicted – sentence pending Other (Total cases)

Weapons % 34 1 18 47

100 (4984) 51 92 (5127)

Sex Offenses % 26 <1 25 48

100 (912) 3 21 (936)

Total % 37 10 22 31

100 (399) 6 5 (410)

100 (6295) 60 118 (6473)

16

The most common charge among the 129 defendants in the ‘Other’ conviction charges category is Endangering nd the welfare of a child (20%, n=26), followed by Harassment in the 2 degree (12%, n=15).

Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

17

Includes 181 cases (177 narcotics cases, 2 weapons cases and 2 sex offenses cases) which were dismissed after the defendants pled guilty. *

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

49

Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Length of Sentence:

%

%

%

%

Time served Less than 1 year 1 year Minimum 1 to 1 ½ years 2 years or min. 2 to 2 ½ 3 years or min. 3 to 3 ½ 4 years or more

24 19 12 11 15 11 8

4 27 24 8 11 10 16

1 32 8 14 8 2 34

21 21 13 11 14 10 10

Total* (N of cases) Convicted - no time18 Not convicted Convicted – sentence pending Other (Total cases)

100 (2521) 1109 1354 51 92 (5127)

Conditions of Sentence: Youthful Offender (YO) Violent Felony Offender (JO, JVFO, VFO) Second Felony Offender (SFO, SVFO, PFO, PVFO) No Conditions of Sentence Total* (N of sentenced cases)

100 (322) 161 429 3 21 (936)

100 (2949) 1371 1975 60 118 (6473)

%

%

%

%

4

8

1

4

1

54

35

9

13 82

12 26

6 58

12 75

100 (3630)

100 (106) 101 192 6 5 (410)

100 (483)

100 (207)

100 (4320)

18

Includes 181 cases (177 narcotics cases, 2 weapons cases and 2 sex offenses cases) which were dismissed after the defendants pled guilty. *

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

50

D. Length of Case Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Days from First Appearance in Criminal Court to Disposition19

%

%

%

%

3 days or less 4-7 days 7-30 days 31-90 days 91-365 days More than one year

4 15 15 22 36 8

3 7 17 24 40 8

1 7 11 23 51 8

3 13 15 23 37 8

Total* Mean days Median days (N of disposed cases)

100 129 69 (5035)

100 145 86 (915)

100 161 133 (405)

100 133 74 (6355)

Days from First Appearance in Criminal Court to Sentence20

%

%

%

%

3 days or less 4-7 days 7-30 days 31-90 days 91-365 days More than one year

3 9 7 19 38 25

1 2 3 16 56 22

3 4 18 54 20

2 8 6 19 41 24

Total* Mean days Median days (N of sentenced cases)

100 269 151 (3630)

100 262 194 (483)

100 249 185 (207)

100 267 160 (4320)

19

This was calculated by subtracting the date of arraignment in Criminal Court from the date of the disposition, in either the Criminal or Supreme Court. The total number of days was adjusted by subtracting the number of days the defendant was out on the first warrant on which the defendant returned to Criminal Court and/or Supreme Court prior to disposition. There were 399 defendants who returned on a warrant in the Criminal Court before disposition and 292 defendants who returned on a warrant in the Supreme Court before disposition (including 33 defendants who returned on at least one warrant in both courts). The total number of days was not adjusted for any days defendants were out on second or later warrants on which the defendants returned to Criminal Court or on second or later warrants on which they returned to Supreme Court prior to disposition.

20 For 181 cases (177 narcotics, 2 weapons and 2 sex offenses) that were dismissed after the defendants pled guilty, the date of dismissal was used in lieu of a date of sentencing to measure the length of the case. Data was not available on warrants and returns on warrants between disposition and sentence. *

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

51

Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Days from Disposition to Sentence21

%

%

%

%

3 days or less 4-30 days 31-90 days 91-365 days More than one year

31 22 24 10 13

16 22 43 14 5

21 23 38 13 5

29 22 27 10 12

Total* Mean days Median days (N of sentenced cases)

100 138 28 (3630)

100 84 43 (483)

100 72 38 (207)

100 129 29 (4320)

21 For 181 cases (177 narcotics, 2 weapons and 2 sex offenses) that were dismissed after the defendants pled guilty, the date of dismissal was used in lieu of a date of sentencing to measure the length of the case. Data was not available on warrants and returns on warrants between disposition and sentence. *

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

52

Felony Narcotics, Weapons, or Sex Offenses Cases Entering Criminal Court Third Quarter 2002 (July through September 2002)

TABLE VII. RE-ARREST AFTER CASE COMPLETION A. Defendants with No Time at Risk for Re-Arrest After Case Completion Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

Defendants with No Time At Risk for Re-Arrest

%

%

%

%

Serving prison sentence22 Released from prison for deportation Case disposition or sentence pending Deceased

