Alternative to Incarceration 02 by Administrator

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services End of Year Report Fiscal Year 2002

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

FINAL REPORT

November 2002 ÂŠ 2002 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

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&#x2014;da Tejaratchi 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.

Table of Contents

Page Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Figures, Tables and Graphs for ATIIS Fiscal Year 2002 Report

iii

1. Introduction

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

3. Case-Targeting Activities in Fiscal Year 2002 a. Criminal Court Arraignment Targeting and Screening b. Post-Arraignment Computer Targeting

4. Court-Mandated Cases to City-Funded ATI Programs in Fiscal Year 2002

5. After Placement: Status, Time in Program, and In-Program Rearrests a. Program Status as of June 30, 2002 b. Length of Time in the Programs c. In-Program Rearrests

Exhibit A Tables Appendix A Appendix B

iii

List of Tables and Figures for ATIIS End of Year Report, FY02 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, 2002, for Felony Cases Active in the Reporting Period by ATI Program Table 13a: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in YAP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13b: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in CEP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13c: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13d: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13e: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13f: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Table 13g: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13h: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 14: Status as of June 30, 2002 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Days of Community Service Sentence Table 15: Status as of June 30, 2002 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, 2002 Table 17: Length of Time in Felony Programs as of June 30, 2002, 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, 2002 Table 18a: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in YAP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18b: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in CEP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18c: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18d: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18e: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18f: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18g: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Table 18h: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Rearrests: Table 19: Count of Mandated Cases with Prosecuted In-Program Rearrests by Program (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002) Table 20: In-Program Rearrest Rates by CSSP Program Status (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002) Table 21: Program Status of Felony Program Participants with In-Program Rearrests (Cases Active in the Reporting Period , Rearrests through June 30, 2002) Table 22: Characteristics of First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002) 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, 2002)

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, 2001, through June 30, 2002, the fiscal year (FY) 2002 for the City of New York. Comparisons to the previous fiscal year will be drawn wherever relevant. As in previous reports, this report will address:

•

the current status of data exchange between the City-funded Alternativeto-Incarceration (ATI) programs1 and ATIIS;

•

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, 2001, through June 30, 2002;

•

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, 2001, through June 30, 2002. 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 programs and OCJC with copies of the Tracking Reports and Summaries of fiscal year well within the timeframes outlined in the End-of-Year, Fiscal Year 2001 Report.5 ATIIS produced 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. We did not send the City a modified version of that report because Crossroads was not subject to the payment and penalty provisions of Exhibit C. Midway through the fiscal year, Crossroads decided to stop exchanging data with ATIIS, and as a result, we did not produce their Tracking Reports or Summaries as of March 2002.

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, End-ofYear Report: Fiscal Year 2001, 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 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.

The schedule is noted below: DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

Reporting Month FY2001 July 2001

Program Distribution Date August 22nd, Wed.

Final version to OCJC and Programs August 29th, Wed.

August 2001

September 19th, Wed.

September 26th, Wed.

September 2001

October 24th, Wed.

October 31st, Wed.

October 2001

November 21st, Wed.

November 28th, Wed.

November 2001

December 19th, Wed.

December 26th, Wed.

December 2001

January 23rd, Wed.

January 30th, Wed.

January 2002

February 20th, Wed.

February 27th, Wed.

February 2002

March 20th, Wed.

March 27th, Wed.

March 2002

April 24th, Wed.

May 1st, Wed.

April 2002

May 22nd, Wed.

May 29th, Wed.

May 2002

June 19th, Wed.

June 26th, Wed.

June 2002

July 24th, Wed.

July 31st, Wed.

The required distribution schedule for FY03 is as follows: DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 Reporting Month FY2001 July 2002

Program Distribution Date August 21st, Wed.

Final version to OCJC and Programs August 30th, Fri.

August 2002

September 18th, Wed.

September 27th, Fri.

September 2002

October 23rd, Wed.

November 1st, Fri.

October 2002

November 20th, Wed.

November 29th, Fri.

November 2002

December 18th, Wed.

December 27th, Fri.

December 2002

January 22nd, Wed.

January 31st, Fri.

January 2003

February 19th, Wed.

February 28th, Fri.

February 2003

March 19th, Wed. April 23rd, Wed.

March 28th, Fri. May 2nd, Fri.

April 2003

May 21st, Wed.

May 30th, Fri.

May 2003

June 18th, Wed.

June 27th, Fri.

June 2003

July 23rd, Wed.

August 1st, Fri.

March 2003

A review of the Tracking Reports and Summaries for 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

TCI 100% 81% 84% 100% 100% 92% 89% 100% 100%

TCI 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 33%

JULY 2001 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 71% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% AUGUST 2001 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 100% 100% 67% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 389/389 = 100% 59/65 = 91% 47/55 = 85% 10/10 = 100% 25/25 = 100% 33/34 = 97% 27/28 = 96% 13/13 = 100% 08/08 = 100%

TOTAL 394/394 =100% 49/49 =100% 49/52 = 94% 05/05 = 100% 24/24 = 100% 25/26 = 96% 25/27 = 93% 13/13 = 100% 08/11 = 73%

TCI 100% 100% 85% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 71%

SEPTEMBER 2001 3PF EXIT REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 220/220 = 100% 46/47 = 98% 28/34 = 82% 06/06 = 100% 16/17 = 94% 29/29 = 100% 11/11 = 100% 11/11 = 100% 15/17 = 88%

TCI 100% 75% 89%

OCTOBER 2001 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 75% 96% 100% 93%

TOTAL 314/314 = 100% 50/59 = 85% 49/52 = 94%

REINS 100% 100%

DAMAS FlameTree Freedom P. Return STEPS YAP

100% 80% 100% 83% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TCI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 67%

NOVEMBER 2001 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

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

TCI 100% 96% 83% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% 25%

DECEMBER 2001 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 25% 100%

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

TCI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91% 100% 100% 33%

JANUARY 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 57%

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

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100%

08/08 = 100% 21/22 = 95% 18/18 = 100% 15/16 = 94% 12/12 = 100% 13/13 = 100%

REINS 100% 100%

TOTAL 478/478 = 100% 57/57 = 100% 29/29 = 100% 10/10 = 100% 20/20 = 100% 20/20 = 100% 15/15 = 100% 17/17 = 100% 08/09 = 89%

100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 438/438 = 100% 62/63 = 98% 55/57 = 96% 09/09 = 100% 13/15 = 87% 17/17 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 20/20 = 100% 06/12 = 50%

TOTAL 535/535 = 100% 54/55 = 98% 14/16 = 88% 05/05 = 100% 18/18 = 100% 28/30 = 93% 13/13 = 100% 23/23 = 100% 11/19 = 58%

TCI 100% 96% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100%

FEBRUARY 2002 3PF EXIT REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100%

TOTAL 411/411 = 100% 59/61 = 97% 14/17 = 82% 11/11 = 100% 20/20 = 100% 39/41 = 95% 18/18 = 100% 25/26 = 96% 18/18 = 100%

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

TCI 100% 97% 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

MARCH 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 100% 63%

TOTAL 505/505 = 100% 81/82 = 99% 14/15 = 93% 07/07 = 100% 26/26 = 100% 28/28 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 11/12 = 92% 27/30 = 90%

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

TCI 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88%

APRIL 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree

TCI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

MAY 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

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

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 542/542 = 100% 53/54 = 98% 19/19 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 31/31 = 100% 33/33 = 100% 04/04 = 100% 15/15 = 100% 16/18 = 89%

TOTAL 457/457 = 100% 64/64 = 100% 18/18 = 100% 05/05 = 100% 15/15 = 100%

Freedom P. Return STEPS YAP

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

100% 100% 100% 100%

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

JUNE 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 95% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100%

22/22 = 100% 03/03 = 100% 18/18 = 100% 29/29 = 100%

REINS 100% 100%

TOTAL 391/391 = 100% 69/73 = 95% 27/27 = 100% 11/11 = 100% 11/11 = 100% 22/23 = 96% 10/10 = 100% 12/12 = 100% 25/25 = 100%

100% 100% 100%

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 fiscal year training sessions were conducted with Project Return on July 13, 2001, August 27, 2001, and February 11, 2002. STEPS received training on August 1, 2001, January 22, 2002, and on March 21, 2002. On August 17, 2001, The Fortune Society received training and on October 5, 2001, El Rio received a training session. The effects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on New York City in terms of criminal justice activity can be seen in this report, specifically in the dramatic decreases in the number of cases targeted, resulting from a decrease in arrests as crime levels dropped and police were deployed to different assignments following the attack. According to internal CJA data there was a 17.4 percent decrease in ROR interview volume from FY01 (340,731), to FY02 (281,334). The section below elaborates on the repercussions of this decrease in terms of the numbers of targeted cases.

3. Case-Targeting Activities in FY02 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 16,258 cases were identified in the CJA database for which the top affidavit charge was a misdemeanor larceny charge or misdemeanor criminal mischief charge,6 or for which CSSP staff submitted screening information, indicating either acceptance into CSSP or rejection from further screening on the arraignment date.7 This represents an 8.4 percent decrease in the arraignment misdemeanor target pool from FY01 (17,746 cases). Figure 1 displays the screening and targeting information at arraignment for FY02. CSSP provided the results of its screening for 1,619 cases,8 or 10.0 percent of the defined pool. It is interesting to note that even with the decrease in the misdemeanor arraignment target pool, the proportion of cases screened by CSSP, and the actual number of misdemeanor cases that were screened at arraignment, remained almost the same from FY01 (9.1%; 1,613 cases), to FY02 (10.0%; 1,619 cases). Daytime-arraignment parts during the workweek were covered in four boroughs. Following the September 11th attacks, CSSP increased its coverage of night and weekend arraignments. The screened cases, included 582 cases (not shown) arraigned at times other than weekday, day-court sessions. With this expanded coverage, the proportion of screened cases from night and weekend arraignments remained the same from FY01, to FY02 (35.8% in FY01 and 35.9% in FY02 [not shown]). Given the drop in overall arrest volume, it appears that the increased coverage compensated for what could have been a decrease in screened cases. Almost three-fifths (59.1%) of all screened cases did not have a larceny or criminal mischief charge as their most severe affidavit charge in CJA’s database. The proportion of screened cases with a larceny charge increased from 35.7 percent in FY01, to 39.2 percent in FY02.

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. 7 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. 8 Data inconsistencies may affect the categorizations of some small number of cases.

No Record of Screening

Weekday Arraignments 33.0% N=5,358

Screened by CSSP 10.0% N=1,619

*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 57.1% N=9,281

Figure 1 Arraignment Misdemeanor Targeting and Screening (N=16,258*)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02

Criminal Mischief 1.7% N=28

Larceny 39.2% N=634

Non-Larceny/ Non-Criminal Mischief 59.1% N=957

Most of the non-screened cases were larceny or criminal mischief cases arraigned in weekend or night arraignments. These cases accounted for 57.1 percent of the defined pool, while the remaining larceny and criminal mischief cases for which there is no record of screening (33.0%) 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. Over two-fifths (41.1% [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 422 (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 FY02, 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 felony 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 28,994 cases during the fiscal year were identified in CJAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s database as involving defendants detained on bail leaving Criminal Court arraignment and charged with a misdemeanor on a continuing case. This represents an 11.3 percent decrease from FY01, in which 32,673 cases met these criteria. Figure 2 displays the attrition from this pool, down to the 6,486 computer-targeted cases that fit the statistical criteria for being likely to receive a sentence of 20 days or more, if convicted. The actual number of misdemeanor cases that were computer-targeted decreased by 1,062 cases from FY01, to FY02 (7,548 in FY01 and 6,486 in FY02) or 14.1 percent. The proportion of cases targeted in FY02 (22.4%), however, decreased only slightly from the proportion of cases meeting the targeting criteria in FY01 (23.1%). As in FY01, most of the cases (58.7%) identified as detained on bail leaving Criminal Court arraignment were eliminated because they did not meet the combination of charge and prior record associated statistically with a higher likelihood of receiving a target-range sentence of 20 or more days in jail. Citymandated exclusions eliminated almost one in seven cases (13.4%) from further consideration. Missing information contributed to the inability to target 5.6 percent of the cases.9 Table 110 presents the 6,486 post-arraignment computer-targeted cases by the misdemeanor target categories, by time period of targeting, and by borough of prosecution. The misdemeanor targeting analysis identifies categories of postarraignment cases with a 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 9

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. 10 Tables are found at the end of the report.

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Figure 2: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases Held on Bail Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment N=28,994

Unable To Target: Missing Information N=1,623 5.6% Excluded from Targeting: On Parole or No NYC Residence N=3,871 13.4%

Computer Targeted: N=6,486 22.4%

Not Targeted: Assessed as Inappropriate for ATI N=17,014 58.7%

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. In FY02, cases in target category C03 constituted 64.6 percent (not shown) of the post-arraignment target pool, a decrease of 2.7 percentage points for the same category in FY01. The proportion of cases in target category C04 remained the same at 15.6 percent (not shown) of each yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s post-arraignment target pool. The borough proportions of these cases have shown variation over time. In FY02, Brooklyn had more cases (2,141) targeted than any other borough. Manhattan, with the largest target pool at arraignment, had the next highest number (1,890) of post-arraignment cases meeting the targeting criteria. Targeted cases in the Bronx (1,502) were next, followed by Queens, which had the smallest number of post-arraignment misdemeanor target cases (953). It is significant that the overall misdemeanor post-arraignment target pool decreased by 14.1 percent from FY01, to FY02, but there were variations by borough. Although Queens and the Bronx had increases in the number of postarraignment misdemeanor cases targeted from FY01, to FY02, Brooklyn and Manhattan experienced significant decreases in this regard.11 Notably, in the first half of FY02, the number of post-arraignment targeted cases decreased by 37.0 percent in Brooklyn, and 15.5 percent in Manhattan, when compared to the same period last fiscal year. 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 increased slightly, from 17.2 percent in FY01, to 18.1 percent in FY02. Also, cases with a criminal mischief charge, one of the criteria for Target C targeting, remained almost the same from FY01 (4.5%), to FY02 (4.6%). Interestingly, drug offenses, represented by the combined charge categories of controlled substances offenses and offenses involving marijuana, have continued to decrease their representation among targeted cases from 28.7 percent in FY01, to 25.9 percent of all misdemeanor cases targeted after arraignment in FY02. On the other hand, assaults have continued to increase their representation among targeted cases from 20.6 percent in FY01, to 22.7 percent in FY02. The charge characteristics of the targeted pool of cases in FY02 varied by borough and showed some variation when compared to the proportions of the charge characteristics in the targeted pool from FY01. In both FY01, and FY02, Brooklyn was more likely than the other boroughs to have targeted misdemeanor drug cases, including marijuana offenses (34.2% in FY01 and 27.7% in FY02), 11

The target pool has been decreasing in Brooklyn since FY00, and increasing since FY00, in Queens and the Bronx. In Manhattan there was an increase from FY00, to FY01, then the reported decrease from FY01, to FY02.

although the percentage of these cases decreased over the two time periods. In Manhattan, in FY01, marijuana charges (14.6%) were proportionately similar to controlled substance offenses (14.2%) among targeted cases, while in FY02 there was a larger difference in the breakdown of drug cases targeted in Manhattan (15.0% controlled substances offenses and 9.8% marijuana offenses). Taken together, controlled substance and marijuana offenses were associated with 21.5 percent of the cases targeted in Queens in FY01, and in FY02 the proportion of these cases targeted in Queens increased to 27.0 percent. In FY02, one-quarter (25.4%) of targeted misdemeanor cases in the Bronx were cases with assault-related offenses, and almost one-quarter (23.3%) of targeted misdemeanor cases in Brooklyn were cases with assault-related offenses. These proportions represent a 3.3 percentage point decrease in the Bronx, and a 6.1 percentage point increase in Brooklyn from FY01, to FY02, in the proportion of targeted assault-related offenses. Felony Targeting Figure 3 shows the attrition from the 39,588 felony cases eligible for targeting leaving Criminal Court arraignment, down to the 12,686 cases computer targeted during the fiscal year. (See Appendix A.) The base of 39,588 cases includes all cases in which the defendant was detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment, as well as three additional, non-detained target categories. As with the misdemeanor target pools, there was a decrease in the felony target pool from FY01 (45,923 cases), to FY02. The 13.8 percent decrease in the felony pool was larger than the decrease in the arraignment and post-arraignment misdemeanor target pools from FY01, to FY02. 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 transferred to Supreme Court. These cases are included in the base of 39,588 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.

