CJA
NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY
Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SCHEMES IN NEW YORK CITY: A PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D. Project Director
FINAL REPORT December 2003
52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007
(646) 213-2500
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SCHEMES IN NEW YORK CITY: A PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
Qudsia Siddiqi, Ph.D. Project Director
Elizabeth Walton Senior Research Assistant Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Elyse Revere Junior Research Analyst
Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst Bernice Linen-Reed Administrative Associate
Š2003 NYC Criminal Justice Agency December 2003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author extends special thanks to Marian Gewirtz, Senior Research Analyst, for supervising the extraction of the Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset. The author would also like to thank Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director of CJA, and Dr. Richard Peterson, Director for Research at CJA, for their helpful suggestions. The author is also grateful to the project staff for their contributions: Elizabeth Walton, Raymond Caligiure, Elyse Revere and Wayne Nehwadowich.
Thanks to Bernice Linen-Reed
for her administrative assistance. Finally, the author would like to thank the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for providing supplemental criminal history data. DCJS bears no responsibility for the methods of analysis used in this report or its conclusions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 I. Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme............................................................7 II. New Recommendation Scheme .........................................................................8 III METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................11 A. Sampling and Data Sources ...............................................................................11 B. Research Design ................................................................................................14 IV. RESULTS ...........................................................................................................17 A. Defendant Characteristics ..................................................................................17 B. Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by pretrial FTA ........................23 C. New Recommendation Scheme by Pretrial FTA ................................................23 D. Applying the New Recommendation Scheme to all Cases Arraigned: Citywide and Borough Distributions...................................................................26 E. Judicial Release Decision at Arraignment .........................................................33 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................38 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 41
LIST OF TABLES Table 1
New Recommendation Scheme...................................................................10
Table 2
New Pointscale Stamps for Adult Defendants ............................................12
Table 3
Arraignment Outcome ................................................................................15
Table 4
Release Status for Cases Adjourned at Arraignment .................................16
Table 5
Characteristics of Defendants Released Pretrial Regardless of Court of Disposition: A Comparison of the 2002 at-risk Sample with the 2001 at-risk Sample..............................................................................................18
Table 6
Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Actual Numbers) ..........................................................24
Table 7
New CJA Recommendation by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Projected Numbers) .....................................................................25
Table 8
A Comparison of the Alternative Risk-Classification Scheme with Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme: The Difference in the Number and FTA Rate of Low-, Moderate-, and High Risk Defendants ................................................................................................27
Table 9
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned: First Quarter of 2001 Dataset................28
Table 10
New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All cases Arraigned First Quarter of 2001 Dataset..................................................29
Table 11
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset .............30
Table 12
New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset ................................................31
Table 13
Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: First Quarter of 2001 Dataset........................34
Table 14
New CJA Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: First Quarter of 2001 Dataset........................35
ii
Table 15
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset .....36
Table 16
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment: Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset ......................37
iii
AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXISTING AND NEW PRETRIAL RELEASE RECOMMENDATION SCHEMES IN NEW YORK CITY: A PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS Introduction The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA) makes pretrial releaseon-recognizance (ROR) recommendations for defendants arrested in New York City and held for arraignment in the lower court (Criminal Court).
The recommendation is
submitted to the arraigning judge who makes the first release decision, as well as to the prosecutor and defense attorney.
Although Section 510.30 of the New York State
Criminal Procedure Law permits judges to consider many factors including a defendant’s community-ties, prior criminal record, the seriousness of the offense, previous record of flight, and the weight of the evidence against the defendant, in their pretrial release (and bail) decisions, CJA’s existing release recommendation scheme was based solely upon a defendant's ties to the community, leaving to the arraignment judge consideration of all other factors from other sources. Defendants having strong community ties were considered “good risks” to return for scheduled court appearances. Through interviews with arrestees and verification of the information they provided with a third party, CJA determined a defendant’s risk by assigning “points” for specific community ties found in previous research to distinguish defendants who were more likely to appear at subsequent court dates from those less likely to appear. The points were then summed to arrive at the recommendation category assigned to the defendant. The existing point scale was based on research that was validated in 1974 (Lazarsfeld, 1974). This validation was based solely on Brooklyn data and looked only at risk of flight in Criminal Court. In the years since this research, CJA’s standard reports continued to show that those defendants recommended for release on recognizance and actually released at arraignment were less likely to fail to appear in Criminal Court than those
not recommended, even for defendants prosecuted in the other counties comprising the city.1 However, the existing point scale may not be valid for determining flight risk for Supreme Court (upper court) defendants and, given the length of time that had elapsed since the last validation, the point scale could no longer be considered the best statistical scheme even for the Criminal Court. Furthermore, in considering only the defendant's community ties, the relationship between other factors (such as a defendant's criminal history and the type of top arrest charge) and pretrial failure to appear (FTA) was unknown. To address these concerns, CJA began a research project with three major objectives: 1) to assess the predictive ability of the existing point scale; 2) to identify other predictors of FTA; and 3) to formulate other alternative risk-classification schemes based on potentially new predictors.
The study used a random sample of 15,359 arrests that were made in the five boroughs comprising the New York City area in 1989. The study found that although the existing scheme differentiated defendants on risk of flight, there was room for improvement. Therefore, a number of statistical models were developed. The best model from that analysis was used to develop a point scale by assigning points to all of the significant variables. It contained information on a defendant’s community ties, criminal history, and the type of top arrest charge. The 1989 model was statistically validated on the 1998 and 2001 samples of defendants (Siddiqi, 2000, 2002).
