Alternative to Incarceration 03 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 2003

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

FINAL REPORT

October 2003 ÂŠ 2003 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services End of Year Report Fiscal Year 2003 Elyse J. Revere Project Director and Junior Research Analyst Mari Curbelo, Esq. Project Director and Associate Director, ATIIS ATIIS Assistance: Fanny Castro, Esq. Coordinator of ATIIS Joann DeJesus Coordinator of ATIIS Juanita Salgado Supervisor Research Assistance: Raymond P. Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Systems Programming: Barbara Geller Diaz Associate Director, Information Systems Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst Anne Gravitch Programmer/Analyst This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org\research\research.htm

ÂŠ 2003 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

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 P. Caligiure provided able assistance for the table and chart presentations. Wayne Nehwadowich, Senior Programmer/Analyst at CJA was the principal programmer for the report. 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 2003 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 2003 a. Criminal Court Arraignment Targeting and Screening b. Post-Arraignment Computer Targeting

4. Court-Mandated Cases to City-Funded ATI Programs in Fiscal Year 2003

5. After Placement: Status, Time in Program, and In-Program Rearrests a. Program Status as of June 30, 2003 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, FY03 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, 2003, for Felony Cases Active in the Reporting Period by ATI Program Table 13a: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in YAP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13b: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in CEP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13c: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13d: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13e: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Table 13f: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13g: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 13h: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate Table 14: Status as of June 30, 2003 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Days of Community Service Sentence Table 15: Status as of June 30, 2003 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, 2003 Table 17: Length of Time in Felony Programs as of June 30, 2003, 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, 2003 Table 18a: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in YAP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18b: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in CEP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18c: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18d: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18e: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18f: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18g: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Table 18h: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Rearrests: Table 19: Count of Prosecuted In-Program Rearrests by Program (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003) Table 20: In-Program Rearrest Rates by CSSP Program Status (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003) Table 21: Program Status of Felony Program Participants with In-Program Rearrests (Cases Active in the Reporting Period , Rearrests through June 30, 2003) Table 22: Characteristics of First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003) 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, 2003)

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, 2002, through June 30, 2003, the fiscal year (FY) 2003 for the City of New York. As of FY04, the City decided to discontinue funding the data submission, collection and analysis efforts necessary for CJA to continue to produce these ATIIS reports, and therefore this will be the final activity report. Comparisons to the previous fiscal year will be drawn wherever relevant. As in previous reports, this report will address:

•

the status of data exchange between the City-funded Alternative-toIncarceration (ATI) programs1 and ATIIS;

•

training and information providing activities;

•

the number and types of computer-targeted cases that entered the court system during the period of July 1, 2002, through midnight June 4, 2003, when the agency stopped collecting the data elements necessary for computer targeting;

•

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, 2002, through June 30, 2003. 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. 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 was 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 was 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 was due the Wednesday following the week of the decision to transfer or exit the client. Following OCJC’s decision back in June 2000, to permit selected programs4 to reinstate participants, information on such cases was also due on the Wednesday following the week of the court’s decision to allow the participant to resume participation in the program. In anticipation of the closing of ATIIS, we requested that data records (TCI and 3PF forms) for cases mandated after June 22nd, be submitted to ATIIS by July 3, 2003. This request encompassed outstanding 3PFs and Exits occurring through the end of the fiscal year. However, missing from the database will be all the information related to exits for active cases occurring after FY03 because the programs are no longer obligated to submit these data records to CJA.5 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.

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, End-of-Year Report: Fiscal Year 2002, 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. A recent version of Exhibit C, dated February 23, 2000, set forth the formula for payment: failure to submit at least 80 percent of the data on time would result in forfeiting that month’s payment but programs would be paid their percentage rate above 80 percent. 4 These programs included CASES’s CSSP and CEP, and the Fortune Society’s DAMAS, FlameTree and Freedom programs. 5 This includes 46 cases in CSSP and 333 cases in the felony ATI programs, 6 of which are monitored transfers.

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 2002 Report.6 Note that ATIIS did not produce Tracking Reports or Summaries for Project Return after August 2002 since that program was no longer funded by OCJC during fiscal year 2003 and as a result, the program stopped sending participant-related information to CJA after July. The data records submitted by Project Return in July 2003 were all exits for cases mandated in FY02. The schedule is noted below: DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

Reporting Month FY2003 July 2002

Program Distribution Date August 21st, Wed.

Final version to OCJC and Programs August 28th, Wed.

August 2002

September 18th, Wed.

September 25th, Wed.

September 2002

October 23rd, Wed.

October 30th, Wed.

October 2002

November 20th, Wed.

November 27th, Wed.

November 2002

December 18th, Wed.

December 26th, Thu.

December 2002

January 22nd, Wed.

January 29th, Wed.

January 2003

February 19th, Wed.

February 26th, Wed.

February 2003

March 19th, Wed.

March 26th, Wed.

March 2003

April 23rd, Wed.

April 30th, Wed.

Final versions of the Tracking Reports and Summaries were 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.

April 2003

May 21st, Wed.

May 28th, Wed.

May 2003

June 18th, Wed.

June 25th, Wed.

June 2003

July 23rd, Wed.

July 30th, Wed.

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 DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

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

TCI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100%

JULY 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% AUGUST 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 77% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 367/367 = 100% 48/50 = 96% 18/18 = 100% 04/04 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 28/28 = 100% 09/09 = 100% 08/08 = 100% 15/15 = 100%

TOTAL 405/405 =100% 71/78 = 91% 14/14 = 100% 08/08 = 100% 28/28 = 100% 11/15 = 73% 14/14 = 100% 14/14 = 100%

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

SEPTEMBER 2002 3PF EXIT REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100%

TOTAL 409/409 = 100% 51/51 = 100% 29/29 = 100% 19/19 = 100% 38/38 = 100% 37/38 = 97% 07/07 = 100% 20/21 = 95%

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

OCTOBER 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 479/479 = 100% 78/78 = 100% 50/50 = 100% 13/13 = 100% 09/09 = 100% 28/28 = 100% 09/09 = 100% 09/09 = 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

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

NOVEMBER 2002 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

TCI 100% 100% 91% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100%

DECEMBER 2002 3PF EXIT REINS 100% 99% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 100% 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 394/394 = 100% 53/56 = 95% 49/49 = 100% 05/05 = 100% 11/11 = 100% 19/19 = 100% 09/09 = 100% 13/13 = 100%

TOTAL 329/330 = 100% 52/54 = 96% 55/57 = 97% 02/02 = 100% 23/23 = 100% 25/26 = 96% 13/14 = 93% 13/13 = 100%

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

JANUARY 2003 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100%

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

FEBRUARY 2003 3PF EXIT REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 358/358 = 100% 60/61 = 98% 41/41 = 100% 08/08 = 100% 26/26 = 100% 47/48 = 98% 17/17 = 100% 12/12 = 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

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

MARCH 2003 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 376/376 = 100% 48/51 = 94% 28/28 = 100% 10/10 = 100% 28/28 = 100% 48/48 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 21/21 = 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

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

APRIL 2003 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 0% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 381/381 = 100% 52/53 = 98% 41/41 = 100% 07/07 = 100% 18/18 = 100% 26/26 = 100% 09/10 = 90% 14/14 = 100%

TOTAL 376/376 = 100% 58/58 = 100% 40/40 = 100% 09/09 = 100% 23/23 = 100% 31/31 = 100% 17/17 = 100% 22/22 = 100%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

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

MAY 2003 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 100% 88%

PROGRAM CSSP CEP El Rio DAMAS FlameTree Freedom STEPS YAP

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

JUNE 2003 3PF EXIT 100% 100% 94% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 0% 100% 100% 100%

REINS 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TOTAL 413/413 = 100% 49/52 = 94% 38/38 = 100% 04/04 = 100% 16/16 = 100% 20/20 = 100% 11/11 = 100% 21/22 = 95%

TOTAL 233/233 = 100% 52/54 = 96% 25/25 = 100% 16/16 = 100% 24/24 = 100% 21/21 = 100% 14/14 = 100% 23/23 = 100%

b. ATIIS Information Providing and Training Role ATIIS staff handled daily requests from ATI programs regarding the information needed to accurately complete the required forms. Most often, the data requested were 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, was also sought, particularly when the program’s court advocate did not have access to court papers or to the Office of Court Administration’s (OCA) Criminal Record Information Management System (CRIMS). ATIIS staff also responded to calls about the status of open cases and of in-program rearrests. Additionally, training sessions either at CJA or at the programs’ sites were conducted. On July 1, 2002, El Rio received a training session. CEP received training on September 20, 2002, as did YAP on October 3, 2002. STEPS received training on September 23, 2002. On November 1, 2002, the Fortune Society received its last training. Although CEP and Fortune requested additional staff training towards the end of the fiscal year, these were not scheduled given the City’s decision to no longer fund data exchange efforts.

3. Case-Targeting Activities in FY03 a. Criminal Court Arraignment Targeting and Screening For a misdemeanor case to be have been considered statistically targeted at arraignment, according to statistically-derived targeting categories, there had to be a misdemeanor larceny charge on the affidavit, and the defendant in the case had to have served at least one prior jail sentence on a misdemeanor conviction. A misdemeanor case may have also been statistically targeted at arraignment if there was a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge on the affidavit, and if the defendant in the case had served at least two prior jail sentences on misdemeanor convictions. During the reporting period, a total of 15,191 cases were identified in the CJA database for which the top affidavit charge was a misdemeanor larceny charge or misdemeanor criminal mischief charge,7 or for which CSSP staff submitted screening information, indicating either acceptance into CSSP or rejection from further screening on the arraignment date.8 This represents a 6.6 percent decrease in the arraignment misdemeanor target pool from FY02 (16,258 cases). Figure 1 displays the screening and targeting information at arraignment for FY03. CSSP provided the results of its screening for 1,208 cases,9 or 8.0 percent of the defined pool. The actual number of misdemeanor cases that were screened by CSSP at arraignment, decreased by 25.4 percent from FY02 (1,619 cases), to FY03 (1,208 cases). Daytime-arraignment parts during the workweek were covered in four boroughs. The screened cases included 176 cases (not shown) arraigned at times other than weekday, day-court sessions. Following the September 11th attacks in FY02, CSSP increased its coverage of night and weekend arraignments. This expanded coverage does not appear to have been continued through FY03, and the proportion of screened cases from night and weekend arraignments decreased by over 20 percentage points from FY02, to FY03 (35.9% in FY02 and 14.6% in FY03 [not shown]). Almost two-thirds (65.6%) 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 decreased from 39.2 percent in FY02, to 33.3 percent in FY03.

It was possible that the larceny or criminal mischief charge was not the “top” charge on a given docket in CJA’s database because our database is limited to recording one affidavit charge, and another charge of equal severity might be chosen by the Office of Court Administration (OCA) in its electronic feed of court information to CJA. 8 Screening information is provided to ATIIS for defendants mandated to participate in CSSP, and for those who were interviewed by CSSP staff and then rejected. By agreement with OCJC, CSSP was not required to submit information on all screened cases, but only for those cases in which the defendant was interviewed and then rejected or placed. 9 Data inconsistencies may affect the categorizations of some small number of cases.

No Record of Screening

Weekday Arraignments 33.9% N=5,147

Screened by CSSP 8.0% N=1,208

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

Night and Weekend Arraignments 58.2% N=8,836

Figure 1 Arraignment Misdemeanor Targeting and Screening (N=15,191*)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03

Criminal Mischief 1.0% N=12

Larceny 33.3% N=403

Non-Larceny/ Non-Criminal Mischief 65.6% N=793

Most of the non-screened cases were larceny or criminal mischief cases arraigned in weekend or night arraignments. These cases accounted for 58.2 percent of the defined pool, while the remaining larceny and criminal mischief cases for which there is no record of screening (33.9%) 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. Almost two-fifths (39.2% [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 386 (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 FY03, 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 up until June 4, 2003. After this date CJA no longer collected the data needed to identify targeted cases. 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 32,512 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 a 12.1 percent increase from FY02, in which 28,994 cases met these criteria. Figure 2 displays the attrition from this pool, down to the 7,623 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 increased by 1,137 cases from FY02, to FY03 (6,486 in FY02 and 7,623 in FY03) or 17.5 percent. This increase is more remarkable considering that computer targeting stopped almost one month before the end of the fiscal year. The proportion of cases targeted in FY03 (23.4%), however, increased only slightly from the proportion of cases meeting the targeting criteria in FY02 (22.4%). As in FY02, most of the cases (52.2%) 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 (13.1%) from further consideration. Missing information contributed to the inability to target 11.2 percent of the cases.10 The increase from FY02, in the proportion of cases with missing information (5.6%) is related to the end of computer targeting, which occurred at the end of FY03. Table 111 presents the 7,623 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 10

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

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Figure 2: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases Held on Bail Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment N=32,512

Unable To Target: Missing Information N=3,655 11.2% Excluded from Targeting: On Parole or No NYC Residence N=4,271 13.1%

Not Targeted: Assessed as Inappropriate for ATI N=16,963 52.2%

Computer Targeted: N=7,623 23.4%

misdemeanor jails, and having a calculated likelihood of incarceration of 26.8 percent (not shown), represents the largest proportion of computer-targeted cases across all four boroughs for each time period. Target category C04, consisting of larceny and criminal mischief cases, with two prior misdemeanor jails, and having the highest calculated likelihood of incarceration of 49.3 percent (not shown), had the second largest proportion of cases for the first half of the year and the third quarter of the fiscal year, but in the fourth quarter Target category C01, consisting of cases with less than two prior misdemeanor jails, but at least four prior misdemeanor convictions had the second largest proportion of cases. In FY03, cases in target category C03 constituted 66.2 percent (not shown) of the post-arraignment target pool, an increase of 1.6 percentage points for the same category in FY02. The proportion of cases in target category C04 remained almost the same at over 15 percent (not shown) of each yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s postarraignment target pool (15.6% in FY02 and 15.1% in FY03). The borough proportions of these cases have shown variation over time. In FY02 and FY03, Brooklyn had more cases (2,672) targeted than any other borough. Manhattan, with the largest target pool at arraignment, had the next highest number (1,991) of post-arraignment cases meeting the targeting criteria. Targeted cases in the Bronx (1,803) were next, followed by Queens, which had the smallest number of post-arraignment misdemeanor target cases (1,157). Although each borough had an increase in the number of post-arraignment targeted misdemeanor cases from FY02 to FY03, Brooklyn had the largest increase with an increase of 531 cases, or 24.8 percent. The overall increase in these cases primarily occurred during the first three quarters of the fiscal year. There was a 16.3 percent decrease across all boroughs from the fourth quarter of FY02, to the fourth quarter of FY03, in the number of post-arraignment targeted misdemeanor cases as a result of the end of computer targeting. The Penal Law Article for post-arraignment targeted misdemeanor cases by borough is displayed in Table 2. Based on the Target C targeting criteria, it would be expected that larceny charges would be associated with many of these cases. The proportion of post-arraignment targeted cases that had larceny charges decreased slightly, from 18.1 percent in FY02, to 17.6 percent in FY03. Also, cases with a criminal mischief charge, one of the criteria for Target C targeting, decreased slightly from FY02 (4.6%), to FY03 (3.3%). Interestingly, drug offenses, represented by the combined charge categories of controlled substances offenses and offenses involving marijuana, which had decreased their representation among targeted cases from 28.7 percent in FY01, to 25.9 percent of all misdemeanor cases targeted after arraignment in FY02, has increased again in FY03 (31.8%). On the other hand, assaults decreased their representation among targeted cases from 22.7 percent in FY02, to 17.4 percent in FY03.

