Annual Report 04 by Administrator

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

CJA Annual Report 2004 52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

646-213-2500

www.nycja.org

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. Board of Directors Chairman of the Board Mr. Michael Jacobson Executive Director Vera Institute of Justice

Professor James Jacobs New York University School of Law

Secretary Mr. Michael Smith The Law School University of Wisconsin

Hon. Robert G.M. Keating Dean New York State Judicial Institute

Mr. Lowell Johnston

Ms. Barbara Margolis Assistant Secretary (non-director) Ms. Geraldine Ferrara General Counsel & Director of Administration NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. Executive Director Mr. Jerome E. McElroy NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. Hon. John Feinblatt (ex-ofďŹ cio) Coordinator of Criminal Justice New York City Mr. Clay Hiles Executive Director Hudson River Foundation

Professor Orlando Rodriguez Fordham University Hon. S. Andrew Schaffer Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters New York City Police Department Hon. Nicholas Scoppetta Fire Commissioner New York City Mr. Ben Tucker Associate Professor & Criminal Justice Coordinator Pace University

CJA 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007 646 213-2500 www.nycja.org

ÂŠ 2006 New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

CJA

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director

ANNUAL REPORT 2004 2004 Data presented in this report are for arrests occurring January 1 through December 31, 2004. Supreme Court data are presented for arrests occurring July 1 through December 31, 2003.

Published February 2006

Prepared by: Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D., Senior Research Analyst Raymond P. Caligiure, Graphics and Production Specialist

The report was completed with the assistance and advice of the following departments and individuals at CJA: Research: Richard R. Peterson, Ph.D., Director Justin P. Bernstein, Senior Research Assistant Marian Gewirtz, Senior Research Analyst Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow Annie Su, Administrative Associate Information Systems: Barbara Geller Diaz, Director Anne Gravitch, Programmer/Analyst Wayne Nehwadowich, Senior Programmer/Analyst Dale Sealy, Programmer/Analyst Geraldine Staehs-Goirn, Programmer/Analyst Operations: Peter C. Kiers, Director Frederick Akinsiku, Senior Management Analyst Edward Rodriguez, Coordinator of Special Projects Yvonne Reece, Administrative Associate

Also acknowledged are the contributions of additional CJA colleagues who provided helpful advice and suggestions: Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director of CJA Frank Sergi, Director of Planning

When citing this publication, please include author, date, title, and publisher, as adapted to your citation style: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. 2006. Annual Report 2004. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

This report can be downloaded from www.nycja.org/research/research.htm

CONTENTS

2004 Annual Report

Executive Director’s Message ........................................................................................................................ 2 I.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4

II.

Interview Volume ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Exhibit 1. Distribution of Interviewed Cases by Borough ...................................................................... 7

III.

Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 2. Distribution of Prosecuted Cases by Sex and Employment of Defendant ............................ 8 Exhibit 3. Distribution of Prosecuted Cases by Age and Employment of Defendant ............................ 9 Exhibit 4. Distribution of Prosecuted Cases by Ethnicity and Employment of Defendant .................. 10

IV.

Charge Severity and Type .................................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 5. Severity of the Top Charge Entering Arraignment, Citywide and by Borough .................... 11 Exhibit 6. Offense Type of the Top Charge Entering Arraignment, Citywide and by Borough ............ 12

CJA Release Recommendation ........................................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 7. CJA Recommendation, Citywide and by Borough .............................................................. 14 Exhibit 8. CJA Recommendation by Charge Severity at Criminal Court Arraignment ........................ 15

VI.

Criminal Court Arraignment ................................................................................................................. 16 Exhibit 9. Criminal Court Arraignment Outcomes ............................................................................... 16 Exhibit 10. Disposed at Criminal Court Arraignment by Charge Severity ............................................. 18 Exhibit 11. Release Status Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment by Charge Severity .......................... 18 Exhibit 12. ROR Rates at Criminal Court Arraignment by CJA Recommendation ...................................... 19

VII. Bail Setting and Bail Making ................................................................................................................ 21 Exhibit 13. Bail Amount Set at Criminal Court Arraignment, Citywide and by Borough ........................ 21 Exhibit 14. Bail Making at Criminal Court Arraignment by Bail Amount ................................................ 22 Exhibit 15. Bail Making Post-Arraignment in Criminal Court by Bail Amount ....................................... 24 VIII. Failure to Appear in Criminal Court..................................................................................................... 26 Exhibit 16. Failure to Appear (FTA) in Criminal Court, Citywide and by Borough................................. 26 Exhibit 17. Failure to Appear (FTA) in Criminal Court by Charge Severity ........................................... 27 Exhibit 18. Failure to Appear (FTA) in Criminal Court by CJA Recommendation ................................. 27 Exhibit 19. Return to Criminal Court Following FTA by CJA Recommendation .................................... 28 Exhibit 20. Total and Adjusted FTA Rates by CJA Recommendation ................................................... 28 IX.

Desk Appearance Tickets ..................................................................................................................... 29 Exhibit 21. Failure to Appear (FTA) for a DAT Arraignment, Citywide and by Borough ........................ 29

Notification ............................................................................................................................................ 30 Exhibit 22. Telephone Notification: Volume & Outcomes ..................................................................... 30 Exhibit 23. Letter Notification: Volume & Outcomes ............................................................................. 31

XI.

Special Programs .................................................................................................................................. 32 Exhibit 24. Bail Expediting Program (BEX): Volume & Outcomes ........................................................ 32 Exhibit 25. FTA Units: Volume & Outcomes ........................................................................................ 34

XII. Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) .............................................................................................................. 35 Exhibit 26. Disposition Rates at Supreme Court Arraignment, Citywide and by Borough .................... 36 Exhibit 27. Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Arraignment, Citywide and by Borough .............. 37 Exhibit 28. Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Arraignment by Release Status Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment ................................................. 37 Exhibit 29. ROR Rates at Supreme Court Arraignment by CJA Recommendation .............................. 38 Exhibit 30. Failure to Appear (FTA) to Disposition in Supreme Court, Citywide and by Borough......... 40 Exhibit 31. Failure to Appear (FTA) to Disposition in Supreme Court by Offense Type ....................... 40 Exhibit 32. Failure to Appear (FTA) to Disposition in Supreme Court by CJA Recommendation ......... 41 Notes on the Comparability of Data ............................................................................................................. 42 CJA Publications List (inside back cover)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

xecutive Director’s Message

One year ago the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA), published its first Annual Report replacing a long series of Semi-Annual Reports. The 2003 Annual Report reflected a dramatic change in format and content and was prompted by the Agency’s adoption of a new release-recommendation system in June of 2003. In fact, the Report presented data only for the second half of 2003; that is, after the new recommendation system went into effect. It continued the tradition of presenting court-processing data and their relationship to the release recommendations we made at Criminal Court arraignment. However, it simplified the presentation by replacing tables of numbers with color graphics, and it provided a much fuller description of the entire scope of the Agency’s activities. This new report presents comparable data on Criminal Court processing for arrests that occurred during the entirety of 2004, as well as Supreme Court data for the 2003 cohort. Because cases take far longer to reach disposition in the Supreme Court, there will always be a one-year lag in reporting Supreme Court outcomes. And because most defendants are arraigned in Criminal Court, even if the case is later transferred to Supreme Court, each year’s report presents demographic descriptions and Criminal Court arraignment outcomes for all cases, including the Supreme Court cases for which additional data are reported the following year. Thus, next year’s report will cover demographics and Criminal Court arraignment data for all 2005 arrests; post-arraignment bail-making and failure-to-appear (FTA) rates for all 2005 cases that were disposed in Criminal Court; and Supreme Court outcomes for 2004 arrests.

Many officials in the system are not aware of the full range of services that CJA provides. Therefore, our new report describes CJA attempts to notify all released defendants of the date and place of all subsequent appearances in Criminal Court in the hopes of holding down failures to appear among forgetful defendants. To support this function, the Agency operates an information system that merges arrest data received electronically from the Police Department, with the information collected during our defendant interviews, and with calendaring information received electronically from the Office of Court Administration (OCA). The computerized system tracks all prosecuted cases in all five boroughs to their disposition in Criminal or Supreme Court. In addition to supporting the notification function, the database is used by the Agency’s research and planning staff to provide policy makers with data and analyses on the performance of the City’s criminal justice system and the problems it addresses. The research staff also undertakes longer term studies of our own operations and on the design, implementation, and effects of special initiatives being carried out by other public and nonprofit agencies. In recent years, we have conducted extensive research on the handling of domestic violence cases in the City, the processing of misdemeanor cases in the Criminal Court, the factors that influence release and bail decisions in the Criminal Court, and the factors that predict pretrial FTA and pretrial re-arrest among defendants released pending disposition. A listing of CJA’s recent publications is presented on the back cover, and the reports themselves can be reviewed on our website.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

from Jerome E. McElroy The Agency continues to operate the Bail Expediting Program (BEX) in Queens and the Bronx. Agency staff contact family members and friends of defendants held on relatively low bails immediately after arraignment to assist in the prompt posting of the bail and release of the defendant. The program’s beneﬁts are experienced by both the defendant and the Department of Correction, which saves the resources that would otherwise be expended on the commitment and detention of these defendants. We are continuing to explore the possibility of extending this valuable program to Manhattan and Brooklyn. In Queens and Brooklyn, the Agency continues to operate Failure-to-Appear (FTA) Units. Each day these units identify cases in which bench warrants were issued on the previous day and then attempt to contact the defendant to inform him or her of the warrant, encourage immediate return to court, and facilitate restoring the case to the calendar when the defendant does return. Our experience indicates that when contact is successful, defendants usually return to court soon thereafter. We believe that expanding these units to Manhattan and the Bronx would improve the efﬁciency of case processing in those boroughs. In the last couple of years, we have computerized our interviewing through the use of handheld computers and PCs in each borough. As a result, data on the arrest, the CJA interview, and the arraignment outcome are usually in the Agency’s database within 48 hours of the arraignment. This is now an important part of our continuing work with the City’s Data Share project to create a fully integrated, real-time information system to service all agencies that participate in

the processing of cases. Our work with the State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) has produced a summary criminal history report that is available to CJA staff at the same time that the full report is forwarded to the police. This not only reduces the time required for our staff to complete the interview and recommendation process, but it also reduces the likelihood of making mistakes in extracting the data we need from the full report. We continue to participate in the Task Force created by the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) to examine the operation of the Criminal Court in the City. As a result of our efforts, the Task Force produced a resolution calling on the City to support the implementation and study of a pilot supervised release program in one borough. The program would be designed to offer the arraignment court a form of supervised release, instead of release on recognizance or the imposition of money bail, for defendants whom the Agency assesses as posing a moderate risk of failing to appear. Such a program would be consistent with the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards on the pretrial process, which call for providing the courts with a wide range of release options. The program would seek to reduce the number of such defendants who are detained at arraignment, while reducing the FTA rate among those who are released. Finally, I want to thank all those who have contributed to this report, and to encourage our readers to let us know of ways in which future reports may better serve the needs of policy makers and practitioners in the criminal justice ﬁeld.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

I. ntroduction

The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA), is a not-for-profit organization, incorporated in the mid-1970s with the mission of providing pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the adult criminal courts in New York City (NYC). Operating under a contract with the City of New York, the Agency has over 200 employees in offices in all five counties (boroughs) of the City. The Agency is governed by a Board of Directors that includes the Criminal Justice Coordinator for New York City. Its Executive Staff, located in the central office in Manhattan, consists of the Executive Director and six departmental directors. Daily operations are also overseen by two regional directors with offices elsewhere in the City.

CJA’s Origins: The Manhattan Bail Project CJA grew out of a research project of the Vera Institute of Justice, then the Vera Foundation, in the early 1960s. At that time Louis Schweitzer, a New York industrialist, was shocked to learn that large numbers of defendants were being held in jail awaiting trial for no other reason than that they were too poor to post even small amounts of bail. Schweitzer was so disturbed by the plight of the “indigent accused,” especially destitute youths, that he established the Vera Foundation to attempt to address this inequity in the bail system. The Vera Foundation’s ﬁrst initiative was the Manhattan Bail Project, launched in 1961 in conjunction with the New York University School of Law and the Institute of Judicial Administration. Project researchers gathered data on the administration of bail in Manhattan and introduced the use of release on recognizance (ROR) as an alternative to bail. They tested the hypothesis that defendants with strong community ties would return for scheduled court appearances, and that a greater number could be released if the courts had access to this information.

