Alternative to Incarceration 01

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services End of Year Report Fiscal Year 2001

Elyse J. Revere Project Director and Junior Research Analyst Mari Curbelo, Esq. Project Director and Associate Director, ATIIS

FINAL REPORT

October 2001 Š 2001 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services End of Year Report Fiscal Year 2001 Elyse J. Revere Project Director and Junior Research Analyst Mari Curbelo, Esq. Project Director and Associate Director, ATIIS ATIIS Assistance: Fanny Castro, Esq. Coordinator of ATIIS Joann DeJesus Coordinator of ATIIS Juanita Salgado Supervisor Research Assistance: Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Systems Programming: Barbara Geller Diaz Associate Director, Information Systems Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst AĂŻda Tejaratchi Programmer/Analyst Anne Gravitch Programmer/Analyst Dorothy Morreale Junior Programmer/Analyst This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org\research\research.htm

Š 2001 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

i

Acknowledgements This report was prepared under the direction of Elyse J. Revere, Junior Research Analyst, and Mari Curbelo, Esq., Associate Director for the Alternative-toIncarceration Information Service (ATIIS), at the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA). The staffs of both departments and that of the Information Systems Department, under Associate Director Barbara Geller Diaz, are thanked for their assistance in producing the report.

Fanny Castro, Esq., and Joann DeJesus, Coordinators of ATIIS, assisted with great patience and good humor in resolving data issues and in the production of the report. Juanita Salgado, Supervisor, assisted quietly and diligently with careful review of the data before entry.

Graphics and Production Specialist Raymond Caligiure provided able assistance for the table and chart presentations.

Wayne Nehwadowich, Senior Programmer/Analyst at CJA was the principal programmer for the report. AŃ—da Tejaratchi, Dorothy Morreale, and Anne Gravitch, under the supervision of Barbara Geller Diaz, provided additional programming support.

Finally, Jerome E. McElroy is thanked for his timely review and comments on the final draft.

ii

Table of Contents

Page Acknowledgements

i

Table of Contents

ii

List of Figures, Tables and Graphs for ATIIS Fiscal Year 2001 Report

iii

1. Introduction

1

2. Building and Maintaining the ATIIS Database a. Current Status of Data Exchange and Tracking Reports b. ATIIS Information Providing and Training Role

2

3. Case-Targeting Activities in Fiscal Year 2001 a. Criminal Court Arraignment Targeting and Screening b. Post-Arraignment Computer Targeting

5

4. Court-Mandated Cases to City-Funded ATI Programs in Fiscal Year 2001

11

5. After Placement: Status, Time in Program, and In-Program Rearrests a. Program Status as of June 30, 2001 b. Length of Time in the Programs c. In-Program Rearrests

24

Exhibit A Tables Appendix A Appendix B

iii

List of Tables and Figures for ATIIS End of Year Report, FY01 Targeting: Figure 1: Arraignment Misdemeanor Targeting and Screening Figure 2: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases Held on Bail Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment Figure 3: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Felony Cases Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment Figure 4: Time Period of Release for Felony Cases Mandated in the Reporting Period by ATI Program Table 1: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period by Time Period of Targeting and Borough Table 2: Charge Type (Penal Law Article) for the Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment in the Reporting Period for Targeted Misdemeanor Cases by Borough Table 3: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Felony Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period by Borough Table 4: Charge Type (Penal Law Article) for the Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment in the Reporting Period For All Boroughs by Felony Target Group Release: Table 5a: Table 5b: Table 5c: Table 5d: Table 6a: Table 6b:

Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period ATI Programs to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Borough Scheduled Days of Community Service Sentences for Cases Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence Table 7: Demographic and Criminal History Characteristics of Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Program Group Table 8a: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group: Mandated to Felony Programs Table 8b: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group: Mandated to CSSP Table 9: Charge Leaving Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

by Program

Participant Personal Profile and Target Case Information: Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Defendants Who Actually Enrolled in the Reporting Period by Program Group Table 11: Drug and Alcohol Use of Defendants Who Actually Enrolled in the Reporting Period by Program Group Table 12: Outcome Characteristics of Cases that Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Program Group Program Status: Table 13: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases Active in the Reporting Period

by ATI Program Table 13a: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in YAP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13b: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in CEP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13c: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13d: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13e: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13f: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

iv

Table 13g: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13h: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13i: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in Crossroads during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 14: Status as of June 30, 2001 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Days of Community Service Sentence Table 15: Status as of June 30, 2001 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence and Time of Mandate Table 16: Length of Time in CSSP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 17: Length of Time in Felony Programs as of June 30, 2001, for Cases Active in the Reporting Period by Program Table 18: Length of Time in Felony Programs for Cases Active during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18a: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in YAP during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18b: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in CEP during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18c: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Freedom during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18d: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in DAMAS during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18e: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18f: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in El Rio during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18g: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18h: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in STEPS during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Table 18i: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Crossroads during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Rearrests: Table 19: Count of Mandated Cases with Prosecuted In-Program Rearrests by Program (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001) Table 20: In-Program Rearrest Rates by CSSP Program Status (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001) Table 21: Program Status of Felony Program Participants with In-Program Rearrests (Cases Active in the Reporting Period , Rearrests through June 30, 2001) Table 22: Characteristics of First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001) Table 23: Demographic and Criminal History Characteristics of Defendants Who Had at Least One Prosecuted Rearrest In-Program by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001)

1. Introduction This report summarizes the activities of the Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services (ATIIS) of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA) from July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, the fiscal year (FY) 2001 for the City of New York. The report will provide previously unreported data for the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (April 1, 2001, through June 30, 2001) and will highlight significant changes occurring during the fiscal year. Comparisons to the previous fiscal year will be drawn wherever relevant. As in previous reports, this report will address:

1

•

the current status of data exchange between the City-funded Alternativeto-Incarceration (ATI) programs1 and ATIIS, including the extension of the tracking system for ATI program compliance with the City-imposed data submission requirements to CASES’s Community Service Sentencing Project (CSSP);

•

ongoing training and information providing activities;

•

the number and types of computer-targeted cases that entered the court system during the period of July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, including previously unreported data for the fourth quarter of the fiscal year;

•

the number, types, and legal status of cases and defendants mandated by the court to participate in each ATI program, including characteristics of placed participants, during the period of July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, including previously unreported data for the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. Data from the Target Case Information and Participant Personal Profile forms for felony and misdemeanor cases mandated during the fiscal year will also be provided;

•

the number of mandated cases that exited each ATI program during the fiscal year, including the reasons for the status, and length of program stay; and,

•

the number of program participants who were rearrested and prosecuted, for each ATI program, by arrest charge of the first rearrest and by exit status from the program.

See Exhibit A for list and description of the City-funded ATI programs.

2. Building and Maintaining the ATIIS Database a. Current Status of Data Exchange and Tracking Reports As described in previous reports,2 the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (OCJC) set forth in its contracts with the ATI programs specific timelines for submitting participant-related information to CJA.3 Specifically, legal information contained in the Target Case Information (TCI) forms is due at CJA the Wednesday following the week when the participant was mandated to participate in the ATI program by the court. Personal profile information contained in the Participant Personal Profile (3PF) form is due on the second Wednesday following the participant’s actual enrollment in the program. Participant exit or transfer information contained in the Transfer and Exit (Exit) form is due the Wednesday following the week of the decision to transfer or exit the client.

Following OCJC’s decision to permit selected programs4 to reinstate participants back in June 2000, information on such cases is now also due on the Wednesday following the week of the court’s decision to allow the participant to resume participation in the program.

Information on reinstated cases has been provided to ATIIS and has been entered into the database. Effective for the reporting month of August 2000, reinstatement reports were added to the monthly Participant Data-Submission Tracking Reports already in place. The accompanying Summaries reflect the inclusion of these data records.

ATIIS provided all of the ATI programs5 and OCJC with copies of the Tracking Reports and Summaries of the fourth quarter well within the timeframes outlined in the Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2001 Report.6 The schedule is noted below:

2

See Eckert, Mary A., and Mari Curbelo. First Half of Fiscal Year 2000 Report: Six-Month Report, 2000, Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2000 Report: Third Quarter Report. New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency and, Revere, Elyse J., and Mari Curbelo. End-of-Year Report: Fiscal Year 2000; First Half Fiscal Year 2001: Six-Month Report, Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2001 Report: Third Quarter Report, New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

3 The data-submission requirements for ATI programs are contained in Exhibit C of the contracts with the City. The most recent version of Exhibit C, dated February 23, 2000, sets forth the formula for payment: failure to submit at least 80 percent of the data on time results in forfeiting that month’s payment but programs will be paid their percentage rate above 80 percent.

4 These programs include CASES’s CSSP and CEP, and the Fortune Society’s DAMAS, FlameTree and Freedom programs.

5 ATIIS produces Tracking Reports for Crossroads as part of our agreement to collect their data and provide them with daily target lists, rearrest reports, and adjourned date reports. However, we do not send the City a modified version of that report because Crossroads is not subject to the payment and penalty provisions of Exhibit C. 6 Final versions of the Tracking Reports and Summaries are produced and distributed by messenger to the programs and OCJC on the Wednesday of the fourth full week of each month, two days in advance of the scheduled day, which is Friday.

2

DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE FOR FOURTH QUARTER 2001 Reporting Month FY2001

Program Distribution Date

April

May 23rd, Wed.

Final version to OCJC and Programs May 30th, Wed.

May

June 20th, Wed.

June 27th, Wed.

June

July 18th, Wed.

July 25th, Wed.

The required distribution schedule for FY02 is as follows: DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 Reporting Month FY2001 July 2001

Program Distribution Date August 22nd, Wed.

Final version to OCJC and Programs August 31st, Fri.

August 2001

September 19th, Wed.

September 28th, Fri.

September 2001

October 24th, Wed.

November 2nd, Fri.

October 2001

November 21st, Wed.

November 30th, Fri.

November 2001

December 19th, Wed.

December 28th, Fri.

December 2001

January 23rd, Wed.

February 1st, Fri.

January 2002

February 20th, Wed.

March 1st, Fri.

February 2002

March 20th, Wed.

March 29th, Fri. 3

March 2002

April 24th, Wed.

May 3rd, Fri.

April 2002

May 22nd, Wed.

May 31st, Fri.

May 2002

June 19th, Wed.

June 28th, Fri.

June 2002

July 24th, Wed.

August 2nd, Fri.

A review of the Tracking Reports and Summaries for the fourth quarter of the fiscal year reveals substantial compliance by all of the ATI programs in submitting the required data records or forms within the timelines set by the City.

Compliance rates for the submission of specific forms are provided below. The Total column includes a count of all timely forms over the total number of forms submitted during that month.

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom P. Return STEPS YAP

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom P. Return STEPS YAP

TCI 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 57%

TCI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

APRIL 2001 3PF EXIT 99% 95% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 25%

MAY 2001 3PF 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80%

4

EXIT 100% 100% 71% 100% 90% 100% 100% 88% 86%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 0% 100% 100%

TOTAL 408/417 = 98% 68/69 = 99% 52/52 = 100% 20/20 = 100% 27/27 = 100% 26/27 = 96% 29/29 = 100% 04/04 = 100% 10/17 = 59%

TOTAL 510/510 =100% 85/85 =100% 67/69 = 97% 22/23 = 96% 19/20 = 95% 29/29 = 100% 35/35 = 100% 19/20 = 95% 14/16 = 88%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom P. Return STEPS YAP

TCI 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100%

JUNE 2001 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 87% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 0%

TOTAL 471/471 = 100% 68/68 = 100% 68/73 = 93% 18/18 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 26/28 = 93% 36/37 = 97% 13/13 = 100% 10/12 = 83%

b. ATIIS Information Providing and Training Role ATIIS staff handles daily requests from ATI programs regarding the information needed to accurately complete the required forms. Most often, the data requested are court identifiers such as arrest numbers, docket numbers, and indictment numbers. Additional information, including charges, bail status, appearance history, procedural posture of the case, or next adjourned date, is also sought, particularly when the program’s court advocate does not have access to court papers or to the Office of Court Administration’s (OCA) Criminal Record Information Management System (CRIMS). ATIIS staff also responds to calls about the status of open cases and of in-program rearrests. Additionally, training sessions either at CJA or at the programs’ sites have been conducted and will continue to be offered throughout the next fiscal year. During the fourth quarter, training sessions were conducted with YAP and Crossroads staff on June 18th.

3. Case-Targeting Activities in FY01 a. Criminal Court Arraignment Targeting and Screening For a misdemeanor case to be considered statistically targeted at arraignment, according to statistically-derived targeting categories, there has to be a misdemeanor larceny charge on the affidavit, and the defendant in the case has to have served at least one prior jail sentence on a misdemeanor conviction. A misdemeanor case may also be statistically targeted at arraignment if there is a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge on the affidavit, and if the defendant in the case has served at least two prior jail sentences on misdemeanor convictions.

During the reporting period, a total of 17,746 cases were identified in the CJA database for which the top affidavit charge was a misdemeanor larceny charge

5

or misdemeanor criminal mischief charge,7 or for which CSSP staff submitted screening information, indicating either acceptance into CSSP or rejection from further screening on the arraignment date.8 The arraignment misdemeanor target pool for FY01 is slightly larger than FY00 (17,389 cases), when the old arraignment targeting criteria was still in effect for most of the fiscal year.9 Figure 1 displays the screening and targeting information at arraignment for FY01. CSSP provided the results of its screening for 1,613 cases,10 or 9.1 percent of the defined pool. Both the proportion of cases screened by CSSP, and the actual number of misdemeanor cases that were screened at arraignment, increased from FY00 (8.2%; 1,422 cases), to FY01 (9.1%; 1,613 cases). Daytime-arraignment parts during the workweek were covered in four boroughs. The extent of CSSP coverage beyond daytime arraignment was unknown to ATIIS. The screened cases, however, included 577 cases (not shown) arraigned at times other than weekday, day-court sessions. The increase in the proportion of screened cases from night and weekend arraignments, from 25.0 percent in FY00, to 35.8 percent (not shown) in FY01 appears to be the result of increased coverage by CSSP. Over three-fifths (61.9%) of all screened cases did not have a larceny or criminal mischief charge as their most severe affidavit charge in CJA’s database.

Most of the non-screened cases were larceny or criminal mischief cases arraigned in weekend or night arraignments. These cases accounted for 58.3 percent of the defined pool, while the remaining larceny and criminal mischief cases for which there is no record of screening (32.6%) were arraigned during the workweek. Of course, CSSP court staff may have reviewed court papers for some portion of these cases and decided that the case should be excluded from further consideration without interviewing the defendant. ATIIS would not have received a record of screening such a case. Subsequent sections of this report will detail the outcome of screening for the mandated cases.

The cases in the pool without a record of screening at arraignment were not all excluded from being considered later for CSSP placement. In covered arraignment parts, cases that were not disposed might be targeted postarraignment, and because staff knew they would be targeted later or were still following the case, no record of arraignment screening was necessary. This was also possible for the cases arraigned in court parts outside of routine coverage.

7

It was possible that the larceny or criminal mischief charge was not the “top” charge on a given docket in CJA’s database because our database is limited to recording one affidavit charge, and another charge of equal severity might be chosen by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) in its electronic feed of court information to CJA. 8 Screening information is provided to ATIIS for defendants mandated to participate in CSSP, and for those who were interviewed by CSSP staff and then rejected. By agreement with OCJC, CSSP is not required to submit information on all screened cases, but only for those cases in which the defendant was interviewed and then rejected or placed.

9 The new misdemeanor targeting went into effect at the beginning of the fourth quarter of FY00 (April 1, 2000).

10 Data inconsistencies may affect the categorizations of some small number of cases.

6

No Record of Screening

Weekday Arraignments 32.6% N=5,779

Screened

by CSSP 9.1% N=1,613

*Base: cases with an affidavit charge that is a misdemeanor larceny charge or misdemeanor criminal mischief charge, as well as all cases screened and resolved by CSSP staff at arraignment.

Night and Weekend Arraignments 58.3% N=10,354

Figure 1 Arraignment Misdemeanor Targeting and Screening (N=17,746*)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01

Criminal Mischief 2.4% N=39

Larceny 35.7% N=576

Non-Larceny/ Non-Criminal Mischief 61.9% N=998

Over two-fifths (41.0% [not shown]) of the larceny and criminal mischief cases for which there was no record of screening involved defendants who had misdemeanor criminal histories fitting the criteria that would allow them also to be targeted post-arraignment, if their cases were continued, if they were detained, and if they met all other parameters. Only 450 (not shown) of the non-screened cases would have been excluded from post arraignment targeting for parole or residence reasons. b. Post-Arraignment Computer Targeting Throughout FY01, ATIIS continued to provide felony programs with daily target lists of cases that fit computer-targeting specifications. While no daily target lists were requested for misdemeanor cases by CSSP, CJA continued identifying in the database statistically targeted cases after Criminal Court arraignment. In a subsequent section of the report, the targeting characteristics of the cases mandated to CSSP, and of those mandated to felony programs, will be explored.

For both misdemeanor and felony cases leaving Criminal Court arraignment without being disposed, the statistically-derived criteria were applied to cases where the defendant was detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment, and which fit the mandated parameters set by OCJC for residence and prior record.

Specific statistically-derived criteria were also applied to some cases of nondetained defendants in felony cases. The categories are listed in Appendix A. Misdemeanor Targeting The misdemeanor target categories, listed in Appendix B, are based on statistically-derived targeting criteria applied to post-arraignment misdemeanor cases in which the defendant was detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment.

A total of 32,673 cases during the fiscal year were identified in CJA’s database as involving defendants detained on bail leaving Criminal Court arraignment and charged with a misdemeanor on a continuing case. This represents a 10.1 percent increase from FY00, which was reported as 29,671 cases. Figure 2 displays the attrition from this pool, down to the 7,548 computer-targeted cases that fit the statistical criteria for being likely to receive a sentence of 20 days or more, if convicted. Although the actual number of misdemeanor cases that were computer-targeted increased by 807 cases from FY00, to FY01 (6,741 in FY00 and 7,548 in FY01), the proportion of cases targeted in FY01 (23.1%), increased only slightly over the proportion of cases meeting the targeting criteria in FY00 (22.7%). During most of FY00, the old post-arraignment misdemeanor targeting criteria were still in effect and the old A and B misdemeanor target categories were being used to target post arraignment misdemeanor cases.

Most of the cases (57.6%) identified as detained on bail leaving Criminal Court arraignment were eliminated because they did not meet the combination of

7

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Figure 2: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases Held on Bail Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment N=32,673

Unable To Target: Missing Information N=1,691 5.2% Excluded from Targeting: On Parole or No NYC Residence N=4,606 14.1%

Computer Targeted: N=7,548 23.1%

Not Targeted: Assessed as Inappropriate for ATI N=18,828 57.6%

charge and prior record associated statistically with a higher likelihood of receiving a target-range sentence of 20 or more days in jail. City-mandated exclusions eliminated about one in seven cases (14.1%) from further consideration. Missing information contributed to the inability to target 5.2 percent of the cases.11 Table 112 presents the 7,548 post-arraignment computer-targeted cases by the misdemeanor target categories, by time period of targeting, and by borough of prosecution. The misdemeanor retargeting analysis identified categories of postarraignment cases with a higher statistical likelihood of receiving 20 to 45 days in jail. All post arraignment misdemeanor computer-targeted cases are identified as Target C and none of them are required to perform more than ten days of community service.

Within Target C, four different categories were developed, each with unique targeting criteria, and calculated likelihood of receiving 20 days or more of incarceration. (See Appendix B.) As seen in Table 1, Target category C03, consisting of non-larceny and non-criminal mischief cases, with two prior misdemeanor jails, and having a calculated likelihood of incarceration of 26.8 percent (not shown), represents the largest proportion of computer-targeted cases across all four boroughs for each time period. Target category C04, consisting of larceny and criminal mischief cases, with two prior misdemeanor jails, and having the highest calculated likelihood of incarceration of 49.3 percent (not shown), had the second largest proportion of cases for each time period.

The borough proportions of these cases have shown variation over time. In FY01, Brooklyn had more cases (2,977) targeted than any other borough.

Manhattan, with the largest target pool at arraignment, had the next highest number (2,274) of post-arraignment cases meeting the targeting criteria.

Targeted cases in the Bronx (1,361) were less than half the number in Brooklyn; the smallest number of post-arraignment misdemeanor target cases was in Queens (936). Although the borough proportions of each of the target categories have varied over time, Brooklyn consistently has the largest number of targeted post-arraignment misdemeanor cases while Queens has the fewest of these cases.

The Penal Law Article for post-arraignment targeted misdemeanor cases by borough is displayed in Table 2. Based on the Target C targeting criteria, it would be expected that larceny charges would be associated with many of these cases. The proportion of post-arraignment targeted cases that had larceny charges decreased slightly, from 18.0 percent in FY00, to 17.2 percent in FY01.

Also, based on the Target C criteria, it is not surprising there was an increase in 11

The reasons why information is missing range from an inability to collect necessary information because the defendant could not be interviewed by CJA operation staff, to failing to collect one or more specific pieces of information during the interview that are necessary to computer target the case.

12 Tables are found at the end of the report.

8

targeted cases with a criminal mischief charge from FY00 (2.9%), to FY01 (4.5%). Interestingly, drug offenses, represented by the combined charge categories of controlled substances offenses and offenses involving marijuana, decreased their representation among targeted cases from 31.9 percent in FY00, to 28.7 percent of all misdemeanor cases targeted after arraignment in FY01.

On the other hand, assaults increased in their representation among targeted cases from 17.0 percent in FY00, to 20.6 percent in FY01.