All of the variables that were significant in the
construction sample remained significant in the validation samples. However, for some of the variables, changes were observed in the magnitude of the relationship. The point scale was adjusted to address those changes. Furthermore, changes were also made to
1 CJA has a Semi-Annual Report series beginning in 1980, which supports this statement.
-2-
address policy concerns.2 To be specific, the variable reflecting the type of top arrest charge was excluded from the point scale. The re-adjusted scale was used to develop a new risk classification scheme. The new scheme categorized defendants into low, medium, and high risk. The cutting scores were chosen by considering a number of criteria. The first criterion was to create subgroups of defendants, which would have different average FTA rates and as such represent different risk levels. The second criterion was setting a target proportion of defendants to be recommended for ROR. It was agreed that the proportion of defendants in the low-risk category of the new scheme should be higher than that under the current scheme, without increasing the FTA rate for that category. Finally, the FTA rates under the current scheme were used as a guide to classify defendants as low risk. The FTA rates for individual points comprising the low-risk group should not exceed the average FTA rate for the recommended category of the current scheme. The cutting scores for the moderate-risk category were guided by the criterion that its FTA rate should be considerably higher than the FTA rate of the low-risk category. The logistic regression model used to develop the new point scale did not control for the effect of ethnicity and therefore, could result in misclassification of minority defendants. To illustrate, in the new point scale defendants having a telephone in the residence/cellular phone were less likely to FTA and would earn points on the scale. Now, let us assume that the telephone variable was significantly correlated with ethnicity; blacks and Hispanics were less likely to have a telephone in the residence/cellular phone than white defendants. If the effect of ethnicity were not controlled in the logistic 2When controlling for other variables in the model, the type of top arrest charge was a significant predictor
of FTA. Defendants arrested for property, drug, criminal mischief, and VTL (Violation of Traffic Law, excluding DWI offenses) offenses were more likely to FTA than the mean effect of that variable and would score negative points on the new scale. In contrast, defendants arrested for gambling or driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol were less likely to fail and would score positive points. Concern was expressed over assigning positive points to those defendants. CJA decided to assign zero points to defendants arrested for gambling and DWI offenses. However, even with this change, Criminal Court judges suggested that this variable be excluded. As a result of this suggestion, and because of difficulties in operationalizing, this variable was excluded from the final scale.
-3-
regression model, blacks and Hispanics would lose points because of their relationship with the telephone variable. The same could be said about the other community ties variables in the scale. Additional analysis was conducted to determine whether this was an issue for the new recommendation scheme. The analysis showed that in the 2001 at-risk sample, the proportion of defendants having a telephone in the residence/cellular phone was slightly higher for white defendants (84%) than for black (76%) and Hispanic defendants (70%). The same was true for being engaged in a full time activity; white defendants had slightly higher rates (59%) than black (52%) and Hispanic (54%) defendants. In contrast, white defendants had the lowest proportion expecting someone at arraignment (33% for whites, 38% for blacks and 42% for Hispanics). The three groups did not differ with respect to having a New York City area address. Although these differences were not substantial, the final logistic regression model was re-estimated with ethnicity as an additional control variable. All of the variables that were statistically significant in the original model remained significant in the re-estimated model. Ethnicity was also found to be a significant predictor of pretrial FTA.
When controlling for the other variables in the model, black and Hispanic
defendants were more likely to FTA than those with the mean effect of the variable. In contrast, white defendants were less likely to FTA than defendants with the mean effect of that variable. Points were assigned to all significant variables in the re-estimated model.3 These points were identical to those computed for the original model, suggesting that the exclusion of ethnicity did not make the point scale biased. The new recommendation scheme had several advantages over the existing recommendation scheme. Firstly, it took into consideration a defendant’s community ties and criminal history. The existing scheme, on the other hand, assessed a defendant’s risk 3
For policy reasons, no points were assigned to the ethnicity variable.
-4-
of flight based solely on his/her ties to the community. Secondly, the new scheme was based on research that was conducted on a citywide sample of defendants. The existing scheme was based on research that was conducted on a sample of Brooklyn defendants only. Thirdly, the new scheme would identify the at-risk population regardless of the court of disposition. The existing CJA recommendation, by contrast, was limited in its application; it identified the at-risk population exclusively in Criminal Court.
Finally,
relative to the existing CJA recommendation scheme, the new scheme would classify a substantially higher proportion of defendants as low risk, while keeping their FTA rate at the same level. The new risk-classification scheme was presented to criminal justice practitioners for their feedback. In those meetings, concern was expressed over the reliability of the “open case” variable. CJA interviewers use the rap sheet to record the number of open cases on the interview form. Several judges and defense attorneys believed that the information on rap sheet is often inaccurate, as many of the open cases are no longer open at the time of the CJA interview. Defendants would then lose points due to inaccurate information. Suggestions were also made to limit the prior FTA information to ten years prior to the sample arrest.4 To address these concerns, the two variables were further examined. Based on the findings from that analysis, the value for the open case variable was reduced from two points to one point in the final scale.5 No changes were
4
The prior FTA variable provides an overall count of failure to appear prior to the sample arrest. It also includes post-disposition and post-sentencing warrants. Out of state warrants and warrants issued on summon appearances (SAP) are excluded from this count. 5In that analysis, it was assumed that half of the defendants with open cases did not actually have an open case at the time of arraignment. A new “open case” variable was computed by randomly selecting 50 percent of the defendants with open cases and assigning them a value of zero (no open case). This new variable was substituted with the original variable and the final model was re-estimated. The new opencase variable was also a significant predictor of pretrial FTA. Furthermore, the value of the points assigned to the revised variable did not change. Since it was not known which defendants were incorrectly identified as having an open case, the values for the revised open case variable were flipped. Defendants who had at least one open case both in the original and the revised variable were collapsed with defendants having no open cases. The remaining half of the defendants who were assigned a value of zero were recoded as having one open case. When included in the logistic regression model, the variable was still significant. However, the point value decreased to one point.
-5-
made to the prior FTA variable.6 In January of 2003, the new scheme was presented to the Criminal Justice Cocoordinator, and at his recommendation, the cutting scores for the moderate-risk group were slightly altered. The new recommendation scheme was implemented citywide on June 30, 2003. Pre- and post implementation analyses will be conducted to assess its performance. These analyses will attempt to answer the following research questions: 1. Is the the performance of new recommendation better than the existing scheme in terms of classifying more defendants as low risk, while keeping their FTA rate at the existing level? 2. Since the implementation of the new recommendation scheme, has there been any shift in existing judicial release/detention practices? The pre-implementation analysis will provide information about the performance of the existing recommendation scheme and projected distributions for the new recommendation scheme. Furthermore, judges’ release decisions at arraignment will be examined. These distributions will be compared with the actual distributions obtained from the post-implementation data. The report is organized into five sections. The first two sections describe the existing and new recommendation schemes. The third section presents the research methodology. The last two sections report the findings and conclusions.
6The
analysis of the prior FTA variable at a 10 year cut point revealed that its effect on pretrial FTA was similar to that for the FTA at any time prior to the sample arrest; after rounding, both would yield five points to a defendant’s total score on the new point scale. Therefore, for practical reasons, the original variable was kept in the point scale; recording this information would be easier and faster.