As a result of the Manhattan Bail Project, the Vera Institute developed a recommendation system based on objective community-ties information obtained by interviewing defendants. The system was administered by the NYC Probation Department until 1973, when Vera created the Pretrial Services Agency (PTSA) to take over responsibility for making ROR recommendations. This recommendation system, which has served as a model for pretrial services programs nationwide, was evaluated in 1974 by sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld. He found that judges were following the recommendations to a considerable extent, and that when defendants were released in spite of a negative recommendation, failure-to-appear (FTA) rates were higher in those cases. In 1977, PTSA became independent from Vera and was incorporated as the New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

Goals and Activities CJA continues to pursue the following goals: • decreasing the number of days spent in detention by defendants who could be released to the community while awaiting trial; • screening defendants for a range of noncustodial services through the community courts; • reducing the rate of nonappearance in court by defendants who are released pretrial; • providing information and research to criminal justice policy makers, City ofﬁcials, and the public. To achieve these goals, CJA engages in three principal activities, described on the following page: Interview and Recommendation Notiﬁcation Research CJA also operates two special programs that further its goals in selected boroughs: the Bail Expediting Program (BEX) and FTA Units. They are described in Section XI.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Introduction

Interview and Recommendation CJA personnel interview defendants who, after arrest, are held for arraignment in the lower court (Criminal Court) in New York City. The purpose of the interview is to provide judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel with background information on defendants in order to assist in determining the likelihood that individual defendants, if released, will return for scheduled court dates. Normally, the interview takes place in one of the Police Department’s central booking facilities in the hours between the arrest and the defendant’s ﬁrst appearance before a judge. During the interview, information is collected on the defendant’s occupation, residence, and family status. An attempt is made to verify many of these items through telephone calls made to a relative or someone else named by the defendant. The defendant’s history of previous convictions and bench warrants and current open cases is also entered on the interview report. Selected items are then used to calculate an objective score that reﬂects the estimated risk of nonappearance and is the basis for assigning a recommendation category for each adult defendant. A separate recommendation system is used for youths under 16 years of age who are prosecuted as adults under New York State’s Juvenile Offender (JO) Law. Both systems are described in Section V. In addition to the standard interview, CJA conducts an extended interview at the community courts in Manhattan and Brooklyn to determine suitable community service projects for defendants, and their social service needs, such as drug treatment. The CJA recommendation is only one of a number of factors judges in New York City consider in making release decisions. The recommendation assesses the defendant’s likelihood of returning to court, if released, but does not constitute an unconditional recommendation for release.

Notification The Agency attempts to notify, by mail or telephone, all released defendants of all scheduled Criminal Court appearances. Defendants released on desk appearance tickets (DATs) prior to arraignment are also notified of their scheduled arraignment. The notification system is described, and pertinent data are presented, in Section X. The Operations Department is responsible for interview, recommendation, and notification functions, as well as the Bail Expediting Program and FTA Units.

Research The Research Department maintains an ongoing program of evaluation and research aimed at improving Agency operations, providing summary data relevant to criminal justice policy issues, and investigating special interest topics. The research agenda covers a broad array of criminal justice policy concerns, ranging from juvenile justice, domestic violence, and judicial bail decisions, to the impact of special courts and initiatives to address the problem of persistent misdemeanor offenders. In 2002 CJA launched a popular Research Brief series, each issue of which presents highlights of a recently completed research project. These are posted on the CJA web site along with the full reports upon which they are based. A listing of CJA research reports available on our web site can be found inside the back cover.

CJA Database In order to perform its operational and research activities, CJA maintains a sophisticated database that includes background and court-processing information on virtually every adult arrested in New York City. Arrest data are received by CJA through automated electronic transmissions from the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and case-processing data

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Introduction

from the Office of Court Administration (OCA). Criminal history, demographic, and community-ties information are recorded by CJA interviewers using handheld computers; the transition from paper interviews, begun in 2003, was completed in 2004. In addition, information about defendants’ out-of-court bail making is routinely transmitted to CJA by the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). The database contains information about each arrest and Criminal Court case-processing data since September 1979, and Supreme Court case-processing data since July 1987. The information about each case includes the outcome of every court appearance through sentencing. CJA’s Information Systems Department is responsible for managing the database and the mainframe computer on which it resides, as well as the Agency’s large local area network of personal computers and a wide area network linking borough offices. In addition, Systems staff handle a broad range of computer tasks from programming automated notification procedures to extracting specialized data files for the Research and Operations Departments.

CJA is not itself an official source of arrest or court-processing data, although the Agency receives most of its data from official sources (NYPD, OCA, and DOC). Because of our operational mission, the criteria for inclusion of cases and the timing of collected information lead to differences with official data. Beneﬁts to the City and State from sharing data with CJA are to be found in the Agency’s accomplishments in reducing unnecessary pretrial detention, lowering FTA rates, and providing research and information services—none of which could be done nearly as well or as efﬁciently, if at all, without the valuable resource of a comprehensive database that combines information from many sources. In addition, CJA’s Planning Department, together with the Central Data Department and the Information Systems Department, are vigilant in monitoring the data entering our database from all sources. When anomalies occur—as can happen, particularly when changes are introduced in the court system—CJA alerts the State or City agency involved and actively helps to devise a remedy.

DEPARTMENTAL & REGIONAL DIRECTORS Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director Fiscal Allison Spartinos, Director General Counsel and Administration Geraldine Ferrara, Director

Planning Frank Sergi, Director Central Data Dawn Carter McDonald, Director

Research Information Systems Richard R. Peterson, Director Barbara Geller Diaz, Director Special Courts Programs Mari Curbelo, Director Operations Peter C. Kiers, Director Catherine Alexander, Regional Director for Brooklyn & Manhattan Sonia Crooks-Archer, Regional Director for Bronx & Queens

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

II. nterview Volume

During 2004, CJA conducted interviews in 291,970 cases of defendants held for Criminal Court arraignment. Exhibit 1 shows that Manhattan had the largest volume (31%) of interviews, followed by Brooklyn with 26%, the Bronx with 22%, Queens with 19%, and Staten Island with 2%. The totals for Manhattan and Brooklyn include the community courts that operate in these two boroughs.

The Midtown Community Court in Manhattan began operations in 1993, and Brooklynâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Red Hook Community Justice Center in 2000. The community courts offer a wide variety of services and alternative sanctions not available in the central courts. To assist judges in assessing defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs, CJA staff conduct a longer, more detailed interview in the two community courts. A defendant may be represented in the data more than once if he or she was re-arrested during the reporting period.

Exhibit 1 Distribution of Interviewed Cases By Borough January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 Staten Island 2% Midtown Court 3% Manha an 28%

Queens 19%

All Manha an 31%

All Brooklyn 26%

Bronx 22%

(N = 291,970)

Red Hook 1% Brooklyn 25%

Note about the cases included in this report: Cases of defendants who were issued desk appearance tickets (DATs) are not included in this section because they are not usually interviewed. Although the overwhelming majority of defendants are interviewed, those who receive a DAT are released after arrest and scheduled to return for arraignment at a later date; there is no opportunity for a CJA interview. Others not interviewed by CJA include those arrested in Manhattan solely on prostitution-related charges who are held for arraignment in the downtown Manhattan Criminal Court; those arrested solely on bench warrants; those arraigned in the hospital without going through a Police Department central booking facility; and those arrested while in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction. They are not included in Exhibit 1, either. Cases of defendants issued DATs and of others who were not interviewed are included in all exhibits following Exhibit 1 unless otherwise noted. In addition, DATs are discussed separately in Part IX. Nonprosecuted cases are also included in Exhibit 1; they are not included elsewhere in this report.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

III.

emographics Sex & Employment

As shown in Exhibit 2, there were 302,656 prosecuted cases during the reporting period (including some for which no interview was conducted). In 85% of cases the defendant was male and in 15% of cases the defendant was female. The sex of the defendant in a very small number of cases, less than 1%, was unknown (pie chart, left).

The relationship between sex and likelihood of employment is shown in the bar chart on the right. “Employment” here refers to school or a training program as well as work. Males were more likely than females to be employed, in school, or in a training program full time. Such full-time activity was reported by 48% of males, as compared to 33% of females. (Veriﬁed and unveriﬁed responses were combined.)

Cases of defendants issued DATs and cases of other defendants for whom we had no employment information (collected in the interview) were excluded from the bar chart, but included in the pie chart. Information about the defendant’s sex is received from the NYPD when there are no interview data for a case.

Exhibit 2 Distribution of Prosecuted Cases By Sex and Employment of Defendant January – December, 2004

Distribution by Sex

Full-Time Employment by Sex (Including School or Training Program) Percent Employed 48% 50%

Unknown <1%

40%

Female 15%

33% 30%

Male 85%

20% 10% 0% (N = 302,656)

Males (220,267)

Females (34,935)

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Demographics

Age & Employment In nearly half of the prosecuted cases, the defendant was under the age of 30, and in only 8% of cases was the defendant as old as 50. Juvenile offenders (children under the age of 16 who are prosecuted in adult court for speciﬁed violent felony offenses) made up less than 1% of the defendant population. Defendants in their twenties accounted for a third of all cases. (Exhibit 3, pie chart on left)

The youngest group was by far the most likely to report a fulltime activity (91%) because most were in school (bar chart at right). Many aged 16 to 19 were presumably also in school; 58% of them reported a full-time activity. The level of employment (or other full-time activity) dropped within each age group, from 48% for defendants in their twenties to 31% for those 50 years of age or older (combining veriﬁed and unveriﬁed responses).

Cases for which employment information was unavailable were excluded from the data presented in the bar chart, but included in the pie chart. As with the previous exhibit, this results in the exclusion from the bar chart of defendants who had been issued a DAT and other cases for which we had no interview information. Information about the defendant’s age is received from the NYPD for noninterviewed cases.

Exhibit 3 Distribution of Prosecuted Cases By Age and Employment of Defendant January – December, 2004

Distribution by Age

40-49 20%

Full-Time Employment by Age (Including School or Training Program)

Unknown 50+ <1% 13-15 8% <1% 16-19 14%

Percent Employed 100% 91% 80% 60%

58% 48%

30-39 24%

40%

20-29 33%

46% 38% 31%

20% 0%

13-15 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 (N = 302,656)

50+

N= (525) (36,936) (86,689) (62,084) (49,804) (19,143)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Demographics

Ethnicity & Employment Exhibit 4 (pie chart, left) shows the ethnic distribution of defendants in prosecuted cases: black, 48%; Hispanic, 33%; white, 13%; and other, 5%. Ethnicity of the defendant was unknown in 1% of cases. In the CJA interview, arrestees are ﬁrst asked if they are Hispanic. If the answer is negative, ethnicity is recorded from observation. If it is unclear to the interviewer, the arrestee is asked which category provides the best description.

Defendants in the “other” ethnic category, a majority of whom were Asians, were most likely to be employed, in school, or in a training program full time (59%) (bar chart, right). Veriﬁed and unveriﬁed responses were combined. Whites had the next highest rate, with 53% reporting a fulltime activity. Fewer than half of Hispanics (47%) and blacks (42%) were employed or in school or training full time.

Cases for which employment information was unavailable were excluded from the data presented in the bar chart, but included in the pie chart. As noted previously, this results in the exclusion from the bar charts of defendants who had been issued a DAT and other cases for which we had no interview information. Information about the defendant’s ethnicity is received from the NYPD for noninterviewed cases.

Exhibit 4 Distribution of Prosecuted Cases By Ethnicity and Employment of Defendant January – December, 2004

Distribution by Ethnicity

Hispanic 33%

Other 5% Unknown 1%

Full-Time Employment by Ethnicity (Including School or Training Program) Percent Employed 60%

59% 53%

50%

47% 42%

40% 30%

Black 48%

White 13%

20% 10% 0%

Black (N = 302,656)

N= (125,148)

White

Hispanic

Other

(29,073)

(87,604)

(12,185)

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

IV.