2 2

3 1

7 1

3 2

3

2

3

2

<1

<1

<1

<1

Subtotal no time at risk

8

7

11

8

At risk for re-arrest

92

93

89

92

Total* (N of cases)

100

100

100

100

(5127)

(936)

(410)

(6473)

12927

1824

585

15336

4733

872

363

5968

B. All Re-Arrests Total Number of Re-Arrests through December 31, 2007 Number of defendants at risk for re-arrest after case completion Number of Re-Arrests for Each At-Risk Defendant Mean Median

2.7 1.0

2.1 1.0

1.6 1.0

2.6 1.0

22

Five defendants who absconded from custody and two defendants who were sentenced in absencia are included here with others who have not completed their sentences.

*

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

53

Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

B.1. ALL RE-ARRESTS: Severity of Charges

%

%

%

%

A felony B felony C felony D felony E felony

1 21 3 8 4

1 16 7 11 7

<1 9 4 11 11

1 20 4 8 5

Subtotal Felony A misdemeanor B or unclassified misdemeanor Violation, infraction and nonPenal Law charges

38 42 16

42 30 22

35 42 18

38 40 17

5

6

5

5

Subtotal Non-Felony

62

58

65

62

Total* (N of re-arrests)

100 (12927)

B. 2. ALL RE-ARRESTS: Types of Charges Narcotics: Felony Misdemeanor or lesser Subtotal narcotics Weapons Sex offenses Assault: Murder or attempted murder (125.25, 125.27) Other felony assault Misdemeanor assault Subtotal assault Trespass Petit larceny Theft of services Other felony Other misdemeanor Non-Penal Law charges Total* (N of re-arrests)

*

100 (1824)

100 (15336)

%

%

%

%

23 27 50

16 21 37

5 14 19

21 26 47

3 <1

8 1

4 3

4 <1

<1

1

<1

<1

3 4 7

5 7 13

4 11 16

3 5 8

7 4 4 9 10 5

4 2 2 14 10 9

3 2 5 20 18 9

7 4 4 10 10 6

100 (12927)

100 (585)

100 (1824)

100 (585)

100 (15336)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

54

C. The First Re-Arrest Narcotics Number of First Re-Arrests through December 31, 2007 Number of defendants at risk for re-arrest

Weapons

Total

3062

512

183

3757

4733

872

363

5968

Rate of Re-Arrest

65

C.1. Days Elapsed from Case Completion to the First Re-Arrest23

Sex Offenses

% First ReArrests

1-7 days 8-30 days 31-90 days 91-180 days 181-365 days 366-730 days 731-1,095 days 1,096-1,460 days 4 years or more

Cum %

3 8 16 17 19 20 10 5 3

Total* (N of first re-arrests)

% First ReArrests

3 11 27 44 63 83 93 98 101

100 (3062)

Mean days Median days

59 Cum %

1 5 12 19 21 20 12 6 4

% First ReArrests

1 6 18 37 58 78 90 96 100

100 (512)

378 226

50 Cum %

<1 8 11 12 15 27 14 7 6

% First ReArrests

<1 8 19 31 46 73 87 94 100

100 (183)

441 292

63 Cum %

3 8 15 17 19 20 10 5 3

3 11 26 43 62 82 92 97 100

100 (3757)

520 427

393 239

\

C.2. STANDARDIZING THE AT-RISK PERIOD TO FIRST RE-ARREST Re-Arrest Rates by Years At Risk24 to the First Re-Arrest

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

One year

41

(4658)

34

(860)

24

(359)

39

(5877)

Two years

56

(4548)

47

(841)

38

(358)

53

(5747)

Three years

65

(4364)

56

(827)

46

(351)

62

(5542)

Four years

72

(4134)

62

(796)

53

(328)

69

(5258)

23

Completion date is the date of release from jail or prison, the date of sentencing for defendants who were not sentenced to serve time in jail or prison, and the date of disposition for defendants who were not convicted.

24 Each at-risk category includes defendants who were re-arrested within the time or were at risk for re-arrest for at least that long. For example, a defendant who was re-arrested six months after case completion is tallied as at risk for six months and will therefore be included in the shortest ‘years at risk’ category. Defendants who were still at risk for re-arrest after one year at risk are also included in the base of the ‘one year at risk’ category, even if they were eventually re-arrested. The base of the four years at risk category includes defendants who were re-arrested by the time four years at risk elapsed or who were still at risk at that time. Defendants who were not at risk or who could only be tracked for less than one year at risk with no re-arrest are not included here in any at-risk category. ∗