-6-
I. Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme The existing CJA release recommendation scheme for adult defendants (16 years of age or older) in 2002 was based upon a defendant's ties to the community. The scheme included the following items: 1. whether there was a working telephone in the defendant's residence; 2. whether the defendant had resided at his or her current address for one and one-half years or longer; 3. whether the defendant expected someone (other than the complainant or defense attorney) at Criminal Court arraignment; 4. whether the defendant lived with a parent(s), spouse, common-law spouse, grandparent, or legal guardian; 5. whether the defendant was employed, in school, or in a job-training program (or some combination of these) full time; 6. whether the defendant's address was in the New York City area (the five boroughs of the City, and Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties). With the exception of expecting someone at arraignment, there were five possible outcomes for each question: "yes," "yes verified," "no," "no verified," or "unresolved conflict." The "yes" and "no" outcomes indicated that the defendant's response had not been verified.
The "yes verified" and "no verified" outcomes were used when the
information provided by the defendant had been verified through a third-party contact. “Unresolved conflict� meant that the information provided by the defendant in the interview did not match the information given by the verifier and attempts to resolve the conflict were unsuccessful. Expecting someone at arraignment had only "yes" and "no" responses. The recommendation was comprised of four main categories, two of which had subcategories, as follows: 1. "Recommended": Verified Community Ties (defendant needed a verified New York City area address, and items 2, 4, or 5 verified, and at least two other true items); -7-
2. "Qualified": Unverified Community Ties (defendant had an unverified New York City area address and had three other items assessed in the affirmative); 3. No Recommendation due to: A. Insufficient community ties (less than three items were answered affirmatively) B. Residence outside the New York City area C. Conflicting residence information (defendant and verifier did not agree) D. Incomplete interview; 4. No Recommendation due to: A. Open bench warrant attached to the New York State criminal history sheet B. Criminal history not available C. Bail jumping charge D. For Information Only: murder charge. The first three categories summarized the strength of the defendant’s communityties. The fourth category of the risk-assessment scheme primarily consisted of excluding from the ROR recommendation those defendants who had demonstrated their inability to attend scheduled court appearances on a previous, pending case or those for whom the absence of a rap sheet precluded ascertaining that information. Defendants were also excluded if arrested on a bail jumping offense, which may be charged in New York State after a defendant does not return to court for thirty days or more after failing to appear while on bail or ROR. Previous failures to appear, for which the defendant returned to court and the warrant was vacated, did not preclude ROR recommendation on a new arrest.
II. New Recommendation Scheme As mentioned previously, CJA’s new recommendation scheme is based on a defendant’s ties to the community and criminal history. As with the existing scheme, all items appear in question format. They appear on the interview form as follows: 1. Does defendant report a NYC area address? 2. Does defendant have a working telephone/cellular phone in his or her residence?
-8-
3. Is defendant employed, or in school, or training program full time? 4. Does defendant expect someone at arraignment? 5. Does the prior bench warrant count equal zero? 6. Does the open case count equal zero? Questions 1 through 4 were also part of the existing recommendation scheme. Questions 5 through 6 are new additions to the recommendation scheme and have only two response options: “Yes” and “No.” Under the new recommendation scheme, points are assigned to a defendant’s response to the items on the scale. The point values are displayed in the boxes located to the right of the point-scale questions and the ROR interviewers are asked to circle the appropriate values. The points associated with each response option are shown in Table 1. As can be seen from the table, the prior bench warrant question is the strongest contributor to a defendant’s total score; defendants with a prior bench warrant will have five points subtracted from their total scores, whereas defendants with no history of failure to appear will have five points added. Living at a New York City area address is also a strong contributor to a defendant’s total score on the point scale; defendants categorized as “Yes, Verified” will have three points added to their point-scale scores. Defendants with a negative response (“No” or “No, Verified”) to that question will lose two points. The points for each column are summed to obtain column totals. The subtotal for the positive points is obtained by summing up the totals for the “Yes” and “Yes, Verified” columns. Similarly, the subtotal for the negative points is obtained by adding points for the “No,” “No, verified” and “Unresolved Conflict” responses. A defendant’s total score is calculated by subtracting the negative subtotal from the positive subtotal. If the negative subtotal is higher than the positive subtotal, a negative sign is assigned to a defendant’s total score. A defendant’s total score can range from -12 to 12 points and is used to determine CJA’s new release recommendation. -9-
Table 1: New Recommendation Scheme
1 Does the defendant have a working telephone in his or her residence? 2 Does the defendant report a NYC area address? 3 Is the defendant employed, or in school, or training program, full 4 Does the defendant expect someone at arraignment? 5 Does the prior bench warrant count equal zero? 6 Does the open case count equal zero? Subtotals (Y+YV), (N+NV+UC)
Yes
Yes Verified
No
No Verified
Unresolved Conflict
1
1
-2
-2
0
0
3
-2
-2
0
1
1
-1
-1
-2
1
-1
5
-5
1
-1
Total Score (Y+YV) - (N+NV+UC)
-10-
The new recommendation scheme classifies defendants into four categories, which are as follows: A. Recommended for ROR; B. Moderate Risk for ROR; C. Not Recommended for ROR due to: 1. Open bench warrant attached to the New York State criminal history sheet 2. Bail jumping charge 3. Conflicting Residence Information 4. High Risk for FTA; C. No Recommendation due to: 1. No NYSID available 2. For information only 3. Interview Incomplete The first two categories (A and B) and fourth subcategory of category C are based on a defendant’s total score on the point scale. Table 2 presents those categories and their corresponding scores. In order to receive a “Recommended for ROR” stamp, a defendant needs seven or more points. This is the CJA’s highest positive rating for ROR recommendation.
Defendants with scores ranging from three to six points receive
the second highest recommendation, Moderate Risk for ROR. Defendants scoring less than three points are considered high risk and are not recommended for ROR. The third and fourth categories of the new recommendation scheme reflect policy exclusions, with the exception of C4. Defendants with missing information on an item do not receive a recommendation.
III. METHODOLOGY A. Sampling and Data Sources Data for the pre-implementation analysis were drawn from a cohort of arrests made in the third quarter of 2002 (July 1 through September 30, 2002). The data set
-11-
Table 2: New Pointscale Stamps for Adult Defendants
STAMP
POINTS
A.