The charge characteristics of the targeted pool of cases in FY03 varied by borough and showed some variation when compared to the proportions of the charge characteristics in the targeted pool from FY02. In both FY02, and FY03, Brooklyn was more likely than the other boroughs to have targeted misdemeanor drug cases, including marijuana offenses (27.7% in FY02 and 37.9% in FY03). In addition, the percentage of these cases increased by over 10 percentage points over the two time periods. Taken together, controlled substance and marijuana offenses were associated with 27.0 percent of the cases targeted in Queens in FY02, and in FY03 the proportion of these cases targeted in Queens increased to 34.1 percent. In FY02, at least one-fifth of targeted misdemeanor cases in each of the boroughs were cases with assault-related offenses, while in FY03, no borough had more than 19 percent of targeted misdemeanor cases that were assault-related offense cases. These reductions represent a 6.6 percentage point decrease in the Bronx, a 5.6 percentage point decrease in Brooklyn and Queens, and a 4.1 percentage point decrease in Manhattan, from FY02 to FY03, in the proportion of targeted assault-related offenses. Felony Targeting Figure 3 shows the attrition from the 40,149 felony cases eligible for targeting leaving Criminal Court arraignment, down to the 12,555 cases computer targeted during the fiscal year. (See Appendix A.) The base of 40,149 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 post-arraignment target pools, there was an increase in the felony target pool from FY02 (39,588 cases), to FY03. The 1.4 percent increase in the felony pool was smaller than the increase in the post-arraignment misdemeanor target pools from FY02 to FY03. 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 40,149 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

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Figure 3: Targeting Attrition of Defendants in Felony Cases Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment N=40,149

Unable to Target: Missing Information N=3,733 9.3%

Computer Targeted: N=12,555 31.3%

Excluded from Targeting: On Parole or No NYC Residence N=5,411 13.5%

Not Targeted: Assessed as Inappropriate for ATI N=18,450 46.0%

Supreme Court. The specific criteria for the felony target categories can be found in Appendix A. Proportionately, more felony cases were targeted than were misdemeanor cases from their base pool leaving arraignment, with almost one-third (31.3%) of the felony cases being targeted. Less than one-half (46.0%) 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 13.5 percent of the felony cases, and another 9.3 percent had insufficient information available in the CJA database to permit targeting. As with the post arraignment misdemeanor target pool, there was in increase from FY02 (5.5%) to FY03 in the proportion of cases with missing information as a result of the cessation of computer targeting at the end of FY03. As with the post-arraignment misdemeanor target pool, the overall proportion of cases targeted remained almost the same from FY02 to FY03, although the actual number, of felony cases targeted for the fiscal year (31.3%; 12,555 cases), was slightly lower than in FY02 (32.0%; 12,686 cases). Three-fifths (59.9%; 7,515 cases [not shown]) of the felony target pool included cases fitting the detained target categories and the remaining 40.1 percent (5,040 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 (86.9%) of those targeted leaving Criminal Court arraignment were from the male target categories, and 11.4 percent were from the female target categories. This represents a decrease of only five cases in the number of adult male targeted cases from FY02, but a 5.9 percent decrease in the number 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 (1.7%) of the target pool. However, the actual number of JO cases decreased by 14.5 percent from FY02, to FY03. The greatest decrease in targeted JO cases was in the Bronx where there was a 21.0 percent reduction in targeted JO cases, although this only represented 13 cases. Detained male non-drug cases, targeted in the fiscal year accounted for over one-third (35.4%) of the target pool leaving arraignment, a slight increase over the proportion of these cases targeted in FY02 (34.1%). The targeting of drug cases for detained male defendants is restricted by placing a minimum bail amount of $1,500 as a requirement for case targeting, thereby helping to depress the proportion targeted in that group (16.7%). Cases in the male drug detained “low bail” category represented 9.7 percent of the targeted felony cases in FY03. One-quarter (25.1%) 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 5.3 percent of the post-arraignment felony targeted cases. Manhattan accounted for almost one-third (30.1%) of the targeted felony cases, followed closely by the Bronx, representing 29.0 percent of targeted felony cases. Brooklyn accounted for over one-fifth (21.8%) of the targeted felony cases and Queens accounted for the remaining 19.1 percent of these cases. The largest number of felony cases was targeted in Manhattan (3,782), followed closely by the number targeted in the Bronx (3,635). Brooklyn cases (2,735) were the next most frequently targeted cases. Queens continued to have the smallest number of cases targeted (2,403), although the number of these cases increased by 5.3 percent, from FY02 to FY03. Manhattan had the largest proportion of targeted cases in both FY02 and FY03, while Queens had the smallest proportion in both fiscal years. Overall, there was a 1.0 percent decrease in targeted felony cases across all boroughs, from FY02 to FY03. With a decrease of 3.6 percent, Brooklyn had the largest drop in targeted felony cases from FY02, to FY03. Interestingly, Queens had a 5.3 percent increase in targeted felony cases from FY02, to FY03. The target categories that appear to have had the largest impact on the increase in Queens are the released female and released male drug defendant categories. The female drug released category increased by 23.7 percent from FY02, to FY03, and the male drug released category increased by 19.6 percent in Queens. 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 previous years, the high proportion of detained males in non-drug cases distinguished targeted cases in Queens: Such cases accounted for three-fifths (60.8%) 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 slightly from FY02, to FY03 (58.3% in FY02 and 57.4% in FY03), while the proportion of cases with a robbery charge remained almost the same (17.8% in FY02 and 17.4% in FY03). The majority of cases targeted for juvenile offenders were robbery cases (79.4%). Over half (53.8%) of female non-drug detained targeted cases, and over two-fifths (41.5%) of male non-drug detained targeted cases, had robbery charges. Due to the special targeting for STEPS, the overwhelming majority (88.2%) of non-drug released cases for women were charged with assault.

4. Court-Mandated Cases to City-Funded ATI Programs in FY03 As of August 19, 2003,12 a total of 2,189 cases had been reported to ATIIS as mandated to ATI programs in fiscal year 2003. The proportion of misdemeanor cases going to CSSP in FY03 decreased slightly from FY02 (68.8% in FY02; 67.8% in FY03), while the number of cases (1,484) mandated to CSSP in FY03 decreased by 11.6 percent from FY02 (1,678). A total of 705 cases were mandated to felony ATI programs during this fiscal year. This represents a 7.2 percent decrease in felony placements from FY02. Part of this decrease is due to the absence of cases mandated to Project Return. Of the 705 cases mandated to a felony program in FY03, 26 were mandated more than once. As stated previously, several ATI programs had been authorized by OCJC to reinstate cases and, as a result, ATIIS files were changed to reflect this information. Reinstatements involved defendants who had been mandated to a program, but who did not complete the program, and were subsequently reinstated to the same program on the same case. In this situation, the case was counted only once, as one release, because the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation resumed 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 courtmandated dates. This continued to be the practice for cases in drug treatment programs because defendants were required to start over their period of participation the second time around. There were 21 cases reinstated during FY03, nine of which were from CSSP. Of the remaining 12 reinstatements, four were from DAMAS, three were from Freedom, three were from CEP, and two were from FlameTree. Of the nine cases reinstated to CSSP, the earliest reinstatement occurred within two weeks of the original exit date, and the latest occurred within four months of the original exit date. Seven of the 12 reinstatements to felony programs occurred within one month of the original exit date, and the latest felony reinstatement occurred within four months of originally exiting the program. Table 5a presents CSSP cases according to when they were mandated, at arraignment or post-arraignment, and their target groupings. The percentages are calculated as the proportion of the mandated cases within a category by the time of mandate. Over half (51.3%) of the cases mandated to CSSP were mandated at arraignment, all of which were either referral or manually-targeted

All information on cases mandated to programs in FY03 was received and processed by ATIIS by August 19, 2003.

cases.13 The number of mandated cases at arraignments decreased by 21.4 percent over last fiscal year, while the number of cases mandated postarraignment increased by 2.0 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 FY03 mandates of felony cases, in order from most to least, were reported to ATIIS: • • • • • • •

CEP---218 cases, El Rio---147 cases, Freedom---114 cases, FlameTree---84 cases, YAP---59 cases, STEPS---48 cases, and DAMAS---35 cases.

The order of felony programs based on the number of mandates was almost the same in FY03 as in FY02. Four programs had an increase in the number of cases mandated in FY03, while three programs experienced a decrease in the number of mandated cases compared to FY02. El Rio had the largest increase of all the felony programs in mandated cases from FY02 to FY03 (32.4%). All of the Fortune Society programs had an increase in mandated cases with DAMAS having the largest increase (16.7%), followed by FlameTree (3.7%), and Freedom (2.7%). STEPS had the largest decrease in mandated cases across this time period (27.3%), followed by the youth programs, YAP (20.3%), and CEP (8.4%). In terms of the numbers of felony cases mandated, few (17) non-drug cases targeted for women are found among the court-mandated cases, with cases mandated to STEPS accounting for the largest number (12) of these cases. Among the targeted drug cases for women mandated to felony programs (15 including both released and detained defendants), only three were mandated to drug programs, eleven were mandated to DAMAS, and one was mandated to STEPS. There was a 60.5 percent decrease from FY02 to FY03, in targeted drug cases for women mandated to felony programs due largely to the absence of Project Return cases, which accounted for 23 of the 38 cases in this target category in FY02. Among the targeted drug cases for men mandated to felony programs during the fiscal year, over one-third (36.1%) of the cases were mandated to non-drug programs: Of the 180 cases in this target category, 115 were mandated to FlameTree and El Rio, with the majority of the remaining cases going to CEP. 13

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 (77.0%), as was the case last year (79.3%). All placements at arraignment were from this category, with 69.2 percent of the cases in the referral or manual category not fitting the arraignment target criteria, an increase of 9.1 percentage points over last yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s figures. There was a 1.6 percentage point decrease in the proportion of post-arraignment cases not fitting target criteria. Over one-quarter (26.5% [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 (46.6%) 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, YAP reported proportionately the lowest number of mandated cases (37.3%) as coming from a pool of referral or manually targeted cases, followed closely by El Rio with 38.1 percent of mandated cases from referral or manually targeted cases. The proportion of mandated cases not fitting computer-target categories decreased from FY02 to FY03, for YAP, DAMAS, FlameTree, El Rio, and STEPS, and increased for CEP and Freedom. As in FY02, 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. In both FY02, and FY03, cases mandated to STEPS were the most likely of any program to come from a source other than the computer-targeted categories, although the proportion decreased from 77.3 percent in FY02, to 72.9 percent in FY03. One explanation for the high proportion of non-computer-targeted-cases mandated to STEPS is that 22.9 percent (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 711 cases mandated to programs in the fiscal year, followed by cases from Manhattan (571). Brooklyn accounted for 547 cases and Queens had the fewest cases (360) mandated to programs in FY03.

In all boroughs, CSSP accounted for more than half of the cases mandated in the reporting period. Manhattan and Brooklyn had the largest decreases in mandated cases from FY02 to FY03 (14.4% and 14.0% respectively), while the Bronx had a decrease of 7.4 percent and mandated cases from Queens decreased by 1.9 percent Last year’s 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 scheduled days of community service are presented for cases reported as mandated to CSSP in Table 6b. As in prior reporting periods, almost all (96.2%) cases mandated to CSSP in FY03 were required to perform ten days of community services as a condition of their “conditional discharge” sentence. Only 57 (3.8%) cases mandated to CSSP in FY03 were required to perform five days of community service, a slight increase over FY02 when three 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 FY03. 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 (37.1%) of the defendants were 40 years old or older, and almost two-fifths (38.3%) were in their thirties. Over onetenth of participants (12.5%) were female. The demographic characteristics of these cases are similar to the cases mandated to CSSP in FY02. Almost onethird (30.4%) of CSSP participants had between one and four prior misdemeanor convictions in FY03, and almost another quarter (23.4%) of CSSP participants had 15 or more prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the mandated case. More than two-thirds (68.7%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP in FY03 were sentenced to jail terms on those convictions at least twice. In FY03 two-thirds (66.9%) of defendants mandated to CSSP had at least one prior felony conviction, and two-fifths (43.6%) of the participants had served a 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.

prior prison sentence. Over two-thirds (70.1%) of the defendants in mandated cases had had two or more prior bench warrants issued for failing to appear at a prior court appearance, consistent with their extensive criminal records. The criminal history characteristics of these cases are similar to the cases mandated to CSSP in FY02. 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 (48.1%) of the defendants mandated to felony programs in the fiscal year were under 19 years of age. Not surprisingly with the absence of Project Return cases, the proportion of women represented in the felony programs decreased from FY02, to FY03 (21.4% in FY02 and 13.3% in FY03). Over one-fifth (22.8%) defendants mandated to felony programs had prior misdemeanor convictions, and one in seven (14.8%) defendants had a prior felony conviction. Almost one-fifth (19.0%) of defendants mandated in FY03 had served time in jail or prison. The criminal history characteristics of these cases are similar to the cases mandated to felony programs in FY02 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 43.8 percent of the cases mandated to felony programs, a slight decrease over the proportion mandated in FY02 (44.5%). Robbery offenses were associated with over a quarter of mandated cases in both FY03 (27.8%), and FY02 (25.9%). Another 6.2 percent of the cases mandated to felony programs in FY03 were characterized by weapons offenses. As in previous reporting periods, robbery charges characterized most (86.0%) of the cases targeted for juvenile offenders mandated in FY03, and they also accounted for over three-fifths (64.2%) of the cases from the detained male non-drug target group, which includes the YO-eligible defendants. There was an increase from FY02, to FY03, in the percentage of cases of detained non-drug female defendants charged with robbery offenses (22.7% in FY02 and 37.5% in FY03), although there were only six of these cases in FY03. In FY02, almost one-fifth (18.2%) of women in this target category were charged with burglary offenses, while no detained non-drug female defendants were charged with burglary in FY03.

