Jail Displacement ATI Programs 02

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL USTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

ESTIMATING JAIL DISPLACEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-INCARCERATION PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY

Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D. Project Director

FINAL REPORT

August 2002

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

ESTIMATING JAIL DISPLACEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE-TO-INCARCERATION PROGRAMS IN NEW YORK CITY

Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D. Project Director Aïda Tejaratchi Programmer/Analyst Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Taehyon Kim Junior Research Programmer Elizabeth Walton Research Assistant Bernice Linen-Reed Administrative Assistant

August 2002

© 2002 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mary A. Eckert, former Associate Director for Research, laid the groundwork for this study and developed the research proposal upon which it is based. Other colleagues at CJA, in addition to project staff listed on the cover page, also deserve credit for their generous contributions. From the Research Department, these include: Richard Peterson (Associate Director for Research), Marian Gewirtz, Elyse Revere, Jukka Savolainen, and Bernice Linen-Reed. From the Systems Department, Barbara Geller Diaz and Duane Sadowski provided valuable assistance with programming and the procurement of data from outside agencies. Mari Curbelo, Fanny Castro, and Joann DeJesus of the ATIIS staff maintained the program database and contributed enormously to our understanding of operational issues. Frank Sergi, Director of Planning, aided in unraveling data puzzles. The author also wishes to thank Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director, for his ongoing support and suggestions. Rachel Porter, Rachel Kramer, and Eileen Sullivan of the Vera Institute of Justice have also made indirect contributions to this research, which borrows from methodological procedures used in their work.

The author wishes to give special thanks to Debbie Eliyahu, a former CJA programmer whose work for this project came long after her departure from the Agency. Her skilled assistance as an outside programming consultant helped to speed things along at crucial junctures.

We are also grateful to the NYC Department of Probation, the NYC Department of Correction, and to the Office of Court Administration for providing us with supplemental data. None of these agencies is responsible for the methodology, findings, or conclusions of this study.

Table of Contents List of Tables, Scenarios, and Figures.............................................................................................i INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 Background ..............................................................................................................................2 Overview of the Analytic Strategy for a Study of Displacement..............................................3 PART I. MISDEMEANOR CASES I.A. Description of the Misdemeanor Research Sample ..........................................................7 I.A.1. The Misdemeanor Data Set .....................................................................................7 I.A.2. Characteristics of the Misdemeanor ATI Participants .............................................8 I.B. Methodology for the Misdemeanor Analysis..................................................................11 I.B.1. Selection of Misdemeanor Comparison Groups ....................................................11 I.B.1. (a) Misdemeanor Analytic Groups...................................................................12 I.B.1. (b) Misdemeanor Matching Procedures...........................................................13 I.B.2. Calculation of Sentence Length for Misdemeanor Cases ......................................15 I.B.3. Calculation of Displacement for Misdemeanor Cases ...........................................18 I.C. Results of the Misdemeanor Analysis.............................................................................23 I.C.1. Misdemeanor Bivariate Analysis ...........................................................................23 I.C.2. Displacement by Misdemeanor Analytic Group....................................................26 I.C.3. Comparisons Between CCSS and ATIIS for Misdemeanor Cases ........................29 I.C.4. Misdemeanor Multivariate Analysis......................................................................31 I.C.5. Omitting Resentences ............................................................................................33 PART II. FELONY CASES II.A. Description of the Felony Research Sample .................................................................35 II.A.1. The Felony Data Set.............................................................................................35 II.A.2. Aggregate Characteristics of the Felony ATI Participants ...................................37 II.B. Methodology for the Felony Analysis ...........................................................................40 II.B.1. Selection of Felony Comparison Groups..............................................................41 II.B.1. (a) Felony Analytic Groups ............................................................................41 II.B.1. (b) Felony Matching Procedures ....................................................................45 II.B.2. Calculation of Sentence Length for Felony Cases................................................46 II.B.3. Calculation of Displacement for Felony Cases.....................................................49 II.C. Results of the Felony Analysis ......................................................................................54 II.C.1. Aggregate Results.................................................................................................54 II.C.1. (a) Felony Bivariate Analysis .........................................................................54 II.C.1. (b) Displacement by Felony Analytic Group..................................................58 II.C.1. (c) Comparisons Between CCSS and ATIIS for Felony Cases ......................63 II.C.2. Results by Felony ATI Program...........................................................................64 II.C.2. (a) Participant Characteristics by Felony ATI Program.................................64 II.C.2. (b) Displacement for Individual Felony ATI Programs.................................71 II.C.3. Felony Multivariate Analysis ...............................................................................73 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................76 CJA/ATIIS Publications ...............................................................................................................79 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................80 Appendix B...................................................................................................................................81

List of Tables, Scenarios, and Figures TABLES Table 1. Characteristics of Misdemeanor Program Participants A. Program and Defendant Characteristics...............................................................9 B. Case-Processing Characteristics.........................................................................10 Table 2. CSSP Analytic Groups ...............................................................................................13 Table 3. Displacement for CSSP: Overall and by Categories..................................................24 Table 4. Displacement for CSSP: By Analytic Group .............................................................27 Table 5. Displacement for CSSP: By CCSS vs. ATIIS, Successful Completion, and Analytic Grouping ...........................................................................................29 Table 6. Regression Model of Displacement for Misdemeanor Cases: CSSP .........................32 Table 7. Displacement for CSSP: Omitting Resentences

By Program Success, CCSS/ATIIS, Analytic Grouping, and Borough ...................33 Table 8. Aggregate Characteristics of Felony Program Participants A. Program and Defendant Characteristics.............................................................38 B. Case-Processing Characteristics.........................................................................39 Table 9. Felony Analytic Groups..............................................................................................42 Table 10. Aggregate Displacement for Felony Cases: Overall and by Categories ....................55 Table 11. Displacement for Felony ATI Programs: By Analytic Group....................................59 Table 12. Individual Felony ATI Programs: Participant Characteristics ...................................70 Table 13. Individual Felony ATI Programs: Displacement .......................................................72 Table 14. Individual Felony ATI Programs: Displacement excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99 ..................................................................73 Table 15. Regression Model of Displacement for Felony ATI Cases.........................................74 SCENARIOS Misdemeanor Scenario #1 ............................................................................................................19 Misdemeanor Scenario #2 ............................................................................................................19 Misdemeanor Scenario #3 ............................................................................................................20 Misdemeanor Scenario #4 ............................................................................................................21 Felony Scenario #1 .......................................................................................................................50 Felony Scenario #2 .......................................................................................................................51 Felony Scenario #3 .......................................................................................................................52 Felony Scenario #4 .......................................................................................................................53 FIGURES Figure 1. Felony ATI Programs: Proportion of Total Displacement Accounted For by Analytic Grouping.........................................................................62 Figure 2. Felony ATI Programs: Proportion of Total Number of Cases Accounted For by Analytic Grouping.........................................................................62 Figure 3. Attributes of Defendants and Cases by Program..........................................................66

-i-

Estimating Jail Displacement For Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs in New York City

Introduction New York City, through the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (OCJC), funds a variety of Alternative-to-Incarceration (ATI) programs for defendants charged with misdemeanor and felony offenses. One of the primary goals of these programs is to reduce time that eligible defendants would spend serving incarcerative sentences. By intervening with a program of community service for misdemeanants, and programs that offer drug treatment, educational, and vocational services to felons, the ATI programs are able to secure nonincarcerative sentences, or reduced incarceration, for many defendants who would otherwise receive substantial jail or prison sentences. By identifying defendants who were likely to receive a custodial sentence, and supervising them in the community rather than incarcerating them, the programs seek to conserve space in jails and prisons.

OCJC has specific goals for the length of sentences it hopes to displace by the funded programs: misdemeanor sentences of at least 20 days in jail, and felony sentences of at least six months. Statistical modeling techniques were used to target misdemeanor defendants likely to receive 20-day sentences, and felony defendants likely to receive 6-month sentences.

No

statistical model can make perfect predictions, so the City recognized that the programs could not displace time for every participant. The goals were set as averages, with the understanding that some targeted defendants would not be facing sentences long enough to displace the goal, while others would be facing longer sentences.

As part of an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the ATI programs, OCJC contracted with the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) to conduct research to assess the displacement effects of the funded programs.

This report presents the findings of the

displacement study, addressing the following questions: •

Do the programs displace sentenced jail or prison time, and if so, how much time do they displace?

•

More specifically, does the misdemeanor program meet the goal of displacing a sentence of 20 days or more, on average, for its participants?

•

And does each of the felony programs displace a sentence of six months or more, on average, for its participants?

-1-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

•

Do displacement effects vary by types of offenders? For example, is displacement greater for male defendants than for females; or greater for offenders charged with violent felony offenses than for those charged with drug offenses?

Another effect of concern to policymakers is the safety of the community, as measured by reoffending rates for ATI program participants. A separate CJA study of recidivism addresses that issue.1 Background On July 1, 1997, CJA began operating the Centralized Court Screening Service (CCSS), an initiative to centralize the screening, advocacy, and court-reporting functions of all ATI programs funded by OCJC.

For CCSS, CJA began developing a database of persons entering

OCJC-funded ATI programs.

The database contains program entry and program outcome

information for defendants who entered an ATI program beginning July 1, 1997, to the present.

This database was used to identify the cases and provide program data for the displacement and recidivism studies.

Under the CCSS contract with OCJC, CJA conducted research to develop statistical models of sentence length to enable CCSS to target defendants likely to receive sentences that would match the City’s displacement goals. Using the criteria suggested by the statistical models, defendants were screened out who were considered unlikely to receive a sentence of at least 20 days for misdemeanors, and 6 months for felonies. For defendants selected in the screening process, CJA staff then advocated in court for their release to the most appropriate program rather than a sentence to jail or prison.

After two years of operation, the screening and advocacy functions of CCSS were returned

by OCJC to the individual ATI programs. On June 30, 1999, CCSS was terminated, but CJA continues to receive information from the ATI programs, to provide the programs with lists of statistically targeted cases, to maintain the database of program participants, and to issue reports on program activity. CJA carries out these functions under its Alternatives to Incarceration Information Services (ATIIS) contract with OCJC.2

1

Criminal Recidivism Among Felony-Level ATI Program Participants in New York City. Final Report. Jukka Savolainen. Revised August 2002.

2 For detailed information regarding the extensive efforts to target clients likely to receive jail sentences, and for descriptions of the operations of CCSS and ATIIS, see the CJA /ATIIS publications listed at the end of this report.

-2-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Nine ATI programs designed for felony offenders and one program for repeat misdemeanor offenders are included in the ATIIS reporting network. The displacement research is restricted to eight programs:

the Community Service Sentencing Project (CSSP) of the Center for

Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES), which is the only misdemeanor program, and seven of the felony programs. The felony programs included in this research are: Youth Advocacy Project (YAP) of the Center for Community Alternatives, Court Employment Project (CEP) of CASES, Freedom Program of the Fortune Society, DAMAS Program of the Fortune Society, El Rio Day-Treatment Program of the Osborne Association, FlameTree Program of the Fortune Society, and Women’s Day-Treatment Program of the Project Return Foundation. These programs are described in Appendix A. Two additional felony programs are excluded from the research: Crossroads Project of the Center for Community Alternatives (Crossroads) and STEPS to End Family Violence of the Edwin Gould Services for Children (STEPS).

Crossroads is excluded because it is funded

through the City Council, not OCJC, and therefore was not subject to the same constraints as those agencies funded through OCJC. There were also too few cases available in Crossroads to make analysis feasible. STEPS was excluded as well because the ATIIS database contained data on too few completed cases, and because the unique nature of the program would make the selection of an adequate comparison group impractical.3 There are a number of other ATI programs operating in New York City that are funded by the City Council or other sources. However, the term “ATI program” will be used in the remainder of this report to refer to the eight OCJC-funded programs that were included in the displacement study.

Overview of the Analytic Strategy for a Study of Displacement The analytic strategy used in this research to measure displacement is simple in principle.

Each ATI program participant was matched with a defendant who was similar except that the comparison defendant did not participate in an OCJC-funded ATI program. (We have no way of knowing if any defendants in the comparison group were participants in any of the non-OCJCfunded programs.) Sentencing data were collected for the program participants and for the 3

STEPS services women whose crime resulted from domestic abuse. Neither the CJA database, nor any other source of data available in computerized form, contains the information necessary to identify a comparison group of women who experienced domestic abuse and who were not admitted to the STEPS program.

-3-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

matched comparison group.

If the matching was done well, then sentences received by

defendants in the comparison group can be regarded as a likely estimation of the sentences that the program participants would have received, had they not entered an ATI program. A displacement amount was calculated for each ATI participant by comparing his or her sentence with the one received by the matched comparison case. Then the displacement amounts for the individual cases were added, and the sum was divided by the number of participants, to produce an average displacement effect for each ATI program.

The decision to match ATI defendants with carefully selected comparison cases was made in lieu of a design that would use random selection. Ideally, one would want an experimental design in which defendants were randomly assigned either to a program or to a control group. In such an experimental design, whatever differences existed between the program participants and the control group would be of a random nature, and thus would not bias the results. Any difference between the sentences imposed on the program participants and those in the control group could be attributed to program participation, since that would be the only systematic difference between the groups.

No experimental design was planned for this research because such a design would raise equity concerns when services that might be helpful are knowingly withheld from defendants who might benefit from them. Thus, retrospectively matched comparison groups were used instead, to control as much as possible for differences between program participants and “like” defendants who were not in an OCJC-funded ATI program. It is not possible to control for every factor that may distinguish program participants from non-participants — for example, we do not have mental health data on defendants — but the CJA database does have a wide array of demographic, criminal history, and case-processing data including most factors relevant to sentencing decisions.

A primary consideration in selecting members of comparison groups who are “like” the program participants is similar status in the criminal justice system. On the most elementary level, this means treating misdemeanor and felony participants separately, since sentencing options are quite different for the two groups, and since the same programs do not accept both types of case. Further, court-processing elements that affect sentences differ for misdemeanors and for felonies. For these reasons, matching was done using different criteria for misdemeanor and felony cases, although parallel procedures were used.

-4-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Calculations of displacement also differed in some respects for misdemeanors and felonies, but the same logic was followed for both: The sentence length for the ATI participant was subtracted from the sentence length for the comparison case. For example, if an ATI participant received a non-incarcerative sentence, and the matched comparison were sentenced to jail, the amount of displacement for that case would equal the length of sentence time the comparison defendant would serve.

If the comparison defendant received a sentence of probation or

conditional discharge rather than jail time, the program could not be given credit for displacing any sentence time, and displacement would be zero.

Illustration: Program A has a total of three participants with the sentences shown in the figure below. Displacement would be calculated as indicated: Sentence for comparison case minus sentence for program participant equals displacement.

Matched Comparison Comparison #1.

Sentence time: 20 days Comparison #2.

Sentence time: 0 Comparison #3.

Sentence time: 120 days

ATI Program A Participant #1.

Sentence time: 0

—

— —

Participant #2.

Sentence time: 0 Participant #3.

Sentence time: 20 days

=20 days displacement

= 0 displacement = 100 days displacement

Displacement for Program A 20 + 0 + 100 = 120 days total displacement 120 / 3 = 40 days average displacement per participant

In this illustration, Program A had three participants and displaced an average of 40 days in sentence time for each participant, resulting in total displacement for the program of 120 days.

We did not use the imposed sentence length as the basis for calculations of displacement because most defendants are released at some point before they have served the full sentence. It is more accurate to base displacement on the length of sentence time that a defendant would have actually served, had he or she not participated in an ATI program. This provides a realistic estimate of the number of jail or prison days that the program saved by supervising the defendant -5-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

in the community as an alternative to incarceration. Thus, the length of the sentence displaced is always greater than the “displacement effect,� as measured in this research. This should be kept in mind when comparing the displacement effects reported in this study to the City’s goals for the length of sentences that it hoped to displace.

A consequence of our decision to measure displacement in this way was that the simple calculations shown in the hypothetical example were complicated by several factors: difficulties in knowing how much of an imposed sentence a defendant would actually serve; the need to measure time spent in pretrial detention that would be credited towards a sentence and would thus affect the amount of time that a program could displace; and the further need to take into account resentences imposed on ATI participants who failed to complete the program successfully. All of these factors were included in the computation of displacement, to the extent possible given the available data.

The procedures used to do so are described in the

methodology sections for the misdemeanor and felony cases.

In the remainder of this report, the misdemeanor and felony cases are discussed in separate sections. The data sets used in the analyses, descriptive statistics for each of the research samples, methodological procedures for matching cases and for calculating displacement, and the results of the analyses are presented first for misdemeanors and then for the felony cases.

-6-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

PART I. MISDEMEANOR CASES I.A. Description of the Misdemeanor Research Sample I.A.1. The Misdemeanor Data Set All CSSP participants who exited the program between July 1, 1998, and March 31, 2000, were drawn from the ATIIS database into a research file initially containing 1,654 cases.

The starting point of this time period was selected to allow for the inclusion of cases that entered CSSP under the auspices of CCSS (prior to July 1, 1999) as well as ATIIS (July 1, 1999, to the present). Cases from the first year of CCSS operation were not included to allow for a shakeout period during which procedures were still being developed and standardized. The cutoff date was necessary to allow for enough time to pass following exit from the program for resentence information to be collected for those defendants who did not complete the program successfully.

The advocacy process begins at arraignment, when a staff person from CSSP (or, prior to July 1, 1999, from CCSS) negotiates in court for a sentence of conditional discharge, rather than jail, with the condition being a period of community service (typically 10 or 15 days). The penalty for not completing the community service may be a violation of the conditional discharge, and the defendant may then be resentenced to jail time. Since a resentence to jail could reduce or erase an initial displacement effect, it was necessary to allow time to collect resentencing data following program exit.

From the ATIIS database we collected information about the participant’s date of entry into and exit from the program, as well as whether the community service was completed successfully or not.

The ATIIS database does not contain complete case-processing or sentencing data, so it was necessary to retrieve that information for program participants from the CJA database, UDIIS (Unified Defendant/Inmate Information System). UDIIS is an arrest-based, automated database containing detailed information on all New York City arrests, court appearances, and case dispositions in Criminal Court and Supreme Court. The source of case-processing data is an electronic daily feed from the Office of Court Administration (OCA). Arrest data are provided by the New York City Police Department (NYPD). UDIIS also contains data on defendants’ community ties collected by CJA interviewers in pre-arraignment interviews with virtually every defendant arrested on-line in New York City. Using defendant and case identifiers in the ATIIS

-7-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

database, we linked the study cases to UDIIS in order to add information about the defendant, the charges, detention status at key points in the prosecution of the case, and the sentence.

For resentencing data on violations of conditional discharge, we turned to the Office of Court Administration (OCA), since the CJA database is designed to track cases only as far as sentencing. Soon after a case is sentenced it is taken out of the active file on CJA’s mainframe computer.

Consequently, further information about the case is not automatically added.

However, CJA has a direct-link terminal to the OCA database that enables us to search manually for information on individual cases. All 456 cases in the research file with an unsuccessful termination from CSSP were examined using the OCA terminal, and resentences were recorded on paper forms. The resentences were then entered by hand into the research data file.

Finally, to supplement the information on pretrial detention time available in UDIIS, we requested and received data from the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). This enabled us to track time spent in detention more accurately than by relying on UDIIS alone. In addition, DOC provided data on time spent in detention after sentencing and prior to a resentence, information that was generally absent in UDIIS. Extensive data checks were done both by the ATIIS staff and by the research team to ensure that errors in the data file were found and corrected. Computer reports were generated to identify cases with missing birth dates, missing arraignment information in Criminal Court, and missing data for charge, disposition, release status, and sentence.

Some of the missing

information was found by checking the data with OCA. When found, missing data were entered manually into the research file. A few cases with missing information that could not be found for crucial variables were deleted from the research file. The completed misdemeanor research file contained 1,646 cases.

I.A.2. Characteristics of the Misdemeanor ATI Participants Table 1 on the following two pages presents some descriptive statistics for the CSSP participants who were included in the study.

The first row of Part A, Table 1, shows that 54 percent of the participants were mandated to the program under the CCSS contract, while the remaining 46 percent were mandated under ATIIS (that is, after CJA turned over the client screening and advocacy functions to CSSP).

-8-

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 1.