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
+7 Points to +12 Points
B.
MODERATE RISK FOR ROR
+3 Points to +6 Points
C.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR Bench Warrant Attached to NYSID Bail-Jumping Charge Conflicting Residence Information High Risk for FTA
D.
NO RECOMMENDATION No NYSID Available For Information Only Interview Incomplete
-12-
+2 Points to –12 Points
excludes cases that were not docketed in the CJA database (UDIIS), unless there was an indication that they were prosecuted as “A” dockets in Manhattan, or as direct indictments (cases for which prosecution information is not available in CJA’s database).7 The data set contained 86,997 docketed arrests. The arrest volume was slightly lower than that for the first quarter of 2001 (91,728). Six percent of the arrestees were given Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs). The remaining 94 percent were held for arraignment in Criminal Court (summary arrests). Since CJA does not make recommendations for defendants with DATs, they were excluded from the analysis. The primary data source was the CJA database.8 The Criminal Court data were tracked through May 6, 2003.9 By that time, 98 percent of the cases had reached a disposition in Criminal Court. The Supreme Court data were extracted on June 16, 2003. Approximately 20 percent of the cases had not reached final outcomes by that date. Warrant information for these incomplete cases was updated on October 10, 2003. By this date, most of these cases had reached a disposition in Supreme Court. The criminal history information was supplemented with data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).10 In the third quarter of 2002, 11 percent of the defendants had multiple arrests. Because the objective of the point scale analysis was to examine defendant behavior, the arrest-based file was converted into a defendant-based file, where only the defendant’s
7CJA’s database does not contain court data for dockets with the same docket number. Thus, court data for “A” dockets in Manhattan (the designation used in Manhattan to distinguish between two court cases with the same docket number, one of which receives a suffix “A”) were not available for analysis. Felony prosecution in the Supreme Court as the result of a direct indictment by a grand jury is also unavailable. Arrest information is available for both these types of records, and defendant information may be available for arrests receiving “A” dockets. To the extent that these records could be distinguished from other types of non-docketed arrests, they were retained in the dataset to maintain a complete cohort of prosecuted arrests. 8 Information about the arrest is provided by an on-line feed from the New York City Police Department. 9 If a case had multiple dockets, the Criminal Court information, including warrants, was pulled from the docket having the most severe affidavit charge (Penal Law severity). 10 DCJS did not provide data for sealed cases. The New York City Police Department, DCJS, or any agency providing data bear no responsibility for the methods of analysis used in this report or its conclusions.
-13-
first arrest during the sampling period was taken.
This file contained 56,413
defendants.11 Their arraignment dispositions are presented in Table 3. As shown by the table, in the third quarter of 2002, 17 percent of the defendants had their cases dismissed at arraignment. Slightly more than one-fourth pled guilty and more than one-half had cases adjourned pending further appearances.12 The pre-implementation study focused on defendants whose cases were not completed at Criminal Court arraignment and who were released on ROR or bail prior to the disposition of all charges in Criminal or Supreme Court. Table 4 presents the release status for defendants whose cases were adjourned at Criminal Court arraignment. As shown by the table, in the 2002 dataset, 18748 (60%) percent of the defendants were released at arraignment, 17,375 were ROR’d and 1,373 percent made bail. Of those not released at arraignment, 6,276 were released subsequent to arraignment in Criminal or Supreme Court.
To be specific, approximately 80 percent of the
defendants whose cases were adjourned at arraignment were released pretrial in Criminal or Supreme Court. The study sample included all those 25,024 released defendants (1,8748+6,276). These distributions were similar to those reported for the 2001 dataset.
B. Research Design The new recommendation scheme was applied to the 2002 sample of at-risk defendants and their distributions in various risk categories and corresponding pretrial FTA rates were projected. The pretrial FTA measured the issuance of a bench warrant at any appearance prior to the disposition of a defendant's case in Criminal or Supreme Court. The projected distributions were compared with the actual distributions for the existing scheme. To ease interpretation, the third and fourth categories of both existing and new schemes were collapsed into one category, which was labeled as “Not
11This
number excludes juvenile delinquents whose cases were transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, non-juvenile cases transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, voided arrests, defendants who were declined prosecution, defendants who had a missing stamp under the existing recommendation system and defendants who were under sixteen years of age. 12 A comparison with the 2001 dataset showed some differences in arraignment distributions. The proportion of defendants whose cases were adjourned at arraignment increased from 51% in 2001 to 55% in 2002. In contrast, the proportion of defendants who pled guilty at arraignment dropped from 33% in 2001 to 28 percent in 2002. The two datasets did not differ with respect to their dismissal rates.
-14-
Table 3: Arraignment Outcome (Defendant-based) 2001 Dataset 2002 Dataset N=65,362 N=56,413 ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOME N % N % NON-DISPOSED
33111
51
31256
55
PLED GUILTY
21391
33
15563
28
DISMISSED
10843
16
9569
17
17
0
25
0
65362
100
56413
100
OTHER1
TOTAL 1
Other includes transfer to other borough and family court.
-15-
Table 4: Release Status for Cases Adjourned at Arraignment (Defendant-based) 2001 Dataset1
2002 Dataset2
N
%
N
%
426
1
394
1
BAIL SET, NOT MADE
11870
36
11863
38
BAIL MADE
1663
5
1373
4
ROR
18925
58
17375
56
32884
100
31005
100
RELEASE STATUS AT ARRAIGNMENT REMAND
TOTAL3 1
The release status at arraignment was missing for 227 defendants.
2
The release status at arraignment was missing for 251 defendants.
3
In the 2002 dataset, of those not released at arraignment, 6,276 were later released pretrial in Criminal or Supreme Court.
-16-
Recommended for ROR.” More specifically, this category included defendants who were either considered high risk for an ROR recommendation or who, for policy reasons, did not receive a CJA recommendation At the next step of the analysis, judges’ release decisions at arraignment were examined for defendants whose cases were adjourned. The release decisions were categorized into 1)ROR, 2)bail set, and 3)remand. Finally, to determine its performance, the new recommendation scheme was applied to all of the adult, docketed, summary cases in the dataset that were arraigned in the Third Quarter of 2002. This included both disposed and non-disposed cases at arraignment, and defendants who were never released pretrial. Comparisons were made with the existing scheme.