The corresponding table for cases mandated to CSSP is presented as Table 8b. In FY02 and FY03, larceny offenses accounted for the largest single proportion of the offenses associated with these cases, although the proportion of larceny cases mandated to CSSP decreased by 9.2 percentage points over this time period (38.9% in FY02 and 29.7% in FY03). 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 42.3 percent of the cases mandated to CSSP in FY03. This represents an increase from FY02 (35.9%). 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 FY02, 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 from 44.1 percent in FY02, to 40.8 percent in FY03, while the percentage of cases mandated to YAP with robbery charges increased from 82.4 percent in FY02, to 91.5 percent in FY03. Freedom had the largest increase in the proportion of mandated cases with robbery charges (10.2 percentage points), followed closely by FlameTree which had an increase of 9.3 percentage points in the proportion of mandated cases with robbery charges. 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 Freedom, where 47.7 percent of the cases mandated to this program in FY02 were cases with controlled substances offenses. The proportion of these cases decreased to 32.5 percent in FY03. The percentage of cases mandated to FlameTree with controlled substance offenses decreased from 66.7 percent, to 56.0 percent, from FY02 to FY03. Figure 4 presents the time period of release for felony cases mandated in the fiscal year by ATI program. YAP, Freedom, DAMAS, FlameTree, and STEPS all had a greater proportion of cases mandated in the second half of the fiscal year, compared to the first half of FY03. In fact, two-thirds (not shown) of the cases mandated to YAP in FY03 occurred in the second half of the fiscal year. On the other hand, CEP and El Rio had a greater proportion of cases mandated in the first half of the fiscal year, compared to the second half of FY03. Over two-fifths (44.2% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to El Rio occurred during just the second quarter of the fiscal year. During the second half of FY02 El Rio decided to temporarily stop taking new cases because of a staffing shortage and this carried over into the first quarter of FY03. DAMAS comes the closest to having

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

YAP (N=59)

Percent

CEP (N=218)

Freedom (N=114)

El Rio (N=147)

4th Quarter

FlameTree (N=84)

3rd Quarter

DAMAS (N=35)

1st & 2nd Quarters

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

New York City Criminal Justice Agency ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03

STEPS (N=48)

Total (N=705)

an even division between cases mandated in the first half of the fiscal year (48.6% [not shown]) and cases mandated in the second half of the fiscal year (51.4% [not shown]). Legal and Personal Information for Mandated Cases Target Case Information forms were submitted to ATIIS by the ATI programs, which completed these forms for all of those defendants mandated to participate in their programs. The Target Case Information form contained legal information about the participant’s case. For those participants who actually enrolled to receive services, the ATI programs were also required to complete and submit to ATIIS a Participant Personal Profile (3PF) form.15 This form contained personal information about the participant and his or her service needs as assessed at or before enrollment.16 Information from both forms was 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 and El Rio) 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 FY03. Of the defendants mandated to CSSP, 25.9 percent reported living with a spouse, and another 23.2 percent live with one or both parents. The majority (89.7%) of the 15

If a participant failed to appear at the program following a judge’s order to report, the requirement of a Participant Personal Profile form was 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 had been filled out by the court advocates at or before mandate. 17 Twelve forms were not required because the defendants were “no shows”, and one form was missing because of a delayed submission where the defendant had not yet enrolled in the program as of June 30, 2003.

defendants mandated to YAP, the JO program, live with one or both parents, and another 6.9 percent live with other relatives. Over three-fifths (61.8%) of defendants mandated to CEP, the program for 16 to 19 year old defendants, were also living with one or both parents, again with most of the remaining defendants reporting living with other relatives (29.6%). Over two-fifths (43.8%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program live with one or both parents, and another 24.4 percent live with other relatives. The largest proportion (36.9%) of defendants mandated to a general population program also live with one or both parents, and another one-fifth (22.7%) live with other relatives. CSSP has the highest proportion (13.1%) of participants who reported living alone, followed by the general population programs with 5.4 percent, and the drug programs with 4.5 percent of the participants reporting that they lived alone. Not surprisingly, no one from CEP or YAP reported living alone. The greatest change from FY02, to FY03, in the proportion of defendants living with a parent was for the drug programs where the percentage increased from 31.6 percent in FY02, to 43.8 percent in FY03. The general population programs reported the highest proportion of defendants residing with â&#x20AC;&#x153;otherâ&#x20AC;? (17.7%), 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, half (50.5%) of all defendants mandated in FY03 reported having no employment or financial support, an increase in the proportion reporting no employment or financial support in FY02 (46.6%). The majority of defendants mandated to the felony programs for younger defendants reported having no employment or financial support (77.6% in YAP and 78.8% in CEP), although these proportions decreased from FY02 (83.1% in YAP and 86.6% in CEP). Due to the younger populations served by these programs, and the fact that over three-fifths of the defendants mandated to YAP or CEP report living with one or both parents, these younger defendants are likely to be financially supported by someone else in the household. In fact, of the 45 YAP participants who reported that they receive no employment or financial support, 33 (not shown) also reported that someone else in their household does receive some form of employment or support. Of the 167 CEP participants who reported that they receive no employment or financial support, 147 (not shown) also reported that someone else in their household does receive some form of employment or support. Of the CSSP participants who reported working, a larger proportion reported working full time (11.9%), compared to those who reported working part time (7.9%). None of the YAP participants reported being employed, and a larger proportion of the CEP participants who reported being employed, were working part-time (4.7%), compared to those who reported working full time (2.8%). Participants who are mandated to either a drug program or a general population

program, who report being employed, are more likely to be employed full time (5.2% and 3.1% respectively), than part time (2.2% and 1.6% respectively), possibly reflecting the older populations served by these programs. Two-thirds (66.7%) of the participants at YAP, and almost one-third (30.7%) 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 decreased from 88.7 percent in FY02, to 66.7 percent in FY03. On the other hand the proportion of CEP participants who report being enrolled in school increased from 18.3 percent in FY02, to 30.7 percent in FY03. Less than one in six (15.6%) defendants mandated to a general population program, and 3.5 percent of defendants mandated to a drug program, reported being enrolled in school, while only .5 percent of CSSP participants reported school enrollment. CEP has the largest proportion (32.5%) of defendants reporting that they have ever been in special education classes, followed closely by YAP (31.6%). Over one-quarter (26.5%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP completed 12th grade, and another 14.0 percent completed some additional post high school education. Due to the young age of their participants, none of the defendants mandated to YAP completed school beyond 10th grade. Also having a younger population, only ten (4.7%) of the defendants mandated to CEP finished 12th grade. More than one in eight (13.9%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program completed 12th grade, and another 5.2 percent completed some additional post high school education. Almost one in seven (14.6%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program completed 12th grade, and another 8.3 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, 5.3 percent of the mandated defendants reported having been treated for a psychological or emotional problem. YAP had the highest proportion (21.1%) of participants who had been treated for a psychological or emotional problem, although this proportion decreased from FY02 (28.2%). The general population programs also had a decrease from FY02 to FY03 in the proportion of participants who had been treated for a psychological or emotional problem (22.8% in FY02 and 15.1% in FY03). CEP and the drug programs showed less variation over time in the proportion of participants who had been treated for a psychological or emotional problem. In FY03, 17.5 percent of the participants in CEP, and 13.4 percent of the participants in the drug programs participants reported receiving treatment for a psychological or emotional problem. CSSP had the smallest proportion (.4%) ever receiving psychological treatment. Participants mandated to the general population programs had the largest proportion (6.3%) of participants who reported being currently prescribed psychotropic drugs at the time of interview, although this represents a decrease

in the proportion who reported being prescribed psychotropic drugs in FY02 (13.9%). Only 5.3 percent of the participants in YAP, 4.3 percent of the participants in the drug programs, and 1.4 percent of the defendants mandated to CEP reported being currently prescribed psychotropic drugs at the time of interview. Only 1.1 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 one, 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. Over three-fifths (61.9%) of the participants mandated to a drug program are scheduled to attend the program for five hours a day. Another 36.4 percent of the participants in a drug program are scheduled to attend five sessions a week. Over three-quarters (76.0%) of the participants mandated to a general population program are scheduled to attend five sessions a week at the program, and another 17.2 percent are scheduled to attend one session a week. Self-reported drug and alcohol use of defendants mandated in FY03 is presented in Table 11. Defendants mandated to a general population program reported the greatest frequency of alcohol use in the 30 days prior to the interview;18 9.9 percent of those defendants reported having used alcohol 2-3 times a week, and 6.3 percent reported daily use. Almost one in ten (7.7%) 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. More than one in ten (10.4%) participants in a drug program reported having used alcohol 2-3 times a week in the 30 days prior to interview, and another 6.5 percent reported using alcohol daily. Only 3.6 percent of defendants mandated to YAP, and 15 percent of defendants mandated to CEP reported any alcohol use in the 30 days prior to the interview. There was an overall decrease across all programs from FY02 to FY03 in defendants self-reporting alcohol use (27.6% in FY02 and 22.7% in FY03). The largest decrease in self-reported alcohol use was for defendants mandated to YAP (21.1% in FY02 and 3.6% in FY03). Defendants mandated to a drug program also reported more alcohol use in FY02 compared to FY03 (48.9% in FY02 and 32.0% in FY03). Over one-quarter of the defendants mandated to CSSP (26.8%) and YAP (28.1%) reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview. Almost threefifths (57.0%) of the defendants mandated to CEP reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including 32.5 percent who reported using it daily. 18

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

Almost three-fifths (56.7%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program also reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including 40.3 percent who reported using it daily. Almost two-fifths (38.0%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program reported using marijuana in the 30 days prior to interview, including 19.3 percent who reported using it daily. The proportion of self reported marijuana use across all programs in FY03 remained similar to what it had been in FY02, although as with alcohol use, defendants mandated to YAP reported less marijuana use in FY03 compared to FY02 (43.8% in FY02 and 28.1% in FY03). More than one in seven (15.9%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported using crack cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview, 7.3 percent of whom reported using crack daily. Drug programs had the largest proportion (12.0%) of felony participants who reporting using crack cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview, three percent of who reported using crack daily. No defendant mandated to YAP, only three defendants (1.4%) mandated to CEP, and 11 defendants (5.7%) mandated to a general population program reported using crack in the 30 days prior to interview. Overall, self reported crack use across all programs in FY03 was similar to the proportions of crack use in FY02, although defendants mandated to drug programs did report a decrease in crack use (20.8% in FY02 and 12.0% in FY03). Almost one in seven (13.5%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program reported using cocaine in the 30 days prior to interview. No defendant mandated to YAP; only one defendant (.5%) mandated to CEP, nine defendants (4.6%) 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 (18.5%) of defendants mandated to CSSP reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview, 13.1 percent who reported using heroin daily. Less than six percent (5.7%) of defendants mandated to a drug program reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview. No defendant mandated to YAP or CEP, and only 2.1 percent of defendants mandated to a general population program reported using heroin in the 30 days prior to interview. While self reported heroin use remained almost the same overall across all programs from FY02 to FY03, there was a decrease in self reported heroin use for defendants mandated to drug programs (14.1% in FY02 and 5.7% in FY03). Less than one in six (15.2%) defendants mandated to CSSP reported using methadone in the 30 days prior to interview, including 14.6 percent who reported using it daily. Only 1.2 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 2.1 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 “drug-free” programs. One-fifth (19.9%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment immediately before interview. Almost two-fifths (38.1%) of defendants mandated to a drug program reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment immediately before interview. More than one in eight (13.6%) defendants mandated to a general population program reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment prior to interview. No defendant mandated to YAP and only three (1.4%) defendants mandated to CEP reported being in some type of drug or alcohol treatment prior to interview. Over two-fifths (44.9%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP characterized their drug use as a problem. Not surprisingly, three-quarters (75.3%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program characterized their drug use as a problem. One-tenth (9.9%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program characterized their drug use as a problem. Less than one-tenth of the defendants mandated to YAP or CEP characterized their drug use as a problem (8.8% and 7.5% respectively). When the programs were asked to characterize the participant’s drug use as a problem, all of the programs had the same or 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 drug programs, with 75.3 percent of the participants from the drug programs self-reporting their drug use as a problem, while 89.6 percent of the time the drug programs characterized the participants’ drug use as a problem. Less than one-tenth (8.7%) of the defendants mandated to CSSP characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Over one-tenth (12.6%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program characterized their alcohol use as a problem. Only 6.8 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 defendant 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 the same or 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 12.6 percent of the participants self-reporting their alcohol use as a problem, and 29.9 percent of the drug program interviews resulting in the program’s characterization of the participants’ alcohol use as a problem. A greater proportion (8.7%) 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 (3.1%). 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 four-fifths (82.0%) of defendants mandated to a program entered the program following conviction (plea) but before sentencing. The legal status of another 16.2 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. Almost half (49.2%) of defendants mandated to YAP, and almost one-quarter (24.4%) 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-quarter of the defendants mandated to a general population program were mandated pre-plea, the majority (89.6% [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 (2.0%) of defendants who were mandated on the date of sentence was mandated to a general population program. There was a shift from FY02 to FY03 in the legal status at intake for defendants mandated to all felony programs. For cases in CEP and the general population programs there was a decrease in pre-plea cases and an increase in post-plea cases. The shift was greater for cases in the general population programs, where in FY02, 31.9 percent of cases were pre-plea, and 64.3 percent were postplea. In FY03 the proportion of pre-plea cases decreased to 24.4 percent, and the proportion of post-plea cases increased to 73.6 percent. On the other hand YAP had an increase in pre-plea cases from FY02 to FY03 (40.5% in FY02 and 49.2% in FY03), and a corresponding decrease in post plea cases (59.5% in FY02 and 49.2% in FY03). 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 (97.2%) of the cases mandated to CEP were also promised no change in case outcome. The high percentage of â&#x20AC;&#x153;no change in case outcomeâ&#x20AC;? 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 (63.3%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were promised that they would be able to plead guilty to a lesser, probation-eligible, charge if they were successful at the program. Almost one-third (30.2% [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 (57.0%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were promised no change in case outcome following successful completion of the program, and another 29.5 percent were promised that they would be able to re-enter a plea to a lesser charge if they were successful at the program. Two-thirds (66.7%) of the defendants mandated to YAP were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 16.7 percent were promised a split sentence (jail and probation) if they were successful at the program. There was a decrease in YAP cases promised a probation sentence (70.5% in FY02 and 66.7% in FY03), and an increase in cases that were promised a split sentence (11.4% in FY02 and 16.7% in FY03). Almost all (92.5%) of the defendants mandated to CEP were also promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 3.8 percent were promised a split sentence. This also represents a shift from FY02, when 79.2 percent of CEP defendants were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and 18.6 percent were promised a split sentence. Over two-fifths (42.2%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program, and another 32.7 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. Almost three-quarters (73.2%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were promised a sentence of probation if they were successful at the program.

The majority (60.0%) of defendants mandated to YAP were to be granted YO status upon successful completion of their case, and the remainder (40.0%) were not specifically promised YO status. This represents a decrease from FY02, when a higher percentage of YAP defendants (68.2%) were explicitly promised YO. The majority (78.9%) of the defendants mandated to CEP were 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 (85.9%) of the defendants mandated to a drug program were not eligible for YO status. Over two-thirds (71.1%) of the defendants mandated to a general population program were not eligible for YO status, and another 12.8 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 is treated as the final exit on the case. Because we will no longer receive information on exits taking place after July 1, 2003, our database will be missing exit information for some proportion of cases and updated information for monitored transferred and reinstated cases occurring after the end of the fiscal year. 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. The following sections include 13 Project Return cases that were still active in the program during FY03. a. Program Status as of June 30, 2003 Felony Programs Table 13 presents the status on June 30, 2003, 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 19, 2003. The proportion (30.6%) of cases that remained pending at the end of FY03 was slightly lower than the proportion (31.5%) of cases that remained pending at the end of FY02. Overall, 720 cases, or 66.2 percent of all 1,087 cases active in the reporting period, completed felony programs during the fiscal year, 419 (38.5%) of them successfully. A slightly higher proportion of cases completed in FY03, compared to FY02 (64.3%), also with more completing successfully in this reporting period compared to FY02 (34.7%). When only participants in the 720 cases completing

the programs overall are examined, 58.2 percent (not shown) successfully completed the program, and 41.8 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 FY02 to FY03, for YAP, CEP, FlameTree, and El Rio, while the rate of successful completions decreased for Freedom, DAMAS, and STEPS. Using the base of all cases active during the fiscal year, in very few cases (1.3%) 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 decreased slightly from FY02 (4.2%), to FY03 (3.1%). By the end of the reporting period there were very few cases (.6%) with a monitored transfer program status. Of the 41 (not shown) previously monitored transfer cases in the fiscal year, 23 successfully completed, 11 were unsuccessfully terminated because of failure at the transfer placement, six were still monitored transfers, and one was active at the originally mandated program as of the end of the reporting period. Continuing with the base of all cases active during FY03, completion rates varied by program. CEP had lowest proportion of cases still pending at the end of FY03 (22.4%), while STEPS had the lowest completion rate (50.0%). As a result of closing operations, Project Return had no completed cases in FY03 since they transferred all of their active cases to other programs. Among the other programs, however, between 61.9 percent and 75.4 percent of the cases active in the fiscal year completed the programs during that time. The successful completion rate was highest for participants in FlameTree and YAP (45.8% and 44.9% respectively). Participants in El Rio had the lowest successful completion rate, at 30.8 percent. As in FY02, 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 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: June 2002, New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