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Figure 3: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Felony Cases Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment N=39,588

Unable to Target: Missing Information N=2,195 5.5% Excluded from Targeting: On Parole or No NYC Residence N=5,477 13.8%

Not Targeted: Assessed as Inappropriate for ATI N=19,230 48.6%

Computer Targeted: N=12,686 32.0%

Proportionately, more felony cases were targeted than were misdemeanor cases from their base pool leaving arraignment, with almost one-third (32.0%) of the felony cases being targeted. Slightly less than one-half (48.6%) 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 13.8 percent of the felony cases, and another 5.5 percent had insufficient information available in the CJA database to permit targeting. As with the post-arraignment misdemeanor target pool, the overall proportion of cases targeted remained relatively the same, while the actual number, of felony cases targeted for the fiscal year (32.0%; 12,686 cases), was lower than in FY01 (32.8%; 15,042 cases). Almost three-fifths (59.0%; 7,489 cases [not shown]) of the felony target pool included cases fitting the detained target categories and the remaining 41.0 percent (5,197 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. Over five-sixths (86.0%) of those targeted leaving Criminal Court arraignment were from the male target categories, and 12.0 percent were from the female target categories. This represents a decrease of 13.5 percent in the number of adult male targeted cases from FY01, and a 28.7 percent decrease of targeted adult women. 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. However, the actual number of JO cases decreased by 16.1 percent from FY01, to FY02, and there were significant borough shifts. Targeted JO cases were down 28.7 percent in Manhattan and 19.8 percent in Brooklyn. Detained male non-drug cases, targeted in the fiscal year accounted for over one-third (34.1%) of the target pool leaving arraignment, an increase of 6.7 percentage points over the proportion of these cases targeted in FY01 (27.4%). This was the only category where the actual number of targeted cases increased (5.0%) from last fiscal year. 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 (16.6%). Cases in the male drug detained “low bail” category represented 11.2 percent of the targeted felony cases in FY02. Almost one-quarter (24.1%) 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 5.4 percent of the post-arraignment felony targeted cases. This was a decrease of 330 cases, or 32.4 percent from the previous fiscal year.

Manhattan accounted for almost one-third (30.0%) of the targeted felony cases, followed closely by the Bronx, representing 29.7 percent of targeted felony cases. Brooklyn accounted for over one-fifth (22.4%) of the targeted felony cases and Queens accounted for the remaining 18.0 percent of these cases. The largest number of felony cases was targeted in Manhattan (3,804), followed closely by the number targeted in the Bronx (3,763). Brooklyn cases (2,837) were the next most frequently targeted cases. Queens continued to have the smallest number of cases targeted (2,282). Manhattan had the largest proportion of targeted cases in both FY01 and FY02, while Queens had the smallest proportion in both fiscal years. Overall, there was a 15.7 percent decrease in targeted felony cases across all boroughs. With a decrease of 28.1 percent, Brooklyn had the largest drop in targeted felony cases from FY01, to FY02. Manhattan had the next largest drop, with a decrease of 19.3 percent from FY01, to FY02. There was a 12.2 percent decrease in the Bronx across the same time period. Interestingly, Queens had an 8.7 percent increase in targeted felony cases from FY01, to FY02. The target category that appears to have had the largest impact on the increase in Queens is the male non-drug detained category. In FY01, there were 991 male non-drug detained cases targeted in Queens, and in FY02 there were 1,349 of these cases targeted in Queens, representing an increase of 36.1 percent. 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 Manhattan cases were more likely than any other borough to include released male drug defendants. As in FY01, the high proportion of detained males in non-drug cases distinguished targeted cases in Queens: Such cases accounted for almost three-fifths (59.1%) of the boroughtarget pool in the fiscal year. The characteristics of cases targeted vary by target group, as seen in Table 4. Overall, the proportion of targeted felony cases with a controlled substance offense charge decreased from FY01, to FY02 (65.4% in FY01 and 58.3% in FY02), while the proportion of cases with a robbery charge increased (14.7% in FY01 and 17.8% in FY02). The majority of cases targeted for juvenile offenders were robbery cases (79.2%). Almost three-fifths (56.8%) of women non-drug detained targeted cases, and over-two-fifths (43.7%) of male non-drug detained targeted cases, had robbery charges. Due to the special targeting for STEPS, over four-fifths (84.6%) of non-drug released cases for women were charged with assault.

4. Court-Mandated Cases to City-Funded ATI Programs in FY02 As of August 27, 2002,12 a total of 2,438 cases had been reported to ATIIS as mandated to ATI programs in fiscal year 2002. The proportion of misdemeanor cases going to CSSP in FY02 increased from FY01 (60.1% in FY01; 68.8% in FY02). Surprisingly, considering arrest volume went down, the number of cases (1,678) mandated to CSSP increased by 9.9 percent from FY01. A total of 760 cases were mandated to felony ATI programs during this fiscal year. This represents a 25.0 percent decrease in felony placements from FY01. Although this is a significant decrease, the total does not include 36 mandated cases from Crossroads, which they reported separately to OCJC. As mentioned in an earlier section of this report, Crossroads stopped providing data to ATIIS on mandated cases midway through FY02. Because we only have data records for 12 of those cases, we have eliminated all of the Crossroads cases from this report. If the Crossroads cases were added to this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total, the drop in felony mandates would then be 21.4 percent. Of the 760 cases mandated to a felony program in FY02, 34 were mandated more than once. As stated previously, several ATI programs have been authorized by OCJC to reinstate cases and, as a result, ATIIS files have been changed 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 defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 17 cases reinstated during FY02, nine of which were from CSSP. Of the remaining eight reinstatements, seven were from Freedom, and one was from CEP. Of the nine cases reinstated to CSSP, the earliest reinstatement occurred within one week of the original exit date, and the latest occurred within nine months of the original exit date. Seven of the eight reinstatements to felony programs occurred within one month of the original exit date, and the latest felony reinstatement occurred within two 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 12

All information on cases mandated to programs in FY02 was received and processed by ATIIS by August 27, 2002.

time of mandate. Almost three-fifths (57.8%) of the cases mandated to CSSP were mandated at arraignment, all of which were either referral or manuallytargeted cases.13 The number of mandated cases at arraignments increased by 5.8 percent over last year, while the number of cases mandated postarraignment increased by 16.1 percent. 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 were mandated to a specific felony ATI program. The following FY02 mandates of felony cases, in order from most to least, were reported to ATIIS: • • • • • • • •

CEP---238 cases, Freedom---111 cases, El Rio---111 cases, FlameTree---81 cases, YAP---74 cases, STEPS---66 cases, Project Return---49 cases, and DAMAS---30 cases.

Although there was some shift from FY01, to FY02, in the order of felony programs based on the number of mandates, most programs had a decrease in the number of cases mandated in FY02. The exceptions were YAP and STEPS, where the number of mandated cases actually increased. DAMAS and Project Return had the most dramatic drops in mandated cases from FY01, to FY02 (47.4 percent decrease in DAMAS and 45.6 percent decrease in Project Return). El Rio had the next largest decrease over this time period (33.9%), followed by FlameTree (21.4%), CEP (18.5%) and Freedom (17.2%). The number of mandates to STEPS increased by 32.0 percent, and YAP also had an increase in mandates from FY01, to FY02 (12.1%). In terms of the numbers of felony cases mandated, few (23) non-drug cases targeted for women are found among the court-mandated cases, with cases mandated to STEPS accounting for the largest number (14) of these cases. Among the targeted drug cases for women mandated to felony programs (38 including both released and detained defendants), 25 were mandated to drug programs. Among the targeted drug cases for men mandated to felony programs during the fiscal year, over half (53.6%) of the cases were mandated to non-drug programs: Of the 166 cases in this target category, 77 were mandated to FlameTree, El Rio, and Project Return, with the majority of the remaining cases going to CEP.

This is because our computer-targeting system cannot process all the information necessary to target a case in time for the arraignment appearance.

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 (79.3%), as was the case last year (79.5%). All placements at arraignment were from this category, with 60.1 percent of the cases in the referral or manual category not fitting the arraignment target criteria, a decrease of 2.1 percentage points over last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s figures. However, there was a 2.9 percentage point increase in the proportion of postarraignment cases not fitting target criteria. One-fifth (20.8% [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 postarraignment target criteria for charge and prior record. Less than half (47.9%) of the cases mandated to CSSP post-arraignment in this fiscal year came from the post-arraignment misdemeanor target categories. As in the previous year, less than one percent of CSSP cases came from felony-targeted pools where charges may have been reduced. 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 mandated to each felony program can be seen. Among the felony programs, Project Return reported proportionately the lowest number of mandated cases (36.7%) as coming from a pool of referral or manually targeted cases, followed closely by CEP with 37.4 percent of mandated cases from referral or manually targeted cases. As in 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 FY01 to FY02, for CEP, YAP, DAMAS, FlameTree, and El Rio, and decreased for Freedom, Project Return, and STEPS. As in FY01, cases mandated to STEPS in FY02 were the most likely (77.3%) of any program to come from a source other than the computertargeted categories. One explanation for the high proportion of non-computertargeted-cases mandated to STEPS is that one-quarter (not shown) 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 the Bronx accounted for 768 cases mandated to programs in the fiscal year, followed by cases from Manhattan (667). Brooklyn accounted for 636 cases and Queens had the fewest cases mandated to programs in FY02 (367). In all boroughs, CSSP accounted for more than three-fifths of the cases mandated in the reporting period. Notably, in Brooklyn, the number of mandated cases decreased (22.9%) from FY01 for both CSSP and the felony programs

combined. Besides the overall lower arrest rates following September 11th, another explanation given by CSSP management for the decrease in Brooklyn, was DA initiatives such as the Mental Health Court, Misdemeanor Drug Court and the Treatment Readiness Program, which offered the court other sentencing options. The number of mandated cases in the remaining boroughs increased for CSSP but decreased for the felony programs. 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 (97.0%) cases mandated to CSSP in FY02 were required to perform ten days of community services as a condition of their “conditional discharge” sentence. Only 50 (3.0%) cases mandated to CSSP in FY02 were required to perform five days of community service, a slight increase over FY01 when two percent of the cases were required to perform this shortened length of community service. These cases fit a different profile developed by CSSP.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 FY02. 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 (36.3%) of the defendants were 40 years old or older, and more than two-fifths (41.6%) were in their thirties. Over one-tenth of participants (13.7%) were female. The demographic characteristics of these cases are similar to the cases mandated to CSSP in FY01. Over onequarter (28.7%) of CSSP participants had between one and four prior misdemeanor convictions in FY02, and another quarter (24.5%) of CSSP participants had 15 or more prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the mandated case. More than two-thirds (68.9%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP in FY02 were sentenced to jail terms on those convictions at least twice. In FY02 over two-thirds (69.1%) of defendants mandated to CSSP had at least one prior felony conviction, and two-fifths (44.5%) of the participants had served a prior prison sentence. Almost three-quarters (73.6%) of the defendants in 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.

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. Almost half (48.3%) of the defendants mandated to felony programs in the fiscal year were under 19 years of age, an increase of six percentage points from FY01. The proportion of women represented in the felony programs decreased from FY01, to FY02 (29.0% in FY01 and 21.4% in FY02). This drop in women in the felony programs does not look as dramatic when the 36 reported Crossroads cases that were mandated in FY02 are added into the total for felony programs. Those 36 Crossroads participants are women, therefore the proportion of women in the felony programs would increase to 25.0 percent if these cases were figured in the total. More than one in four (25.3%) defendants mandated to felony programs had prior misdemeanor convictions, and one in seven (14.9%) defendants had a prior felony conviction. The proportion (19.1%) of defendants mandated in FY02 who had served time in jail or prison decreased from FY01 (22.3%). 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 44.5 percent of the cases mandated to felony programs, a decrease over the proportion mandated in FY01 (49.3%). Robbery offenses were associated with a quarter of mandated cases in both FY01 (24.9%), and FY02 (25.9%). Another 6.3 percent of the cases mandated to felony programs in FY02 were characterized by weapons offenses, a slight decrease in the proportion of these cases mandated to felony programs in FY01 (8.8%). As in previous reporting periods, robbery charges characterized most (90.9%) of the cases targeted for juvenile offenders mandated in FY02, and they also accounted for over three-fifths (63.2%) of the cases from the detained male non-drug target group, which includes the YO-eligible defendants. While there was a substantial decrease from FY01, to FY02, in the percentage of cases of detained non-drug female defendants charged with robbery offenses (42.9% in FY01 and 22.7% in FY02), there was also an increase in the proportion of women in this target category charged with burglary offenses (7.1% in FY01 and 18.2% in FY02).

The corresponding table for cases mandated to CSSP is presented as Table 8b. In FY01 and FY02, 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 (34.4% in FY01 and 38.9% in FY02). 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 35.9 percent of the cases mandated to CSSP in FY02. This represents a decrease from FY01 (40.4%). 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. As in FY01, robbery charges characterize the largest category of cases mandated to CEP and YAP in this reporting period. For CEP, the percentage of cases with robbery charges decreased somewhat from 46.2 percent in FY01, down to 44.1 percent in FY02, and more significantly for weapon charges from 15.1 percent in FY01, down to 8.0 percent in FY02, while the percentage of cases with controlled substance offenses increased from 22.6 percent to 27.7 percent. In fact, the proportion of mandated cases with robbery charges decreased for all programs. 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 74.4 percent of the cases mandated to this program in FY01 were cases with controlled substances offenses. The proportion of these cases increased to 85.7 percent in FY02. Another shift in the proportion of charges for cases mandated to Project Return is the decrease in cases with assault charges. In FY01 one-tenth of the cases mandated to this program had assault charges, while in FY02 the program had no cases with assault charges. Figure 4 presents the time period of release for felony cases mandated in the fiscal year by ATI program. YAP, CEP, Freedom, DAMAS, and FlameTree all had a greater proportion of cases mandated in the second half of the fiscal year, compared to the first half of FY02. This was due to the effects of September 11th in terms of lower numbers of arrests, staffing issues at the programs, and other problems such as the lack of phone service for several weeks in some of the Manhattan and Brooklyn offices. On the other hand, over three-quarters (78.4% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to El Rio occurred in the first half of the fiscal year. According to El Rio management, this resulted from a decision to temporarily stop taking new cases in the second half of the fiscal year because of a staffing shortage. Project Return also had a greater proportion of cases mandated in the first half of the fiscal year, compared to the second half. This

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

YAP (N=74)

Percent

CEP (N=238)

Freedom (N=111)

DAMAS (N=30)

1st & 2nd Quarters

FlameTree (N=81)

3rd Quarter

El Rio (N=111)

Project Return (N=49)

4th Quarter

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, FY02

STEPS (N=66)

Total (N=760)

was due to the fact that Project Return began to prepare for the eventual closing of their program at the end of the fiscal year. STEPS comes the closest to having an even division between cases mandated in the first half of the fiscal year (53.0% [not shown]) and cases mandated in the second half of the fiscal year (47.0% [not shown]). Legal and Personal Information for Mandated Cases Target Case Information forms are submitted to ATIIS by the ATI programs, which 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.15 This form contains personal information about the participant and his or her service needs as assessed at or before enrollment.16 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.17 For defendants mandated to CSSP the Participant Personal 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, and Project Return) 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 and enrolled in a program in FY02. Of the defendants mandated to CSSP, 26.2 percent reported living with a spouse, and 15

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.” 16 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. 17 Nineteen forms were not required because the defendants were “no shows”, and four forms were missing because of delayed submissions where the defendants had not yet enrolled in the programs as of June 30, 2002.