IV. RESULTS A. Defendant Characteristics Table 5 displays characteristics of defendants from the 2002 sample who were at risk for FTA in either Criminal or Supreme Court.
To facilitate comparisons,
distributions for the ’01 sample are also provided. As shown by the table, the 2001 and 2002 samples did not differ with respect to defendants’ demographics. The majority of the defendants in both samples were male. Almost half of the defendants were black, one-third were Hispanic, and the remainder were white or other ethnicity. The median age was 29 years. In the 2002 sample, Manhattan had the highest proportion of defendants arrested (31%), followed by Brooklyn (27%), the Bronx (19%), Queens (19%) and Staten Island (4%). The 2001 sample had similar distributions. In both samples, an overwhelming majority of the defendants were released on recognizance. Slightly more than one-tenth had their cases disposed in Supreme Court (12% in 2001 and 13% in 2002). The two samples did not differ with respect to their
-17-
Table 5: Characteristics of Defendants Released Pretrial Regardless of Court of Disposition: A Comparison of the 2002 At-Risk Sample with the 2001 At-Risk Sample
2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821 Defendant Characteristics
2002 At-Risk Sample 25,024
N
%
N
%
22455 4354 26809
84 16 100
20927 4094 25021
84 16 100
Other1
12343 9114 3476 1484
47 34 13 6
11410 8551 3241 1485
46 35 13 6
Total
26417
100
24687
100
Age at Arrest 18 and under 19-20 years 21-24 years 25-29 years 30-34 years 35- 39 years 40-78 years Total Median Age (Years)
3063 2244 4132 3818 3851 3643 6070 26821 30
11 8 15 14 14 14 23 100
2616 2272 4059 3915 3299 3218 5645 25024 29
10 9 16 16 13 13 23 100
Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx Total
7938 7905 4397 1078 5503 26821
30 30 16 4 20 100
6705 7747 4721 978 4873 25024
27 31 19 4 19 100
Type of Court Criminal Court Supreme Court Total
23616 3205 26821
88 12 100
21842 3182 25024
87 13 100
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES Sex Male Female Total Ethnicity Black Hispanic White
CASE-PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS Borough of Arrest
Page 1 of 4
-18-
Table 5 (contd.)
Defendant Characteristics CASE-PROCESSING CHARACTERISTICS Type of First Release ROR Bail Total
Median Time From Arrignment to Disposition (Days) FTA Regardless of Court of Disposition Yes No Total
2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821 N %
21081 5600 26681
79 21 100
87
2002 At-Risk Sample 25,026 N %
19501 5445 24946
78 22 100
93
4223 22598 26821
16 84 100
3845 21179 25024
15 85 100
Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total
16902 7291 1289 156 314 25952
65 28 5 1 1 100
15314 7174 1337 177 290 24292
63 29 6 1 1 100
Verified Length of residence of at least 18 months Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total
12696 5811 5515 1432 532 25986
49 22 21 6 2 100
11576 5699 5144 1398 489 24306
48 23 21 6 2 100
Verified Family Ties With in Residence Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total
9834 5712 8337 1700 386 25969
38 22 32 6 2 100
9075 5595 7592 1667 343 24272
37 23 31 7 2 100
COMMUNITY-TIES ITEMS Verified NYC Area Address
Page 2 of 4
-19-
Table 5 (contd.)
Defendant Characteristics
2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821 N %
2002 At-Risk Sample 25,026 N %
COMMUNITY-TIES ITEMS Expects Someone at Arraignment Yes No Total
9866 16013 25879
38 62 100
8162 16021 24183
34 66 100
12472 7115 5380 324 668 25959
48 27 21 1 3 100
11141 6901 5086 402 714 24244
46 28 21 2 3 100
9784 4233 8657 2704 563 25941
38 16 33 10 2 100
8680 4055 8225 2870 435 24265
36 16 34 12 2 100
Yes No Total
10953 15284 26237
42 58 100
11175 13599 24774
45 55 100
Prior Violent Felony Convictions Yes No Total
2031 24790 26821
8 92 100
1970 23054 25024
8 92 100
Yes No Total
5950 20287 26237
23 77 100
5414 19376 24790
22 78 100
Prior Misdemeanor Convictions Yes No Total
7505 18732 26237
29 71 100
6868 17922 24790
28 72 100
Verified Telephone Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total Verified Full Time Employment/ School/ Training Yes Unverified Yes Verified No, Unverified No Verified Unresolved Conflict Total
CRIMINAL HISTORY First Arrest
Prior Felony Convictions
Page 3 of 4
-20-
Table 5 (contd.) 2001 At-Risk Sample 26,821
2002 At-Risk Sample 25,026
N
%
N
%
Yes No Total
6221 20016 26237
24 76 100
4891 19899 24790
20 80 100
Type of Warrant Attached to Rap Sheet Bench Warrant No Bench Warrant Total
2413 23945 26358
9 91 100
965 23818 24783
4 96 100
Yes No Total
6924 19897 26821
26 74 100
6222 18804 25026
25 75 100
TOP ARREST CHARGE SEVERITY A Felony B Felony C Felony D Felony E Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor Other2 Total
335 4275 1430 5114 2618 9956 1503 1441 26672
1 16 5 19 10 37 6 5 100
308 3435 1500 5379 2510 9101 1606 1047 24886
1 14 6 22 10 37 6 4 100
8663 3380 6221 1090 870 915 870 4665 26674
32 13 23 4 3 3 3 18 100
8958 3404 5224 1134 820 428 814 4072 24854
36 14 21 5 3 2 3 16 100
Defendant Characteristics Open Cases
Prior FTA
TOP ARREST CHARGE 3
TYPE Violent Property Drug Weapon Criminal Mischief VTL DWI Other Total 1
Other includes Asian, American Indian, and others.