The charge characteristics of the targeted pool of cases in FY01 varied by borough and showed some variation when compared to the proportions of the charge characteristics in the targeted pool from FY00. In both FY00, and FY01, Brooklyn was more likely than the other boroughs to have targeted misdemeanor drug cases, including marijuana offenses (36.5% in FY00 and 34.2% in FY01), although the percentage of these cases decreased slightly over the two time periods. In Manhattan, in both FY00 and FY01, marijuana charges (14.5% in FY00 and 14.6% in FY01) were proportionately similar to controlled substance offenses (14.2% in FY00 and 14.2% in FY01) among targeted cases. Taken together, controlled substance and marijuana offenses were associated with 28.7 percent of the cases targeted in the Bronx in FY00, and in FY01 the proportion of these cases targeted in the Bronx dropped to 21.4 percent. In FY01, almost onethird (28.7%) of targeted misdemeanor cases in the Bronx were cases with assault-related offenses, and almost one-quarter (23.8%) of targeted misdemeanor cases in Queens were cases with assault-related offenses.

Felony Targeting Figure 3 shows the attrition from the 45,923 felony cases eligible for targeting leaving Criminal Court arraignment, down to the 15,042 cases computer targeted during the fiscal year. (See Appendix A.) The base of 45,923 cases includes all cases in which the defendant was detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment, as well as three additional, non-detained target categories.

The felony target criteria allow for three categories of cases in which defendants released at arraignment are in the base pool and eligible for targeting: drug offense cases (for male and female defendants), approved for screening by drug programs, and cases fitting the profile for the STEPS program. The cases of released women fitting the STEPS profile are eligible for screening without further restrictions. However, in order to increase the likely jail displacement of released drug cases, these defendants are not eligible for screening by drug programs unless and until the cases are transferred to Supreme Court. By the same token, male defendants charged with drug offenses who are detained on bail of $1500 or less may be considered for placement by the felony drug programs when and if their cases are transferred to Supreme Court.

To clarify: There are two groups of drug cases that actually may only be computer targeted if they meet the additional targeting criterion of being

9

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Figure 3: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Felony Cases Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment N=45,923

Unable to Target: Missing Information N=2,317 5.0% Excluded from Targeting: On Parole or No NYC Residence N=6,799 14.8%

Not Targeted: Assessed as Inappropriate for ATI N=21,765 47.4%

Computer Targeted: N=15,042 32.8%

transferred to Supreme Court. These cases are included in the base of 45,923 cases that are identified for targeting leaving Criminal Court arraignment so that these cases may be tracked to see if they are, indeed, eventually transferred to Supreme Court. The specific criteria for the felony target categories can be found in Appendix A. Proportionately, more felony cases were targeted than were misdemeanor cases from their base pool leaving arraignment, with one-third (32.8%) of the felony cases being targeted. Slightly less than one-half (47.4%) of the felony cases were assessed as inappropriate for further screening, either because they did not have the characteristics of a case that was sufficiently jailbound, or perhaps because they had the characteristics likely to result in a mandatory incarcerative sentence (e.g., had a predicate felony conviction). Parole and residence exclusions eliminated 14.8 percent of the felony cases, and another 5.0 percent had insufficient information available in the CJA database to permit targeting.

The overall proportion, as well as the actual number, of felony cases targeted for the fiscal year (32.8%; 15,042 cases), was lower than in FY00 (39.0%; 16,861 cases), when the new felony target categories were introduced in the middle of the third quarter. The decrease is consistent with the expectation from the felony retargeting analysis, that fewer cases of detained defendants would be targeted after the revised felony-target criteria were implemented. Over half (53.2%; 7,997 cases [not shown]) of the felony target pool included cases fitting the detained target categories and the remaining 46.8 percent (7,045 cases [not shown]) included cases fitting the released-defendant and male drug “low bail” categories.

Table 3 displays the target groups for felony cases by the borough of case prosecution. Five-sixths (83.8%) of those targeted leaving Criminal Court arraignment were from the male target categories, and 14.2 percent were from the female target categories. Juvenile offender (JO) cases, involving youth under 16 years old charged with certain violent felonies, continued to represent a small proportion (2.0%) of the target pool. Youth, 16 through 18 years old, eligible for “youthful offender” (YO) treatment, are no longer a separate target category.

With the change in felony targeting criteria, the cases of YO-eligible defendants must meet the statistical criteria for the other adult targeting groups. The effects of this change can be seen with a comparison to the target category distribution from FY00. In FY00, the YO target category represented 10.1 percent of the felony cases targeted, while in FY01 these cases are distributed throughout the other eligible target categories. This is evident in the increase in the proportion of the male target categories from the 76.7 percent in FY00, to 83.8 percent in FY01. The proportion of cases targeted in the female target categories also increased from 11.6 percent in FY00, to 14.2 percent in FY01.

10

Detained male non-drug cases, targeted in the fiscal year accounted for over one-quarter (27.4%) of the target pool leaving arraignment, as compared to 38.3 percent in FY00. The targeting of drug cases for detained male defendants is restricted by placing a minimum bail amount of $1,500 as a requirement for case targeting, thereby helping to depress the proportion targeted in that group (16.7%) compared to earlier reporting periods. Cases in the male drug detained “low bail� category represented 12.8 percent of the targeted felony cases in FY01.

Over one-quarter (27.0%) of the cases targeted for the fiscal year were from the target category for male released indicted drug defendants. Released female defendants in drug cases represented 6.8 percent of the post-arraignment felony targeted cases.

Manhattan accounted for almost one-third (31.3%) of the targeted felony cases, and the Bronx and Brooklyn each accounted for over one-quarter (28.5% and 26.2% respectively) of the targeted felony cases. The largest number of felony cases was targeted in Manhattan (4,712), followed by the number targeted in the Bronx (4,286). Brooklyn cases (3,944) were the next most frequently targeted cases. Queens continued to have the smallest number of cases targeted (2,100). Manhattan had the largest proportion of targeted cases in both FY00 and FY01, while Queens had the smallest proportion in both fiscal years.

The profile of cases targeted, as in previous reporting periods, varied by borough. Proportionately more released female drug defendants were targeted in the Bronx, and targeted Bronx cases were also more likely than any other borough to include released male drug defendants. This pool accounted for 34.8 percent of all Bronx cases targeted in the fiscal year. The high proportion of detained males in non-drug cases distinguished targeted cases in Queens: Such cases accounted for almost half (47.2%) of the borough-target pool in the fiscal year.

The characteristics of cases targeted vary by target group, as seen in Table 4.

The elimination of a specific YO-eligible pool increased the proportion of robbery cases targeted for non-drug detained males to 44.3 percent, compared to 33.3 percent in FY00. Women non-drug detained cases included many robbery cases as well (55.1%), an increase from 36.8 percent in FY00. Due to the special targeting for STEPS, over three-fifths (64.4%) of non-drug released cases for women were charged with assault.

4. Court-Mandated Cases to City-Funded ATI Programs in FY01 As of August 23, 2001,13 a total of 2,540 cases had been reported to ATIIS as mandated to ATI programs in fiscal year 2001. The proportion of misdemeanor 13

All information on cases mandated to programs in FY01 was received and processed by ATIIS by August 23, 2001.

11

cases going to CSSP in FY01 was almost the same as in FY00 (59.1% in FY00; 60.1% in FY01). Interestingly, the actual number of cases mandated to CSSP in this fiscal year is over 200 cases more than the number mandated in FY00 (1,306 cases in FY00; 1,527 cases in FY01). A total of 1,013 cases were mandated to felony ATI programs during this fiscal year. This represents an 11.9 percent increase in felony placements over FY00. Of the 1,013 cases mandated to a felony program in FY01, 43 were mandated more than once.

As stated previously, several ATI programs have been authorized by OCJC to reinstate cases and, as a result, CJA has changed the ATIIS files to reflect this information. Reinstatements involve defendants who have been mandated to a program, but who do not complete the program, and are subsequently reinstated to the same program on the same case. In this situation, the case is counted only once, as one release, because the defendant’s participation resumes from where it had ended. Prior to the designation of reinstated cases, when a defendant was mandated to a program, but did not complete the program, and was ordered back into the same program by the court, the case was counted twice. Each case was identified separately by the different court-mandated dates. This continues to be the practice for cases in drug treatment programs because defendants are required to start over their period of participation the second time around.

There were 28 cases reinstated during FY01, nine of which were from CSSP. Of the remaining 19 reinstatements, eight were from CEP, eight were from Freedom, two were from DAMAS, and one was from FlameTree. Of the nine cases reinstated to CSSP, the earliest reinstatement occurred within one week of the original exit date, and the latest occurred within seven months of the original exit date. Fourteen of the 19 reinstatements to felony programs occurred within one month of the original exit date, and the latest felony reinstatement occurred within four months of originally exiting the program.

Table 5a presents CSSP cases according to when they were mandated, at arraignment or post-arraignment, and their target groupings. The percentages are calculated as the proportion of the mandated cases within a category by the time of mandate. Three-fifths (60.1%) of the cases mandated to CSSP were mandated at arraignment, all of which were either referral or manually-targeted cases. This is because our computer-targeting system cannot process all the information necessary to target a case in time for the arraignment appearance.

The five post arraignment cases with the old Target A code, and the one felonyreduced case with the old YO target code, were originally targeted in a previous reporting period, but were not mandated until the current reporting period.

Table 5b presents the cases mandated to specific felony programs according to their post-arraignment, computer-targeted groupings. The percentages are calculated as the proportion of the mandated cases within a target category that

12

were mandated to a specific felony ATI program. The following FY01 mandates of felony cases, in order from most to least, were reported to ATIIS: • • • • • • • • •

CEP---292 cases, El Rio---168 cases, Freedom---134 cases, FlameTree---103 cases, Project Return---90 cases, YAP---66 cases, DAMAS---57 cases, Crossroads---53 cases, and STEPS---50 cases.

Although there was some shift from FY00 to FY01, in the order of felony programs based on the number of mandates, most programs had an increase in the number of cases mandated in FY01. The exceptions were Freedom, which secured the same number of mandates in FY01 and in FY00, and YAP and STEPS, where the number of mandated cases actually decreased.

In terms of the numbers of felony cases mandated, few (29) non-drug cases targeted for women are found among the court-mandated cases, with cases mandated to STEPS accounting for the largest number (11) of these cases.

Among the targeted drug cases for women mandated to felony programs (75 including both released and detained defendants), 55 were mandated to drug programs. Among the targeted drug cases for men mandated to felony programs during the fiscal year, almost two-fifths (38.1%) of the cases were mandated to non-drug programs: Of the 168 cases in this target category, 104 were mandated to FlameTree, El Rio, Project Return, and Crossroads with the majority of the remaining cases going to CEP. Table 5c presents the same data as Table 5a for cases mandated to CSSP, with the percentages calculated within time of mandate so that the proportion of computer-targeted versus other cases mandated at arraignment or postarraignment can be seen. Most of the cases mandated to CSSP were from the manual targeting and referred category (79.5%). All placements at arraignment were from this category, with 37.8 percent of the cases in the referral or manual category fitting the arraignment target criteria. Half (49.7%) of the cases mandated to CSSP post-arraignment in this fiscal year came from the postarraignment misdemeanor target categories. Few CSSP cases came from felony-targeted pools where charges may have been reduced. Over one-fifth (22.9% [not shown]) of the referral or manual category cases that were mandated post-arraignment to CSSP were cases that had some missing information, but otherwise fit the post-arraignment target criteria for charge and prior record.

Table 5d presents the same data as Table 5b, with the percentages calculated within program so that the proportion of computer-targeted versus other cases

13

mandated to each felony program can be seen. Among the felony programs, CEP reported proportionately the lowest number of mandated cases (33.9%) as coming from a pool of referral or manually targeted cases, followed closely by YAP with 34.8 percent of mandated cases from referral or manually targeted cases. In FY00, CEP also reported the lowest number of referral or manually targeted cases, although the percentage increased from FY00 (24.5%), to FY01.

CEP drew from a variety of target groups, no longer having a specific YO-eligible targeting category, focusing on defendants who are between the ages of 16 to 19. The proportion of mandated cases not fitting computer-target categories increased from FY00 to FY01, for CEP, Freedom, FlameTree and STEPS, and decreased for YAP, DAMAS, El Rio, Project Return, and Crossroads. Cases mandated to STEPS in FY01 were the most likely (78.0%) of any program to come from a source other than the computer-targeted categories. One explanation for the high proportion of non-computer-targeted-cases mandated to STEPS is that almost one-fourth of these defendants appeared to have been charged with a misdemeanor as the top charge in their case, a factor that would have excluded the case from computer targeting.

The proportion of cases mandated to the ATI programs by borough of prosecution has varied over time. As displayed in Table 6a, cases from Brooklyn accounted for 825 cases mandated to programs in the fiscal year, followed closely by cases from the Bronx (819). Manhattan accounted for 634 cases and Queens had the fewest cases mandated to programs in FY01 (262). In all boroughs, CSSP accounted for more than half of the cases mandated in the reporting period. In Queens, CSSP accounted for four-fifths (80.9%) of the mandated cases in that borough for FY01. Felony cases contributed most to the total mandated in the Bronx. As in FY00, Queens cases were least represented among those mandated to these City-funded ATI programs during FY01, with only 50 cases from Queens mandated to a felony program in FY01.

The scheduled days of community service are presented for cases reported as mandated to CSSP in Table 6b. As in prior reporting periods, almost all (98.0%) cases mandated to CSSP in FY01 were required to perform ten days of community services as a condition of their “conditional discharge� sentence.

Only 31 (2.0%) cases mandated to CSSP in FY01 were required to perform five days of community service, an increase over FY00 when less than one percent of the cases (0.8%) were required to perform this shortened length of community service. These cases fit a different profile developed by CSSP.14 In FY00, 4.8 percent of the cases mandated to CSSP were required to perform 15 days of community service, but as a result of the misdemeanor retargeting analysis,15 this option was discontinued beginning in the fourth quarter of that fiscal year.

14

In order to qualify for five days of community service, the defendant must have between two and five prior convictions (felonies included). The case must be disposed at a post-arraignment appearance and the defendant released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment. There are no affidavit charge restrictions for these cases.

15 See Eckert, Mary A., and Mari Curbelo. First Half Fiscal Year 2000 Report: Six-Month Report, 2000, New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

14

Characteristics of Defendants Mandated to ATI Programs Table 7 displays selected demographic and criminal history characteristics of the defendants in the cases mandated to ATI programs in FY01. The characteristics of the defendants mandated to CSSP are presented together, regardless of whether or not the mandate occurred at arraignment or post-arraignment. The cases mandated to felony ATI programs are presented as a group.

Profile of Defendants Mandated to CSSP The historical profile of CSSP as being a program for “repeat misdemeanants� is continued with the defendants mandated to CSSP in the reporting period.

Consistent with this profile, over one-third (35.3%) of the defendants were 40 years old or older, and more than two-fifths (44.7%) were in their thirties. One in six participants (16.5%) were female. The demographic characteristics of these cases are very similar to the cases mandated to CSSP in FY00. The prior conviction history of defendants mandated to CSSP in FY01 continues a trend toward a lower number of misdemeanor convictions per mandated case. The proportion of defendants with between one and four prior misdemeanor convictions increased from 23.0 percent in FY00, to 25.7 percent in FY01, while the proportion of defendants in cases mandated to CSSP with 15 or more prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the mandated case decreased over the same time period (25.8% in FY00 and 22.9% in FY01). More than two-thirds (69.4%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP in FY01 were sentenced to jail terms on those convictions at least twice, a slight decrease from FY00 when 70.8 percent had been similarly sentenced to jail.

In FY01 over three-fifths (62.8%) of defendants mandated to CSSP had at least one prior felony conviction, and two-fifths (41.5%) of the participants had served a prior prison sentence. The prior felony record for defendants mandated to CSSP in FY01 appears to been slightly more serious in terms of felony convictions and prison sentences compared to FY00, when 61.5 percent of defendants mandated to CSSP had at least one prior felony conviction, and 39.1 percent of the participants had served a prior prison sentence. Over two-thirds (71.3%) of the defendants in mandated cases had had two or more prior bench warrants issued for failing to appear at a prior court appearance, consistent with their extensive criminal records.

Profile of Defendants Mandated to Felony Programs The contrast of the profile of defendants mandated to felony programs and that of defendants mandated to CSSP is as striking as it was for previous reporting periods. Over two-fifths (42.3%) of the defendants mandated to felony programs in the fiscal year were under 19 years of age. Women represented over onequarter (29.0%) of the defendants mandated in the fiscal year. More than one in

15

four (27.6%) defendants mandated to felony programs had prior misdemeanor convictions and one in six (16.9%) defendants had a prior felony conviction.

Although still a small proportion (22.3%) of defendants, the proportion mandated in FY01 who had served time in jail or prison represents an increase over FY00 (14.0%).

Charge and Case Profiles of Mandated Cases Table 8a presents the Penal Law Article of the most serious charge leaving arraignment, by target group, for cases mandated to felony programs. The proportion of mandated cases with PL Article 220 charges (controlled substances offenses) has varied over time, but it continues to represent the charge category with the largest number of cases mandated to felony programs. Overall, for the fiscal year, these charges accounted for 49.3 percent of the cases mandated to felony programs, a slight decrease over the proportion mandated in FY00 (52.5%).

Robbery offenses were associated with a quarter of mandated cases in both FY00 (24.5%), and FY01 (24.9%). Another 8.8 percent of the cases mandated to felony programs in FY01 were characterized by weapons offenses, a slight increase in the proportion of these cases mandated to felony programs in FY00 (6.2%). As in previous reporting periods, robbery charges characterized most (85.1%) of the cases targeted for juvenile offenders mandated in FY01, and they also accounted for almost three-fifths (58.8%) of the cases from the detained male non-drug target group, which includes the YO-eligible defendants. There was a substantial increase from FY00 to FY01, in the percentage of cases of detained non-drug female defendants charged with robbery offenses (22.2% in FY00 and 42.9% in FY01), although these cases still represent a small number of cases overall.

The corresponding table for cases mandated to CSSP is presented as Table 8b.

In FY00 and FY01, larceny offenses accounted for the largest single proportion of the offenses associated with these cases. In both reporting periods, the proportion of larceny cases mandated to CSSP was over one-third of mandated cases (35.5% in FY00 and 34.4% in FY01). As with cases mandated to the felony programs, the proportion of cases with drug charges mandated to CSSP has varied over time. When drug and marijuana offenses are combined, they are associated with 40.4 percent of the cases mandated to CSSP in FY01. This represents an increase over that reported for FY00 (36.2%). Overall, the distribution of charges of cases mandated to CSSP continues to be diverse.

Table 9 summarizes the charge data by ATI program. Of most interest here is the characterizations of the cases mandated to felony programs, as the CSSP information is repeated from Table 8b. This table clarifies some of the distinctions in cases made by target group above. Cases mandated to DAMAS

16

in FY01, are characterized by a substantial decrease in cases with controlled substances charges (59.6%), compared to FY00 (72.9%).

As in FY00, robbery charges characterize the largest category of cases mandated to CEP and YAP in this reporting period. The percentage of cases with robbery charges in CEP and YAP increased from FY00 to FY01 (39.1% in CEP in FY00 and 46.2% in CEP in FY01; 77.5% in YAP in FY00 and 83.3% in YAP in FY01). For all felony programs (except YAP, CEP, and STEPS), including the general population programs, Freedom and DAMAS, drug cases were the most common ones mandated to the programs although the proportion of these cases mandated to each of the programs varies greatly across reporting periods. The greatest variation occurred for cases mandated to Project Return, where 94.6 percent of the cases mandated to this program in FY00 were cases with controlled substances offenses. The proportion of these cases mandated to Project Return decreased to 74.4 percent in FY01.

Figure 4 presents the time period of release for felony cases mandated in the fiscal year by ATI program. FlameTree comes the closest to having an even division between cases mandated in the first half of the fiscal year (47.6% [not shown]) and cases mandated in the second half of the fiscal year (52.4% [not shown]). Almost half of the cases in El Rio and Project Return were mandated in the fourth quarter of FY01 (45.2% and 44.4% respectively [not shown]).

Legal and Personal Information for Mandated Cases Target Case Information forms are submitted to ATIIS by the ATI programs, who complete these forms for all of those defendants mandated to participate in their programs. The Target Case Information form contains legal information about the participant’s case. For those participants who actually enroll to receive services, the ATI programs are also required to complete and submit to ATIIS a Participant Personal Profile (3PF) form.16 This form contains personal information about the participant and his or her service needs as assessed at or before enrollment.17 Information from both forms is entered routinely into CJA’s database.

The base of cases presented in Table 10 and Table 11 for the felony programs is the number of forms received for cases actually enrolled during the fiscal year, absent Participant Personal Profile forms for “No Shows” and a few delayed submissions.18 For defendants mandated to CSSP the Participant Personal 16

If a participant fails to appear at the program following a judge’s order to report, the requirement of a Participant Personal Profile form is waived upon our receipt of a Status and Exit form designating the case as a “no show.”

17 Although the programs had originally promised that the Participant Personal Profile form would be filled out by the case managers at the time of enrollment, it has been filled out by the court advocates at or before mandate.

18 Thirty two forms were not required because the defendants were “no shows”, and seven forms were missing because of delayed submissions where the defendants had not yet enrolled in the programs as of June 30, 2001.

17

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

YAP (N=66)

Percent

CEP (N=292)

Freedom (N=134)

DAMAS (N=57)

4th Quarter

El Rio Project Return STEPS (N=168) (N=90) (N=50)

3rd Quarter

FlameTree (N=103)

1st & 2nd Quarters

Figure 4: Time Period of Release for Felony Cases Mandated in the Reporting Period by ATI Program

New York City Criminal Justice Agency ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01

Crossroads (N=53)

Total (N=1013)

Profile form is filled out for all cases on the date of mandate. Consequently, the base of cases presented in Tables 10 and 11 for CSSP is all cases mandated to the program.