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

55

Narcotics

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

C.3. Charge Severity for the First Re-Arrest within Four Years

%

%

%

%

A felony B felony C felony D felony E felony

2 26 3 9 3

1 14 6 12 7

0 12 3 15 9

1 23 4 10 4

Subtotal Felony A misdemeanor B or unclassified misdemeanor Violation, infraction and nonPenal Law charges

43 37 17

40 30 23

39 37 20

42 36 18

3

7

5

4

Subtotal Non-Felony

57

60

62

58

Total* (N of first re-arrests within 4 years) (2980) C.4. Charge Type for the First Re-Arrest within Four Years

100

100 (494)

100 (173)

100 (3647)

%

%

%

%

28 25

15 21

5 13

25 24

Subtotal narcotics Weapons Sex offenses Assault: Murder or attempted murder (125.25, 125.27) Other felony assault Misdemeanor or lesser assault charges

53 3 0

36 9 0

18 6 4

49 4 1

0

1

1

1

3 5

4 9

6 10

3 6

Subtotal assault Trespass Petit larceny Theft of services Other felonies Other misdemeanor or lesser charges Non-Penal Law charges

8 7 2 4 10 8

14 5 2 3 13 9

17 3 2 5 19 14

10 6 2 4 10 8

5

9

12

6

*

100

Narcotics: Felony Misdemeanor or lesser

Total (N of first re-arrests within 4 years) (2980)

*

100 (494)

100 (173)

100 (3647)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

56

D. The First Felony Re-Arrest Narcotics Number of First Felony Re-Arrests through December 31, 2007 Number of defendants at risk for re-arrest

Sex Offenses

Total

2280

359

106

2745

4733

872

363

5968

Rate of Felony Re-Arrests D.1. Days Elapsed from Case Completion to the First Felony Re-Arrest25

Weapons

48 % First ReArrests

Cum %

2 5 12 14 19 22 14 8 5

1-7 days 8-30 days 31-90 days 91-180 days 181-365 days 366-730 days 731-1,095 days 1,096-1,460 days 4 years or more

41 % First ReArrests 1 2 7 16 17 23 16 10 8

2 7 19 33 52 74 88 96 100

Total* 100 (N of first felony re-arrests) (2280) Mean days 500 Median days 354

Cum %

29 % First ReArrests 0 7 12 11 11 25 14 11 9

1 3 10 26 43 66 82 92 100

100 (359) 596 479

Cum %

46 % First ReArrests 2 5 11 14 18 22 14 9 5

0 7 19 30 41 66 80 91 100

100 (106) 606 533

Cum % 2 7 18 32 50 72 86 95 100

100 (2745) 516 367

D.2. STANDARDIZING THE AT-RISK PERIOD TO FIRST RE-ARREST Re-Arrest Rates by Years at Risk26 to the First Felony ReArrest

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

%

(N)

One year

25

(4639)

18

(857)

12

(359)

23

(5855)

Two years

37

(4493)

29

(836)

20

(359)

35

(5687)

Three years

47

(4239)

37

(808)

24

(348)

44

(5395)

Four years

56

(3899)

44

(761)

30

(322)

52

(4982)

25 Completion date is the date of release from jail or prison, the date of sentencing for defendants who were not sentenced to serve time in jail or prison, and the date of disposition for defendants who were not convicted.

26 Each at-risk category includes defendants who were re-arrested within the time or were at risk for re-arrest for at least that long. For example, a defendant who was re-arrested six months after case completion is tallied as at risk for six months and will therefore be included in the shortest ‘years at risk’ category. Defendants who were still at risk for re-arrest after one year at risk are also included in the base of the ‘one year at risk’ category, even if they were eventually re-arrested. The base of the four years at risk category includes defendants who were re-arrested by the time four years at risk elapsed or who were still at risk at that time. Defendants who were not at risk or who could only be tracked for less than one year at risk with no re-arrest are not included here in any at-risk category. *

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

57

Narcotics D.3. Charge Severity for the First Felony Re-Arrest within Four Years at Risk A felony B felony C felony D felony E felony Total* (N of first felony re-arrests within 4 years)

Weapons

Sex Offenses

Total

%

%

%

%

3 58 8 22 9 100

2 36 16 28 18 100

1 31 8 37 23 100

2 54 9 23 11 100

(2173)

(332)

(97)

(2602)

D.4. Charge Type for the First Felony Re-Arrest within Four Years at Risk Narcotics Weapons Sex offenses Assault: Murder or attempted murder (125.25, 125.27) Other felony assault Subtotal assault Trespass Other felonies Non-penal law charges Total* (N of first felony re-arrests within 4 years)

*

(2173)

63 5 1

35 17 1

16 9 9

58 7 1

1

2

3

1

6 7 0 23 0 100

11 13 1 32 0 100

16 19 0 46 1 100

7 8 0 25 0 100

(332)

(97)

(2602)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

58