Characteristics of Misdemeanor Program Participants N=1,646 A. Program and Defendant Characteristics Number of participants who entered the program: Under CCSS (prior to 7/01/99) Under ATIIS (7/01/99 or later) Number of CSSP mandates per defendant:

1 2 3

Program completion rates: Successful completion Unsuccessful termination Non-attendance Rearrest ATI Program Characteristics Breach of program rule Other No show Modified Physical illness Mental illness Drug use Other Length of community service sentence: 5 days 10 days 15 days Age: 17-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Demographic Characteristics 40-44 45-49 50+ Gender: Male Female Number of prior felony convictions: 0 1 2 3+ Unknown Number of prior misdemeanor convictions: 0-1 2-4 5-15 Prior Criminal Record 16+ Unknown Open cases at time of arrest: 0 1 2+ Unknown Served jail or prison time on prior conviction: Served prior jail sentence (N=1479) (not mutually exclusive) Served prior prison sentence (N=1586)

-9-

884 762

54% 46%

1543 94 9

94% 6% < 1%

1181 307 176 88 23 20 124 34 10 6 4 14

72% 19%

5 1429 212 43 128 148 385 448 279 145 70 1332 314 597 463 271 258 57 132 281 771 405 57 646 475 468 57

<1% 87% 13% 3% 8% 9% 23% 27% 17% 9% 4% 81% 19% 36% 28% 17% 16% 4% 8% 17% 47% 25% 4% 39% 29% 28% 4%

1420 606

96% 38%

8% 2%

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 1. (continued) Characteristics of Misdemeanor Program Participants N=1,646 B. Case-Processing Characteristics Borough of prosecution:

Arraignment

Disposition and Sentence

Resentence

Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Bronx Release status leaving Criminal Court arraignment: Released on recognizance Released on bail Held on bail Remanded Disposed at arraignment Severity of top affidavit charge: Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Unclassified Misdemeanor Violation Timing of disposition: Arraignment Post-arraignment (misdemeanor affidavit charge) Post-arraignment (felony affidavit charge) Severity of top conviction charge: A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Unclassified Misdemeanor Violation Infraction Most common top conviction charges: Petit larceny (155.25) Possession of a controlled substance-7 (220.03) Sale of marijuana-4 (221.40) Theft of services (165.15) Original Sentence: Conditional Discharge Imprisonment Of those who did not complete community service successfully (includes unsuccessful termination, no shows and modified exits) (N=465): Number resentenced Number resentenced to jail Mean length of jail sentence Of those who were unsuccessfully terminated From CSSP (N=307): Number resentenced Number resentenced to jail Mean length of jail sentence

- 10 -

476 525 308 337

29% 32% 19% 21%

34 25 581 2 1004

2% 2% 35% <1% 61%

98 1471 70 5 2

6% 89% 4% <1% <1%

1009 547 90

61% 33% 6%

1529 106 6 4 1

93% 6% <1% <1% <1%

827 200 114 79 1640 5

50% 12% 7% 5% 99% <1%

347 75% 324 70% 90 days

236 77% 218 71% 84 days

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

The second row indicates that a small proportion of defendants appeared more than once in the sample. For most of the defendants in the study (94%), there is only one case in the data set on which they were released to CSSP. A small proportion of defendants in the research sample (6%) were released to CSSP twice on separate arrests during the time frame of the study, and 9 defendants were released to CSSP three times on separate arrests. The unit of analysis is the case, not the defendant, so each case is treated separately even though the same defendant may be involved. This does not create a problem for analysis because different cases for the same defendant may result in different displacement effects, due to the varying characteristics of the cases.

Statistics presented in the remainder of Part A, Table 1, show that a typical participant was male, in his 30s, and successfully completed a community service sentence of 10 days. He was likely to have a prior felony conviction and at least five prior misdemeanor convictions, and to have an open case at the time of arrest in the instant case. He had almost certainly served a prior jail sentence. CSSP is designed for repeat offenders, so defendants with extensive criminal histories were targeted intentionally.

Part B, Table 1, presents case-processing characteristics at arraignment, disposition, sentence, and resentence. The majority of cases were prosecuted in Manhattan or Brooklyn, with the smallest proportion from Queens. The typical CSSP participant had his case disposed at arraignment, at which time he pled guilty to a class-A misdemeanor (most likely petit larceny), was sentenced to conditional discharge, and was released to the program.

If he failed to

complete his community service successfully, he could expect to be resentenced to almost three months in jail.

I.B. Methodology for the Misdemeanor Analysis There are three conceptually distinct elements to the analytic strategy as already outlined: selection of a matched comparison group; estimation of the length of sentence; and the calculation of displacement.

I.B.1. Selection of Misdemeanor Comparison Groups In order for the sentences received by cases in the comparison group to be reasonably accurate estimates of the sentences the ATI participants would have received without program participation, the cases must be well matched. Cases were matched in two stages, using courtprocessing, case, and defendant characteristics. This ensures that the results of the analysis are - 11 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

not biased by differences in such things as the type of case or criminal history of the defendant, which could cause a comparison case to receive a sentence that the ATI participant would not have been likely to receive.

I.B.1. (a) Misdemeanor Analytic Groups In the first stage of matching, we defined analytic groups from which to create pools of candidates for the comparison group. We began by considering the case-processing factors that are likely to have the greatest effect on misdemeanor sentences.

Defendants are mandated to CSSP as a condition of a sentence of conditional discharge, generally at the same time as the guilty plea. Thus, the timing of the court mandate corresponds to that for the disposition. Cases disposed at arraignment are often less serious than those that take longer to dispose, and those that enter arraignment with felony charges may be the most serious cases, even though the charge was eventually reduced to a misdemeanor and disposed in Criminal Court.4 This suggests dividing CSSP participants in the study sample into three mutually exclusive analytic groupings: •

Cases disposed at arraignment.

•

Cases disposed post-arraignment, with a misdemeanor affidavit charge.

•

Cases disposed post-arraignment, with a felony affidavit charge.

Since the volume and type of cases entering the court system vary by borough, and these factors seem to affect judges’ perceptions of appropriate court outcomes, it is also important that the cases in the comparison groups be distributed by borough no differently from their counterparts in CSSP. The study encompasses the four largest boroughs of New York City, so each of the three analytic groupings was subdivided by borough. This procedure yielded 12 discrete analytic groups for CSSP participants.

The number of CSSP participants in each

analytic group is shown in Table 2.

4

Felony charges cannot be disposed in Criminal Court, which is the lower court in New York. If the felony charge is sustained, the case must be transferred to Supreme Court for adjudication. All cases in the misdemeanor research sample with a felony affidavit charge were reduced to a misdemeanor and disposed in Criminal Court.

- 12 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 2.

CSSP Analytic Groups Timing of disposition and affidavit charge Disposed at arraignment Disposed post-arraignment, misdemeanor affidavit charge Disposed post-arraignment, felony affidavit charge Column Total

Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Bronx

1

2

3

4

n = 261

n = 359

n = 214

n = 176

5

6

7

8

n = 187

n = 150

n = 84

n = 125

9

10

11

12

n = 28 476

n = 16 525

n = 10 308

n = 36 337

Row Total 1010

546

90 1,646

From the CJA database of all New York City cases, every case was selected in which the defendant was convicted on a misdemeanor charge in Criminal Court between 1/12/98 and 3/20/00 (the same date range of convictions as for the ATI participants). In order to qualify for the pool, the case also had to fit the criteria for one of the 12 analytic groups.

This procedure created 12 separate pools consisting of thousands of cases in each file (ranging from 3,940 cases in analytic group #9 to 57,872 cases in analytic group #2). Since the ATI participants were among these cases, they were deleted from the pools before any further matching was done. The only group of ATI participants with cases arraigned in Community Court were in analytic group #6 (Manhattan), so Community Court cases were deleted from the pools for the other analytic groups but left in the pool for group #6. Cases with a felony disposition charge were deleted, since none of the ATI cases was disposed on a felony. Finally, cases for which sentencing information was missing in UDIIS were also deleted. The remaining cases constituted the pools from which the comparison groups were selected.

I.B.1. (b) Misdemeanor Matching Procedures The next step was to match each ATI participant to a comparison case selected from the pool of cases in the corresponding analytic group. The following variables were used as the basis for matching: • • • •

Disposition charge type and severity Number of open cases at time of instant arrest Number of prior felony convictions Number of prior misdemeanor convictions

- 13 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

• • • •

Detention status leaving arraignment Whether the instant case was the defendant’s first arrest5 Gender Age (recoded into 5-year ranges)

An 8-digit binary variable was created to encode each ATI participant’s profile, with each column representing a value on one of the 8 variables. The binary was then used to match each ATI participant to a case in the pool for the corresponding analytic group with exactly the same set of characteristics. For most ATI cases, there were many matching cases in the pool; if so, a computerized random selection technique was used to choose the comparison case. For a small number of ATI cases, there was no exact match in the pool. When that happened, the computer program looked for a next-best match by matching on everything except age, taking the case with the closest match on age. If this did not produce a match, then the computer looked for a next-best match by matching on everything except gender. Exact matches were found for 92 percent of the misdemeanor cases; by taking the next-best age category, the number of matches increased to 98 percent;6 by ignoring gender, the matched total rose to 99 percent. Next-best matches for the few remaining cases were found by omitting the match on first arrest, then on first arrest and age. There were eight ATI cases that still could not be matched by the computer to any case in the comparison pool, even after all the preceding steps had been taken. These eight cases were matched manually.

The eight variables used in matching could be combined in an enormous number of ways: there are 135,000 possible combinations (the product of multiplying the number of values for each variable). Each combination comprises a particular defendant/case profile. Since the possibilities are so numerous, it is not surprising that most of the profiles found among the ATI participants were unique, occurring only once in the sample — and thousands of theoretically possible profiles did not occur in the sample at all. The most common profile, which fit 13 different ATI cases, was encoded as 31131214. This represents a male defendant who was

5

The CJA data element does not capture prior juvenile arrests, sealed cases (favorable dispositions or YO adjudications), or arrests for violations or infractions, so a “first arrest” really means no prior adult conviction for a crime and no open cases.

6 A concern about ignoring age in matching is that a YO could be matched with a non-YO. After the comparison groups had been selected, it was discovered that three comparison cases with YO status had been paired to an ATI case with no YO status. Since this would make their sentences incomparable, these three pairs were dropped from subsequent analyses. The one ATI participant in the misdemeanor sample who received YO status was matched to a comparison case with YO status.

- 14 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

arraigned on a Class-A misdemeanor non-drug charge; had one open case at the time of arrest; one prior felony conviction; 5 to 15 prior misdemeanor convictions; was detained at arraignment; and was between 30 and 34 years of age.

When the matching procedure was complete, we had 12 comparison groups corresponding to the 12 analytic groups of ATI participants. Each comparison group was composed of cases matched one-to-one with a case in the corresponding analytic group. The result is that each ATI case was matched to a comparison case on two levels: first, on the timing of the disposition, severity of the affidavit charge, and borough (analytic group criteria); and second, on the eight characteristics comprising the binary matching variable.

The matching procedure, including the key to the binary code, is explained in more detail in Appendix B. I.B.2. Calculation of Sentence Length for Misdemeanor Cases As explained earlier, a defendant facing a 30-day sentence would not be likely to serve the full 30 days; only the number of days the defendant would actually serve would be displaced by diverting him or her to an ATI program. We did not have access to data on the time actually served by the defendants in the study, so we used estimates based on the likelihood that an offender serving a misdemeanor sentence would be released with time off for good behavior.

Time off for good behavior is automatic unless misbehavior causes this allowance to be withdrawn.

The good time allowance for definite sentences is one-third off the imposed

sentence: thus, someone sentenced to 30 days would be released after 20 days.

The calculated sentence length (CSL) used in the displacement analysis was therefore two-thirds of the imposed sentence, in days. Sentences recorded in months were converted into days by multiplying by 30.4 (not 30, which would result in a 12-month sentence equal to only 360 days). The CSL for non-incarcerative sentences was coded as zero; this includes sentences of conditional discharge and probation.

For sentences of time served, the CSL was set to equal the estimated time spent in pretrial detention. Thus, a defendant who spent four months in pretrial detention and received a sentence of time served would have a CSL equal to four months (122 days). Pretrial detention time is a rough estimate for cases in this study because defendants may go in and out of detention many times while awaiting disposition. It was not feasible to account for every change in detention status, so estimates were based on release status at several milestone appearances.

- 15 -

These

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

milestones were arraignment, the appearance following arraignment, the appearance prior to conviction, and conviction. The date of first release â&#x20AC;&#x201D; even if it did not occur at one of the milestone appearances â&#x20AC;&#x201D; was also included in the data file. In addition, supplemental data from DOC provided admission and release dates from July 1, 1998, to December 31, 2000, for all ATI participants and for comparison cases with sentences of time served.

Where there were

discrepancies between UDIIS and DOC, we used the DOC data as the more accurate measure because of the possibility that a defendant entered or left detention between court appearances.

(Data in UDIIS are linked to court appearances. UDIIS does not have data on what happens between court appearances, with the exception of dates on which a defendant makes bail.)

One might argue that time served should be coded as zero because the defendant would not be required to serve any additional time following sentencing. Presumably, however, a sentence of time served sends the message that the time spent in jail was appropriate punishment, and that if time had not already been spent in pretrial detention, the sentence would have provided for an equivalent term of incarceration. Thus, a sentence of time served was counted as incarceration time that could be displaced by participation in an ATI program.

On the other hand, time spent in pretrial detention for those who were sentenced to conditional discharge or probation was not included in the CSL. This produced the result that two defendants, neither of whom was incarcerated following sentencing, may have been treated differently in the computation of CSL. For someone who spent four months in pretrial detention and was sentenced to time served, CSL = 122; but for someone who spent four months in pretrial detention and was sentenced to probation, CSL = 0.

Both defendants were released at

sentencing, but the sentences were not equivalent in terms of the defendantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; criminal records.

More to the point for the purposes of this research, when pretrial detention time would be credited towards the sentence (whether time served or otherwise), it would be part of the incarceration time that could be displaced by participation in an ATI program. When it would not be credited towards a sentence, it lies outside the scope of this study because the City expects program intervention to replace sentence time. This study does not attempt to measure any displacement of pretrial detention time.

Note that the CSL is not intended as a measure of sentence severity, which would take account of differences in severity between a sentence of 30 days, for example, and a sentence of 30 days plus three years probation. The sentence that includes probation is more severe, but

- 16 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

CSL=20 in both instances. While the two sentences are not equivalent for the defendant, they are equivalent in terms of jail days that could be displaced by participation in a program. This method of computing CSL is suitable for estimating displacement because the probation component of the split sentence is irrelevant to displacement of incarceration time.

ATI participants who were initially sentenced to a conditional discharge and community service were typically resentenced to jail time if they violated the conditional discharge by failing to complete the community service. When this happened, a jail sentence that had initially been averted by program participation was often imposed in resentencing.

Under such

circumstances, it would be misleading to say that the program displaced the jail sentence. To adjust for this situation, the CSL was based on the resentence, if there was one, for ATI participants who did not complete the program successfully. On the other hand, resentencing information was not collected, and if available in UDIIS it was not used, for the comparison cases. The reason for this difference in treatment was that we were interested in punishment for failing CSSP’s program requirements, and the comparison cases were not in CSSP. It would exaggerate the program’s displacement effect if we were to include jail sentences imposed on comparison cases only as a result of a resentence; we could not say that the ATI participant would have received that sentence, had he not entered the program.

On the other hand, by not including resentences for the comparison cases as well as the ATI cases, the deck is somewhat stacked against the ATI cases. Some of the comparison cases with revocable sentences (adjourned contemplating dismissal, conditional discharge, or probation) may have been released to programs not included in this study. If they failed and were resentenced, those resentences should arguably count as displaced time. Therefore, the results reported here are conservative and may understate the true displacement effected by CSSP. In summary: The calculated sentence length (CSL) for misdemeanor cases was computed in days for both the ATI participant and the comparison case.

•

CSL equals two-thirds of the imposed sentence length for incarcerative sentences.

•

CSL equals zero for non-incarcerative sentences.

•

CSL for a sentence of time served equals the pretrial detention time.

•

If an ATI participant was resentenced following a violation of conditional discharge, the resentence was the basis for CSL. - 17 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

I.B.3. Calculation of Displacement for Misdemeanor Cases The basic procedure for calculating displacement was to subtract the ATI participant’s CSL (CSL-A) from the CSL for the comparison case (CSL-C).

This produced a gross

displacement amount.

Gross displacement was then adjusted by taking into account time spent in pretrial detention, but only if it would be credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant might have received if he or she had not been released instead to CSSP. This adjustment produced the net displacement. The net displacement is the figure reported in the Results section.

The various ways in which pretrial detention was accounted for will become clearer with the use of some examples taken from cases in the sample. The following scenarios present information about one of the ATI cases in the left-hand column, its matched comparison case in the middle column, and the calculation of displacement with commentary on the right. At the bottom of the first two columns are given the analytic group and binary code for the pair.

Pretrial detention does not enter into displacement in Scenario #1 because it would not have been credited towards sentence time (there was none). In Scenario #2, however, the ATI participant’s pretrial detention time is subtracted from gross displacement to produce net displacement. The part of a sentence already served in pretrial detention cannot be displaced because it was already served—thus, it is subtracted from the gross when there is positive displacement.

If the ATI participant had received a 5-day sentence (the sentence for the

comparison case), he would have had only one day left to serve because of time off for good behavior and credit for two days pretrial detention. Displacement, then, is one day.

Key to symbols used in the scenarios: A C Ptd-A Ptd-C CSL-A CSL-C

= = = = = =

ATI participant Matched Comparison group member Pretrial detention served by ATI participant Pretrial detention served by Comparison case Calculated Sentence Length for ATI program participant Calculated Sentence Length for matched Comparison group member

- 18 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

MISDEMEANOR SCENARIO #1.

ATI Participant Arrested 5/30/98 Pled guilty & sentenced 7/27/98 Conditional Discharge +

Comparison Case Arrested 9/18/99 Pled guilty & sentenced 11/05/99 Conditional Discharge

10 days community service Successful Completion 8/28/98 CSL-C = 0 Ptd-C = 49 days

binary = 30121213

binary = 30121213

= = = =

0 0 0 0

A and C both pled guilty post-arraignment to a class-A misdemeanor non-drug charge. Both were sentenced to conditional discharge, but A was also sentenced to 10 days of community service. He was mandated to CSSP at his sentencing, and he completed his community service successfully the following month.

Mandated to CSSP 7/27/98

CSL-A = 0 Ptd-A = 45 days

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement net displacement

The program did not displace any sentence time, since the comparison case was not sentenced to incarceration. The amounts of time spent in pretrial detention by both defendants are irrelevant in this example.

Analytic Group #5 (disposed post-arraignment, misdemeanor affidavit charge, Brooklyn)

MISDEMEANOR SCENARIO #2.

ATI Participant Arrest 7/27/98 Pled guilty & sentenced 7/28/98 Conditional Discharge + 10 days community service

Comparison Case Arrest 4/28/99 Pled guilty & sentenced 4/29/99 Imprisonment: 5 days

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement (subtract) Ptd-A net displacement

= = = = =

3 0 3 2 1

A and C both pled guilty at arraignment to a class-A misdemeanor non-drug charge.

A was given a conditional discharge and mandated to CSSP. The following month, he successfully completed 10 days community service.

Mandated to CSSP 7/28/98 Successful Completion 8/27/98 CSL-A = 0 Ptd-A = 2 days

CSL-C = .667 x 5 = 3 days Ptd-C = 2 days

binary = 32237215

binary = 32237215

Analytic Group #1 (disposed at arraignment, Brooklyn)

- 19 -

C was sentenced to 5 days in jail. The net amount of sentence time displaced by CSSP was 1 day: if A had received the same 5-day sentence, he would have gotten 2 days off for good behavior and he would have gotten credit for 2 days in pretrial detention (arrest to arraignment), leaving one day left to serve.

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

The deal for program participants carries a penalty, which they are warned about. If they succeed, they avoid jail time; if they fail, they may very well spend more time in jail than if they had not entered the program in the first place. Scenario #3 shows how failure can result in negative displacement. In this situation, it is the comparison defendant’s pretrial detention time that is discounted from gross displacement (added to the negative amount so as to reduce the negative number of days displaced).

MISDEMEANOR SCENARIO #3.

ATI Participant Arrested 8/04/98 Pled guilty & sentenced 8/05/98 Conditional Discharge + 10 days community service

Comparison Case Arrested 3/26/99 Pled guilty & sentenced 3/27/99 Conditional Discharge

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement (add) Ptd-C net displacement

= 0 = 6 = –6 = 2 = –4

A and C both pled guilty at arraignment.