For Table 10 and Table 11, information on defendants mandated to CSSP, YAP, and CEP is presented separately for each program. The drug programs (FlameTree, El Rio, Project Return, and Crossroads) are presented together and the general population programs (DAMAS, Freedom, and STEPS) are also presented together. Table 12 presents legal status information only for the felony programs because, unlike participants mandated to felony programs, all CSSP participants must plead guilty and be sentenced to a conditional discharge at the point of being mandated into that program. Participants in felony programs may be mandated at various points in the processing of their cases.

Table 10 presents demographic information from the Participant Personal Profile form for defendants mandated to a program in FY01. Of the defendants mandated to CSSP, 25.0 percent reported living with a spouse, and another 23.2 percent live with one or both parents. Over two-thirds (70.9%) of the defendants mandated to YAP, the JO program, live with one or both parents and another one-quarter (25.3%) live with other relatives. Three-fifths (61.8%) of defendants mandated to CEP, the program for 16 to 19 year old defendants, were also living with one or both parents, again with most (29.0%) of the remaining defendants reporting living with other relatives.

Over one-third (36.1%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program live with one or both parents, and another one-quarter (24.6%) live with a spouse. The largest proportion (43.0%) of defendants mandated to a general population program also live with one or both parents, and another one-fifth (20.3%) live with other relatives. CSSP has the highest proportion (14.5%) of participants who reported living alone, followed by the drug programs with 9.3 percent, and the general population programs with 7.2 percent of the participants reporting that they lived alone. Only one participant from CEP reported living alone, and no one from YAP reported living alone.

The largest proportion of defendants in each of the programs reported having no form of employment or financial support at the point of interview. A salary or public assistance represented the two largest categories of employment or support. Overall, almost half (47.1%) of all defendants mandated in FY01 reported having no employment or financial support. The majority of defendants mandated to the felony programs for younger defendants reported having no employment (86.2% in YAP and 86.8% in CEP). Due to the younger populations served by these programs, and the fact that at least three-fifths of the defendants mandated to YAP or CEP report living with one or both parents, these younger defendants are likely to be financially supported by someone else in the household. In fact, of the 56 YAP participants who reported that they receive no employment or financial support, 54 (not shown) also reported that someone else

18

in their household does receive some form of employment or support. Of the 244 CEP participants who reported that they receive no employment or financial support, 231 (not shown) also reported that someone else in their household does receive some form of employment or support.

Of the CSSP participants who reported working, a slightly larger proportion reported working full time (15.5%), compared to those who reported working part time (11.9%). Only two of the YAP participants reported being employed, both of which are full time, and of the small number of CEP participants who reported being employed, more are working part time (6.4%), than full time (3.6%).

Participants who are mandated to either a drug program or a general population program, who report being employed, are more likely to be employed full time (8.5% and 12.2% respectively), than part time (3.6% and 4.6% respectively), possibly reflecting the older populations served by these programs.

Over half (56.9%) of the participant population at YAP and over one-fifth (21.7%) of the participant population at CEP, reported being enrolled in school at the point of the interview. These relatively low percentages for school-aged participants may be attributed, in part, to the difference between enrollment status and actual attendance. Less than one in ten (8.8%) defendants mandated to a general population program reported being enrolled in school, and less than three percent of defendants mandated to a drug program (2.3%) or to CSSP (1.1%), reported being enrolled in school. CEP has the largest proportion (31.7%) of defendants reporting that they have ever been in special education classes, followed by YAP (23.1%).

Almost one-third (30.3%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP completed 12th grade, and another 13.5 percent completed some additional post high school education. Due to the young age of their participants, none of the defendants mandated to YAP have completed school beyond 10th grade. Also having a younger population, only seven (2.5%) of the defendants mandated to CEP finished 12th grade. One-fifth (20.0%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program completed 12th grade, and another 6.2 percent completed some additional post high school education. Almost one-quarter (22.3%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program completed 12th grade, and another 5.0 percent completed some additional post high school education.

The majority of participants in all programs reported being able to read and speak English.

Across all of the programs, 6.4 percent of the mandated defendants reported having been treated for a psychological or emotional problem. YAP had the highest proportion (20.0%) of participants who had been treated for a psychological or emotional problem, followed closely by the general population programs (18.1%), drug programs (15.1%), and CEP (13.5%). CSSP had the smallest proportion (.5%) ever receiving psychological treatment. Consistent with having the largest population treated for a psychological or emotional

19

problem, YAP also had the largest proportion (10.8%) of participants who reported being currently prescribed psychotropic drugs at the time of interview.

Less than one in ten (7.4%) of the participants in the drug programs, five percent of the participants in the general population programs, and only 1.1 percent of the defendants mandated to CEP and 1.0 percent of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported being currently prescribed psychotropic drugs at the time of interview.

The scheduled time a participant is required to be at the program varies across programs due to the different populations and different services provided by each of the programs. All participants are scheduled to be at CSSP (or the assigned community service site) for seven hours a day. All YAP participants are scheduled to attend three sessions a week at the program. CEP participants are generally scheduled to attend five sessions a week at the program. There is greater variation in scheduled program time within the drug programs and general population programs. Two-fifths (40.3%) of the participants mandated to a drug program are scheduled to attend the program for five hours a day.

Another 26.4 percent of the participants in a drug program are scheduled to attend five sessions a week. Over three-quarters (77.7%) of the participants mandated to a general population program are scheduled to attend five sessions a week at the program, and another 12.2 percent are scheduled to attend two sessions a week.

Self-reported drug and alcohol use of defendants mandated in FY01 is presented in Table 11. Defendants mandated to a drug program reported the greatest frequency of alcohol use in the 30 days prior to the interview;19 19.2 percent of those defendants reported having used alcohol 2-3 times a week, and 15.6 percent reported daily use. One in ten (10.1%) participants in CSSP reported using alcohol 2-3 times a week in the 30 days prior to interview, and another 6.9 percent reported using alcohol daily. Over one quarter (27.7%) of participants in YAP reported having used alcohol once in the last 30 days.

Over one-quarter (27.5%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview. Almost one-half (46.2%) of the defendants mandated to YAP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to enrollment, including almost one-fifth (18.5%) who reported using it daily. Over half (51.6%) of the defendants mandated to CEP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including one-fifth (19.2%) who reported using it daily.

Almost two-thirds (64.3%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including over twofifths (43.3%) who reported using it daily. Over one-quarter (28.1%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including 13.0 percent who reported using it daily.

19

For detained defendants, the 30 day period should not include time in detention.

20

Less than one-fifth (18.2%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using crack cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview, 8.6 percent of whom reported using crack daily. Drug programs had the largest proportion (31.6%) of participants who reporting using crack cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview, 18.5 percent of whom reported using crack daily. No defendant mandated to CEP, only one defendant (1.5%) mandated to YAP, and only eight defendants (3.3%) mandated to a general population program reported using crack in the 30 days prior to interview.

Over one-fifth (22.1%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program reported using cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview. No defendant mandated to YAP, only one defendant (.4%) mandated to CEP, and only seven defendants (3.0%) mandated to a general population program reported using cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview. Less than six percent of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview.

One-fifth (20.2%) of defendants mandated to CSSP reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview, 13.1 percent of whom reported using heroin daily.

One in seven (14.4%) defendants mandated to a drug program reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview, and 10.3 percent reported using it daily.

No defendant mandated to YAP or CEP, and only three percent of defendants mandated to a general population program reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview.

Less than one-fifth (17.3%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using methadone in the 30 days prior to interview, including 16.3 percent who reported using it daily. Only 2.8 percent of the defendants mandated to a drug program reported using methadone in the 30 days prior to interview. No defendant mandated to YAP or CEP reported using methadone in the 30 days prior to interview. Only 7.5 percent of the defendants mandated to a general population program reported using methadone, most of them using it daily.

The overwhelming majority of methadone users in all programs indicated that they were enrolled in a methadone maintenance program prior to admission in the ATI program (not shown). Defendants who report that they are methadone users generally are not eligible for placement in a drug program due to licensing restrictions by government funding sources that prohibit concurrent enrollment in methadone maintenance programs and in “drug-free� programs.

One-fifth (19.6%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment immediately before interview. Almost onequarter (23.9%) of defendants mandated to a drug program reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment immediately before interview. Over onetenth (13.4%) of defendants mandated to a general population program reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment prior to interview. Less than five

21

percent of defendants mandated to YAP or CEP reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment prior to interview (4.6% and 1.1% respectively).

Almost one-half (49.4%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP characterized their drug use as a problem. Not surprisingly, over four-fifths (83.6%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program characterized their drug use as a problem. One-tenth (10.9%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program characterized their drug use as a problem. Only 6.2 percent of the defendants mandated to YAP characterized their drug use as a problem, and five percent of defendants mandated to CEP characterized their drug use as a problem.

When the programs were asked to characterize the participant’s drug use as a problem, most of the programs had a higher percentage of “yes” responses, compared to the self-reported responses of the participants. The greatest difference in positive responses to the question of the participant’s drug use as a problem was for YAP, with 6.2 percent of the participants self-reporting their drug use as a problem, while 27.7 percent of the time YAP characterized the participants’ drug use as a problem. CSSP characterized the participants’ drug use as a problem slightly less often (45.9%) than the participants in CSSP characterized their own drug use as a problem (49.4%).

More than one in eight (13.4%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Almost one-third (32.3%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Only 5.5 percent of the defendants mandated to a general population program characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Less than four percent of the defendants mandated to YAP or CEP characterized their alcohol use as a problem (3.1% and 2.8 percent respectively).

Again, when the programs were asked to characterize the participant’s alcohol use as a problem, most of the programs had a higher percentage of “yes” responses, compared to the self-reported responses of the participants. The greatest difference in positive responses to the question of the participants’ alcohol use as a problem occurred for the drug programs, with 32.3 percent of the participants self-reporting their alcohol use as a problem, and 41.8 percent of the drug program interviews resulting in the program’s characterization of the participants’ alcohol use as a problem. As with drug use, a greater proportion (13.4%) of the participants in CSSP characterized their alcohol use as a problem, compared to CSSP’s characterization of the participants’ alcohol use as a problem (6.0%).

Legal Outcome Characteristics at Time of Court Mandate Characteristics of the legal outcome of cases at the time of court mandate from the Target Case Information (TCI) file are presented in Table 12. Across all

22

felony programs, over three-quarters (78.6%) of defendants mandated to a program entered the program following conviction (plea) but before sentencing.

The legal status of another 14.6 percent of the cases of defendants mandated to felony programs was still pre-plea leaving the court appearance at which the court mandated the defendant to the program. Over one-quarter (28.8%) of defendants mandated to YAP, and over one-fifth (21.6%) of defendants mandated to a general population program, were mandated to the program preplea.

Generally, pre-plea mandates to YAP may be attributed to the judge’s reluctance to enter into plea negotiations, where YO status will have to be considered and decided as part of the plea negotiation, before seeing how the defendant fares in the program. This is usually not the case with adults where the judge and assistant district attorney want the “hammer” of the adult sentence on the highest conviction charge in case the defendant fails, but may allow the defendant to replea to a lesser charge if the defendant does well at the program. Although over one-fifth of the defendants mandated to a general population program were mandated pre-plea, over three-quarters (not shown) of those pre-plea defendants were receiving services from STEPS where a defendant may be participating in the program while still incarcerated, prior to disposition of the case. The largest proportion (9.9%) of defendants who were mandated on the date of sentence were mandated to a drug program.

The remainder of the data presented in Table 12 is based only on the post-plea and sentenced cases because it is only in these cases where a judge’s promise is legally binding. All of the defendants mandated to YAP were promised no change in case outcome if they were successful at the program. All but six (97.8%) of the cases mandated to CEP were also promised no change in case outcome. The high percentage of “no change in case outcome” for cases in YAP and CEP coincides with a promise of YO status for many of these cases (see below) because they then can receive a probationary sentence even though they have entered guilty pleas to a B or C-level violent felony.

Almost half (47.6%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were promised that they would be able to plead guilty to a lesser, probation-eligible, charge if they were successful at the program. Almost one-third (29.2% [not shown]) of the defendants who were mandated to a drug program were referred by a drug treatment court where the stated practice includes vacating the plea to the original, non-probation eligible charge, and re-pleading to a lesser charge or dismissal of all the charges upon successful completion of the program. This model, first developed for second felony offenders participating in some of the DTAP programs, is now followed in cases of first time drug and non-drug felony offenders in non-drug court parts. Over half (54.0%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were promised no change in case outcome following successful completion of the program, and another 38.1 percent were

23

promised that they would be able to re-enter a plea to a lesser charge if they were successful at the program.

Over three-fifths (63.0%) of the defendants mandated to YAP were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 23.9 percent were not given any specific promise by the judge. Three-quarters (75.1%) of the defendants mandated to CEP were also promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 21.6 percent were promised a split sentence (jail and probation). Over one-third (35.4%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 29.5 percent were promised a conditional discharge sentence. Again, in the Bronx, the promise for successful completion of a program is vacating the original felony plea and entering a plea to a misdemeanor with a sentence of a conditional discharge.

Over two-thirds (69.8%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program.

The majority (76.1%) of the defendants mandated to YAP are to be granted YO status upon successful completion of their case, and the remainder (23.9%) were not specifically promised YO status. The majority (78.0%) of the defendants mandated to CEP are also to be granted YO status upon successful completion of their case. Not surprisingly, due to the populations of YO-eligible defendants in YAP and CEP, many of the defendants mandated to these programs were promised YO status by the judge. The majority (88.7%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were not eligible for YO status. Almost threequarters (73.5%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were not eligible for YO status, and another 13.8 percent of the eligible defendants were not specifically promised YO status by the judge.

5. After Placement: Status, Time in Program, and In-Program Rearrests The decision to allow cases to be reinstated in some of the felony ATI programs and in CSSP affects various reporting categories. Regarding program status, a reinstatement has the effect of “overriding� the original exit status, which would have been reported to OCJC as unsuccessful in a Tracking Report and perhaps even in one of the interim reports produced during the fiscal year. The second exit will be treated as the final exit on the case. Although there will be discrepancies in exit data over time, the end-of year-report should account for most of these. Time-in-program calculations have been adjusted to reflect only the periods of active participation, meaning that the time between the original exit and the reinstatement is not counted. Finally, in-program rearrests have been recalculated for reinstated cases to include only rearrests occurring during periods of program supervision.

24

a. Program Status as of June 30, 2001 Felony Programs Table 13 presents the status on June 30, 2001, of cases active in each of the felony programs for some portion of the fiscal year, according to information received from the programs by ATIIS as of August 23, 2001. The proportion (33.4%) of cases that remained pending at the end of FY01 was lower than the proportion (36.3%) of cases that remained pending at the end of FY00.

Overall, 936 cases, or 62.9 percent of all 1,489 cases active in the reporting period, completed felony programs during the fiscal year, 492 (33.0%) of them successfully. A higher proportion of cases completed in FY01, compared to FY00 (59.7%), also with more completing successfully in this reporting period compared to FY00 (30.9%). When only participants in the 936 cases completing the programs overall are examined, 52.6 percent (not shown) successfully completed the program, and 47.4 percent (not shown) of the cases were unsuccessfully terminated from the programs. Using the base of completed cases, the rate of successful completions increased from FY00 to FY01, for YAP, DAMAS, FlameTree, El Rio, and Crossroads while the rate of successful completions decreased for CEP, Freedom, Project Return, and STEPS. Using the base of all cases active during the fiscal year, in very few cases (2.2%) did the defendant never show at the program. Transfers without any continuing monitoring by the ATI programs were also relatively rare (1.3%). The proportion of cases that were not completed remained almost the same from FY00 (4.0%), to FY01 (3.8%). By the end of the reporting period there were very few cases with a monitored transfer program status (1.0%); not unexpectedly, drug use was the cause of the most monitored transfers still pending at the end of the fiscal year. Of the 45 (not shown) previously monitored transfer cases in the fiscal year, 26 successfully completed, four were unsuccessfully terminated because of failure at the transfer placement, and 15 are still monitored transfers.

Continuing with the base of all cases active during FY01, completion rates varied by program. Freedom had the fewest number of cases still pending at the end of FY01 (23.4%). El Rio and Crossroads had the lowest completion rates (48.8% and 44.6% respectively). Among the other programs, however, between 53.5 percent and 74.3 percent of the cases active in the fiscal year completed the programs during that time. The successful completion rate was highest for participants in Freedom and DAMAS (52.7% and 50.0% respectively).

Participants in Crossroads had the lowest successful completion rate, at 20.0 percent. As in FY00, satisfaction of program requirements was the most

25

frequently reported reason for successful completion, followed by satisfaction of, both program requirements and court conditions.20 Tables 13a through 13i present the participants’ program status at the end of the fiscal year separately for each program, according to whether or not their cases were mandated to the programs before FY01 or during the reporting period. The time period of release helps clarify the completion status of cases: Cases more recently enrolled are more likely to be still pending or, if exited, unsuccessfully terminated, since all programs generally require at least six months participation for successful completions.

For YAP (Table 13a), however, with a longer program model, one-tenth (10.9%) of the cases mandated to the program prior to FY01 remained pending at the end of the reporting period. Most (75.8%) of the cases mandated in FY01 were pending at the end of the reporting period. Among completed cases mandated to the program prior to FY01, successful completions accounted for three-fifths (60.7% [not shown]) of the completed cases. Of the cases mandated to YAP in FY01, one-fifth (21.2%) of the cases completed in the fiscal year, and all but one of those cases were unsuccessful terminations.

All but one (99.0%) of the CEP participants entering the program prior to FY01, and active during the reporting period, completed the program during the fiscal year (Table 13b). In over half (54.9% [not shown]) of these cases, participants successfully completed the program. Over one-third (35.6%) of the cases mandated to CEP in FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period.

Of the cases mandated to CEP in FY01, over three-fifths (61.3%) of the participants had completed cases in the reporting period. Of those who were mandated and completed in FY01, almost two-thirds (65.9% [not shown]) were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in the reporting period.

The overall completion rate for cases mandated prior to FY01 to Freedom, the other general population program (Table 13c), was lower than that for CEP, with 96.6 percent of these cases completed during the fiscal year, 75.3 percent (not shown) successfully. Almost two-fifths (37.3%) of the cases mandated to Freedom in FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Of the cases mandated to Freedom in FY01, two-thirds (66.3% [not shown]) of the completed cases were successful completions.

None of the women in DAMAS, who were mandated to the program prior to FY01 were still pending by the end of the fiscal year. All of the completed cases mandated prior to FY01 were successful completions (Table 13d). Over two20

Programs have different practices regarding how and when they exit participants. In some instances, programs notify the court in writing that the participant has satisfied program requirements in advance of the next adjourned date, and therefore, the program is not aware of the court’s response at the point the exit form is submitted to ATIIS. In other instances, programs wait until there is a clear indication that the participant will have satisfied court requirements as well as program requirements before submitting the exit form to ATIIS.

26

fifths (43.9%) of the cases mandated to DAMAS in FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Two-thirds (66.7% [not shown]) of the participants who were mandated in the reporting period, and who completed DAMAS, successfully completed the program.

None of the cases mandated to FlameTree prior to FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Over two-thirds (68.8% [not shown]) of the completed cases mandated prior to FY01 were successful completions (Table 13e). Over two-fifths (41.7%) of the cases mandated in FY01 were still pending at the end of the fiscal year. Of the cases mandated to FlameTree in FY01, three-fifths (59.3% [not shown]) of the completed cases were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in the reporting period.

El Rio’s drug program is of longer duration than most of the other programs, and consequently over one-tenth (13.4%) of the cases released prior to FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13f). Successful completions were more frequent (71.0% [not shown]) among the completed cases entering the program prior to FY01. Over two-thirds (67.3%) of the cases mandated in FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Over four-fifths (83.0% [not shown]) of the completed cases mandated to El Rio in FY01, were unsuccessfully terminated from the program.

None of the cases mandated to Project Return’s Women’s Day Treatment program prior to FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13g). Of the cases mandated prior to FY01, and completed, more of them (53.8% [not shown]) had an unsuccessful termination than a successful completion. Over two-fifths (41.1%) of the cases mandated in FY01 remained pending at the end of the reporting period. Almost three-quarters (72.1% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to Project Return in FY01, who completed the program, were unsuccessful terminations.

Less than one-tenth (8.3%) of the cases mandated to STEPS prior to FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13h). Over two-thirds (68.8% [not shown]) of the completed STEPS cases mandated prior to FY01 were successful completions. Over two-thirds (68.0%) of the cases mandated to STEPS in FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Over fourfifths (85.7% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to STEPS in FY01, who completed the program, were successful completions.

Less than one-tenth (8.3%) of the cases mandated to Crossroads prior to FY01 were still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13i). All but one (90.0% [not shown]) of the completed cases that were mandated to Crossroads prior to FY01, were successful completions. Almost one-third (32.1%) of the cases mandated to Crossroads in the fiscal year were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Four-fifths (78.9% [not shown]) of the completed cases

27

mandated to Crossroads in FY01 were unsuccessfully terminated from the program.

Misdemeanor Program Table 14 displays the status as of June 30, 2001, for CSSP cases active during the reporting period, according to the tier of community service assigned. Most cases were assigned to perform ten days (70 hours) of community service. The successful completion rate among the few cases assigned to the lower tier (96.9%), five days, of community service was higher than that for the higher tier (69.7%), which had substantially more cases. As a percentage of all cases active in FY01, over two-thirds (70.2%) of the defendants in mandated cases successfully completed the program by the end of the reporting period; another 1.5 percent completed a modified term of community service. Among those unsuccessfully terminated from the program in FY01, non-attendance was the most common reason for the termination. The rate of non-completion because the defendant never arrived at the program (“no shows”) was low for the reporting period (5.2%). Less than one-tenth (7.6%) of CSSP cases were still active at the end of the reporting period.