Exhibit 5 shows that half of the cases entering arraignment citywide had a class A misdemeanor as the most severe charge. Another 24% had a class B or unclassiﬁed misdemeanor as the most severe charge, and 7% had no charge more severe than a violation or infraction. About one ﬁfth (19%) of cases entered arraignment with a felony charge.

Exhibit 5 Severity of the Top Charge Entering Arraignment Citywide and by Borough January – December, 2004

A & B Felony

24%

% 8% 19 F el o n y

harge Severity and Type

C Felony

3% D Felony

E Felony

The most severe offenses, class A and B felonies, were charged in 8% of cases entering arraignment.

Other Misdemeanor

Citywide (N = 284,972) 4%

25%

22%

11%

Felony 23%

y1 5

5% % 7% 2% 4% 2%

2% 8% 2% 51%

55%

Bronx (N = 60,285)

Brooklyn (N = 71,955)

Felony

% 6% 3% 6% 3%

y1 8

19 %

8% 2% 6%

20%

51%

30%

44%

Queens (N = 54,102)

18 %

Manha an (N = 89,970) 6% 2% 7%

32%

Felony

Charge severity was unknown for 6% of all cases; they were excluded from Exhibit 5. Most of these represent cases with a top charge that was outside the NY State Penal Law and Vehicle & Trafﬁc Law (e.g., New York City’s Administrative Code). DAT cases with known charge severity were included.

Felon

10%

Brooklyn had the smallest proportion of felony cases (15%). Queens had the largest proportion of cases with no charge more severe than a Class B misdemeanor (38%).

Violation/Infraction

50%

Felon

There were noticeable differences in charge severity by borough. For example, charges in the Bronx tended to be more severe than in other boroughs. The Bronx had the highest proportion of cases with a felony charge (23%) and the lowest proportion of cases with no charge more severe than a class B misdemeanor (26%).

A Misdemeanor

47%

Staten Island (N = 8,660)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Offense Type

Exhibit 6 Offense Type of the Top Charge Entering Arraignment Citywide and by Borough January – December, 2004

Drugs

12%

29%

Physically Injurious

10%

Misconduct/Obstruction/Prostitution Property Crime

11%

13%

Misconduct (criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, etc.), obstruction of justice (criminal contempt, resisting arrest), and prostitution together accounted for an additional 13% of prosecuted cases.

Weapon

Citywide (N = 279,463) 3% 11% 30%

3% 9% 9%

38%

10%

15%

11%

26%

20%

Bronx (N = 60,258)

Brooklyn (N = 70,311) 2% 9%

19%

28%

3% 20%

15% 9% 25%

13% 19%

11% 14%

13%

Queens (N = 52,874)

Manha an (N = 87,398) 3%

Cases for which offense type was unknown were excluded from Exhibit 6. DAT cases with known offense type were included.

23%

The next largest category, “physically injurious,” accounted for 22% of cases citywide. This category includes homicide, arson, assault, violent sex offenses, kidnap, robbery, and other crimes of physical harm.

The of Services/Fraud VTL

22%

As shown in Exhibit 6, the defendant was arraigned on a drug charge in 29% of cases. This was the most common offense type citywide.

18% 3% 16%

24% 13%

Staten Island (N = 8,622)

Property crimes, theft of services (including fraud), and offenses under the Vehicle and Trafﬁc Law (VTL) each accounted for between 10% and 12% of cases. A weapon charge was the top charge entering arraignment in a small percentage (3% citywide) of cases. Borough differences were most noticeable regarding the proportion of drug cases: highest in the Bronx (38%) and lowest in Queens (19%). Also, VTL cases constituted relatively large proportions of the caseloads in Queens (20%) and Staten Island (18%), where they were about double the proportion in each of the other boroughs.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

JA Release Recommendation

The current system for recommending adult defendants for release on recognizance (ROR) at arraignment was introduced in New York City lower courts (Criminal Court) in June 2003. Formerly, only measures of community ties were used to assess risk of flight. The current system incorporates two criminal-history items as well as community ties. All of the items upon which the recommendation is based have been found to have a strong empirical relationship with the likelihood that defendants will appear for scheduled court dates. The new system recommends a larger proportion of defendants for ROR without increasing the risk of flight. An objective score is calculated for each adult defendant using the items shown in the box at right. CJA staff attempt to verify the first three items by calling a contact person named by the defendant. Positive points are awarded for Y (yes) or YV (yes verified) responses and the defendant is penalized with negative points for N (no) or NV (no verified) responses. For the question about employment, negative points are given if the defendant and the contact person give discrepant responses (UC, or unresolved conflict). The score is then calculated by tallying the negative and positive points. Based on this score, each defendant’s risk of failure to appear is assessed as low (Recommended for ROR), moderate (Moderate Risk for ROR), or high (Not Recommended). Also not recommended are those to whom a policy exclusion applies, such as an outstanding warrant, a bailjumping charge, or conflicting residence information. The No Recommendation category is assigned when the rap sheet is unavailable, the defendant is charged with murder, or the interview is incomplete. Because the recommendation does not take into account all factors listed in the New York bail statute (CPL §510.30), it is not an unconditional recommendation. Rather, it is an indication of the defendant’s likelihood of returning to court, if released.

CJA Recommendation Point System Y

NV UC

1. Does the defendant have a working telephone or cellphone?

–2 –2

2. Does the defendant report a NYC area address?

–2 –2

3. Is the defendant employed / in school / in training program full time?

–1 –1 –2

4. Does the defendant expect someone at arraignment?

–1

5. Does the prior bench warrant count equal zero?

–5

6. Does the open case count equal zero?

–1

Column totals Subtotals A = Y+YV B = N+NV+UC

Total Score

B A minus B

RECOMMENDATION CATEGORIES Recommended for ROR (low risk) +7 to +12 pts Moderate Risk for ROR +3 to +6 pts Not Recommended for ROR (high risk) –12 to +2 pts Or a policy exclusion applies: Bench warrant attached to rap sheet; Defendant is charged with bail jumping; or, Conﬂicting residence information. No Recommendation Rap sheet unavailable; Defendant charged with murder; or, Incomplete interview.

A separate recommendation system is used for juvenile offenders (youths between the ages of 13 and 15 prosecuted in adult court for certain serious offenses). The requirement for a juvenile offender (JO) recommendation is either veriﬁed school attendance, or expecting someone at arraignment. Veriﬁed nonattendance at school puts a JO into the Not Recommended category. JOs with an outstanding warrant were also counted as Not Recommended. The No Recommendation category is assigned in JO cases with an unavailable rap sheet, a murder charge, or an incomplete interview.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

CJA Release Recommendation Exhibit 7 CJA Recommendation, Citywide and by Borough January – December, 2004 Rec

5% 1%

11%

83%

m om ec

31%

N m ot en d1

6% 1% No 6% t

ended 43%

36%

20%

Citywide Adults (N = 265,423)

mmended 41% eco

Adults and JOs are combined in borough data.

30%

39%

33%

19%

Brooklyn (N = 67,906)

4%<1% 3%

14%

tR ecommended 3

1% 3%

29%

Staten Island (N = 7,343)

43%

mmended 30 eco % tR

Manha an (N = 83,814)

18%

Bronx (N = 55,103) No

42%

mmended 48 eco %

10%<1% 6%

21%

35%

19%

tR No

21%

mmended 47 eco % tR

34%

4%<1% 8%

6% 1% 7%

Citywide Juvenile Oﬀenders (N = 522)

27%

23%

Queens (N = 51,779)

Recommended Moderate Risk Not Recommended High Risk Warrant or bail-jumping charge Conﬂicting residence information

No Recommendation Noninterviewed cases, including cases of most defendants who had been issued a DAT at arrest, were excluded from Exhibits 7 and 8.

Exhibit 7 shows that 31% of adult defendants citywide (top left) were recommended for ROR; 20% were categorized as a moderate ﬂight risk; and 43% were not recommended (6% because of an outstanding warrant). The remainder (6%) were in the No Recommendation category. [See note p. 42.] For juvenile offenders (top right), the recommendation rate was much higher: 83% were recommended for ROR; 12% were not recommended (1% because of an outstanding warrant); and 5% were assigned to the No Recommendation category. Only citywide data are reported for JOs because of the small number of cases. Borough differences Defendants in Queens cases were most likely to be recommended (43%) and defendants in Manhattan cases were least likely (21%). The highest proportions of cases in which the defendant was not recommended were found in the Bronx (47%, including 8% with an outstanding warrant) and Manhattan (48%, including 6% with an outstanding warrant).

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

CJA Release Recommendation

Exhibit 8 CJA Recommendation by Charge Severity at Criminal Court Arraignment January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 100%

80%

42%

41%

No Recommendation Not Recommended

46%

60%

Moderate Risk Recommended

40%

20%

21% 21%

32%

25%

0% Felony Misdemeanor Lesser Severity N= (51,354) (183,982) (16,744)

The CJA recommendation was generally unrelated to the severity of the offense, at least for all cases with a top charge at the misdemeanor level or higher. A defendant charged with a felony entering Criminal Court arraignment was just as likely to be assessed as a low risk for failure to appear as one charged with a misdemeanor. As shown in Exhibit 8, 32% of defendants in felony cases were recommended for ROR (assessed as low risk of FTA), and the same was true for defendants in misdemeanor cases.

Charge severity refers to the severity class of the top charge entering Criminal Court arraignment. Cases for which charge severity was unknown, as well as DAT cases and other cases in which the defendant was not interviewed by CJA, were excluded from Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8, and all subsequent exhibits that present CJA recommendation data, combine the recommendation categories for JOs and adults.

The likelihood of being recommended for ROR was lower for cases with a top charge less severe than a misdemeanor (25% recommended). Defendants charged with lesser severity offenses were more likely to be assigned to the Not Recommended category (46%) than were defendants in other cases (42% for defendants in felony cases and 41% for defendants in misdemeanor cases). There was also a small increase in the No Recommendation category for defendants charged with lesser severity offenses (usually because no rap sheet was available).

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

VI.

riminal Court Arraignment

Exhibit 9 shows disposition and release rates at Criminal Court arraignment, citywide (A, this page) and by borough (B, next page). New York City has a two-tiered court system in which cases sustained at the felony level must be brought for prosecution into a superior court. At Criminal Court arraignment, a felony case may be continued; or it may be disposed by dismissal, by a transfer to another jurisdiction, or by a plea to a reduced charge less severe than a felony. [See inset box for a note concerning recent court restructuring in the Bronx.]

Disposition Rates Nearly half (47%) of all cases were disposed at arraignment. Borough variation ranged from 33% in Staten Island to 49% in Queens. A case was considered disposed if the defendant pled guilty (65% of disposed cases citywide), if the case was dismissed or adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) (33%), or if the case was transferred to another jurisdiction (Other, 2%). Of disposed cases, the proportion disposed by a guilty plea was particularly high in the Bronx (77%) and low in Brooklyn (49%).

Release Rates Of the nondisposed (continued) cases citywide, the defendant in 61% of cases was released on recognizance. Bail was set in

Exhibit 9 Criminal Court Arraignment Outcomes January – December, 2004 (A) CITYWIDE #ONTINUED

(N = 302,654)

0 0%

$ISPOSED

Continued 47%

53%

25 25%

50 50%

75 100 75% 100%

Other 2%

Remand 2% Bail Set 37%

Disposed

Dismissed/ ACD 33% ROR 61%

Continued Cases (N = 154,538) Cases with missing release data were excluded from the pie chart on the left, and cases with missing disposition data were excluded from the pie chart on the right. DAT cases were included in Exhibit 9.

37% of continued cases, and the defendant was remanded without bail in the remaining 2% of continued cases. ROR rates did not differ much by borough. The ROR rate was highest in Staten Island (65% of continued cases), followed by Manhattan (64%), Brooklyn and the Bronx (both 60%), and Queens (57%).