A was given a conditional discharge and mandated to CSSP. The following month, he was unsuccessfully terminated for nonattendance. He was resentenced to time served, so CSL-A equals the time he spent in pretrial detention (prior to resentence), which was 6 days.

Mandated to CSSP 8/05/98

Unsuccessful Termination 9/15/98 Resentenced 11/26/98 Time served CSL-A = 6 days Ptd-A = 6 days

CSL-C = 0 Ptd-C = 2

binary = 32237215

binary = 32237215

C was not sentenced to incarceration, so the gross displacement is –6 days (0-6).

However, C had already spent 2 days in pretrial detention, so he would have had an additional 4 days to serve if he had received a sentence equivalent to the one A received. With the 2-day discount, net displacement is –4 days. Interpretation: A spent 4 days longer in sentenced time than he would have, had he not failed the program.

Analytic Group #1 (disposed at arraignment, Brooklyn)

- 20 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

The final scenario presented here illustrates a situation in which displacement is a positive amount in spite of the fact that the ATI participant failed the program and was resentenced to 10 days in jail. Only part of the pretrial detention time for the ATI case was subtracted from gross displacement because some of it was credited towards the sentence.

MISDEMEANOR SCENARIO #4.

ATI Participant Arrested 5/19/98 Pled guilty & sentenced 5/26/98 Conditional Discharge + 15 days community service

Comparison Case Arrested 5/06/98 Pled guilty 7/01/98 Sentenced 8/03/98 Imprisonment: 60 days

= 40 = 7 = 33 = 1 = 32

*only the amount of Ptd-A greater than CSL-A is subtracted (8-7=1).

Mandated to CSSP 5/26/98

Unsuccessful Termination 7/31/98 Resentenced 11/21/98 Imprisonment 10 days CSL-A = .667 x 10 = 7 days CSL-C = .667 x 60 = 40 Ptd-C = 9 Ptd-A = 8 days binary = 31021214

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement (subtract) *Ptd-A net displacement

binary = 31021214

Analytic Group #6 (disposed post-arraignment, misdemeanor affidavit charge, Manhattan)

- 21 -

A and C both pled guilty post-arraignment.

A was sentenced to a conditional discharge and 15 days community service, and mandated to CSSP. The following month, he was unsuccessfully terminated for breach of program rules.

He was resentenced to 10 days, of which he would have to serve 7 days with time off for good behavior. He had already spent 8 days in detention, so he had no additional time to serve.

C was sentenced to 60 days, which would incarcerate him for 40 days with time off for good behavior. Gross displacement is therefore 33 days (40-7). Not all of Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pretrial detention is discounted because 7 of the 8 days he spent in detention were credited towards the sentence he actually did receive. That leaves one additional day of pretrial detention that would be credited towards a sentence of 40 days, if he had received that sentence.

Therefore, the discount is one day, and the net displacement is 32 days.

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

In summary: Gross displacement was computed by subtracting CSL-A from CSL-C. •

Positive displacement indicates that the sentence length for the comparison case was longer than for the ATI participant.

•

Negative displacement indicates that the sentence length for the ATI participant was longer than for the comparison case.

Net displacement was computed by taking into account time spent in pretrial detention.

•

If gross displacement was zero, pretrial detention time is irrelevant.

•

If gross displacement was positive, the ATI participant’s pretrial detention time (Ptd-A) was discounted — subtracted from gross displacement — to produce net displacement.

•

If gross displacement was negative, the comparison case’s pretrial detention time (Ptd-C) was discounted — added to gross displacement — to produce net displacement.

•

Pretrial detention time was discounted from displacement only to the extent that it would be credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant would have served had the program not intervened, as inferred from the sentence received by the comparison case. If a portion of Ptd-A was credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant actually did receive, that portion was not discounted from displacement.

•

Time spent in detention post-sentence but prior to re-sentence was discounted according to the rules above, if it was not sentenced time.

- 22 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

I.C. Results of the Misdemeanor Analysis I.C.1. Misdemeanor Bivariate Analysis Table 3 presents the number of days displaced by CSSP for the program participants in the study sample, including the average number of days displaced per participant (the mean), the displacement amount below and above which there is an equal number of cases (the median), and the total number of days displaced. Also shown are numbers and percentages of cases with negative, zero, and positive displacement. Displacement statistics are presented for CSSP as a whole, and for selected subgroups of cases and defendants.

The displacement outcomes that should be emphasized are those for successful program completers, who comprised about 72 percent of the CSSP cases. As shown in the second row of Table 3, CSSP displaced an average of almost 14 days for successful completers, which is a bit better than the City’s targeting objective of displacing 20-day sentences. The displacement effect for a 20-day sentence would amount to about 11 days with one-third off the sentence for good behavior and a minimum 2 days of pretrial detention subtracted from the displacement effect. For the cases with successful program completion, there was virtually no negative displacement, and more than half of these cases (53%) displaced some jail time. The total displacement by CSSP for the successful completers was 16,062 days, or over 40 years.

The effect of program failure in reducing overall displacement (because of the likelihood of a resentence to jail) is clear from the dramatic difference between successful and unsuccessful completers. Consistent with the program’s policy of requesting jail time for defendants who did not complete their community service successfully, the noncompleters were resentenced to an average of 90 days in jail (Table 1. B.). This had the effect of reducing the mean displacement to –27 days, reducing the median to –7 days, and decreasing the proportion of cases with any displacement to only 22 percent.

Overall displacement for CSSP amounted to an average of 2 days per participant when the failures were included. The median was zero, indicating that half of the cases displaced an amount equal to or less than zero and half displaced an amount equal to or greater than zero.

There were more cases with positive displacement (45%) than with negative displacement (16%), but there was also a very large number of cases with zero displacement (39%).

- 23 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 3.

Displacement for CSSP: Overall and by Categories Number and percent of cases with displacement Negative Zero Positive

Number of days displaced Mean CSSP (overall)

N= 1643

7

2.23

By Completion Success Successful N= 1179 13.62 Not successful N= 464 –26.71

By Analytic Grouping Disposed at arraignment –6.32 N= 1010 Disposed post-arraignment, misdemeanor affidavit charge 13.20 N= 544 Disposed post-arraignment, felony affidavit charge 32.31 N= 89

By Borough Brooklyn N= 474 5.83 Manhattan N= 525 2.31 Queens N= 307 –1.74 Bronx N= 337 0.66

By Charge Type Drug affidavit charge N= 367 3.23 Petit larceny affidavit charge –3.30 N= 754 Other charge N= 522 9.53

By Gender Males N= 1329 2.61 Females N= 314 0.64

By Age 17-19 N= 41 2.23 20-24 N= 128 0.52 25-29 N= 148 0.83 30-34 N= 385 3.96 35-39 N= 448 –1.12 40-44 N= 278 4.0 45-49 N= 145 5.27 50+ N= 70 7.03

Median

Total 8

265 (16%) 646 (39%)

732 (45%)

16,062 12,394

6 (1%) 544 (46%) 259 (56%) 102 (22%)

629 (53%) 103 (22%)

0

–6,386

191 (19%) 383 (38%)

436 (43%)

0

7,180

68 (13%)

216 (40%)

260 (48%)

0

2,875

6 (7%)

47 (53%)

36 (40%)

1 0 0 0

2,764 1,215 –534 223

74 (16%) 87 (17%) 53 (17%) 51 (15%)

160 (34%) 190 (36%) 112 (37%) 184 (55%)

240 (51%) 248 (47%) 142 (46%) 102 (30%)

0

1,184

45 (12%)

174 (47%)

148 (40%)

0

–2,492

155 (21%) 262 (35%)

337 (45%)

0

4,976

65 (13%)

210 (40%)

247 (47%)

0 0

3,467 202

207 (16%) 58 (19%)

521 (39%) 125 (40%)

601 (45%) 131 (42%)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

91 67 122 1,524 –502 1,111 764 492

6 (15%) 20 (16%) 24 (16%) 72 (19%) 76 (17%) 42 (15%) 17 (12%) 8 (11%)

19 (46%) 56 (44%) 68 (46%) 138 (36%) 166 (37%) 112 (40%) 57 (39%) 30 (43%)

16 (39%) 52 (41%) 56 (38%) 175 (46%) 206 (46%) 124 (45%) 71 (49%) 32 (46%)

0

3,669

1 –7

7

Three non-YO cases that were matched to a comparison case with YO status were not included in the analysis.

The mean number of days per participant given in this table multiplied by the number of participants in the program does not exactly equal the total days displaced because of rounding of the mean. Before rounding off to two decimal points, the overall mean for CSSP was 2.2328 (2.2328 x 1643 = 3,669 days).

8

- 24 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Because the incarceration of program failures is a measure of success in the eyes of CSSP staff, it would not be fair to measure the program’s effectiveness by overall displacement, which is thereby greatly reduced. In addition, there is another reason why displacement for successful completers provides a more valid measure than overall displacement for CSSP:

resentencing

information was not available for any cases in the comparison group, and thus resentences were not counted against the comparison cases. Since resentences were also not counted against the successful completers, this group was treated the same way as its comparison cases, and results are highly likely to be valid. Resentences were counted against the program failures, but not against their comparison cases, thus perhaps underestimating displacement for program failures, and decreasing the validity of results for this group.

The mean displacement for cases in which there was any displacement at all was 26 days (not shown). It would be inaccurate to claim a displacement effect for CSSP of 26 days because the cases for which there was no displacement are excluded. However, this number does show that when CSSP was able to displace a jail sentence — which it was able to do almost half of the time — the incarceration time that it saved was substantial.

The breakdown by timing of disposition and affidavit charge severity shows that the more serious cases, while fewer, were responsible for a disproportionate amount of displacement. (For convenience, the term “analytic grouping” is used to refer to this composite variable. “Analytic groups” consist of the analytic groupings, subdivided by borough.) Cases disposed at arraignment — the great majority — displaced no time at all on average, and in fact the mean for this group was –6 days. In order for any displacement to occur, the sentence for the comparison case would have to be greater than 3 days: a defendant would be required to serve no more than 2 days of a 3-day sentence, and he or she would receive 2 days credit for pretrial detention time from arrest to arraignment. The first two days of the sentence cannot be displaced because they are nearly always served in pretrial detention. (In a very small proportion of cases, defendants were arraigned the same day as the arrest; those defendants would receive one day credit for pretrial detention, and thus a 3-day sentence for the comparison case could result in displacement of one day for an ATI case with a sentence of conditional discharge.) Two-thirds of the comparison cases for the group disposed at arraignment were sentenced to less than 4 days; and one in five was not sentenced to any jail time at all (not shown).

- 25 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

The mean for cases with a misdemeanor affidavit charge that were disposed postarraignment was 13 days; and for cases with a felony affidavit charge that were disposed postarraignment, the mean was 32 days. The higher averages for post-arraignment dispositions occurred in spite of the fact that fewer cases displaced some time; only 40 percent of the cases with a felony affidavit charge had any positive displacement, the lowest of the three analytic groupings. Displacement was higher for cases with a felony affidavit charge because there were fewer such cases with negative displacement to lower the average.

Other variables did not have such strong associations with displacement, although there were differences by borough of prosecution, by affidavit charge type, by gender, and by age.

Brooklyn was the borough with the greatest mean and median displacement amounts (6 days and one day respectively), as well as the greatest proportion of cases with positive displacement (51%). A relatively large displacement effect was also found for cases in which the top affidavit charge was neither a drug charge nor the most common charge, petit larceny. Cases in this “other charge” category had a mean displacement of 10 days, compared to –3 days for petit larceny. On the other hand, the proportion of cases with positive displacement was about the same for both groups (45% and 47% respectively).

The two demographic variables examined, gender and age, had the weakest association with displacement. CSSP displaced somewhat more sentence time for males than for females: 3 days on average for males and one day for females. However, the proportions with positive displacement were similar (45% and 42% respectively). With some exceptions, displacement generally rose steadily with age, with means of 4 days or greater for those over 40.

I.C.2. Displacement by Misdemeanor Analytic Group The analysis of displacement by the categories shown in Table 3 was bivariate; that is, only one variable at a time was examined for its effect on displacement. The “analytic grouping” variable was a composite formed by combining two distinct variables: timing of disposition and affidavit charge severity. However, it was treated as a single variable. In this section, the composite variable approach is taken a step further, by subdividing the analytic groupings by borough. The subgroups created in this way correspond to the 12 analytic groups used as the first step in the matching process for the comparison cases; thus, the results are presented in terms of displacement for each analytic group in Table 4. These results can be considered a

- 26 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

form of multivariate analysis, since the composite variable shows the effect of controlling for borough.

Table 4.

Displacement for CSSP:

By Analytic Group Analytic Group

Number of days displaced Mean

1. Disposed at arraignment: Brooklyn N= 261 2. Disposed at arraignment: Manhattan N= 359 3. Disposed at arraignment: Queens N= 214 4. Disposed at arraignment: Bronx N= 176 5. Disposed post-arraignment; misdemeanor affidavit charge; Brooklyn N= 186 6. Disposed post-arraignment; misdemeanor affidavit charge; Manhattan N= 150 7. Disposed post-arraignment; misdemeanor affidavit charge; Queens N= 83 8. Disposed post-arraignment; misdemeanor affidavit charge; Bronx N= 125 9. Disposed post-arraignment; felony affidavit charge; Brooklyn N= 27 10. Disposed post-arraignment; felony affidavit charge; Manhattan N= 16 11. Disposed post-arraignment; felony affidavit charge; Queens N= 10 12. Disposed post-arraignment; felony affidavit charge; Bronx N= 36

Median

Total

Number and percent of cases with displacement Negative Zero Positive

–3.93

1

–1,025

52 (20%)

–6.20

0

–2,224

66 (18%) 139 (39%) 154 (43%)

–7.58

0

–1,623

41 (19%)

–8.60

0

–1,514

32 (18%) 101 (57%)

43 (24%)

16.99

1

3,160

20 (11%)

71 (38%)

95 (51%)

18.22

6

2,734

20 (13%)

43 (29%)

87 (58%)

1.79

0

149

12 (15%)

40 (48%)

31 (37%)

9.10

0

1,138

16 (13%)

62 (50%)

47 (38%)

23.33

0

630

2 (7%)

14 (52%)

11 (41%)

44.11

0

706

1 (6%)

8 (50%)

7 (44%)

94.02

59

940

0

4 (40%)

6 (60%)

16.65

0

599

3 (8%)

21 (58%)

12 (33%)

- 27 -

75 (29%) 134 (51%)

68 (32%) 105 (49%)

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 4 indicates that the bivariate differences in displacement by borough were partially accounted for by different distributions of analytic groupings in each borough. Brooklyn cases had the greatest mean displacement only for those disposed at arraignment (analytic groups #1 through #4). Displacement was negative in all boroughs for cases disposed at arraignment, but a little less negative for Brooklyn (–4 days) than for the other three boroughs (–6, –8, and –9 days).

For cases disposed post-arraignment, however, the greatest displacement was not in Brooklyn. For cases disposed post-arraignment with a misdemeanor affidavit charge (analytic groups #5 through #8), the highest mean displacement was in Manhattan (18 days), which also had the highest proportion of cases with positive displacement (58%). For cases disposed postarraignment with a felony affidavit charge (analytic groups #9 through #12), the highest mean displacement was in Queens (94 days), which also had the highest proportion of cases with positive displacement (60%). However, this extremely high displacement result for Queens should be interpreted with caution, as there were too few cases (n=10) for stable results. Other than Queens, Manhattan was the borough with the highest displacement for cases disposed postarraignment with a felony affidavit charge (44 days, with 44% of cases having positive displacement).

On the other hand, Bronx cases had relatively less displacement regardless of the timing of the disposition and the severity of the charge. This was generally true for both mean number of days displaced and the proportion of cases with any displacement. Only for one grouping — cases disposed post-arraignment with a misdemeanor affidavit charge — was displacement lower in another borough (Queens).

Controlling for borough, the differences in displacement by analytic grouping remained strong. Comparing mean displacement amounts within Brooklyn, for instance, we see that cases disposed at arraignment (analytic group #1) had the lowest mean displacement (–4 days); cases disposed post-arraignment with a misdemeanor affidavit charge (analytic group #5) had higher displacement (17 days); and cases disposed post-arraignment with a felony affidavit charge (analytic group #9) had the highest displacement (23 days). The same pattern was found in each of the other boroughs.

- 28 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

I.C.3. Comparisons Between CCSS and ATIIS for Misdemeanor Cases In order to analyze the effect of the transfer of client screening and advocacy that occurred with the end of CCSS and the beginning of the ATIIS contract period (July 1, 1999), displacement effects were compared for cases entering CSSP in each period.

Table 5 shows, in the first two rows, that the mean displacement was greater for ATIIS cases: –1 day for CCSS, compared to 6 days for ATIIS. The median for both periods was zero, indicating that half of the cases in both groups displaced zero or more days, and half displaced zero or fewer days. The mean for the CCSS cases was lowered by the larger proportion of cases with negative displacement (21% for CCSS compared to 10% for ATIIS).

Table 5.

Displacement for CSSP:

By CCSS vs. ATIIS, Successful Completion, and Analytic Grouping Number and percent of cases with displacement Total Negative Zero Positive –996 187 (21%) 312 (35%) 384 (44%) 4,665 78 (10%) 334 (44%) 348 (46%)

Number of days displaced Mean –1.13 6.14

CCSS (prior to 7/1/99) N= 883 ATIIS (on or after 7/1/99) N= 760

By CCSS/ATIIS & Successful Completion CCSS Successful completion N= 569 12.51 (64%) No successful completion N= 314 –25.85 (36%) ATIIS Successful completion N= 610 14.66 (80%) No successful completion N= 150 –28.51 (20%)

By CCSS/ATIIS & Analytic Grouping CCSS Disp. at arraignment N= 551 –8.36 (62%) Disp. post-arraignment, misd. N= 271 7.43 (31%) Disp. post-arraignment, fel.

N= 61 26.18 (7%) ATIIS Disp. at arraignment N= 458 –3.89 (61%) Disp. post-arraignment, misd. N= 274 18.86 (36%) Disp. post-arraignment, fel.

N= 28 45.66 (4%)

Median 0 0

1 –8

7,120

–8,116 181 (58%)

1

8,942

–2

–4,277

0

- 29 -

6 (1%) 249 (44%) 314 (55%)

0 78 (52%)

63 (20%)

70 (22%)

295 (48%) 315 (52%) 39 (26%)

33 (22%)

–4,605 131 (24%) 179 (33%) 241 (44%)

0

2,012

51 (19%) 100 (37%) 120 (44%)

0

1,597

0

–1,781

60 (13%) 203 (44%) 195 (43%)

1

5,167

17 (6%) 117 (43%) 140 (51%)

0

1,278

5 (8%)

1 (4%)

33 (54%)

14 (50%)

23 (38%)

13 (46%)

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

The greater negative displacement for CCSS was related to lower rates of program success. Success rates were 64 percent for CCSS cases, compared to 80 percent for ATIIS cases (Table 5, left-hand column). We do not know the reason for the higher success rate for more recent cases, but it may be related to the increased speed with which CSSP could begin delivery of services when the program resumed advocating for its own clients after the termination of CCSS. CSSP provides assistance with housing, groceries, and clothing, and it also helps its clients obtain public benefits. In addition, it has an enforcement team to bring back defendants who did not show up for community service, or who dropped out.

These services and

enforcement provisions are designed to raise the success rate, which would in turn raise displacement by lowering the number of defendants resentenced to jail time. Under CCSS, there was a brief hiatus between the court mandate and enrollment in the program.

The more

immediate contact with CSSP under ATIIS may enhance the chance of success, but we are unable to say with any assurance what made the difference.

For those who completed the program successfully, there was almost no difference in displacement effect: CCSS had a slightly lower mean displacement per participant (13 days for CCSS and 15 days for ATIIS) but a slightly larger proportion of cases with positive displacement (55% for CCSS and 52% for ATIIS). The median displacement was one day for both groups.

The bottom portion of Table 5 presents data comparing CCSS and ATIIS cases by analytic grouping. There was no shift in the percentage of cases disposed at arraignment from the earlier period to the later period, which might have accounted for some of the difference in displacement: just over 60 percent were disposed at arraignment in both periods. Displacement was higher for ATIIS cases within all three analytic groupings, but especially for cases disposed post-arraignment with a felony affidavit charge: those cases had a mean displacement of 46 days for ATIIS, compared to 26 days for CCSS.