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 FY03 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, most (69.5%) of the cases mandated in FY03 were pending at the end of the reporting period. No cases mandated to YAP prior to FY03 were still pending and almost all (96.6%) were completed. Among completed cases mandated to the program prior to FY03, successful completions accounted for almost four-fifths (78.9% [not shown]) of the completed cases. Of the cases mandated to YAP in FY03, over one-quarter (27.1%) of the cases completed in the fiscal year and half (50.0% [not shown]) of those cases were successful completions, an improvement from last year when only 41.1 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. All of the CEP participants entering the program prior to FY03, and active during the reporting period, completed the program during the fiscal year (Table 13b). In three-fifths (61.7% [not shown]) of these cases, participants successfully completed the program. Almost one-third (32.1%) of the cases mandated to CEP in FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Of the cases mandated to CEP in FY03, almost two-thirds (65.1%) of the participants had completed cases in the reporting period, an increase over 56.7 percent in FY02. Of those who were mandated and completed in FY03, over half (55.6% [not shown]) were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in the reporting period, a decrease from FY02 (64.4%). The overall completion rate for cases mandated prior to FY03 to Freedom, the other general population program (Table 13c), was the same as CEP, with all of these cases completed during the fiscal year, 78.5 percent successfully. Almost half (46.5%) of the cases mandated to Freedom in FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period, a decrease of 14.8 percentage points over last year’s figure. Of the cases mandated to Freedom in FY03, three-fifths (59.6% [not

shown]) of the completed cases were unsuccessful completions, an increase from last year’s figure of 45.0 percent. None of the women in DAMAS, who were mandated to the program prior to FY03 were still pending by the end of the fiscal year. The majority (85.7%) of the completed cases mandated prior to FY03 were successful completions (Table 13d). Almost half (48.6%) of the cases mandated to DAMAS in FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Over half (52.9% [not shown]) of the participants who were mandated in the reporting period, and who completed DAMAS, were successful terminations. This represents an increase over the proportion of completed cases that were successful terminations in FY02 (41.2%). None of the cases mandated to FlameTree prior to FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Most (88.9%) of the completed cases mandated prior to FY03 were successful completions (Table 13e). Almost half (46.4%) of the cases mandated in FY03 were still pending at the end of the fiscal year. Of the cases mandated to FlameTree in FY03, over half (52.3% [not shown]) of the completed cases were successfully terminated from the program in the reporting period. As with DAMAS, the proportion of completed cases that were successful terminations in FY02 (33.3%) increased in FY03 for FlameTree. El Rio’s drug program is of longer duration than most of the other programs, and consequently El Rio is one of only two felony programs where cases released prior to FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period although there are only two (3.1%) of these cases (Table 13f). Successful completions were more frequent (77.0% [not shown]) among the completed cases entering the program prior to FY03, up from 51.5 percent for the same category last year. Almost half (48.3%) of the cases mandated in FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Three-quarters (76.0% [not shown]) of the completed cases mandated to El Rio in FY03, were unsuccessfully terminated from the program. All 13 of the cases mandated to Project Return’s Women’s Day Treatment program, and active in FY03, were cases that had been mandated in FY02. Over two-thirds (69.2%) of those cases resulted in transfer to another program, and the remaining four (30.8%) cases were still pending as monitored transfers as of the end of FY03 (Table 13g). STEPS had the highest percentage (25.0%) of cases mandated prior to FY03 and still pending at the end of the reporting period (Table 13h). This is a result of STEPS’s ability to provide services to women who are incarcerated pending resolution of their cases. Two-thirds (66.7% [not shown]) of the completed STEPS cases mandated prior to FY03 were successful completions, a decrease from FY02 (81.5%) in this category. Over half (56.3%) of the cases mandated to STEPS in FY03 were still pending at the end of the reporting period. Four-fifths

(80.0% [not shown]) of the cases mandated to STEPS in FY03, who completed the program, were successful completions. Misdemeanor Program Table 14 displays the status as of June 30, 2003, for CSSP cases active during the reporting period, according to the tier of community service assigned. Most cases were assigned to perform ten days (70 hours) of community service. The successful completion rate among the few cases assigned to the lower tier (96.5%), five days, of community service was higher than that for the higher tier (74.1%), which had substantially more cases. As a percentage of all cases active in FY03, three-quarters (74.9%) of the defendants in mandated cases successfully completed the program by the end of the reporting period; another .9 percent completed a modified term of community service. Among those unsuccessfully terminated from the program in FY03, non-attendance was the most common reason for the termination. The rate of non-completion because the defendant never arrived at the program (“no shows”) was low for the reporting period (5.4%). Only 2.9 percent of CSSP cases were still active at the end of the reporting period. Finally, Table 15 relates program status as of June 30, 2003 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. One in seven (14.2%) 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 (78.4% [not shown]), followed by Brooklyn (77.4% [not shown]), the Bronx (74.9% [not shown), and Manhattan (69.8% [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.” CSSP categorized a defendant as a “No Show” earlier in FY03, compared to FY02. In FY02, over one-third (36.4%) of no shows occurred between 29 and 60 days, while in FY03, only 5.9 percent 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, almost two-fifths (39.1%) were terminated in between 29 and 60 days, and another four percent of the cases were terminated after more than 60 days in the program. In contrast, over three-fifths (61.3%) of the cases successfully completing the program in FY03 reached that status within 21 days of sentencing. This rate is higher than the 56.2 percent of cases successfully completing within the same time in FY02. There was also an increase, from FY02 to FY03 in the proportion of unsuccessful terminations occurring within a shorter time frame. In FY02, two-fifths (39.6%) of unsuccessful terminations occurred with 28 days, while in FY03 the proportion of cases unsuccessfully terminated during this same time period increased to threefifths (56.9%). 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 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 (45.3%) in felony ATI programs were in the programs at least six months, including 7.8 percent who were in the programs for at least a year. These percentages are similar to FY02, when 43.9 percent of active cases were in a program for at least six months, including 7.3 percent who were in the program for at least a year. Not surprisingly, one in six (16.9%) 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. Almost one-fifth (17.5%) 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 two-fifths (39.4%) of STEPS clients had been under supervision, or had received services while in custody, for nine months or more. With all of its cases mandated before FY03, almost two-fifths (38.5%) 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.

participants in Project Return had also been under supervision for nine months or more. Less than six 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 87.8 percent of the cases. Unsuccessful terminations happen generally more quickly, with over four-fifths (82.3%) of them occurring within 180 days of supervision. Five (83.3%) of the cases with a monitored transfer status were still being monitored after one year, 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, almost one-fifth (19.2%) of the defendants in cases still active in the program had already been under program supervision for at least 181 days. Compared to FY02, across all programs, participants in FY03 took slightly less time to successfully complete the programs overall (89.7% successfully completed after six months in FY02, and 87.8% successfully completed after six months in FY03). Less than one-fifth (17.6%) of participants in FY03 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), over one-third (34.0%) of the participants successfully completing the program had been under supervision for over one year, and another 22.6 percent successfully completed within nine months and one year. In the middle of FY02, YAP began exiting successfully completed cases earlier than they had in the past. In FY02, 17.3 percent of cases successfully completed the program in nine months or less, while in FY03 the proportion of cases successfully completing within this same time period increased to 43.5 percent. Correspondingly, the proportion of cases taking at least a year to successfully complete YAP decreased from 47.8 percent in FY02, to 34.0 percent in FY03. Not surprisingly, there is more range in the times to unsuccessful termination. Over half (55.0%) of the participants who were unsuccessfully terminated had been under supervision for at least six months. All no shows occurred within 30 days and the one transfer occurred after nine months in YAP. 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, 2003.

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 86.8 percent successfully completing between six and seven months in the program. All but two (98.2%) of the participants unsuccessfully terminated from the program reached that status within 180 days in the program, including 55.6 percent who were unsuccessfully terminated within three months. Only two (2.8%) of the participants in CEP that were active as of June 30th had been in the program for over 180 days. Five (83.3%) of the no shows occurred within 30 days of the expected enrollment date, while the one other no show occurred between 31 and 60 days. The one participant who was transferred to another program, and the one participant who remained a monitored transfer at the end of the reporting period, had been in CEP for at least four months. Compared to FY02, the length of time in Freedom (Table 18c), the other general population program, showed a shift in length of time to successful completion in FY03. In FY03, over two-thirds (71.6%) of participants successfully completing the program reached that status between six and seven months in the program, compared to FY02 when 61.9 percent completed in that same time period. An additional 20.4 percent of successful completions in FY03 occurred after at least seven months in the program, compared to FY02, when 28.6 percent of successful completions occurred after at least seven months in Freedom. One in seven (14.6%) unsuccessful terminations occurred after six months in the program. Over one-tenth (13.3%) of the cases still active in Freedom had been in the program for over 180 days by the end of FY03. All no shows occurred within 30 days and the one transfer occurred after the participant had been in Freedom for at least four months. Length of time in DAMAS related to successful completion as it did for CEP participants (Table 18d). Most (90.5%) of the successful completions occurred between six and seven months in the program. Half (50.0%) of unsuccessful terminations occurred within two months. Three (17.6%) of the cases still active at the end of the reporting period were in the program for over seven months. The one no show occurred within 30 days. FlameTree participants successfully completing their program also tended to exit the program in a six-month period (Table 18e). Over four-fifths (81.8%) of successful completions occurred between six and seven months in the program. Four fifths (80.0%) of the unsuccessful terminations from the program happened within six months. Four participants (10.2%) still active in the program at the end of the fiscal year had been in the program over six months. The one FlameTree participant who was transferred to another program had been in FlameTree less than 91 days. The length of time in El Rio reflects its longer program model (Table 18f). In FY02, almost one-third (32.3%) of the participants successfully completing the

program reached that status after a year in the program, while in FY03, the proportion of participants taking at least a year to complete El Rio increased to 46.1 percent. Additionally, in FY02, 65.3 percent of unsuccessful terminations occurred within the first six months of participation, while in FY03, that proportion increased to 76.1 percent of unsuccessful terminations occurring within that same timeframe. The two participants transferred to another program had been in El Rio less than three months and the one monitored transfer occurred after a year in El Rio. Only two (2.8%) of the participants still active had been in the program over nine months as of June 30th. All but one (88.8%) of the Project Return participants who were transferred to another program were transferred with six months of enrollment at Project Return (Table 18g). The four remaining monitored transfer cases from Project Return all were still active after one year as of the end of the reporting period. Two-thirds (66.7%) of the participants who successfully completed STEPS (Table 18h) in FY03 did so after six months, including 33.3 percent who completed after one year. In FY02, however, 72.1 percent of participants who successfully completed were in the program longer than six months. Half (50.0%) of the participants who were unsuccessfully terminated from the program in FY03 reached that status after nine months, compared to 18.2 percent unsuccessfully terminated during the same time period in FY02. Almost half (47.2%) of the cases still active in STEPS as of the end of the fiscal year had been in the program for over six months. The one no show occurred within 30 days and four-fifths (80.0%) of transfers occurred within four months of participation in STEPS. 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 18.0 percent in FY02, to 16.8 percent in FY03. The proportion of CSSP participants with a rearrest during the relatively short course of doing community service decreased from 17.3 percent in FY02, to 15.6 percent in FY03.

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 total rearrest rate for all felony programs varied only slightly since last fiscal year, from 18.9 percent in FY02, to 18.5 percent (not shown) in FY03. There was some shift in the rearrest rates of the felony programs when compared with FY02. In FY03, the highest rearrest rate among the felony programs was for El Rio participants (25.6%), followed by CEP (23.3%), and FlameTree (22.5%). Freedomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in-program rearrest rate was 17.3 percent. Though Project Return was next in line with an in-program rearrest rate of 7.7 percent, this represents only one case out of thirteen. YAP, DAMAS, and STEPS each had rearrest rates of less than seven percent (5.9%, 6.1%, and 6.0% respectively). Rearrest rates decreased for all of the felony programs except El Rio. The decrease in rearrest rates was greatest for FlameTree (29.8% in FY02; 22.5% in FY03). In addition, eight (not shown) participants were rearrested on juvenile charges in a total of 14 different cases. Information on Family Court outcomes, if any, is not available. This would add an additional 14 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, 7.1 percent had a rearrest while in the program, compared with almost half (48.6%) of those unsuccessfully terminated from the program. The rearrest rate for FY03 participants successfully completing CSSP decreased from FY02 (8.7%), and the rearrest rate for cases unsuccessfully terminated also decreased from 51.3 percent in FY02, to 48.6 percent in FY03. Almost two-fifths (37.6%) 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 (41.8%). Although only a very small proportion of all CSSP cases, there was a decrease from 38.7 percent in FY02, to 30.8 percent in FY03, 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 8.7 percent as of June 30th, representing an increase in the proportion of CSSP participants still active as of the end of FY02 who were rearrested (6.0%). Table 21 shows the program status of the 201 felony program participants with in-program rearrests. Of those 201 participants, more than one in eight (13.9%) had not finished their participation in the program. This represents a decrease from FY02, when 20.3 percent of participants pending exit had in-program rearrests. Of the completed cases with rearrests, 37.6 percent (not shown) were successfully completed, and 62.4 (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 program, and

STEPS, which had a higher proportion of successful completions who were rearrested, compared to unsuccessful terminations. These program-based rearrest rates will be affected by the number of pending cases with rearrests which will exit the program eventually. Profile of the First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest Table 22 displays selected characteristics of the first prosecuted in-program rearrest. The characteristics are reported separately for the first rearrests in CSSP and for the first rearrests in all felony programs combined. Consistent with previous reports, rearrests for CSSP participants happen quickly. For participants active during FY03, three-fifths (60.7%) of the first prosecuted inprogram rearrests occurred within the first two weeks of sentencing to CSSP. Among the rearrested felony participants, over half (52.7%) of the rearrests did not occur until after 60 days from the date the participant actually enrolled in the program. Ten percent (9.5%) of the rearrests of defendants in felony programs occurred after 180 days, the average length of the felony programs, including four participants who were rearrested after a year in the program. Drug offenses accounted for over one-third of the first in-program rearrests (controlled substances, 27.1%, plus marijuana offenses, 8.5%, for a combined 35.6%) for CSSP participants. Larceny charges accounted for another 24.3 percent of rearrests of CSSP participants, representing a decrease from FY02, in the proportion of first rearrest cases with a larceny charge (30.7%), and an increase in the proportion of first rearrest cases with a drug offense charge (29.7%). In FY03 over two-thirds of the arrests of CSSP participants (69.2%) were arraigned as A misdemeanors, and over two-fifths (42.5%) of the cases ended with a plea at arraignment, mostly to A-misdemeanor charges. The proportion of CSSP participants who disposed of their first rearrest case with a plea at arraignment decreased from FY02 (51.1%). There was an increase from FY02, to FY03 in the proportion of rearrested CSSP participants who were arraigned on a felony charge (14.7% in FY02; 17.8% in FY03), possibly explaining the decrease in cases disposed at arraignment. In those CSSP cases continued beyond arraignment, most defendants were detained on bail, as in FY02. By the end of the second court appearance, over one-quarter (28.7%) of the cases pending leaving arraignment were disposed, most with a plea to an A misdemeanor offense. Ten of the 40 cases disposed at the second court appearance were transferred to Supreme Court. Over twothirds (71.2%) 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, 21.4%, plus marijuana offenses, 13.4%, for a combined 34.8%), with

“assault and related offenses”, “other offenses relating to theft”, and “robbery offenses” associated with another 32.8 percent of the rearrest cases. There was a decrease in the proportion of rearrests for drug, theft, assault, and robbery offenses, compared to the proportions reported in FY02 and an increase in the proportion of rearrests for burglary offenses. Almost one-sixth (15.4%) 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 almost two-thirds of the arrests (65.2%). Dispositions at arraignment (24.4%) 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 slight decrease from FY02 (26.3%), 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 18.4 percent of cases of rearrests of felony program participants in FY03. The number of participants with a case continued at arraignment in FY03 that were detained at arraignment was almost the same as those who were released. One-quarter (25.1%) of the rearrests still pending leaving arraignment were disposed (in Criminal Court) at the next appearance, with almost half (48.6% [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 FY02, 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 (6.3% [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. Almost half (47.4%) were in their thirties at the time of the arrest mandated to CSSP, and another 29.9 percent were even older. Among rearrested CSSP participants, a total of 39.3 percent of the court cases mandated to the program had larceny charges leaving Criminal Court arraignment, and another 25.1 percent were charged with a controlled substance offense on the case for which they received community service. This represents a decrease from FY02 in the proportion of the court cases with in-program rearrests that were mandated to the program with larceny charges leaving

Criminal Court arraignment (46.3%), and an increase from FY02 in the proportion charged with a controlled substance offense on the case for which they received community service (21.4%). Less than one-third (30.4%) 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 (76.1%) had at least one felony conviction. As in FY02, participants sentenced in the Bronx to community service as the condition of a conditional discharge constituted the largest proportion (38.9%) of participants with a rearrest in FY03, although this proportion increased from FY02 (31.6%). In both FY02, and FY03, youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years old comprised the largest age group among felony program participants with at least one in-program rearrest that was prosecuted, although the proportion decreased from FY02 (48.3%), to FY03 (45.3%). Rearrested felony participants were most commonly (55.7%) charged with a controlled substance offense on the case that brought them into the program, and another 22.9 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 was almost the same as in FY02 (22.8%), while the proportion of rearrested felony participants with a controlled substance offense charge on the cases for which they were mandated increased from FY02 (52.2%). Over one-fifth (21.4%) of the FY03 rearrested felony program participants had prior misdemeanor convictions at the time of their arrest on the mandated case; and 12.5 percent had prior felony convictions. The highest proportion (49.8%) of rearrested felony program participants was originally mandated to a program as the result of a case in the Bronx, followed by Brooklyn (25.4%). In both FY02, and FY03, cases mandated in Queens represented just a small proportion (6.0% in FY02; 1.5% in FY03) 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).