Pled Guilty 65%

Disposed Cases (N = 143,365) Bronx Court Restructuring In November 2004 the Bronx adopted a new court structure that transferred most Criminal Court functions to the Supreme Court. Under the new structure, cases continued at the Criminal Court arraignment are transferred immediately to Supreme Court for adjudication. Nonfelony cases transferred to Supreme Court at arraignment are reported here as “continued” in accordance with the way similar cases in other boroughs (and in the Bronx during most of 2004) are reported. Felony cases transferred to Supreme Court at arraignment in the Bronx, as elsewhere, are reported here as “Other” disposition, which results in a slightly inﬂated disposition rate in the Bronx.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Criminal Court Arraignment Exhibit 9 Criminal Court Arraignment Outcomes January – December, 2004 (B) BY BOROUGH

Disposed

Continued

Bronx

Brooklyn

#ONTINUED

(N = 75,319) 0 0%

$ISPOSED

53% 25 25%

(N = 62,687)

47% 50 50%

0 0%

75 100 75% 100%

Other <1%

Remand 1% Bail Set 39%

25 25%

Pled Guilty 49%

0 0%

25 25%

Bail Set 39%

(N = 55,745)

Disposed Cases (N = 29,460)

51%

0 0%

Other <1%

25 25%

49% 50 50%

75 100 75% 100%

Other <1%

Remand 2%

Dismissed/ ACD 25%

Pled Guilty 75%

ROR 64%

Continued Cases (N = 49,679)

Pled Guilty 77%

ROR 60%

75 100 75% 100%

Remand 2% Bail Set 34%

Other 9%

Queens

48% 50 50%

75 100 75% 100%

Continued Cases (N = 31,567)

Disposed Cases (N = 35,234)

52%

50 50%

Dismissed/ ACD 14%

Manha an (N = 100,167)

47%

Remand 1%

Dismissed/ ACD 51% ROR 60%

Continued Cases (N = 39,315)

53%

Bail Set 41%

Dismissed/ ACD ROR 43% 57%

Continued Cases (N = 28,256)

Disposed Cases (N = 48,480)

Pled Guilty 57%

Disposed Cases (N = 27,285)

Staten Island The high proportion of “Other” arraignment dispositions in the Bronx (9%, compared to less than 1% in all other boroughs) is attributable to felony cases that were transferred to Supreme Court at arraignment after the court restructuring in that borough. The practice in other boroughs—as well as in the Bronx prior to restructuring—is to continue felony cases in Criminal Court until indictment, or until charge reduction occurs.

(N = 8,736) 0 0%

67% 25 25%

50 50%

33% 75 100 75% 100%

Other <1%

Remand 2% Dismissed/ ACD 40%

Bail Set 33% ROR 65%

Continued Cases (N = 5,721)

Pled Guilty 60%

Disposed Cases (N = 2,906)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Criminal Court Arraignment Exhibit 10 displays the relationship between the disposition rate at arraignment and the severity of the charge entering arraignment. Only a small fraction of felony cases were disposed at Criminal Court arraignment (between 4% and 7%), whereas 45% of class A misdemeanors and the vast majority of lesser severity cases were disposed at arraignment.

Exhibit 10 Disposed at Criminal Court Arraignment By Charge Severity January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 A & B Felony (N = 21,726)

94%

C Felony (N = 7,277)

96%

D Felony (N = 17,703)

94%

E Felony (N = 7,159)

7% Continued

45%

34%

Disposed

66%

12%

88% 20%

40%

60%

80%

Exhibit 11 displays the relationship between release status leaving arraignment in Criminal Court and the severity of the charge entering arraignment, for defendants in continued (nondisposed) cases. The more serious the charge, the less likely was the defendant to be granted ROR. ROR was granted in 24% of cases of defendants charged with a class A or class B felony, compared to 70% of cases of defendants charged with a class A misdemeanor. ROR was granted in over 80% of cases with a top charge less severe than a class A misdemeanor. Cases missing arraignment disposition or charge severity were excluded from Exhibit 10. Cases missing arraignment release status or charge severity were excluded from Exhibit 11. DAT cases were included in both exhibits.

100%

Exhibit 11 Release Status Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment By Charge Severity January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Continued Cases Only) A & B Felony (N = 20,277) C Felony (N = 6,956)

24%

71%

69%

30%

D Felony (N = 16,534)

48%

51%

ROR

E Felony (N = 6,632)

48%

51%

Bail Set

Remand

A Misdemeanor (N = 76,342)

70%

Other Misdemeanor (N = 21,806)

29%

16% <1%

84%

Lesser Severity (N = 2,137)

There is a large difference between the Bronx and other boroughs in the disposition rate for felony cases: 19% in the Bronx, compared to 2% or less in all other boroughs (not shown), attributable entirely to the court restructuring in the Bronx that resulted in transfer to Supreme Court at arraignment for virtually all continued cases in late 2004. Nonfelony cases that were transferred to Supreme Court at arraignment in the Bronx are reported here as continued, so disposition rates for nonfelony severity classes are not affected.

55%

Other Misdemeanor (N = 67,496)

93%

A Misdemeanor (N = 143,813)

Lesser Severity (N = 19,796)

10% <1%

90% 20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Criminal Court Arraignment

Relationship Between ROR Rate at Arraignment in Criminal Court & CJA Recommendation Exhibit 12 shows, citywide and for each borough, the relationship between ROR and the CJA recommendation for cases that were not disposed at arraignment in Criminal Court. Cases of defendants who were recommended for ROR had higher release rates than cases of defendants who were assessed to be moderate risks for failure to appear, and much higher release rates than cases of defendants who were not recommended. ROR rates were also lower for cases of defendants who were assigned to the No Recommendation category, compared to cases of recommended defendants. Citywide, ROR was granted in 78% of cases of recommended defendants, compared to 72% of cases of moderate-risk defendants, 38% of cases of defendants who were not recommended, and 50% of

cases of defendants assigned to the No Recommendation category. The same pattern was found in each borough, as shown on the following page. The lowest ROR rate for cases of recommended defendants was 73% in Queens; the highest was 82% in both Manhattan and Staten Island. ROR rates for cases of moderate-risk defendants were only slightly lower, ranging from 5 to 9 percentage points below the rates for cases of recommended defendants in each borough. ROR was granted in less than half of cases of defendants who were not recommended in each borough: from a low of 27% in Queens to 42% in Manhattan and the Bronx.

Exhibit 12 ROR Rates at Criminal Court Arraignment By CJA Recommendation January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Continued Cases Only)

(A) CITYWIDE ROR Rate 78%

80%

72%

60%

DAT cases and other cases in which the defendant was not interviewed, as well as cases missing arraignment release data, were excluded from Exhibit 12.

50% 38%

40%

20%

0% Recommended

(47,231)

Moderate Not No RecomRisk Recommended mendation

(28,975)

(56,636)

Nonfelony cases in the Bronx that were transferred to Supreme Court at arraignment with an adjournment date on or after 11/01/04 are considered continued at arraignment and are included in Exhibit 12. Other cases transferred to Supreme Court or another jurisdiction at arraignment are considered disposed and are not included in this Exhibit. [See explanatory note about Bronx court restructuring, page 16.]

(8,584)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Criminal Court Arraignment Exhibit 12 ROR Rates at Criminal Court Arraignment By CJA Recommendation January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Continued Cases Only)

(B) BY BOROUGH ROR Rate 80%

Brooklyn 80%

80%

74%

76%

71%

60%

40%

42%

35%

42%

40%

43%

20%

0% Recommended

(13,038)

ROR Rate 80%

Bronx

ROR Rate

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(6,743)

(14,537)

(2,265)

Manha an 82%

Recommended

No Recommendation

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(9,989)

80%

(12,717)

(1,072)

Queens

ROR Rate

77%

(5,744)

No Recommendation

73% 65%

60%

53% 42%

40%

55%

40%

27% 20%

20%

0% Recommended

N= (11,102)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(9,811)

(19,353)

(3,784)

ROR Rate 80%

No Recommendation

Recommended

N= (11,241)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(5,826)

Staten Island 82% 73% 63%

60%

40%

20%

0% Recommended

(1,861)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(851)

(1,601)

No Recommendation

(771)

(8,428)

No Recommendation

(692)

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

VII. ail Setting and Bail Making

Exhibit 13 shows that in New York City as a whole, nearly a fifth of all bail amounts set at arraignment in Criminal Court were $500 or less; two fifths were $1,000 or less; over three fifths were $2,500 or less; and 84% were $7,500 or less. In the remainder of cases in which bail was set (16% of all cases with bail set), the bail amount was in excess of $7,500. In about 2% of the cases with bail set, the amount was $100,000 or more (not shown). The few cases with very high bail amounts produce averages that are much higher than the amounts set in the majority of cases, so medians are reported instead of averages. The median is the amount below and above which there is an equal number of cases. Citywide, the median amount of bail set at Criminal Court arraignment was $1,500.

Bail amounts varied by borough. The highest amounts were set in Queens and lowest in Staten Island. Only 12% of bail amounts in Queens were $500 or less, compared to 27% in Staten Island. In addition, Queens had the highest proportion of cases with bail set over $7,500: 26% of cases in Queens had bail set over $7,500, compared to 15% or less in every other borough. This pattern was reﬂected in the median amount for each borough, which was highest in Queens ($2,500) and lowest in Staten Island ($1,000). DAT cases were included in all exhibits in Section VII. Cases disposed at arraignment were excluded from Exhibits 13 and 14, with the exception of cases transferred to Supreme Court at arraignment, which were included. Thus the bail amounts reported are for both Criminal Court and Supreme Court cases.

Exhibit 13 Bail Amount Set at Criminal Court Arraignment Citywide and by Borough January – December, 2004 (Cases For Which Bail Was Set) 100%

14%

12%

15%

15% 26%

75%

18%

14%

23% 26% 16%

20% 30%

50%

19%

16%

21%

22%

17% 22% 22%

13%

$1,001 - $2,500

29%

26% 25%

$2,501 - $7,500

15% 23%

24%

over $7,500

$501 - $1000

22% 23%

27% 12%

$500 or less 18%

Brooklyn N= (15,177) Median: $1,500

Bronx (12,776) $2,000

Manha an (17,038) $2,000

Queens (11,356) $2,500

Staten Island Citywide (1,848) (58,195) $1,000 $1,500

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Bail Making Exhibit 14 shows the percentage of cases in which the defendant gained release by posting bail at arraignment, for all cases with bail set and within each bail amount range. Citywide (A) rates are on this page and rates by borough (B) are on the following page. (Defendants who did not make bail at arraignment may have done so within a few days; see Exhibit 15 for post-arraignment bail making.) Of all cases with bail set, defendants in only 9% of cases were able to post the amount necessary to gain release at arraignment in Criminal Court.

Exhibit 14 Bail Making at Criminal Court Arraignment By Bail Amount January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Cases For Which Bail Was Set)

(A) CITYWIDE Percent Made Bail

The ability to post bail at arraignment was rare even when the amount of bail was very low. For cases with bail amounts of $500 or less, bail was made at arraignment in 16% of cases. This percentage dropped as the bail amounts rose. In cases with bail set over $7,500, the defendant posted bail at arraignment only 2% of the time. There were wide differences by borough in bail making at arraignment. Defendants in Staten Island cases were much more likely to be able to post bail at arraignment than defendants in other boroughs. Staten Island defendants made bail at arraignment in 24% of cases overall, and that proportion rose to 39% if the amount was $500 or less. Bail was least likely to be made at arraignment in Manhattan. Defendants in 5% of cases made bail at arraignment, and the proportion was only 9% even when bail was set at $500 or less.