- 30 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

I.C.4. Misdemeanor Multivariate Analysis A multiple regression analysis was done in order to determine if the difference between CCSS and ATIIS cases in the mean displacement per participant was statistically significant, controlling for program success, analytic grouping, and other variables. The first step was to identify variables with a statistically significant bivariate relationship with displacement. All of the variables displayed in Tables 3, 4, and 5 (plus some additional ones) were tested for the statistical significance of their correlations with displacement, and eight were found to be statistically significant. They are listed in order of the strength of the correlation, with the strongest first.

• Successful program completion • Analytic grouping • Detention status leaving Criminal Court arraignment (being detained was associated with greater displacement) • CCSS / ATIIS (entering the program under ATIIS was associated with greater displacement) • Number of open cases (having a greater number of open cases was associated with greater displacement) • Number of prior felony convictions (having a greater number of prior felony convictions was associated with greater displacement) • Brooklyn (Brooklyn cases were associated with greater displacement than other boroughs) • Queens (Queens cases were associated with less displacement than other boroughs) The differences in mean displacement by age, gender, and charge type that were shown in Table 3 were not statistically significant. Other variables that were tested and found to be not significantly related to displacement were number of prior misdemeanor convictions, whether it was the defendant's first arrest, if it was a Manhattan case, and if it was a Bronx case.

The eight variables that had a statistically significant correlation with displacement were entered simultaneously into the regression analysis. The results, retaining only the variables that remained significant in the multivariate analysis, are presented in Table 6.

- 31 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 6.

Regression Model of Displacement For Misdemeanor Cases: CSSP Independent Variables Beta Successful completion 0=no 1=yes Analytic grouping 1=disposed at arraignment 2=disposed post-arraignment, misdemeanor affidavit charge 3=disposed post-arraignment, felony affidavit charge Detained at Criminal Court arraignment 0=no 1-yes Open cases 0=none 1=one 2=2 or more Number of prior felony convictions 0=none 1=one 2=two 3=3 or more 2 Adjusted R = .218

.395*** .139**

.101* .064**

.058*

*Statistically significant at p<.05 **Statistically significant at p<.01 ***Statistically significant at p<.001

Three variables were no longer significant, controlling for the effects of all the other variables. The three that were dropped from the regression model were CCSS/ATIIS, Brooklyn, and Queens. This means that the differences in displacement that were observed between CCSS and ATIIS cases and differences among boroughs could be accounted for by differences in success rates, timing of the disposition and severity of the affidavit charge, and the other variables that remained in the regression model.

The importance of each variable's effect on displacement can be assessed by the relative size of the standardized regression coefficient, or Beta. Program success was the most important predictor of displacement by far (Beta .395); its effect was almost three times as great as the next strongest predictor, analytic grouping (Beta .139). Even controlling for successful completion and analytic grouping, CSSP was also significantly more likely to displace sentence time for program participants who were detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment and had open cases or prior felony convictions.

- 32 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

I.C.5. Omitting Resentences We have pointed out that the reason for the importance of program success in determining how much sentence time was displaced is that defendants who fail the program tend to be resentenced to jail terms, and the resentence subtracts from displacement. In developing criteria to aid in targeting clients for the ATI programs, CCSS used statistical modeling to identify profiles of defendants likely to receive sentences of at least 20 days. However, the targeting criteria could not account for loss of expected displacement due to the consequences of program failure.

Therefore, in order to assess displacement minus the offsetting effect of

resentencing — and thereby better assess whether the program was taking clients who were likely to receive jail time, and how much — we conducted a secondary analysis of displacement that omitted resentences as the basis of the calculated sentence length. The original sentence for all cases is the basis of calculated sentence length in the secondary analysis.

The results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7.

Displacement for CSSP: Omitting Resentences

By Program Success, Analytic Grouping, Borough, and CCSS/ATIIS Total 21,946

Number and percent of cases with displacement Negative Zero Positive 2 (<1%) 760 (46%) 881 (54%)

Number of days displaced CSSP (overall)

By Program Success Successful Completion No Successful Completion

By CCSS/ATIIS CCSS ATIIS

By Analytic Grouping Disposed at arraignment Disposed at arraignment, misd.

Disposed at arraignment, fel.

By Borough Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Bronx

N= 1643

Mean 13.36

N= 1179 N= 464

13.68 12.52

1 1

16,135 5,811

2 (<1%) 548 (47%) 629 (53%) 0 212 (46%) 252 (54%)

N= 883 N= 760

13.55 13.13

1 1

11,964 9,982

2 (<1%) 393 (45%) 488 (55%) 0 367 (48%) 393 (52%)

N= 1009 N= 545 N= 89

5.19 24.40 38.35

1 5 0

5,233 13,300 3,413

1 (<1%) 466 (46%) 542 (54%) 1 (<1%) 242 (44%) 302 (55%) 0 52 (58%) 37 (42%)

N= N= N= N=

17.09 13.86 9.70 10.65

3 1 1 0

8,100 7,279 2,978 3,589

474 525 307 337

Median 1

0 2 (<1%) 0 0

183 (39%) 236 (45%) 132 (43%) 209 (62%)

291 (61%) 287 (55%) 175 (57%) 128 (38%)

Without the negative effect of resentencing, the mean displacement per participant for CSSP was 13 days. This exceeded the City's goal of displacing a sentence of 20 days because — after subtracting time off for good behavior and applying pretrial detention credit — it would

- 33 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

take a sentence of 22 days to displace 13 days. The median was one day, and the total amount of time displaced by the program for the cases in the study was 21,946 days, or a little over 60 years. There was virtually no negative displacement, and over half of the cases (54%) displaced some sentence time.

When resentences were not counted, displacement was not affected by whether the CSSP participant completed the program successfully. This was to be expected, since failure triggers resentences. Displacement based on the original sentence for participants who completed CSSP successfully was 14 days, compared to 13 days for noncompleters.

The ATIIS advantage also disappeared when resentences were disregarded. Omitting resentences, ATIIS cases displaced about the same amount of time as CCSS cases: displacement was 14 days for CCSS, compared to 13 days for ATIIS. In addition, when resentences were not counted, CCSS displaced time for a slightly larger proportion of cases (55%) than ATIIS (52%).

On the other hand, the bivariate differences in displacement that were found by analytic grouping and by borough did not disappear when resentencing was ignored. Cases disposed at arraignment displaced the least sentence time (5 days per participant), and cases disposed postarraignment with a felony affidavit charge displaced the most time (38 days per participant).

Borough differences also followed the same pattern, regardless of whether resentences were taken into account: Brooklyn cases displaced the most sentence time, Queens the least, and the smallest proportion of cases with displacement was in the Bronx.

- 34 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

PART II. FELONY CASES II.A. Description of the Felony Research Sample II.A.1. The Felony Data Set Records for all ATI participants in the seven felony programs who exited between July 1, 1998, and March 31, 2000, were drawn from the ATIIS database into a research file initially containing 1,323 cases. (The date range was the same as for the misdemeanor cases.) As noted, the starting date was selected to be early enough to include cases that entered the programs under the auspices of CCSS, without including cases from the startup year of operation. The cutoff date allowed for inclusion of cases that entered the programs after the ATIIS contract went into effect on July 1, 1999. It allowed nine months for defendants to be sentenced (and possibly resentenced) from the latest exits in March 2000 until the final compilation of the research file in December 2000. Resentencing was a possibility for felony defendants sentenced to probation whose program failure resulted in a violation of probation (VOP).

The felony data file was constructed in the same way as the misdemeanor file, with the addition of Supreme Court data.

Initially, all cases were aggregated in one large file for

efficiency in programming the data elements from the ATIIS database (program entry and exit data), and the arrest and Criminal Court data from UDIIS.

Then outcomes at milestone

appearances in Supreme Court were added for the felony cases, including plea and sentencing information, charges, and detention status.

These milestones were the first appearance in

Supreme Court, the Grand Jury appearance (if any), the Supreme Court arraignment, the appearance prior to final disposition, final disposition, sentence, and resentence. At a later stage, the misdemeanor and felony cases were divided into separate data files for analysis.

For resentences on VOPs, we faced the same problem as we did in collecting resentencing data for misdemeanors: UDIIS does not have information for most cases beyond the original sentence. Our ability to find resentences manually using CJAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s direct link to the OCA database was hampered by the fact that, unlike the CSSP participants, many of the felony program participants were Youthful Offenders (YOs); thus their cases were sealed and were not available to CJA from the Agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s direct-link terminal to OCA.

We made an effort to

circumvent the problem by requesting data from OCA that would include sealed cases, but the law on the confidentiality of sealed cases prevented OCA from complying with our request.

- 35 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Thus, we were not able to gain access to resentencing data for the 361 ATI participants with a sentence of probation and YO status. (Nor did we have access to resentences for comparison cases, but that information was not crucial because it would not have been used to calculate displacement, since the comparisonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resentence would not have been the result of failure in an ATI program. Resentences resulting from a rearrest fall outside the scope of this study.)

For the unsealed cases, we collected resentencing information manually, using the directlink OCA terminal. All ATI cases that entered a program as a result of a VOP were examined, as well as those with a sentence to probation prior to an unsuccessful exit from the program. We did not look for resentences in cases where the sentence to probation followed exit from the program, because any resentence in those cases would not have been caused by program failure.

Resentence data were recorded on paper forms and manually entered into the computer file.

However, for reasons that will be explained shortly, the decision was ultimately made not to use resentences in the calculation of displacement for felony cases.

The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) provided supplemental data on dates of admission and discharge from DOC facilities, for ATIIS participants and some comparison cases (those sentenced to time served) in both the misdemeanor and felony samples.

The addition of these variables, which improved the accuracy of our estimates of pretrial detention time, was the last step in the compilation of the research data set of ATI felony participants.

At every stage of the process, checks were done to find and correct errors in the data.

The corrections described earlier for the misdemeanor data set were carried out simultaneously for the felony cases. Further checking was done for the felony cases to find missing or erroneous Supreme Court information, especially pertaining to release status and sentence. Fifteen cases with missing or incorrect Supreme Court appearance histories, which could not be corrected, and 173 cases that had not been sentenced by the end of December 2000 were deleted from the displacement research file.

An additional 121 cases were omitted from the displacement

analyses, either because displacement could not be calculated without resentencing information, to which we had no access; or because of difficulties encountered in matching with appropriate comparison cases. The number in the final analytic data set was 1,014 cases.

- 36 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

II.A.2. Aggregate Characteristics of the Felony ATI Participants Table 8 on the following pages presents statistics describing the characteristics of the ATI participants and cases in the felony programs included in the displacement study. The felony sample as a whole is described here; in a later section, the participants of individual programs are described separately.

Part A presents ATI program and defendant attributes. Because the felony programs require attendance for a much longer period than the misdemeanor program, fewer of the felony participants who entered the program under the ATIIS contract had exited from the program in time for inclusion in the study. Consequently, the great majority of felony participants entered the program under CCSS (87%). The program with the largest number of cases was CEP, with 333 cases (33% of the sample); the next largest was Freedom, with 223 cases (22% of the sample).

A small number of felony participants (39) who did not complete a program

successfully were subsequently mandated again to the same or a different program, where they sometimes succeeded. The multiple mandates were for the same case, so they were treated for purposes of this study as though the defendant had been in one program continuously. That is, the exit from the final program was treated as the exit date, and successful completion was assessed by the participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance in the last program attended. The maximum number of programs attended by the same defendant was 3; only two defendants in the study were mandated to 3 programs.

Just over half of the felony participants (54%) completed successfully. Rearrest and incarceration together accounted for about one in five unsuccessful terminations (the total was 80 for both reasons, which is 22% of the 370 unsuccessful terminations). Another common reason for unsuccessful termination was nonattendance (66, or 18%), and an additional 8 defendants did not show up at all to report to the program. The average length of time spent in the program (including those who completed as well as those who did not) was 176 days, with a nearly equal division between those who spent under six months and those who spent from six months to a year.9 A small proportion (69, or 7%) spent over a year in the program. For those who were in more than one program, the time was counted from entry in the first program until exit from the last program, so some of this time may actually have been spent between programs.

9

Some were 6-month programs and others were 12-month programs; these averages combine both program types.

- 37 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 8.

Aggregate Characteristics of Felony Program Participants N=1,014 A. Program and Defendant Characteristics Number of participants who entered the program (first mandate): Under CCSS (prior to 7/01/99) Under ATIIS (7/01/99 or later)

886 128

(87%) (13%)

CEP DAMAS El Rio FlameTree Freedom Project Return YAP

333 66 76 133 223 38 145

(33%) (7%) (8%) (13%) (22%) (4%) (14%)

1 2 3

975 37 2

(96%) (4%) (<1%)

547 370 66 51 29 19 8 11 4 7 8 55 34

(54%) (37%)

Number of participants in each program (first mandate):

Number of program mandates on a single case per participant:

ATI Program Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics

Prior Criminal Record

Program completion rates (of last program): Successful completion Unsuccessful termination Non-attendance Rearrest Incarceration Noncompliance with treatment plan Breach of program rule Issuance of warrant Failure at transfer placement Other No show Administrative Discharge Transfer Length of time in program (from entry into first program to exit from last program): Average: Under 6 months: 6 months to a year: Over a year: Age: 14-15 16-18 19-29 30-39 40+ Gender: Male Female Number of prior felony convictions: 0 1 2+ Unknown Number of prior misdemeanor convictions: 0 1-2 3-8 9+ Unknown Open cases at time of arrest: 0 1 2+ Unknown

- 38 -

(1%) (5%) (3%)

176 days 451 (45%) 494 (49%) 69 (7%) 143 14% 457 45% 243 24% 91 9% 80 8% 867 86% 147 15% 948 94% 39 4% 21 2% 6 1% 831 82% 100 10% 63 6% 14 1% 6 1% 644 64% 254 25% 116 11% 6 1%

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 8. (continued) Aggregate Characteristics of Felony Program Participants N=1,014 B. Case-Processing Characteristics Borough of prosecution:

Criminal Court

Supreme Court

Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Bronx

Release status leaving Criminal Court arraignment: Released on recognizance Released on bail Held on bail Remanded No Criminal Court arraignment (direct indictment) Missing Charging Instrument Indictment by Grand Jury Supreme Court Information Severity of top conviction charge: B Felony C Felony D Felony E Felony A Misdemeanor Missing charge Most common top conviction charges: st Robbery - 1 degree (160.15) rd Sale of a controlled substance - 3 degree (220.39) rd Attempted sale of a controlled substance - 3 degree (110-220.39) nd Robbery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 degree (160.10) Sale of a controlled substance near a school (220.44) nd Attempted robbery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 degree (110-160.10) Sentence Type: Imprisonment Intermittent imprisonment Imprisonment and probation Probation Fine Conditional or unconditional discharge Restitution License suspended or revoked [The sum is greater than 100% because a defendant can receive more than one sentence type.]

YO Status Granted: For 466 defendants sentenced to incarceration, length of incarceration (if indeterminate sentence, the minimum was used): Average Under 6 months 6 months to one year Longer than one year

- 39 -

278 292 137 307

(27%) (29%) (14%) (30%)

102 22 882 2 2 3

(10%) (2%) (87%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%)

882 132

(87%) (13%)

423 296 207 52 10 26

(42%) (29%) (20%) (5%) (1%) (3%)

168 136 132 89 75 59 334 1 131 513 1 34 7 245

(17%) (13%) (13%) (9%) (7%) (6%) (33%) (<1%) (13%) (51%) (<1%) (3%) (<1%) (24%)

461

(46%)

449 days 71 (15%) 213 (46%) 182 (39%)

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

As a group, the felony ATI participants were much younger than the misdemeanor (CSSP) participants. Over half (59%) were 18 or younger. This reflects the fact that two of the programs, including the largest (CEP), serve youths exclusively. Most participants were male (86%); two of the programs serve only women, but they are the two smallest programs (DAMAS and Project Return). Defendants’ criminal history, shown at the bottom of Part A, tended to be much less extensive for the felony participants than for CSSP participants. Many prosecutors are reluctant to agree to day treatment programs for predicate felons; as a result, almost all of the felony ATI participants in the sample had no prior felony conviction (94%). In addition, 82 percent had no prior misdemeanor conviction; and 64 percent had no open cases at the time of the instant arrest.

Part B, Table 8, describes the cases included in the felony sample, in terms of their distribution by borough (fairly evenly divided among the three largest boroughs, with fewer from Queens); release status leaving arraignment in Criminal Court (only 12% released, including a small number who posted bail); and charge and sentence information in Supreme Court. The typical felony ATI participant reached Supreme Court on an indictment by a Grand Jury, was convicted of a class-B felony — most likely on a robbery or drug charge — and was sentenced to probation. This “typical” felony program participant may well have received YO status (46% of the felony participants did). If he was one of the 46 percent who was sentenced to incarceration, the sentence length probably fell somewhere between 6 months and a year; only 15 percent of the sentences were under 6 months, and 39 percent were longer than a year.10 II. B. Methodology for the Felony Analysis Procedures used to select a comparison group, to compute the calculated sentence length, and to calculate displacement for felony cases were quite similar to the procedures already described for the misdemeanor cases. However, some adjustments were required to account for the differences in court processing and types of cases that were disposed in Supreme Court, as well as differences in operating policies between the misdemeanor and felony programs. For example, whereas the misdemeanor participants had all been sentenced at the time of their release to CSSP, it was more usual for the felony participants to be released to a program when they pled guilty and to be sentenced after they had exited from the program.

10

Incarceration includes sentences of time served and split (jail and probation) sentences, in which the incarcerative portion could have been served prior to program enrollment. It also includes sentences imposed after program exit.

- 40 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

II.B.1. Selection of Felony Comparison Groups The definitions of the felony analytic groups and the variables used in the one-to-one matching both differed from those used for the misdemeanor cases. Again the matching was done in a two-stage process: first, analytic groups were defined, based on case and defendant characteristics that affect the way cases are handled in Supreme Court. All cases fitting the criteria for each of these analytic groups were drawn from UDIIS into "pool" files of candidates for the comparison groups. In the second stage, we matched each ATI case to a case in the corresponding analytic pool group, using additional case and defendant characteristics. At the end, each ATI analytic group had a matched comparison group composed of the same number of cases with exactly the same distribution of key attributes. The only difference between the two groups was that the ATI participants were diverted into an ATI program, whereas the comparison cases were not. As pointed out earlier, we had no way of knowing if the comparison cases were participants in some program other than the ones included in this study; nor could we match on every characteristic that could conceivably affect the sentence. However, the cases were matched on a large number of variables, resulting in pairs that looked virtually identical, based on the information available to us.

II.B.1. (a) Felony Analytic Groups Table 9 defines the analytic groups for the felony sample and gives the number of cases in each group. Because of the more complicated sentencing considerations in Supreme Court, there are more felony than misdemeanor analytic groups. The first two analytic groups â&#x20AC;&#x201D; cases adjudicated in a specialized drug court, and juvenile offenders â&#x20AC;&#x201D; were treated separately because defendants in drug court are given treatment as a condition of more lenient sentences, and because the sentences for juvenile offenders (JOs) are less severe by statute. If the case of an ATI participant was adjudicated in a drug court, the case was placed in analytic group #1 even if it met the criteria for another group. Likewise, if the defendant was a JO, the case was placed in analytic group #2, regardless of any other group into which it might fit.

The remaining 16 analytic groups were mutually exclusive. The first division was made by the type of charge at arraignment in Supreme Court: drug charge, violent felony offense (affected by changes in sentencing laws in 1995 and 1998),11 and other charges. Within each of 11

On 10/1/95 the minimum sentence for 1st violent felony offenders changed from one-third the maximum to onehalf the maximum and predicate VFOs became subject to determinate sentences (no minimum). On 9/1/98 virtually

- 41 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

these charge types a second division was made, according to the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eligibility for Youthful Offender (YO) status. YO status provides for more lenient sentencing options than are available even to JOs, and also can cause the case to be sealed and the conviction expunged from the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s record.12 Table 9.

Felony Analytic Groups (N = 1,014) 1 n=38 2 n=148

Drug Treatment Court Juvenile Offender

Charge Type

non-predicate

Type of Filing Supreme Court Grand Jury Information Indictment Males Females Males Females 3 4 n=11 n=107 5 6 7 n=12 n=156 n=54 8 n=38 9 10 11 n=29 n=203 n=28 12 13 n=9 n=0 n=82

predicate

n=0

n=0

14 n=6

15 n=13

n=0

16 n=30

YO eligibility and predicate status YO-eligible

DRUG

Not YOeligible

non-predicate predicate

YO-eligible

VFO

Not YOeligible

YO-eligible OTHER (non-drug, non-VFO)

Not YOeligible

non-predicate

17 n=42

predicate

18 n=8

________________________ all violent felony offenders (including non-predicates) became subject to determinate sentences (the sole exception being victims of domestic violence).