Finally, Table 15 relates program status as of June 30, 2001 to the borough of sentence where the case was sentenced to CSSP, according to when the case was mandated. Successful completions were the most likely outcome in each borough, in each time period. Over one quarter (27.0%) of the CSSP cases mandated in the fourth quarter remained active at the end of the reporting period.

Using the base of all cases active during the reporting period, cases in Brooklyn were most likely to result in successful completion of the program (74.7% [not shown]), followed by the Bronx (71.3% [not shown), Manhattan (67.2% [not shown]), and Queens (62.7% [not shown]). b. Length of Time in the Programs CSSP Length of time spent in CSSP was calculated from the date of the sentence, which is also the date the defendant was enrolled in the program, until exit from the program, or June 30th, if the case was still pending on that date. All ATI programs will extend outreach efforts to secure a defendant’s enrollment into the program. There is considerable variation in the length of time within which a program will determine that a defendant is a “No Show.” It appears that the length of time before CSSP decides to categorize a defendant as a “No Show” has increased from FY00, to FY01. In FY00, one-quarter (25.0%) of no shows occurred between 29 and 60 days, while in FY01, almost half (47.7%) of no shows occurred within this time frame, and one additional FY01 defendant was not categorized as a no show until after 60 days.

28

Table 16 presents the time-in-program data for cases active in CSSP during the fiscal year, according to their status in the program at the end of the reporting period. Not surprisingly, almost all cases were completed within sixty days, the period set by the program for allowing completion of community service. Those unsuccessfully terminating the program, and those whose terms of community service were modified, were more likely to be under supervision for a longer period of time. For the unsuccessfully terminated cases, over half (53.1%) were terminated in between 29 and 60 days, and another 13.4 percent of the cases were terminated in between 61 and 90 days after enrollment. In contrast, over half (55.0%) of the cases successfully completing the program in FY01 reached that status within 21 days of sentencing. This rate is higher than the 50.7 percent of cases successfully completing within the same time in FY00. The proportion of unsuccessful terminations that occurred after 60 days remained virtually unchanged from FY00, to FY01 (13.7% in FY00 and 13.8% in FY01).

Felony Programs For the felony programs, time in the program was calculated from the date the defendant was actually enrolled in the program until exit from the program, or June 30th, if the case was still active on that date. 21 Before the First Half of Fiscal Year 2001 Report, length of time in the program was calculated using mandate date because actual enrollment date had not been a required reporting element from the programs, as it is now. Usually, enrollment occurs within a couple of days of the court-mandate date. Programs, however, have a responsibility to report to the court about the defendant’s success or failure in complying with court and program conditions from the date the defendant is mandated to participate in the program. In some instances, enrollment may be delayed several months while the defendant serves a local jail sentence imposed as a “split” with a probation sentence.

Table 17 presents the length of time in the felony ATI programs, separately for each program. Over two-fifths of the cases (41.9%) in felony ATI programs were in the programs at least six months, including 7.5 percent who were in the programs for at least a year. These percentages are almost exactly the same as in FY00, when 42.1 percent of active cases were in a program for at least six months, including 7.3 percent who were in the program for at least a year.

Not surprisingly, over one-quarter (28.5%) of the participants active during the reporting period in YAP had been in the program over 365 days, since the program model is one year. One-fifth (20.8%) of the participants in El Rio, which also generally has at least a one-year program model, were in the program over 365 days at exit, or at the end of the reporting period, if they were still active in the program. Over one-quarter (28.0%) of STEPS clients had been under 21 For YAP, however, the participant is considered enrolled at the point when program staff begins to conduct curfew checks, which could be the same day as the mandated court action date. The participant’s scheduled arrival at the program site for orientation may occur days later.

29

supervision for nine months or more, 12.9 percent of the participants in Project Return, and 12.3 percent of participants in Crossroads had been in the program that long. Less than two percent of the participants in CEP, DAMAS, FlameTree, and Freedom had been in their programs that long.

Table 18 displays the length of time in the felony ATI programs by the status of the cases at the end of the reporting period. Consistent with the length of the program models, successful completion of the programs happened after 180 days in the programs in 94.0 percent of the cases. Unsuccessful terminations happen generally more quickly, with over four-fifths (83.1%) of them occurring within 180 days of supervision. Over one-quarter (26.7%) of the cases with a monitored transfer status are still being monitored for over 210 days, in their new placement program by the original court-mandated ATI program. Cases still actively participating in the programs at the end of the reporting period show a varied length of time spent in the programs. However, one-sixth (16.2%) of the defendants in cases still active in the program had already been under program supervision for at least 181 days. Compared to FY00, across all programs, participants in FY01 took slightly longer to successfully complete the programs overall (92.3% successfully completed after six months in FY00, and 94.0% successfully completed after six months in FY01). A slightly lower proportion of participants in FY01 (16.9%) were unsuccessfully terminated after 180 days in the program, compared to the proportion reaching that status in the same time period in FY00 (19.2%).

Tables 18a through 18i present the length of time in the programs associated with the status of the case at the end of the reporting period, separately for each of the felony programs. As expected, the general pattern holds with regard to differences between the time spent in the programs for those successfully completing and those unsuccessfully terminated from the programs. What was most variable across programs was the amount of time cases had been active in the programs at the end of the reporting period.

Consistent with YAP’s longer program model (Table 18a), over three-fifths (62.9%) of the participants successfully completing the program had been under supervision for over one year and another 31.4 percent successfully completed within nine months and one year. Not surprisingly, there is more range in the times to unsuccessful termination. Over three-fifths (62.9%) of the participants who were unsuccessfully terminated had been under supervision for at least six months. There is wide variation in the length of time participants have been in the program for those who are still active as of June 30, 2001.

The length of time from actual enrollment date to status on June 30th for CEP participants (Table 18b) is consistent with the program’s six-month model of supervision, with 88.0 percent successfully completing between six and seven months in the program. Most (92.1%) of the participants unsuccessfully terminated from the program reached that status within 180 days in the program,

30

including 54.9 percent who were unsuccessfully terminated within three months.

Only one of the participants in CEP that was active as of June 30th had been in the program for over 180 days. All nine of the no shows occurred within 30 days of the expected enrollment date.

As in FY00, length of time in Freedom (Table 18c), the other general population program, was similar to that for CEP, reflecting their six-month program model for successful completion. Over four-fifths (87.2%) of participants successfully completing the program reached that status between six and seven months in the program. One-tenth (10.4%) of the unsuccessful terminations occurred after six months in the program. Less than one in ten (7.9%) of the cases still active in Freedom had been in the program for over 210 days by the end of FY01.

Length of time in DAMAS related to successful completion as it did for Freedom participants (Table 18d). Over four-fifths (83.8%) of the successful completions occurred between six and seven months in the program. Over two-thirds (70.0%) of unsuccessful terminations occurred within three months, and the remaining 30.0 percent occurred between 121 and 180 days. Only one of the cases still active at the end of the reporting period has been in the program for over six months.

FlameTree participants successfully completing their program also tended to exit the program in a six-month period (Table 18e). Over three-quarters (77.2%) of successful completions occurred between six and seven months in the program.

The proportion of participants who successful completed the program in over six months increased from FY00 (83.3%), to FY01 (93.0%). Over four-fifths (88.0%) of the unsuccessful terminations from the program happened within six months.

Only two participants still active in the program at the end of the fiscal year had been in the program over six months.

Length of time in El Rio reflects its longer program model (Table 18f). Over three-fifths (63.8%) of the participants successfully completing the program reached that status after a year in the program, and three of those participants did not successfully complete the program until after two years. Compared to FY00, when 69.1 percent of unsuccessful terminations occurred within the first six months of participation, in FY01, over four-fifths (81.3%) of the unsuccessful terminations occurred within that same timeframe. Two of the three participants transferred to another program had been in El Rio for less than six months before being transferred, and the third transfer occurred after 546 days. Three of the five monitored transfer cases have been in the program for over seven months, and the remaining two have been in the program for less than three months.

Less than one in ten (8.4%) of the participants still active had been in the program over a year as of June 30th.

Over half (54.1%) of Project Return’s participants (Table 18g) who successfully completed the program did so in over nine months. This represents a decrease

31

over FY00, when 72.4 percent of participants successfully completed the program after nine months. Over four-fifths (84.5%) of the participants who unsuccessfully terminated the program did so within six months, including almost three-fifths (57.8%) who did so within three months. All but three (91.2%) of the active participants have been in the program for less than six months.

Over four-fifths (82.2%) of the participants who successfully completed STEPS (Table 18h) in FY01 did so after six months, including 20.5 percent who completed after one year. In FY00, however, only 46.2 percent of participants who successfully completed were in the program longer than six months. Over two-fifths (41.7%) of the participants who were unsuccessfully terminated from the program reached that status after nine months. Over two-fifths (40.5%) of the cases still active in STEPS as of the end of the fiscal year had been in the program for over six months.

Crossroads (Table 18i) had the fewest cases active in the fiscal year, and therefore, had fewer cases completing the program in FY01 compared to the other programs. Over half (53.9%) of the participants successfully completing Crossroads, reached that status after nine months in the program. Over fourfifths (81.3%) of the cases that were unsuccessfully terminated from the program reached that status within three months. All but one (88.9%) of the nine “no shows� occurred within 30 days, and over three-quarters (77.8%) of the transfers occurred within two months. Over half (58.8%) of the cases still active at the end of the reporting period have been in the program for less than three months, and one of the participants who was active at the end of the reporting period has been in the program for over one year. c. In-Program Rearrests Table 19 presents data on the number of mandated cases with prosecuted rearrests22 occurring while defendants were active in the programs. Rearrests were counted from the date the court mandated the defendant to the program through the date of exit or June 30th if the defendant was still active in the program at the end of the fiscal year. Up to four rearrests were recorded as occurring during program participation, but only three participants from CSSP, one from CEP, and one from El Rio had four in-program rearrests. The percentage of cases without an in-program rearrest decreased slightly from 78.7 percent in FY00, to 77.4 percent in FY01. Over one-fifth (21.3%) of CSSP participants had a rearrest during the relatively short course of doing community service. This rate falls in the upper-range of rearrest rates reported for all programs, but is virtually the same as the rearrest rate (21.5%) for CSSP for FY00.

22

The fact that JO offenders receive a new NYSID number when they turn 16 years old, and that a set of fingerprints may be misidentified resulting in the issuance of a new NYSID number, means that the actual number of participants rearrested may be underestimated. There are also arrests for non-fingerprintable offenses that would not be represented in these numbers.

32

There was an increase in the total rearrest rate for all felony programs, from 21.2 percent in FY00, to 24.0 percent (not shown) in FY01. There was some shift in the rearrest rates of the felony programs when compared with FY00. In FY01, the highest rearrest rate among the felony programs was for CEP participants (37.5%), followed by FlameTree (33.1%), and Freedom (29.3%). El Rio’s inprogram rearrest rate was 20.4 percent, STEPS had an in-program rearrest rate of 12.8 percent, and Project Return had an in-program rearrest rate of 12.1 percent. Crossroads, YAP, and DAMAS each had rearrest rates of less than ten percent (9.2%, 6.2%, and 5.4% respectively). Rearrest rates decreased for YAP, El Rio, STEPS, and Crossroads, and increased for CEP, DAMAS, FlameTree, Freedom, and Project Return. The increase in rearrest rates was greatest for Freedom (19.6% in FY00; 29.3% in FY01), and FlameTree which went from having 26.9 percent of participants with an in-program rearrest in FY00, to 33.1 percent of participants having an in-program rearrest in FY01. In addition, 15 (not shown) participants were rearrested on juvenile charges, and two of those participants had two rearrests on juvenile charges. Information on Family Court outcomes, if any, is not available. This would add an additional 16 cases to the total number of rearrests from YAP and one case to the total number of rearrests from Freedom, thereby increasing their rearrest rates.

When rearrest rates for CSSP are examined by exit status, it is not surprising that the rate of rearrest was higher among cases unsuccessfully terminated from the program compared to cases successfully completing (Table 20). Of the participants successfully completing their community service, 12.4 percent had a rearrest while in the program, compared with over half (55.5%) of those unsuccessfully terminated from the program. While the rearrest rate for FY01 participants successfully completing CSSP increased slightly from FY00 (11.1%), the rearrest rate for cases unsuccessfully terminated decreased from 59.4 percent in FY00, to 55.5 percent in FY01. Almost half (47.7%) of the defendants who never appeared at the community service sites were rearrested before the program stopped outreach to bring them to the sites; in some cases it might have been incarceration on the new arrest that prevented attendance at the program.

This represents a decrease over the same period last year (55.0%). There was also a decrease from 38.1 percent in FY00, to 24.0 percent in FY01, in the proportion of rearrested CSSP participants who completed a modified term of community service. The rearrest rate for those still active in the program was 15.2 percent as of June 30th, representing a decrease in the proportion of CSSP participants still active as of the end of FY00 (21.2%) who were rearrested.

Table 21 shows the program status of the 357 felony program participants with in-program rearrests. Of those 357 participants, almost one-fifth (17.9%) had not finished their participation in the program. This represents a decrease from FY00 when 22.7 percent of participants pending exit had in-program rearrests. Of the completed cases with rearrests, 35.8 percent (not shown) were successfully completed, and 64.2 (not shown) were unsuccessfully terminated. The rates of rearrest were generally higher among the cases unsuccessfully terminated from

33

the felony ATI programs than among those successfully completing the programs. The exceptions to this pattern are DAMAS, which had no rearrests of participants unsuccessfully terminated from the programs, and STEPS, which had a higher proportion of successful completions who were rearrested compared to unsuccessful terminations. These program-based rearrest rates will be affected by the number of pending cases with rearrests which will exit the program eventually.

Profile of the First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest Table 22 displays selected characteristics of the first prosecuted in-program rearrest. The characteristics are reported separately for the first rearrests in CSSP and for the first rearrests in all felony programs combined. Consistent with previous reports, rearrests for CSSP participants happen quickly. For participants active during FY01, almost three-fifths (58.8%) of the first prosecuted in-program rearrests occurred within the first two weeks of sentencing to CSSP. Among the rearrested felony participants, almost half (48.4%) of the rearrests did not occur until after 61 days from the date the participant actually enrolled in the program. Less than eight percent (7.2%) of the rearrests of defendants in felony programs occurred after 180 days, the average length of the felony programs, including three participants who were rearrested after a year in the program.

Drug offenses accounted for one-third of the first in-program rearrests (controlled substances, 26.3%, plus marijuana offenses, 7.4%, for a combined 33.7%) for CSSP participants. Larceny charges accounted for another 29.1 percent of rearrests of CSSP participants, representing a decrease from FY00, in the proportion (31.7%) of first rearrest cases with a larceny charge, and an increase in the proportion of first rearrest cases with a drug offense charge (30.6%).

Three-quarters of the arrests of CSSP participants (74.9%) were arraigned as A misdemeanors, and over half (53.7%) of the cases ended with a plea at arraignment, mostly to A-misdemeanor charges. The proportion of CSSP participants who disposed of their first rearrest case with a plea at arraignment decreased from FY00 (57.5%), to FY01. There was a decrease from FY00, to FY01 in the proportion of rearrested CSSP participants who were arraigned on a felony charge (24.0% in FY00; 13.5% in FY01).

In those CSSP cases continued beyond arraignment, most defendants were detained on bail, as in FY00. By the end of the second court appearance, over one-third (34.4%) of the cases pending leaving arraignment were disposed, most with a plea to an A misdemeanor offense. Nine of the 54 cases disposed at the second court appearance were transferred to Supreme Court. Almost two-thirds (65.6%) of the CSSP cases pending leaving arraignment were still pending after the second court appearance, and more were detained than released following this appearance.

34

As with CSSP, the first prosecuted in-program rearrests for participants in the felony ATI programs were most likely to be for drug offenses (controlled substances, 24.6%, plus marijuana offenses, 16.8%, for a combined 41.4%), with “assault and related offenses”, “other offenses relating to theft”, and “other offenses” associated with another 32.2 percent of the rearrest cases. There was a decrease in the proportion of rearrests for drug offenses, theft offenses, and robbery offenses, compared to the proportions reported in FY00. Almost onefifth (18.5%) of the felony program participants with rearrests were arraigned on B-felony charges, consistent with the arrests for controlled substances and robbery, but arraignment on misdemeanor or lesser charges occurred for over two-thirds of the arrests (67.8%). A decrease from 23.1 percent in FY00, to 18.5 percent in FY01, in the proportion of felony program participants with rearrests that were arraigned on B-felony charges is consistent with the decrease in rearrests for drug and robbery offenses for felony program participants.

Dispositions at arraignment (30.5%) were far less common among rearrests while participating in felony ATI programs than among those while participating in CSSP, but rearrest cases for felony participants were more likely to be dismissed or adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.

The proportion of temporary orders of protection issued at arraignment on cases of rearrests of felony program participants decreased slightly from FY00 (17.7%), to FY01 (15.1%). More participants with cases continued at arraignment in FY01 were detained at arraignment, compared to those who were released. Over onequarter (28.0%) of the rearrests still pending leaving arraignment were disposed (in Criminal Court) at the next appearance, with over two-fifths (41.8% [not shown]) of the disposed cases transferred to Supreme Court. All of the pleas entered at this appearance were to misdemeanors or non-criminal offenses (violations or infractions). As in FY00, most participants continued beyond the second appearance were on pretrial release.

In summary, while a rearrest did not universally lead to unsuccessful termination from the ATI programs, the proportion of all first rearrests that resulted in felony prosecutions in Supreme Court was small (5.2% [not shown]), at least as of the second appearance.

Profile of Program Participants Having In-Program Rearrests Table 23 presents selected characteristics of the participants having an inprogram rearrest, and of the arrest that resulted in mandate to the program.

Again, CSSP and felony participants are presented separately.

CSSP participants rearrested while in the program were similar to the overall participant pool. Half were in their thirties (50.3%) at the time of the arrest mandated to CSSP, and another 28.8 percent were even older. Among rearrested CSSP participants, a total of 44.6 percent of the court cases mandated to the program had larceny charges leaving Criminal Court

35

arraignment, and another 19.7 percent were charged with a controlled substance offense on the case for which they received community service. These proportions are close to those in FY00, when 46.7 percent of the court cases mandated to the program had larceny charges leaving Criminal Court arraignment, and 22.0 percent were charged with a controlled substance offense on the case for which they received community service. Almost one-third (31.1%) of the CSSP participants with in-program rearrests had 15 or more prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the case on which community service was imposed; most (67.7%) had at least one felony conviction. As in FY00, participants sentenced in the Bronx to community service as the condition of a conditional discharge constituted the largest proportion (32.9%) of participants with a rearrest.

In both FY00, and FY01, youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years old comprised the largest age group among felony program participants with at least one in-program rearrest that was prosecuted, although the proportion decreased from FY00 (58.1%), to FY01 (50.7%). Rearrested felony participants were most commonly (45.9%) charged with a controlled substance offense on the case that brought them into the program, and another 25.2 percent had been charged with robbery on their mandated case. The proportion of rearrested felony participants with a robbery charge on the case for which they were mandated decreased from FY00 (30.3%), as did the proportion of rearrested felony participants with a controlled substance offense charge on the cases for which they were mandated (46.9%). Over one-quarter (27.4%) of the FY01 rearrested felony program participants had prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the mandated case; and 14.3 percent had prior felony convictions, an increase over the proportion (6.4%) in FY00 with prior felony convictions. The highest proportion (33.6%) of rearrested felony program participants was originally mandated to a program as the result of a case in the Bronx, followed closely by Brooklyn (33.3%). In both FY00, and FY01, cases mandated in Queens represented just a small proportion (7.6% in FY00; 7.0% in FY01) of the cases in which defendants were rearrested while participating in a felony ATI program.

36

Exhibit A

City-funded Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs •

Community Service Sentencing Project (CSSP) of the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) which was contracted to supervise the performance of community service by repeat-misdemeanor offenders likely to receive incarcerative sentences of 20 to 45 days (Model A) and over 46 days (Model B) on a misdemeanor conviction.

•

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

•

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

•

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

• FlameTree Program of the Fortune Society which was contracted to provide six months to a year of day-treatment substance abuse services to the eighteen and older population residents of lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, and who were likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction (Model C: drug program).

•

Youth Advocacy Project (YAP) of the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) which was contracted to provide a year of community-based supervision and other rehabilitative services to the thirteen to fifteen year old population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction (Model C: Juvenile Offender [JO] program).

•

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

•

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

•

STEPS to End Family Violence (STEPS) of the Edwin Gould Services for Children which was contracted to provide services to women whose criminal charges can be traced to a history of domestic violence and who are likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction (Model C: women services).

•

Crossroads Project of the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) which was contracted through City Council to provide outpatient substance abuse treatment services for women likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction. Although not funded as part of the CCSS initiative, on September 2, 1999, the City gave Crossroads permission to become part of CJA’s ATIIS data collection and reporting network.