another 25.3 percent live with one or both parents. Four-fifths (80.8%) of the defendants mandated to YAP, the JO program, live with one or both parents, and another 15.1 percent live with other relatives. Over two-thirds (68.8%) 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 of the remaining defendants reporting living with other relatives (24.0%). Almost one-third (31.6%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program live with one or both parents, and another 31.2 percent live with other relatives. The largest proportion (31.6%) of defendants mandated to a general population program also live with one or both parents, and another one-quarter (26.4%) live with other relatives. CSSP has the highest proportion (13.2%) of participants who reported living alone, followed by the general population programs with 7.4 percent, and the drug programs with 6.7 percent of the participants reporting that they lived alone. Not surprisingly, no one from CEP or YAP reported living alone. The greatest change from FY01, to FY02, in the proportion of defendants living with a parent was for the general population programs where the percentage decreased from 43.0 percent in FY01, to 31.6 percent in FY02. There was a significant increase in the residing with â&#x20AC;&#x153;otherâ&#x20AC;? category for the general population programs, from 8.0 percent in FY01, to 17.3 percent in FY02, due to a higher proportion of incarcerated women in the STEPS program. 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 (46.6%) of all defendants mandated in FY02 reported having no employment or financial support. The majority of defendants mandated to the felony programs for younger defendants reported having no employment or financial support (83.1% in YAP and 86.6% in CEP). Due to the younger populations served by these programs, and the fact that over two-thirds 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 59 YAP participants who reported that they receive no employment or financial support, 57 (not shown) also reported that someone else in their household does receive some form of employment or support. Of the 200 CEP participants who reported that they receive no employment or financial support, 183 (not shown) also reported that someone else in their household does receive some form of employment or support. Overall, there is little variation from FY01, to FY02, in the form of employment or support participants in the program receive. Of the CSSP participants who reported working, a slightly larger proportion reported working full time (13.9%), compared to those who reported working part time (10.0%). Only three of the YAP participants reported being employed, two of which are part time, and of the eight CEP participants who reported being employed, half are working part time and half are working full time. Participants

who are mandated to either a drug program or a general population program, who report being employed, are slightly more likely to be employed full time (3.8% and 2.5% respectively), than part time (2.1% and 2.0% respectively), possibly reflecting the older populations served by these programs. Most (88.7%) of the participants at YAP, and almost one-fifth (18.3%) of the participant population at CEP, reported being enrolled in school at the point of the interview. The proportion of YAP participants who report being enrolled in school jumped from 56.9 percent in FY01, to 88.7 percent in FY02. This is a result of staff retraining on the difference between enrollment status and actual attendance. Less than one in ten (8.9%) defendants mandated to a general population program, and three percent of defendants mandated to a drug program, reported being enrolled in school, while only .6 percent of CSSP participants reported school enrollment. YAP has the largest proportion (26.8%) of defendants reporting that they have ever been in special education classes, followed closely by CEP (25.8%). Over one-quarter (27.3%) 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, only one of the defendants mandated to YAP completed school beyond 10th grade. Also having a younger population, only five (2.2%) of the defendants mandated to CEP finished 12th grade. More than one in seven (15.7%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program completed 12th grade, and another 1.7 percent completed some additional post high school education. Almost one-fifth (18.3%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program completed 12th grade, and another 4.5 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, 5.8 percent of the mandated defendants reported having been treated for a psychological or emotional problem. YAP had the highest proportion (28.2%) of participants who had been treated for a psychological or emotional problem, followed by the general population programs (22.8%), CEP (16.2%), and drug programs (14.0%). CSSP had the smallest proportion (.2%) ever receiving psychological treatment. Participants mandated to the general population programs had the largest proportion (13.9%) of participants who reported being currently prescribed psychotropic drugs at the time of interview. Less than one in ten (6.8%) of the participants in the drug programs, 5.6 percent of the participants in YAP, and only 3.1 percent of the defendants mandated to CEP reported being currently prescribed psychotropic drugs at the time of interview. Only 1.3 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 two or three sessions a week at the program. CEP participants are 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. Almost half (48.5%) of the participants mandated to a drug program are scheduled to attend the program for 4.5 or 5 hours a day. Another 33.6 percent of the participants in a drug program are scheduled to attend five sessions a week. Over two-thirds (67.8%) of the participants mandated to a general population program are scheduled to attend five sessions a week at the program, and another 21.8 percent are scheduled to attend one session a week. Self-reported drug and alcohol use of defendants mandated in FY02 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;18 20.0 percent of those defendants reported having used alcohol 2-3 times a week, and 12.3 percent reported daily use. Almost one in ten (9.1%) participants in CSSP reported using alcohol 2-3 times a week in the 30 days prior to interview, and another 4.8 percent reported using alcohol daily. Over one-third (35.7%) of participants in a general population program reported having used alcohol once in the last 30 days. One-quarter (24.4%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview. Over two-fifths (43.8%) of the defendants mandated to YAP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to enrollment, including 11.3 percent who reported using it daily. Almost three-fifths (58.1%) of the defendants mandated to CEP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including 29.7 percent who reported using it daily. Over two-thirds (68.6%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including half (50.2%) who reported using it daily. Over one-third (37.2%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including 16.8 percent who reported using it daily. Less than one-fifth (15.8%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using crack cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview, 6.7 percent of whom reported using crack daily. Drug programs had the largest proportion (20.8%) of participants who reporting using crack cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview, 9.4 percent of whom reported using crack daily. No defendant mandated to YAP, only one defendant (.4%) mandated to CEP, and only six defendants (3.0%) mandated to a general population program reported using crack in the 30 days prior to interview.

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

Almost one-fifth (18.7%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program reported using cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview. Only one defendant mandated to YAP, two defendants mandated to CEP, and two defendants 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. Almost one-fifth (17.0%) of defendants mandated to CSSP reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview, 11.7 percent of whom reported using heroin daily. One in seven (14.1%) defendants mandated to a drug program reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview, and 10.2 percent reported using it daily. No defendant mandated to YAP, only two defendants mandated to 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 (17.5%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using methadone in the 30 days prior to interview, including 15.8 percent who reported using it daily. Only three 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 4.5 percent of the defendants mandated to a general population program reported using methadone. The 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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;drug-freeâ&#x20AC;? programs. One-fifth (19.2%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment immediately before interview. One-quarter (24.7%) of defendants mandated to a drug program reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment immediately before interview. Less than one-tenth (9.0%) of defendants mandated to a general population program reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment prior to interview. Less than four percent of defendants mandated to YAP or CEP reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment prior to interview (1.4% and 3.9% respectively). Over two-fifths (44.6%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP characterized their drug use as a problem. Not surprisingly, over three-quarters (77.0%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program characterized their drug use as a problem. Over one-tenth (11.4%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program characterized their drug use as a problem. Only 2.8 percent of the defendants mandated to YAP characterized their drug use as a problem,

and 6.1 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, all 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 the programs with the younger participants. Only 6.1 percent of the participants from CEP self-reported their drug use as a problem, while 24.9 percent of the time CEP characterized the participants’ drug use as a problem. Similarly, only 2.8 percent of the participants from YAP self-reported their drug use as a problem, while 21.1 percent of the time YAP characterized the participants’ drug use as a problem. More than one in nine (11.6%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Almost one-third (31.1%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Only 6.9 percent of the defendants mandated to a general population program characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Less than two percent of the defendants mandated to CEP, and no defendants mandated to YAP characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Again, when the programs were asked to characterize the participant’s alcohol use as a problem, all of the felony 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 31.1 percent of the participants self-reporting their alcohol use as a problem, and 40.9 percent of the drug program interviews resulting in the program’s characterization of the participants’ alcohol use as a problem. A greater proportion (11.6%) 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 (4.1%). 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 felony programs, over three-quarters (78.0%) of defendants mandated to a program entered the program following conviction (plea) but before sentencing. The legal status of another 17.5 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. Two-fifths (40.5%) of defendants mandated to YAP, and almost one-third (31.9%) of defendants mandated to a general population program, were mandated to the program pre-plea.

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 almost one-third of the defendants mandated to a general population program were mandated pre-plea, the majority (87.9% [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 (5.4%) of defendants who were mandated on the date of sentence were mandated to a drug program. There was a shift from FY01, to FY02, in the legal status at intake for defendants mandated to YAP and to the general population programs. For cases in both program groups there was an increase in pre-plea cases and a decrease in post-plea cases. The shift was greater for cases in YAP, where in FY01, 28.8 percent of cases were pre-plea, and 66.7 percent were post-plea. In FY02 the proportion of pre-plea cases increased to 40.5 percent, and the proportion of post-plea cases decreased to 59.5 percent. 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 (97.3%) 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 two-thirds (64.5%) 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. One-quarter (25.2% [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. Almost three-fifths (57.1%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were promised no change in case outcome following successful completion of the program, and another 30.0 percent were promised that they would be able to re-enter a plea to a lesser charge if they were successful at the program.

Over two-thirds (70.5%) of the defendants mandated to YAP were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 18.2 percent were not given any specific promise by the judge. Almost four-fifths (79.2%) of the defendants mandated to CEP were also promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 18.6 percent were promised a split sentence (jail and probation). Two-fifths (40.7%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 34.6 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 (70.0%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program. There was a shift from FY01, to FY02, for all programs in the sentences defendants were promised for successful completion. There was an increase in YAP cases promised a probation sentence (63.0% in FY01 and 70.5% in FY02), and a corresponding decrease in cases that had no promised sentence (23.9% in FY01 and 18.2% in FY02). CEP had a slight increase in cases promised probation (75.1% in FY01 and 79.2% in FY02), and a slight decrease in cases promised a split sentence (21.6% in FY01 and 18.6% in FY02). There was an increase in cases from the drug programs that were given either a promise of probation (35.5% in FY01 and 40.7% in FY02), or a promise of a conditional discharge (29.5% in FY01 and 34.6% in FY02). Correspondingly, there was a decrease in cases from the drug programs that had no promised sentence (11.6% in FY01 and 8.9% in FY02). The general population programs were the only ones where there was an increase in the proportion of cases with no promised sentence (5.8% in FY01 and 10.0% in FY02). Most (68.2%) of the defendants mandated to YAP are to be granted YO status upon successful completion of their case, and the remainder (31.8%) were not specifically promised YO status. This represents a change from FY01, when a higher percentage (76.1) were explicitly promised YO. The majority (75.2%) 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 (87.9%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were not eligible for YO status. Almost four-fifths (78.6%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were not eligible for YO status, and another 12.1 percent were to be granted YO status upon successful completion of their case.

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 â&#x20AC;&#x153;overridingâ&#x20AC;? the original exit status, which would have been reported to OCJC as unsuccessful in a Tracking Report and perhaps even in a previous end-of-year report. The second exit will be treated as the final exit on the case. 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. a. Program Status as of June 30, 2002 Felony Programs Table 13 presents the status on June 30, 2002, 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 27, 2002. The proportion (31.5%) of cases that remained pending at the end of FY02 was slightly lower than the proportion (33.4%) of cases that remained pending at the end of FY01. Overall, 789 cases, or 64.3 percent of all 1,227 cases active in the reporting period, completed felony programs during the fiscal year, 426 (34.7%) of them successfully. A slightly higher proportion of cases completed in FY02, compared to FY01 (62.9%), also with more completing successfully in this reporting period compared to FY01 (33.0%). When only participants in the 789 cases completing the programs overall are examined, 54.0 percent (not shown) successfully completed the program, and 46.0 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 FY01 to FY02, for YAP, CEP, FlameTree, Project Return, and STEPS, while the rate of successful completions decreased for Freedom, DAMAS, and El Rio. Using the base of all cases active during the fiscal year, in very few cases (1.9%) did the defendant never show at the program. Transfers without any continuing monitoring by the ATI programs were also relatively rare (1.9%). The proportion of cases that were not completed remained almost the same from FY01 (3.8%), to FY02 (4.2%). By the end of the reporting period there were very few cases (.5%) with a monitored transfer program status. Of the 42 (not shown) previously monitored transfer cases in the fiscal year, 16 successfully completed, 11 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 FY02, completion rates varied by program. Project Return had the fewest number of cases still pending at the

end of FY02 (15.3%), while YAP had the lowest completion rate (51.9%). Among the other programs, however, between 56.2 percent and 77.6 percent of the cases active in the fiscal year completed the programs during that time. The successful completion rate was highest for participants in DAMAS and STEPS (52.7% and 44.8% respectively). Participants in El Rio had the lowest successful completion rate, at 27.9 percent. As in FY01, satisfaction of program requirements was the most frequently reported reason for successful completion, followed by satisfaction of, both program requirements and court conditions.19 As in the reports for previous fiscal years, the reader is cautioned against interpreting the successful and unsuccessful completion percentages as if they are indicative of the outcomes for a cohort of cases entering and completing the program during the same time period. A cohort analysis was, in fact, conducted for cases mandated in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, and was submitted to OCJC in June 2002.20 In contrast, our end-of year reports deal only with those participants who either completed or remained active during the fiscal year. Because all of the felony programs generally require at least six months participation before a case can be “successfully completed,” the vast majority of participants entering and leaving the program during the second half of the fiscal year will be “unsuccessfully terminated” by definition, and therefore, will be over represented among those completing the program in the fiscal year. By the same logic, successful completions will be somewhat over represented among those who were enrolled in the program prior to the fiscal year but who completed participation during the fiscal year. Tables 13a through 13h 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 FY02 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, almost one-tenth (8.8%) of the cases mandated to the program prior to FY02 remained pending at the end of the reporting period. Most (74.3%) of the cases mandated in FY02 were pending at the end of the reporting period. Among completed cases mandated to the program prior to FY02, successful completions accounted for three-quarters (76.5% [not shown]) of the completed cases, an improvement of 19

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. 20 See Revere, Elyse J., and Mari Curbelo. A Cohort Study of Case Characteristics and Outcomes of Participants in Felony ATI Programs. New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