12 Most JOs are eligible for YO status (the only JOs not eligible for YO status are those with a prior felony conviction or a prior YO adjudication). YO-eligible JOs were placed in group #2; the YO-eligible defendants in groups #3-18 are those considered by the criminal justice system in New York to be adults (age 16 through 18).

- 42 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Being eligible for YO status entails being a non-predicate; but a non-predicate could be ineligible for YO status because of age (eligibility requires being 18 years of age or younger at the time of offense) or a prior YO adjudication. Therefore, cases with defendants who were not YO-eligible were further divided into those who were predicates and those who were nonpredicates.13 Two further divisions were made, given enough cases. Separate analytic subdivisions were made for cases that reached Supreme Court by means of a Grand Jury indictment as opposed to a Superior Court Information (SCI).14 Where possible, the resulting groups were further divided into males and females.

There were no ATI participant cases in some of the logically possible analytic groups created by these subdivisions. For example, there were no SCI cases with a non-YO eligible, female defendant charged with a VFO (either predicate or non-predicate). There were no SCI cases with a predicate male defendant charged with a VFO, either. And there were no SCI cases with a YO-eligible female defendant charged with a non-drug, non-VFO offense. The four cells in the chart corresponding to these definitions are not numbered, indicating that they do not represent any analytic group with cases in the sample.

Groups with under 10 cases â&#x20AC;&#x201D; too few for a separate analysis â&#x20AC;&#x201D; were combined with other groups, where practical. Thus, most of the analytic groups include both males and females, because there were too few females to comprise a separate group. The exceptions were analytic groups #6 and #7 (not-YO-eligible drug cases); and analytic groups #10 and #11 (YO-eligible VFO cases). It was often necessary to combine SCI and Grand Jury cases, for the same reason.

Analytic group #8, for instance, consists of drug cases with a predicate defendant, combining genders and filing types. A few groups were left with fewer than 10 cases because there was no appropriate group with which to combine them.

The 18 analytic groups varied in size from 203 cases (#10: YO-eligible males indicted by a Grand Jury on a VFO) to 8 cases (#18: predicates charged with a non-drug, non-VFO offense).

13

We identified predicates by the existence of a prior felony conviction. It is possible that for some defendants the most recent felony conviction was over 10 years ago, in which case classifying them as predicates would be incorrect. The date of the prior felony conviction was not available to this research, but we are confident that the number of affected cases is very small and would not change the results of this study.

14 An SCI is the charging instrument filed in Supreme Court instead of an indictment when the defendant has waived the right to indictment by a grand jury.

- 43 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

These reflect the types of cases the felony ATI programs were most likely, and least likely, to have enrolled.

One additional analytic group was planned initially.

Some of the felony programs

accepted defendants who had already violated their probation; those defendants were typically offered leniency (such as continuation of probation, rather than a resentence to incarceration) in return for successful program completion. For these VOP cases, the resentence was the only basis upon which displacement could be calculated, since the program did not intervene earlier and did not attempt to displace the original sentence.

In order to select an appropriate comparison group for the VOP cases, we requested and received data from the Department of Probation (DOP) identifying all cases with a VOP on a sentence of felony probation occurring within the time frame of the study. These cases could not be identified using UDIIS because of its lack of post-sentence information for most cases. Once we had the DOP data identifying cases with a VOP, we linked the identifiers to cases in UDIIS to extract all the arrest, Criminal Court, and Supreme Court data elements that had been compiled for all the other cases in the research file.

The DOP files did not include any

information about the resentences for these cases, though, so once again we were confronted with the problem of searching for resentences manually using our OCA direct-link terminal.

Unfortunately, since an enormous amount of time had already been invested in compiling the file of comparison cases, the effort had to be abandoned at this point because most of the VOP cases were YOs, and were sealed in OCA. Without resentences for the ATI VOP cases and their comparison cases, there was no way that displacement could be calculated for this group.

In addition, issues concerning the effects of rearrests on resentences (discussed in the section on the computation of sentence length) made the analysis problematic even for the VOP cases for which resentencing information was found. The VOP analytic group was therefore discarded, and the 52 VOP cases were deleted from the analytic file. While VOP cases were accepted by all the felony programs, the program most affected was Project Return, which had 19 VOP cases.

Deleting these meant deleting from the analysis a third of this programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participants (57 before the deletions). Freedom had the second largest number of VOP cases (16), but they represented a much smaller proportion of that programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s total (7%).

From UDIIS, every case was selected that was disposed in Supreme Court in one of the four largest boroughs of New York City between 1/01/98 and 3/31/00â&#x20AC;&#x201D;roughly the same date

- 44 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

range as was found in the ATI participant sample.15 In order to be selected, a case also had to fit the criteria for one of the 18 analytic groups.

This procedure created 18 separate pools, one corresponding to each analytic group. The pools ranged in size from 202 for analytic group #11 to 12,833 for #8. The pools were “cleaned” by deleting the ATI participants’ cases, as well as all cases missing data on crucial variables such as the sentence type, length of incarceration, or indictment charge. Also deleted were cases disposed in a drug treatment court that was not among those referring cases to the ATI programs.16 The remaining cases constituted the pools from which the felony comparison groups were selected.

II.B.1. (b) Felony Matching Procedures Each ATI participant was then paired with a case in the corresponding analytic pool, matching simultaneously on all of the following 6 variables: • • • • • •

Borough of prosecution Severity class of the top indictment charge Open cases at the time of the instant arrest (yes/no) Detention status at Criminal Court arraignment Gender Age (recoded into ranges) The number of matching variables is somewhat less than was used for the misdemeanor

sample (6 as opposed to 8) because the definition of the felony analytic groups was more complex. For example, it was not necessary to match on prior felony convictions because that element was covered by the analytic group definitions for YO-eligibility and predicate status.

Likewise, charge type was covered in the analytic group definitions (but it was still necessary to match on charge severity). On the other hand, borough was added to the list of matching variables because it was not part of the definitions for felony analytic groups, as it was for the misdemeanor groups.

A 6-digit binary variable was created to encode each felony ATI participant’s profile, and a computer program was written to find a comparison case in the corresponding analytic pool having the same binary code. If there was more than one pool case with the matching code, the 15

95% of the ATI cases were disposed within this date range; 43 were disposed earlier, and 4 were disposed later.

These were identified by court part at disposition. The drug treatment courts that were not represented in the ATI participant sample were in Brooklyn (court part “BTC”) and Queens (“QTC” and “QDT”). The drug treatment courts that were represented in the ATI participant sample were in Manhattan (“MTC” and “N-SCT”), and the Bronx (“N-SCT” and “TC”).

16

- 45 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

comparison case was randomly selected. If there was no exact match, the computer searched for the next-best match by matching on everything except age, taking the case in the closest age range. If this did not produce a match, the computer looked for a next-best match by matching on everything except gender. Exact matches were found for 95 percent of the felony ATI cases.

By taking the next-best age category, the number of matches increased to 96 percent;17 by ignoring gender, the matched total rose to 97 percent. There were 31 cases that could not be matched using this computerized procedure; comparison cases for them were selected by hand.

There were 4,320 possible combinations of values on these 6 variables, each comprising a distinct defendant profile. Not every profile was represented in the sample of ATI cases, of course, since the total number of ATI cases was only 1,014. The most common profile, which fit 41 different felony cases across analytic groups, was encoded as 221112. This is the binary code for a male defendant in Manhattan between the ages of 16 and 18 who was indicted on a class-B felony, had an open case at the time of arrest, and was detained at arraignment in Criminal Court.

(Matching procedures are explained in more detail in Appendix B, which also contains the full key to the binary codes.)

At the end of the matching process, we had 18 comparison groups corresponding to the 18 analytic groups of ATI participants. Each ATI participant was matched to a comparison case with identical (or, for 5% of the cases, nearly identical) attributes in terms of the analytic group criteria and the 6 variables included in the binary code.

I.B.2. Calculation of Sentence Length for Felony Cases Sentences of incarceration for felony cases may be definite (one year or less served locally), indeterminate (a range, with a minimum of one year or more and a maximum), or determinate (a fixed term greater than one year). The calculated sentence length (CSL) for felony cases was devised to provide a uniform measure that would be comparable across sentence types, in spite of the complicated structure of sentences in Supreme Court.

17

Because JOs were placed in a separate analytic group, there was no danger of a JO being matched with a non-JO even if the defendants were not matched on age. And because YO-eligibility was part of the analytic group definitions, a YO-eligible defendant could not be matched with a non-YO-eligible defendant in groups #3-18. See Appendix B for an explanation of how YO-eligibility was handled for groups #1 and #2.

- 46 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

In the absence of data telling us how much of their prison sentences the defendants in the sample actually served, we were forced to use estimates. We used the date the defendant would be released with time off for good behavior (the conditional release date) to calculate sentence length for felony defendants serving all three types of sentences. The amount of the good time allowance depends on whether the sentence is definite (one-third off the sentence), indeterminate (one-third off the maximum), or determinate (one-seventh off the sentence). Defendants must be released on this date, barring any incidents while incarcerated that would cause the good time allowance to be revoked. Alternatively, we could have used the parole eligibility date for defendants sentenced to indeterminate terms; they are eligible for release on parole after serving the minimum. Beginning in 1997, some non-violent felons serving an indeterminate sentence could also be eligible for Merit Time, which would reduce the minimum term by one-sixth, thus advancing the earliest possible parole date. However, very few inmates receive the Merit Time credit. Even without Merit Time, using the parole eligibility date to calculate the amount of time served would probably result in an underestimation because the trend in recent years has been away from release at the first parole hearing.18

Conversely, setting the CSL to equal the

maximum term for indeterminate sentences would seriously overestimate the amount of time displaced, since few prisoners serve out the entire maximum term. The conditional release date (date of release with time off for good behavior) thus seemed to provide the best available indicator of actual incarceration time.

Accordingly, the CSL for felony cases was set to equal two-thirds (.667) of definite sentences, two-thirds (.667) of the maximum for indeterminate sentences, and six-sevenths (.857) of determinate sentences. Sentences recorded in months and years were converted into days: the number of months was multiplied by 30.4, and the number of years was multiplied by 365.

The CSL for non-incarcerative sentences, such as probation, was set to equal zero.

Sentences of time served were set equal to the time spent in pretrial detention.

(See the

discussion of CSL for misdemeanor cases for a more detailed explanation of how pretrial detention time was calculated, using DOC data as well as release status information in UDIIS; and for a discussion of other issues related to the computation of CSL.)

18

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Parole Eligible Hearings By First and Subsequent Appearances: CalendarYears 1990-1998â&#x20AC;? [sic]. Unpublished data, Legal Aid Society. These data indicate that 44% of first parole hearings in 1999 resulted in approval of parole, down from 67% in 1990.

- 47 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Unlike the situation for misdemeanor cases, the sentences for most of the felony cases were imposed after the ATI participant had already exited the program. This means that if the judge wanted to punish a defendant for failing the program, the initial sentence could reflect that punishment. Thus, a defendant promised probation upon successful program completion could very well receive an incarcerative sentence instead, if he were terminated for breach of program rules or nonattendance.

In such cases there was no need to consider resentences in the

calculation of CSL. However, some felony ATI participants were sentenced to probation before they exited the program—sometimes many months before. If they then failed to complete the program’s requirements, that failure could trigger the filing of a VOP and a resentence, possibly to incarceration. Initially, we planned to use resentences as the basis of the CSL for ATI felony participants if the sentence to probation occurred before an unsuccessful program exit.

This plan ran into difficulty because of the large proportion of YOs among the cases that fell into this category. As explained earlier in relation to VOP cases, YO cases were generally sealed and thus inaccessible to our search for resentencing information using CJA’s direct link to the OCA database. In addition, our request to OCA to provide us with a data file containing unsealed cases was refused because of New York State laws regarding the confidentiality of sealed cases.

Furthermore, it became evident that using resentencing information, even when we could get it, could produce unwanted results for the calculation of displacement. A close examination of many cases — examined manually in UDIIS, since we did not have rearrest data in the research file — suggested that rearrest often affected the resentence. Even if we had time to collect rearrest information and add it to the data file, it was unclear what use should be made of it. Knowing about a rearrest did not tell us how much of the resentence to attribute to program failure and how much to attribute to the defendant’s other involvements with the criminal justice system. Including harsh resentences that may have had little to do with the ATI participant’s program failure would have greatly reduced the displacement estimates, and unfairly so.

Therefore, all CSL computations for felony cases were made using the original sentence.

- 48 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

In summary: The calculated sentence length (CSL) for felony cases is computed in days for both the ATI participant and the comparison case.

• CSL equals two-thirds of the imposed sentence length for definite sentences; twothirds of the maximum imposed sentence length for indeterminate sentences; and six-sevenths of the imposed sentence length for determinate sentences.

• CSL equals zero for non-incarcerative sentences.

• CSL for a sentence of time served equals the pretrial detention time.

• The original sentence is the basis for the calculation in all felony cases.

II.B.3. Calculation of Displacement for Felony Cases Gross displacement and net displacement were calculated for felony cases in the same way that they were calculated for misdemeanor cases. That is, the ATI participant’s calculated sentence length (CSL-A) was subtracted from the comparison case’s calculated sentence length (CSL-C) to produce gross displacement. Then gross displacement was reduced by the amount of pretrial detention time that would have been credited towards the displaced time, to produce net displacement.

The displacement amounts reported in the Results section refer to net

displacement.

Four scenarios have been selected, using actual ATI participants and their matched comparison cases, to illustrate the various ways in which sentence length and pretrial detention time interact to produce both negative and positive displacement for felony cases.

Information about the ATI case is given in the left-hand column, its matched comparison case in the middle column, and the calculation of displacement with commentary in the righthand column. The binary codes and analytic group for the pair (at the bottom of the first two columns) indicate that the ATI and comparison defendants in the first scenario are male JOs prosecuted in Brooklyn on a class-B felony, with no open cases, who were detained leaving their arraignments in Criminal Court.

Scenario #1 illustrates a situation in which the ATI program did not displace any time; neither the ATI participant nor the comparison case was sentenced to incarceration. The time spent in pretrial detention did not factor into the calculation because we were interested in the amount of sentenced time displaced by the program.

- 49 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Key to symbols used in the scenarios: A C Ptd-A Ptd-C CSL-A CSL-C

= = = = = =

ATI participant Matched Comparison group member Pretrial detention served by ATI participant Pretrial detention served by Comparison case Calculated Sentence Length for ATI program participant Calculated Sentence Length for matched Comparison group member

FELONY SCENARIO #1.

ATI Participant Arrested 9/11/97 Pled guilty 3/5/98 Sentenced 1/6/99 Probation + YO status

Comparison Case Arrested 3/23/99 Pled guilty 7/19/99 Sentenced 2/28/00 Probation + YO status

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement net displacement

= = = =

0 0 0 0

A pled guilty and was mandated to YAP on the same date. While in the program he was sentenced to probation with YO status, and two months later he successfully completed the program.

Mandated to YAP 3/5/98 Successful Completion 3/5/99 CSL-A = 0 Ptd-A = 176 days

CSL-C = 0 Ptd-C = 43 days

binary = 122111

binary = 122111

C pled guilty and was also sentenced to probation with YO status. Both A and C have a calculated sentence length of zero, so there is no displacement and the time spent in pretrial detention by both is irrelevant.

Analytic Group #2 Juvenile Offenders

In Scenario #2, on the other hand, the 27 days that the ATI participant spent in pretrial detention were subtracted from the gross displacement because this detention constituted sentenced time that she had already served when the program intervened, and thus could not be displaced.

- 50 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

FELONY SCENARIO #2.

ATI Participant

Comparison Case

Arrested 2/13/98 Pled guilty 3/11/98

Arrested 7/11/99 Pled guilty 9/08/99

Re-pled and Sentenced 10/09/98 Probation

Sentenced 3/07/00 Imprisonment: 1-3 years

Mandated to El Rio 3/11/98 Successful Completion 9/18/98 CSL-A = 0 Ptd-A = 27 days binary = 522124

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement (subtract) Ptd-A net displacement

= = = = =

730 0 730 27 703

A pled guilty to a B-felony drug charge and was mandated the same day to El Rio. She successfully completed the program in six months. A few weeks after exit from the program she re-pled to a C CSL-C = .667 x 1095 = 730 felony and was sentenced to probation.

Ptd-C = 102 days C pled guilty to a B-felony drug charge and was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in binary = 522124 prison.

Analytic Group #7 Drug charge (not in drug court), not YO-eligible, Grand Jury indictment, non-predicate, female

If A had received a 1-3-year sentence, with time off for good behavior she would have served 730 days. Since she had already spent 27 days in pretrial detention, she would have had 703 days remaining. Therefore, the program displaced 703 days.

Whereas the ATI participant completed the program successfully in Scenarios #1 and #2, the program participant in Scenario #3 was unsuccessfully terminated. He received a split sentence of time served (plus probation), which was equivalent to the 151 days he had spent in pretrial detention. That was 151 days longer than the sentence for the comparison case, who received no incarceration, so displacement is negative. (Negative displacement amounts indicate that the ATI participant served a longer sentence than the comparison case.) The comparison case had 42 days of pretrial detention, so the ATI participant really served only 109 days longer (151â&#x20AC;&#x201C;42) than the defendant in the comparison case would have, given the same sentence. (The "same" sentence for the comparison case would have been a sentence of 151 days, including time off for good behavior â&#x20AC;&#x201D; not a sentence of time served, which would have amounted to only 42 days.)

- 51 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

FELONY SCENARIO #3.

Arrested 11/5/99 Pled guilty 12/23/99 Sentenced 7/13/00 Probation + YO status

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A gross displacement (add) Ptd-C net displacement

CSL-A = 151 days Ptd-A = 151 days

CSL-C = 0 Ptd-C = 42 days

A pled guilty to a VFO charge and was mandated the same day to Freedom. He was sentenced the following month to a split sentence of time served and probation as a YO. Shortly thereafter he was terminated unsuccessfully from the program. He was in detention for 151 days, from arrest to his release to the program, so CSL-A is 151.

binary = 341112

binary = 341112

ATI Participant Arrested 9/26/98 Pled guilty 1/14/99 Sentenced 2/24/99 Time served + Probation + YO status

Comparison Case

Mandated to Freedom 1/14/99 Unsuccessfully terminated 3/24/99

= = = = =

0 151 –151 42 –109

C pled guilty to a VFO charge and was sentenced to probation with YO status.

He had also been in detention, but since he was not sentenced to time served, CSL-C is zero and the gross displacement is –151 days. However, he would have had only 109 days left to serve if he had received a sentence equivalent to A’s because his pretrial detention time would be counted towards the sentence. Net displacement is therefore –109.

Analytic Group #9 VFO charge, YO-eligible, SCI

Scenario #4 illustrates a complication that arose when part of an ATI participant’s pretrial detention was credited towards his or her sentence, and the balance was discounted from gross displacement because it would have been credited towards sentence time that the program displaced. The same logic was applied when displacement was negative, and part of the pretrial detention time served on the comparison case was credited towards CSL-C. In that situation (not shown) the amount of Ptd-C greater than CSL-C was added to gross displacement (thus reducing the negative amount).

- 52 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

FELONY SCENARIO #4.

ATI Participant Arrested 2/27/99 Pled guilty 11/23/99 Sentenced 2/02/00 Imprisonment: 4 months + Probation + YO status

Displacement CSL-C (subtract) CSL-A Arrested 5/20/98 gross displacement Pled guilty 10/16/98 (subtract) *Ptd-A Sentenced 10/29/98 net displacement Imprisonment: 4 - 8 years Comparison Case

= = = = =

1948 81 1867 30 1837

*only the amount of Ptd-A greater than CSL-A is subtracted (111–81=30).

Mandated to DAMAS 6/17/99 Successful Completion 12/21/99 CSL-A = .667 x 122 = 81 days Ptd-A = 111 days

CSL-C = .667 x 2920 = 1948 days Ptd-C = 163 days

binary = 122122

binary = 122122

Analytic Group #11 VFO charge, YO-eligible, Grand Jury Indictment, Female

- 53 -

A was mandated to DAMAS 5 months before she pled guilty to a VFO charge.