Tables

192 55 903 171 1321 79 27 545 99 750 140 28 371 62 601 2672

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

23.3% 4.7% 61.7% 10.3% 100.0%

10.5% 3.6% 72.7% 13.2% 100.0%

14.5% 4.2% 68.4% 12.9% 100.0%

Brooklyn n %

51 12 219 80 362 1991

60 13 335 124 532

137 53 680 227 1097

12.5% 4.8% 62.0% 20.7% 100.0% 3rd Quarter 11.3% 2.4% 63.0% 23.3% 100.0% 4th Quarter 14.1% 3.3% 60.5% 22.1% 100.0% 26 7 141 34 208 1157

45 12 185 53 295

67 29 453 105 654

12.5% 3.4% 67.8% 16.3% 100.0%

15.3% 4.1% 62.7% 18.0% 100.0%

10.2% 4.4% 69.3% 16.1% 100.0%

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

70 8 210 34 322 1803

86 20 373 63 542

166 42 634 97 939

21.7% 2.5% 65.2% 10.6% 100.0%

15.9% 3.7% 68.8% 11.6% 100.0%

17.7% 4.5% 67.5% 10.3% 100.0%

Bronx

287 55 941 210 1493 7623

270 72 1438 339 2119

562 179 2670 600 4011

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 1: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Misdemeanor Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period by Time Period of Targeting and Borough

19.2% 3.7% 63.0% 14.1% 100.0%

12.7% 3.4% 67.9% 16.0% 100.0%

14.0% 4.5% 66.6% 15.0% 100.0%

Total

Brooklyn n % 472 17.7% 232 8.7% 79 3.0% 412 15.4% 195 7.3% 33 1.2% 72 2.7% 899 33.6% 116 4.3% 49 1.8% 113 4.2% 2672 100%

Manhattan n % 331 16.6% 179 9.0% 73 3.7% 471 23.7% 128 6.4% 50 2.5% 66 3.3% 368 18.5% 180 9.0% 24 1.2% 121 6.1% 1991 100%

Queens n % 184 15.9% 99 8.6% 41 3.5% 223 19.3% 58 5.0% 26 2.2% 40 3.5% 314 27.1% 81 7.0% 47 4.1% 44 3.8% 1157 100%

Bronx n % 339 18.8% 282 15.6% 61 3.4% 233 12.9% 103 5.7% 45 2.5% 114 6.3% 313 17.4% 158 8.8% 48 2.7% 107 5.9% 1803 100%

n 1326 792 254 1339 484 154 292 1894 535 168 385 7623

Total % 17.4% 10.4% 3.3% 17.6% 6.3% 2.0% 3.8% 24.8% 7.0% 2.2% 5.1% 100%

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Criminal Facilitation (115), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Arson (150), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Other Frauds (190), Official Misconduct and Obstruction of Public Servants Generally (195), 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, FY03 Table 2: Charge Type (Penal Law Article) for the Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment in the Reporting Period for Targeted Misdemeanor Cases by Borough

464 17.0% 1067 39.0% 267 9.8% 576 21.1% 2374 86.8% 2735 100.0% 21.8%

61 50 73 0 184

2.5% 2.1% 3.0% 0.0% 7.7%

Queens n % 52 2.2% 148 81 263 6 498

4.1% 2.2% 7.2% 0.2% 13.7%

Bronx n % 49 1.3%

636 16.8% 325 13.5% 674 18.5% 1097 29.0% 1460 60.8% 821 22.6% 337 8.9% 132 5.5% 481 13.2% 1208 31.9% 250 10.4% 1112 30.6% 3278 86.7% 2167 90.2% 3088 85.0% 3782 100.0% 2403 100.0% 3635 100.0% 30.1% 19.1% 29.0%

4.0% 2.0% 5.7% 0.1% 11.9%

153 76 215 5 449

3.2% 3.5% 4.0% 0.2% 10.9%

88 96 109 6 299

*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 % 55 1.5%

Brooklyn n % 62 2.3%

2099 4445 1217 3146 10907 12555

450 303 660 17 1430

16.7% 35.4% 9.7% 25.1% 86.9% 100.0%

3.6% 2.4% 5.3% 0.1% 11.4%

Total n % 218 1.7%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 3: Target Category of Post-Arraignment Felony Cases Targeted in the Reporting Period by Borough

% 6.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.5% 79.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 0.9% 5.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100%

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1058 52 0 0 0 1110

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 95.3% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Drug

n 13 0 2 1 1 173 0 0 14 2 11 0 1 218

Female Offenders

Juvenile Offenders

Female Offenders

n 45 33 62 0 0 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 303

% 14.9% 10.9% 20.5% 0.0% 0.0% 53.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Non-Drug Detained

Female Offenders

n 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17

% 88.2% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Non-Drug Released

n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6135 327 0 0 0 6462

% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 94.9% 5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Drug

Male Offenders

n 436 6 490 35 265 1845 175 101 0 0 859 40 193 4445

% 9.8% 0.1% 11.0% 0.8% 6.0% 41.5% 3.9% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 19.3% 0.9% 4.3% 100%

Non-Drug Detained

n 509 40 554 36 266 2181 175 102 7207 381 870 40 194 12555

% 4.1% 0.3% 4.4% 0.3% 2.1% 17.4% 1.4% 0.8% 57.4% 3.0% 6.9% 0.3% 1.5% 100%

Total

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Conspiracy (105), Criminal Facilitation (115), Kidnapping, Coercion and Related Offenses (135), Criminal Mischief and Related Offenses (145), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Offenses Involving False Written Statements (175), Insurance Fraud (176), Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications and Prescriptions (178), Other Frauds (190), Bribery Involving Public Servants and Related Offenses (200), Escape and Other Offenses Relating to Custody (205), Gambling Offenses (225), Prostitution Offenses (230), Obscenity and Related Offenses (235), Offenses Against Public Order (240), Offenses Affecting the Marital Relationship (255), Offenses Relating to Children and Incompetents (260), Sexual Performance by a Child (263), Offenses Relating to Unauthorized Recording (275), 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, FY03 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

280

Post-Arraignment

807

527

Arraignment

100.0%

34.7%

65.3%

336

101

235

100.0%

30.1%

69.9%

100.0%

185

100.0%

102

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%

722

762

48.7%

51.3%

Total %

100.0% 1484 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, FY03 Table 5a: Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period

29.8%

6.7%

18.5% 5.2% 12.2%

17.0%

10.6%

61 17 40

1 0 0

0.0%

2.3%

2.3% 0.0% 0.0%

86.0%

9.3%

Juvenile Offender

0 0 0

0.0%

100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Youthful Offender

0 3 0

20.0%

0.0% 60.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Detained n %

Female Drug

0 8 0

0.0%

20.0%

0.0% 80.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Released n %

68.8% 100.0%

11 16

0.0%

0.0% 31.3% 0.0%

0.0%

0 5 0

Detained n %

Female Non-Drug

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

Total 329 100.0% 43 100.0% 1 100.0% 5 100.0% 10 100.0% *Includes 45 felony cases from the low bail target group, not eligible for screening until after transfer to Supreme Court. **Includes two cases of female defendants mandated to DAMAS who were mistakenly targeted as males.

CEP Center for Community Alternatives YAP Fortune Society Freedom DAMAS FlameTree Osborne Association El Rio Edwin Gould Services STEPS

CASES

ATI Programs

Referral or Manual Target

118

13 0 20

100.0%

0.0%

40.7%

11.0% 0.0% 16.9%

0.0%

31.4%

Detained* n %

Male Drug

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 5b: Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

Male Drug

7 2 10

100.0%

0.0%

59.7%

11.3% 3.2% 16.1%

0.0%

9.7%

Released** n %

120

32 0 14

100.0%

0.0%

0.8%

26.7% 0.0% 11.7%

0.0%

60.8%

Detained n %

Male Non-Drug

705

147

114 35 84

218

100.0%

6.8%

20.9%

16.2% 5.0% 11.9%

8.4%

30.9%

Total

280

Post-Arraignment

807

527

Arraignment

54.4%

38.8%

69.2%

336

101

235

22.6%

14.0%

30.8%

2.8%

0.6%

1.2%

185

12.5%

25.6%

102

6.9%

14.1%

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

5.7%

Target C01

Total

CSSP

Time of Mandate

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

0.1%

0.2%

0.4%

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, FY03 Table 5c: Target Group by Time of Mandate for Defendants Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period

100.0%

Total

1484

722

762

45.0%

37.3%

53.5% 48.6% 47.6%

38.1%

72.9%

61 17 40

1 0 0

0.0%

0.7%

0.9% 0.0% 0.0%

62.7%

1.8%

Juvenile Offender

0 0 0

0.0%

0.7%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Youthful Offender

0 3 0

2.1%

0.7%

0.0% 8.6% 0.0%

0.0%

0 8 0

0.0% 1.4%

0 5 0

2.3%

22.9%

0.0%

0.0% 14.3% 0.0%

0.0%

Detained n %

Female Non-Drug

1.4%

0.0% 22.9% 0.0%

0.0%

Released n %

Detained n %

0 0 0

0.1%

2.1%

0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

Released n %

Female Non-Drug

Felony Target Group Female Drug

Female Drug

Total 329 46.7% 43 6.1% 1 0.1% 5 0.7% 10 *Includes 45 felony cases from the low bail target group, not eligible for screening until after transfer to Supreme Court. **Includes two cases of female defendants mandated to DAMAS who were mistakenly targeted as males.

CEP Center for Community Alternatives YAP Fortune Society Freedom DAMAS FlameTree Osborne Association El Rio Edwin Gould Services STEPS

CASES

ATI Programs

Referral or Manual Target

118

13 0 20

16.7%

0.0%

32.7%

11.4% 0.0% 23.8%

0.0%

17.0%

Detained* n %

Male Drug

7 2 10

8.8%

0.0%

25.2%

6.1% 5.7% 11.9%

0.0%

2.8%

Released** n %

Male Drug

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 5d: Target Group by Felony Program to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period

120

32 0 14

17.0%

0.0%

0.7%

28.1% 0.0% 16.7%

0.0%

33.5%

Detained n %

Male Non-Drug

705

147

114 35 84

218

100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

Total

386 58 40 15 9 25 26 12 571

68.9% 12.4% 1.8% 9.3% 1.1% 3.1% 0.2% 3.1% 100.0%

2.1% 100.0%

4.6%

2.6% 1.6% 4.4%

7.0%

67.6% 10.2%

Manhattan n %

11 360

19 2 7

3.1% 100.0%

0.0%

5.3% 0.6% 1.9%

0.3%

87.8% 1.1%

Queens n % 316 4

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

CSSP 377 CEP 68 Center for Community Alternatives YAP 10 Fortune Society Freedom 51 DAMAS 6 FlameTree 17 Osborne Association El Rio 1 Edwin Gould Services STEPS* 17 Total Mandated 547

CASES

ATI Programs

Brooklyn n %

8 711

120

29 18 35

405 88

1.1% 100.0%

16.9%

4.1% 2.5% 4.9%

1.1%

57.0% 12.4%

Bronx n %

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 6a: ATI Programs to Which Defendants Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Borough

48 2189

147

114 35 84

1484 218

2.2% 100.0%

6.7%

5.2% 1.6% 3.8%

2.7%

67.8% 10.0%

Total n %

5 days 10 days Total CSSP

Brooklyn 24 6.4% 353 93.6% 377 100.0%

Manhattan 9 2.3% 377 97.7% 386 100.0%

Queens 11 3.5% 305 96.5% 316 100.0%

Bronx 13 3.2% 392 96.8% 405 100.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 6b: Scheduled Days of Community Service Sentences for Cases Mandated to CSSP in the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence Total 57 3.8% 1427 96.2% 1484 100.0%

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 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

65 274 227 79 47 13 705

9.2% 65 3.0% 38.9% 284 13.0% 32.2% 582 26.6% 11.2% 648 29.6% 6.7% 501 22.9% 1.8% 109 5.0% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

Female 185 12.5% Male 1299 87.5% 1484 100.0%

94 611 705

13.3% 279 12.7% 86.7% 1910 87.3% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

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

43 2.9% 216 14.6% 235 15.8% 432 29.1% 211 14.2% 347 23.4% 1484 100.0%

544 91 25 33 4 8 705

77.2% 587 26.8% 12.9% 307 14.0% 3.5% 260 11.9% 4.7% 465 21.2% 0.6% 215 9.8% 1.1% 355 16.2% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

None 1 2 3 or more

490 33.0% 407 27.4% 263 17.7% 324 21.8% 1484 100.0%

601 58 28 18 705

85.2% 1091 49.8% 8.2% 465 21.2% 4.0% 291 13.3% 2.6% 342 15.6% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

Total Prior Felony Convictions

Total

0 0.0% 10 0.7% 355 23.9% 569 38.3% 454 30.6% 96 6.5% 1484 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

647 43.6% 837 56.4% 1484 100.0%

54 651 705

7.7% 701 32.0% 92.3% 1488 68.0% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

None 256 17.3% 1 208 14.0% 2 or more 1020 68.7% 1484 100.0%

625 29 51 705

88.7% 881 40.2% 4.1% 237 10.8% 7.2% 1071 48.9% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

Yes 1040 70.1% No 444 29.9% 1484 100.0%

100 605 705

14.2% 1140 52.1% 85.8% 1049 47.9% 100.0% 2189 100.0%

Yes 30 2.0% No 1454 98.0% 1484 100.0%

8 697 705

1.1% 38 1.7% 98.9% 2151 98.3% 100.0% 2189 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

100.0%

0.0%

4.7%

7.0%

86.0%

0.0%

2.3%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Offender

Youthful

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Detained & Released

Female Drug

Felony

100.0%

0.0%

37.5%

0.0%

43.8%

18.8%

Detained

Female Non-Drug

Male Drug

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

180

178

100.0%

1.1%

0.0%

98.9%

0.0%

Released (STEPS) Detained & Released

120

100.0%

5.8%

13.3%

0.0%

64.2%

8.3%

0.0%

8.3%

Detained

Male Non-Drug

705

309

196

100.0%

8.5%

6.2%

43.8%

27.8%

3.3%

2.7%

7.7%

Total

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Sex Offenses (130), 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), Offenses Against Public Order (240), and Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL).