15.8 percentage points over last year’s figure. Of the cases mandated to YAP in FY02, over one-fifth (23.0%) of the cases completed in the fiscal year and over two-fifths (41.2% [not shown]) of those cases were successful completions, an improvement from last year when only 7.1 percent of completed cases were successful completions. In the middle of FY02, YAP began to complete defendants within a shorter time period than they had in the past, therefore making it more likely that participants would complete successfully within the fiscal year that they were mandated in. Most (97.1%) of the CEP participants entering the program prior to FY02, and active during the reporting period, completed the program during the fiscal year (Table 13b). In three-fifths (61.0% [not shown]) of these cases, participants successfully completed the program, an improvement of 6.1 percentage points over last year’s figure. Almost two-fifths (39.5%) of the cases mandated to CEP in FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Of the cases mandated to CEP in FY02, almost three-fifths (56.7%) of the participants had completed cases in the reporting period. Of those who were mandated and completed in FY02, almost two-thirds (64.4% [not shown]) were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in the reporting period. The overall completion rate for cases mandated prior to FY02 to Freedom, the other general population program (Table 13c), was higher than that for CEP, with all of these cases completed during the fiscal year, 80.4 percent successfully. Over three-fifths (61.3%) of the cases mandated to Freedom in FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period, an increase of 24.0 percentage points over last year’s figure. Of the cases mandated to Freedom in FY02, over half (55.0% [not shown]) of the completed cases were successful completions, a decrease from last year’s figure of 66.3 percent. None of the women in DAMAS, who were mandated to the program prior to FY02 were still pending by the end of the fiscal year. The majority (88.0%) of the completed cases mandated prior to FY02 were successful completions (Table 13d). Over two-fifths (43.3%) of the cases mandated to DAMAS in FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Almost three-fifths (58.8% [not shown]) of the participants who were mandated in the reporting period, and who completed DAMAS, were unsuccessful terminations. This represents an increase over the proportion of completed cases that were unsuccessful terminations in FY01 (33.3%). None of the cases mandated to FlameTree prior to FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Almost two-thirds (73.8% [not shown]) of the completed cases mandated prior to FY02 were successful completions (Table 13e). Almost half (46.9%) of the cases mandated in FY02 were still pending at the end of the fiscal year. Of the cases mandated to FlameTree in FY02, twothirds (66.7% [not shown]) of the completed cases were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in the reporting period. As with DAMAS, the

proportion of completed cases that were unsuccessful terminations in FY01 (59.3%) increased in FY02 for FlameTree, although the increase was not as large as for DAMAS. El Rio’s drug program is of longer duration than most of the other programs, and consequently over one-tenth (11.5%) of the cases released prior to FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13f). Successful completions were more frequent (51.5% [not shown]) among the completed cases entering the program prior to FY02, down from 71.0 percent for the same category last year. Almost half (45.0%) of the cases mandated in FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Almost three-quarters (72.7% [not shown]) of the completed cases mandated to El Rio in FY02, were unsuccessfully terminated from the program. This represents an improvement over the 83.0 percent of completed cases that were unsuccessfully terminated in FY01. Only one (2.8%) of the cases mandated to Project Return’s Women’s Day Treatment program prior to FY02 was still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13g). Of the cases mandated prior to FY02, and completed, more of them (56.3% [not shown]) had an unsuccessful termination than a successful completion. One-quarter (24.5%) of the cases mandated in FY02 remained pending at the end of the reporting period. Over three-fifths (61.8% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to Project Return in FY02, who completed the program, were unsuccessful terminations. Only one (3.3%) of the cases mandated to STEPS prior to FY02 was still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13h). Over four-fifths (81.5% [not shown]) of the completed STEPS cases mandated prior to FY02 were successful completions, an improvement of 12.7 percentage points for the same category last year. Over half (53.0%) of the cases mandated to STEPS in FY02 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Over three-quarters (77.8% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to STEPS in FY02, who completed the program, were successful completions. The successful completion rate of completed cases decreased from the rate of 85.7 percent for the same category last year. Misdemeanor Program Table 14 displays the status as of June 30, 2002, 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 (98.0%), five days, of community service was higher than that for the higher tier (71.2%), which had substantially more cases. As a percentage of all cases active in FY02, over two-thirds (71.9%) of the defendants in mandated cases successfully completed the program by the end of the reporting period; another 1.8 percent completed a modified term of community service. Among those

unsuccessfully terminated from the program in FY02, 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 (6.1%). Less than one-tenth (5.5%) of CSSP cases were still active at the end of the reporting period. Finally, Table 15 relates program status as of June 30, 2002 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 fifth (22.0%) 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 Queens were most likely to result in successful completion of the program (73.1% [not shown]), followed by the Bronx (72.7% [not shown]), Brooklyn (71.6% [not shown), and Manhattan (70.5% [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 decreased from FY01, to FY02. In FY01, almost half (47.7%) of no shows occurred between 29 and 60 days, while in FY02, over one-third (36.4%) of no shows occurred within this time frame. 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 (56.6%) were terminated in between 29 and 60 days, and another 3.8 percent of the cases were terminated in between 61 and 90 days after enrollment. In contrast, over half (56.2%) of the cases successfully completing the program in FY02 reached that status within 21 days of sentencing. This rate is slightly higher than the 55.0 percent of cases successfully completing within the same time in FY01. The proportion of unsuccessful terminations that occurred after 60 days decreased by ten percentage points from FY01, to FY02 (13.8% in FY01 and 3.8% in FY02).

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 (43.9%) in felony ATI programs were in the programs at least six months, including 7.3 percent who were in the programs for at least a year. These percentages are similar to FY01, when 41.9 percent of active cases were in a program for at least six months, including 7.5 percent who were in the program for at least a year. Not surprisingly, almost one-quarter (24.4%) 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 (19.4%) 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. Almost one-third (30.2%) of STEPS clients had been under supervision for nine months or more, and 5.9 percent of the participants in Project Return had been in the program that long. Less than four 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 case 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 89.7 percent of the cases. Unsuccessful terminations happen generally more quickly, with over four-fifths (82.6%) of them occurring within 180 days of supervision. Two (28.6%) of the cases with a monitored transfer status are still being monitored for over 270 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, over one-fifth (21.7%) of the 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.

defendants in cases still active in the program had already been under program supervision for at least 181 days. Compared to FY01, across all programs, participants in FY02 took slightly less time to successfully complete the programs overall (94.0% successfully completed after six months in FY01, and 89.7% successfully completed after six months in FY02). Less than one-fifth (17.5%) of participants in FY02 were unsuccessfully terminated after 180 days in the program. Tables 18a through 18h 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 YAPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s longer program model (Table 18a), almost half (47.8%) of the participants successfully completing the program had been under supervision for over one year and another one-third (34.8%) successfully completed within nine months and one year. By the middle of FY02, YAP began exiting successfully completed cases earlier than they had in the past. In FY01, only 2.9 percent of cases successfully completed the program in seven months or less, while in FY02 the proportion of cases successfully completing within this same time period increased to 13.0 percent. Correspondingly, the proportion of cases taking at least a year to successfully complete YAP decreased from 62.9 percent in FY01, to 47.8 percent in FY02. Not surprisingly, there is more range in the times to unsuccessful termination. Over half (54.5%) 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, 2002. The length of time from actual enrollment date to status on June 30th for CEP participants (Table 18b) is consistent with the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s six-month model of supervision, with 87.2 percent successfully completing between six and seven months in the program. Most (94.4%) of the participants unsuccessfully terminated from the program reached that status within 180 days in the program, including 47.6 percent who were unsuccessfully terminated within three months. None of the participants in CEP that were 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. Compared to FY01, the length of time in Freedom (Table 18c), the other general population program, for successful completion was longer in FY02. Over threefifths (61.9%) of participants successfully completing the program reached that status between six and seven months in the program, and another 22.2 percent of successful completions were in the program between seven and nine months.

Over one-tenth (14.3%) of the unsuccessful terminations occurred after six months in the program. Very few (5.9%) of the cases still active in Freedom had been in the program for over 180 days by the end of FY02. Length of time in DAMAS related to successful completion as it did for CEP participants (Table 18d). Over four-fifths (89.7%) of the successful completions occurred between six and seven months in the program. Over half (53.9%) of unsuccessful terminations occurred within three months. None of the cases still active at the end of the reporting period were 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 four-fifths (84.1%) of successful completions occurred between six and seven months in the program. Most (94.5%) of the unsuccessful terminations from the program happened within six months. Only one participant still active in the program at the end of the fiscal year had been in the program over six months. Although the length of time in El Rio reflects its longer program model, compared to FY01, participants successfully completed the program in less time in FY02 (Table 18f). In FY01, over three-fifths (63.8%) of the participants successfully completing the program reached that status after a year in the program, while in FY02, the proportion of participants taking at least a year to complete El Rio dropped to 32.3 percent. On the other hand, in FY01, 81.3 percent of unsuccessful terminations occurred within the first six months of participation, while in FY02, that proportion dropped to 65.3 percent of unsuccessful terminations occurring within that same timeframe. Over one-quarter (26.7%) of the participants transferred to another program had been in El Rio for over a year. Over one-fifth (21.9%) of the participants still active had been in the program over a year as of June 30th. The proportion of Project Returnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participants (Table 18g) who successfully completed the program in over nine months dropped dramatically from FY01 (54.1%), to FY02 (14.8%). Over half (51.9%) of the participants successfully completed the program in between seven and nine months. Only one (2.6%) of the participants who unsuccessfully terminated the program did so in over six months. Over two-thirds (69.2%) of unsuccessful terminations occurred within three months. All but one (88.8%) of the active participants has been in the program for less than six months. Almost three-quarters (72.1%) of the participants who successfully completed STEPS (Table 18h) in FY02 did so after six months, including 18.6 percent who completed after one year. In FY01, however, 82.2 percent of participants who successfully completed were in the program longer than six months. Almost onefifth (18.2%) of the participants who were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in FY02 reached that status after nine months, compared to over twofifths (41.7%) unsuccessfully terminated during the same time period in FY01.

Over two-fifths (44.1%) of the cases still active in STEPS as of the end of the fiscal year had been in the program for over six months. 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 one participant from CSSP, and no participants from the felony programs, had four in-program rearrests. Overall, the percentage of cases with an in-program rearrest decreased from 22.6 percent in FY01, to 18.0 percent in FY02. The proportion of CSSP participants with a rearrest during the relatively short course of doing community service decreased from 21.3 percent in FY01, to 17.3 percent in FY02. There was a decrease in the total rearrest rate for all felony programs, from 24.0 percent in FY01, to 18.9 percent (not shown) in FY02. There was some shift in the rearrest rates of the felony programs when compared with FY01. In FY02, the highest rearrest rate among the felony programs was for FlameTree participants (29.8%), followed by CEP (25.2%), and Freedom (22.2%). El Rioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in-program rearrest rate was 19.7 percent and Project Return had an in-program rearrest rate of 8.2 percent. YAP, DAMAS, and STEPS each had rearrest rates of less than eight percent (7.6%, 7.3%, and 6.3% respectively). Rearrest rates decreased for CEP, FlameTree, Freedom, El Rio, Project Return, and STEPS, and increased for YAP and DAMAS. The decrease in rearrest rates was greatest for CEP (37.5% in FY01; 25.2% in FY02), and Freedom which went from 29.3 percent of participants with an in-program rearrest in FY01, down to 22.2 percent of participants having an in-program rearrest in FY02. In addition, seven (not shown) participants were rearrested on juvenile charges. Information on Family Court outcomes, if any, is not available. This would add an additional seven cases to the total number of rearrests from YAP, thereby increasing their rearrest rate. 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, 8.7 percent had a rearrest while in the program, compared with over half (51.3%) of those unsuccessfully terminated from the program. The rearrest rate for FY02 participants successfully completing CSSP decreased from FY01 (12.4%), and 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.

the rearrest rate for cases unsuccessfully terminated also decreased from 55.5 percent in FY01, to 51.3 percent in FY02. Over two-fifths (41.8%) 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 (47.7%). Although only a very small proportion of all CSSP cases, there was an increase from 24.0 percent in FY01, to 38.7 percent in FY02, 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 6.0 percent as of June 30th, representing a decrease in the proportion of CSSP participants still active as of the end of FY01 who were rearrested (15.2%). Table 21 shows the program status of the 232 felony program participants with in-program rearrests. Of those 232 participants, one-fifth (20.3%) had not finished their participation in the program. This represents an increase from FY01 when 17.9 percent of participants pending exit had in-program rearrests. Of the completed cases with rearrests, 43.4 percent (not shown) were successfully completed, and 56.6 (not shown) were unsuccessfully terminated. The rates of rearrest were generally higher among the cases unsuccessfully terminated from 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 and Freedom, which had a higher proportion of successful completions who were rearrested compared to unsuccessful terminations. These programbased 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 FY02, three-fifths (59.8%) of the first prosecuted inprogram rearrests occurred within the first two weeks of sentencing to CSSP. Among the rearrested felony participants, over half (53.8%) of the rearrests did not occur until after 60 days from the date the participant actually enrolled in the program. Less than ten percent (9.4%) 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 almost one-third of the first in-program rearrests (controlled substances, 23.0%, plus marijuana offenses, 6.7%, for a combined 29.7%) for CSSP participants. Larceny charges accounted for another 30.7 percent of rearrests of CSSP participants, representing a slight increase from

FY01, in the proportion of first rearrest cases with a larceny charge (29.1%), and a decrease in the proportion of first rearrest cases with a drug offense charge (33.7%). Almost, three-quarters of the arrests of CSSP participants (72.5%) were arraigned as A misdemeanors, and over half (51.1%) 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 slightly from FY01 (53.7%), to FY02. There was a slight increase from FY01, to FY02 in the proportion of rearrested CSSP participants who were arraigned on a felony charge (13.5% in FY01; 14.7% in FY02). In those CSSP cases continued beyond arraignment, most defendants were detained on bail, as in FY01. By the end of the second court appearance, onethird (32.7%) of the cases pending leaving arraignment were disposed, most with a plea to an A misdemeanor offense. Six of the 48 cases disposed at the second court appearance were transferred to Supreme Court. Over two-thirds (67.4%) of the CSSP cases pending leaving arraignment were still pending after the second court appearance, and more were detained than released following this appearance. 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, 24.1%, plus marijuana offenses, 13.4%, for a combined 37.5%), with “assault and related offenses”, “other offenses relating to theft”, and “robbery offenses” associated with another 35.8 percent of the rearrest cases. There was a decrease in the proportion of rearrests for drug and theft offenses, and an increase in the proportions of assault and robbery offenses, compared to the proportions reported in FY01. Almost one-fifth (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 (65.6%). Dispositions at arraignment (26.3%) 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. There was a decrease from FY01 (30.5%), in the proportion of cases with rearrests from felony program participants that were disposed at arraignment. Temporary orders of protection were issued at arraignment on 15.5 percent of cases of rearrests of felony program participants in FY02. More participants with cases continued at arraignment in FY02 were detained at arraignment, compared to those who were released. Almost one-quarter (23.0%) of the rearrests still pending leaving arraignment were disposed (in Criminal Court) at the next appearance, with almost half (47.4% [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 FY01,

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 (4.4% [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. Over four-fifths (43.5%) were in their thirties at the time of the arrest mandated to CSSP, and another 31.7 percent were even older. Among rearrested CSSP participants, a total of 46.3 percent of the court cases mandated to the program had larceny charges leaving Criminal Court arraignment, and another 21.4 percent were charged with a controlled substance offense on the case for which they received community service. These proportions are close to those in FY01, when 44.6 percent of the court cases mandated to the program had larceny charges leaving Criminal Court arraignment, and 19.7 percent were charged with a controlled substance offense on the case for which they received community service. One-third (33.5%) 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 (72.5%) had at least one felony conviction. As in FY01, participants sentenced in the Bronx to community service as the condition of a conditional discharge constituted the largest proportion (31.6%) of participants with a rearrest. In both FY01, and FY02, 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 slightly from FY01 (50.7%), to FY02 (48.3%). Rearrested felony participants were most commonly (52.2%) charged with a controlled substance offense on the case that brought them into the program, and another 22.8 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 FY01 (25.2%), and the proportion of rearrested felony participants with a controlled substance offense charge on the cases for which they were mandated increased (45.9%) from FY01. Over one-quarter (27.6%) of the FY02 rearrested felony program participants had prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the mandated case; and 16.4 percent had prior felony convictions. The highest proportion (40.9%) of rearrested felony

program participants was originally mandated to a program as the result of a case in the Bronx, followed by Brooklyn (29.3%). In both FY01, and FY02, cases mandated in Queens represented just a small proportion (7.0% in FY01; 6.0% in FY02) of the cases in which defendants were rearrested while participating in a felony ATI program.