She successfully completed the program, and was then sentenced to a split sentence of 4 months and probation as a YO. She had already spent 111 days in pretrial detention, so she had no time left to serve on the sentence (81 days counting time off for good behavior).

C was also eligible for YO status, but it was not granted and she was sentenced to 4 to 8 years in prison; CSL-C therefore equals 1,948 days. The entire amount of A’s pretrial detention is not discounted because 81 days were already accounted for as a credit towards her sentence. The remainder (111–81=30) would be credited towards a sentence of 4 to 8 years, so A would have 1,837 days remaining on the sentence. Thus net displacement is 1,837 days.

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

In summary: Gross displacement was computed by subtracting CSL-A from CSL-C. • Positive displacement indicates that the sentence length for the comparison case was longer than for the ATI participant.

• Negative displacement indicates that the sentence length for the ATI participant was longer than for the comparison case.

Net displacement was computed by taking into account time spent in pretrial detention.

• If gross displacement was zero, pretrial detention time is irrelevant.

• If gross displacement was positive, the ATI participant’s pretrial detention time (Ptd-A) was discounted — subtracted from gross displacement — to produce net displacement.

• If gross displacement was negative, the comparison case’s pretrial detention time (Ptd-C) was discounted — added to gross displacement — to produce net displacement.

• Pretrial detention time was discounted from displacement only to the extent that it would be credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant would have served had the program not intervened, as inferred from the sentence received by the comparison case. If a portion of Ptd-A was credited towards a sentence that the ATI participant actually did receive, that portion was not discounted from displacement.

These rules are the same as the rules for calculating displacement for misdemeanor cases.

The only difference is that one additional rule was added for the misdemeanor cases, to allow for discounting detention time served post-sentence, prior to resentence. This is not an issue for the felony cases, since we did not use resentences for the calculated sentence length.

II.C. Results of the Felony Analysis Results are presented first for the felony sample as a whole, and then separately for the individual programs.

II.C.1. Aggregate Results II.C.1. (a) Felony Bivariate Analysis Table 10 presents the number of days displaced by the felony program participants, including the average number of days displaced per participant (the mean), the displacement amount above and below which there is an equal number of cases (the median), and the total number of days displaced. Also shown are numbers and percentages of cases with negative, zero, and positive displacement. Statistics are given for the felony sample as a whole and by selected subgroups of cases and defendants.

- 54 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 10.

Aggregate Displacement for Felony Cases: Overall and by Categories Number of days displaced Mean Felony cases N= 779 excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99 Felony cases (all) N= 1014

By Completion Success Successful N= 547 Not successful N= 467

By Borough Brooklyn N= 278 Manhattan N= 292 Queens N= 137 Bronx N= 307

By Indictment Charge Type Drug charge N= 417 VFO charge N= 502 Other charge N= 95

By Indictment Charge Severity B felony N= 595 C felony N= 207 D felony N= 166 E felony N= 42

By Gender Males N= 867 Females N= 147

By Age 14-15 N= 143 16-18 N= 457 19-29 N= 243 30-39 N= 91 40+ N= 80

By YO Eligibility YO eligible N= 565 Not YO eligible N= 443

By Predicate Status Predicate N= 60 Not Predicate N= 948

By Detention Status leaving arraignment Not detained N= 124 Detained N= 884

By Filing Instrument Grand Jury Indictment N= 882 SCI N= 132

Median

Total 19

Number and percent of cases with displacement Negative Zero Positive 195 (25%)

241 (31%)

343 (44%)

117,791

277 (27%)

308 (30%)

429 (42%)

182,933 –65,141

41 (8%) 236 (51%)

215 (39%) 93 (20%)

291 (53%) 138 (30%)

144.72

0

112,741

116.17

0

334.43 45 –139.49 –23 175.19 91.11 22.07 128.54

0 0 0 0

48,702 26,603 3,023 39,463

78 (28%) 76 (26%) 39 (29%) 84 (27%)

75 (27%) 97 (33%) 53 (39%) 83 (27%)

125 (45%) 119 (41%) 45 (33%) 140 (46%)

105.86 144.65 10.92

0 0 0

44,142 72,612 1,038

120 (29%) 128 (26%) 29 (31%)

112 (27%) 163 (33%) 33 (35%)

185 (44%) 211 (42%) 33 (35%)

177.92 14.85 34.57 25.61

0 0 0 0

105,861 3,073 5,738 1,076

155 (26%) 64 (31%) 49 (30%) 9 (21%)

162 (27% 67 (32%) 58 (35%) 19 (45%)

278 (47%) 76 (37%) 59 (36%) 14 (33%)

119.25 97.95

0 0

103,393 14,399

239 (28%) 38 (26%)

256 (30%) 52 (35%)

372 (43%) 57 (39%)

37.33 68.11 192.13 185.35 222.18

0 0 12 22 0

5,338 31,125 46,687 16,867 17,774

40 (28%) 133 (29%) 65 (27%) 24 (26%) 15 (19%)

56 (39%) 144 (32% 56 (23%) 21 (23%) 31 (39%)

47 (33%) 180 (39%) 122 (50%) 46 (51%) 34 (43%)

65.37 176.15

0 0

36,932 78,033

159 (28%) 116 (26%)

195 (35%) 112 (25%)

211 (37%) 215 (49%)

376.19 97.46

218.46 0

22,572 92,394

15 (25%) 260 (27%)

11 (18%) 296 (31%)

34 (57%) 392 (41%)

–50.30 138.61

0 0

–6,238 122,535

38 (31%) 237 (27%)

57 (46%) 250 (28%)

29 (23%) 397 (45%)

110.08 156.84

0 0

97,088 20,703

246 (28%) 31 (24%)

259 (29%) 49 (37%)

377 (43%) 52 (39%)

19

The mean number of days per participant multiplied by the number of participants in the program does not exactly equal the total days displaced because of rounding of the mean. Before rounding off to two decimal points, the mean for the felony cases mandated on or prior to 3/31/99 was 144.7247 (x 779 =112,741 days).

- 55 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

By diverting a defendant into an ATI program, the most the program could displace for a sentence of 6 months — the City’s goal — would be 120 days (after subtracting 2 months for good behavior, and another couple of days for pretrial detention credit). Using a subset of cases that gives the fairest measure of displacement, the cases in the combined felony programs exceeded that goal with an average displacement of 145 days (Table 10, top row), equivalent to a sentence of over 7 months.

The displacement statistics in the top row of Table 10 are based on the cases that entered a program on or before March 31, 1999. This subset of cases — approximately three-quarters of the total felony sample — had at least one full year in which to complete a program before the study cutoff date of March 31, 2000. Defendants who were mandated to a program later than March 31, 1999 and who had already exited by March 31, 2000, were more likely to have failed because most of the felony programs require at least a year for successful completion. Including defendants mandated after March 31, 1999 — “late mandates” — biases the sample towards failures, thereby reducing the displacement effect. Thus the fairest measure of displacement is obtained when the late mandates are excluded.

Excluding the late mandates from the rest of the analysis would result in very small numbers of cases in some categories, so all cases are included in the remainder of Table 10. Even with the late mandates included, the felony ATI programs together nearly met the City’s goal.

The programs displaced an average of 116 days per participant, or almost four months (second row of Table 10). For the 1,014 participants included in the study, the programs displaced a total of 117,791 days over the course of the study period, or over 322 years. The programs managed to displace some time for just under half — 42 percent — of their clients. About a quarter received longer sentences than they apparently would have if the program had not intervened at all; and for 30 percent of the participants, program intervention had no effect on sentence length.

The mean displacement for cases in which there was any positive displacement was 684 days, or almost two years (not shown). One must include the cases with zero and negative displacement for an accurate measure of the programs' displacement effect, but it is instructive to know that when the programs did manage to displace sentence time, the time was substantial.

The average displacement effect of 116 days was achieved, not because most cases taken by the programs were facing sentences about that long, but because a great many participants were facing no incarceration at all, and many others were facing considerably longer sentences.

- 56 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Whether the participant completed the program successfully or not made a dramatic difference in displacement. This was to be expected, since judges promise lenient sentences (typically, probation) upon the condition of successful program completion, and may hand down stiffer sentences if that condition is not met. For successful completers, the programs greatly exceeded the goal, with an average of 334 days per participant. The majority of successful completions (53%) resulted in some displacement, and for this group the median was 45 (meaning that for half of the successful participants, displacement was 45 days or greater). Very few successful completers served more time than their comparison cases (8%), but there was still a large group (30%) for whom program intervention made no difference. This was the result of sentences for many comparison cases that were just as lenient as for the ATI cases â&#x20AC;&#x201D; but without the requirement that they participate in an ATI program. Unsuccessful completers served sentences an average of 139 days longer than their comparison group, and over half of their cases resulted in negative displacement.

The other variables represented in Table 10 also affected displacement, though none quite so strongly as program success. Cases in Brooklyn and the Bronx displaced more time, on average (175 and 129 days, respectively), and displaced time for a larger proportion of clients (45% and 46%, respectively), than cases in Manhattan (91 days; 41% positive displacement) and Queens (22 days; 33% positive displacement).

Charge type made some difference in

displacement, with higher mean displacement for cases in which the defendant was charged with a VFO (145 days) compared with drug charges (106 days) or other charges (11 days). On the other hand, a slighter higher proportion of drug cases had some positive displacement (44%, compared to 42% for VFO cases and 35% for all others). In addition, more severe charges displaced more time than less severe charges: average displacement for class-B felonies was 178 days, compared with 35 or fewer days for less severe felonies.

Demographic factors, too, affected displacement. The programs displaced a little more time for males (119 days) than for females (98 days), and for older defendants compared to younger ones. Displacement rose sharply for defendants over the age of 18 (when they would no longer be eligible for YO status), but it also continued to rise beyond that age. Displacement was highest for defendants age 40 and older, for whom the programs displaced an average of 222 days. Judging by the percentage of defendants for whom some time was displaced, rather than by the mean, the programs were more successful for the next-oldest age groups: there was some

- 57 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

displacement for over 50 percent of the 19-to-29-year-olds and the 30-to-39-year-olds, and they had the highest median displacement amounts.

The average displacement for all program

participants aged 19 and older was over 6 months. Age is closely linked to YO-eligibility, shown in the row below age in Table 10: the programs displaced only 65 days, on average, for YO-eligible participants (age 18 and younger with no prior felony conviction or YO adjudication), compared to 176 days for those who were not YO-eligible.

Predicate status is also related to YO-eligibility (predicates are not eligible for YO status), and to displacement. Predicates were not placed in programs very often, but when they were, the average amount of sentence time they displaced per participant was over a year (376 days), and an unusually large proportion of these cases displaced some time (57%).

Detention status leaving arraignment was strongly associated with displacement.

Average displacement for those who were detained was 139 days; for those who were not detained, displacement was a negative 50 days. There was less than one chance in four that a program would displace any time for a defendant who was not detained leaving arraignment.

Finally, the route taken to bring the case to Supreme Court also was a factor in displacement, with higher average displacement for cases in which the defendant waived the right to a Grand Jury hearing and was charged with a Superior Court Information (157 days for SCI cases, compared to 110 days for cases indicted by a Grand Jury). On the other hand, the programs displaced time for only 39 percent of SCI cases, compared to 43 percent of indicted cases.

II.C.1. (b) Displacement by Felony Analytic Group The preceding bivariate analysis identified some of the attributes of cases and defendants associated with relatively high displacement. Some of those attributes â&#x20AC;&#x201D; charge type, YOeligibility, predicate status, filing type, and gender â&#x20AC;&#x201D; were also elements in the definitions of the 18 analytic groups that were used to select comparison cases. By examining displacement separately for each of the analytic groups, we can analyze the joint effect of all five variables.

This is similar to procedures used in multivariate analysis, except that one composite variable is used here to reflect different combinations of values of the five individual variables. The analysis by analytic group shows which combinations resulted in the greatest displacement.

Table 11 presents displacement statistics (means, medians, totals, and percentages with negative, zero, and positive displacement) for each of the analytic groups separately. The effects

- 58 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 11.

Displacement for Felony ATI Programs: By Analytic Group Number of days displaced

Analytic Group

Mean

Median

Total

Number and percent of cases with displacement Negative Zero Positive

1. Drug Treatment Court

N= 38

148.65

0

5,649

15 (40%)

8 (21%) 15 (40%)

2. Juvenile Offender

N= 148

45.51

0

6,736

42 (28%)

56 (38%) 50 (34%)

N= 11

–126.33

0

–1,390

5 (46%)

N= 107

36.54

0

3,910

31 (29%)

5. Non-pred, SCI N= 12

65.32

0

784

2 (17%)

124.93

0

19,489

41 (26%)

39 (25%) 76 (49%)

–65.45

0

–888

16 (30%)

22 (41%) 16 (30%)

414.10

365

15,736

10 (26%)

5 (13%) 23 (61%)

N= 29

100.42

0

2,912

7 (24%)

10. GJ ind., males N= 203

112.83

0

22,905

57 (28%)

61 (31%) 84 (41%)

11. GJ ind., females N= 28

207.73

0

5,816

6 (21%)

9 (32%) 13 (46%)

374.25

226

3,368

0

3 (33%)

336.17

95

27,566

16 (20%)

538.14

704

3,229

1 (17%)

1 (17%)

4 (67%)

123.71

0

1,608

1

(8%)

6 (46%)

6 (46%)

N= 30

–79.15

0

–2,374

13 (43%)

11 (37%)

6 (20%)

17. Non-pred.

N= 42

25.32

0

1,063

12 (29%)

13 (31%) 17 (41%)

209.02

117

1,672

2 (25%)

3. SCI YO-eligible

Drug Charge Not YOeligible

4. GJ ind

6. Non-pred, GJ ind., males N= 156 7. Non-pred, GJ ind, females N= 54 8. Predicate N= 38 9. SCI

YO-eligible

VFO Charge

Not YOeligible

YO-eligible Other Charge Not YOeligible

12. Non-pred., SCI, males N= 9 13. Non-pred., GJ ind.

N= 82 14. Predicate, GJ ind.

N= 6 15. SCI, males N= 13 16. GJ ind.

18. Predicate N=

8

- 59 -

2 (18%)

4 (36%)

1 (29%) 45 (42%) 5 (42%)

16 (55%)

5 (42%)

6 (21%)

6 (67%)

17 (21%) 49 (60%)

2 (25%)

4 (50%)

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

of other variables on some of the results shown in Table 10 can be seen by observing differences in displacement within related subgroups. For example, Table 10 showed that cases with a VFO indictment charge displaced more time than drug or other charges; Table 11 modifies that finding by comparing displacement for the various subgroups within the cases charged with a VFO (analytic groups #9 through #14). Mean displacement was over 100 days within all subgroups of VFOs, but it was much greater if the defendant was not YO-eligible (analytic groups #12, #13, and #14). Non-YO-eligible defendants with a VFO charge were a small subgroup among ATI participants (n=97, or 10% of the felony sample), but the mean displacement for them was well over 300 days, regardless of whether they were predicates or non-predicates, or had reached Supreme Court through an SCI or a Grand Jury indictment. In addition, 60 percent or more of the cases in all three of the VFO, non-YO-eligible analytic groups displaced some sentence time; consequently, their median displacement amounts were unusually high.

Comparing YO-eligible cases (and non-YO-eligible cases) for each charge type shows that controlling for YO-eligibility, the charge type was still strongly associated with displacement. Displacement for YO-eligible VFO cases (analytic groups #9, #10, and #11; displacing 100, 113, and 208 days, respectively) was higher than for their counterparts with drug charges (analytic groups #3 and #4; displacing –126 and 37 days, respectively), and also higher than for their counterparts with other charges (analytic groups #15 and #16; displacing 124 and –79 days, respectively). Likewise, displacement for non-YO-eligible VFO cases (analytic groups #12, #13, and #14; displacing 374, 336, and 538 days, respectively) was higher than for their counterparts with drug charges (analytic groups #6, #7, and #8; displacing 125, –16, and 414 days respectively), and also higher than for their counterparts with other charges (analytic groups #17 and #18; displacing 25 and 209 days respectively).

Predicate status was another variable that was shown in Table 10 to be strongly associated with displacement; the ATI programs displaced more than a year on average for predicate felons, compared to 97 days for non-predicates. Table 11 shows that the same result holds within each charge type: cases with predicate defendants displaced more time than cases with non-predicates for drug cases (analytic group #8, displacing 414 days, compared to analytic groups #5, #6, and #7, all with much lower displacement); for VFO cases (analytic group #14, displacing 538 days, compared to analytic groups #12 and #13); and for cases with other charges (analytic group #18, displacing 209 days, compared to analytic group #17, displacing 25 days).

- 60 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

The bivariate relationship between gender and displacement, as shown in Table 10, suggested that a case with a male defendant displaced more sentence time than a case with a female defendant. However, the data in Table 11 indicate that charge type and YO-eligibility, rather than something inherent in gender, account for the greater overall displacement for cases with male defendants. The ATI programs displaced longer sentences for males if the charge was for a drug offense and the defendant was not YO-eligible (comparing analytic groups #6 and #7, displacing 125 days for males and â&#x20AC;&#x201C;16 days for females). However, if the charge was a VFO and the defendant was YO-eligible, more time was displaced for females (comparing analytic groups #10 and #11, displacing 113 days for males and 208 days for females).

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate graphically some of the information contained in Table 11. In Figure 1, the pie represents the total number of days displaced by the felony ATI programs (117,791 days). The slices show the proportion of the total accounted for by each analytic grouping. All 18 analytic groups could not be individually represented in the pie because some of them had negative displacement amounts, which reduced the total, and therefore could not be represented as a percentage of the total. This problem was circumvented by combining all analytic groups within each category of YO-eligibility. For example, analytic groups #3 and #4 were combined to form the "analytic grouping" Drug charge, YO-eligible; and analytic groups #5 through #8 were combined to form the analytic grouping Drug charge, not YO-eligible.

Analytic groups #15 through #16 were combined into Other charge because a negative amount would not be avoided by combining the two YO-eligible analytic groups (#15 and #16).

Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of ATI cases falling within each analytic grouping.

Some of the analytic groupings displaced far more or less, proportionately, than their distribution in the ATI programs. For example, Juvenile Offender and Drug Charge, YO-eligible cases together accounted for only 8 percent of the total number of days displaced (Fig. 1), yet they constituted 27 percent of the ATI participants (Fig. 2). And VFO charge, not YO-eligible cases accounted for 29 percent of displaced days, yet they constituted only 10 percent of the ATI participants.

The group that accounted for the largest proportion of total displacement was Drug charge, not YO-eligible, responsible for 30 percent of the time displaced. VFO charge, not YOeligible (a higher mean, but fewer cases) was a close second, accounting for another 29 percent.

Together, these two groups accounted for 59 percent of displacement and 36 percent of cases.

- 61 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Figure 1. Felony ATI Programs Proportion of Total Displacement Accounted For By Analytic Grouping

1 Drug Treatment Court (5%)

Other Charge (2%) 7

Juvenile Offender 2 (6%) Drug Charge,3YO-eligible (2%)

VFO Charge, not YO-eligible (29%) 6

Drug Charge, not YO-eligible (30%) 4

VFO Charge,5 YO-eligible (27%)

Figure 2. Felony ATI Programs Proportion of Total Number of Cases Accounted For By Analytic Grouping

Drug Treatment 1.00 Court (4%)

Other 7.00 Charge (9%)

2.00 Juvenile Offender (15%) 6.00 VFO Charge, not YO-eligible (10%)

3.00 YO-eligible (12%) Drug Charge,

5.00 VFO Charge, YO-eligible (26%)

4.00 Drug Charge, not YO-eligible (26%)

- 62 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

II.C.1. (c) Comparisons Between CCSS and ATIIS for Felony Cases In keeping with the parallel structure of the analysis for misdemeanor and felony cases, at this point we should present displacement effects for cases that were mandated under CCSS compared to those mandated under ATIIS. However, we will not do so, because for the felony sample such a comparison would be misleading. The research sample did not include any cases that had exited later than March 2000. The felony programs require 6 months to a year for successful completion; for YAP, which requires a year, even the earliest ATIIS cases (those entering programs in July 1999) could not reach successful completion until July 2000. Cases entering later than September 1999 would not have had time to complete even a 6-month program by March 2000.

The implication of having such a short period for ATIIS cases to enter and exit a program is that unsuccessful exits predominate in this group. As all the previous analyses have shown, the strongest predictor of displacement is successful program completion. CCSS would appear to have a greater displacement effect, but only because the ATIIS participants in the study were primarily the ones who failed within a few months. The ones who stayed to succeed had exit dates too late to be included in the sample.