329

Missing and Other*

Total

7.9%

265:Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons

15.5%

34.0%

23.1%

112

4.0%

140:Burglary and Related Offenses

160:Robbery

3.6%

125: Homicide, Abortion, and Related Offenses

220:Controlled Substances Offenses

11.9%

120:Assault and Related Offenses

Penal Law Article

Offender

Target

Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment

Juvenile

Manual

Referral and

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 8a: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group a. Mandated to Felony Programs

21 76 16 337 104 333 168 88 1143

1.8% 6.6% 1.4% 29.5% 9.1% 29.1% 14.7% 7.7% 100.0%

5 2 1 6 4 12 9 2 41

12.2% 4.9% 2.4% 14.6% 9.8% 29.3% 22.0% 4.9% 100.0%

Target C01

0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9

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

Target C02

8 36 0 0 23 63 42 13 185

4.3% 19.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.4% 34.1% 22.7% 7.0% 100.0%

Target C03

0 0 13 89 0 0 0 0 102

0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 87.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Target C04

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

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

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0%

Felony Male Non-Drug Detained & Released Detained Male Drug

2.3% 7.8% 2.0% 29.7% 8.8% 27.5% 14.8% 7.0% 100.0%

Total

34 116 30 441 131 408 220 104 1484

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Robbery (160), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), 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).

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

Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment

Referral and Manual Target

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 8b: Charge Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment for Defendants Who Were Mandated in the Reporting Period by Target Group b. Mandated to CSSP

1484

Total

100.0%

2.3% 0.0% 7.8% 2.0% 29.7% 0.2% 8.8% 27.5% 14.8% 1.1% 5.7%

218

15 3 10 0 17 89 5 58 0 19 2

100.0%

6.9% 1.4% 4.6% 0.0% 7.8% 40.8% 2.3% 26.6% 0.0% 8.7% 0.9%

CEP

1 1 0 0 0 54 0 1 0 2 0

100.0%

1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.5% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0%

YAP

CCA

114

6 2 6 0 7 28 1 37 2 19 6

100.0%

5.3% 1.8% 5.3% 0.0% 6.1% 24.6% 0.9% 32.5% 1.8% 16.7% 5.3%

Freedom

2 0 0 0 4 4 0 22 0 0 3

100.0%

5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 11.4% 0.0% 62.9% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

6 0 5 1 2 15 3 47 1 3 1

100.0%

7.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.2% 2.4% 17.9% 3.6% 56.0% 1.2% 3.6% 1.2%

FlameTree

147

1 0 1 0 0 2 0 143 0 0 0

100.0%

0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 97.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

El Rio

Osborne

23 13 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 5

88 19 139 31 471 199 140 717 223 61 101

100.0%

4.0% 0.9% 6.3% 1.4% 21.5% 9.1% 6.4% 32.8% 10.2% 2.8% 4.6%

Total

100.0% 2189

47.9% 27.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 10.4%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

*Other includes offenses in the following Penal Law Articles: Sex Offenses (130), 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).

34 0 116 30 441 3 131 408 220 17 84

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, FY03 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, FY03 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 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

0 0.0% 195 13.1% 384 25.9% 344 23.2% 194 13.1% 0 0.0% 174 11.7% 20 1.3% 0 0.0% 163 11.0% 10 0.7% 1484 100.0%

0 0 0 52 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 58

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

1 0 2 144 69 1 12 0 3 0 1 233

0.4% 0.0% 0.9% 61.8% 29.6% 0.4% 5.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.4% 100.0%

0 11 53 106 59 0 10 0 1 1 1 242

0.0% 4.5% 21.9% 43.8% 24.4% 0.0% 4.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 100.0%

0 11 21 75 46 0 10 0 1 36 3 203

0.0% 1 0.0% 5.4% 217 9.8% 10.3% 460 20.7% 36.9% 721 32.5% 22.7% 372 16.8% 0.0% 1 0.0% 4.9% 206 9.3% 0.0% 20 0.9% 0.5% 7 0.3% 17.7% 200 9.0% 1.5% 15 0.7% 100.0% 2220 100.0%

0 0.0% 341 20.6% 456 27.6% 19 1.1% 0 0.0% 109 6.6% 8 0.5% 722 43.6% 0 0.0% 1655 100.0%

0 0 0 0 2 2 0 45 9 58

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 77.6% 15.5% 100.0%

1 15 11 0 1 3 2 167 12 212

0.5% 7.1% 5.2% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4% 0.9% 78.8% 5.7% 100.0%

1 45 21 2 1 9 11 140 1 231

0.4% 19.5% 9.1% 0.9% 0.4% 3.9% 4.8% 60.6% 0.4% 100.0%

2 36 18 1 4 6 11 113 2 193

1.0% 4 0.2% 18.7% 437 18.6% 9.3% 506 21.5% 0.5% 22 0.9% 2.1% 8 0.3% 3.1% 129 5.5% 5.7% 32 1.4% 58.5% 1187 50.5% 1.0% 24 1.0% 100.0% 2349 100.0%

1191 80.3% 176 11.9% 117 7.9% 1484 100.0%

57 0 0 57

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

196 6 10 212

92.5% 2.8% 4.7% 100.0%

214 12 5 231

92.6% 5.2% 2.2% 100.0%

183 6 3 192

95.3% 1841 84.6% 3.1% 200 9.2% 1.6% 135 6.2% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 7 0.5% 1477 99.5% 1484 100.0%

0 38 19 57

0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%

1 65 146 212

0.5% 30.7% 68.9% 100.0%

0 8 223 231

0.0% 3.5% 96.5% 100.0%

0 30 162 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 15.6% 148 6.8% 84.4% 2027 93.2% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

1484 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 18 39 0 57

0.0% 31.6% 68.4% 0.0% 100.0%

1 69 138 4 212

0.5% 32.5% 65.1% 1.9% 100.0%

1 45 179 6 231

0.4% 19.5% 77.5% 2.6% 100.0%

0 34 155 3 192

0.0% 1486 68.3% 17.7% 166 7.6% 80.7% 511 23.5% 1.6% 13 0.6% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

* Total is greater than 2,176 because more than one category may be checked. ** By agreement CSSP does not ask about special education due to the older population they serve.

Page 1 of 2

Total n

Misdemeanor CSSP Demographic Information Last Grade Completed Missing Less than 7th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade 9th Grade 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade Post High School Total Can Participant Read English? Missing Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Can Participant Speak English? Missing Yes No Total Psychological/Emotional Issues Has Part. Ever Been Treated for Psych./Emotional Problems Missing Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Is Participant Currently Prescribed Psychotropic Drugs Missing Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Scheduled Time at Program Missing Monitored Cases 1 Session/Week 2 Sessions/Week 3 Sessions/Week 5 Sessions/Week 3 Hours/Day 5 Hours/Day 7 Hours/Day Total

Felony Programs CEP Drug Programs

YAP

General Population

4 0.3% 39 2.6% 15 1.0% 33 2.2% 123 8.3% 251 16.9% 418 28.2% 393 26.5% 208 14.0% 1484 100.0%

0 2 8 27 16 4 0 0 0 57

0.0% 3.5% 14.0% 47.4% 28.1% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 0 2 37 69 66 25 10 0 212

1.4% 0.0% 0.9% 17.5% 32.5% 31.1% 11.8% 4.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 4 4 14 45 62 58 32 12 231

0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 6.1% 19.5% 26.8% 25.1% 13.9% 5.2% 100.0%

0 2 4 14 32 55 41 28 16 192

0.0% 7 0.3% 1.0% 47 2.2% 2.1% 33 1.5% 7.3% 125 5.7% 16.7% 285 13.1% 28.6% 438 20.1% 21.4% 542 24.9% 14.6% 463 21.3% 8.3% 236 10.8% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

3 0.2% 1467 98.9% 14 0.9% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 57 0 0 57

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 204 7 0 212

0.5% 96.2% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 220 10 0 231

0.4% 95.2% 4.3% 0.0% 100.0%

0 187 4 1 192

0.0% 5 0.2% 97.4% 2135 98.1% 2.1% 35 1.6% 0.5% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 1453 97.9% 31 2.1% 1484 100.0%

0 57 0 57

0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 207 4 212

0.5% 97.6% 1.9% 100.0%

0 228 3 231

0.0% 98.7% 1.3% 100.0%

0 190 2 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 99.0% 2135 98.1% 1.0% 40 1.8% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 6 0.4% 1478 99.6% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 12 45 0 57

0.0% 21.1% 78.9% 0.0% 100.0%

1 37 174 0 212

0.5% 17.5% 82.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 31 200 0 231

0.0% 13.4% 86.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 29 162 1 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 15.1% 115 5.3% 84.4% 2059 94.6% 0.5% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 16 1.1% 1468 98.9% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 3 53 1 57

0.0% 5.3% 93.0% 1.8% 100.0%

1 3 207 1 212

0.5% 1.4% 97.6% 0.5% 100.0%

0 10 221 0 231

0.0% 4.3% 95.7% 0.0% 100.0%

0 12 178 2 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 6.3% 44 2.0% 92.7% 2127 97.7% 1.0% 4 0.2% 100.0% 2176 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% 1484 100.0% 1484 100.0%

0 2 1 7 47 0 0 0 0 57

0.0% 3.5% 1.8% 12.3% 82.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 212

0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 0 84 4 143 0 231

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 1.7% 61.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 33 13 0 146 0 0 0 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 0.0% 2 0.1% 17.2% 34 1.6% 6.8% 20 0.9% 0.0% 47 2.2% 76.0% 441 20.3% 0.0% 4 0.2% 0.0% 143 6.6% 0.0% 1484 68.2% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

Page 2 of 2

Total n

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 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

0 0.0% 1164 78.4% 60 4.0% 70 4.7% 114 7.7% 71 4.8% 5 0.3% 1484 100.0%

0 55 1 1 0 0 0 57

0.0% 96.5% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1 179 9 13 8 2 0 212

0.5% 84.4% 4.2% 6.1% 3.8% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%

0 157 19 16 24 15 0 231

0.0% 68.0% 8.2% 6.9% 10.4% 6.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0 121 27 13 19 12 0 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 63.0% 1676 77.0% 14.1% 116 5.3% 6.8% 113 5.2% 9.9% 165 7.6% 6.3% 100 4.6% 0.0% 5 0.2% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 1085 73.1% 48 3.2% 54 3.6% 112 7.5% 185 12.5% 1484 100.0%

0 41 4 0 3 9 57

0.0% 71.9% 7.0% 0.0% 5.3% 15.8% 100.0%

1 90 7 16 29 69 212

0.5% 42.5% 3.3% 7.5% 13.7% 32.5% 100.0%

0 100 7 4 27 93 231

0.0% 43.3% 3.0% 1.7% 11.7% 40.3% 100.0%

0 119 14 7 15 37 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 62.0% 1435 65.9% 7.3% 80 3.7% 3.6% 81 3.7% 7.8% 186 8.5% 19.3% 393 18.1% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 1248 84.1% 25 1.7% 26 1.8% 75 5.1% 109 7.3% 1 0.1% 1484 100.0%

0 57 0 0 0 0 0 57

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

1 208 2 0 1 0 0 212

0.5% 98.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 203 4 4 13 7 0 231

0.0% 87.9% 1.7% 1.7% 5.6% 3.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 180 3 2 4 2 1 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 93.8% 1896 87.1% 1.6% 34 1.6% 1.0% 32 1.5% 2.1% 93 4.3% 1.0% 118 5.4% 0.5% 2 0.1% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 1405 94.7% 12 0.8% 10 0.7% 29 2.0% 27 1.8% 1 0.1% 1484 100.0%

0 57 0 0 0 0 0 57

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

1 210 0 1 0 0 0 212

0.5% 99.1% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 200 8 8 8 7 0 231

0.0% 86.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 183 2 2 2 3 0 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 95.3% 2055 94.4% 1.0% 22 1.0% 1.0% 21 1.0% 1.0% 39 1.8% 1.6% 37 1.7% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 1210 81.5% 16 1.1% 15 1.0% 49 3.3% 194 13.1% 1484 100.0%

0 57 0 0 0 0 57

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

1 211 0 0 0 0 212

0.5% 99.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 218 2 1 5 5 231

0.0% 94.4% 0.9% 0.4% 2.2% 2.2% 100.0%

0 188 0 0 1 3 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 97.9% 1884 86.6% 0.0% 18 0.8% 0.0% 16 0.7% 0.5% 55 2.5% 1.6% 202 9.3% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

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

0 0.0% 1257 84.7% 3 0.2% 2 0.1% 5 0.3% 217 14.6% 1484 100.0%

0 57 0 0 0 0 57

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

1 211 0 0 0 0 212

0.5% 99.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 228 1 1 0 1 231

0.0% 98.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 100.0%

0 188 0 0 0 4 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 97.9% 1941 89.2% 0.0% 4 0.2% 0.0% 3 0.1% 0.0% 5 0.2% 2.1% 222 10.2% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 207 13.9% 81 5.5% 7 0.5% 1189 80.1% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 0 0 0 56 1 57

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.2% 1.8% 100.0%

1 0 3 0 208 0 212

0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 98.1% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 85 3 143 0 231

0.0% 0.0% 36.8% 1.3% 61.9% 0.0% 100.0%

1 5 18 3 165 0 192

0.5% 2 0.1% 2.6% 212 9.7% 9.4% 187 8.6% 1.6% 13 0.6% 85.9% 1761 80.9% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 666 44.9% 818 55.1% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 5 51 1 57

0.0% 8.8% 89.5% 1.8% 100.0%

1 16 191 4 212

0.5% 7.5% 90.1% 1.9% 100.0%

0 174 56 1 231

0.0% 75.3% 24.2% 0.4% 100.0%

0 19 171 2 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 9.9% 880 40.4% 89.1% 1287 59.1% 1.0% 8 0.4% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 129 8.7% 1355 91.3% 0 0.0% 1484 100.0%

0 0 56 1 57

0.0% 0.0% 98.2% 1.8% 100.0%

1 4 207 0 212

0.5% 1.9% 97.6% 0.0% 100.0%

0 29 202 0 231

0.0% 12.6% 87.4% 0.0% 100.0%

0 13 179 0 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 6.8% 175 8.0% 93.2% 1999 91.9% 0.0% 1 0.0% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 774 52.2% 710 47.8% 1484 100.0%

0 5 52 57

0.0% 8.8% 91.2% 100.0%

1 45 166 212

0.5% 21.2% 78.3% 100.0%

0 207 24 231

0.0% 89.6% 10.4% 100.0%

0 43 149 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 22.4% 1074 49.4% 77.6% 1101 50.6% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

0 0.0% 46 3.1% 1438 96.9% 1484 100.0%

0 0 57 57

0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 6 205 212

0.5% 2.8% 96.7% 100.0%

0 69 162 231

0.0% 29.9% 70.1% 100.0%

0 34 158 192

0.0% 1 0.0% 17.7% 155 7.1% 82.3% 2020 92.8% 100.0% 2176 100.0%

Frequency of Methadone Use In Past 30 Days Missing None 1 Day/Month or Less 1 Day/Week 2-3 Days/Week Daily 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 Information Not Available Yes No Don't Know or Refused to Answer Total Does Prog. Characterize Participant's Drug Use as a Problem Information Not Available Yes No Total Does Prog. Characterize Participant's Alcohol Use as a Problem Information Not Available Yes No Total