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

133 58 684 163 1038 92 23 346 57 518 100 24 403 58 585 2141

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

17.1% 4.1% 68.9% 9.9% 100.0%

17.8% 4.4% 66.8% 11.0% 100.0%

12.8% 5.6% 65.9% 15.7% 100.0%

Brooklyn n %

43 19 303 103 468 1890

49 23 285 107 464

105 32 608 213 958

11.0% 3.3% 63.5% 22.2% 100.0% 3rd Quarter 10.6% 5.0% 61.4% 23.1% 100.0% 4th Quarter 9.2% 4.1% 64.7% 22.0% 100.0% 67 22 194 38 321 953

35 22 139 41 237

63 31 243 58 395

20.9% 6.9% 60.4% 11.8% 100.0%

14.8% 9.3% 58.6% 17.3% 100.0%

15.9% 7.8% 61.5% 14.7% 100.0%

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

78 30 268 34 410 1502

70 13 264 40 387

114 35 456 100 705

19.0% 7.3% 65.4% 8.3% 100.0%

18.1% 3.4% 68.2% 10.3% 100.0%

16.2% 5.0% 64.7% 14.2% 100.0%

Bronx

288 95 1168 233 1784 6486

246 81 1034 245 1606

415 156 1991 534 3096

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 1: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period by Time Period of Targeting and Borough

16.1% 5.3% 65.5% 13.1% 100.0%

15.3% 5.0% 64.4% 15.3% 100.0%

13.4% 5.0% 64.3% 17.2% 100.0%

Total

Brooklyn n % 498 23.3% 174 8.1% 93 4.3% 347 16.2% 146 6.8% 39 1.8% 79 3.7% 523 24.4% 71 3.3% 48 2.2% 123 5.7% 2141 100%

Manhattan n % 391 20.7% 144 7.6% 69 3.7% 456 24.1% 94 5.0% 44 2.3% 60 3.2% 283 15.0% 186 9.8% 34 1.8% 129 6.8% 1890 100%

Queens n % 205 21.5% 60 6.3% 59 6.2% 179 18.8% 57 6.0% 18 1.9% 45 4.7% 217 22.8% 40 4.2% 30 3.1% 43 4.5% 953 100%

Bronx n % 381 25.4% 130 8.7% 80 5.3% 195 13.0% 74 4.9% 38 2.5% 112 7.5% 232 15.4% 129 8.6% 45 3.0% 86 5.7% 1502 100%

n 1475 508 301 1177 371 139 296 1255 426 157 381 6486

Total % 22.7% 7.8% 4.6% 18.1% 5.7% 2.1% 4.6% 19.3% 6.6% 2.4% 5.9% 100%

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Conspiracy (105), Criminal Facilitation (115), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Welfare Fraud (158), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Offenses Involving False Written Statements (175), Insurance Fraud (176), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Other Frauds (190), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), Perjury and Related Offenses (210), 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, FY02 Table 2: Charge Type (Penal Law Article) for the Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment in the Reporting Period for Targeted Misdemeanor Cases by Borough

404 14.2% 987 34.8% 379 13.4% 664 23.4% 2434 85.8% 2837 100.0% 22.4%

76 56 59 2 193

3.3% 2.5% 2.6% 0.1% 8.5%

Queens n % 54 2.4% 179 79 270 14 542

4.8% 2.1% 7.2% 0.4% 14.4%

Bronx n % 62 1.6%

618 16.2% 344 15.1% 740 19.7% 1086 28.5% 1349 59.1% 902 24.0% 459 12.1% 133 5.8% 451 12.0% 1121 29.5% 209 9.2% 1066 28.3% 3284 86.3% 2035 89.2% 3159 83.9% 3804 100.0% 2282 100.0% 3763 100.0% 30.0% 18.0% 29.7%

3.6% 2.3% 6.0% 0.1% 12.0%

137 86 230 5 458

4.2% 2.6% 4.6% 0.2% 11.5%

118 73 130 5 326

*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 % 62 1.6%

Brooklyn n % 77 2.7%

2106 4324 1422 3060 10912 12686

510 294 689 26 1519

16.6% 34.1% 11.2% 24.1% 86.0% 100.0%

4.0% 2.3% 5.4% 0.2% 12.0%

Total n % 255 2.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 3: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Felony Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period by Borough

% 7.8% 0.0% 0.4% 2.0% 0.0% 79.2% 1.2% 0.4% 3.5% 0.8% 3.1% 0.0% 1.6% 100%

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1154 45 0 0 0 1199

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96.2% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Drug

n 20 0 1 5 0 202 3 1 9 2 8 0 4 255

Female Offenders

Juvenile Offenders

Female Offenders

n 49 23 55 0 0 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 294

% 16.7% 7.8% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 56.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Non-Drug Detained

Female Offenders

n 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 26

% 84.6% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Non-Drug Released

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6233 355 0 0 0 6588

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.6% 5.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Drug

Male Offenders

n 448 11 416 28 292 1888 178 75 0 0 791 32 165 4324

% 10.4% 0.3% 9.6% 0.6% 6.8% 43.7% 4.1% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 18.3% 0.7% 3.8% 100%

Non-Drug Detained

n 539 35 472 33 292 2257 181 79 7396 402 799 32 169 12686

% 4.2% 0.3% 3.7% 0.3% 2.3% 17.8% 1.4% 0.6% 58.3% 3.2% 6.3% 0.3% 1.3% 100%

Total

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Solicitation (100), Conspiracy (105), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses (145), Welfare Fraud (158), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Offenses Involving False Written Statements (175), Insurance Fraud (176), Other Frauds (190), Bribery Involving Public Servants and Related Offenses (200), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Prostitution Offenses (230), Obscenity and Related Offenses (235), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Affecting the Marital Relationship (255), Sexual Performance by a Child (263), Other Offenses Relating to Public Safety (270), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), Enterprise Corruption (460), and Money Laundering (470).

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, FY02 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

286

Post-Arraignment

869

583

Arraignment

100.0%

32.9%

67.1%

462

387

100.0%

16.2%

83.8%

100.0%

169

100.0%

103

100.0%

Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Target Groups Target Target Target C02 C03 C04 % n % n % n %

100.0%

Target C01

*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 %

100.0%

708

970

42.2%

57.8%

Total %

100.0% 1678 100.0%

100.0%

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

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 5a: Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period

24.8%

8.4%

13.6% 5.0% 13.9%

15.0%

5.0%

14.2%

49 18 50

1 0 0

0.0%

100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0 0 0

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

97.7%

2.3%

Juvenile Offender

1 0 2

0.0%

25.0% 0.0% 50.0%

0.0%

25.0%

Youthful Offender

0 4 1

4.5%

63.6%

0.0%

0.0% 18.2% 4.5%

0.0%

9.1%

Detained n %

Female Drug

0 6 0

0.0%

56.3%

6.3%

0.0% 37.5% 0.0%

0.0%

Released n %

0 1 0

63.6%

13.6%

9.1%

0.0% 4.5% 0.0%

0.0%

9.1%

Detained n %

Female Non-Drug

0 0 0

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

Felony Target Group Female Drug

25 0 8

0.0%

0.9%

26.4%

23.6% 0.0% 7.5%

0.0%

41.5%

Detained* n %

Male Drug

13 1 11

0.0%

5.0%

43.3%

21.7% 1.7% 18.3%

0.0%

10.0%

Released** n %

22 0 9

0.0%

17.6% 0.0% 7.2%

0.8%

74.4%

Detained n %

Male Non-Drug

Total 359 100.0% 1 100.0% 44 100.0% 4 100.0% 22 100.0% 16 100.0% 22 100.0% 1 100.0% 106 100.0% 60 100.0% 125 100.0% *Includes 46 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 Project Return who was mistakenly targeted as a male. **Includes one case of a female defendant mandated to DAMAS, and three cases of female defendants 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

CASES

ATI Programs

Referral or Misdemeanor Manual Target Target C

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 5b: Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

8.7% 100.0%

66 760

6.4%

14.6%

14.6% 3.9% 10.7%

9.7%

31.3%

Total

111

111 30 81

238

286

Post-Arraignment

869

583

Arraignment

51.8%

40.4%

60.1%

462

387

27.5%

10.6%

39.9%

3.0%

1.0%

2.4%

169

10.1%

23.9%

103

6.1%

14.5%

Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Target Groups Target Target Target C02 C03 C04 % n % n % n %

7.1%

Target C01

Total

CSSP

Time of Mandate

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

0.4%

1.0%

0.1%

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

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 5c: Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period

100.0%

Total

1678

708

970

0.0%

0.0% 0

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0 2

0.0%

0.9% 0.0% 2.5%

0.0%

0.4%

0 4 1

1.5%

28.6%

0.0%

0.0% 13.3% 1.2%

0.0%

0.8%

0 6 0

0.0%

18.4%

0.9%

0.0% 20.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0 1 0

21.2%

6.1%

1.8%

0.0% 3.3% 0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0 0 0

0.0%

2.0%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

25 0 8

0.0%

2.0%

25.2%

22.5% 0.0% 9.9%

0.0%

18.5%

Detained* n %

Male Drug

13 1 11

0.0%

6.1%

23.4%

11.7% 3.3% 13.6%

0.0%

2.5%

Released** n %

22 0 9

0.0%

19.8% 0.0% 11.1%

1.4%

39.1%

Detained n %

Male Non-Drug

111

111 30 81

238

100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

Total

100.0%

77.3%

0.0%

0 0 0

58.1%

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

36.7%

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

0.4%

Detained n %

760

48.6%

1 0 0

0.0%

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

Felony Target Group Female Drug

0.0%

44.1% 60.0% 61.7%

49 18 50

0.0%

Detained n %

Female Drug

Total 359 47.2% 1 0.1% 44 5.8% 4 0.5% 22 2.9% 16 2.1% 22 2.9% 1 0.1% 106 13.9% 60 7.9% 125 16.4% *Includes 46 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 Project Return who was mistakenly targeted as a male. **Includes one case of a female defendant mandated to DAMAS, and three cases of female defendants mandated to Project Return, who were mistakenly targeted as males.

40.5%

Youthful Offender

100.0%

37.4%

Juvenile Offender

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

CASES

ATI Programs

Referral or Misdemeanor Manual Target Target C

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 5d: Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

453 61 32 35 6 18 23 21 18 667

62.3% 14.3% 5.8% 7.7% 1.4% 3.6% 0.5% 0.0% 4.4% 100.0%

2.7% 100.0%

3.1%

3.4%

5.2% 0.9% 2.7%

4.8%

67.9% 9.1%

Manhattan n %

4 367

3 0 2

1.1% 100.0%

0.0%

1.1%

0.8% 0.0% 0.5%

0.3%

91.8% 4.4%

Queens n % 337 16

*One of the cases mandated to STEPS was from Staten Island, but is included in the total for Brooklyn.

CSSP 396 CEP 91 Center for Community Alternatives YAP 37 Fortune Society Freedom 49 DAMAS 9 FlameTree 23 Osborne Association El Rio 3 Project Return Foundation Women's Day Treatment 0 Edwin Gould Services STEPS* 28 Total Mandated 636

CASES

ATI Programs

Brooklyn n %

16 768

24 15 38

492 70

2.1% 100.0%

3.6%

10.5%

3.1% 2.0% 4.9%

0.5%

64.1% 9.1%

Bronx n %

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 6a: ATI Programs to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Borough

66 2438

111

111 30 81

1678 238

2.7% 100.0%

2.0%

4.6%

4.6% 1.2% 3.3%

3.0%

68.8% 9.8%

Total n %

5 days 10 days Total CSSP

Brooklyn 14 3.5% 382 96.5% 396 100.0%

Manhattan 8 1.8% 445 98.2% 453 100.0%

Queens 20 5.9% 317 94.1% 337 100.0%

Bronx 8 1.6% 484 98.4% 492 100.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 6b: Scheduled Days of Community Service Sentences for Cases Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence Total 50 3.0% 1628 97.0% 1678 100.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 7: Demographic and Criminal History Characteristics of Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Program Group Misdemeanor Demographic Information Age at Arrest

14-15 16-18 19-29 30-39 40-49 50 or older

74 293 226 107 50 10 760

9.7% 74 3.0% 38.6% 305 12.5% 29.7% 585 24.0% 14.1% 805 33.0% 6.6% 570 23.4% 1.3% 99 4.1% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

Female 230 13.7% Male 1448 86.3% 1678 100.0%

163 597 760

21.4% 393 16.1% 78.6% 2045 83.9% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

None 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15 or more

50 3.0% 220 13.1% 262 15.6% 474 28.2% 261 15.6% 411 24.5% 1678 100.0%

568 98 41 35 12 6 760

74.7% 618 25.3% 12.9% 318 13.0% 5.4% 303 12.4% 4.6% 509 20.9% 1.6% 273 11.2% 0.8% 417 17.1% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

None 1 2 3 or more

518 30.9% 494 29.4% 295 17.6% 371 22.1% 1678 100.0%

646 74 26 14 760

85.0% 1164 47.7% 9.7% 568 23.3% 3.4% 321 13.2% 1.8% 385 15.8% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

Total Prior Felony Convictions

Total

0 0.0% 12 0.7% 359 21.4% 698 41.6% 520 31.0% 89 5.3% 1678 100.0%

Total Sex

Total Criminal History Information Prior Misdemeanor Convictions

Felony

Page 1 of 2

Misdemeanor Demographic Information

Felony n

Total n

Previous Prison (Indeterminate and Determinate) Sent.

Yes No

747 44.5% 931 55.5% 1678 100.0%

58 702 760

7.6% 805 33.0% 92.4% 1633 67.0% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

None 258 15.4% 1 264 15.7% 2 or more 1156 68.9% 1678 100.0%

672 30 58 760

88.4% 930 38.1% 3.9% 294 12.1% 7.6% 1214 49.8% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

Yes 1235 73.6% No 443 26.4% 1678 100.0%

122 638 760

16.1% 1357 55.7% 83.9% 1081 44.3% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

Yes 33 2.0% No 1645 98.0% 1678 100.0%

18 742 760

2.4% 51 2.1% 97.6% 2387 97.9% 100.0% 2438 100.0%

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

Total

Two or More Previous Bench Warrants Issued

Total Is Defendant Currently on Parole

Total

Page 2 of 2

7.8%

220:Controlled Substances Offenses

265:Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons

17.8% 100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

2.3%

0.0%

90.9%

0.0%

6.8%

Offender

Juvenile

100.0%

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

25.0%

0.0%

Offender

Youthful

100.0%

2.6%

0.0%

97.4%

0.0%

Detained & Released

Female Drug

Felony

100.0%

0.0%

22.7%

18.2%

31.8%

27.3%

Detained

Female Non-Drug

Male Drug

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

166

165

100.0%

0.6%

0.0%

99.4%

0.0%

Released (STEPS) Detained & Released

125

100.0%

4.0%

16.0%

0.0%

63.2%

11.2%

0.0%

5.6%

Detained

Male Non-Drug

760

338

197

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Sex Offenses (130), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses (145), 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), and Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL). **Includes one misdemeanor case mandated to Freedom.

359

37.6%

135

160:Robbery

Missing and Other*

19.8%

140:Burglary and Related Offenses

Total

2.5%

9 3.3%

11.1%

120:Assault and Related Offenses

125: Homicide, Abortion, and Related Offenses

Penal Law Article

Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment

C**

Target %

Target

Manual

Misdemeanor

Referral and

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 8a: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group a. Mandated to Felony Programs

100.0%

9.6%

6.3%

44.5%

25.9%

4.1%

2.2%

7.4%

Total

21 85 21 528 120 315 173 66 1329

1.6% 6.4% 1.6% 39.7% 9.0% 23.7% 13.0% 5.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

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

Target A

3 3 3 12 3 6 14 7 51

5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 23.5% 5.9% 11.8% 27.5% 13.7% 100.0%

Target C01

0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 16

0.0% 0.0% 6.3% 93.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Misdemeanor Target C02

17 27 0 0 25 51 37 12 169

10.1% 16.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.8% 30.2% 21.9% 7.1% 100.0%

Target C03

0 0 8 95 0 0 0 0 103

0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 92.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Target C04

0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 7

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 42.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

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

Felony Male Non-Drug Detained & Released** Detained Male Drug

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Facilitation (115), Robbery (160), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Other Frauds (190), 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), Prostitution Offenses (230), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons (265), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL), and Other Non-Penal Law Offenses (666666). **Includes two 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

Referral and Manual Target

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 8b: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group b. Mandated to CSSP

2.4% 6.9% 2.0% 38.9% 8.9% 22.4% 13.5% 5.1% 100.0%

Total

41 115 33 652 149 376 227 85 1678

1678

Total

100.0%

2.4% 0.0% 6.9% 2.0% 38.9% 0.2% 8.9% 22.4% 13.5% 0.5% 4.4%

238

12 0 15 0 11 105 5 66 0 19 5

100.0%

5.0% 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 4.6% 44.1% 2.1% 27.7% 0.0% 8.0% 2.1%

CEP

3 1 0 0 1 61 0 0 0 1 7

100.0%

4.1% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 82.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 9.5%

YAP

CCA

111

4 0 8 1 2 16 3 53 0 19 5

100.0%

3.6% 0.0% 7.2% 0.9% 1.8% 14.4% 2.7% 47.7% 0.0% 17.1% 4.5%

Freedom

0 0 0 0 3 4 1 18 0 1 3

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 13.3% 3.3% 60.0% 0.0% 3.3% 10.0%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

3 1 3 0 4 7 1 54 0 3 5

100.0%

3.7% 1.2% 3.7% 0.0% 4.9% 8.6% 1.2% 66.7% 0.0% 3.7% 6.2%

FlameTree

111

0 0 0 0 2 2 1 102 1 1 2

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 0.9% 91.9% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8%

El Rio

Osborne

0 1 2 0 1 1 0 42 1 1 0

100.0%

0.0% 2.0% 4.1% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 85.7% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Women's Day Treatment

Project Return

34 14 3 1 1 1 0 3 0 3 6

100.0%

51.5% 21.2% 4.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 4.5% 9.1%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

100.0%

2438

4.0% 0.7% 6.0% 1.4% 27.8% 8.2% 6.6% 29.3% 9.4% 2.3% 4.4%

Total

97 17 146 35 677 200 160 714 229 56 107

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Facilitation (115), Sex Offenses (130), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Arson (150), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Other Frauds (190), 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), Prostitution Offenses (230), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL), and Other Non-Penal Law Offenses (666666).