Tables

204 80 1156 208 1648 83 33 496 85 697 79 32 430 91 632 2977

Target C01 Target C02 Target C03 Target C04 Subotal Quarters

Target C01 Target C02 Target C03 Target C04 Subtotal Quarter

Target C01 Target C02 Target C03 Target C04 Subtotal Quarter Total Misdemeanor

Misdemeanor

Target Category

12.5% 5.1% 68.0% 14.4% 100.0%

11.9% 4.7% 71.2% 12.2% 100.0%

12.4% 4.9% 70.1% 12.6% 100.0%

Brooklyn n %

39 11 395 119 564 2274

49 20 392 115 576

102 45 725 262 1134

9.0% 4.0% 63.9% 23.1% 100.0% 3rd Quarter 8.5% 3.5% 68.1% 20.0% 100.0% 4th Quarter 6.9% 2.0% 70.0% 21.1% 100.0% 33 12 146 22 213 936

41 16 143 31 231

68 33 314 77 492

15.5% 5.6% 68.5% 10.3% 100.0%

17.7% 6.9% 61.9% 13.4% 100.0%

13.8% 6.7% 63.8% 15.7% 100.0%

Manhattan Queens n % n % 1st and 2nd Quarters

73 18 234 57 382 1361

73 14 237 35 359

113 20 411 76 620

n

%

19.1% 4.7% 61.3% 14.9% 100.0%

20.3% 3.9% 66.0% 9.7% 100.0%

18.2% 3.2% 66.3% 12.3% 100.0%

Bronx

224 73 1205 289 1791 7548

246 83 1268 266 1863

487 178 2606 623 3894

n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 1: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period

by Time Period of Targeting and Borough

%

12.5% 4.1% 67.3% 16.1% 100.0%

13.2% 4.5% 68.1% 14.3% 100.0%

12.5% 4.6% 66.9% 16.0% 100.0%

Total

Brooklyn n % 512 17.2% 247 8.3% 117 3.9% 466 15.7% 294 9.9% 53 1.8% 72 2.4% 877 29.5% 141 4.7% 67 2.3% 131 4.4% 2977 100%

Manhattan n % 433 19.0% 165 7.3% 97 4.3% 500 22.0% 127 5.6% 54 2.4% 73 3.2% 322 14.2% 332 14.6% 43 1.9% 128 5.6% 2274 100%

Queens n % 223 23.8% 87 9.3% 51 5.4% 158 16.9% 41 4.4% 19 2.0% 69 7.4% 156 16.7% 45 4.8% 32 3.4% 55 5.9% 936 100%

Bronx n % 390 28.7% 99 7.3% 71 5.2% 173 12.7% 65 4.8% 33 2.4% 89 6.5% 154 11.3% 138 10.1% 54 4.0% 95 7.0% 1361 100%

n 1558 598 336 1297 527 159 303 1509 656 196 409 7548

Total % 20.6% 7.9% 4.5% 17.2% 7.0% 2.1% 4.0% 20.0% 8.7% 2.6% 5.4% 100%

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Facilitation (115), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Insurance Fraud (176), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Other Frauds (190), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), Gambling Offenses (225), Prostitution Offenses (230), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Against Public Sensibilities (245), Offenses Relating to Children and Incompetents (260), Firearms and Other DangerousWeapons (265), and Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275).

Penal Law Article 120 : Assault and Related Offenses 140 : Burglary and Related Offenses 145 : Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 155 : Larceny 165 : Other Offenses Relating to Theft 205 : Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody 215 : Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings 220 : Controlled Substances Offenses 221 : Offenses Involving Marijuana VTL : Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses Other* : Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 2: Charge Type (Penal Law Article) for the Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment in the Reporting Period for Targeted Misdemeanor Cases by Borough

648 16.4% 1157 29.3% 561 14.2% 921 23.4% 3287 83.3% 3944 100.0% 26.2%

110 33 84 1 228

5.2% 1.6% 4.0% 0.0% 10.9%

Queens n % 66 3.1% 179 68 391 17 655

4.2% 1.6% 9.1% 0.4% 15.3%

Bronx n % 55 1.3%

826 17.5% 324 15.4% 709 16.5% 1147 24.3% 991 47.2% 825 19.2% 608 12.9% 203 9.7% 551 12.9% 1358 28.8% 288 13.7% 1491 34.8% 3939 83.6% 1806 86.0% 3576 83.4% 4712 100.0% 2100 100.0% 4286 100.0% 31.3% 14.0% 28.5%

5.5% 2.6% 6.2% 0.3% 14.6%

261 121 290 14 686

5.6% 1.8% 6.4% 0.3% 14.2%

222 72 254 13 561

*These cases are not eligible for screening until after transfer to Supreme Court.

Target Category Juvenile Offender Female: Drug Detained Non-Drug Detained Drug Released* Non-Drug Released (STEPS) Subtotal Female Male: Drug Detained Non-Drug Detained Drug Detained Low Bail* Drug Released* Subtotal Male Total Targeted Percent Targeted

Manhattan n % 87 1.8%

Brooklyn n % 96 2.4%

2507 4120 1923 4058 12608 15042

772 294 1019 45 2130

16.7% 27.4% 12.8% 27.0% 83.8% 100.0%

5.1% 2.0% 6.8% 0.3% 14.2%

Total n % 304 2.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 3: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Felony Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period

by Borough

% 10.2% 0.0% 2.6% 2.3% 0.3% 75.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 1.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1.0% 100%

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1709 82 0 0 0 1791

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95.4% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Drug

n 31 0 8 7 1 229 0 0 13 3 9 0 3 304

Female Offenders

Juvenile Offenders

Female Offenders

n 34 36 58 0 0 162 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 294

% 11.6% 12.2% 19.7% 0.0% 0.0% 55.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Non-Drug Detained

Female Offenders

n 29 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 45

% 64.4% 17.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Non-Drug Released

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8110 378 0 0 0 8488

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95.5% 4.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Drug

Male Offenders

Male Offenders

n 409 7 481 46 259 1825 126 97 0 0 689 36 145 4120

% 9.9% 0.2% 11.7% 1.1% 6.3% 44.3% 3.1% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.9% 3.5% 100%

Non-Drug Detained

n 503 51 547 53 260 2216 126 109 9832 463 698 36 148 15042

% 3.3% 0.3% 3.6% 0.4% 1.7% 14.7% 0.8% 0.7% 65.4% 3.1% 4.6% 0.2% 1.0% 100%

Total

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Conspiracy (105), Criminal Facilitation (115), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses (145), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Offenses Involving False Written Statements (175), Insurance Fraud (176), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Bribery Involving Public Servants and Related Offenses (200), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Perjury and Related Offenses (210), Gambling Offenses (225), Prostitution Offenses (230), Obscenity and Related Offenses (235), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Affecting the Marital Relationship (255), and Sexual Performance by a Child (263).

120 : Assault and Related Offenses 125 : Homicide, Abortion, or Related Offenses 140 : Burglary and Related Offenses 150 : Arson 155 : Larceny 160 : Robbery 165 : Other Offenses Relating to Theft 215 : Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings 220 : Controlled Substances Offenses 221 : Offenses Involving Marijuana 265 : Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons VTL : Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses Other * Total

Penal Law Article

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 4: Charge Type (Penal Law Article) for the Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment in the Reporting Period For All Boroughs by Felony Target Group

229

Post-Arraignment

799

570

Arraignment

100.0%

28.7%

71.3%

415

68

347

100.0%

16.4%

83.6%

5

5

NA

%

100.0%

100.0%

Target A

40

40

NA

100.0%

100.0% 6

6

NA

100.0%

100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

171 171

NA

Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Target Groups Target Target Target C01 C02 C03 n % n % n %

*For the post-arraignment cases this category includes cases that had some missing information, but otherwise would have been targeted. **Targeted felony cases in which felony charges were reduced to misdemeanors after Criminal Court arraignment were then eligible for CSSP placement.

Total

CSSP

Time of Mandate

Referral or Manual Cases Not Fitting Cases Fitting Target Criteria Target Criteria* n % n %

81

81

NA

n

%

100.0%

100.0%

Target C04

1

1

NA

100.0%

100.0%

Youthful Offender n %

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 5a: Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period

1

1

NA

100.0%

100.0%

7

7

NA

100.0%

100.0%

1

1

NA

610

917

n

39.9%

60.1%

Total %

100.0% 1527 100.0%

100.0%

Felony Target Group** Female Drug Male Drug Male Non-Drug Detained Detained & Released Detained n % n % n %

20.4%

4.7%

15.7% 6.8% 12.4%

14.4%

11.3%

8.0%

6.2%

23

76 33 60

70

55

39

30

%

99

n

2

0

3

0

0 0 0

0

0

n

40.0%

0.0%

60.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

0

0

1

0

0 0 0

40

6

n

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

85.1%

12.8%

%

Juvenile Offender

0

0

1

3

11 0 8

1

20

n

0.0%

0.0%

2.3%

6.8%

25.0% 0.0% 18.2%

2.3%

45.5%

%

Youthful Offender

15

0

14

7

1 5 0

0

4

32.6%

0.0%

4.0%

15.2%

2.2% 10.9% 0.0%

0.0%

8.7%

Detained* n %

Female Drug

3

0

11

5

0 9 0

0

1

10.3%

0.0%

37.9%

17.2%

0.0% 31.0% 0.0%

0.0%

3.4%

Released n %

2

10

4

1

0 9 0

0

2

7.1%

35.7%

14.3%

3.6%

0.0% 32.1% 0.0%

0.0%

7.1%

Detained n %

Female Non-Drug

0

1

0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

Felony Target Group Female Drug

1

0

0

39

17 0 16

0

32

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

37.1%

16.2% 0.0% 15.2%

0.0%

30.5%

Detained** n %

Male Drug

Male Drug

0

0

1

41

7 1 6

0

7

0.0%

0.0%

1.6%

65.1%

11.1% 1.6% 9.5%

0.0%

11.1%

Released*** n %

0

0

0

2

22 0 13

2

121

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.3%

13.8% 0.0% 8.1%

1.3%

75.6%

Detained n %

Male Non-Drug

Total 485 100.0% 5 100.0% 47 100.0% 44 100.0% 46 100.0% 29 100.0% 28 100.0% 1 0.0% 105 100.0% 63 100.0% 160 100.0% *Includes one case of a male defendant mandated to Freedom who was mistakenly targeted as a female. **Includes 28 felony cases from the low bail target group, not eligible for screening until after transfer to Supreme Court. Also, includes one case of a female defendant mandated to Crossroads who was mistakenly targeted as a male. ***Includes one case of a female defendant mandated to DAMAS, and one case of a female defendant mandated to Project Return, who were mistakenly targeted as males.

CEP Center for Community Alternatives YAP Fortune Society Freedom DAMAS FlameTree Osborne Association El Rio Project Return Foundation Women's Day Treatment Edwin Gould Services STEPS Center for Community Alternatives Crossroads

CASES

ATI Programs

Referral or Misdemeanor Manual Target Target C

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 5b: Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

5.2% 100.0%

53 1013

4.9%

8.9%

16.6%

13.2% 5.6% 10.2%

6.5%

28.8%

%

Total

50

90

168

134 57 103

66

292

n

229

Post-Arraignment

799

570

Arraignment

52.3%

37.5%

62.2%

415

68

347

27.2%

11.1%

37.8%

5

5

NA

%

0.3%

0.8%

Target A

40

40

NA

2.6%

6.6% 6

6

NA

0.4%

1.0%

28.0% 11.2%

171 171

NA

Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Target Groups Target Target Target C01 C02 C03 n % n % n %

*For the post-arraignment cases this category includes cases that had some missing information, but otherwise would have been targeted. **Targeted felony cases in which felony charges were reduced to misdemeanors after Criminal Court arraignment were then eligible for CSSP placement.

Total

CSSP

Time of Mandate

Referral or Manual Cases Not Fitting Cases Fitting Target Criteria Target Criteria* n % n %

81

81

NA

n

%

5.3%

13.3%

Target C04

1

1

NA

0.1%

0.2%

Youthful Offender n %

1

1

NA

0.1%

0.2%

7

7

NA

0.5%

1.1%

1

1

NA

0.1%

0.2%

Felony Target Groups** Female Drug Male Drug Male Non-Drug Detained Detained & Released Detained n % n % n %

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 5c: Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period

%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total

1527

610

917

n

56.6%

30

2

0 3.8%

0.0%

3.3%

0

0

1

0

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0

0

1

3

11 0 8

1

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

1.8%

8.2% 0.0% 7.8%

1.5%

6.8%

%

15

0

14

7

1 5 0

0

4

28.3%

0.0%

15.6%

4.2%

0.7% 8.8% 0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

3

0

11

5

0 9 0

0

1

5.7%

0.0%

12.2%

3.0%

0.0% 15.8% 0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

2

10

4

1

0 9 0

0

2

3.8%

20.0%

4.4%

0.6%

0.0% 15.8% 0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0

1

0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0.0%

2.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1

0

0

39

17 0 16

0

32

1.9%

0.0%

0.0%

23.2%

12.7% 0.0% 15.5%

0.0%

11.0%

Detained** n %

Male Drug

Male Drug

0

0

1

41

7 1 6

0

7

0.0%

0.0%

1.1%

24.4%

5.2% 1.8% 5.8%

0.0%

2.4%

Released*** n %

0

0

2

22 0 13

2

121

0.0%

1.2%

16.4% 0.0% 12.6%

3.0%

41.4%

Detained n %

Male Non-Drug

90

168

134 57 103

66

292

n

1013

53

78.0%

39

3

0.0%

0 0 0

60.6%

20

n

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

0.0%

61.1%

55

0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

40

2.1%

%

Detained n %

15.8%

41.7%

70

0 0 0

0.0%

6

n

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

Felony Target Group Female Drug

0

56.7% 57.9% 58.3%

76 33 60

0

0.0%

%

Detained* n %

Female Drug

Total 485 47.9% 5 0.5% 47 4.6% 44 4.3% 46 4.5% 29 2.9% 28 2.8% 1 0.1% 105 10.4% 63 6.2% 160 *Includes one case of a male defendant mandated to Freedom who was mistakenly targeted as a female. **Includes 28 felony cases from the low bail target group, not eligible for screening until after transfer to Supreme Court. Also, includes one case of a female defendant mandated to Crossroads who was mistakenly targeted as a male. ***Includes one case of a female defendant mandated to DAMAS, and one case of a female defendant mandated to Project Return, who were mistakenly targeted as males.

34.8%

23

0

n

Youthful Offender

50

33.9%

%

99

n

Juvenile Offender

0.0%

CEP Center for Community Alternatives YAP Fortune Society Freedom DAMAS FlameTree Osborne Association El Rio Project Return Foundation Women's Day Treatment Edwin Gould Services STEPS Center for Community Alternatives Crossroads

CASES

ATI Programs

Referral or Misdemeanor Manual Target Target C

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 5d: Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

%

Total

CSSP 507 CEP 118 Center for Community Alternatives YAP 25 Fortune Society Freedom 64 DAMAS 18 FlameTree 53 Osborne Association El Rio 2 Project Return Foundation Women's Day Treatment 6 Edwin Gould Services STEPS 16 Center for Community Alternatives Crossroads 16 Total Mandated 825

CASES

ATI Programs 361 84 40 25 9 16 48 19 14 18 634

3.0% 7.8% 2.2% 6.4% 0.2% 0.7% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0%

2.8% 100.0%

2.2%

3.0%

7.6%

3.9% 1.4% 2.5%

6.3%

56.9% 13.2%

Manhattan n %

61.5% 14.3%

Brooklyn n %

0 262

3

1

1

10 4 5

1

212 25

0.0% 100.0%

1.1%

0.4%

0.4%

3.8% 1.5% 1.9%

0.4%

80.9% 9.5%

Queens n %

19 819

17

64

117

35 26 29

0

447 65

2.3% 100.0%

2.1%

7.8%

14.3%

4.3% 3.2% 3.5%

0.0%

54.6% 7.9%

Bronx n %

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 6a: ATI Programs to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

by Borough

53 2540

50

90

168

134 57 103

66

1527 292

2.1% 100.0%

2.0%

3.5%

6.6%

5.3% 2.2% 4.1%

2.6%

60.1% 11.5%

Total n %

5 days 10 days Total CSSP

Brooklyn 15 3.0% 492 97.0% 507 100.0%

Manhattan 3 0.8% 358 99.2% 361 100.0%

Queens 3 1.4% 209 98.6% 212 100.0%

Bronx 10 2.2% 437 97.8% 447 100.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 6b: Scheduled Days of Community Service Sentences for Cases Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence Total 31 2.0% 1496 98.0% 1527 100.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 7: Demographic and Criminal History Characteristics of Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Program Group Misdemeanor Demographic Information

Felony

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

0 5 300 683 461 78

0.0% 0.3% 19.6% 44.7% 30.2% 5.1%

74 355 308 178 74 24

7.3% 35.0% 30.4% 17.6% 7.3% 2.4%

74 360 608 861 535 102

2.9% 14.2% 23.9% 33.9% 21.1% 4.0%

Age at Arrest 14-15 16-18 19-29 30-39 40-49 50 or older Total

1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Sex

Total Criminal History Information

Female 252 16.5% 294 29.0% 546 21.5% Male 1275 83.5% 719 71.0% 1994 78.5% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Missing None 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15 or more

56 3.7% 0 0.0% 56 2.2% 46 3.0% 733 72.4% 779 30.7% 148 9.7% 138 13.6% 286 11.3% 245 16.0% 56 5.5% 301 11.9% 422 27.6% 60 5.9% 482 19.0% 260 17.0% 12 1.2% 272 10.7% 350 22.9% 14 1.4% 364 14.3% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Missing None 1 2 3 or more

50 3.3% 0 0.0% 50 2.0% 519 34.0% 843 83.2% 1362 53.6% 383 25.1% 109 10.8% 492 19.4% 279 18.3% 34 3.4% 313 12.3% 296 19.4% 27 2.7% 323 12.7% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Total Prior Felony Convictions

Total

Page 1 of 2

Misdemeanor Demographic Information

n

%

Felony n

%

Total n

%

Previous Prison (Indeterminate and Determinate) Sent.

Missing 58 3.8% 101 10.0% 159 6.3% Yes 633 41.5% 74 7.3% 707 27.8% No 836 54.7% 838 82.7% 1674 65.9% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Total Number of Previous Misd. Jail (Definite) Sent's

Total

Missing 59 3.9% 101 10.0% 160 6.3% None 200 13.1% 760 75.0% 960 37.8% 1 208 13.6% 59 5.8% 267 10.5% 2 or more 1060 69.4% 93 9.2% 1153 45.4% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Two or More Previous Bench Warrants Issued

Total

Missing 60 3.9% 104 10.3% 164 6.5% Yes 1088 71.3% 142 14.0% 1230 48.4% No 379 24.8% 767 75.7% 1146 45.1% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Did Defendant Have Previous YO Status on a Felony

Total

Missing 55 3.6% 101 10.0% 156 6.1% Yes 224 14.7% 77 7.6% 301 11.9% No 1248 81.7% 835 82.4% 2083 82.0% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Is Defendant Currently on Parole

Total

Missing 82 5.4% 104 10.3% 186 7.3% Yes 37 2.4% 18 1.8% 55 2.2% No 1408 92.2% 891 88.0% 2299 90.5% 1527 100.0% 1013 100.0% 2540 100.0%

Page 2 of 2

45 11 13 84 247 43 42 485

9.3% 2.3% 2.7% 17.3% 50.9% 8.9% 8.7% 100.0%

%

1 0 0 0 2 0 2 5

n

20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 40.0% 100.0%

%

Misdemeanor Target C**

1 0 1 40 0 3 2 47

n

2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 85.1% 0.0% 6.4% 4.3% 100.0%

%

Juvenile Offender

3 0 1 22 8 10 0 44

n

6.8% 0.0% 2.3% 50.0% 18.2% 22.7% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Youthful Offender

0 0 0 0 74 0 1 75

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.7% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0%

%

Detained & Released

Felony Female Drug

8 6 2 12 0 0 0 28

n

%

28.6% 21.4% 7.1% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Detained

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

n

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Released (STEPS)

Female Non-Drug Female Non-Drug

Male Drug

0 0 0 0 168 0 0 168

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Detained & Released

%

3.8% 0.0% 7.5% 58.8% 0.0% 20.6% 9.4% 100.0%

Detained

6 0 12 94 0 33 15 160

n

Male Non-Drug

64 18 29 252 499 89 62 1013

n

%

6.3% 1.8% 2.9% 24.9% 49.3% 8.8% 6.1% 100.0%

Total

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Sex Offenses (130), Arson (150), Larceny (155), Other Offenses Relating to Theft (165), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings (215), Offenses Involving Marijuana (221), Offenses Against Public Order (240), and Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL). **Includes three misdemeanor cases mandated to Project Return and two misdemeanor cases mandated to Crossroads.

Penal Law Article 120:Assault and Related Offenses 125: Homicide, Abortion, and Related Offenses 140:Burglary and Related Offenses 160:Robbery 220:Controlled Substances Offenses 265:Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons Missing and Other* Total

Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment

n

Referral and Manual Target

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 8a: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group a. Mandated to Felony Programs

11 63 32 439 111 294 212 52 1214

0.9% 5.2% 2.6% 36.2% 9.1% 24.2% 17.5% 4.3% 100.0%

%

0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 5

n

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Target A

2 1 4 6 8 11 7 1 40

n

%

5.0% 2.5% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 27.5% 17.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Target C01

0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6

n

%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Target C02

13 18 0 0 50 49 32 9 171

n

%

7.6% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 29.2% 28.7% 18.7% 5.3% 100.0%

Target C03

0 0 8 73 0 0 0 0 81

n

0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 90.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Misdemeanor Target C04

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

%

Youthful Offender n

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Female Drug Detained

Male Drug

0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 7

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Detained & Released**

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

n

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Male Non-Drug Detained

%

1.8% 5.4% 2.9% 34.4% 11.1% 23.8% 16.6% 4.1% 100.0%

Total

27 82 44 525 170 363 253 63 1527

n

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Facilitation (115), Homicide, Abortion and Related Offenses (125), Robbery (160), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings (215), Gambling Offenses (225), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons (265), Other Offenses Relating to Public Safety (270), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL), and Other Non-Penal Law Offenses (666666). **Includes three felony cases from the low bail target group.

Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment Penal Law Article 120:Assault and Related Offenses 140:Burglary and Related Offenses 145:Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 155:Larceny 165:Other Offenses Related to Theft 220:Controlled Substances Offenses 221:Offenses Involving Marijuana Missing and Other* Total

n

Referral and Manual Target

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 8b: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group b. Mandated to CSSP

1527

Total

100.0%

1.8% 0.1% 5.4% 2.9% 34.4% 0.3% 11.1% 23.8% 16.6% 0.6% 3.2%

%

292

10 2 15 0 7 135 3 66 1 44 9

n

%

100.0%

3.4% 0.7% 5.1% 0.0% 2.4% 46.2% 1.0% 22.6% 0.3% 15.1% 3.1%

CEP

66

4 0 1 0 0 55 0 0 0 3 3

n

%

100.0%

6.1% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 4.5%

YAP

CCA

134

3 1 6 0 3 28 3 63 0 23 4

n

100.0%

2.2% 0.7% 4.5% 0.0% 2.2% 20.9% 2.2% 47.0% 0.0% 17.2% 3.0%

%

Freedom

57

6 0 1 0 1 10 1 34 0 3 1

n

100.0%

10.5% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 17.5% 1.8% 59.6% 0.0% 5.3% 1.8%

%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

103

1 1 3 0 3 13 4 63 2 12 1

n

100.0%

1.0% 1.0% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 12.6% 3.9% 61.2% 1.9% 11.7% 1.0%

%

FlameTree

168

2 0 0 0 0 4 0 158 0 2 2

n

100.0%

1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 94.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.2%

%

El Rio

Osborne

90

9 0 2 0 2 6 0 67 0 0 4

n

100.0%

10.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 2.2% 6.7% 0.0% 74.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4%

%

50

25 14 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 5

n

100.0%

50.0% 28.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 6.0% 0.0% 4.0% 10.0%

%

Project Return Edwin Gould Services Women's Day STEPS Treatment

53

4 0 1 0 2 0 0 45 0 0 1

n

100.0%

7.5% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 84.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

%

Crossroads

CCA

3.6% 0.7% 4.4% 1.7% 21.4% 10.1% 7.1% 33.9% 10.1% 3.9% 3.1% 100.0%

2540

%

Total

91 19 111 44 543 256 181 862 256 98 79

n

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Facilitation (115), Sex Offenses (130), Arson (150), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings (215), Gambling Offenses (225), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Other Offenses Relating to Public Safety (270), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL), and Other Non-Penal Law Offenses (666666).

27 1 82 44 525 4 170 363 253 9 49

n

Court Processing Information Penal Law Article 120:Assault and Related Offenses 125:Homicide, Abortion, and Related Offenses 140:Burglary and Related Offenses 145:Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 155:Larceny 160:Robbery 165:Other Offenses Related to Theft 220:Controlled Substances Offenses 221:Offenses Involving Marijuana 265:Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons Missing and Other*

CSSP

CASES

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 9: Charge Leaving Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

by Program

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Defendants Who Actually Enrolled in the Reporting Period by Program Group Misdemeanor CSSP Demographic Information Residence Status Alone With Spouse With Parent/Adoptive Parent With Other Relative With Foster Parents With Non-relative Single Resident Occupancy Other Group Residential Setting Other Homeless Total* Participant's Employment/Support Missing Salary Public Assistance or P.A. w/ Workfare

Unemployment Social Security or Pension SSI Other None Refused to Answer or Don't Know Total* Employment Status Missing or Not Employed Full Time Part Time Total Is Participant Enrolled in School Missing Yes No Total Has Participant Ever Been in Special Education Missing** Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total

n

%

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

222 14.5% 382 25.0% 354 23.2% 229 15.0% 0 0.0% 167 10.9% 23 1.5% 0 0.0% 145 9.5% 5 0.3% 1527 100.0%

0 0 56 20 1 2 0 0 0 0 79

0.0% 0.0% 70.9% 25.3% 1.3% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 8 194 91 2 11 0 4 1 2 314

0.3% 2.5% 61.8% 29.0% 0.6% 3.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.3% 0.6% 100.0%

38 100 147 75 0 20 1 13 4 9 407

9.3% 24.6% 36.1% 18.4% 0.0% 4.9% 0.2% 3.2% 1.0% 2.2% 100.0%

18 35 108 51 0 13 1 1 20 4 251

7.2% 279 10.8% 13.9% 525 20.4% 43.0% 859 33.3% 20.3% 466 18.1% 0.0% 3 0.1% 5.2% 213 8.3% 0.4% 25 1.0% 0.4% 18 0.7% 8.0% 170 6.6% 1.6% 20 0.8% 100.0% 2578 100.0%

0 0.0% 492 28.7% 433 25.3% 20 1.2% 0 0.0% 105 6.1% 11 0.6% 651 38.0% 0 0.0% 1712 100.0%

1 2 2 0 1 1 2 56 0 65

1.5% 3.1% 3.1% 0.0% 1.5% 1.5% 3.1% 86.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 30 3 0 2 1 1 244 0 281

0.0% 10.7% 1.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 86.8% 0.0% 100.0%

4 71 59 3 10 28 11 199 10 395

1.0% 18.0% 14.9% 0.8% 2.5% 7.1% 2.8% 50.4% 2.5% 100.0%

3 54 34 2 2 14 13 118 1 241

1.2% 8 0.3% 22.4% 649 24.1% 14.1% 531 19.7% 0.8% 25 0.9% 0.8% 15 0.6% 5.8% 149 5.5% 5.4% 38 1.4% 49.0% 1268 47.1% 0.4% 11 0.4% 100.0% 2694 100.0%

1109 72.6% 237 15.5% 181 11.9% 1527 100.0%

63 2 0 65

96.9% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0%

253 10 18 281

90.0% 3.6% 6.4% 100.0%

343 33 14 390

87.9% 8.5% 3.6% 100.0%

198 29 11 238

83.2% 1966 78.6% 12.2% 311 12.4% 4.6% 224 9.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0 0.0% 17 1.1% 1510 98.9% 1527 100.0%

0 37 28 65

0.0% 56.9% 43.1% 100.0%

0 61 220 281

0.0% 21.7% 78.3% 100.0%

1 9 380 390

0.3% 2.3% 97.4% 100.0%

0 21 217 238

0.0% 1 0.0% 8.8% 145 5.8% 91.2% 2355 94.2% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

1527 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1527 100.0%

2 15 46 2 65

3.1% 23.1% 70.8% 3.1% 100.0%

0 89 190 2 281

0.0% 31.7% 67.6% 0.7% 100.0%

2 47 335 6 390

0.5% 12.1% 85.9% 1.5% 100.0%

1 24 211 2 238

0.4% 1532 61.3% 10.1% 175 7.0% 88.7% 782 31.3% 0.8% 12 0.5% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

* Total is greater than 2,501 because more than one category may be checked. ** By agreement CSSP does not ask about special education due to the older population they serve.

Page 1 of 2

%

Total n

%

Misdemeanor CSSP Demographic Information Last Grade Completed Missing Less than 7th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Post High School Total Can Participant Read English?

Missing Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Can Participant Speak English?

Missing Yes No Total Psychological/Emotional Issues Has Part. Ever Been Treated for Psych./Emotional Problems Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Is Participant Currently Prescribed Psychotropic Drugs Yes No Total Scheduled Time at Program 5 or 6 Hours/Week 10 Hours/Week 20 Hours/Week 25 Hours/Week 30 Hours/Week 35 Hours/Week 1 Session/Week 2 Sessions/Week 3 or 4 Sessions/Week 5 Sessions/Week 5 Hours/Day 6 or 7 Hours/Day Total

n

%

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

14 0.9% 31 2.0% 20 1.3% 38 2.5% 127 8.3% 266 17.4% 362 23.7% 463 30.3% 206 13.5% 1527 100.0%

0 0 9 31 17 8 0 0 0 65

0.0% 0.0% 13.8% 47.7% 26.2% 12.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2 2 1 62 86 80 41 7 0 281

0.7% 0.7% 0.4% 22.1% 30.6% 28.5% 14.6% 2.5% 0.0% 100.0%

6 8 2 32 55 86 99 78 24 390

1.5% 2.1% 0.5% 8.2% 14.1% 22.1% 25.4% 20.0% 6.2% 100.0%

9 3 2 11 33 66 49 53 12 238

3.8% 31 1.2% 1.3% 44 1.8% 0.8% 34 1.4% 4.6% 174 7.0% 13.9% 318 12.7% 27.7% 506 20.2% 20.6% 551 22.0% 22.3% 601 24.0% 5.0% 242 9.7% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

4 0.3% 1503 98.4% 20 1.3% 0 0.0% 1527 100.0%

0 63 2 0 65

0.0% 96.9% 3.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 274 6 1 281

0.0% 97.5% 2.1% 0.4% 100.0%

1 367 22 0 390

0.3% 94.1% 5.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 230 8 0 238

0.0% 5 0.2% 96.6% 2437 97.4% 3.4% 58 2.3% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0 0.0% 1500 98.2% 27 1.8% 1527 100.0%

0 64 1 65

0.0% 98.5% 1.5% 100.0%

0 275 6 281

0.0% 97.9% 2.1% 100.0%

1 374 15 390

0.3% 95.9% 3.8% 100.0%

0 232 6 238

0.0% 1 0.0% 97.5% 2445 97.8% 2.5% 55 2.2% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

7 0.5% 1520 99.5% 0 0.0% 1527 100.0%

13 51 1 65

20.0% 78.5% 1.5% 100.0%

38 243 0 281

13.5% 86.5% 0.0% 100.0%

59 330 1 390

15.1% 84.6% 0.3% 100.0%

43 195 0 238

18.1% 160 6.4% 81.9% 2339 93.5% 0.0% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

16 1.0% 1511 99.0% 1527 100.0%

7 58 65

10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

3 278 281

1.1% 98.9% 100.0%

29 361 390

7.4% 92.6% 100.0%

12 226 238

5.0% 67 2.7% 95.0% 2434 97.3% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1527 100.0% 1527 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 65

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 281 0 0 281

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 1 69 10 0 0 0 4 103 157 46 390

0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 17.7% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 26.4% 40.3% 11.8% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 20 29 4 185 0 0 238

0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 69 2.8% 0.0% 10 0.4% 0.0% 0 0.0% 8.4% 20 0.8% 12.2% 29 1.2% 1.7% 73 2.9% 77.7% 569 22.8% 0.0% 157 6.3% 0.0% 1573 62.9% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

Page 2 of 2

%

Total n

%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 11: Drug and Alcohol Use of Defendants Who Actually Enrolled in the Reporting Period by Program Group Misdemeanor CSSP n

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population %

Total

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

n

%

0.0% 70.9% 5.8% 6.3% 10.1% 6.9% 100.0%

0 47 10 3 2 3 65

0.0% 72.3% 15.4% 4.6% 3.1% 4.6% 100.0%

0 232 19 15 14 1 281

0.0% 82.6% 6.8% 5.3% 5.0% 0.4% 100.0%

4 192 25 33 75 61 390

1.0% 49.2% 6.4% 8.5% 19.2% 15.6% 100.0%

0 177 21 12 21 7 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 74.4% 1730 69.2% 8.8% 164 6.6% 5.0% 159 6.4% 8.8% 266 10.6% 2.9% 178 7.1% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 72.5% 3.5% 4.6% 7.5% 11.9% 100.0%

0 35 8 4 6 12 65

0.0% 53.8% 12.3% 6.2% 9.2% 18.5% 100.0%

0 136 16 28 47 54 281

0.0% 48.4% 5.7% 10.0% 16.7% 19.2% 100.0%

4 135 11 18 53 169 390

1.0% 34.6% 2.8% 4.6% 13.6% 43.3% 100.0%

0 171 8 7 21 31 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 71.8% 1584 63.3% 3.4% 96 3.8% 2.9% 128 5.1% 8.8% 241 9.6% 13.0% 448 17.9% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 81.7% 1.2% 2.4% 6.0% 8.6% 0.1% 100.0%

0 64 1 0 0 0 0 65

0.0% 98.5% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 281 0 0 0 0 0 281

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 263 7 10 34 72 0 390

1.0% 67.4% 1.8% 2.6% 8.7% 18.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 230 1 1 4 2 0 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 96.6% 2085 83.4% 0.4% 27 1.1% 0.4% 48 1.9% 1.7% 130 5.2% 0.8% 206 8.2% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 94.4% 1.0% 0.9% 2.4% 1.2% 100.0%

0 65 0 0 0 0 65

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 280 0 0 1 0 281

0.0% 99.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%

4 300 10 10 37 29 390

1.0% 76.9% 2.6% 2.6% 9.5% 7.4% 100.0%

0 231 0 3 3 1 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 97.1% 2318 92.7% 0.0% 26 1.0% 1.3% 26 1.0% 1.3% 78 3.1% 0.4% 49 2.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 79.9% 2.0% 2.0% 3.1% 13.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 65 0 0 0 0 0 65

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 281 0 0 0 0 0 281

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 329 5 4 7 40 1 390

1.0% 84.4% 1.3% 1.0% 1.8% 10.3% 0.3% 100.0%

0 231 0 0 3 4 0 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 97.1% 2126 85.0% 0.0% 35 1.4% 0.0% 34 1.4% 1.3% 57 2.3% 1.7% 244 9.8% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

Frequency of Alcohol Use In Past 30 Days Missing 0 None 1082 1 Day/Month or Less 89 1 Day/Week 96 2-3 Days/Week 154 Daily 106 Total 1527 Frequency of Marijuana Use In Past 30 Days Missing 0 None 1107 1 Day/Month or Less 53 1 Day/Week 71 2-3 Days/Week 114 Daily 182 Total 1527 Frequency of Crack Use In Past 30 Days Missing 0 None 1247 1 Day/Month or Less 18 1 Day/Week 37 2-3 Days/Week 92 Daily 132 Refused to Answer 1 Total 1527 Frequency of Cocaine Use In Past 30 Days Missing 0 None 1442 1 Day/Month or Less 16 1 Day/Week 13 2-3 Days/Week 37 Daily 19 Total 1527 Frequency of Heroin Use In Past 30 Days Missing 0 None 1220 1 Day/Month or Less 30 1 Day/Week 30 2-3 Days/Week 47 Daily 200 Refused to Answer 0 Total 1527

Page 1 of 2

Misdemeanor CSSP n

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population %

Total

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

n

%

0.0% 82.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.7% 16.3% 0.1% 100.0%

0 65 0 0 0 0 0 65

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 281 0 0 0 0 0 281

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 375 0 1 4 6 0 390

1.0% 96.2% 0.0% 0.3% 1.0% 1.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 220 0 1 1 16 0 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 92.4% 2203 88.1% 0.0% 3 0.1% 0.4% 4 0.2% 0.4% 15 0.6% 6.7% 271 10.8% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 15.3% 3.8% 0.5% 80.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 2 1 60 2 65

0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 1.5% 92.3% 3.1% 100.0%

0 0 3 0 278 0 281

0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 98.9% 0.0% 100.0%

2 12 64 17 295 0 390

0.5% 3.1% 16.4% 4.4% 75.6% 0.0% 100.0%

1 19 12 1 205 0 238

0.4% 3 0.1% 8.0% 264 10.6% 5.0% 139 5.6% 0.4% 26 1.0% 86.1% 2067 82.6% 0.0% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 49.4% 50.6% 0.0% 100.0%

1 4 60 0 65

1.5% 6.2% 92.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 14 263 4 281

0.0% 5.0% 93.6% 1.4% 100.0%

4 326 59 1 390

1.0% 83.6% 15.1% 0.3% 100.0%

0 26 210 2 238

0.0% 5 0.2% 10.9% 1125 45.0% 88.2% 1364 54.5% 0.8% 7 0.3% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 13.4% 86.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 2 63 0 65

0.0% 3.1% 96.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 8 273 0 281

0.0% 2.8% 97.2% 0.0% 100.0%

4 126 259 1 390

1.0% 32.3% 66.4% 0.3% 100.0%

0 13 224 1 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 5.5% 354 14.2% 94.1% 2141 85.6% 0.4% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 45.9% 54.1% 100.0%

0 18 47 65

0.0% 27.7% 72.3% 100.0%

0 36 245 281

0.0% 12.8% 87.2% 100.0%

4 352 34 390

1.0% 90.3% 8.7% 100.0%

0 47 191 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 19.7% 1154 46.1% 80.3% 1343 53.7% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0.0% 6.0% 94.0% 100.0%

0 7 58 65

0.0% 10.8% 89.2% 100.0%

0 9 272 281

0.0% 3.2% 96.8% 100.0%

4 163 223 390

1.0% 41.8% 57.2% 100.0%

0 25 213 238

0.0% 4 0.2% 10.5% 295 11.8% 89.5% 2202 88.0% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

Frequency of Methadone Use In Past 30 Days Missing 0 None 1262 1 Day/Month or Less 3 1 Day/Week 2 2-3 Days/Week 10 Daily 249 Refused to Answer 1 Total 1527 Was Part. in Drug/Alcohol Treatment Immediately Before Intake Missing 0 Yes, Methadone Maintenance 233 Yes, Drug Day-Treatment Program 58 Yes, Alcohol Treatment Program 7 No 1229 Refused to Answer 0 Total 1527 Does Part. Characterize His/Her Drug Use as a Problem Information Not Available 0 Yes 755 No 772 Don't Know or Refused to Answer 0 Total 1527 Does Part. Characterize His/Her Alcohol Use as a Problem Information Not Available 0 Yes 205 No 1322 Don't Know or Refused to Answer 0 Total 1527 Does Prog. Characterize Participant's Drug Use as a Problem Information Not Available 0 Yes 701 No 826 Total 1527 Does Prog. Characterize Participant's Alcohol Use as a Problem Information Not Available 0 Yes 91 No 1436 Total 1527

Page 2 of 2

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 12: Outcome Characteristics of Cases that Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Program Group YAP Outcome of Screening

CEP

Drug Programs

General Population %

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

n

%

1 19 44 2 66

1.5% 28.8% 66.7% 3.0% 100.0%

1 18 264 9 292

0.3% 6.2% 90.4% 3.1% 100.0%

2 59 312 41 414

0.5% 14.3% 75.4% 9.9% 100.0%

0 52 176 13 241

0.0% 4 0.4% 21.6% 148 14.6% 73.0% 796 78.6% 5.4% 65 6.4% 100.0% 1013 100.0%

0 0 0 0 46 46

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0 6 0 0 267 273

0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.8% 100.0%

45 168 0 33 107 353

12.7% 47.6% 0.0% 9.3% 30.3% 100.0%

2 72 0 13 102 189

1.1% 38.1% 0.0% 6.9% 54.0% 100.0%

47 246 0 46 522 861

5.5% 28.6% 0.0% 5.3% 60.6% 100.0%

0 0 29 6 0 11 0 46

0.0% 0.0% 63.0% 13.0% 0.0% 23.9% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 205 59 0 8 0 273

0.4% 0.0% 75.1% 21.6% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 100.0%

104 29 125 5 4 41 45 353

29.5% 8.2% 35.4% 1.4% 1.1% 11.6% 12.7% 100.0%

19 14 132 11 0 11 2 189

10.1% 7.4% 69.8% 5.8% 0.0% 5.8% 1.1% 100.0%

124 43 491 81 4 71 47 861

14.4% 5.0% 57.0% 9.4% 0.5% 8.2% 5.5% 100.0%

35 0 11 0 46

76.1% 0.0% 23.9% 0.0% 100.0%

213 14 26 20 273

78.0% 5.1% 9.5% 7.3% 100.0%

19 6 15 313 353

5.4% 1.7% 4.2% 88.7% 100.0%

21 3 26 139 189

11.1% 1.6% 13.8% 73.5% 100.0%

288 23 78 472 861

33.4% 2.7% 9.1% 54.8% 100.0%

Legal Status at Intake

Bail Modification Pre-Plea Post-Plea Sentenced Total Promised Outcome if Defendant is Successful at Program

Dismissal Plea to Lesser Charge Plea to Top Charge No Promise No Change Total* Promised Sentence if Defendant is Successful at Program

Conditional Discharge Time Served Probation Split/Jail & Probation Other No Promise No Sentence, Promise of Dismissal Total* YO Status to be Granted

Yes No No Promise N/A (19 or Over) Total* *Total based only on post-plea and sentenced cases.