One could control for successful completion in order to compare CCSS and ATIIS cases, but the number of successful completers was too small for the ATIIS period (N=36) to put much confidence in the results. The mean displacement effect was slightly higher for successful completers who were mandated under CCSS (compared to successful ATIIS cases), but the difference was not statistically significant (not shown).

- 63 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

II.C.2. Results by Felony ATI Program Finally, some comparisons among the different felony programs are in order, to provide individual assessments of the programs’ success in displacing sentence time for their clients. It should be kept in mind that the different programs serve different defendant populations; as all the preceding analyses have demonstrated, displacement varies greatly depending on the characteristics of the participants and cases.

Programs that serve predominantly YOs, for

instance, would not be expected to displace as much time as programs that serve defendants who are not eligible for YO status. Programs that accept predicate felons would be expected to have especially high displacement effects.

II.C.2. (a) Participant Characteristics by Felony ATI Program Figure 3 shows how the seven felony programs compared in terms of (a) program completion success; (b) borough of prosecution; (c) indictment charge type; (d) gender; (e) age; (f) YO-eligibility; (g) predicate status; (h) charging instrument; and (i) entry under CCSS vs.

ATIIS. The clusters of bars represent the number of cases in each category by program. (a) Program Completion Success: Successful and unsuccessful completions are given for the entire sample, and in the smaller bar chart to the right, excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99. For the entire period, successful completers outnumbered unsuccessful ones in CEP, DAMAS, FlameTree, and Freedom. El Rio, Project Return, and YAP had more failures than successes.

However, the picture changes somewhat when we exclude “late mandates”: cases that had less than a year from mandate to the cutoff for data collection. Some programs appear to have less success only because they have more late mandates. The smaller bar chart shows that YAP also had more successes than failures, once late mandates were excluded. El Rio and Project Return still had more failures than successes, but the number of successes rose relative to the number of failures in almost every program when late mandates were excluded. (b) Borough of Prosecution: Brooklyn had higher displacement than other boroughs, and the program with the highest proportion of Brooklyn cases, by far, was YAP. Project Return and El Rio had few or no Brooklyn cases. (c) Indictment Charge Type: Two programs stood out for their very high numbers of VFO cases, which were associated with high displacement: YAP and CEP. El Rio and Project Return took primarily drug cases; DAMAS, FlameTree, and Freedom included a mixture.

- 64 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

(d) Gender: CEP, El Rio, FlameTree, Freedom, and YAP had mostly male participants; DAMAS and Project Return were almost exclusively female. (e) Age: The participants in CEP and YAP were primarily young; participants in Project Return and El Rio were predominantly older; and participants in DAMAS, FlameTree, and Freedom were more evenly balanced between younger and older participants. (f) YO-Eligibility: CEP and YAP had mostly YO-eligible participants; El Rio and Project Return had mostly not-YO-eligible participants; and DAMAS, FlameTree, and Freedom had a mix (but not-YO-eligible participants were in the majority in all three programs). (g) Predicate Status: Non-predicates were in the great majority in all programs. The programs that accepted the most predicates were FlameTree, Freedom, and El Rio. (h) Charging Instrument: Cases indicted by a Grand Jury were in the majority in all programs, but there were SCIs in all programs as well. (i) CCSS/ATIIS: CCSS cases were in the majority in all the programs. Freedom had the largest proportion of CCSS cases, and Project Return had the smallest. Project Return did not start operating until mid-June 1998, which explains why it had comparatively few CCSS cases.

From 20% to 50% of cases in the other programs had already been mandated when Project Return began accepting its first clients.

- 65 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Figure 3.

Attributes of Defendants and Cases by Program (a) Program Completion Success Excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99 (N=779)

200

140

120

100

100

80

60

Completion Success

40

Count

Not successful Successful

0 CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom

Completion Success

20

Not successful

0

Successful CEP

YAP

El Rio DAMAS

FlameTree Project Return

Freedom

YAP

FlameTree Project Return

ATI Program

ATI Program

(b) Borough of Prosecution 140

120

100

80

Borough

60

Brooklyn 40 Manhattan

Count

Count

Successful completio

20

Queens Bronx

0 CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom FlameTree

ATI Program

- 66 -

YAP

Project Return

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Figure 3. (continued) (c) Indictment Charge Type 300

200

Indictment charge

100

Count

Drug VFO Other

0 CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom

YAP

FlameTree Project Return

ATI Program

(d) Gender 400

300

200

Gender

Count

100

Male Female

0 CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom FlameTree

ATI Program

- 67 -

YAP

Project Return

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Figure 3. (continued) (e) Age 400

300

200

Defendant's Age

Count

100

14-18 0

19+ CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom

FlameTree

YAP

Project Return

ATI Program

(f) YO-Eligibility 400

300

200

YO-eligible

Count

100

No 0

Yes CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom FlameTree

ATI Program

- 68 -

YAP

Project Return

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Figure 3. (continued) (g) Predicate Status 400

300

200

Predicate Status

Count

100

Non-predicate 0

Predicate CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom

FlameTree

YAP

Project Return

ATI Program

(h) Charging Instrument 400

300

200

Charging Instrument

Count

100

GJ Indictment 0

SCI CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom

YAP

FlameTree Project Return

ATI Program

- 69 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Figure 3. (continued) (i) CCSS / ATIIS 300

200

100

Count

CCSS/ATIIS CCSS 0

ATIIS CEP

El Rio DAMAS

Freedom FlameTree

YAP

Project Return

ATI Program

The bar charts provide a visual impression of the relative numbers of cases by program in designated categories, but it is sometimes difficult to tell from them how the percentages compare. Table 12 presents the percentage of cases in each program for each of the attributes associated with the highest mean displacement.

Table 12.

Individual Felony ATI Programs: Participant Characteristics Freedom DAMAS FlameTree CEP YAP Project Return El Rio

20

N= N= N= N= N= N= N=

223 66 133 333 145 38 76

Success Rate

Success 20 Rate

Brooklyn

VFO Charge

Male

Age 19+

Not YO Eligible

Predicate Felon

SCI

CCSS

69% 62% 56% 52% 48% 34% 29%

68% 67% 57% 57% 55% 43% 37%

25% 35% 30% 26% 26% 3% 0

41% 35% 35% 58% 98% 5% 5%

100% 5% 99% 93% 90% 5% 86%

75% 70% 59% 4% 1% 92% 92%

77% 71% 65% 9% 1% 92% 95%

8% 8% 14% 1% 1% 11% 15%

15% 9% 9% 13% 8% 18% 25%

94% 85% 91% 82% 93% 68% 87%

Excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99.

- 70 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

II.C.2. (b) Displacement for Individual Felony ATI Programs The displacement effects for the programs presented in Table 13 should be interpreted in conjunction with the programs’ participant profiles. For example, the very high success rate for Freedom (69%), along with the high proportion of participants who were not eligible for YO status (77%), would lead one to guess that this program would have a high displacement effect.

Freedom did, in fact, have the highest mean displacement effect among the seven felony programs: 230 days.

Freedom was the only program that displaced sentence time for the

majority of its participants (53%); it was also the only program with a median displacement greater than zero. Freedom and FlameTree exceeded 120 days mean displacement, the amount required to displace a 6-month sentence. El Rio and DAMAS exceeded 100 days, the amount required to displace a 5-month sentence.

The programs are listed in Table 13 in the order of their success rates, as they were in Table 12. There is some correspondence in the programs’ ranking in terms of success rates and displacement, but it is not exact. El Rio was unusual in that it had the lowest success rate, coupled with relatively high mean displacement.

DAMAS had the second highest success rate (62%), but two other programs had higher mean displacement effects: FlameTree, with a mean displacement effect of 213 days, and El Rio, with a mean displacement effect of 114 days. Displacement for DAMAS was 103 days, which was in the middle — three programs displaced more time, and three displaced less.

Obviously, the success rate did not fully explain differences in displacement, because El Rio had the worst success rate (29%) but a relatively high mean displacement, and a high proportion of cases with positive displacement (49%). Offsetting El Rio’s poor success rate (and the virtual absence of cases with a VFO charge) was a very large percentage of cases with other attributes associated with high displacement: defendants over the age of 18 (92%); defendants who were not YO-eligible (95%); predicate felons (15%); cases that were transferred to Supreme Court by means of an SCI (25%); and cases that entered the program under CCSS (87%).

The program that was least effective in displacing sentence time was Project Return, the only program with negative displacement (–28 days).

Project Return also had the lowest

percentage of cases with positive displacement (26%). This is not easy to explain in terms of the information available to this research. Project Return participants look similar to El Rio on most of the characteristics reported in Table 12 — one difference being that Project Return accepts

- 71 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

mostly women, whereas El Rio participants were 86 percent male. A factor may have been that this was the first year of Project Return, so it may have had startup problems to work through.

Additionally, it may be that the deletion of a third of Project Return's cases from the analysis (all VOP cases were deleted; see Selection of Felony Comparison Groups) biased the results for this program. In any event, the displacement estimate for Project Return should be viewed with caution because the number of participants in the sample was very small.

Table 13.

Individual Felony ATI Programs: Displacement Number of days displaced Freedom DAMAS FlameTree CEP YAP Project Return El Rio

N= N= N= N= N= N= N=

223 66 133 333 145 38 76

Mean 229.95 102.65 213.36 57.09 32.81 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;28.29 114.07

Median 15 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 51,278 6,775 28,377 19,010 4,757 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1,075 8,669

Number and percent of cases with displacement Negative Zero Positive 46 (21%) 60 (27%) 117 (53%) 15 (23%) 22 (33%) 29 (44%) 39 (29%) 32 (24%) 62 (47%) 96 (29%) 111 (33%) 126 (38%) 43 (30%) 54 (37%) 48 (33%) 15 (40%) 13 (34%) 10 (26%) 23 (30%) 16 (21%) 37 (49%)

In presenting the aggregate results for the combined programs, we explained how late mandates (cases mandated to a program after 3/31/99, less than a year before the cutoff date) could unfairly deflate the displacement results by decreasing the chance for successful completion within the time frame of the study. The individual programs were not all affected equally by late mandates, as shown by the success rates given in Table 12 both with and without late mandates. However, displacement for most programs was higher when late mandates were excluded. Table 14 presents mean displacement by program, excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99. Mean displacement was higher for all programs except Freedom and Project Return; and the number of programs displacing over 120 days rose to four: in addition to Freedom and FlameTree, DAMAS and El Rio also displaced over 120 days when clients had at least a year to complete the program.

- 72 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

Table 14.

Individual Felony ATI Programs: Displacement excluding cases mandated after 3/31/99 Freedom DAMAS FlameTree CEP YAP Project Return El Rio

N= N= N= N= N= N= N=

189 48 107 232 125 21 57

Mean 210.99 174.31 294.88 70.55 74.69 –130.53 175.13

II.C.3. Felony Multivariate Analysis In order to ascertain whether the differences among programs were significant when all the other factors that affected displacement were taken into account, we used the multivariate statistical technique of regression analysis. First, we looked for statistically significant bivariate correlations between displacement and the variables considered in the previous analyses (as well as additional ones). Statistically significant correlations were found between displacement and the following variables, listed in the order of the strength of the correlation (the strongest first): •

Successful program completion (associated with greater displacement)

•

Severity of the indictment charge (higher severity was associated with greater displacement)

•

Predicate status (being a predicate was associated with greater displacement)

•

Detention status leaving Criminal Court arraignment (being detained was associated with greater displacement)

•

Age (being older was associated with greater displacement)

•

Being a Freedom participant (associated with greater displacement)

•

CCSS/ATIIS (CCSS cases were associated with greater displacement)

•

YO-eligibility (not being YO-eligible was associated with greater displacement)

•

Being a CEP participant (associated with less displacement)

•

Being a Flametree participant (associated with greater displacement)

•

Queens (Queens cases were associated with less displacement) Note that some of the factors that seemed to affect displacement were not statistically

significant: Brooklyn cases did not have significantly higher mean displacement than other boroughs (although Queens did have significantly less); VFO charges did not have significantly

- 73 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

higher displacement than other charges; and the difference in displacement observed between males and females was not significant, either. Statistical significance is a product of both the size of the difference in mean displacement, and the number of cases; if there were few cases in a group (females, for instance) the difference in displacement would have to be very large for the difference to be statistically significant.

All of the statistically significant variables were entered simultaneously into the regression, with the addition of SCI (whether the filing instrument was an SCI or a Grand Jury indictment). SCI was entered, even though the bivariate correlation was not significant, because of the hypothesis at the outset that the differential treatment afforded SCI cases would affect the sentence, and thus the displacement.

The results, retaining in the model only the variables that were significant in the multivariate analysis, are presented in Table 15.

Table 15.

Regression Model of Displacement for Felony ATI Cases Independent Variables Beta Successful completion 0=no 1=yes Severity of indictment charge 1=A Misdemeanor 2=E Felony 3=D Felony 4=C Felony 5=B Felony 6=A Felony Detained leaving Criminal Court arraignment 0=no 1-yes Predicate status 0=non-predicate 1=predicate SCI 0=not SCI (Grand Jury indictment) 1=SCI 2 Adjusted R = .144

.346*** .139**

.097** .094** .079**

**Statistically significant at p<.01 ***Statistically significant at p<.001

Successful completion was by far the strongest predictor of displacement, as indicated by the standardized coefficient, or Beta (.346). Betas are directly comparable,

- 74 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

so their relative size can be used to assess the importance of each variable in predicting the dependent variable, which is displacement. By this measure, successful completion was more than twice as important in predicting displacement as the next strongest variable, which was charge severity (Beta .139). Next in importance were detention leaving arraignment in Criminal Court (Beta .097) and predicate status (Beta .094).

Finally, the filing of an SCI was also a significant predictor in the final model, even though it had not been significant in the bivariate analysis.

All of the other variables that seemed to affect displacement â&#x20AC;&#x201D; even those with a statistically significant bivariate correlation with displacement â&#x20AC;&#x201D; were not significant, holding other factors constant. The effects of YO-eligibility and age, both apparently strongly associated with displacement, were no longer significant controlling for other factors. Predicate status measures much the same thing as YO-eligibility, and is also closely related to age; this multivariate analysis shows that they did not each exert independent effects, but rather predicate status accounted for most of the effects of the other two variables.

None of the individual programs had any statistically significant effect on displacement, controlling for other factors, nor did the timing of entry into the program (under CCSS or ATIIS). This means that the differences in displacement found from program to program, and the differences between CCSS and ATIIS, can be wholly accounted for by factors such as participant success rates and indictment charge severity.

- 75 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In general, the ATI programs included in this research were quite effective in displacing sentence time for participants who exited the programs during the time frame of the study. The most striking finding was that success in completing the program was the primary factor in determining displacement for both misdemeanor and felony cases. This is in spite of the fact that “success” was not defined consistently from one program to another.

It indicates that

punishment for program failure is not just a threat, but also a reality.

The Misdemeanor ATI Program: CSSP The City’s goal was displacement of a sentence of 20 days, on average, for CSSP participants.

This is the equivalent of a maximum displacement effect of 11 days, after

subtracting the parts of the sentence that would not be displaced (7 days off for good behavior, and 2 days already spent in pretrial detention). Some 20-day sentences could result in far less than 11 days displacement, if the defendant had spent a longer time in pretrial detention.

CSSP displaced 14 days for its clients who successfully completed the program, easily meeting the goal.

This indicates that the clients accepted by CSSP were facing average

sentences slightly longer than 20 days. Not every client was facing a jail sentence; the average was produced by a large minority for whom there was no displacement, combined with slightly over half for whom displacement exceeded 13 days.

There were two primary obstacles to greater displacement for the misdemeanor cases.

Program failure was the first obstacle.

Participants who did not complete the program

successfully (about 28% of the total) tended to get resentenced to substantial jail time, which wiped out much of the displacement benefit. We did not take into account resentences that the comparison cases might have received, so — by penalizing the ATI cases without comparable penalties for the comparison cases — displacement may be underestimated. Be that as it may, resentences lowered the average displacement effect to 2 days.

The other factor that lowered displacement for the misdemeanor cases was the large percentage of cases disposed at arraignment that were accepted by CSSP, at least partially in response to the City’s urging. Cases disposed at arraignment were not facing sentences long enough to displace much time. They also had higher failure rates than the participants whose cases took longer to dispose, which led to negative displacement in every borough for cases

- 76 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

disposed at arraignment when resentences were counted.

On the other hand, CSSP exceeded the goal of 11 days displaced for all cases disposed post-arraignment (13 days if the affidavit charge was a misdemeanor; 32 days if a felony) — even when resentences were used in the calculation.

The Felony ATI Programs The average overall displacement per felony program participant was 116 days, which very nearly equals the maximum displacement effect for a sentence of 6 months, the City’s goal for felony programs. A defendant serving a 6-month sentence and released at the conditional release date would serve 122 days, and at least 2 days of that could not be displaced because it would have been served in pretrial detention. Thus, 120 days is the maximum displacement effect for a 6-month sentence. In most cases, considerably less than 120 days would be displaced because the defendant is likely to have spent much longer than 2 days in pretrial detention.

Sentence time was displaced for about the same proportion of felony participants overall (42%) as for misdemeanor participants. Since more than half of the cases had negative or no displacement, the amounts for those with positive displacement were much higher than the average. The same observation was made in regard to the misdemeanor cases.

If only those cases are considered that had a year or longer in which to complete the program, mean displacement rises to 142 days — nearly equivalent to a 7-month sentence.

Four of the individual felony programs displaced sentences that exceeded the City’s goal, when cases are excluded that had less than a year from mandate to completion: FlameTree, Freedom, El Rio, and DAMAS all displaced the equivalent of sentences longer than 6 months on average, per participant. CEP and YAP displaced the equivalent of sentences longer than 3 months. When cases from the last year are included, displacement averages were somewhat lower for all programs except Freedom and Project Return.

The differences in displacement among programs could be attributed both to the different defendant populations they served, and to their differing success rates. Programs that accepted more serious cases, and older defendants with more serious criminal records tended to displace more sentence time. One program (Project Return) did not displace any sentence time, and in fact had a negative displacement estimate, but we did not place much confidence in these results because of the small number of cases and the large proportion of this program’s cases that were

- 77 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

omitted from the analysis.

Resentences were not counted towards felony displacement.

Most felony program

participants had already exited the program by the time they were sentenced, so the original sentence included the punishment for failure, if any. For the misdemeanor cases, we disregarded resentences in a secondary analysis to evaluate how well the program had targeted clients likely to receive a sentence of a given length; for felony cases, we achieved much the same result by looking only at the successful completions. Displacement for ATI participants who completed the program successfully was 334 days, which greatly exceeded the displacement goal.

Program failure is more of a problem for the felony programs than for CSSP. The misdemeanor participants are required to complete only 10 or 15 days of community service, which 72 percent managed to do successfully. Much more is required of participants in felony programs, which last from 6 months to a year or longer, often involving drug treatment. Only 54 percent of the felony participants were successful; the negative displacement effect for the unsuccessful ones â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the result of long sentences meted out as punishment for failure â&#x20AC;&#x201D; reduced the overall displacement considerably.

Since displacement of jail or prison time has long been an objective of the ATI programs, one that the City supports through its funding, the research reported here fills a need for information about whether displacement is in fact achieved, and how much. This research has established that the programs, together and individually, on average do displace substantial sentence time for their clients. How much time is displaced varies considerably depending on many things, chief among them the success rate of the program. Regardless of the length of the sentences displaced, however, this is only one aspect of the effects that the ATI programs hope to have on the criminal justice system and on their clients. A full evaluation of the programs would require an assessment of many other ways in which the programs affect the lives of their participants, such as their effectiveness in training participants for jobs and in treating drug dependency. Only by measuring such additional aspects of the ATI programs' effects can their value be fully assessed.

- 78 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

CJA / ATIIS Publications The following publications, listed in chronological order of publication, provide detailed information about CJAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work to develop a targeting system for the ATI programs, the operations of the Centralized Court Screening Service (CCSS), the replacement of the CCSS contract with the Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services (ATIIS), and the continuing activities of ATIIS to the present. All reports are available upon request from CJA. Centralized Court Screening Service Fiscal Year 1998 Report. Mary A. Eckert. September 1999.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services Progress Report: Implementation of New ATI Targeting Systems. Mari Curbelo and Mary A. Eckert. September 30, 1999.