2
OTHER includes Unclassified Misdemeanors, Violations, Infractions, and charges outside the N.Y. State Penal Law and Vehicle and Traffic Law (e.g., Administrative and Public Health Codes). 3 VIOLENT CRIMES include: murder, negligent murder, non-negligent murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and kidnapping. PROPERTY CRIMES include: burglary, larceny-theft, forgery & counterfeiting, stolen property, and possession of burglary tools. DRUG OFFENSES include A) controlled substances sale/manufacture; opium, cocaine, or derivatives, marijuana, synthetic narcotics, and other dangerous drugs, and B) use/possession; opium, cocaine, or derivatives, marijuana, synthetic narcotics, and other dangerous drugs. Dangerous weapons comprise the WEAPON category. The DWI category refers to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The CRIMINAL MISCHIEF category refers to vandalism. VTL offenses includes all traffic offenses excluding DWI. The OTHER category consists of all other offenses not included in the aforementioned categories. Page 4 of 4
-21-
average FTA rate (16 percent for the 2001 sample and 15 percent for the 2002 sample). The arraignment to disposition time increased from 87 days in 2001 to 93 days in 2002.13 Examining the community ties items, an overwhelming majority of the defendants in both samples reported living at a New York City area address (92% in the 2002 at-risk sample). Three-fifths reported living with someone at the time of their arrest. Slightly less than three-fourths reported living at their current address for 18 months or longer and had a working telephone in the residence or had a cellular phone. In both samples, about one-half of the defendants reported being employed, in school, or in a training program full time and over one-third expected a relative or friend at arraignment. In both the 2001 and 2002 at-risk samples, over half of the defendants had been arrested previously. Slightly more than one-fourth had been convicted previously on misdemeanor charges and slightly less than one-fourth had a prior felony conviction(s). Less than one-tenth had been convicted previously on violent felony offenses. The proportion of defendants having one or more open cases at the time of the sample arrest dropped from 24 percent in the 2001 at-risk sample to 20 percent in the 2002 at-risk sample. The percentage of defendants with a bench warrant attached to their rap sheet also dropped from 9 percent in 2001 to 4 percent in 2002. In both samples, one-fourth of the defendants had a history of FTA. One-half of the defendants in the 2002 at-risk sample were arrested for felony charges, primarily B and D felonies. Slightly less than two-fifths were arrested for A misdemeanors.14 The 2001 sample had virtually the same distributions. A comparison of the 2002 sample with the 2001 sample revealed no differences in the type of offenses defendants were arrested for, with the exception of violent crimes. The proportion of defendants arrested for violent offenses increased from 32 percent in 13For
cases that had not reached a disposition by the time data were extracted, the arraignment to disposition time was calculated by subtracting the date of arraignment from the date of last appearance in the datafile. 14 The at-risk sample only includes defendants whose cases were adjourned at arraignment and who were released pretrial. Approximately two-thirds of the defendants with misdemeanor or lesser charges had their cases either dismissed or pled guilty at arraignment.
-22-
2001 to 36 percent in 2002. One-fifth of the defendants in both samples were arrested for drug offenses and slightly more than one-tenth were arrested for property offenses. To summarize the findings from this section, the 2001 and 2002 at-risk samples were virtually identical with respect to their characteristics, with the exception of slight differences in the number of defendants having an open case(s), an open bench warrant and the type of top arrest charge.
B. Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by pretrial FTA Table 6 presents the distribution of defendants under the existing CJA recommendation and their corresponding FTA rates for the 2001 and 2002 sample of atrisk defendants.
In both samples, under the existing scheme, one-quarter of the
defendants were recommended for ROR release, with an FTA rate of ten percent. Slightly more than one-third of the defendants received a “qualified” recommendation. Their FTA rate was 12 percent. The remaining defendants (40% for the 2001 sample, 37% for 2002 sample) were not recommended for ROR, with an FTA rate of 22 percent.
C. New Recommendation Scheme by Pretrial FTA Table 7 presents the projected numbers from the application of the new recommendation scheme to the 2001 and 2002 at-risk samples.15
In the 2001 at-risk
sample, the new scheme would classify 42 percent of the defendants as “recommended for ROR,” 19 percent as “moderate risk” and the remaining 39 percent as “not recommended for ROR/no recommendation.” Their FTA rates would be 9 percent, 14 percent and 24 percent, respectively.
In the 2002 sample, the same proportion of
defendants would be classified as low risk. However, the proportion of moderate-risk 15Due
to missing data, the N (total number of defendants) for the new scheme in both samples was lower than that for the existing scheme. When running a logistic regression model, if a defendant had a missing information on a variable, the whole case was excluded from the analysis. In the 2002 final model, 1,213 cases had missing values. In practice, most of these cases would not receive a recommendation. This will slightly change the distribution for the collapsed category of “Not Recommended for ROR/No Recommendation.” This issue will be further addressed in the post-implementation phase.
-23-
-2410648
NOT RECOMMENDED (High Risk)
26820
9569
QUALIFIED (Moderate Risk)
TOTAL
6603
N
RECOMMENDED (Low Risk)
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
100
40
36
25
%
Defendants Classified
4223
2348
1197
678
N
16
22
12
10
%
Defendants with FTA
2001 At-Risk Sample
25024
9355
9021
6648
N
100
37
36
27
%
Defendants Classified
3845
2094
1106
645
N
15
22
12
10
%
Defendants with FTA
2002 At-Risk Sample
Table 6: Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Actual Numbers)
-259756
NOT RECOMMENDED (High Risk)
25277
4864
QUALIFIED (Moderate Risk)
TOTAL
10657
N
RECOMMENDED (Low Risk)
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
100
39
19
42
%
Defendants Classified
3971
2356
671
944
N
16
24
14
9
%
Defendants with FTA
2001 At-Risk Sample
23811
8355
5146
10310
N
100
35
22
43
%
Defendants Classified
3639
2051
737
851
N
15
24
14
8
%
Defendants with FTA
2002 At-risk Sample
Table 7: New CJA Recommendation Scheme by FTA for Defendants Released Pretrial (Projected Numbers)
defendants would increase slightly (by three percentage points), whereas the proportion of high-risk defendants would decrease by four percentage points. The two samples did not differ with respect to their FTA rates. Table 8 presents differences in the distribution of defendants and their relative FTA rates between the existing and new schemes. When applied to the 2002 at-risk sample, the new scheme would recommend 16% more defendants for ROR, while decreasing their FTA rate by two percentage points. The new scheme would decrease the proportion of moderate-risk defendants by 14 percentage points and increase their FTA rate by two percentage points. Finally, in comparison to the “not recommended� category of the existing CJA scheme, the new scheme would contain slightly fewer defendants (35% versus 37%), while increasing their FTA rate by two percentage points. Similar differences were obtained for the 2001 sample.