41 0 115 33 652 3 149 376 227 8 74

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, FY02 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, FY02 Table 10: Demographic Characteristics of Defendants Who Actually Enrolled in the Reporting Period by Program Group Misdemeanor CSSP Demographic Information Residence Status Missing 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 Refused to Answer or Don't Know Total Has Participant Ever Been in Special Education Missing** Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population

4 0.2% 222 13.2% 440 26.2% 424 25.3% 206 12.3% 0 0.0% 151 9.0% 28 1.7% 0 0.0% 193 11.5% 10 0.6% 1678 100.0%

0 0 0 59 11 1 1 0 1 0 0 73

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80.8% 15.1% 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 172 60 2 9 0 6 0 1 250

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 68.8% 24.0% 0.8% 3.6% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.4% 100.0%

0 18 58 85 84 0 18 1 0 1 4 269

0.0% 6.7% 21.6% 31.6% 31.2% 0.0% 6.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 1.5% 100.0%

0 17 23 73 61 0 10 0 2 40 5 231

0.0% 4 0.2% 7.4% 257 10.3% 10.0% 521 20.8% 31.6% 813 32.5% 26.4% 422 16.9% 0.0% 3 0.1% 4.3% 189 7.6% 0.0% 29 1.2% 0.9% 9 0.4% 17.3% 234 9.4% 2.2% 20 0.8% 100.0% 2501 100.0%

0 0.0% 494 26.1% 472 24.9% 35 1.8% 0 0.0% 124 6.6% 11 0.6% 757 40.0% 0 0.0% 1893 100.0%

0 2 2 1 0 0 1 59 6 71

0.0% 2.8% 2.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 83.1% 8.5% 100.0%

0 11 6 0 0 3 5 200 6 231

0.0% 4.8% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 2.2% 86.6% 2.6% 100.0%

2 59 17 2 8 14 13 119 2 236

0.8% 25.0% 7.2% 0.8% 3.4% 5.9% 5.5% 50.4% 0.8% 100.0%

10 51 23 1 3 13 4 93 7 205

4.9% 12 0.5% 24.9% 617 23.4% 11.2% 520 19.7% 0.5% 39 1.5% 1.5% 11 0.4% 6.3% 154 5.8% 2.0% 34 1.3% 45.4% 1228 46.6% 3.4% 21 0.8% 100.0% 2636 100.0%

1277 76.1% 234 13.9% 167 10.0% 1678 100.0%

68 1 2 71

95.8% 1.4% 2.8% 100.0%

221 4 4 229

96.5% 1.7% 1.7% 100.0%

221 9 5 235

94.0% 3.8% 2.1% 100.0%

193 5 4 202

95.5% 1980 82.0% 2.5% 253 10.5% 2.0% 182 7.5% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

0 0.0% 10 0.6% 1667 99.3% 1 0.1% 1678 100.0%

0 63 8 0 71

0.0% 88.7% 11.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 42 186 0 229

0.4% 18.3% 81.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 7 228 0 235

0.0% 3.0% 97.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 18 183 0 202

0.5% 2 0.1% 8.9% 140 5.8% 90.6% 2272 94.1% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

1678 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1678 100.0%

0 19 52 0 71

0.0% 26.8% 73.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 59 166 4 229

0.0% 25.8% 72.5% 1.7% 100.0%

0 29 204 2 235

0.0% 12.3% 86.8% 0.9% 100.0%

0 23 172 7 202

0.0% 1678 69.5% 11.4% 130 5.4% 85.1% 594 24.6% 3.5% 13 0.5% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

* Total is greater than 2,415 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 Total Can Participant Speak English? Missing Yes No Total Psychological/Emotional Issues Has Part. Ever Been Treated for Psych./Emotional Problems Missing Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Is Participant Currently Prescribed Psychotropic Drugs Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Scheduled Time at Program Monitored Cases 5 Hours/Week 22.5 Hours/Week 1 Session/Week 2 Sessions/Week 3 Sessions/Week 5 Sessions/Week 4.5 or 5 Hours/Day 7 Hours/Day Total

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population

9 0.5% 38 2.3% 22 1.3% 47 2.8% 134 8.0% 297 17.7% 447 26.6% 458 27.3% 226 13.5% 1678 100.0%

0 3 11 34 17 5 0 1 0 71

0.0% 4.2% 15.5% 47.9% 23.9% 7.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1 2 1 49 89 57 25 5 0 229

0.4% 0.9% 0.4% 21.4% 38.9% 24.9% 10.9% 2.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 6 3 14 28 74 69 37 4 235

0.0% 2.6% 1.3% 6.0% 11.9% 31.5% 29.4% 15.7% 1.7% 100.0%

1 3 2 16 25 62 47 37 9 202

0.5% 11 0.5% 1.5% 52 2.2% 1.0% 39 1.6% 7.9% 160 6.6% 12.4% 293 12.1% 30.7% 495 20.5% 23.3% 588 24.3% 18.3% 538 22.3% 4.5% 239 9.9% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

4 0.2% 1645 98.0% 29 1.7% 1678 100.0%

0 69 2 71

0.0% 97.2% 2.8% 100.0%

0 226 3 229

0.0% 98.7% 1.3% 100.0%

0 224 11 235

0.0% 95.3% 4.7% 100.0%

1 196 5 202

0.5% 5 0.2% 97.0% 2360 97.7% 2.5% 50 2.1% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

0 0.0% 1638 97.6% 40 2.4% 1678 100.0%

0 71 0 71

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 227 2 229

0.0% 99.1% 0.9% 100.0%

0 229 6 235

0.0% 97.4% 2.6% 100.0%

1 197 4 202

0.5% 1 0.0% 97.5% 2362 97.8% 2.0% 52 2.2% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

1 0.1% 4 0.2% 1673 99.7% 0 0.0% 1678 100.0%

0 20 51 0 71

0.0% 28.2% 71.8% 0.0% 100.0%

0 37 191 1 229

0.0% 16.2% 83.4% 0.4% 100.0%

0 33 202 0 235

0.0% 14.0% 86.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 46 155 1 202

0.0% 1 0.0% 22.8% 140 5.8% 76.7% 2272 94.1% 0.5% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

22 1.3% 1656 98.7% 0 0.0% 1678 100.0%

4 67 0 71

5.6% 94.4% 0.0% 100.0%

7 222 0 229

3.1% 96.9% 0.0% 100.0%

16 219 0 235

6.8% 93.2% 0.0% 100.0%

28 173 1 202

13.9% 77 3.2% 85.6% 2337 96.8% 0.5% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2415 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% 1678 100.0% 1678 100.0%

3 0 0 0 11 57 0 0 0 71

4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5% 80.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 229 0 0 229

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

0 2 40 0 0 0 79 114 0 235

0.0% 0.9% 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.6% 48.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 44 19 2 137 0 0 202

0.0% 3 0.1% 0.0% 2 0.1% 0.0% 40 1.7% 21.8% 44 1.8% 9.4% 30 1.2% 1.0% 59 2.4% 67.8% 445 18.4% 0.0% 114 4.7% 0.0% 1678 69.5% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

Page 2 of 2

Total n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 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

1277 76.1% 77 4.6% 92 5.5% 152 9.1% 80 4.8% 1678 100.0%

56 10 3 2 0 71

78.9% 14.1% 4.2% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%

163 27 20 14 5 229

71.2% 11.8% 8.7% 6.1% 2.2% 100.0%

120 31 8 47 29 235

51.1% 13.2% 3.4% 20.0% 12.3% 100.0%

130 29 18 20 5 202

64.4% 1746 72.3% 14.4% 174 7.2% 8.9% 141 5.8% 9.9% 235 9.7% 2.5% 119 4.9% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

1269 75.6% 58 3.5% 57 3.4% 121 7.2% 172 10.3% 1 0.1% 1678 100.0%

40 7 8 8 8 0 71

56.3% 9.9% 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% 0.0% 100.0%

96 15 19 31 68 0 229

41.9% 6.6% 8.3% 13.5% 29.7% 0.0% 100.0%

74 7 6 30 118 0 235

31.5% 3.0% 2.6% 12.8% 50.2% 0.0% 100.0%

127 10 10 21 34 0 202

62.9% 1606 66.5% 5.0% 97 4.0% 5.0% 100 4.1% 10.4% 211 8.7% 16.8% 400 16.6% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

1412 84.1% 28 1.7% 32 1.9% 92 5.5% 112 6.7% 2 0.1% 1678 100.0%

71 0 0 0 0 0 71

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

228 1 0 0 0 0 229

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

186 5 5 17 22 0 235

79.1% 2.1% 2.1% 7.2% 9.4% 0.0% 100.0%

196 4 1 1 0 0 202

97.0% 2093 86.7% 2.0% 38 1.6% 0.5% 38 1.6% 0.5% 110 4.6% 0.0% 134 5.5% 0.0% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

1592 94.9% 15 0.9% 20 1.2% 30 1.8% 20 1.2% 1 0.1% 1678 100.0%

70 1 0 0 0 0 71

98.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

227 1 0 1 0 0 229

99.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

191 9 9 20 6 0 235

81.3% 3.8% 3.8% 8.5% 2.6% 0.0% 100.0%

200 2 0 0 0 0 202

99.0% 2280 94.4% 1.0% 28 1.2% 0.0% 29 1.2% 0.0% 51 2.1% 0.0% 26 1.1% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

1393 83.0% 21 1.3% 22 1.3% 46 2.7% 196 11.7% 1678 100.0%

71 0 0 0 0 71

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

227 1 0 0 1 229

99.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 100.0%

202 4 3 2 24 235

86.0% 1.7% 1.3% 0.9% 10.2% 100.0%

196 4 0 1 1 202

97.0% 2089 86.5% 2.0% 30 1.2% 0.0% 25 1.0% 0.5% 49 2.0% 0.5% 222 9.2% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

Frequency of Alcohol Use In Past 30 Days None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily Total Frequency of Marijuana Use In Past 30 Days None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily Refused to Answer Total Frequency of Crack Use In Past 30 Days None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily Refused to Answer Total Frequency of Cocaine Use In Past 30 Days None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily Refused to Answer Total Frequency of Heroin Use In Past 30 Days None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily Total

Page 1 of 2

Misdemeanor CSSP n

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population %

Total

1384 82.5% 9 0.5% 6 0.4% 13 0.8% 265 15.8% 1 0.1% 1678 100.0%

71 0 0 0 0 0 71

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

229 0 0 0 0 0 229

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

228 0 1 0 6 0 235

97.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 100.0%

193 4 0 0 5 0 202

95.5% 2105 87.2% 2.0% 13 0.5% 0.0% 7 0.3% 0.0% 13 0.5% 2.5% 276 11.4% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

2 0.1% 258 15.4% 61 3.6% 4 0.2% 1353 80.6% 0 0.0% 1678 100.0%

0 0 0 1 69 1 71

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 97.2% 1.4% 100.0%

0 0 9 0 220 0 229

0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 96.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 6 48 4 176 1 235

0.0% 2.6% 20.4% 1.7% 74.9% 0.4% 100.0%

0 6 7 5 184 0 202

0.0% 2 0.1% 3.0% 270 11.2% 3.5% 125 5.2% 2.5% 14 0.6% 91.1% 2002 82.9% 0.0% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

0 0.0% 749 44.6% 927 55.2% 2 0.1% 1678 100.0%

1 2 65 3 71

1.4% 2.8% 91.5% 4.2% 100.0%

0 14 214 1 229

0.0% 6.1% 93.4% 0.4% 100.0%

0 181 52 2 235

0.0% 77.0% 22.1% 0.9% 100.0%

1 23 178 0 202

0.5% 2 0.1% 11.4% 969 40.1% 88.1% 1436 59.5% 0.0% 8 0.3% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

195 11.6% 1483 88.4% 0 0.0% 1678 100.0%

0 67 4 71

0.0% 94.4% 5.6% 100.0%

3 225 1 229

1.3% 98.3% 0.4% 100.0%

73 159 3 235

31.1% 67.7% 1.3% 100.0%

14 188 0 202

6.9% 285 11.8% 93.1% 2122 87.9% 0.0% 8 0.3% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

785 46.8% 893 53.2% 1678 100.0%

15 56 71

21.1% 78.9% 100.0%

57 172 229

24.9% 75.1% 100.0%

208 27 235

88.5% 11.5% 100.0%

41 161 202

20.3% 1106 45.8% 79.7% 1309 54.2% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

69 4.1% 1609 95.9% 1678 100.0%

2 69 71

2.8% 97.2% 100.0%

12 217 229

5.2% 94.8% 100.0%

96 139 235

40.9% 59.1% 100.0%

17 185 202

8.4% 196 8.1% 91.6% 2219 91.9% 100.0% 2415 100.0%

Frequency of Methadone Use In Past 30 Days None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily Refused to Answer Total Was Part. in Drug/Alcohol Treatment Immediately Before Intake Missing Yes, Methadone Maintenance Yes, Drug Day-Treatment Program Yes, Alcohol Treatment Program No Refused to Answer Total Does Part. Characterize His/Her Drug Use as a Problem Information Not Available Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Does Part. Characterize His/Her Alcohol Use as a Problem Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Does Prog. Characterize Participant's Drug Use as a Problem Yes No Total Does Prog. Characterize Participant's Alcohol Use as a Problem Yes No Total

Page 2 of 2

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 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

0 30 44 0 74

0.0% 40.5% 59.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 12 215 11 238

0.0% 5.0% 90.3% 4.6% 100.0%

2 25 201 13 241

0.8% 10.4% 83.4% 5.4% 100.0%

1 66 133 7 207

0.5% 31.9% 64.3% 3.4% 100.0%

3 133 593 31 760

0.4% 17.5% 78.0% 4.1% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 44 44

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

1 5 0 0 220 226

0.4% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 97.3% 100.0%

17 138 2 13 44 214

7.9% 64.5% 0.9% 6.1% 20.6% 100.0%

4 42 0 14 80 140

2.9% 30.0% 0.0% 10.0% 57.1% 100.0%

22 185 2 27 388 624

3.5% 29.6% 0.3% 4.3% 62.2% 100.0%

0 0 31 5 0 8 0 44

0.0% 0.0% 70.5% 11.4% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 100.0%

0 1 179 42 0 3 1 226

0.0% 0.4% 79.2% 18.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.4% 100.0%

74 17 87 0 0 19 17 214

34.6% 7.9% 40.7% 0.0% 0.0% 8.9% 7.9% 100.0%

9 8 98 6 1 14 4 140

6.4% 5.7% 70.0% 4.3% 0.7% 10.0% 2.9% 100.0%

83 26 395 53 1 44 22 624

13.3% 4.2% 63.3% 8.5% 0.2% 7.1% 3.5% 100.0%

30 0 14 0 44

68.2% 0.0% 31.8% 0.0% 100.0%

170 18 31 7 226

75.2% 8.0% 13.7% 3.1% 100.0%

13 3 10 188 214

6.1% 1.4% 4.7% 87.9% 100.0%

17 4 9 110 140

12.1% 2.9% 6.4% 78.6% 100.0%

230 25 64 305 624

36.9% 4.0% 10.3% 48.9% 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 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 Other Subtotal Pending Total All Mandated Cases