Centralized Court Screening Service Fiscal Year 1999 Report. Mary A. Eckert. February 2000.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services First Half Fiscal Year 2000 Six-Month Report.

Mary A. Eckert and Mari Curbelo. March 7, 2000.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2000 Third Quarter Report. Mary A. Eckert and Mari Curbelo. May 15, 2000.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services End-of-Year Report Fiscal Year 2000. Elyse J. Revere and Mari Curbelo. October 31, 2000.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services First Half Fiscal Year 2001 Six-Month Report.

Elyse J. Revere and Mari Curbelo. March 15, 2001.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2001 Third Quarter Report. Elyse J. Revere and Mari Curbelo. June 15, 2001.

Alternative-to-Incarceration Information Services End of Year Report Fiscal Year 2001. Elyse J. Revere and Mari Curbelo. October 31, 2001.

A Cohort Study of Case Characteristics and Outcomes of Participants in Felony ATI Programs.

Elyse J. Revere and Mari Curbelo. June 28, 2002.

Related Research Report Criminal Recidivism Among Felony-Level ATI Program Participants in New York City. Final Report. Jukka Savolainen. Revised August 2002.

- 79 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC

APPENDIX A The Eight Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs Included in the Displacement Study •

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

•

Court Employment Project (CEP) of CASES, which was contracted to provide six months of community-based supervision with in-house educational and vocational services for the 16-to-19-year-old population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of more than six months on a felony conviction.

•

Freedom Program of the Fortune Society, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of community-based supervision with in-house educational and vocational services for the 19-and-older population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

El Rio Day-Treatment Program (El Rio) of the Osborne Association, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of day-treatment substance abuse services to the 18-and-older population residing in upper Manhattan and the Bronx and who were likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

FlameTree Program of the Fortune Society, which was contracted to provide six months to a year of day-treatment substance abuse services to the 18-and-older population residing in lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, and who were likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

Youth Advocacy Project (YAP) of the Center for Community Alternatives, which was contracted to provide a year of community-based supervision and other rehabilitative services to the 13-to-15-year-old population likely to receive an incarcerative sentence of six months or more on a felony conviction.

•

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

•

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

Appendix A - 80 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC APPENDIX B MATCHING PROCEDURES USED IN SELECTION OF COMPARISON CASES MISDEMEANOR CASES The objective of the matching procedure was to pair each ATI participant to a comparison case that was similar in terms of case-processing and defendant characteristics. This was accomplished by means of a two-step process: first, the ATI participants were divided into 12 mutually exclusive analytic groups, based on the timing of the disposition and charge severity.

Pools of similar comparison cases were drawn from the CJA database by selecting all cases that fit the analytic group criteria. Second, an 8-column binary variable was constructed to encode other information about the case and defendant. Then each ATI participant case was matched to a comparison case in the corresponding analytic group, using the binary variable.

(1) Misdemeanor Analytic Groups Pools of cases were drawn from the CJA database (UDIIS) consisting of every case that fit the criteria for one of the 12 analytic groups, for defendants convicted on a misdemeanor charge in Criminal Court between 1/12/98 and 3/20/00 in one of the four boroughs represented by the ATI cases. Cases were deleted from the pool if the same case was in the ATI participant sample, or if sentencing information was missing. Cases arraigned in Community Court were also deleted except from analytic group #6, which was the only analytic group of ATI cases to have any Community Court cases. In addition, cases with a felony disposition charge were deleted (they may have been errors in the database, since felonies should be disposed in Supreme Court; there were none among the ATI participants). The remaining cases constituted the final pools from which comparison cases were selected.

Analytic Group 1.

Disposed at arraignment, Brooklyn

2.

Disposed at arraignment, Manhattan

3.

Disposed at arraignment, Queens

4.

Disposed at arraignment, Bronx

5.

Disposed post-arraignment, Brooklyn Misdemeanor affidavit charge 6. Disposed post-arraignment, Manhattan Misdemeanor affidavit charge 7. Disposed post-arraignment, Queens Misdemeanor affidavit charge 8. Disposed post-arraignment, Bronx Misdemeanor affidavit charge 9. Disposed post-arraignment, Brooklyn Felony affidavit charge 10. Disposed post-arraignment, Manhattan Felony affidavit charge 11. Disposed post-arraignment, Queens Felony affidavit charge 12. Disposed post-arraignment, Bronx Felony affidavit charge

Number of ATI Participants

Number in Initial

Pool of Potential Comparison Cases

Number in Final Pool of Potential Comparison Cases

261

12,267

11,827

359

57,872

46,398

214

7,941

7,645

176

25,175

24,615

187

10,434

9,936

150

14,397

13,661

84

5,295

5,038

125

8,209

7,809

28

3,940

3,470

16

9,048

8,404

10

5,000

4,828

36

11,088

10,749

Appendix B - 81 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC (2) Binary Matching Variable for Misdemeanor Cases The 8-column binary variable coded the type and severity of the disposition charge, the number of open cases at the time of arrest, number of prior felony convictions, number of prior misdemeanor convictions, detention status at Criminal Court arraignment, whether it was the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first arrest, gender, and age.

KEY TO MISDEMEANOR BINARY MATCHING VARIABLE Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

Column 7 Column 8

Disposition charge type and severity:

1 Class-A misdemeanor drug charge 2 Class-B misdemeanor drug charge 3 Class-A misdemeanor non-drug charge 4 Class-B misdemeanor non-drug charge Number of open cases at time of arrest: 0 None 1 One 2 Two or more 9 Unknown Number of prior felony convictions: 0 None 1 One 2 Two 3 Three or more 9 Unknown Number of prior misdemeanor convictions: 1 One or less 2 Two to four 3 Five to 15 4 16 or more 9 Unknown Detention status leaving Criminal Court arraignment: 1 Detained 2 Not detained 7 Disposed at arraignment Was the instant case the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first arrest?

1 Yes 2 No 8 DAT (information was not collected because defendant was issued a Desk Appearance Ticket) 9 Missing Gender: 1 Male 2 Female Age range: 1 19 or younger 2 20 to 24 3 25 to 29 4 30 to 34 5 35 to 39 6 40 to 44 7 45 to 49 8 50+ 9 Missing

Appendix B - 82 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC For each ATI case, the computer program searched the corresponding comparison pool for cases with a matching binary. If more than one case was found in the pool with an exact match, the comparison case was selected at random from among those with an exact match. If no cases were found with an exact match, the computer program searched for a case with a match on every column of the binary except for column 8 (age); the program took the case with the closest match on age. If no case could be found matching on every variable except age, the computer next looked for a match on every variable except gender (column 7). If no case could be found that matched on every variable except age or gender, the computer looked for a case matching on every variable except age and gender. If still no match could be found, the computer looked for a case matching on every variable except first arrest; then on every variable except first arrest and age. Any remaining cases were matched manually. No case from the comparison pool was used as a match for more than one ATI case. The results are given for the misdemeanor sample as a whole and by analytic group.

Results of Matching Procedures for Misdemeanor Sample Analytic Group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Misdemeanor Sample

Exact match

Age not matched

Gender not matched

246 94% 351 98% 202 94% 171 97% 160 86% 137 91% 61 74% 106 85% 21 78% 14 88% 9 90% 36 100%

12 5% 5 1% 9 4% 3 2% 23 12% 13 9% 16 19% 15 12% 6 22% 1 6% 1 10%

1 <1% 1 <1%

1514 92%

Age and gender not matched

First arrest not matched

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 1%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 1% 1 1%

1 1%

0

0

0

First arrest and age not matched 1 <1% 0

Manually matched 1 <1% 2 1%

3 1% 1 1% 2 1%

0

0

0 3 4%

2 2%

1 1% 1 1%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 6%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

104 6%

5 <1%

1 <1%

2 <1%

9 1%

8 1%

Appendix B - 83 -

0

1 1%

0

Totals

261 100% 359 100% 214 100% 176 100% 186 100% 150 100% 83 100% 125 100% 27 100% 16 100% 10 100% 36 100% 1643 100%

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC Details are given below regarding the 8 cases that were manually matched.

Analytic group

ATI case binary code

Comparison case binary code

1

11132216

11137216

2

30142224

30147224

2

39997814

39997914

5

40242225

40342226

7

11032218

11022223

7

50321214

50311215

7

40341218

40331218

10

52211214

51221214

Mismatch on: Detention status (both ATI and comp disposed at arraignment) Detention status (both ATI and comp disposed at arraignment) First arrest (unknown for both ATI and comp case, but for different reasons) Number of prior felony convictions; age Number of prior misdemeanor convictions; gender; age Number of prior misdemeanor convictions; age Number of prior misdemeanor convictions Number of open cases; Number of prior misdemeanor convictions

After the matching procedures were finished and each ATI case was paired with a comparison case, it was discovered that three ATI participants who had not received YO status were matched with a YO comparison case. This presented a problem because the non-YO ATI participant would be subject to more severe sentencing guidelines, and thus displacement would be underestimated. (In checking YO status, we also discovered that the one ATI participant who had received YO status was paired with a comparison defendant who had also received YO status; this presented no problem.) With more time we might have been able to select substitute comparison cases for these three ATI cases; given the time constraints, however, our only option was to drop the three cases from the analysis (leaving 1,643 cases for the analysis). The three dropped cases, which were in analytic groups #5, #7, and #9, are not included in the chart showing the results of the matching procedures.

FELONY CASES Procedures for the felony cases paralleled those for the misdemeanor cases. The felony analytic groups were defined differently from the misdemeanor groups, and the binary variable was constructed differently, but the same steps were followed to match every ATI case with a comparison case from the corresponding analytic group.

(1) Felony Analytic Groups All cases that fit the criteria for one of the 18 analytic groups and had a final disposition in Supreme Court between 1/01/98 and 3/31/00 in the four largest boroughs of New York were drawn from UDIIS into initial pool files, one for each of the analytic groups. Analytic group #1, â&#x20AC;&#x153;drug treatment courtâ&#x20AC;?, was defined operationally as any case disposed in one of the drug treatment courts in Manhattan or the Bronx, because ATI clients in the sample came from drug

Appendix B - 84 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC courts in these boroughs.1 Analytic group #2, “juvenile offenders,” was defined operationally as a case that fit all of the following criteria: the defendant was age 14 or 15 at arrest, the top arrest charge was a JO charge,2 the first two digits of the defendant’s NYSID number were “28”,3 and the defendant received one of the CJA recommendation categories assigned to JOs.4 The chart below shows the number of cases in each initial pool, and the number remaining after cases with missing data were deleted.

Analytic Group 1.

Drug Treatment Court

2.

Juvenile Offender

3.

Drug charge, YO-eligible, SCI

4.

Drug charge, YO-eligible, GJ

5.

8.

Drug charge, Not YO-eligible, non-predicate, SCI Drug charge, Not YO-eligible, non-predicate, GJ, males Drug charge, Not YO-eligible, non-predicate, GJ, females Drug charge, Not YO-eligible, predicate

9.

Number of ATI Participants

Number in Initial

Pool of Potential Comparison Cases

Number in Final Pool of Potential Comparison Cases

38

5886

5059

148

548

413

11

577

421

107

1824

1593

12

2710

1937

156

8789

8023

54

1639

1387

38

12,833

10,706

VFO charge, YO-eligible, SCI

29

621

544

10. VFO charge, YO-eligible, GJ, males

203

2386

1975

28

202

157

9

817

762

82

5126

4781

6

3522

3371

13

531

496

30

435

388

42

5400

5098

8

3716

3500

6.

7.

11. VFO charge, YO-eligible, GJ, females 12. VFO charge, Not YO-eligible, non-predicate, SCI, males 13. VFO charge, Not YO-eligible, non-predicate, GJ 14. VFO charge, Not YO-eligible, predicate, GJ 15. Other charge, YO-eligible, SCI, males 16. Other charge, YO-eligible, GJ 17. Other charge, Not YO-eligible, nonpredicate 18. Other charge, Not YO-eligible, predicate 1

The drug treatment court parts represented in the ATI sample were MTC, N-SCT, and TC. JOs must be charged with one of the following: aggravated sexual abuse (PL 130.70); arson-1 (PL 150.20); arson2 (PL 150.15); assault-1 (PL 120.10); burglary-1 (PL 140.30); burglary-2 (PL 140.25); kidnapping-1 (PL 135.25); attempted kidnapping-1 (PL 110-135.25); manslaughter-1 (PL 125.20); murder-2 (PL 125.25); attempted murder-2 (PL 110-125.15); rape-1 (PL 130.35); robbery-1 (PL 160.15); robbery-2 (PL 160.10); sodomy-1 (PL 130.50); criminal possession of a weapon-3 near a school (PL 265.02); criminal possession of a weapon-2 near a school (PL265.03).

3 JOs are given NYSID numbers beginning with “28.” If the juvenile is rearrested as an adult, he or she is assigned a new NYSID number that does not begin with “28.”

4 Virtually all arrestees who are held for arraignment in an adult court in New York City are interviewed by CJA staff for the purpose of collecting community ties information, which is used to make a release recommendation to the arraignment judge. JO recommendations are based on different criteria from those used for adults.

2

Appendix B - 85 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC Cases were deleted from the initial pool if the transfer from Criminal Court to Supreme Court was missing from the appearance history, or if the indictment charge, sentence type, or length of imprisonment was missing. Additionally, cases were deleted if they were disposed in a drug treatment court in Brooklyn or Queens (court parts BTC, QTC, and QDT), because the ATI programs did not get any cases from those court parts and such cases would not have been appropriate comparison cases. Finally, for all groups except analytic group #2, cases were deleted if the defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s age was less than 16. The remaining cases constituted the final pools from which the felony comparison cases were selected.

(2) Binary Matching Variable for Felony Cases A 6-column binary variable was used to match felony ATI cases with comparison cases.

It coded the borough of prosecution, the severity class of the top charge at Supreme Court arraignment, the existence of open cases at the time of arrest (yes/no), detention status at Criminal Court arraignment, gender, and age. The number of prior felony convictions was not included because that aspect of a defendantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s criminal history was covered by the definitions of analytic groups, which included whether the defendant was a predicate (with a prior felony conviction) or non-predicate (no prior felony conviction). Charge type was not included because the analytic groups were defined according to whether the indictment charge was a drug offense, violent felony offense, or other charge.

KEY TO BINARY MATCHING VARIABLE FOR FELONY CASES Column 1

Column 2

Column 3 Column 4

Column 5 Column 6

Borough:

1 Brooklyn 2 Manhattan 3 Queens 4 Bronx Severity class of the top indictment charge: 1 Class-A felony 2 Class-B felony 3 Class-C felony 4 Class-D felony 5 Class-E felony 6 Any misdemeanor 7 Violation or infraction 9 Unknown or missing Open cases at time of arrest?

1 Yes (one or more) 2 No 9 Unknown Detention status leaving Criminal Court arraignment: 1 Detained 2 Not detained 7 Missing Gender: 1 Male 2 Female Age range: 1 14 or 15 2 16 to 18 3 19 to 29 4 30 to 39 5 40+ Appendix B - 86 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC For each ATI case, a computer program searched the corresponding comparison pool for cases with a matching binary. If more than one case was found in the pool with an exact match, the comparison case was selected at random from among those with an exact match. If no cases were found with an exact match, the computer searched for a case matching in every respect except on age; the case with the closest match in age was selected. If no case could be found matching on every variable except age, the computer searched for a case matching in every respect except on gender. If no case could be found that matched on every variable except age or gender, the computer searched for a case matching on everything except age and gender. (No additional matches were found on that step.) If no match could be found after all of the previous steps had been taken, a comparison case was selected manually as the next-best match for the remaining ATI cases. No comparison case was used as a match for more than one ATI case.

Results of Matching Procedures for Felony Sample Analytic Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total Felony Sample ATI Program CEP DAMAS El Rio FlameTree Freedom Project Return YAP

Exact match

Age not matched

Gender not matched

Manually matched

100% 86% 73% 96% 92% 100% 96% 100% 86% 97% 96% 100% 98% 83% 85% 87% 98% 100%

0 4 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

962

95%

16

2%

7

1%

0

29

3% 1014 100%

314 63 75 129 218

94% 96% 99% 97% 98%

5 1 1 1 5

2% 2% 1% 1% 2%

2 1 0 1 0

1% 2%

0 0 0 0 0

12 1 0 2 0

4% 2%

36

95%

0

2

5%

0

0

127

88%

3

1

1%

0

14

3% 8% 2% 3% 2%

10%

2%

1% 9% 1%

7%

1% 17%

1%

Appendix B - 87 -

0 16 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0

Totals

38 127 8 103 11 156 52 38 25 197 27 9 80 5 11 26 41 8

3%

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

Age and gender not matched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11% 18%

2% 3% 1% 4% 1% 15% 3% 2%

2%

38 148 11 107 12 156 54 38 29 203 28 9 82 6 13 30 42 8

333 66 76 133 223

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

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

38 100% 10%

145 100%

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC Details are given below regarding the 29 felony cases that were manually matched.

Analytic group 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 7 9 10 10 10 11

ATI case binary code 231211 132111 149111 132111 132111 132221 129221 131111 132111 132111 132113 132111 232111 231211 139111 132111 522112 142112 562125 321112 232912 321912 321912 222122

Comparison case binary code 232211 232111 141111 232111 232111 232221 122221 531111 332111 332111 532111 332111 332111 231111 131111 232111 122112 342122 261124 322112 232112 321112 321112 122122

13

.

142113

15 15 16 17

392112 541212 232122 522114

352112 542212 132122 222114

Mismatch on: Open cases Borough Open cases (ATI case missing data) Borough Borough Borough Open cases (ATI case missing data) Borough Borough Borough Borough Borough Borough Detention status Open cases (ATI case missing data) Borough Borough Borough Borough, open cases, age Open cases Detention status (ATI case missing data) Detention status (ATI case missing data) Detention status (ATI case missing data) Borough (ATI case a direct indictment; not assigned a binary because of missing data) Charge severity (ATI case missing data) Open cases Borough Borough

When the matching procedures had been completed, some inappropriate matches were discovered that led to some substitutions for comparison cases selected by the computer program, and the deletion of some cases.

One problem concerned Youthful Offenders (YOs) in the Drug Treatment Court and JO analytic groups. YO-eligibility had not been included in the binary matching variable because it was covered by the definitions of most of the analytic groups; however, YO-eligibility was not controlled for in the definitions of the first two analytic groups. As a result, some YOs were paired with non-YOs among the drug treatment court cases and the juvenile offenders. A total of Appendix B - 88 -

Estimating Jail Displacement for ATI Programs in NYC five ATI cases in these two analytic groups had been mismatched in terms of YO-eligibility. A manual search was done for a substitute case from the comparison pool with a matching binary, as well as a match on YO-eligibility. The original comparison case was then replaced by the substitute comparison case in the research file.

The second problem was potentially more serious. It was discovered when we noticed that some comparison cases received exceptionally long sentences, compared to their ATI matched cases. For some, the reason was that the ATI case and the comparison case were sentenced under different sentencing laws. The cases had been drawn so that dispositions occurred during the same time frame, but we did not match on offense date, which governs the applicable sentencing law. Defendants convicted of a violent felony offense committed after September 1, 1998, are subject to a determinate sentence; those convicted of a violent felony offense committed before that date (and after October 1, 1995) could not receive a determinate sentence unless they were predicates. For the earlier arrests, the only incarcerative sentence type possible for a nonpredicate was an indeterminate sentence. A determinate sentence was likely to result in a longer calculated sentence length than a comparable indeterminate sentence because the good time allowance for a determinate sentence is only one-seventh off the sentence length, compared to one-third off the maximum of an indeterminate sentence.

There were 45 ATI cases in the felony sample that were paired with a comparison case that was not a good match because one of the pair received a determinate sentence while the other received an indeterminate sentence under a different sentencing law. Sufficient time did not exist to hand-select 45 substitute comparison cases, so the 45 cases were dropped from the analysis. Dropping the cases reduced the size of the sample only slightly, while increasing the confidence we have in the results.

Finally, 9 additional cases were dropped from the analysis as a result of our close examination of the few comparison cases with exceptionally long sentences, including a maximum of life in prison. Because of factors that were not accounted for by the matching variables (such as the severity and nature of other arrests), these cases seemed very unlike cases that the ATI programs would accept. Retaining them in the analysis would have greatly increased the displacement estimates, but unfairly. Again, with more time at our disposal we could probably have found substitute comparison cases, but our only option in order to meet deadlines was to drop them from the analysis.

Appendix B - 89 -