40%

30% 43%

How Bail Amounts Were Calculated

20% 16% 12% 10%

9% 5% 2%

$500 $501 or less to $1,000 N= (10,507) (12,435)

$1,001 $2,501 to $2,500 to $7,500 (13,046)

(11,939)

Bail BailAmount Amount 22

$7,501 or more

Total

(9,310)

(57,237)

When bond was ordered with a lower cash alternative, the lower amount was reported here, summed across all dockets. Cases with bail set at $1 were excluded because the defendant would not be able to obtain release by posting that amount, which is an indication of higher bail, or remand, on another case. The total number of cases is less than the number of cases reported in Exhibit 13 because of missing bail-making data.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Bail Making Exhibit 14 Bail Making at Criminal Court Arraignment by Bail Amount January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Cases For Which Bail Was Set)

(B) BY BOROUGH Percent Made Bail 40%

Percent Made Bail 40%

Brooklyn

30%

Bronx

27%

43%

20%

15%

15% 11%

10%

11%

10%

0% $500 $501 or less to $1,000

$1,001 $2,501 to $2,500 to $7,500

$7,501 or more

Total

N= (3,411) (3,828) (3,007) (2,648) (2,067) (14,961)

$500 $501 or less to $1,000

$1,001 $2,501 to $2,500 to $7,500

$7,501 or more

Total

N= (1,635) (2,815) (3,864) (2,871) (1,532) (12,717)

Bail Amount

Bail Amount Percent Made Bail

Percent Made Bail

40%

Manha an

30%

Queens

30% 43%

20%

10%

20%

13% 9%

10%

16%

8% 5%

0% $500 $501 or less to $1,000

$1,001 $2,501 to $2,500 to $7,500

$7,501 or more

Total

$500 $501 or less to $1,000

N= (3,576) (2,749) (3,195) (4,382) (2,492) (16,394)

$1,001 $2,501 to $2,500 to $7,500

$7,501 or more

Total

N= (1,393) (2,512) (2,691) (1,781) (2,945) (11,322)

Bail Amount

Bail Amount Percent Made Bail 39%

40%

Staten Island

30%

28% 24% 19%

20%

14% 10%

2% 0% $500 $501 or less to $1,000

(492)

(531)

$1,001 $2,501 to $2,500 to $7,500

(289)

(257)

$7,501 or more

Total

(274) (1,843)

Bail Amount

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

This page revised November 2006.

Bail Making Exhibit 15 shows, for Criminal Court cases with bail set at arraignment, the percentage in which the defendant gained release before disposition in Criminal Court. Citywide data are shown below (A), and by borough on the following page (B). The defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s release, either by ROR or by posting bail, was obtained at some point prior to disposition in over half (56%) of the bail cases that were eventually disposed (or still open) in Criminal Court. Citywide, defendants in 44% of bail cases were not released prior to disposition of the case. For each higher category of bail amount, the proportion of cases with defendants who were detained until disposition rose: from 38% for cases with the lowest bail to 51% for cases with the highest bail. Defendants who made bail were more likely to have done so after the arraignment appearance than at arraignment. In 29% of bail cases the defendant posted bail after arraignment, compared to 10% of cases in which the defendant posted bail at arraignment. Additional post-arraignment releases occurred when the court granted ROR for defendants who had initially been held on bail; this occurred in 17% of cases citywide.

Exhibit 15 Bail Making Post-Arraignment in Criminal Court By Bail Amount January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Criminal Court Cases With Bail Set at Arraignment)

(A) CITYWIDE

Bail Amount $500 or less (N = 9,986)

16% 13%

$501 - $1,000 11% (N = 11,038)

16%

$1,001 - $2,500 8% 18% (N = 9,315) 5% $2,501 - $7,500 22% (N = 5,896) 2% $7,501 or more 26% (N = 2,877) Total 10% (N = 39,112)

33% 30%

43%

28%

46%

25%

48%

21%

17%

29%

20%

40%

Made bail at arraignment

38%

ROR postarraignment Made bail postarraignment Not released prior to disposition

51% 44%

60%

80%

100%

Borough differences: Staten Island was the borough with the smallest proportion of cases in which the defendant was detained to disposition, 36%. Detention to disposition occurred in a much higher percentage of bail cases in the Bronx (52%) and Manhattan (46%). Post-arraignment bail making was particularly high in Queens, where defendants in 43% of bail cases made bail post-arraignment, compared to between 20% and 31% in all other boroughs.

The cases included in Exhibit 15 were limited to those that were either disposed in Criminal Court or were still open in Criminal Court on June 30, 2005. Also included were Bronx nonfelony cases that were transferred to Supreme Court with an adjournment date in November 2004 or later, which were tracked to disposition in Supreme Court as though they were Criminal Court cases. [See note on Bronx court restructuring, page 16.] Other cases transferred to Supreme Court were excluded. Thus, the total number of cases in Exhibit 15 is smaller than in Exhibit 14, and the percentages for bail making at arraignment also differ slightly. DAT cases were included in Exhibit 15. Bail making and release on recognizance were tracked until the disposition of the case, or until June 30, 2005, whichever occurred earlier.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

This page revised November 2006.

Bail Making Exhibit 15 Bail Making Post-Arraignment in Criminal Court by Bail Amount January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2004 (Criminal Court Cases With Bail Set at Arraignment)

(B) BY BOROUGH ROR postarraignment

Made bail at arraignment

Brooklyn

Bail Amount $500 or less (N = 3,300) 15% $501 - $1,000 (N = 3,514) 10% $1,001 - $2,500 (N = 2,233) 11% $2,501 - $7,500 (N = 1,473) $7,501 or more (N = 694)

19%

9% 4%

Total 11% (N = 11,214) 0%

$2,501 - $7,500 (N = 2,035) $7,501 or more (N = 602) Total (N = 10,704) 0%

45%

$501 - $1,000 (N = 2,337)

13% 14%

25%

38%

$1,001 - $2,500 (N = 2,394) 8%

20%

36%

$2,501 - $7,500 (N = 1,127)

45%

12%

39%

$7,501 or more (N = 342)

23%

25% 20%

40%

60%

7% 15% 4% 18% 2% 23% 1% 32% 6% 17%

80%

100%

20%

32%

47%

29%

48%

18% 31% 40%

60%

20% 40%

$1,001 - $2,500 (N = 225)

26% 17%

$2,501 - $7,500 (N = 149) 13% $7,501 or more (N = 78)

27%

Total (N = 1,345)

26%

28%

15% 17%

20%

25%

16%

42%

32%

56% 43% 40%

38% 60%

80%

100%

38%

30% 33%

52%

21%

40%

41%

40%

18%

15%

32%

39%

20%

21%

10%

100%

27%

47%

39%

80%

45%

Staten Island

Bail Amount $500 or less (N = 458)

60%

48%

Total 9% 10% (N = 8,200) 100%

52%

Queens

(N = 1,161)

80%

$501 - $1,000 (N = 435)

65%

20%

1% $7,501 or more 11%

46%

60%

5% 6%

$2,501 - $7,500 (N = 1,112)

49%

56%

14%

$1,001 - $2,500 8% 12% (N = 2,230)

53%

51%

20%

$500 or less 16% 9% 41% (N = 1,355) $501 - $1,000 13% 10% (N = 2,342)

40%

23%

Bail 38% Amount

39%

22%

16% 5% 20% 3% 25%

38%

25%

10%

Total (N = 7,649) 12% 15%

41%

Manha an

$500 or less (N = 3,424) 9% 12%

$1,001 - $2,500 (N = 2,233)

25%

35%

Bail Amount

$501 - $1,000 (N = 2,410)

$500 or less (N = 1,449)

41%

23%

26%

Bronx

Bail Amount

25%

22%

Not released prior to disposition

Made bail postarraignment

53% 23% 60%

Percentages may not total 100% because of rounding.

36% 80%

100%

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

This page revised November 2006.

VIII. ailure to Appear in Criminal Court

Exhibit 16 shows that the defendant in 16% of Criminal Court cases in which the defendant was at risk failed to appear at least once for a scheduled court appearance prior to disposition of the case. A defendant is “at risk” if he or she was released, either on recognizance or on bail, at any time prior to disposition in Criminal Court. Cases were tracked until disposition or until June 30, 2005, whichever occurred ﬁrst. FTA rates were lowest in Queens (12%) and highest in Manhattan (20%). FTA rates in the Bronx and Staten Island were 17%, and 16% in Brooklyn.

Exhibit 16 Failure to Appear (FTA) in Criminal Court Citywide and by Borough January – December, 2004 (At-Risk Criminal Court Cases) 50%

40%

FTA Rate

Whenever a released defendant fails to appear voluntarily for a scheduled court proceeding, a bench warrant is issued by the judge. The Criminal Justice Agency works in two ways to minimize the extent of failure to appear (FTA). First, the Agency’s recommendation system provides judges with an assessment of the risk of nonappearance associated with release for each defendant. Second, CJA attempts to remind released defendants of each scheduled Criminal Court appearance. Of course, a greater proportion of the favorably assessed defendants may be readily contacted because they have known and often veriﬁed telephone numbers and addresses. [See Section X for information about notiﬁcation procedures and outcomes.]

43%

30%

20%

16%

17%

20%

17%

16%

12% 10%

Brooklyn Bronx Manha an Queens N= (28,277) (19,376)

(33,394)

(19,222)

Staten Citywide Island (4,134) (104,403)

Nonfelony cases in the Bronx that were transferred to Supreme Court with an adjournment date in November 2004 or later are included here as Criminal Court cases. Defendants in those cases who were released in either Criminal Court or Supreme Court are included in the atrisk sample; any FTA in either court prior to disposition (or until June 30, 2005, whichever occurred earlier) is included in the FTA rates reported in this section. All other cases transferred to Supreme Court are excluded. [See explanatory note about Bronx court restructuring, page 16.]

Supreme Court cases (deﬁned as any case with a transfer to Supreme Court, with the exception of some Bronx cases as noted in separate box) and DAT cases were excluded from all exhibits in this section. FTA rates for DAT arraignments are presented separately in Section IX. FTA rates for Supreme Court cases in the 2004 cohort will be presented in the 2005 Annual Report, after they have been tracked for a minimum of 18 months to June 30, 2006. FTA rates presented in this report are case based. They are calculated by dividing the number of cases in which a defendant failed to appear one or more times by the total number of cases with a defendant who was at risk. These FTA rates are not comparable to the appearance-based FTA rates formerly presented in the Semi-Annual Report series. Case-based rates appear higher because of the method used to calculate them. For example, if defendants in 10 out of 100 cases failed to appear once while their cases were pending, the case-based FTA rate would be 10%. If it took four court appearances for each case to reach disposition, the appearance-based FTA rate would be 2.5% (10 divided by 400 appearances). Thus, the same FTA rate reported in the Semi-Annual Report as 2.5% would be reported here as 10%.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

This page revised November 2006.

Failure to Appear in Criminal Court

Exhibit 17 shows that the FTA rate was 18% in cases of defendants who were charged with a nonfelony offense entering Criminal Court arraignment. There was no difference in FTA rate between cases of defendants charged with a misdemeanor and defendants charged with less serious offenses. In cases of defendants charged with a felony entering arraignment, the FTA rate was lower (11%). Cases in which the felony charge was sustained (and the case transferred to Supreme Court) were not included in the data presented in this section. The “felony” cases included in Exhibits 16 through 20 are those in which the charge was reduced below the felony level at or after arraignment, allowing the case to be disposed in Criminal Court; or the case was still open in Criminal Court at the cutoff date (June 30, 2005).

Exhibit 17 Failure to Appear (FTA) in Criminal Court By Charge Severity at Arraignment January – December, 2004 (At-Risk Criminal Court Cases) 50%

40%

FTA Rate

FTA and Charge Severity

30%

43%

20%

18%

Misdemeanor (78,714)

Lesser Oﬀense (1,586)

11% 10%

0% N=

Felony (21,615)

Exhibit 18 Failure to Appear (FTA) in Criminal Court By CJA Recommendation FTA and the CJA Recommendation

January – December, 2004 (At-Risk Criminal Court Cases)

40%

Exhibit 18 shows that FTA rates were lowest in cases of defendants who, because they were assessed to pose a low risk of ﬂight, were recommended for ROR (9%).

30%

Cases of defendants assessed at moderate risk of ﬂight had a higher FTA rate (15%).

FTA Rate

50%

26% 20%

20%

15% 10%

Recommended

N= (38,928)

Moderate Risk

(22,927)

Not No Recommended Recommendation

(32,995)

The highest FTA rate was found among cases of defendants who were not recommended for ROR (26%). This was nearly three times higher than the FTA rate for cases with recommended defendants. In cases of defendants in the No Recommendation category, the FTA rate was 20%, which is also higher than for cases of recommended defendants.