Program requirements and court conditions Program requirements and transfer placemen

Drug use Mental illness Non-compliance with treatment plan Other Abated Subtotal Not Completed Completed: Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only

Not Completed: No Show Transfer: 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 2.3%

6.1% 1.5% 26.7% 0.8% 0.0% 35.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 8.4% 2.3% 0.8% 1.5% 16.8% 51.9% 45.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.8% 100.0%

8 2 35 1 0 46 4 0 1 0 11 3 1 2 22 68 60 0 0 0 60 131

0.0%

0 0 0 95 341

39 7 31 9 8 25 5 2 126 235

103 0 0 0 6 109

0 0 0 0 2 11

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.9% 100.0%

27.9%

11.4% 2.1% 9.1% 2.6% 2.3% 7.3% 1.5% 0.6% 37.0% 68.9%

30.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 32.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.2%

2.6%

CEP

YAP

1 0 0 2 0 3

CASES

CCA

0 0 0 68 162

23 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 28 91

57 0 5 0 1 63

0 0 0 0 0 3

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.0% 100.0%

42.0%

14.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 17.3% 56.2%

35.2% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.6% 38.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

1.9%

Freedom

0 0 0 13 55

7 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 13 42

23 0 6 0 0 29

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.6% 100.0%

23.6%

12.7% 0.0% 7.3% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 23.6% 76.4%

41.8% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 52.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

0 0 1 38 124

20 1 4 0 8 2 1 1 37 81

27 0 16 0 1 44

0 0 0 2 1 5

0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 30.6% 100.0%

29.8%

16.1% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0% 6.5% 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 29.8% 65.3%

21.8% 0.0% 12.9% 0.0% 0.8% 35.5%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 4.0%

1.6%

FlameTree

0 0 0 64 233

43 0 8 2 14 7 8 5 87 152

43 1 18 0 3 65

8 2 4 1 1 17

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.5% 100.0%

27.5%

18.5% 0.0% 3.4% 0.9% 6.0% 3.0% 3.4% 2.1% 37.3% 65.2%

18.5% 0.4% 7.7% 0.0% 1.3% 27.9%

3.4% 0.9% 1.7% 0.4% 0.4% 7.3%

0.4%

El Rio

Osborne

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases Active in the Reporting Period by ATI Program

2 1 1 13 85

22 1 4 0 5 0 4 3 39 66

23 0 0 0 4 27

0 0 0 0 0 6

2.4% 1.2% 1.2% 15.3% 100.0%

10.6%

25.9% 1.2% 4.7% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 4.7% 3.5% 45.9% 77.6%

27.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 31.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1%

7.1%

Women's Day Treatment n %

Project Return

1 0 1 36 96

11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 54

11 4 28 0 0 43

1 3 0 0 0 6

1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 37.5% 100.0%

35.4%

11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 56.3%

11.5% 4.2% 29.2% 0.0% 0.0% 44.8%

1.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.3%

2.1%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

3 1 3 387 1227

380

169 10 52 11 49 38 20 14 363 789

295 7 108 1 15 426

10 5 4 5 4 51

0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 31.5% 100.0%

31.0%

13.8% 0.8% 4.2% 0.9% 4.0% 3.1% 1.6% 1.1% 29.6% 64.3%

24.0% 0.6% 8.8% 0.1% 1.2% 34.7%

0.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 4.2%

1.9%

Total

Subtotal Not Completed

Drug use Other

Subtotal Completed

Drug use Subtotal Pending

Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Total All YAP Cases

Pending:

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

Completed:

Abated

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 5 57

0.0% 8.8% 100.0%

8.8%

5.3% 1.8% 10.5% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 21.1% 89.5%

3 1 6 1 0 1 12 51 5

14.0% 0.0% 52.6% 1.8% 68.4%

1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

0.0%

8 0 30 1 39

1 0 0 1

Released Prior to Fiscal Year n %

CCA YAP

0 55 74

1 0 5 2 1 1 10 17

0 2 5 0 7

0 2 0 2

0.0% 74.3% 100.0%

74.3%

1.4% 0.0% 6.8% 2.7% 1.4% 1.4% 13.5% 23.0%

0.0% 2.7% 6.8% 0.0% 9.5%

0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7%

0.0%

Fiscal Year 02

0 60 131

4 1 11 3 1 2 22 68

8 2 35 1 46

1 2 0 3

0.8% 1.5% 0.0% 2.3%

0.0%

0.0% 45.8% 100.0%

45.8%

3.1% 0.8% 8.4% 2.3% 0.8% 1.5% 16.8% 51.9%

6.1% 1.5% 26.7% 0.8% 35.1%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13a: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in YAP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Completed

Drug use Subtotal Pending

Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Total All CEP Cases

Pending:

Subtotal Not Completed

Mental Illness Drug use Other

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:

Abated

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 1 103

0.0% 1.0% 100.0%

1.0%

7.8% 1.9% 7.8% 3.9% 3.9% 10.7% 1.0% 1.0% 37.9% 97.1%

8 2 8 4 4 11 1 1 39 100 1

56.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 59.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9%

1.0%

58 0 0 3 61

0 0 0 1 2

0 94 238

31 5 23 5 4 14 4 1 87 135

45 0 0 3 48

0 0 0 1 9

0.0% 39.5% 100.0%

39.5%

13.0% 2.1% 9.7% 2.1% 1.7% 5.9% 1.7% 0.4% 36.6% 56.7%

18.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 20.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 3.8%

3.4%

CASES CEP Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

0 95 341

39 7 31 9 8 25 5 2 126 235

103 0 0 6 109

0 0 0 2 11

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 3.2%

2.6%

0.0% 27.9% 100.0%

27.9%

11.4% 2.1% 9.1% 2.6% 2.3% 7.3% 1.5% 0.6% 37.0% 68.9%

30.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 32.0%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13b: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in CEP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Status

Subtotal Not Completed

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

No Show Transfer:

Total All Freedom Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 51

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 19.6% 100.0%

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 51 0

70.6% 7.8% 2.0% 80.4%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

36 4 1 41

0 0 0 0 0

0 68 111

14 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 18 40

21 1 0 22

0 0 0 0 3

0.0% 61.3% 100.0%

61.3%

12.6% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2% 36.0%

18.9% 0.9% 0.0% 19.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7%

2.7%

Fortune Society Freedom Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

0 68 162

23 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 28 91

57 5 1 63

0 0 0 0 3

42.0%

14.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 17.3% 56.2%

35.2% 3.1% 0.6% 38.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%

1.9%

0.0% 42.0% 100.0%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13c: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Active Cases Monitored Transfer: Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

Abated

Drug use Mental illness

Subtotal Not Completed

Status No Show Transfer:

Total All DAMAS Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 25

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

8.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.0% 100.0%

2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 25 0

68.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 88.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

17 0 5 0 22

0 0 0 0

0 13 30

5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 10 17

6 0 1 0 7

0 0 0 0

0.0% 43.3% 100.0%

43.3%

16.7% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 33.3% 56.7%

20.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.0% 23.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Fortune Society DAMAS Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

0 13 55

7 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 13 42

23 0 6 0 29

0 0 0 0

23.6%

12.7% 0.0% 7.3% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 23.6% 76.4%

41.8% 0.0% 10.9% 0.0% 52.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

0.0% 23.6% 100.0%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13d: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Not Completed

Drug use Other

Active Cases Monitored Transfer: Other Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

Abated

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All FlameTree Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 43

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

18.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 97.7%

8 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 11 42 0

41.9% 0.0% 27.9% 2.3% 72.1%

0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3%

0.0%

18 0 12 1 31

0 1 0 1

1 38 81

12 1 4 0 6 1 1 1 26 39

9 0 4 0 13

0 1 1 4

1.2% 46.9% 100.0%

45.7%

14.8% 1.2% 4.9% 0.0% 7.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 32.1% 48.1%

11.1% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 16.0%

0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 4.9%

2.5%

Fortune Society FlameTree Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

1 38 124

20 1 4 0 8 2 1 1 37 81

27 0 16 1 44

0 2 1 5

29.8%

16.1% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0% 6.5% 1.6% 0.8% 0.8% 29.8% 65.3%

21.8% 0.0% 12.9% 0.8% 35.5%

0.0% 1.6% 0.8% 4.0%

1.6%

0.8% 30.6% 100.0%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13e: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Pending

Drug use

Subtotal Completed Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Total All El Rio Cases

Pending:

Subtotal Not Completed Successful Completion: Program requirements only Program requirements and court conditions Court conditions only 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 Non-compliance with treatment plan Other Subtotal Transfer Abated

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

11.5% 0.0% 11.5% 100.0%

0 14 122

18.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.8% 10.7% 2.5% 2.5% 1.6% 38.5% 79.5%

22 0 3 1 13 3 3 2 47 97 14

26.2% 11.5% 0.8% 2.5% 41.0%

0.0% 5.7% 3.3% 0.0% 9.0% 0.0% 9.0%

0.0%

32 14 1 3 50

0 7 4 0 11 0 11

0 50 111

21 0 5 1 1 4 5 3 40 55

11 4 0 0 15

2 1 0 1 4 1 6

0.0% 45.0% 100.0%

45.0%

18.9% 0.0% 4.5% 0.9% 0.9% 3.6% 4.5% 2.7% 36.0% 49.5%

9.9% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 13.5%

1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9% 3.6% 0.9% 5.4%

0.9%

Osborne El Rio Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

0 64 233

43 0 8 2 14 7 8 5 87 152

43 18 1 3 65

2 8 4 1 15 1 17

0.9% 3.4% 1.7% 0.4% 6.4% 0.4% 7.3%

0.4%

0.0% 27.5% 100.0%

27.5%

18.5% 0.0% 3.4% 0.9% 6.0% 3.0% 3.4% 2.1% 37.3% 65.2%

18.5% 7.7% 0.4% 1.3% 27.9%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13f: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Subtotal Not Completed

Mental illness

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

Abated

No Show Transfer:

Status

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

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 100.0%

0 0 0 1 36

27.8% 2.8% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 2.8% 50.0% 88.9%

10 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 18 32 1

33.3% 0.0% 5.6% 38.9%

0.0% 0.0% 8.3%

8.3%

12 0 2 14

0 0 3

1 2 1 12 49

12 0 2 0 3 0 2 2 21 34

11 0 2 13

0 0 3

2.0% 4.1% 2.0% 24.5% 100.0%

16.3%

24.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 4.1% 4.1% 42.9% 69.4%

22.4% 0.0% 4.1% 26.5%

0.0% 0.0% 6.1%

6.1%

Project Return Women's Day Treatment Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

1 2 1 13 85

22 1 4 0 5 0 4 3 39 66

23 0 4 27

0 0 6

0.0% 0.0% 7.1%

7.1%

1.2% 2.4% 1.2% 15.3% 100.0%

10.6%

25.9% 1.2% 4.7% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 4.7% 3.5% 45.9% 77.6%

27.1% 0.0% 4.7% 31.8%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13g: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Drug use Other Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Total All STEPS Cases

Pending:

Drug use Mental illness Subtotal Not Completed

Status

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:

Abated

Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 0 1 30

0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0%

3.3%

16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 90.0%

5 0 0 0 0 0 5 27 1

23.3% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 73.3%

0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7%

0.0%

7 0 15 0 22

0 2 0 2

1 1 35 66

6 0 0 0 0 0 6 27

4 4 13 0 21

1 1 0 4

1.5% 1.5% 53.0% 100.0%

50.0%

9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 40.9%

6.1% 6.1% 19.7% 0.0% 31.8%

1.5% 1.5% 0.0% 6.1%

3.0%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 02 n % n %

1 1 36 96

11 0 0 0 0 0 11 54

11 4 28 0 43

1 3 0 6

35.4%

11.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 56.3%

11.5% 4.2% 29.2% 0.0% 44.8%

1.0% 3.1% 0.0% 6.3%

2.1%

1.0% 1.0% 37.5% 100.0%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 13h: Program Status as of June 30, 2002, for Felony Cases in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51

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

n 0 0 50 Drug Use Mental Illness Physical Illness Unknown

No Show Abated Successful Completion Modified:

Status

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

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0%

5 Days

172 9 78 2 4 261 100 1754

1 2 1 26

n 110 1 1248

9.8% 0.5% 4.4% 0.1% 0.2% 14.9% 5.7% 100.0%

0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.5%

% 6.3% 0.1% 71.2%

10 Days

172 9 78 2 4 261 100 1805

1 2 1 27

9.5% 0.5% 4.3% 0.1% 0.2% 14.5% 5.5% 100.0%

0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1.5%

% 6.1% 0.1% 71.9%

Total n 110 1 1298

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 14: Status as of June 30, 2002 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 FY02

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Third Quarter FY02

Status

Abated No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal First Half FY02

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Prior to FY

Status

Total CSSP

429

2 65 0 20 13 100

9 92 0 18 119

0 9 131 6 31 177

0 19 3 11 33

% 2.0% 65.0% 0.0% 20.0% 13.0% 100.0%

Brooklyn

7.6% 77.3% 0.0% 15.1% 100.0%

Brooklyn

0.0% 5.1% 74.0% 3.4% 17.5% 100.0%

Brooklyn

0.0% 57.6% 9.1% 33.3% 100.0%

Brooklyn

Manhattan %

481

% 5.4% 63.9% 0.0% 9.5% 21.1% 100.0%

Manhattan 8 94 0 14 31 147

368

1 44 1 12 25 83

4 3.5% 3 91 79.8% 79 2 1.8% 4 17 14.9% 11 114 100.0% 97 Mandated in Fourth Quarter FY02

1 0.5% 0 17 8.9% 12 134 69.8% 123 4 2.1% 3 36 18.8% 19 192 100.0% 157 Mandated in Third Quarter FY02

2 7.1% 1 20 71.4% 23 0 0.0% 1 6 21.4% 6 28 100.0% 31 Mandated in First Half FY02

Mandated Prior to Fiscal Year %

% 1.2% 53.0% 1.2% 14.5% 30.1% 100.0%

Queens

3.1% 81.4% 4.1% 11.3% 100.0%

Queens

0.0% 7.6% 78.3% 1.9% 12.1% 100.0%

Queens

3.2% 74.2% 3.2% 19.4% 100.0%

Queens

527

9 79 0 5 31 124

11 118 2 15 146

0 19 158 5 40 222

3 28 0 4 35

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 15: Status as of June 30, 2002 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence and Time of Mandate

% 7.3% 63.7% 0.0% 4.0% 25.0% 100.0%

Bronx

7.5% 80.8% 1.4% 10.3% 100.0%

Bronx

0.0% 8.6% 71.2% 2.3% 18.0% 100.0%

Bronx

8.6% 80.0% 0.0% 11.4% 100.0%

Bronx

1805

20 282 1 51 100 454

27 380 8 61 476

1 57 546 18 126 748

6 90 4 27 127

Total

4.4% 62.1% 0.2% 11.2% 22.0% 100.0%

5.7% 79.8% 1.7% 12.8% 100.0%

0.1% 7.6% 73.0% 2.4% 16.8% 100.0%

4.7% 70.9% 3.1% 21.3% 100.0%

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

1.8%

10.0%

26.4%

25.5%

36.4%

0.0%

100.0%

110

No Show

0.9%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

Abated

100.0%

6.5%

9.7%

29.0%

45.2%

9.7%

0.0%

Modified

1298

245

303

548

170

100.0%

0.0%

1.5%

18.9%

23.3%

42.2%

13.1%

0.9%

Successful Completion

265

150

100.0%

0.0%

3.8%

56.6%

20.4%

11.7%

6.4%

1.1%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 16: Length of Time in CSSP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