Page 2 of 2

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 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 29 29 1 59

0.0% 49.2% 49.2% 1.7% 100.0%

0 5 209 4 218

0.0% 2.3% 95.9% 1.8% 100.0%

0 32 195 4 231

0.0% 13.9% 84.4% 1.7% 100.0%

0 48 145 4 197

0.0% 24.4% 73.6% 2.0% 100.0%

0 114 578 13 705

0.0% 16.2% 82.0% 1.8% 100.0%

0 0 0 0 30 30

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

1 4 0 1 207 213

0.5% 1.9% 0.0% 0.5% 97.2% 100.0%

21 126 2 11 39 199

10.6% 63.3% 1.0% 5.5% 19.6% 100.0%

7 44 0 13 85 149

4.7% 29.5% 0.0% 8.7% 57.0% 100.0%

29 174 2 25 361 591

4.9% 29.4% 0.3% 4.2% 61.1% 100.0%

0 0 20 5 0 5 0 30

0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 197 8 0 3 1 213

1.9% 0.0% 92.5% 3.8% 0.0% 1.4% 0.5% 100.0%

65 17 84 0 3 9 21 199

32.7% 8.5% 42.2% 0.0% 1.5% 4.5% 10.6% 100.0%

13 4 109 2 0 14 7 149

8.7% 2.7% 73.2% 1.3% 0.0% 9.4% 4.7% 100.0%

82 21 410 15 3 31 29 591

13.9% 3.6% 69.4% 2.5% 0.5% 5.2% 4.9% 100.0%

18 0 12 0 30

60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100.0%

168 3 28 14 213

78.9% 1.4% 13.1% 6.6% 100.0%

11 5 12 171 199

5.5% 2.5% 6.0% 85.9% 100.0%

19 3 21 106 149

12.8% 2.0% 14.1% 71.1% 100.0%

216 11 73 291 591

36.5% 1.9% 12.4% 49.2% 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

Completed: Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only

Drug use Other Subtotal Not Completed

Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

15.3% 4.2% 22.9% 2.5% 44.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 8.5% 3.4% 3.4% 0.8% 16.9% 61.9% 34.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 100.0%

0 0 0 1 10 4 4 1 20 73 41 0 0 0 41 118

0.0% 0.8% 3.4%

2.5%

1 0 0 70 313

29 3 40 8 7 21 6 1 115 236

104 2 0 15 121

1 0 7

0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 22.4% 100.0%

22.0%

9.3% 1.0% 12.8% 2.6% 2.2% 6.7% 1.9% 0.3% 36.7% 75.4%

33.2% 0.6% 0.0% 4.8% 38.7%

0.3% 0.0% 2.2%

1.9%

CEP

YAP

18 5 27 3 53

0 1 4

CASES

CCA

0 0 0 53 179

27 0 4 0 9 5 2 1 48 122

62 2 10 0 74

1 0 4

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.6% 100.0%

29.6%

15.1% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 5.0% 2.8% 1.1% 0.6% 26.8% 68.2%

34.6% 1.1% 5.6% 0.0% 41.3%

0.6% 0.0% 2.2%

1.7%

Freedom

0 0 0 17 49

7 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 31

14 1 6 0 21

0 0 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.7% 100.0%

34.7%

14.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 20.4% 63.3%

28.6% 2.0% 12.2% 0.0% 42.9%

0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

2.0%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

0 0 0 39 120

11 0 4 1 5 3 0 1 25 80

30 2 19 4 55

0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.5% 100.0%

32.5%

9.2% 0.0% 3.3% 0.8% 4.2% 2.5% 0.0% 0.8% 20.8% 66.7%

25.0% 1.7% 15.8% 3.3% 45.8%

0.0% 0.8% 0.8%

0.0%

FlameTree

1 0 0 73 211

35 0 6 0 9 7 4 10 71 136

32 1 32 0 65

0 2 2

0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 34.6% 100.0%

34.1%

16.6% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 4.3% 3.3% 1.9% 4.7% 33.6% 64.5%

15.2% 0.5% 15.2% 0.0% 30.8%

0.0% 0.9% 0.9%

0.0%

El Rio

Osborne

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases Active in the Reporting Period by ATI Program

2 1 1 4 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 9 9

15.4% 7.7% 7.7% 30.8% 100.0%

0.0%

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

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 69.2% 69.2%

0.0%

Women's Day Treatment n %

Project Return

0 0 0 36 84

5 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 12 42

15 3 11 1 30

4 1 6

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 100.0%

42.9%

6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 0.0% 2.4% 14.3% 50.0%

17.9% 3.6% 13.1% 1.2% 35.7%

4.8% 1.2% 7.1%

1.2%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

4 1 1 333 1087

327

114 4 54 11 43 42 17 16 301 720

275 16 105 23 419

6 14 34

0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 30.6% 100.0%

30.1%

10.5% 0.4% 5.0% 1.0% 4.0% 3.9% 1.6% 1.5% 27.7% 66.2%

25.3% 1.5% 9.7% 2.1% 38.5%

0.6% 1.3% 3.1%

1.3%

Total

Drug use Subtotal Pending

Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Total All YAP Cases

Pending:

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Completed:

Other Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 0 59

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.0% 10.2% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% 20.3% 96.6%

0 6 3 3 0 12 57 0

28.8% 6.8% 35.6% 5.1% 76.3%

1.7% 3.4%

1.7%

17 4 21 3 45

1 2

Released Prior to Fiscal Year n %

CCA YAP

0 41 59

1 4 1 1 1 8 16

1 1 6 0 8

0 2

0.0% 69.5% 100.0%

69.5%

1.7% 6.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 13.6% 27.1%

1.7% 1.7% 10.2% 0.0% 13.6%

0.0% 3.4%

3.4%

Fiscal Year 03

0 41 118

1 10 4 4 1 20 73

18 5 27 3 53

1 4

0.8% 3.4%

2.5%

0.0% 34.7% 100.0%

34.7%

0.8% 8.5% 3.4% 3.4% 0.8% 16.9% 61.9%

15.3% 4.2% 22.9% 2.5% 44.9%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13a: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, 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:

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:

Drug use Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 0 95

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

8.4% 1.1% 10.5% 4.2% 3.2% 9.5% 1.1% 0.0% 37.9% 98.9%

8 1 10 4 3 9 1 0 36 94 0

51.6% 1.1% 0.0% 8.4% 61.1%

0.0% 1.1%

1.1%

49 1 0 8 58

0 1

1 70 218

21 2 30 4 4 12 5 1 79 142

55 1 0 7 63

1 6

0.5% 32.1% 100.0%

31.7%

9.6% 0.9% 13.8% 1.8% 1.8% 5.5% 2.3% 0.5% 36.2% 65.1%

25.2% 0.5% 0.0% 3.2% 28.9%

0.5% 2.8%

2.3%

CASES CEP Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 03 n % n %

1 70 313

29 3 40 8 7 21 6 1 115 236

104 2 0 15 121

1 7

0.3% 2.2%

1.9%

0.3% 22.4% 100.0%

22.0%

9.3% 1.0% 12.8% 2.6% 2.2% 6.7% 1.9% 0.3% 36.7% 75.4%

33.2% 0.6% 0.0% 4.8% 38.7%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13b: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in CEP during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Drug use Subtotal Not Completed

Drug use Subtotal Pending

Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Subtotal Completed

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Non-compliance with treatment plan Incarceration Rearrest Warrant ordered Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All Freedom Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 65

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

9.2% 1.5% 4.6% 3.1% 1.5% 1.5% 21.5% 100.0%

6 1 3 2 1 1 14 65 0

69.2% 0.0% 9.2% 78.5%

0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

45 0 6 51

0 0

0 53 114

21 3 6 3 1 0 34 57

17 2 4 23

1 4

0.0% 46.5% 100.0%

46.5%

18.4% 2.6% 5.3% 2.6% 0.9% 0.0% 29.8% 50.0%

14.9% 1.8% 3.5% 20.2%

0.9% 3.5%

2.6%

Fortune Society Freedom Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 03 n % n %

0 53 179

27 4 9 5 2 1 48 122

62 2 10 74

1 4

0.6% 2.2%

1.7%

0.0% 29.6% 100.0%

29.6%

15.1% 2.2% 5.0% 2.8% 1.1% 0.6% 26.8% 68.2%

34.6% 1.1% 5.6% 41.3%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13c: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Drug use

Active Cases Monitored Transfer: Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed

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

Subtotal Not Completed

Status

No Show Transfer:

Total All DAMAS Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 14

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

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

2 0 0 0 2 14 0

57.1% 0.0% 28.6% 85.7%

0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

8 0 4 12

0 0

0 17 35

5 1 1 1 8 17

6 1 2 9

0 1

0.0% 48.6% 100.0%

48.6%

14.3% 2.9% 2.9% 2.9% 22.9% 48.6%

17.1% 2.9% 5.7% 25.7%

0.0% 2.9%

2.9%

Fortune Society DAMAS Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 03 n % n %

0 17 49

7 1 1 1 10 31

14 1 6 21

0 1

0.0% 2.0%

2.0%

0.0% 34.7% 100.0%

34.7%

14.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 20.4% 63.3%

28.6% 2.0% 12.2% 42.9%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13d: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Other Subtotal Not Completed

Other Subtotal Pending

Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Subtotal Completed

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

No Show Transfer:

Status

Total All FlameTree Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Not Completed:

0 0 36

0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 100.0%

1 0 0 3 0 0 4 36 0

47.2% 2.8% 30.6% 8.3% 88.9%

0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

17 1 11 3 32

0 0

0 39 84

10 4 1 2 3 1 21 44

13 1 8 1 23

1 1

0.0% 46.4% 100.0%

46.4%

11.9% 4.8% 1.2% 2.4% 3.6% 1.2% 25.0% 52.4%

15.5% 1.2% 9.5% 1.2% 27.4%

1.2% 1.2%

0.0%

Fortune Society FlameTree Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 03 n % n %

0 39 120

11 4 1 5 3 1 25 80

30 2 19 4 55

1 1

0.8% 0.8%

0.0%

0.0% 32.5% 100.0%

32.5%

9.2% 3.3% 0.8% 4.2% 2.5% 0.8% 20.8% 66.7%

25.0% 1.7% 15.8% 3.3% 45.8%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13e: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Drug use

Subtotal Pending

Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Subtotal Completed

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

Total All El Rio Cases

Pending:

Completed:

Other

Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

1 2 64

1.6% 3.1% 100.0%

1.6%

9.4% 0.0% 3.1% 4.7% 3.1% 1.6% 21.9% 95.3%

6 0 2 3 2 1 14 61 1

31.3% 42.2% 0.0% 73.4%

1.6% 1.6%

0.0%

20 27 0 47

1 1

0 71 147

29 6 7 4 2 9 57 75

12 5 1 18

1 1

0.0% 48.3% 100.0%

48.3%

19.7% 4.1% 4.8% 2.7% 1.4% 6.1% 38.8% 51.0%

8.2% 3.4% 0.7% 12.2%

0.7% 0.7%

0.0%

Osborne El Rio Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 03 n % n %

1 73 211

35 6 9 7 4 10 71 136

32 32 1 65

2 2

0.9% 0.9%

0.0%

0.5% 34.6% 100.0%

34.1%

16.6% 2.8% 4.3% 3.3% 1.9% 4.7% 33.6% 64.5%

15.2% 15.2% 0.5% 30.8%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13f: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Other Subtotal Not Completed

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

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:

0.0% 7.7% 15.4% 7.7% 30.8% 100.0%

1 2 1 4 13

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

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

69.2% 69.2%

0.0%

0 0 0 0

9 9

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

1 2 1 4 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

9 9

n 0.0%

7.7% 15.4% 7.7% 30.8% 100.0%

0.0%

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

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

69.2% 69.2%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13g: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

Drug use Subtotal Pending

Subtotal Completed Active Cases Monitored Transfer:

Total All STEPS Cases

Pending:

Successful Completion: Program requirements only Court conditions only Program requirements and court conditions Transfer placement Subtotal Successful Completion Unsuccessful Termination: Non-attendance Failed at transfer placement Incarceration Rearrest Other Subtotal Unsuccessful Termination

Completed:

Drug use Other Subtotal Not Completed

Status Not Completed: No Show Transfer:

0 9 36

0.0% 25.0% 100.0%

25.0%

11.1% 2.8% 5.6% 2.8% 2.8% 25.0% 75.0%

4 1 2 1 1 9 27 9

36.1% 2.8% 8.3% 2.8% 50.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0%

13 1 3 1 18

0 0 0

0 27 48

1 0 0 1 1 3 15

2 2 8 0 12

4 1 6

0.0% 56.3% 100.0%

56.3%

2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 2.1% 6.3% 31.3%

4.2% 4.2% 16.7% 0.0% 25.0%

8.3% 2.1% 12.5%

2.1%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS Released Prior to Fiscal Fiscal Year Year 03 n % n %

0 36 84

5 1 2 2 2 12 42

15 3 11 1 30

4 1 6

4.8% 1.2% 7.1%

1.2%

0.0% 42.9% 100.0%

42.9%

6.0% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 14.3% 50.0%

17.9% 3.6% 13.1% 1.2% 35.7%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 13h: Program Status as of June 30, 2003, for Felony Cases in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Time of Mandate

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 57

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

n 0 55 Drug Use Mental Illness Physical Illness Other Unknown

No Show Successful Completion Modified:

Status

3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

% 0.0% 96.5%

5 Days

151 11 86 1 2 249 46 1527

1 8 1 1 2

n 85 1132

9.9% 0.7% 5.6% 0.1% 0.1% 16.3% 3.0% 100.0%

0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

% 5.6% 74.1%

10 Days

153 11 86 1 2 251 46 1584

1 8 1 1 2

9.7% 0.7% 5.4% 0.1% 0.1% 15.8% 2.9% 100.0%

0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

% 5.4% 74.9%

Total n 85 1187

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 14: Status as of June 30, 2003 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 FY03

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Third Quarter FY03

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal First Half FY03

Status

No Show Successful Completion Modified Unsuccessful Termination Subtotal Prior to FY

Status

Total CSSP

390

3 64 0 14 9 90

4 73 0 14 91

9 154 3 30 196

1 11 0 1 13

% 3.3% 71.1% 0.0% 15.6% 10.0% 100.0%

Brooklyn

4.4% 80.2% 0.0% 15.4% 100.0%

Brooklyn

4.6% 78.6% 1.5% 15.3% 100.0%

Brooklyn

7.7% 84.6% 0.0% 7.7% 100.0%

Brooklyn n

Manhattan %

417

3 53 1 6 12 75

% 4.0% 70.7% 1.3% 8.0% 16.0% 100.0%

Manhattan

342

2 48 0 10 13 73

5 5.5% 3 63 69.2% 71 1 1.1% 1 22 24.2% 13 91 100.0% 88 Mandated in Fourth Quarter FY03

18 8.2% 5 155 70.5% 126 1 0.5% 2 46 20.9% 22 220 100.0% 155 Mandated in Third Quarter FY03

2 6.5% 0 20 64.5% 23 2 6.5% 0 7 22.6% 3 31 100.0% 26 Mandated in First Half FY03

Manhattan

Mandated Prior to Fiscal Year %

% 2.7% 65.8% 0.0% 13.7% 17.8% 100.0%

Queens

3.4% 80.7% 1.1% 14.8% 100.0%

Queens

3.2% 81.3% 1.3% 14.2% 100.0%

Queens

0.0% 88.5% 0.0% 11.5% 100.0%

Queens

435

6 58 0 10 12 86

7 81 1 18 107

16 163 1 32 212

1 24 0 5 30

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 15: Status as of June 30, 2003 of CSSP Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Borough of Sentence and Time of Mandate