(5,352)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

This page revised November 2006.

Failure to Appear in Criminal Court Exhibit 19 Return to Criminal Court Following FTA By CJA Recommendation January – December, 2004 (Criminal Court Cases With FTA) 100%

36% 75%

44%

48%

49%

45%

Return to Court and the CJA Recommendation As shown in Exhibit 19, in Criminal Court cases with an FTA prior to disposition, the majority of defendants returned to court within 30 days after failing to appear (55%). In cases with a defendant who was recommended by CJA, the rate of return within 30 days was 64%, which is higher than the average rate for all cases.

50%

64% 25%

56%

Recommended

Moderate Risk

(3,433)

(3,377)

52%

51%

Not No Recommended Recommendation

Return within 30 days

(8,465)

(1,079)

55%

Total

(16,354)

No Return within 30 days

In cases with a defendant in the moderate-risk category, the rate of return within 30 days was 56%, which is near the average for all cases. In cases with a defendant who was not recommended, the rate of return within 30 days was lower (52%). The rate of return within 30 days was lowest in cases with a defendant in the No Recommendation category (51%).

Cases were tracked for 30 days after the ﬁrst FTA in order to collect data on return to court. For cases with a ﬁrst FTA occurring near the cutoff date (June 30, 2005), return-to-court data were tracked beyond that date to 30 days following the FTA.

Adjusted FTA Rates and the CJA Recommendation

Exhibit 20 Total and Adjusted FTA Rates By CJA Recommendation

Exhibit 20 compares the total FTA rate (red bars) to an “adjusted FTA rate” (blue bars), obtained by counting only cases in which the defendant did not return within 30 days. Both rates are shown within each recommendation category.

Overall, the adjusted FTA rate—FTA with no return within 30 days—was 7%, which is less than half of the total FTA rate for cases for which a CJA recommendation was available (16%).

35% 30%

26% FTA Rate

The adjusted FTA rate for cases of recommended defendants was only 3%, compared to 7% for cases of moderate-risk defendants; 12% for cases of defendants who were not recommended for ROR; and 10% for cases in the No Recommendation category.

January – December, 2004 (At-Risk Criminal Court Cases)

40%

25%

20%

10% 5% 0%

16%

15%

12% 10%

3% Recommended

Moderate Risk

(38,928)

(22,927)

Total FTA Rate

Not No Recommended Recommendation

(32,995)

(5,352)

Total

(100,202)

Adjusted FTA Rate (no return within 30 days)

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

IX.

esk Appearance Tickets Exhibit 21 Failure to Appear (FTA) For a DAT Arraignment Citywide and by Borough

The previous section of this report presented postarraignment FTA rates for cases of defendants who were detained from arrest to arraignment, and it excluded cases of defendants who were issued desk appearance tickets (DATs). In this section, we report FTA rates for scheduled DAT arraignments.

January – December, 2004

40%

FTA Rate

A desk appearance ticket is a written notice issued by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) or another authority for the defendant to appear in the Criminal Court for arraignment at a future date. Under the New York State Criminal Procedure Law (§150.20), a DAT may be issued for any nonfelony and some nonviolent class E felony arrest charges. The NYPD imposes some additional restrictions; for example, denying DATs to defendants found to have outstanding warrants.

50%

30%

26%

20% 14%

13%

CJA does not usually interview DAT defendants, but the Agency does provide arraignment notification for them by mail and by telephone using contact information supplied by the NYPD. For post-arraignment appearances, DAT defendants are notified using the same procedures as for other defendants. (For more information regarding notification, see Section X.) Exhibit 21 shows that 24,093 DAT cases were prosecuted citywide during 2004. In 14% of them, the defendant failed to appear for the arraignment in Criminal Court.

10%

Brooklyn Bronx Manha an Queens

N = (4,197)

(6,128)

(10,498)

(2,309)

Staten Citywide Island (961)

(24,093)

There were large borough differences in FTA rates for DAT arraignments. The Bronx had the highest rate, 26%. This was double the next-highest rate, which was in Brooklyn (13%). Lower rates were found in Manhattan (10%), Queens (10%), and Staten Island (7%).

Unlike FTA rates presented elsewhere in this report, which counted an FTA any time during the pendency of the case, Exhibit 21 counts FTA only at arraignment. The rate is the number of DAT cases in which a defendant failed to appear for the scheduled arraignment divided by the total number of scheduled DAT arraignments.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

otiﬁcation

The Agency attempts to notify all released defendants of their scheduled Criminal Court appearances, with the expectation that this will reduce FTA rates. Defendants released on desk appearance tickets are also notiﬁed of their scheduled arraignment dates. Notiﬁcation includes telephone calls and letters.

Exhibit 22 Telephone Notiﬁcation: Volume & Outcomes January – December, 2004

REMINDER CALLS (3 days prior) Not a empted/ wrong number 7%

Successful 37%

Notification by Telephone Telephone notification is attempted for all released defendants who provided a telephone number. Computerized telephone calls are made at two points prior to each defendant’s court date: a reminder call is made starting three days before a scheduled court date, and a wake-up call is made between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. on the morning of the scheduled appearance. Up to four attempts per day are made for reminder calls, until someone answers the phone and responds by pressing the appropriate key pad responses. Only one attempt is made for wake-up calls. Exhibit 22 shows the number of defendant court appearances for which telephone notification was attempted, or would have been attempted under normal circumstances (no call was attempted if the computer did not recognize the court part, or if the system was temporarily down). Reminder Calls Of 323,001 defendants who had a scheduled Criminal Court appearance during 2004, a reminder call was made successfully for 37% of defendants. (Each defendant is represented as many times as he or she had a scheduled court appearance during the year.) Of those reached successfully, 60% responded that the defendant would appear in court. If the person answering the phone indicated that the defendant would not appear (40%), he or she was counseled about the serious consequences of nonappearance. It took an average of 2.6 attempts to obtain a successful outcome, and an average of 3 attempts for unsuccessful outcomes (not shown). Wake-Up Calls CJA made 242,679 wake-up calls, of which 66% were completed, allowing a recording to be played about the

Unsuccessful 56%

Will Not Appear 40% Will Appear 60%

(N = 323,001)

WAKE-UP CALLS (same day) Busy/No Answer 14% Bad Number 20%

Completed 66%

(N = 242,679)

Telephone Notiﬁcation Outcomes Reminder Calls

Wake-Up Calls

● “Successful” — a person answered and responded to the automated menu.

● “Completed” — a working number was reached, including a machine or voice mail (a recorded message is left) or a wrong number. No automated menu responses are requested.

● “Not attempted, wrong number” — the menu option for a wrong number was selected; or the call was not attempted. ● “Unsuccessful” — busy, no answer, answering machine, nonworking number, or person did not respond to automated menu choices.

● “Busy, no answer” — busy signal or unanswered ring. ● “Bad number” — disconnected or out of service. Previously identiﬁed wrong numbers are excluded.

defendant’s required appearance in court that day. There were fewer wake-up calls than reminder calls partly because wrong numbers identiﬁed by the reminder calls are excluded; and occasionally there was insufﬁcient time to complete the wake-up calls by 10 a.m.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Notiﬁcation

Exhibit 23 Letter Notiﬁcation: Volume & Outcomes January – December, 2004

Notiﬁcation by Letter Reminder letters to defendants with upcoming Criminal Court appearances are sent to those who provided a mailing address but not a telephone number. Most defendants who provided a telephone number are notiﬁed only by telephone. However, defendants who were issued a desk appearance ticket (DAT) receive both a telephone call and a letter (if CJA received both an address and a telephone number from the NYPD) reminding them of the scheduled arraignment date, which is usually several weeks after arrest.

100% 80% 60%

96% 40%

A letter is sent to defendants meeting these criteria

20%

if the next appearance is scheduled seven or more days after any given court date. If the next appearance is scheduled to take place in fewer than seven days, there is not enough time to generate a letter.

Exhibit 23 shows that 98,949 letters were sent to defendants reminding them of a scheduled court appearance in Criminal Court during the reporting period. A small proportion (4%) were returned by the Post Office because they were undeliverable. Defendants scheduled for post-arraignment appearances whose letters were returned are presumed not to have been notified (the letter would not have been generated if a telephone number had been available). The returned letters also included a small number of DAT arraignment notifications, and these defendants may have been reached by telephone.

(N = 98,949) Le ers Sent Le er Not Returned

14% of le er recipients checked in by telephone.

Le er Returned by Post Oﬃce

Most letters (96%) were not returned. Defendants are presumed to have been notified if the letter was not returned. The notification letter requests that the defendant call to confirm his or her attendance at the scheduled court appearance, using a CJA telephone number provided in the letter. Of those who received letters, 14% checked in by telephone as requested in the letter.

Agency evaluations of the notification system have shown consistently that notification, when successful, reduces FTA rates. These studies have also shown that, while both telephone and letter notification are effective, it is more effective to contact defendants by telephone.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

XI. pecial Programs

Bail Expediting Program (BEX) The Bail Expediting Program operates in the Bronx and Queens. To reduce unnecessary pretrial detention, CJA expedites bail making for defendants who are held on low bail ($2,500 or less) in these two boroughs. CJA does not post bail, but re-interviews eligible defendants who were not able to post bail at arraignment. Program staff obtain information to assist in contacting potential sureties, and then works with them to facilitate bail making.

Exhibit 24 Bail Expediting Program (BEX): Volume & Outcomes January – December, 2004

Bronx

In Queens 6,412 defendants were identiﬁed as eligible for BEX. Of these, 12% were bailed in court and an additional 22% made bail within two days, for a total of 34% of BEX-eligible defendants who gained release with CJA’s help in Queens. An additional program called N(ew)-BEX operates in Queens, in recognition of the higher average bail amounts in this borough. Defendants in Queens with bail set in the range of $2,501 to $3,500 are eligible for N-BEX. During 2004, 527 defendants in Queens were eligible for N-BEX (not shown). Making bail was more difﬁcult for them because of their higher bail amounts: 8% were bailed in court, and an additional 4% were bailed within two days.

Bailed within 2 days 10%

Not bailed within 2 days 74%

(N = 7,839)

Queens

The number of defendants identiﬁed as eligible for BEX in each borough is shown in Exhibit 24, along with the outcomes described in the accompanying box. In the Bronx 7,839 defendants with bail set at arraignment at $2,500 or less were identiﬁed as eligible for BEX. Of these, 16% were bailed in court and an additional 10% made bail within two days, for a total of 26% of BEX-eligible defendants who gained release with CJA’s help in the Bronx.

Bailed in Court 16%

Bailed in Court 12% Bailed within 2 days 22%

Not bailed within 2 days 66%

(N = 6,412)

BEX Outcomes ● “Bailed in court” refers to defendants who posted bail while still in the courthouse, either at arraignment or while being held post-arraignment at CJA’s request for up to two hours prior to transfer to the Department of Correction (DOC). ● “Bailed within 2 days” refers to defendants who posted bail after transfer to the DOC detention facility, but within two days of arraignment. ● “Not bailed within 2 days” is the designation for the remainder of BEX-eligible defendants. Some may have posted bail (or been released on recognizance) after two days, but the BEX program does not track or take credit for releases after two days.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Special Programs

Failure-to-Appear (FTA) Units FTA Units operate in Brooklyn and Queens for defendants who fail to appear for a post-arraignment date in Criminal Court, and in Brooklyn also for defendants issued a desk appearance ticket (DAT) who fail to appear for the scheduled arraignment. CJA attempts to reach these defendants and persuade them to return to court voluntarily. For defendants who do so, or for whom CJA veriﬁes a reason for the missed court date, there are beneﬁts: the warrant is vacated, usually no additional charges result from the FTA, and the majority are again released or the case is immediately disposed.

FTA Unit Outcomes • “No direct telephone contact, no return” refers to defendants who were not reached by telephone (although a letter may have reached them) and did not return to court within 29 days. • “Continued” refers to defendants who had not yet returned by December 31, 2004, and for whom efforts would continue into the next reporting period. • The remainder were categorized as “Other outcome.” Outcomes for this group were further subdivided:

Attempts are made to contact defendants by telephone and letter. Attempts to reach defendants by phone continue until the defendant returns to court or for 29 days after the warrant is issued, whichever is less. CJA also may help arrange for the defendant’s attorney to accompany him or her to court.