Status

Transfer placement Court conditions and transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Completed Pending: Active Monitored Transfer: Drug use Treatment non-compliance Mental illness Subtotal Pending Total All Mandated Cases

Program requirements and court conditions

Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed Completed: Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only

Drug use Mental illness Physical illness Non-compliance with treatment plan Other

Not Completed: No Show Transfer: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%

1.5% 0.8% 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 26.9% 1.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.5% 4.6% 3.8% 7.7% 26.9% 53.8% 43.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.8% 100.0%

2 1 32 0 0 35 2 1 0 0 11 6 5 10 35 70 57 0 0 0 57 130

0.8%

%

4 0 0 104 395

100

53 6 46 1 4 50 3 1 164 281

110 0 0 7 0 117

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

9

n

1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.3% 100.0%

25.3%

13.4% 1.5% 11.6% 0.3% 1.0% 12.7% 0.8% 0.3% 41.5% 71.1%

27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 29.6%

0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

2.3%

%

CEP

YAP

0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

1

n

CASES

CCA

1 0 0 52 222

51

25 3 1 1 6 9 2 1 48 165

113 0 3 1 0 117

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 5

2

n

0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 23.4% 100.0%

23.0%

11.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 2.7% 4.1% 0.9% 0.5% 21.6% 74.3%

50.9% 0.0% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 52.7%

0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3%

0.9%

%

Freedom

0 0 0 25 74

25

4 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 10 47

19 1 16 1 0 37

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

1

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.8% 100.0%

33.8%

5.4% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 1.4% 13.5% 63.5%

25.7% 1.4% 21.6% 1.4% 0.0% 50.0%

0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7%

1.4%

%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

1 0 0 43 151

42

25 3 7 1 7 4 1 2 50 107

35 1 20 1 0 57

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1

n

0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 28.5% 100.0%

27.8%

16.6% 2.0% 4.6% 0.7% 4.6% 2.6% 0.7% 1.3% 33.1% 70.9%

23.2% 0.7% 13.2% 0.7% 0.0% 37.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

0.7%

%

FlameTree

4 1 0 124 250

119

37 0 0 1 11 8 7 0 64 122

33 0 16 9 0 58

1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4

1

n

%

1.6% 0.4% 0.0% 49.6% 100.0%

47.6%

14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 4.4% 3.2% 2.8% 0.0% 25.6% 48.8%

13.2% 0.0% 6.4% 3.6% 0.0% 23.2%

0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

0.4%

El Rio

Osborne

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases Active in the Reporting Period by ATI Program

1 2 0 37 116

34

23 1 2 1 6 2 9 1 45 69

19 0 0 5 0 24

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10

9

0.9% 1.7% 0.0% 31.9% 100.0%

29.3%

19.8% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% 5.2% 1.7% 7.8% 0.9% 38.8% 59.5%

16.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 20.7%

0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6%

7.8%

Women's Day Treatment n %

Project Return

0 0 0 37 86

37

10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 46

14 1 19 0 0 34

0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3

0

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.0% 100.0%

43.0%

11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 53.5%

16.3% 1.2% 22.1% 0.0% 0.0% 39.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 2.3% 3.5%

0.0%

%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

0 0 1 18 65

17

8 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 16 29

5 3 4 0 1 13

4 0 1 2 2 0 0 18

9

n

0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 27.7% 100.0%

26.2%

12.3% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 24.6% 44.6%

7.7% 4.6% 6.2% 0.0% 1.5% 20.0%

6.2% 0.0% 1.5% 3.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 27.7%

13.8%

%

Crossroads

CCA

11 3 1 497 1489

482

187 14 61 5 50 79 32 16 444 936

350 7 110 24 1 492

6 3 1 3 6 2 2 56

33

n

%

0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 33.4% 100.0%

32.4%

12.6% 0.9% 4.1% 0.3% 3.4% 5.3% 2.1% 1.1% 29.8% 62.9%

23.5% 0.5% 7.4% 1.6% 0.1% 33.0%

0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 3.8%

2.2%

Total

Subtotal Completed

Active Cases Monitored Transfer Subtotal Pending Total All YAP Cases

Pending:

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Completed:

Drug use Other Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

10.9% 0.0% 10.9% 100.0%

3.1% 1.6% 10.9% 9.4% 1.6% 7.8% 34.4% 87.5%

2 1 7 6 1 5 22 56 7 0 7 64

3.1% 1.6% 48.4% 0.0% 53.1%

0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

0.0%

2 1 31 0 34

0 1 0 0 1

0

Released Prior to Fiscal Year n %

CCA YAP

50 0 50 66

0 0 4 0 4 5 13 14

0 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 0 2

1

n

%

75.8% 0.0% 75.8% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 6.1% 7.6% 19.7% 21.2%

0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%

0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0%

1.5%

Fiscal Year 01

57 0 57 130

2 1 11 6 5 10 35 70

2 1 32 0 35

0 2 0 0 3

1

n

0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%

0.8%

%

43.8% 0.0% 43.8% 100.0%

1.5% 0.8% 8.5% 4.6% 3.8% 7.7% 26.9% 53.8%

1.5% 0.8% 24.6% 0.0% 26.9%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13a: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in YAP during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed Active Cases Monitored Transfer

Total All CEP Cases

Pending:

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Completed:

Mental Illness Drug use Other Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 0 103

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

14.6% 1.9% 11.7% 1.0% 1.0% 14.6% 0.0% 0.0% 44.7% 99.0%

15 2 12 1 1 15 0 0 46 102 0

49.5% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 54.4%

0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

0.0%

51 0 0 5 56

0 1 0 0 0 1

0

4 104 292

100

38 4 34 0 3 35 3 1 118 179

59 0 0 2 61

0 0 0 0 0 9

9

1.4% 35.6% 100.0%

34.2%

13.0% 1.4% 11.6% 0.0% 1.0% 12.0% 1.0% 0.3% 40.4% 61.3%

20.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 20.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1%

3.1%

CASES CEP Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

4 104 395

100

53 6 46 1 4 50 3 1 164 281

110 0 0 7 117

0 1 0 0 0 10

9

n

0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

2.3%

%

1.0% 26.3% 100.0%

25.3%

13.4% 1.5% 11.6% 0.3% 1.0% 12.7% 0.8% 0.3% 41.5% 71.1%

27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 29.6%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13b: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in CEP during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Drug use Mental illness Other

Active Cases Monitored Transfer Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Non-compliance with treatment plan Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All Freedom Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 2 88

0.0% 2.3% 100.0%

2.3%

13.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 23.9% 96.6%

12 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 21 85 2

69.3% 2.3% 1.1% 72.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0.0%

61 2 1 64

0 0 0 1 0 1

0

1 50 134

49

13 2 0 0 4 7 0 1 27 80

52 1 0 53

0 1 0 1 0 4

2

0.7% 37.3% 100.0%

36.6%

9.7% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 5.2% 0.0% 0.7% 20.1% 59.7%

38.8% 0.7% 0.0% 39.6%

0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 3.0%

1.5%

Fortune Society Freedom Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

1 52 222

51

25 3 1 1 6 9 2 1 48 165

113 3 1 117

0 1 0 2 0 5

2

n

0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 2.3%

0.9%

%

0.5% 23.4% 100.0%

23.0%

11.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 2.7% 4.1% 0.9% 0.5% 21.6% 74.3%

50.9% 1.4% 0.5% 52.7%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13c: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in Freedom during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Drug use Mental illness

Active Cases Monitored Transfer Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Subtotal Not Completed

Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All DAMAS Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 17

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0

35.3% 5.9% 52.9% 5.9% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

6 1 9 1 17

0 0 0 0 0

0

0 25 57

25

4 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 10 30

13 0 7 0 20

0 1 0 0 2

1

0.0% 43.9% 100.0%

43.9%

7.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 1.8% 17.5% 52.6%

22.8% 0.0% 12.3% 0.0% 35.1%

0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5%

1.8%

Fortune Society DAMAS Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

0 25 74

25

4 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 10 47

19 1 16 1 37

0 1 0 0 2

1

n

0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7%

1.4%

%

0.0% 33.8% 100.0%

33.8%

5.4% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 1.4% 13.5% 63.5%

25.7% 1.4% 21.6% 1.4% 50.0%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13d: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in DAMAS during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Drug use Other

Active Cases Monitored Transfer Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All FlameTree Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 48

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

14.6% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 31.3% 100.0%

7 0 4 0 2 1 1 0 15 48 0

45.8% 0.0% 20.8% 2.1% 68.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

22 0 10 1 33

0 0 0 0 0

0

1 43 103

42

18 3 3 1 5 3 0 2 35 59

13 1 10 0 24

0 0 0 0 1

1

1.0% 41.7% 100.0%

40.8%

17.5% 2.9% 2.9% 1.0% 4.9% 2.9% 0.0% 1.9% 34.0% 57.3%

12.6% 1.0% 9.7% 0.0% 23.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

1.0%

Fortune Society FlameTree Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

1 43 151

42

25 3 7 1 7 4 1 2 50 107

35 1 20 1 57

0 0 0 0 1

1

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7%

0.7%

%

0.7% 28.5% 100.0%

27.8%

16.6% 2.0% 4.6% 0.7% 4.6% 2.6% 0.7% 1.3% 33.1% 70.9%

23.2% 0.7% 13.2% 0.7% 37.7%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13e: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in FlameTree during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Not Completed

Subtotal Pending

Drug use Treatment non-compliance

Active Cases Monitored Transfer

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Total All El Rio Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Mental illness Drug use Non-compliance with treatment plan Other Subtotal Transfer Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 1 11 82

0.0% 1.2% 13.4% 100.0%

12.2%

13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 4.9% 2.4% 0.0% 24.4% 84.1%

11 0 0 1 2 4 2 0 20 69 10

32.9% 15.9% 11.0% 59.8%

0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%

1.2%

27 13 9 49

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

1

4 0 113 168

109

26 0 0 0 9 4 5 0 44 53

6 3 0 9

0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2

0

2.4% 0.0% 67.3% 100.0%

64.9%

15.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 2.4% 3.0% 0.0% 26.2% 31.5%

3.6% 1.8% 0.0% 5.4%

0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

0.0%

Osborne El Rio Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

4 1 124 250

119

37 0 0 1 11 8 7 0 64 122

33 16 9 58

0 1 1 1 3 0 0 4

1

n

0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6%

0.4%

%

1.6% 0.4% 49.6% 100.0%

47.6%

14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 4.4% 3.2% 2.8% 0.0% 25.6% 48.8%

13.2% 6.4% 3.6% 23.2%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13f: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in El Rio during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Completed

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 26

11.5% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 3.8% 30.8% 0.0% 53.8% 100.0%

3 0 1 0 1 1 8 0 14 26 0

42.3% 0.0% 3.8% 46.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

11 0 1 12

0 0 0 0

Mental illness Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed Successful Completion: Program requirements only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

0

No Show Transfer:

Status

Active Cases Monitored Transfer Treatment non-compliance Drug use Subtotal Pending Total All Project Return Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

2 1 37 90

34

20 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 31 43

8 0 4 12

1 0 0 10

9

2.2% 1.1% 41.1% 100.0%

37.8%

22.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 5.6% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 34.4% 47.8%

8.9% 0.0% 4.4% 13.3%

1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1%

10.0%

Project Return Women's Day Treatment Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

2 1 37 116

34

23 1 2 1 6 2 9 1 45 69

19 0 5 24

1 0 0 10

9

n

0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6%

7.8%

%

1.7% 0.9% 31.9% 100.0%

29.3%

19.8% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% 5.2% 1.7% 7.8% 0.9% 38.8% 59.5%

16.4% 0.0% 4.3% 20.7%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13g: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in Project Return during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed Active Cases Monitored Transfer

Total All STEPS Cases

Pending:

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Completed:

Other Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

25.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.8% 88.9%

9 0 1 0 0 0 10 32 3 0 3 36

27.8% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 61.1%

0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 2.8%

0.0%

10 0 12 0 22

0 0 1 1

0

34 0 34 50

1 0 1 0 0 0 2 14

4 1 7 0 12

1 0 1 2

0

68.0% 0.0% 68.0% 100.0%

2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 28.0%

8.0% 2.0% 14.0% 0.0% 24.0%

2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0%

0.0%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

37 0 37 86

10 0 2 0 0 0 12 46

14 1 19 0 34

1 0 2 3

0

n

1.2% 0.0% 2.3% 3.5%

0.0%

%

43.0% 0.0% 43.0% 100.0%

11.6% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.0% 53.5%

16.3% 1.2% 22.1% 0.0% 39.5%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13h: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in STEPS during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Drug use Treatment non-compliance Physical illness Other

Active Cases Monitored Transfer Drug use Mental illness Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Court conditions and transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of program rules Treatment non-compliance Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Abated Relocated to other jurisdiction Subtotal Not Completed

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All Crossroads Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 1 12

0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 100.0%

8.3%

8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 83.3%

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1

41.7% 8.3% 16.7% 8.3% 75.0%

8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3%

0.0%

5 1 2 1 9

1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0

0 1 17 53

16

7 0 2 3 0 3 0 15 19

0 2 2 0 4

3 2 1 2 0 0 17

9

0.0% 1.9% 32.1% 100.0%

30.2%

13.2% 0.0% 3.8% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 28.3% 35.8%

0.0% 3.8% 3.8% 0.0% 7.5%

5.7% 3.8% 1.9% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 32.1%

17.0%

CCA Crossroads Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 01 n % n %

0 1 18 65

17

8 0 2 3 0 3 0 16 29

5 3 4 1 13

4 2 1 2 0 0 18

9

n

%

0.0% 1.5% 27.7% 100.0%

26.2%

12.3% 0.0% 3.1% 4.6% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 24.6% 44.6%

7.7% 4.6% 6.2% 1.5% 20.0%

6.2% 3.1% 1.5% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 27.7%

13.8%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 13i: Program Status as of June 30, 2001, for Felony Cases in Crossroads during the Reporting Period

by Time of Mandate

Unknown Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Breach of rules Rearrest Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination Active Total CSSP

No Show Successful Completion Modified:

Status

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 1 32

% 0.0% 96.9%

0

n 0 31

5 Days

157 23 74 254 124 1613

25

n 86 1124

9.7% 1.4% 4.6% 15.7% 7.7% 100.0%

1.5%

% 5.3% 69.7%

10 Days

157 23 74 254 125 1645

25

9.5% 1.4% 4.5% 15.4% 7.6% 100.0%

1.5%

% 5.2% 70.2%

Total n 86 1155

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 14: Status as of June 30, 2001 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Days of Community Service Sentence

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination: Active Subtotal Fourth Quarter FY01

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination: Subtotal Third Quarter FY01

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination: Subtotal First Half FY01

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination: Subtotal Prior to FY

Status

Total CSSP

n

534

10 91 1 14 32 148

n

4 106 2 19 131

n

6 182 2 38 228

n

1 20 0 6 27

%

%

%

% 6.8% 61.5% 0.7% 9.5% 21.6% 100.0%

Brooklyn

3.1% 80.9% 1.5% 14.5% 100.0%

Brooklyn

2.6% 79.8% 0.9% 16.7% 100.0%

Brooklyn

3.7% 74.1% 0.0% 22.2% 100.0%

Brooklyn n

%

n

Manhattan %

n

Manhattan %

n

n

384

2 66 1 22 27 118

% 1.7% 55.9% 0.8% 18.6% 22.9% 100.0%

Manhattan

233

3 28 0 8 31 70

n

10 9.1% 7 76 69.1% 41 1 0.9% 1 23 20.9% 7 110 100.0% 56 Mandated in Fourth Quarter FY01

n

9 6.8% 2 98 73.7% 63 6 4.5% 5 20 15.0% 16 133 100.0% 86 Mandated in Third Quarter FY01

n

1 4.3% 1 18 78.3% 14 0 0.0% 1 4 17.4% 5 23 100.0% 21 Mandated in First Half FY01

Manhattan

Mandated Prior to Fiscal Year %

%

%

% 4.3% 40.0% 0.0% 11.4% 44.3% 100.0%

Queens

12.5% 73.2% 1.8% 12.5% 100.0%

Queens

2.3% 73.3% 5.8% 18.6% 100.0%

Queens

4.8% 66.7% 4.8% 23.8% 100.0%

Queens

494

6 79 0 7 35 127

n

6 92 1 15 114

n

16 150 3 37 206

n

2 31 1 13 47

n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 15: Status as of June 30, 2001 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period

by Borough of Sentence and Time of Mandate

%

%

%

% 4.7% 62.2% 0.0% 5.5% 27.6% 100.0%

Bronx

5.3% 80.7% 0.9% 13.2% 100.0%

Bronx

7.8% 72.8% 1.5% 18.0% 100.0%

Bronx

4.3% 66.0% 2.1% 27.7% 100.0%

Bronx

1645

21 264 2 51 125 463

n

27 315 5 64 411

n

33 493 16 111 653

n

5 83 2 28 118

n

Total

Total

Total

Total %

4.5% 57.0% 0.4% 11.0% 27.0% 100.0%

%

6.6% 76.6% 1.2% 15.6% 100.0%

%

5.1% 75.5% 2.5% 17.0% 100.0%

%

4.2% 70.3% 1.7% 23.7% 100.0%

0-7 days 8-14 days 15-21 days 22-28 days 29-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days Total 10 0

20.9%

20.9%

47.7% 1.2% 0.0%

100.0%

18

18

41

1

0

86

25

11

2

1

0

5.8%

5

1

3.5%

3

100.0%

0.0%

40.0%

44.0%

8.0%

4.0%

0.0%

4.0%

%

n

n

%

Modified

No Show

1155

0

27

259

234

471

153

11

n

100.0%

0.0%

2.3%

22.4%

20.3%

40.8%

13.2%

1.0%

%

Successful Completion

254

1

34

135

39

20

16

9

n

100.0%

0.4%

13.4%

53.1%

15.4%

7.9%

6.3%

3.5%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

125

0

0

12

13

20

46

34

n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 16: Length of Time in CSSP during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

10.4%

16.0%

36.8%

27.2%

Active

1645

1

72

458

306

530

220

58

n

3.5%

%

100.0%

0.1%

4.4%

27.8%

18.6%

32.2%

13.4%

Total

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days 4.6% 0.8%

6

1 100.0%

23.1%

30

130

20.8%

27

115

6.2% 8.5%

8

10.0%

13

11

71

7.7%

10

57

395

0

0

0

2

5

41

40

6.2% 8.5%

8

64

n

3.8%

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.3%

29.1%

18.0%

10.4%

10.1%

14.4%

16.2%

%

CEP

YAP

11

5

n

CASES

CCA

222

0

0

1

3

12

106

42

17

12

14

15

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.4%

5.4%

47.7%

18.9%

7.7%

5.4%

6.3%

6.8%

%

Freedom

74

0

0

0

1

4

32

6

6

7

4

14

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

5.4%

43.2%

8.1%

8.1%

9.5%

5.4%

18.9%

%

DAMAS

151

0

0

0

1

12

48

25

15

24

13

13

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

7.9%

31.8%

16.6%

9.9%

15.9%

8.6%

8.6%

%

FlameTree

Fortune Society

250

3

12

37

26

17

3

25

24

32

44

27

n

100.0%

1.2%

4.8%

14.8%

10.4%

6.8%

1.2%

10.0%

9.6%

12.8%

17.6%

10.8%

%

El Rio

Osborne

116

0

0

5

10

8

12

12

6

12

27

24

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.3%

8.6%

6.9%

10.3%

10.3%

5.2%

10.3%

23.3%

20.7%

%

Women's Day Treatment

86

0

3

9

12

16

13

11

10

3

6

3

n

100.0%

0.0%

3.5%

10.5%

14.0%

18.6%

15.1%

12.8%

11.6%

3.5%

7.0%

3.5%

%

Services STEPS

Project Return Edwin Gould

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 17: Length of Time in Felony Programs as of June 30, 2001, for Cases Active in the Reporting Period by Program

65

0

0

5

3

3

3

5

5

5

7

29

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

4.6%

4.6%

4.6%

7.7%

7.7%

7.7%

10.8%

44.6%

%

Crossroads

CCA

1489

4

21

87

85

88

340

210

134

146

180

194

n

100.0%

0.3%

1.4%

5.8%

5.7%

5.9%

22.8%

14.1%

9.0%

9.8%

12.1%

13.0%

%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total

75.8% 9.1% 9.1% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

No Show

25 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 33

n

26.3% 10.5% 5.3% 21.1% 21.1% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 10.5% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Transfer

5 2 1 4 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 19

n

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

n

%

0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Abated

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Another Jurisdiction

Relocated to

2 0 5 1 21 299 43 46 63 8 4 492

n

0.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.2% 4.3% 60.8% 8.7% 9.3% 12.8% 1.6% 0.8% 100.0%

%

Completion

Successful

67 97 66 54 85 31 12 20 9 3 0 444

n

15.1% 21.8% 14.9% 12.2% 19.1% 7.0% 2.7% 4.5% 2.0% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Termination

Unsuccessful

0.0% 6.7% 26.7% 6.7% 33.3% 0.0% 13.3% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

%

Transfer

0 1 4 1 5 0 2 1 1 0 0 15

n

Monitored

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18: Length of Time in Felony Programs for Cases Active during the Reporting Period

by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

95 77 66 72 94 10 29 17 14 8 0 482

n

%

19.7% 16.0% 13.7% 14.9% 19.5% 2.1% 6.0% 3.5% 2.9% 1.7% 0.0% 100.0%

Active

194 180 146 134 210 340 88 85 87 21 4 1489

n

%

13.0% 12.1% 9.8% 9.0% 14.1% 22.8% 5.9% 5.7% 5.8% 1.4% 0.3% 100.0%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

%

0

n

No Show

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Transfer

35

1

2

19

11

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

2.9%

5.7%

54.3%

31.4%

2.9%

2.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

35

0

2

5

8

3

4

4

1

6

2

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

5.7%

14.3%

22.9%

8.6%

11.4%

11.4%

2.9%

17.1%

5.7%

0.0%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

57

0

1

6

7

7

3

9

9

5

5

5

n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18a: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in YAP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

%

100.0%

0.0%

1.8%

10.5%

12.3%

12.3%

5.3%

15.8%

15.8%

8.8%

8.8%

8.8%

Active

130

1

6

30

27

11

8

13

10

11

8

5

n

7.7%

8.5%

6.2%

3.8%

%

100.0%

0.8%

4.6%

23.1%

20.8%

8.5%

6.2%

10.0%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

n

n

%

Transfer

No Show

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Monitored Transfer

117

0

0

0

1

4

103

9

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

3.4%

88.0%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

164

0

0

0

1

1

11

32

29

24

38

28

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.6%

0.6%

6.7%

19.5%

17.7%

14.6%

23.2%

17.1%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18b: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in CEP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

100

0

0

0

0

0

1

28

10

15

19

27

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

28.0%

10.0%

15.0%

19.0%

27.0%

Active

395

0

0

0

2

5

115

71

41

40

57

64

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.3%

29.1%

18.0%

10.4%

10.1%

14.4%

16.2%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

%

1

n

No Show

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Transfer

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Abated

117

0

0

0

1

10

102

4

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

8.5%

87.2%

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

48

0

0

0

1

0

4

18

8

5

7

5

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

8.3%

37.5%

16.7%

10.4%

14.6%

10.4%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18c: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Monitored Transfer

51

0

0

1

1

2

0

17

8

6

7

9

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

2.0%

3.9%

0.0%

33.3%

15.7%

11.8%

13.7%

17.6%

Active

222

0

0

1

3

12

106

42

17

12

14

15

n

7.7%

5.4%

6.3%

6.8%

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.5%

1.4%

5.4%

47.7%

18.9%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

%

1

n

No Show

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Transfer

37

0

0

0

1

4

31

1

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.7%

10.8%

83.8%

2.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

0

6

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

30.0%

0.0%

10.0%

0.0%

60.0%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

25

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

6

5

4

7

n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18d: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