D. Applying the New Recommendation Scheme to All Cases Arraigned: Citywide and Borough Distributions At the next step of the analysis, the new recommendation scheme was applied to all of the adult, docketed, summary cases in the dataset that were arraigned in Criminal Court.16
This included both disposed and non-disposed cases at arraignment, and
defendants who were never released pretrial. Comparisons were made with the distributions for the existing scheme. Tables 9 and 10 display the citywide and borough distributions for the existing and new schemes for the 2001 dataset. Tables 11 and 12 show these distributions for the 2002 dataset. The tables show that relative to the existing scheme, the new recommendation
16The
analysis excludes juvenile delinquents whose cases were transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, non-juvenile cases transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, voided arrests, defendants who were declined prosecution, and defendants who had a missing stamp under the existing recommendation system.
-26-
-27-892
NOT RECOMMENDED (High Risk)
-1543
-4705
QUALIFIED (Moderate Risk)
TOTAL
4054
N
0
-1
-17
17
%
-252
8
-526
266
N
0
2
2
-1
%
Defendants with FTA
Defendants Classified
RECOMMENDED (Low Risk)
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
Difference In
Difference in
2001 At-Risk Sample
-1213
-1000
-3875
3662
N
0
-2
-14
16
%
Defendants Classified
Difference in
-206
-43
-369
206
N
0
2
2
-2
%
Defendants with FTA
Difference In
2002 At-Risk Sample
Table 8: A Comparison of the Alternative Risk-Classification Scheme with Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme: The Difference in the Number and FTA Rate of Low-, Moderate-, and High-Risk Defendants
-286238 5363 10378
21979
QUALIFIED FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
N
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
100
47
24
28
%
Brooklyn
23674
14408
6619
2647
N
100
61
28
11
%
Manhattan
11951
4389
4263
3299
N
37
36
28
%
100
Queens
1981
918
823
240
N
100
46
42
12
%
Staten Island
Borough of Arrest
16208
8140
5417
2651
N
Bronx
Table 9: Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned First Quarter of 2001 Dataset
100
50
33
16
%
75793
38233
22485
15075
N
Total
100
50
30
20
%
-297081 3103 10109
20293
MODERATE RISK FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
N
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
100
50
15
35
%
Brooklyn
21710
12677
4034
4999
N
100
58
19
23
%
Manhattan
11268
4120
2115
5033
N
36
19
45
%
100
Queens
1701
752
320
629
N
100
44
19
37
%
Staten Island
Borough of Arrest Bronx
15281
8773
2349
4159
N
Table 10: New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned First Quarter of 2001 Dataset
100
58
15
27
%
70253
36431
11921
21901
N
Total
100
52
17
31
%
-304886 4605 6982
16473
MODERATE RISK FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
N
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
100
42
28
30
%
Brooklyn
20112
11746
5773
2593
N
100
58
29
13
%
Manhattan
11240
4009
3728
3503
N
36
33
31
%
100
Queens
1966
851
707
408
N
100
43
36
21
%
Staten Island
Borough of Arrest
14214
6553
5127
2534
N
Bronx
Table 11: Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset
100
46
36
18
%
64005
30141
19940
13924
N
Total
100
47
31
22
%
-315599 2619 6882
15100
MODERATE RISK FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
N
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
100
46
17
37
%
Brooklyn
18389
9917
4053
4419
N
100
54
22
24
%
Manhattan
10671
3663
2116
4892
N
34
20
46
%
100
Queens
1743
768
313
662
N
100
44
18
38
%
Staten Island
Borough of Arrest Bronx
13754
7395
2545
3814
N
Table 12: New Recommendation Scheme by Borough of Arrest for All Cases Arraigned Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset
100
54
18
28
%
59657
28625
11646
19386
N
Total
100
48
19
33
%
scheme when applied to either dataset citywide, would classify a larger proportion of defendants as low risk. Beginning with the 2001 dataset, in comparison to 20 percent under the existing scheme, the new recommendation scheme would classify 31 percent of defendants as low risk (Tables 9 and 10). The comparable numbers for the 2002 dataset were 22 percent and 33%, respectively (Tables 11 and 12). The same was true for each borough. In both datasets, relative to the existing scheme, the new scheme would classify a considerably higher proportion of defendants as low risk. For the 2001 dataset, the increase in low risk defendants would range from 25 percentage points for Staten Island to 7 percentage points in Brooklyn.17 The increases for the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens were 11, 12, and 17 percentage points, respectively. Similar increases were observed for the 2002 dataset, ranging from 17 percentage points for Staten Island to 7 percentage points for Brooklyn. The increases for Queens, Manhattan and the Bronx were 15, 11, and 10 percentage points, respectively. The tables further show that relative to the existing scheme, the proportion of moderate risk defendants under the new scheme would decrease for the city and each borough. The citywide decrease for the 2001 dataset would be 13 percentage points. The comparable number for the 2002 dataset was 12 percentage points. The two schemes did not differ with respect to the proportion of defendants who were not recommended for ROR. It should be noted that in both the 2001 and 2002 datasets, the citywide distributions for the low and moderate risk defendants under the new recommendation scheme were lower than those reported for the at-risk sample. In contrast, the proportion of defendants who were not recommended was higher for the full dataset. Despite these 17
In Staten Island, the increase in the proportion of defendants considered low risk dropped from 25 percentage points in the 2001 dataset to 17 percentage points in the 2002 dataset. This was mainly due to an increase in the proportion of defendants considered low risk under the existing scheme in the 2002 dataset (21 percent in the 2002 dataset versus 12 percent in the 2001 dataset). The two datasets did not differ with respect to the proportion of defendants, who would be considered low risk under the new scheme (37 percent in 2001 and 38 percent in 2002).
-32-
differences, the classification of defendants into low, moderate, and high risk was consistent with that reported for the at-risk sample. Relative to the existing scheme, the new recommendation scheme would classify more defendants as low risk, decrease the proportion of moderate-risk defendants, and classify the same proportion of defendants as high risk.