• “Returned with CJA’s Help / Warrant Vacated” refers to defendants who returned voluntarily as a result of CJA’s efforts, as well as a few additional cases in which the warrant was vacated because CJA veriﬁed the reason for FTA.

FTA Unit caseloads and outcomes are shown in Exhibit 25. For on-line arrests (cases in which the defendant was detained from arrest to arraignment) the caseload in Brooklyn was 4,719 and in Queens the caseload was 2,457. For Brooklyn DAT arrests (cases in which a desk appearance ticket was issued), the caseload was 721. (The Queens DAT caseload is not displayed because there were only 76 cases in this category during 2004.)

• “Reached, No Return” refers to defendants whom CJA contacted directly by telephone but who did not return to court within 29 days.

The bar charts in Exhibit 25 show that in on-line arrests in which a post-arraignment warrant was issued, about half could not be reached by telephone, although a letter may have reached them (49% in Brooklyn and 51% in Queens). In cases of Brooklyn DATs, 44% were not reached by telephone. In 3% to 4% of cases, efforts continued into January, 2005. For the remainder (“other outcome”), CJA was almost always successful in pursuading the defendant to return to court. The pie charts in Exhibit 25 show that when those who were not reached by telephone

• “Returned by NYPD” refers to those who were brought back to court because they were re-arrested while CJA was still attempting to effect their voluntary return.

(and did not return) were excluded, along with continued cases, the success rate (“Returned with CJA’s Help / Warrant Vacated”) ranged from 83% for Brooklyn on-line arrests to 93% in Queens. The somewhat lower sucess rate for Brooklyn online arrests is associated with the higher likelihood there of re-arrest: 13% of the “other outcomes” in Brooklyn were re-arrests (“Returned by NYPD”), compared to 1% in Queens. Only a few defendants were reached by telephone and did not return within 29 days (2% to 4% of “other outcomes” in Brooklyn, and 6% in Queens).

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Special Programs

Exhibit 25 FTA Units: Volume & Outcomes January – December, 2004

Brooklyn On-Line Arrests: Post-Arraignment Warrants [See box on previous page for outcome descriptions.]

Returned by NYPD Reached, No 13% Return 4%

100%

Other outcome

80%

48%

60%

Continued

40% 20%

No direct telephone contact, no return The FTA Units target both misdemeanor and felony cases with a warrant in Criminal Court. Previous exhibits presenting FTA data excluded cases with a transfer to Supreme Court, which had the effect of excluding a large proportion of the felony cases. This is one reason why the caseloads shown in this exhibit are larger than the numbers of FTAs shown for Queens and Brooklyn in previous exhibits. Another reason is that these data include outcomes for cases continued from the previous reporting period. Defendants with no address or telephone contact information are not included in the caseload totals.

49%

Returned with CJA’s Help/ Warrant Vacated 83%

(N = 2,249) Other Outcome

(N = 4,719)

Queens On-Line Arrests: Post-Arraignment Warrants Returned by NYPD 1%

100% 80%

45%

60%

4% Returned with CJA’s Help/ Warrant Vacated 93%

40% 20%

Reached, No Return 6%

51%

(N = 2,457)

(N = 1,117) Other Outcome

Brooklyn DAT Arrests: Arraignment & Post-Arraignment Warrants Returned by NYPD 8%

100%

Reached, No Return 2%

80%

53% 60%

40% 20% 0%

44%

(N = 721)

Returned with CJA’s Help/ Warrant Vacated 90% (N = 384) Other Outcome

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

XII. upreme Court (2003 Cohort)

Because of the length of time it takes for cases sustained at the felony level to reach ﬁnal disposition, many felony cases in the 2004 arrest cohort were still open in Supreme Court at the cutoff date for tracking cases included in the current report (June 30, 2005). In order to allow a minimum of 18 months to follow cases through Supreme Court, this section presents Supreme Court data for the previous year’s cohort. Supreme Court data for 2004 arrests will be reported in next year’s report, which will be the 2005 Annual Report. The 2003 Annual Report covered arrests occurring between July 1 and December 31, 2003. That report, the ﬁrst in our new series of annual re-

ports, covered only half a year in order to coincide with the implementation on June 30, 2003, of the newly revised CJA recommendation system. (Data from arrests in the ﬁrst half of 2003 had been covered in the ﬁnal issue of the Semi-Annual Report series.) The data presented in this section are for the cases in that 6-month cohort of 2003 arrests that were eventually transferred to Supreme Court for disposition. Demographic data and Criminal Court arraignment outcomes for these cases were included in the 2003 Annual Report. The data covered in this section include Supreme Court arraignment outcomes and failure to appear during the entire length of the case.

Bronx Court Restructuring The new court structure adopted in the Bronx in November 2004 affected some cases in the 2003 cohort. Under the new structure, virtually all Criminal Court cases in the Bronx that were still open in November 2004 were transferred to the Supreme Court for disposition. This included hundreds of nonfelony cases that would have remained in Criminal Court under the two-tiered court system used prior to restructuring, which is also the system used in the other four boroughs of the City. The transfers of nonfelony cases to Supreme Court in the Bronx started occurring as early as August 2004, for cases adjourned until November or later. Nonfelony cases transferred to Supreme Court in the Bronx with an adjournment date in November 2004 or later are excluded from the data reported in this section. The intent is to present, to the extent possible, comparable data for all boroughs; and data for the Bronx that are comparable for the periods before and after the effects of restructuring began to be felt. However, it is impossible to determine deﬁnitively which cases would have remained in Criminal Court before restructuring, as some of the cases with a felony charge at arraignment (included here with other Supreme Court cases) could have been adjudicated in Criminal Court with a charge reduction. Thus, some lack of comparability in reporting data as a result of the Bronx court restructuring is unavoidable.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) Disposition Rates at Supreme Court Arraignment Exhibit 26 presents disposition rates at arraignment in Supreme Court. A case is considered disposed if it was dismissed, transferred to another jurisdiction, or if the defendant pled guilty. (If the indictment was consolidated with or superseded by an indictment on another case, the case was also considered disposed. Only a handful of cases ﬁt this criterion.)

Exhibit 26 Disposition Rates At Supreme Court Arraignment Citywide and by Borough Arrests July – December, 2003 70%

The citywide average disposition rate at Supreme Court arraignment was 34%. The majority of dispositions were accounted for by guilty pleas (86%, not shown) .

There were wide borough differences in disposition rates at Supreme Court arraignment (or grand jury hearing). The disposition rate was highest in Queens (61%), followed by Staten Island (49%). The percentage of cases disposed at arraignment (or by a grand jury) was much lower in the Bronx (35%), and lowest in Brooklyn (27%) and Manhattan (23%). Borough differences in disposition rates at Supreme Court arraignment reﬂect the much greater use of superior court informations (SCIs) in Queens—and, to a lesser extent, in Staten Island—than in other boroughs. An SCI is an accusatory instrument used to charge defendants in Supreme Court when indictment by a grand jury has been waived by the defendant. A guilty plea at the Supreme Court arraignment is routine for SCI cases.

Percent Disposed

For a small number of cases there was no information about an arraignment outcome, but the outcome of a grand jury hearing was available. For all cases with no Supreme Court arraignment data, the grand jury disposition was taken in lieu of the Supreme Court arraignment disposition. Most of these cases were dismissed by the grand jury, and were thus not arraigned (n=385, not shown). They are included in Exhibit 26 as disposed at arraignment, as were cases with no arraignment that were returned to Criminal Court (n=47) or transferred to Family Court (n=3) by the grand jury.

61% 60% 49%

50% 40% 30%

35%

34%

27% 23%

20% 10% 0%

Brooklyn Bronx Manha an Queens

N = (2,539)

(3,164)

(3,855)

(2,180)

Staten Citywide Island (279)

Exhibit 26 includes all arrests during the second half of 2003 for cases that were eventually transferred to Supreme Court, with the exception of nonfelony cases in the Bronx that were transferred to Supreme Court with an adjournment date in November 2004 or later (see explanatory note on the previous page concerning Bronx court restructuring). Cases missing Supreme Court data were excluded.

(12,017)

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

This page revised November 2006.

Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Arraignment Exhibit 27 Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Arraignment Citywide and by Borough

Exhibit 27 shows that 20% of defendants citywide were released on recognizance, 23% were released on bail, 46% were held on bail, and 11% were remanded without bail at Supreme Court arraignment.

Arrests July â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2003 (Continued Cases Only) 18%

Bronx (N = 2,003) Manha an (N = 2,907) Queens (N = 833) Staten Island (N = 140) Citywide (N = 7,690)

45%

29% 30%

8% 16%

32%

22%

ROR 16%

57%

18%

Released on Bail Held on Bail

93% 43%

33%

12% 26% 20%

Release status at arraignment in Supreme Court is closely linked to the release decision at Criminal Court arraignment. Exhibit 28 shows that in cases with a defendant who was released on recognizance at Criminal Court arraignment (top bar), 84% were also granted ROR at the Supreme Court arraignment. The majority of cases with a defendant released on bail (71%) or held on bail (61%) in Criminal Court also had the same outcome at Supreme Court arraignment. In cases with a defendant who was remanded without bail at Criminal Court arraignment (bottom bar), 84% were also remanded at Supreme Court arraignment.

16%

46%

23%

20%

12%

31%

27%

40%

60%

The ROR rate was highest in the Bronx (30%), and lowest in Queens (12%).

Remand

11%

80%

Cases without an arraignment, or missing release status at arraignment in Supreme Court, were excluded from Exhibit 27.

100%

Exhibit 28 Release Status Leaving Supreme Court Arraignment By Release Status Leaving Criminal Court Arraignment Arrests July â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2003 (Continued Cases Only) 2%

Criminal Court Arraighment

Brooklyn (N = 1,807)

ROR (N = 1,401)

84%

16% Released on bail 7% (N = 347)

22%

32%

ROR 20%

71%

Held on bail 6% 27% (N = 5,413) 3% 2% Remand (N = 484)

7% 7%

93% 61% 31%

Remand

27%

11%

Released on bail Held on bail

84%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cases without a Supreme Court arraignment, or missing release status at arraignment in Criminal Court or Supreme Court, were excluded from Exhibit 28.

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) Relationship Between ROR Rate at Arraignment in Supreme Court & CJA Recommendation The current recommendation system is based on research that predicts FTA in both Criminal Court and Supreme Court. Exhibit 29 shows, citywide and for each borough, the relationship between the CJA recommendation and ROR at Supreme Court arraignment. Although ROR rates at Supreme Court arraignment are considerably lower than the comparable rates in Criminal Court (Exhibit 12), the same strong relationship between release and the CJA recommendation was found. The ROR rate at Supreme Court arraignment was 33% for cases in which the defendant was recommended by CJA, and slightly lower for cases in which the defendant was assessed to pose a moderate risk of ďŹ&#x201A;ight (30%). The ROR rate was considerably lower for cases in which the defendant was not recommended (11%) and lowest for cases in which the defendant was assigned to the No Recommendation category (8%).

A strong relationship between ROR at Supreme Court arraignment and the CJA recommendation was also found in each borough (next page). In all boroughs, the ROR rate for cases in which the defendant was recommended by CJA was more than double the rate for cases in which the defendant was not recommended. In Queens, where ROR rates at Supreme Court arraignment were lowest in every recommendation category, the ROR rate for cases with a recommended defendant (22%) was more than four times higher than the ROR rate for cases with a defendant who was not recommended (5%). In the Bronx, where ROR rates at Supreme Court arraignment were highest overall, the ROR rate for cases with a recommended defendant (45%) was more than double the rate for cases with a defendant who was not recommended (21%).

Exhibit 29 ROR Rates at Supreme Court Arraignment By CJA Recommendation Arrests July â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2003 (Continued Cases Only)

(A) CITYWIDE ROR Rate Cases in which the defendant was not interviewed, cases missing release status at the Supreme Court arraignment, and cases with no arraignment in Supreme Court were excluded from Exhibit 29.