100

100.0%

0.0%

2.0%

11.0%

5.0%

23.0%

36.0%

Active

1805

461

393

631

221

2.9%

100.0%

0.1%

0.2%

2.3%

25.5%

21.8%

35.0%

12.2%

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

6.9%

9.9%

6.9%

13.0%

5.3%

6.1%

20.6%

19.8%

4.6%

0.0% 100.0%

0 131

0 341

102

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.1%

29.9%

22.0%

10.0%

8.8%

9.1%

18.2%

CEP

YAP

CASES

CCA

0 162

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

2.5%

10.5%

26.5%

17.9%

11.7%

12.3%

4.9%

13.0%

Freedom

0 55

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

3.6%

5.5%

47.3%

10.9%

7.3%

9.1%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

0 124

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.4%

4.0%

30.6%

17.7%

16.9%

12.9%

6.5%

8.9%

FlameTree

2 233

0.9% 100.0%

2.6%

15.9%

17.2%

12.0%

8.6%

12.9%

6.0%

8.6%

9.4%

El Rio

Osborne

0 85

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.4%

3.5%

17.6%

9.4%

12.9%

10.6%

9.4%

18.8%

15.3%

Women's Day Treatment

1 96

1.0% 100.0%

3.1%

6.3%

19.8%

10.4%

14.6%

21.9%

5.2%

13.5%

2.1%

Services STEPS

Project Return Edwin Gould

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 17: Length of Time in Felony Programs as of June 30, 2002, for Cases Active in the Reporting Period by Program

3 1227

258

211

115

114

103

145

0.2% 100.0%

1.2%

5.9%

8.0%

7.6%

21.0%

17.2%

9.4%

9.3%

8.4%

11.8%

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

21 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23

91.3% 0.0% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 7 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 0 24

12.5% 0.0% 29.2% 8.3% 8.3% 4.2% 4.2% 8.3% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 100.0%

Transfer n

No Show

1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Abated

1 0 9 5 29 222 57 50 42 9 2 426

0.2% 0.0% 2.1% 1.2% 6.8% 52.1% 13.4% 11.7% 9.9% 2.1% 0.5% 100.0%

Completion

Successful

54 61 40 53 92 18 21 14 7 2 1 363

14.9% 16.8% 11.0% 14.6% 25.3% 5.0% 5.8% 3.9% 1.9% 0.6% 0.3% 100.0%

Termination

Unsuccessful

1 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 7

14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.1% 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Transfer

Monitored

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18: Length of Time in Felony Programs for Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

16.8% 10.8% 14.7% 14.2% 21.8% 4.5% 3.7% 7.9% 5.3% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Active

64 41 56 54 83 17 14 30 20 1 0 380

11.8% 8.4% 9.3% 9.4% 17.2% 21.0% 7.6% 8.0% 5.9% 1.2% 0.2% 100.0%

Total

145 103 114 115 211 258 93 98 72 15 3 1227

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 Total 0.0% 0.0%

0 0

100.0%

0.0%

33.3%

0.0%

66.7%

Transfer

100.0%

8.7%

39.1%

34.8%

4.3%

6.5%

4.3%

0.0%

2.2%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

4.5%

13.6%

18.2%

9.1%

31.8%

0.0%

4.5%

9.1%

0.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

8.3%

11.7%

6.7%

3.3%

13.3%

15.0%

11.7%

18.3%

11.7%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18a: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in YAP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

131

6.9%

9.9%

6.9%

100.0%

4.6%

19.8%

20.6%

6.1%

5.3%

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 Total 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Abated

109

100.0%

0.0%

6.4%

87.2%

6.4%

0.0%

Successful Completion

126

100.0%

0.0%

5.6%

32.5%

14.3%

11.9%

14.3%

21.4%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18b: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in CEP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

100.0%

0.0%

27.4%

16.8%

14.7%

13.7%

27.4%

Active

341

102

100.0%

0.0%

2.1%

29.9%

22.0%

10.0%

8.8%

9.1%

18.2%

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 Total 100.0% 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 3

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

1.6%

4.8%

22.2%

61.9%

7.9%

1.6%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

10.7%

3.6%

17.9%

14.3%

17.9%

10.7%

25.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

1.5%

0.0%

4.4%

27.9%

20.6%

22.1%

7.4%

16.2%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18c: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

162

100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

2.5%

10.5%

26.5%

17.9%

11.7%

12.3%

4.9%

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 Total 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 89.7% 3.4% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 26 1 2 0 0 29

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

15.4%

0.0%

15.4%

23.1%

Unsuccessful Termination

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

30.8%

15.4%

23.1%

15.4%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18d: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

7.3%

9.1%

100.0%

0.0%

3.6%

5.5%

47.3%

10.9%

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 Total

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Abated

100.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

2.3%

9.1%

84.1%

2.3%

0.0%

2.3%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

2.7%

24.3%

35.1%

10.8%

8.1%

16.2%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Monitored Transfer

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18e: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

100.0%

0.0%

2.7%

0.0%

29.7%

21.6%

27.0%

10.8%

8.1%

Active

124

6.5%

8.9%

100.0%

0.0%

2.4%

4.0%

30.6%

17.7%

16.9%

12.9%

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%

100.0%

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Abated

100.0%

0.0%

6.7%

20.0%

13.3%

6.7%

26.7%

0.0%

6.7%

Transfer

100.0%

1.5%

6.2%

24.6%

13.8%

9.2%

10.8%

4.6%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

1.1%

4.6%

9.2%

11.5%

6.9%

24.1%

8.0%

5.7%

19.5%

8.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18f: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

100.0%

0.0%

21.9%

12.5%

10.9%

1.6%

4.7%

3.1%

4.7%

18.8%

Active

233

6.0%

8.6%

9.4%

100.0%

0.9%

2.6%

15.9%

17.2%

12.0%

8.6%

12.9%

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 Total

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

3.7%

11.1%

51.9%

29.6%

3.7%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

2.6%

0.0%

7.7%

20.5%

17.9%

41.0%

10.3%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

75.0%

0.0%

25.0%

Monitored Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

44.4%

11.1%

0.0%

22.2%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 18g: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

100.0%

0.0%

2.4%

3.5%

17.6%

9.4%

12.9%

10.6%

9.4%

18.8%

15.3%

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%

50.0%

0.0%

100.0%

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

25.0%

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

2.3%

14.0%

20.9%

14.0%

18.6%

14.0%

2.3%

9.3%

0.0%

2.3%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

18.2%

9.1%

36.4%

9.1%

0.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Monitored Transfer

Table 18h: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2002

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services

100.0%

0.0%

2.9%

0.0%

20.6%

5.9%

14.7%

29.4%

2.9%

14.7%

5.9%

2.9%

Active

2.1%

100.0%

1.0%

3.1%

6.3%

19.8%

10.4%

14.6%

21.9%

5.2%

13.5%

Total

1805

1 262 2 43 3 7 4 1 Subtotal 313 none 1492

Rearrest Count

341

255

100.0%

82.7%

0.0%

0.1%

0.4%

17.3%

1.5%

100.0%

74.8%

25.2%

2.1%

21.7%

2.4%

CEP

14.5%

CSSP

CASES

131

121

100.0%

92.4%

7.6%

0.0%

7.6%

YAP

CCA

100.0%

92.7%

7.3%

0.0%

7.3%

DAMAS

124

100.0%

70.2%

29.8%

0.0%

1.6%

4.0%

24.2%

FlameTree

Fortune Society

162

126

100.0%

77.8%

22.2%

0.0%

0.6%

2.5%

19.1%

Freedom

233

187

100.0%

80.3%

19.7%

0.0%

0.4%

4.3%

15.0%

El Rio

Osborne

100.0%

91.8%

8.2%

0.0%

8.2%

Women's Day Treatment

Project Return

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 19: Count of Mandated Cases with Prosecuted In-Program Rearrests by Program (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002)

100.0%

93.8%

6.3%

0.0%

2.1%

4.2%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

3032

2487

545

457

100.0%

82.0%

18.0%

0.0%

0.5%

2.3%

15.1%

Total

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

Status 46 0 46 113 12 136 261 307 6 313

1298 31 265 1594 1705 100 1805

8.7% 38.7% 51.3% 16.4% 18.0% 6.0% 17.3%

41.8% 0.0% 41.4%

Rearrested Cases

110 1 111

Total Released Cases

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 20: In-Program Rearrest Rates by CSSP Program Status (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002)

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer 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% 30.0% 40.0% 70.0% 70.0% 30.0% 0.0% 30.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

3 4 7 7

3 0 3 10

17 0 17 86

26 43 69 69

0 0 0

19.8% 0.0% 19.8% 100.0%

30.2% 50.0% 80.2% 80.2%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CEP

YAP

CASES

CCA

8 0 8 36

19 9 28 28

0 0 0

22.2% 0.0% 22.2% 100.0%

52.8% 25.0% 77.8% 77.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Freedom

0 0 0 4

4 0 4 4

0 0 0

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

5 1 6 37

14 17 31 31

0 0 0

13.5% 2.7% 16.2% 100.0%

37.8% 45.9% 83.8% 83.8%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

FlameTree

11 0 11 46

8 25 33 35

0 2 2

23.9% 0.0% 23.9% 100.0%

17.4% 54.3% 71.7% 76.1%

0.0% 4.3% 4.3%

El Rio

Osborne

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 21: Program Status of Felony Program Participants with In-Program Rearrests (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002)

0 0 0 7

3 4 7 7

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

42.9% 57.1% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Women's Day Treatment n %

Project Return

2 0 2 6

2 1 3 4

0 1 1

33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 66.7%

0.0% 16.7% 16.7%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

46 1 47 232

79 103 182 185

0 3 3

19.8% 0.4% 20.3% 100.0%

34.1% 44.4% 78.4% 79.7%

0.0% 1.3% 1.3%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 Table 22: Characteristics of First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2002) CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

107 80 55 34 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 313

34.2% 25.6% 17.6% 10.9% 11.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

21 13 13 17 43 34 26 27 16 11 8 3 232

9.1% 5.6% 5.6% 7.3% 18.5% 14.7% 11.2% 11.6% 6.9% 4.7% 3.4% 1.3% 100.0%

128 93 68 51 79 34 27 27 16 11 8 3 545

23.5% 17.1% 12.5% 9.4% 14.5% 6.2% 5.0% 5.0% 2.9% 2.0% 1.5% 0.6% 100.0%

8 13 25 18 96 10 26 2 72 21 4 18 313

2.6% 4.2% 8.0% 5.8% 30.7% 3.2% 8.3% 0.6% 23.0% 6.7% 1.3% 5.8% 100.0%

2 34 14 5 7 20 29 6 56 31 10 18 232

0.9% 14.7% 6.0% 2.2% 3.0% 8.6% 12.5% 2.6% 24.1% 13.4% 4.3% 7.8% 100.0%

10 47 39 23 103 30 55 8 128 52 14 36 545

1.8% 8.6% 7.2% 4.2% 18.9% 5.5% 10.1% 1.5% 23.5% 9.5% 2.6% 6.6% 100.0%

2 0 14 5 15 12 227 25 13 313

0.6% 0.0% 4.5% 1.6% 4.8% 3.8% 72.5% 8.0% 4.2% 100.0%

6 0 43 15 11 5 105 42 5 232

2.6% 0.0% 18.5% 6.5% 4.7% 2.2% 45.3% 18.1% 2.2% 100.0%

8 0 57 20 26 17 332 67 18 545

1.5% 0.0% 10.5% 3.7% 4.8% 3.1% 60.9% 12.3% 3.3% 100.0%

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

0-7 days 8-14 days 15-21 days 22-28 days 29-60 days 61-90 days 91-120 days 121-150 days 151-180 days 181-270 days 271-365 days over 365 days Total Top Arrest Charge for First Prosecuted Rearrest Missing 120: Assault and Related Offenses 140: Burglary and Related Offenses 145: Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 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 Other* Total Affidavit Severity of 1st Rearrest, Criminal Ct Arraignment

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

Total Page 1 of 2

CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

0.6%

2.6%

1.5%

113 34

36.1% 10.9%

129 36

55.6% 15.5%

242 70

44.4% 12.8%

Arraignment Outcome for First Rearrest Missing Pending Cases Continued Continued With a Temporary Order of Protection Arraignment Release Status of Continued Cases 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

2 28 3 114 0 4 160

1 73 8 81 2 1.3% 51.1%

10 51

0 123 17 20 313

13 2 63 21

3 101 11 195 2 4.3% 22.0%

14 211

2.6% 38.7%

100.0%

1 14 4 32 232

100.0%

1 137 21 52 545

100.0%

8.8% 1.4% 42.9% 14.3%

14 3 84 26

8.5% 1.8% 50.9% 15.8%

27 5 147 47

8.7% 1.6% 47.1% 15.1%

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 Outcome of First Rearrest 2nd Appearance for Pending Cases

Pending Cases Warrant Ordered Warrant Ordered, but Issuance Stayed Continued Continued With a Temporary Order of Protection Release Status of Continued Cases at 2nd Appearance 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 Transfered to Family Court

23 7 54 0 5 37 6 0

61 14 33 2 3.4% 25.2% 4.1% 0.0%

8 11 18 1

100.0%

4 1 6 165

84 21 87 2 4.8% 6.7% 10.9% 0.6%

13 48 24 1

4.2% 15.4% 7.7% 0.3%

100.0%

36 3 9 312

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

32 2 3 147

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Homicide, Abortion, or Related Offenses (125), Sex Offenses (130), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Offenses Involving False Written Statements (175), Other Frauds (190), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Gambling Offenses (225), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Relating to Children and Incompetents (260), and Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL).

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY02 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, 2002) CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

0 2 76 136 90 9 313

0.0% 0.6% 24.3% 43.5% 28.8% 2.9% 100.0%

9 112 75 23 11 2 232

3.9% 48.3% 32.3% 9.9% 4.7% 0.9% 100.0%

9 114 151 159 101 11 545

1.7% 20.9% 27.7% 29.2% 18.5% 2.0% 100.0%

0 4 29 6 145 0 30 67 23 0 9 313

0.0% 1.3% 9.3% 1.9% 46.3% 0.0% 9.6% 21.4% 7.3% 0.0% 2.9% 100.0%

1 12 9 1 7 53 2 121 0 19 7 232

0.4% 5.2% 3.9% 0.4% 3.0% 22.8% 0.9% 52.2% 0.0% 8.2% 3.0% 100.0%

1 16 38 7 152 53 32 188 23 19 16 545

0.2% 2.9% 7.0% 1.3% 27.9% 9.7% 5.9% 34.5% 4.2% 3.5% 2.9% 100.0%

7 21 46 84 50 105 313

2.2% 6.7% 14.7% 26.8% 16.0% 33.5% 100.0%

168 29 11 18 4 2 232

72.4% 12.5% 4.7% 7.8% 1.7% 0.9% 100.0%

175 50 57 102 54 107 545

32.1% 9.2% 10.5% 18.7% 9.9% 19.6% 100.0%

86 92 66 69 313

27.5% 29.4% 21.1% 22.0% 100.0%

194 22 10 6 232

83.6% 9.5% 4.3% 2.6% 100.0%

280 114 76 75 545

51.4% 20.9% 13.9% 13.8% 100.0%

66 83 65 99 313

21.1% 26.5% 20.8% 31.6% 100.0%

68 55 14 95 232

29.3% 23.7% 6.0% 40.9% 100.0%

134 138 79 194 545

24.6% 25.3% 14.5% 35.6% 100.0%

Age 14-15 16-18 19-29 30-39 40-49 50 or over Total Amended Charge Article Leaving Arr. (mandated case) Missing 120: Assault and Related Offenses 140: Burglary and Related Offenses 145: Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses 155: Larceny 160: Robbery 165: Other Offenses Relating to Theft 220: Controlled Substances Offenses 221: Offenses Involving Marijuana 265: Firearms and other Dangerous Weapons Other* Total Prior Misdemeanor Convictions None 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15 or more Total Prior Felony Convictions None 1 2 3 or more Total Borough of Sentence (mandated case) Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Bronx Total

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Homicide, Abortion and Related Offenses (125), Sex Offenses (130), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Escape and Other Offenses Related to Custody (205), Gambling Offenses (225), Offenses Against Public Order (240), 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: â&#x20AC;˘

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. â&#x20AC;˘

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.