% 7.0% 67.4% 0.0% 11.6% 14.0% 100.0%

Bronx

6.5% 75.7% 0.9% 16.8% 100.0%

Bronx

7.5% 76.9% 0.5% 15.1% 100.0%

Bronx

3.3% 80.0% 0.0% 16.7% 100.0%

Bronx

1584

14 223 1 40 46 324

19 288 3 67 377

48 598 7 130 783

4 78 2 16 100

Total

Total %

4.3% 68.8% 0.3% 12.3% 14.2% 100.0%

5.0% 76.4% 0.8% 17.8% 100.0%

6.1% 76.4% 0.9% 16.6% 100.0%

4.0% 78.0% 2.0% 16.0% 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 1.2%

12.9%

44.7%

35.3% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

100.0%

7.7%

15.4%

46.2%

15.4%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

Modified

No Show

1187

198

250

508

197

100.0%

0.0%

0.9%

16.7%

21.1%

42.8%

16.6%

1.9%

Successful Completion

253

100.0%

0.0%

0.8%

3.2%

39.1%

25.3%

21.7%

8.3%

1.6%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 16: Length of Time in CSSP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

0.0%

2.2%

8.7%

13.0%

28.3%

34.8%

Active

1584

312

352

607

243

2.8%

100.0%

0.1%

0.2%

1.4%

19.7%

22.2%

38.3%

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

7.6%

10.2%

8.5%

11.9%

10.2%

16.9%

16.1%

0.8%

0.0% 100.0%

0 118

0 313

107

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.3%

1.6%

34.2%

17.3%

10.5%

8.3%

9.9%

17.6%

CEP

YAP

CASES

CCA

0 179

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

4.5%

8.9%

31.8%

15.1%

12.3%

10.1%

7.3%

9.5%

Freedom

0 49

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

2.0%

10.2%

38.8%

16.3%

6.1%

4.1%

8.2%

14.3%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

0 120

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

3.3%

4.2%

40.8%

15.0%

10.0%

10.8%

6.7%

9.2%

FlameTree

2 211

0.9% 100.0%

3.3%

13.3%

6.2%

11.4%

9.5%

15.2%

6.2%

15.2%

10.9%

8.1%

El Rio

Osborne

0 13

0.0% 100.0%

0.0%

38.5%

0.0%

30.8%

15.4%

0.0%

15.4%

0.0%

Women's Day Treatment

1 84

1.2% 100.0%

6.0%

16.7%

15.5%

9.5%

8.3%

7.1%

9.5%

10.7%

8.3%

Services STEPS

Project Return Edwin Gould

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 17: Length of Time in Felony Programs as of June 30, 2003, for Cases Active in the Reporting Period by Program

3 1087

273

159

103

111

123

0.3% 100.0%

1.2%

6.3%

5.5%

6.9%

25.1%

14.6%

9.5%

10.2%

9.1%

11.3%

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

13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14

92.9% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 4 4 3 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 20

0.0% 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 30.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Transfer n

No Show

1 4 9 5 32 240 31 37 50 8 2 419

0.2% 1.0% 2.1% 1.2% 7.6% 57.3% 7.4% 8.8% 11.9% 1.9% 0.5% 100.0%

Completion

Successful

56 48 46 48 50 14 22 9 7 1 0 301

18.6% 15.9% 15.3% 15.9% 16.6% 4.7% 7.3% 3.0% 2.3% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Termination

Unsuccessful

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 6

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Transfer

Monitored %

16.2% 12.8% 15.9% 14.4% 21.4% 5.5% 6.7% 4.0% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3% 100.0%

Active

53 42 52 47 70 18 22 13 5 4 1 327

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18: Length of Time in Felony Programs for Cases Active during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

11.3% 9.1% 10.2% 9.5% 14.6% 25.1% 6.9% 5.5% 6.3% 1.2% 0.3% 100.0%

Total

123 99 111 103 159 273 75 60 68 13 3 1087

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% 100.0%

0 1

0.0%

0 0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

1.9%

32.1%

22.6%

15.1%

18.9%

5.7%

1.9%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

No Show

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18a: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in YAP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

0.0%

7.3%

2.4%

4.9%

9.8%

19.5%

22.0%

19.5%

14.6%

Active

118

7.6%

100.0%

0.8%

16.1%

16.9%

10.2%

11.9%

8.5%

10.2%

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

83.3%

16.7%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Transfer n

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Monitored Transfer

121

105

100.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

3.3%

86.8%

8.3%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

Successful Completion

115

100.0%

0.0%

1.7%

21.7%

20.9%

13.9%

27.8%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18b: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in CEP during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

0.0%

1.4%

0.0%

24.6%

13.0%

14.5%

18.8%

26.1%

Active

313

107

100.0%

0.0%

0.3%

1.6%

34.2%

17.3%

10.5%

8.3%

9.9%

17.6%

Total

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

100.0%

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

1.4%

6.8%

12.2%

71.6%

4.1%

1.4%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

12.5%

2.1%

12.5%

20.8%

16.7%

14.6%

20.8%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18c: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Freedom during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

0.0%

5.7%

1.9%

5.7%

32.1%

20.8%

17.0%

9.4%

7.5%

Active

179

7.3%

9.5%

100.0%

0.0%

0.6%

4.5%

8.9%

31.8%

15.1%

12.3%

10.1%

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%

4.8%

90.5%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

10.0%

0.0%

40.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

17.6%

0.0%

23.5%

17.6%

11.8%

17.6%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18d: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in DAMAS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

0.0%

2.0%

10.2%

38.8%

16.3%

6.1%

4.1%

8.2%

14.3%

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

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

3.6%

81.8%

9.1%

1.8%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

12.0%

8.0%

16.0%

24.0%

8.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

100.0%

0.0%

5.1%

0.0%

5.1%

23.1%

17.9%

20.5%

5.1%

23.1%

Active

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18e: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in FlameTree during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

120

6.7%

9.2%

100.0%

0.0%

3.3%

4.2%

40.8%

15.0%

10.0%

10.8%

Total

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

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

Monitored Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

3.1%

9.2%

33.8%

18.5%

7.7%

12.3%

1.5%

4.6%

1.5%

0.0%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

1.4%

5.6%

0.0%

8.5%

11.3%

8.5%

22.5%

21.1%

12.7%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18f: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in El Rio during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

0.0%

1.4%

18.1%

12.5%

22.2%

8.3%

15.3%

9.7%

11.1%

Active

211

8.1%

100.0%

0.9%

3.3%

13.3%

6.2%

11.4%

9.5%

15.2%

6.2%

15.2%

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 0.0% 22.2% 44.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 100.0%

2 4 0 0 0 1 0 9

22.2%

2 0

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Monitored Transfer

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

38.5%

0.0%

30.8%

15.4%

0.0%

15.4%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18g: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in Project Return during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

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

No Show

100.0%

0.0%

20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

0.0%

Transfer

100.0%

0.0%

3.3%

30.0%

16.7%

6.7%

10.0%

3.3%

13.3%

3.3%

Successful Completion

100.0%

0.0%

8.3%

41.7%

25.0%

8.3%

0.0%

8.3%

0.0%

8.3%

0.0%

Unsuccessful Termination

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 18h: Length of Time in Program for Cases Active in STEPS during the Reporting Period by Program Status as of June 30, 2003

100.0%

2.8%

11.1%

8.3%

5.6%

8.3%

13.9%

Active

8.3%

100.0%

1.2%

6.0%

16.7%

15.5%

9.5%

8.3%

7.1%

9.5%

10.7%

Total

1584

1 218 2 26 3 2 4 1 Subtotal 247 none 1337

Rearrest Count

0 73

240

0.1%

15.6%

84.4%

313

0.1%

100.0%

51 20

1.6%

13.8%

CSSP

CASES

100.0%

76.7%

23.3%

0.0%

0.6%

6.4%

16.3%

CEP

118

111

100.0%

94.1%

5.9%

0.0%

5.9%

YAP

CCA

100.0%

93.9%

6.1%

0.0%

6.1%

DAMAS

120

100.0%

77.5%

22.5%

0.0%

0.8%

1.7%

20.0%

FlameTree

Fortune Society

179

148

100.0%

82.7%

17.3%

0.0%

0.6%

2.2%

14.5%

Freedom

211

157

100.0%

74.4%

25.6%

0.0%

0.9%

6.2%

18.5%

El Rio

Osborne

100.0%

92.3%

7.7%

0.0%

7.7%

Women's Day Treatment

Project Return

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 19: Count of Mandated Cases with Prosecuted In-Program Rearrests by Program (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003)

100.0%

94.0%

6.0%

0.0%

3.6%

2.4%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

2671

2223

448

371

100.0%

83.2%

16.8%

0.0%

0.3%

2.5%

13.9%

Total

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

Status 32 32 84 4 123 211 243 4 247

1187 13 253 1453 1538 46 1584

7.1% 30.8% 48.6% 14.5% 15.8% 8.7% 15.6%

37.6% 37.6%

Rearrested Cases

85 85

Total Released Cases

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 20: In-Program Rearrest Rates by CSSP Program Status (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003)

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% 28.6% 71.4% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

0 0 0

2 5 7 7

0 0 0 7

6 0 6 73

21 45 66 67

1 0 1

8.2% 0.0% 8.2% 100.0%

28.8% 61.6% 90.4% 91.8%

1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

CEP

YAP

CASES

CCA

5 0 5 31

9 17 26 26

0 0 0

16.1% 0.0% 16.1% 100.0%

29.0% 54.8% 83.9% 83.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Freedom

2 0 2 3

1 0 1 1

0 0 0

66.7% 0.0% 66.7% 100.0%

33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 33.3%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

DAMAS

Fortune Society

3 0 3 27

11 12 23 24

0 1 1

11.1% 0.0% 11.1% 100.0%

40.7% 44.4% 85.2% 88.9%

0.0% 3.7% 3.7%

FlameTree

11 0 11 54

17 26 43 43

0 0 0

20.4% 0.0% 20.4% 100.0%

31.5% 48.1% 79.6% 79.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

El Rio

Osborne

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 21: Program Status of Felony Program Participants with In-Program Rearrests (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003)

0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Women's Day Treatment n %

Project Return

0 0 0 5

3 1 4 5

0 1 1

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

60.0% 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

0.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Edwin Gould Services STEPS

27 1 28 201

64 106 170 173

1 2 3

13.4% 0.5% 13.9% 100.0%

31.8% 52.7% 84.6% 86.1%

0.5% 1.0% 1.5%

Total

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 Table 22: Characteristics of First Prosecuted In-Program Rearrest by Program Group (Cases Active in the Reporting Period, Rearrests through June 30, 2003) CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

83 67 42 31 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 247

33.6% 27.1% 17.0% 12.6% 9.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

15 15 10 12 43 33 24 21 9 9 6 4 201

7.5% 7.5% 5.0% 6.0% 21.4% 16.4% 11.9% 10.4% 4.5% 4.5% 3.0% 2.0% 100.0%

98 82 52 43 66 33 25 21 9 9 6 4 448

21.9% 18.3% 11.6% 9.6% 14.7% 7.4% 5.6% 4.7% 2.0% 2.0% 1.3% 0.9% 100.0%

2 12 27 4 60 9 24 4 67 21 6 11 247

0.8% 4.9% 10.9% 1.6% 24.3% 3.6% 9.7% 1.6% 27.1% 8.5% 2.4% 4.5% 100.0%

0 26 18 6 9 15 25 5 43 27 7 20 201

0.0% 12.9% 9.0% 3.0% 4.5% 7.5% 12.4% 2.5% 21.4% 13.4% 3.5% 10.0% 100.0%

2 38 45 10 69 24 49 9 110 48 13 31 448

0.4% 8.5% 10.0% 2.2% 15.4% 5.4% 10.9% 2.0% 24.6% 10.7% 2.9% 6.9% 100.0%

1 0 23 4 12 5 171 26 5 247

0.4% 0.0% 9.3% 1.6% 4.9% 2.0% 69.2% 10.5% 2.0% 100.0%

5 5 31 10 16 3 87 36 8 201

2.5% 2.5% 15.4% 5.0% 8.0% 1.5% 43.3% 17.9% 4.0% 100.0%

6 5 54 14 28 8 258 62 13 448

1.3% 1.1% 12.1% 3.1% 6.3% 1.8% 57.6% 13.8% 2.9% 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

0.4%

2.0%

1.1%

1 120 18

0.4% 48.6% 7.3%

2 109 37

1.0% 54.2% 18.4%

3 229 55

0.7% 51.1% 12.3%

Arraignment Outcome for First Rearrest Missing Pending Cases Warrant Ordered 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/Dismissed Pled Guilty Transferred Criminal Court Warrant

1 18 3 114 2 2 105 0

1 68 4 69 4 0.8% 42.5% 0.0%

12 35 2

2 87 10 6 247

6 0 77 16

2 86 7 183 6 6.0% 17.4% 1.0%

14 140 2

3.1% 31.3% 0.4%

100.0%

0 10 8 17 201

100.0%

2 97 18 23 448

100.0%

4.3% 0.0% 55.4% 11.5%

9 2 69 31

6.1% 1.4% 46.6% 20.9%

15 2 146 47

5.2% 0.7% 50.9% 16.4%

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

19 4 68 2 2 28 10 0

57 9 31 3 1.4% 20.1% 7.2% 0.0%

6 12 18 1

100.0%

4 1 7 148

76 13 99 5 4.1% 8.1% 12.2% 0.7%

8 40 28 1

2.8% 13.9% 9.8% 0.3%

100.0%

27 3 10 287

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

23 2 3 139

*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), Prostitution Offenses (230), Offenses Against Public Order (240), For Other Authority (900), and Vehicle and Traffic Law Offenses (VTL).

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY ATI Information Services End of Year Report, FY03 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, 2003) CSSP

Felony Programs

Total

0 2 54 117 66 8 247

0.0% 0.8% 21.9% 47.4% 26.7% 3.2% 100.0%

8 91 81 12 8 1 201

4.0% 45.3% 40.3% 6.0% 4.0% 0.5% 100.0%

8 93 135 129 74 9 448

1.8% 20.8% 30.1% 28.8% 16.5% 2.0% 100.0%

1 3 26 2 97 0 20 62 26 1 9 247

0.4% 1.2% 10.5% 0.8% 39.3% 0.0% 8.1% 25.1% 10.5% 0.4% 3.6% 100.0%

2 16 8 0 4 46 3 112 0 8 2 201

1.0% 8.0% 4.0% 0.0% 2.0% 22.9% 1.5% 55.7% 0.0% 4.0% 1.0% 100.0%

3 19 34 2 101 46 23 174 26 9 11 448

0.7% 4.2% 7.6% 0.4% 22.5% 10.3% 5.1% 38.8% 5.8% 2.0% 2.5% 100.0%

4 27 25 73 43 75 247

1.6% 10.9% 10.1% 29.6% 17.4% 30.4% 100.0%

158 27 3 9 1 3 201

78.6% 13.4% 1.5% 4.5% 0.5% 1.5% 100.0%

162 54 28 82 44 78 448

36.2% 12.1% 6.3% 18.3% 9.8% 17.4% 100.0%

59 73 44 71 247

23.9% 29.6% 17.8% 28.7% 100.0%

176 15 4 6 201

87.6% 7.5% 2.0% 3.0% 100.0%

235 88 48 77 448

52.5% 19.6% 10.7% 17.2% 100.0%

46 57 48 96 247

18.6% 23.1% 19.4% 38.9% 100.0%

51 47 3 100 201

25.4% 23.4% 1.5% 49.8% 100.0%

97 104 51 196 448

21.7% 23.2% 11.4% 43.8% 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: Sex Offenses (130), Forgery and Related Offenses (170), Escape and Other Offenses Related to Custody (205), 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.