50% 40%

33% 30% 20%

11%

10%

0% Recommended

30%

(2,029)

Moderate Not No RecomRisk Recommended mendation

(1,242)

(3,493)

(552)

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) Exhibit 29 ROR Rates at Supreme Court Arraignment By CJA Recommendation Arrests July â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2003 (Continued Cases Only)

(B) BY BOROUGH

Brooklyn

ROR Rate

Bronx

ROR Rate

50%

40%

45%

43%

32% 30%

30%

25%

21% 20%

20%

10%

0% Recommended

(548)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(263)

(770)

(155)

Manha an

ROR Rate

Recommended

No Recommendation

50%

40%

29%

(341)

(879)

No Recommendation

(114)

Queens

ROR Rate

50%

30%

(563)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

30%

26%

22% 20%

19%

20%

10%

0% Recommended

(609)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(484)

No Recommendation

(1,499)

(183)

Recommended

(268)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(129)

(315)

No Recommendation

(82)

Staten Island

ROR Rate 50%

39%

40%

36%

30% 20%

10%

11%

0% Recommended

(41)

Moderate Not Risk Recommended

(25)

(30)

No Recommendation

(18)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) Failure to Appear to Disposition in Supreme Court Exhibit 30 shows that the FTA rate in the 2003 arrest cohort for cases that were disposed in Supreme Court was 17% citywide. This includes any FTA that occurred between the time of the Criminal Court arraignment and the disposition of the case in Supreme Court.

Exhibit 30 Failure to Appear (FTA) to Disposition In Supreme Court Citywide and by Borough Arrests July – December, 2003 (Cases At Risk in Criminal or Supreme Court)

FTA rates for Supreme Court cases varied by borough from a low of 9% in Queens to a high of 20% in the Bronx. These FTA rates are slightly lower than the rates for cases from the same arrest cohort that were disposed in Criminal Court: 19% citywide, ranging from 13% in Queens to 25% in Manhattan (as reported in the 2003 Annual Report).

25% 20%

20%

FTA Rate

15%

43%

10%

Exhibit 31 Failure to Appear (FTA) to Disposition In Supreme Court By Offense Type at Criminal Court Arraignment Arrests July – December, 2003 (Cases At Risk in Criminal or Supreme Court)

19%

17% 14%

FTA Rate

15%

18%

Brooklyn

14%

15%

Drug Physically Injurious

N= (2,830)

(2,245)

Weapon VTL Property Crime Forgery/ Obstruction Fraud of Justice/ Misconduct (197)

(858)

Bronx Manha an Queens Staten Island (2,026) (2,192) (1,345) (180)

Citywide (7,308)

FTA and Offense Type Exhibit 31 shows that FTA rates for Supreme Court cases did not vary much by offense type at Criminal Court arraignment. Drug cases had a slightly higher FTA rate (19%), and cases with a weapon offense or an offense categorized as “physically injurious” had slightly lower FTA rates (14% for both offense types) than other cases. Offense Types

15%

10%

N = (1,565)

20%

17%

16%

FTA rates are calculated by dividing the number of at-risk cases in which the defendant failed to appear for any court date in Criminal Court or Supreme Court prior to disposition by the total number of cases with a defendant at risk in either court.

25%

19%

(308)

(668)

(178)

Drug: all Article 220 and Article 221 drug offenses. Physically injurious: homicide, arson, assault, violent sex offenses, kidnap, robbery, other crimes involving physical harm to a victim. VTL: Vehicle and Trafﬁc Law offenses. Property Crime: burglary, larceny, possession of stolen property. Forgery/Fraud: forgery, fraud, bribery, theft, false written statements, money laundering. Weapon: criminal possession & similar charges. Obstruction of Justice/Misconduct: criminal contempt, promoting prison contraband, witness tampering, resisting arrest, gambling, obscenity.

2004 ANNUAL REPORT

Supreme Court (2003 Cohort) FTA and the CJA Recommendation

Exhibit 32 Failure to Appear (FTA) to Disposition In Supreme Court By CJA Recommendation Arrests July â&#x20AC;&#x201C; December, 2003 (Cases At Risk in Criminal or Supreme Court) 30%

22% 20%

18%

FTA Rate

17% 11%

10%

Recommended

(2,693)

Moderate Risk

(1,495)

The CJA recommendation predicts likelihood of failure to appear for cases disposed in Supreme Court, just as it does for cases disposed in Criminal Court. Exhibit 32 shows that the FTA rate was 11% for Supreme Court cases with a defendant who was recommended for ROR; 17% for Supreme Court cases with a defendant who was assessed as a moderate risk; 22% for Supreme Court cases with a defendant who was not recommended; and 18% for Supreme Court cases with a defendant assigned to the No Recommendation category.

Not No Recommended Recommendation

(2,593)

(247)

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

NOTES ON THE COMPARABILITY OF DATA Recommendation Categories Because of a change in the coding of recommendation categories used in this report, some of the data presented for 2004 are not comparable to recommendation data presented in the 2003 Annual Report. In the current report, cases with a policy exclusion (an outstanding bench warrant, a bail-jumping charge, or conﬂicting residence information for the defendant) are included with cases of defendants assessed to pose a high risk of failure to appear; these cases are grouped together in the Not Recommended category. In the 2003 Annual Report, cases with a defendant in any of these three policy exclusion categories were grouped with cases categorized as No Recommendation. This coding difference accounts for the larger proportion of cases categorized as Not Recommended in 2004 (43% citywide, Exhibit 7), compared to 2003 (37%); and for the smaller proportion of cases categorized as No Recommendation. If identical coding had been used in 2004 as was used in 2003, the citywide Not Recommended rate for 2004 would be 36%, which is virtually the same as in 2003. The coding difference also affects ROR rates and FTA rates for cases in the Not Recommended and No Recommendation categories. (It does not affect rates for the Recommended or Moderate Risk categories, which are directly comparable to the rates reported for 2003.) For 2004 arrests, ROR rates for cases in the Not Recommended category are lower, and FTA rates are higher, than they would have been if the coding used for 2003 arrests had been retained.

Bronx Court Restructuring Boxed notes throughout the text point out some of the implications of the court restructuring that was implemented in the Bronx in November 2004. As noted, efforts were made to present data in a way that would make it comparable to data from other boroughs, and to data from the Bronx prior to restructuring. Many cases that would have been Criminal Court cases prior to restructuring were disposed in the Bronx Supreme Court following restructuring. We attempted to identify these cases and to include them with Criminal Court cases where applicable in this report. Although full comparability with data from other boroughs and with data from the Bronx prior to restructuring cannot be assured, the impact for 2004 is smaller than it would have been if the change had taken place earlier in the year. Of 62,687 Bronx cases with an arraignment outcome (Exhibit 9), 14% (n=8,798) were cases that were transferred to Supreme Court apparently only as a result of restructuring, and were identiﬁed as “Criminal Court equivalents.” That proportion will be much larger for the next year’s data, when restructuring will have been in effect throughout the year. The impact of restructuring was larger than expected for the 2003 cohort for which Supreme Court data are presented in this report. There were 915 Bronx cases excluded from the Supreme Court data because they were judged to be “Criminal Court equivalents;” these were nonfelony cases still open in Criminal Court in the Bronx in mid-2004, which were adjourned to a date on or after November 1 in Supreme Court. Thus the number of Bronx Supreme Court cases for which data are reported in Section XII (n=2,539) would have been 36% larger (n=3,454) had these Criminal Court equivalents not been excluded.

FTA Units (Special Programs) Data for FTA Units are directly comparable to data presented in the 2003 Annual Report, even though the exhibit titles (Exhibit 25) and descriptions in the text have changed to reﬂect more accurately the populations for which data are provided.

CJA PUBLICATIONS Research Reports Available on CJA’s Web Site www.nycja.org/research/research.htm Research Briefs • No. 10 Assessing the Impact of Differing Models of Youth Crime Prosecution (2005)

•

• • • • • • • •

No. 9 Prosecutors’ Bail Requests and the CJA Release Recommendation: What Do They Tell the Judge? (2005) No. 8 Pretrial Re-Arrest Among New York City Defendants (2005) No. 7 Manhattan’s Specialized Domestic Violence Court (2004) No. 6 Release and Bail Decisions in New York City (2004) No. 5 CJA’s New ReleaseRecommendation System (2004) No. 4 Combating Domestic Violence in New York City, 2001 (2003)

No. 2 The Impact of Felony ATI Programs on Recidivism (2003) No. 1 Jail Displacement For ATI Programs (2002)

Appear and an Alternative Pretrial Release Risk-Classiﬁcation Scheme in New York City: A Reassessment Study (2002)

•

Prediction of Pretrial Failure to Appear and Alternative Pretrial Release Risk-Classiﬁcation Schemes in New York City: A Validation Study (2000) Assessing Risk of Pretrial Failure to Appear in New York City: A Research Summary and Implications for Developing ReleaseRecommendation Schemes (1999)

Court Outcomes • Semi-Annual Report, available from First Half 1997 through First Half 2003

Annual Report • CJA Annual Report 2003 (2005)

Arrests of Juveniles • Adult-Court Processing and Re-Arrest of Juvenile Offenders in Manhattan and Queens (2005)

Specialized Domestic Violence Court (2004)

• •

•

No. 3 The Impact of Quality-Of-Life Policing (2003)

Pretrial Failure To Appear • Prediction of Pretrial Failure to

•

Domestic Violence • The Impact of Manhattan’s Combating Domestic Violence in New York City: A Study of DV Cases in the Criminal Courts (2003) The Impact of Case Processing on Re-Arrests Among Domestic Violence Offenders in New York City (2003)

•

Cross-Borough Differences in the Processing of Domestic Violence Cases in New York City Criminal Courts (2002)

•

Comparing the Processing of Domestic Violence Cases to NonDomestic Violence Cases in New York City Criminal Courts (2001)

Case Processing • New York’s City’s Gun Court Initiative: The Brooklyn Pilot Program (2005)

•

Summary and Analysis: Trends in Case and Defendant Characteristics, and Criminal Court Processing and Outcomes, in Non-Felony Arrests Prosecuted in New York City’s Criminal Court (2002) Trends in Case and Defendant Characteristics, and Criminal Court Processing and Outcomes, of Prosecuted Arrests for Misdemeanor and Lesser-Severity Offenses in New York City (2001)

•

Predicting the Likelihood of Pretrial Re-Arrest: An Examination of New York City Defendants (2003, Revised 2005)

Juvenile Offender Cases in Specialized and Non-Specialized Court Parts in New York City’s Supreme Courts: 1994-95 and 199596 (1999) Release-On-Recognizance Recommendation System for Juvenile Offenders Arraigned in New York City Adult Courts, Part I: Validation Study (1999) (Executive Summary also available) (1999) Implementation of a Release-OnRecognizance Recommendation System for Juvenile Offenders Arraigned in New York City Adult Courts: A Report on Arraignment Outcomes in the First Eight Months (April 28 through December 31, 1996) (1997)

for Alternative-To-Incarceration Programs in New York City (2002) (Executive Summary also available)

•

Criminal Recidivism Among FelonyLevel ATI Program Participants in New York City (2002) (Executive Summary also available)

Release and Bail Decisions • Prosecutors’ Bail Requests at Criminal Court Arraignment: Comparisions With the CJA Recommendation in Predicting FTA and Case Outcomes (2006)

Re-Arrest Among New York City Defendants: An Analysis of the 2001 Dataset (2003, Revised 2005)

•

Release-On-Recognizance Recommendation System for Juvenile Offenders Arraigned in New York City Adult Courts: Part II (2000)

Alternatives To Incarceration • Estimating Jail Displacement

Trends in Felony Case Processing in the 1990s (2000)

Pretrial Re-Arrest • Predicting the Likelihood of Pretrial

Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, available from 1998 through 2004

•

Factors Inﬂuencing Release and Bail Decisions in New York City. Part 1: Manhattan; Part 2: Brooklyn; Part 3: Cross-Borough Analysis (2004)

CJA Annual Report 2004

New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007 Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

www.nycja.org

646-213-2500