8.0%

24.0%

20.0%

16.0%

28.0%

Active

74

0

0

0

1

4

32

6

6

7

4

14

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.4%

5.4%

43.2%

8.1%

8.1%

9.5%

5.4%

18.9%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

%

1

n

No Show

57

0

0

0

0

9

44

2

0

2

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

15.8%

77.2%

3.5%

0.0%

3.5%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

50

0

0

0

1

2

3

10

4

11

9

10

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

20.0%

8.0%

22.0%

18.0%

20.0%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Monitored Transfer

42

0

0

0

0

1

1

12

11

11

4

2

n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18e: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.4%

2.4%

28.6%

26.2%

26.2%

9.5%

4.8%

Active

151

0

0

0

1

12

48

25

15

24

13

13

n

8.6%

8.6%

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

7.9%

31.8%

16.6%

9.9%

15.9%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

%

0

n

No Show

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Transfer

58

3

5

29

16

3

0

1

0

1

0

0

n

100.0%

5.2%

8.6%

50.0%

27.6%

5.2%

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

64

0

1

2

6

2

1

6

7

12

23

4

n

100.0%

0.0%

1.6%

3.1%

9.4%

3.1%

1.6%

9.4%

10.9%

18.8%

35.9%

6.3%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

5

0

0

1

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

20.0%

0.0%

40.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

40.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Monitored Transfer

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18f: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

119

0

5

5

4

9

2

17

16

17

21

23

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

4.2%

4.2%

3.4%

7.6%

1.7%

14.3%

13.4%

14.3%

17.6%

19.3%

Active

250

3

12

37

26

17

3

25

24

32

44

27

n

%

100.0%

1.2%

4.8%

14.8%

10.4%

6.8%

1.2%

10.0%

9.6%

12.8%

17.6%

10.8%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total

55.6%

22.2%

22.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

%

5

n

No Show

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Transfer

24

0

0

5

8

6

5

0

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

20.8%

33.3%

25.0%

20.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

45

0

0

0

0

1

6

8

4

5

17

4

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.2%

13.3%

17.8%

8.9%

11.1%

37.8%

8.9%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

3

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

33.3%

0.0%

%

Monitored Transfer

34

0

0

0

1

1

1

3

2

4

7

15

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

8.8%

5.9%

11.8%

20.6%

44.1%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18g: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

116

0

0

5

10

8

12

12

6

12

27

24

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.3%

8.6%

6.9%

10.3%

10.3%

5.2%

10.3%

23.3%

20.7%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

%

0

n

Transfer

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Relocated to Another Jurisdiction

34

0

1

6

5

6

10

3

1

2

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

2.9%

17.6%

14.7%

17.6%

29.4%

8.8%

2.9%

5.9%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Successful Completion

12

0

0

2

3

2

2

2

1

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

16.7%

25.0%

16.7%

16.7%

16.7%

8.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18h: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

37

0

2

1

4

7

1

5

7

1

6

3

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

5.4%

2.7%

10.8%

18.9%

2.7%

13.5%

18.9%

2.7%

16.2%

8.1%

Active

86

0

3

9

12

16

13

11

10

3

6

3

n

3.5%

7.0%

3.5%

%

100.0%

0.0%

3.5%

10.5%

14.0%

18.6%

15.1%

12.8%

11.6%

Total

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-180 days 181-210 days 211-270 days 271-365 days 366-545 days 546-730 days over 730 days Total

88.9%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

%

8

n

No Show

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

5

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

22.2%

0.0%

22.2%

55.6%

%

Transfer

13

0

0

4

3

0

3

1

0

0

0

2

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

30.8%

23.1%

0.0%

23.1%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

15.4%

%

Successful Completion

16

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

2

1

10

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

6.3%

0.0%

12.5%

0.0%

12.5%

6.3%

62.5%

%

Unsuccessful Termination

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

n

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

%

Monitored Transfer

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 18i: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Crossroads during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2001

17

0

0

1

0

2

0

1

3

2

4

4

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.9%

0.0%

11.8%

0.0%

5.9%

17.6%

11.8%

23.5%

23.5%

Active

65

0

0

5

3

3

3

5

5

5

7

29

n

%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

4.6%

4.6%

4.6%

7.7%

7.7%

7.7%

10.8%

44.6%

Total

Total

n

1645

1 283 2 57 3 7 4 3 Subtotal 350 none 1295

Rearrest Count

395

247

100.0%

78.7%

0.3%

1

148

0.2%

4

0.4%

21.3%

1.0%

28

100.0%

62.5%

37.5%

7.1%

115

29.1%

%

3.5%

n

CEP

17.2%

%

CSSP

CASES

130

122

8

0

0

1

7

n

%

100.0%

93.8%

6.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

5.4%

YAP

CCA

74

70

4

0

0

0

4

n

100.0%

94.6%

5.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.4%

%

DAMAS

151

101

50

0

3

12

35

n

100.0%

66.9%

33.1%

0.0%

2.0%

7.9%

23.2%

%

FlameTree

Fortune Society

222

157

65

0

2

10

53

n

100.0%

70.7%

29.3%

0.0%

0.9%

4.5%

23.9%

%

Freedom

250

199

51

1

4

9

37

n

100.0%

79.6%

20.4%

0.4%

1.6%

3.6%

14.8%

%

El Rio

Osborne

116

102

14

0

0

1

13

n

100.0%

87.9%

12.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

11.2%

%

Women's Day Treatment

Project Return

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 19: Count of Mandated Cases with Prosecuted In-Program Rearrests by Program (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001)

86

75

11

0

0

0

11

n

100.0%

87.2%

12.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

12.8%

%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

65

59

6

0

0

0

6

n

100.0%

90.8%

9.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

9.2%

%

Crossroads

CCA

3134

2427

707

5

20

118

564

n

100.0%

77.4%

22.6%

0.2%

0.6%

3.8%

18.0%

%

Total

Not Completed: No Show Subtotal Not Completed Completed: Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Completed Total Finished Cases Active Cases Total All CSSP Cases

Status 41 41

143 6 141 290 331 19 350

1155 25 254 1434 1520 125 1645

n

12.4% 24.0% 55.5% 20.2% 21.8% 15.2% 21.3%

47.7% 47.7%

%

Rearrested Cases

86 86

n

Total Released Cases

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 20: In-Program Rearrest Rates by CSSP Program Status (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001)

Status Not Completed: No Show Abated Subtotal Not Completed Completed: Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Completed Total Finished Cases Pending: Active Cases Monitored Transfer Cases Subtotal Pending Total All Rearrested Cases

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 50.0% 87.5% 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0%

0 0 0

3 4 7 7

1 0 1 8

22 0 22 148

35 90 125 126

1 0 1

n

%

14.9% 0.0% 14.9% 100.0%

23.6% 60.8% 84.5% 85.1%

0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

CEP

YAP

n

CASES

CCA

11 0 11 65

26 27 53 54

0 1 1

n

16.9% 0.0% 16.9% 100.0%

40.0% 41.5% 81.5% 83.1%

0.0% 1.5% 1.5%

%

Freedom

0 0 0 4

4 0 4 4

0 0 0

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

9 0 9 50

17 24 41 41

0 0 0

n

18.0% 0.0% 18.0% 100.0%

34.0% 48.0% 82.0% 82.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

%

FlameTree

11 2 13 51

11 27 38 38

0 0 0

n

%

21.6% 3.9% 25.5% 100.0%

21.6% 52.9% 74.5% 74.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

El Rio

Osborne

4 0 4 14

2 8 10 10

0 0 0

28.6% 0.0% 28.6% 100.0%

14.3% 57.1% 71.4% 71.4%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Women's Day Treatment n %

Project Return

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 21: Program Status of Felony Program Participants with In-Program Rearrests (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001)

4 0 4 11

4 3 7 7

0 0 0

n

36.4% 0.0% 36.4% 100.0%

36.4% 27.3% 63.6% 63.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

0 0 0 6

1 2 3 6

3 0 3

n

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 100.0%

50.0% 0.0% 50.0%

%

Crossroads

CCA

62 2 64 357

103 185 288 293

4 1 5

n

%

17.4% 0.6% 17.9% 100.0%

28.9% 51.8% 80.7% 82.1%

1.1% 0.3% 1.4%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 22: Characteristics of First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001) CSSP n

Felony Programs

Total

%

n

%

n

%

35.4% 23.4% 17.4% 10.6% 12.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

28 25 29 21 81 60 39 32 16 15 8 3 357

7.8% 7.0% 8.1% 5.9% 22.7% 16.8% 10.9% 9.0% 4.5% 4.2% 2.2% 0.8% 100.0%

152 107 90 58 125 62 39 32 16 15 8 3 707

21.5% 15.1% 12.7% 8.2% 17.7% 8.8% 5.5% 4.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.1% 0.4% 100.0%

0.3% 3.1% 8.9% 4.9% 29.1% 4.0% 10.0% 0.9% 26.3% 7.4% 0.6% 4.6% 100.0%

1 33 21 7 16 23 50 13 88 60 13 32 357

0.3% 9.2% 5.9% 2.0% 4.5% 6.4% 14.0% 3.6% 24.6% 16.8% 3.6% 9.0% 100.0%

2 44 52 24 118 37 85 16 180 86 15 48 707

0.3% 6.2% 7.4% 3.4% 16.7% 5.2% 12.0% 2.3% 25.5% 12.2% 2.1% 6.8% 100.0%

0.6% 0.0% 6.9% 0.6% 4.0% 2.0% 74.9% 9.1% 2.0% 100.0%

8 2 66 12 16 11 176 60 6 357

2.2% 0.6% 18.5% 3.4% 4.5% 3.1% 49.3% 16.8% 1.7% 100.0%

10 2 90 14 30 18 438 92 13 707

1.4% 0.3% 12.7% 2.0% 4.2% 2.5% 62.0% 13.0% 1.8% 100.0%

Characteristics of First Prosecuted Rearrest Time From Actual Enrollment to First Prosecuted Rearrest

0-7 days 124 8-14 days 82 15-21 days 61 22-28 days 37 29-60 days 44 61-90 days 2 91-120 days 0 121-150 days 0 151-180 days 0 181-270 days 0 271-365 days 0 over 365 days 0 Total 350 Top Arrest Charge for First Prosecuted Rearrest Missing 1 120: Assault and Related Offenses 11 140: Burglary and Related Offenses 31 145: Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 17 155: Larceny 102 160: Robbery 14 165: Other Offenses Relating to Theft 35 215: Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings 3 220: Controlled Substances Offenses 92 221: Offenses Involving Marijuana 26 265: Firearms and other Dangerous Weapons 2 Other* 16 Total 350 Affidavit Severity of 1st Rearrest, Criminal Ct Arraignment

Missing 2 A Felony 0 B Felony 24 C Felony 2 D Felony 14 E Felony 7 A Misdemeanor 262 B or U Misdemeanor 32 Violation or Severity Unknown (non Penal Law charge) 7 Total 350 Page 1 of 3

CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

2

0.6%

8

2.2%

10

1.4%

0.6% 0.0% 38.0% 6.3%

2 0 184 54

0.6% 0.0% 51.5% 15.1%

4 0 317 76

0.6% 0.0% 44.8% 10.7%

Arraignment Outcome for First Rearrest Missing Pending Cases Warrant Ordered 2 Warrant Ordered-Stayed 0 Continued 133 Continued With a Temporary Order of Protection 22 Arraignment Release Status of Continued Cases Missing 5 Released on Recognizance 18 Bail Made, Defendant Released 4 Bail Not Made, Defendant Detained 127 Remanded, Defendant Detained 1 Disposed Cases Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal/Dissmissed 3 Pled Guilty 188 Transferred to Supreme Court 0

2 95 15 123 3 0.9% 53.7% 0.0%

19 90 0

100.0%

2 26 9 53 357

7 113 19 250 4 5.3% 25.2% 0.0%

22 278 0

3.1% 39.3% 0.0%

100.0%

2 170 36 70 707

100.0%

Amended Charge Sev of Cases Disposed by Plea at Arraignment

Missing A Misdemeanor B or U Misdemeanor Violation, Infraction, or Severity Unknown (non Penal Law charge)

Total Arraigned Cases

Page 2 of 3

0 144 27 17 350

CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

n

%

n

%

n

%

8 2 73 20

5.1% 1.3% 46.5% 12.7%

10 5 112 46

4.2% 2.1% 46.7% 19.2%

18 7 185 66

4.5% 1.8% 46.6% 16.6%

Outcome of First Rearrest 2nd Appearance for Pending Cases

Pending Cases Warrant Ordered Warrant Ordered, but Issuance Stayed Continued With a Temporary Order of Protection Continued With a Temporary Order of Protection Release Status of Continued Cases at 2nd Appearance Missing Released on Recognizance Bail Made, Defendant Released Bail Not Made, Defendant Detained Remanded, Defendant Detained Disposed Cases Adjourned in Contemplation of Dismissal/Dissmissed Pled Guilty Transfered to Supreme Court

3 24 11 54 1 2 43 9

0 71 21 63 3 1.3% 27.4% 5.7%

18 21 28

100.0%

8 2 11 240

3 95 32 117 4 7.5% 8.8% 11.7%

20 64 37

5.0% 16.1% 9.3%

100.0%

44 6 14 397

100.0%

Amend Chg Severity of Cases Disposed by Plea at 2nd Appearance

A Misdemeanor B or U Misdemeanor Violation or Infraction Total Cases with a Second Appearance

36 4 3 157

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Homicide, Abortion, or Related Offenses (125), Sex Offenses (130), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Other Frauds (190), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Prostitution Offenses (230), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Relating to Children and Incompetents (260), and Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL).

Page 3 of 3

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY01 Table 23: Demographic and Criminal History Characteristics of Defendants Who Had at Least One Prosecuted Rearrest In-Program by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2001) CSSP n

Felony Programs

Total

%

n

%

n

%

0.0% 0.3% 20.6% 50.3% 27.1% 1.7% 100.0%

7 181 111 34 21 3 357

2.0% 50.7% 31.1% 9.5% 5.9% 0.8% 100.0%

7 182 183 210 116 9 707

1.0% 25.7% 25.9% 29.7% 16.4% 1.3% 100.0%

0.0% 1.7% 7.7% 3.4% 44.6% 0.3% 10.6% 19.7% 10.0% 0.6% 1.4% 100.0%

1 17 12 0 10 90 6 164 2 39 16 357

0.3% 4.8% 3.4% 0.0% 2.8% 25.2% 1.7% 45.9% 0.6% 10.9% 4.5% 100.0%

1 23 39 12 166 91 43 233 37 41 21 707

0.1% 3.3% 5.5% 1.7% 23.5% 12.9% 6.1% 33.0% 5.2% 5.8% 3.0% 100.0%

2.9% 1.1% 7.4% 11.1% 26.3% 20.0% 31.1% 100.0%

5 254 53 17 21 3 4 357

1.4% 71.1% 14.8% 4.8% 5.9% 0.8% 1.1% 100.0%

15 258 79 56 113 73 113 707

2.1% 36.5% 11.2% 7.9% 16.0% 10.3% 16.0% 100.0%

2.6% 29.7% 25.7% 22.6% 19.4% 100.0%

5 301 27 11 13 357

1.4% 84.3% 7.6% 3.1% 3.6% 100.0%

14 405 117 90 81 707

2.0% 57.3% 16.5% 12.7% 11.5% 100.0%

26.6% 23.1% 17.4% 32.9% 100.0%

119 93 25 120 357

33.3% 26.1% 7.0% 33.6% 100.0%

212 174 86 235 707

30.0% 24.6% 12.2% 33.2% 100.0%

Age 14-15 0 16-18 1 19-29 72 30-39 176 40-49 95 50 or over 6 Total 350 Amended Charge Article Leaving Arr. (mandated case) Missing 0 120: Assault and Related Offenses 6 140: Burglary and Related Offenses 27 145: Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 12 155: Larceny 156 160: Robbery 1 165: Other Offenses Relating to Theft 37 220: Controlled Substances Offenses 69 221: Offenses Involving Marijuana 35 265: Firearms and other Dangerous Weapons 2 Other* 5 Total 350 Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Missing 10 None 4 1-2 26 3-4 39 5-9 92 10-14 70 15 or more 109 Total 350 Prior Felony Convictions Missing 9 None 104 1 90 2 79 3 or more 68 Total 350 Borough of Sentence (mandated case) Brooklyn 93 Manhattan 81 Queens 61 Bronx 115 Total 350

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Homicide, Abortion and Related Offenses (125), Sex Offenses (130), Arson (150), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Escape and Other Offenses Related to Custody (205), Other Offenses Relating to Judicial and Other Proceedings (215), Gambling Offenses (225), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL), and Other Non-Penal Law Offenses (666666).

Appendix A

New Felony Target Groups DETAINED JUVENILE OFFENDERS F01: JUVENILE OFFENDERS (JOs). Category remains unchanged. It includes all JOs held leaving Criminal Court arraignment. 16.2% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence in the third quarter 1998 dataset, if their cases were completed by September 1, 1999.

DETAINED WOMEN F11: FEMALES charged with specified violent offenses as their first arrest regardless of bail amount. This category is restricted to the STEPS program. 5.0% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

F03: FEMALES charged with DRUG offenses. Category remains unchanged. It includes detained cases where bail was set leaving Criminal Court arraignment regardless of bail amount. 26.1% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

F14: FEMALES charged with NON-DRUG offenses. Includes only detained cases where charge leaving Criminal Court arraignment is Penal Law (PL) Article 140 (burglary-related offenses) or PL Article 160 (robbery-related offenses). Youthful offender-eligible females (16 to 18 year olds) will now appear in this group. 24.1% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

NON-DETAINED WOMEN F21: FEMALES charged with specified violent offenses as their first arrest. This category is restricted to the STEPS program. The percentage for this category could not be calculated.

F23: FEMALES over 18 charged with DRUG offenses (PL Articles 220 and 221), nonpredicates. These cases will appear on target lists once they are scheduled to appear in Supreme Court. This category is restricted to ATI programs providing substance abuse treatment. 22.6% of those disposed in Supreme Court received a target-range sentence.

DETAINED MEN F16: MALES charged with DRUG offenses (PL Articles 220 and 221), non-predicates detained on bail set at $1501 or more at Criminal Court arraignment. Youthful offendereligible males (16 to 18 year olds) will now appear in this group. 43.3% of those

detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

F17: MALES charged with certain NON-DRUG offenses, non-predicates detained on bail set between $1501 and $2500 at Criminal Court arraignment (Manhattan and Queens only). Offenses falling in Penal Law articles 120, 170, 105, 215, or 145 are excluded from this category. Youthful offender-eligible males (16 to 18 year olds) will now appear in this group. 30.8% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

F18: MALES charged with certain NON-DRUG offenses, non-predicates detained on bail set between $2501 and $5000 leaving Criminal Court arraignment. Offenses falling in Penal Law Articles 120, 170, 105, 215, or 145 are excluded from this category.

Youthful offender-eligible males (16 to 18 year olds) will now appear in this group.

22.4% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

F19: MALES charged with NON-Drug offenses, non-predicates detained on bail set at $5001 or more leaving Criminal Court arraignment. All felony charges are included in this category. Youthful offender-eligible males (16 to 18 year olds) will now appear in this group. 40.8% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment eventually received a target-range sentence.

F36: MALES over 18 charged with DRUG offenses (PL Articles 220 and 221), nonpredicates detained on bail set at $1500 or less at Criminal Court arraignment. These cases will only appear on lists once the defendants are scheduled to appear in Supreme Court. The category is restricted to ATI programs providing substance abuse treatment.

22.0% of those detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment received a target-range sentence; the proportion of those transferred to Supreme Court would be higher.

NON-DETAINED MEN F26: MALES over 18 charged with DRUG offenses (PL Articles 220 and 221), nonpredicates. These cases will appear on target lists once they are scheduled to appear in Supreme Court. This category is restricted to ATI programs providing substance abuse treatment. 23.5% of those disposed in Supreme Court received a target-range sentence.

Appendix B

New Misdemeanor Target Groups At Arraignment: •

Cases with a misdemeanor larceny charge (Penal Law [PL] Article 155) on the affidavit with the defendant having served at least one prior jail sentence on a misdemeanor conviction.

In the 3rd quarter 1998 dataset, 30.6% of the cases with this profile resulted in a jail sentence of 20 days or more. •

Cases with a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge (PL Article 145) on the affidavit with the defendant having served at least two prior jail sentences on misdemeanor convictions.

In the 3rd quarter 1998 dataset, 42.2% of the cases with this profile resulted in a jail sentence of 20 days or more.

Post Arraignment (Misdemeanor Charge Leaving Arraignment, Defendant Detained): C01

Defendants with fewer than two prior jail sentences imposed on misdemeanor convictions, but at least four prior misdemeanor convictions.

In the 3rd quarter 1998 dataset, 20.6% of the cases with this profile resulted in a jail sentence of 20 days or more.

C02

Charge is a larceny or criminal mischief offense and the defendant had fewer than two prior jail sentences imposed on misdemeanor convictions, but who had between one and three prior misdemeanor convictions.

In the 3rd quarter 1998 dataset, 31.0% of the cases with this profile resulted in a jail sentence of 20 days or more.

C03

Charge is not a larceny or criminal mischief offense and the defendant had at least two prior jail sentences imposed on misdemeanor convictions.

In the 3rd quarter 1998 dataset, 26.8% of the cases with this profile resulted in a jail sentence of 20 days or more.

C04

Charge is a larceny or criminal mischief offense and the defendant had at least two prior jail sentences on misdemeanor convictions.

In the 3rd quarter 1998 dataset, 49.3% of the cases with this profile resulted in a jail sentence of 20 days or more.