E. Judicial Release Decision at Arraignment The existing and new schemes were also compared with respect to judicial release decisions at arraignment. These distributions were run on docketed cases that were adjourned at arraignment.18 It should be noted that the distributions for the new scheme reflect existing release/detention practices and might shift after its implementation. Tables 13 and 14 show the distributions for the existing and new schemes for the 2001 dataset. Tables 15 and 16 display the distributions for the 2002 dataset. As can be seen from the tables, in both datasets, the new recommendation scheme showed greater consistency with the judges’ release decisions at arraignment than the existing scheme. To be specific, when applied to the 2001 dataset, 73 percent of the defendants recommended for ROR would be ROR’d at arraignment versus 64 percent under the existing scheme (Tables 13 and 14). The numbers for the moderate-risk category were 67 percent for the new scheme and 61 percent for the existing scheme. With respect to the not recommended category, 39 percent would be ROR’d under the new scheme versus 47 percent under the existing scheme. The same pattern was observed for the 2002 sample. Under the existing scheme, the proportion of low, moderate, and high risk defendants released on ROR was 61 percent, 60 percent and 45 percent, respectively (Table 15). The comparable numbers for the new scheme would be 72 percent, 65 percent and 35 percent, respectively (Table 16). 18These
distributions exclude juvenile delinquents whose cases were transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, non-juvenile cases transferred to Family Court prior to arraignment, voided arrests, defendants who were declined prosecution, defendants who had a missing stamp under the existing recommendation system and defendants who were under sixteen years of age.
-33-
-34-
N 46 108 351
505
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
QUALFIED FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
Remand
1
2
1
1
%
16426
8817
4680
2929
N
Bail Set
45
51
38
35
%
20989
7986
7662
5341
N
ROR
54
47
61
64
%
Release Status at Arraignment
Table 13: Existing CJA Recommendation Scheme By Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment First Quarter of 2001 Dataset
37920
17154
12450
8316
N
Total
100
100
100
100
%
-35-
N 95 73 278
446
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
MODERATE RISK FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
Remand
1
2
1
1
%
15462
10275
1975
3212
N
Bail Set
45
59
32
26
%
19775
6731
4105
8939
N
ROR
54
39
67
73
%
Release Status at Arraignment
Table 14: New CJA Recommendation Scheme By Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment First Quarter of 2001 Dataset
35683
17284
6153
12246
N
Total
100
100
100
100
%
-36-
N 58 94 288
440
Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
QUALIFIED FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
Remand
1
2
1
1
%
15785
7962
4674
3149
N
Bail Set
45
53
40
38
%
18936
6836
6992
5108
N
ROR
54
45
60
61
%
Release Status at Arraignment
Table 15: Existing CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset
35161
15086
11760
8315
N
Total
100
100
101
100
%
-37-
N 67 65 281
413
New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme
RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
MODERATE RISK FOR ROR
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR ROR
TOTAL
Remand
1
2
1
1
%
14918
9552
2186
3180
N
Bail Set
45
63
34
27
%
17954
5312
4200
8442
N
ROR
54
35
65
72
%
Release Status at Arraignment
Table 16: New CJA ROR Recommendation Scheme by Release Status for Cases Continued at Arraignment Third Quarter of 2002 Dataset
33285
15145
6451
11689
N
Total
100
100
100
100
%
In sum, if judicial release practices remain unchanged, the proportion of defendants released on ROR would be highest for the low-risk category, followed by the moderate- and high-risk groups. Under the existing scheme, defendants in the low- and moderate-risk categories did not differ with respect to the judges’ release decisions at arraignment.
V. Summary and Conclusions At CJA, a new recommendation scheme was developed using a 1989 sample of defendants. The scheme was validated on the 1998 and 2001 datasets. It contained information on a defendant’s community ties and criminal history. The research showed that in comparison to the existing recommendation scheme, the new recommendation scheme would classify a substantially higher proportion of defendants as low risk, while keeping their FTA rate at the same level. As such, it had the potential of reducing the jail population while awaiting trial if followed by judges at arraignment. If all defendants classified as low risk under the new scheme were released on ROR, the population of defendants currently held in the City’s jails and the costs associated with it could be reduced. Furthermore, the identification of defendants at moderate and high risk for FTA would allow considering other release options, such as supervised release, aimed at reducing their risk of FTA. It should be noted that the supervised release is not currently an option in New York City. The new recommendation scheme was implemented citywide in June of 2003. Its performance will be measured by conducting pre-and post implementation analyses. The present research reported findings from the pre-implementation analysis. The study was conducted on a cohort of defendants who were arrested in the third quarter of 2002. To determine changes in defendant population and case processing characteristics, comparisons were made with the 2001 dataset.
-38-
The study showed that the 2001 and 2002 samples are virtually identical with respect to their characteristics, with the exception of slight differences in the number of defendants having an open case(s), an open bench warrant, and the type of top arrest charge. Relative to the 2001 sample, the proportion of defendants with an open case(s) or open bench warrants decreased slightly. In contrast, a slight increase was observed in the proportion of defendants arrested for violent offenses. The arraignment to disposition time also increased from 87 days (median) in 2001 to 93 days in 2002. The new recommendation scheme was applied statistically to the 2002 sample of at-risk defendants. Comparisons were made with the existing recommendation scheme with respect to the distribution of defendants in various risk categories and their corresponding FTA rates. When applied to the 2002 at-risk sample, the new scheme would recommend a substantially higher proportion of defendants for ROR, while slightly decreasing their FTA rate. It would considerably decrease the proportion of moderate-risk defendants and slightly increase their FTA rates. Finally, in comparison to the “Not Recommended� category of the existing CJA scheme, the new scheme would contain slightly fewer defendants. Relative to the existing scheme, their FTA rate would increase slightly. These distributions were similar to those reported for the 2001 at-risk sample, suggesting that the new scheme was consistent when applied across different samples. The new scheme was also applied to the full dataset that comprised both disposed and non-disposed cases and defendants who never gained release pretrial. The findings indicated that although the proportion of defendants classified as low risk decreased somewhat, the classification of defendants into low, moderate, and high risk was consistent with that reported for the at-risk sample. In the next phase of the analysis, the findings presented in this report will be compared with the post-implementation data. The data extraction will begin in January
-39-
of 2004. A report presenting preliminary findings will be submitted to the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator on June 30, 2004.
-40-
REFERENCES Lazarsfeld, Paul F. (1974). An Evaluation of the Pretrial Service Agency of the Vera Institute of Justice. New York. Siddiqi, Qudsia. 2000. Prediction of Pretrial Failure to Appear and Alternative Risk Classification Schemes in New York City, A Validation Study. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Siddiqi, Qudsia. 2002. Prediction of Pretrial Failure to Appear and an Alternative Pretrial Release Risk-Classification Scheme in New York City, A Reassessment Study. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
-41-