CJA
Research Brief No. 10
NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY, Inc.
December 2005
A series of reports summarizing current research from CJA Executive Director, Jerome E. McElroy Director, Research Dept., Richard R. Peterson, Ph.D. Research Brief Editor, Mary T. Phillips, Ph.D. Graphics & Production, Raymond P. Caligiure
CJA is a not-for-profit corporation that provides a variety of criminal justice services under a contract with the City of New York. CJA staff interview defendants arrested in New York City, make recommendations for pretrial release, and notify released defendants of upcoming court dates. Within the Agency, the Research Department conducts studies covering a broad array of criminal justice policy concerns. The Research Brief series summarizes the results of some of these studies. New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007 PHONE: 646 213-2500 FAX: 646 213-2650 WEB: www.nycja.org © 2005 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.
Assessing the Impact of Differing Models of Youth Crime Prosecution By Marian J. Gewirtz In 1994, in response to con- lihood of release, and in type of discerns regarding the criminal justice position and sentence. One of the largest borough difsystem’s handling of young offenders, CJA began issuing a report se- ferences was in average length of ries that monitors court activity for case. Manhattan and Queens represent opposite ends of this continjuveniles under the age of 16 uum. This difference probably who are prosecuted in the Do reflects differences between adult court under New different the boroughs in the use of York’s Juvenile Ofapproaches to alternative-to-incarcerafender (JO) Law. youth crime tion (ATI) programs, which The reports preprosecution extend the period prior to sent extensive data affect likelihood sentencing. Most juveniles and raise many quesof re-arrest? who are released in Manhattions. Among the most tan participate in at least one striking findings have been substantial borough differ- ATI program, but ATIs are not typiences in the way cases were pro- cally used for JO cases in Queens. cessed, despite great similarities The experiences of juvenile offendin the characteristics of the cases. ers prosecuted in Manhattan and Specifically, juvenile offenders Queens are so divergent that they across the boroughs were over- actually seem to constitute different whelmingly 15-year-old males models of youth crime prosecution. charged with first- or second-de- The research described in this regree robbery. However, there were port focuses on these two boroughs wide variations by borough in like- to examine these differing models. This Research Brief is adapted from: Adult-Court Processing and Re-Arrest of Juvenile Offenders in Manhattan And Queens by Senior Research Analyst Marian Gewirtz The full report is available on the CJA web site:
www.nycja.org/research/research.htm Address comments to the author at mgewirtz@nycja.org Deputy Project Director: Elyse J. Revere Research project staff: Justin P. Bernstein Systems programming: Aïda Tejaratchi, Wayne Nehwadowich
CJA
Research Brief
Introduction The research presented in this report examines the long-term impact of the different courtrelated experiences of juvenile offenders in adult court in Manhattan and Queens. Four measures of court processing are examined: processing time, detention, disposition, and sentence. Finally, re-arrest rates are compared, as one criterion to assess the impact of the Queens and Manhattan processing models.
Research Questions
The Study Sample
The “At-Risk” Sample
The research addresses two questions:
The study includes all JO cases processed in the Supreme Courts in Manhattan (304) and Queens (258) from 1997 to 2000. Data were collected for re-arrests for offenses that occurred between the date of the initial arrest and January 31, 2005. We excluded re-arrests that occurred while the juveniles were in pretrial custody pending the disposition of their initial charges because our focus was primarily on the impact of case processing on public safety.
Our measure of recidivism includes re-offenses while the juvenile was at large in the community, when the juvenile was “at risk.” The 8 juveniles (4 in each borough) who spent no time at risk, because they were continually in detention, were excluded. Re-arrest rates were standardized by including only juveniles who were at risk for re-arrest for 1, 2, 3, or 4 years or who were re-arrested while at risk within that time.
What were the differences in court processing for juveniles in Manhattan and Queens?
Did re-arrest rates for juveniles differ in Manhattan and Queens?
2
Who Are Juvenile Offenders?
What Felony Offenses Are Covered Under the JO Law?
New York State’s Juvenile Offender (JO) Law was passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978 in response to concerns about serious crime committed by young offenders. The JO Law lowered the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles in New York State from age 16, already among the lowest in the country, to age 14 for selected serious felony offenses and to age 13 when the charge was second-degree murder. In accordance with the provisions of this law, cases are brought directly to the adult rather than the juvenile court for prosecution. Since then, particularly in recent years, there has been a national movement towards adult prosecution of juveniles, although in many states jurisdiction originates in the juvenile court and the case is transferred to the adult court if deemed appropriate.
Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree Arson in the first degree Arson in the second degree Assault in the first degree Burglary in the first degree Burglary in the second degree Kidnapping in the first degree Attempted kidnapping in the first degree Possession of a weapon in the second degree Possession of a weapon in the third degree Manslaughter in the first degree Murder in the second degree Attempted murder in the second degree Rape in the first degree Robbery in the first degree Robbery in the second degree Sodomy in the first degree December 2005
CJA
Research Brief
Court Processing: Processing Time Figure 1 Processing Time (median number of days)
Figure 1 shows the median number of days between JO case-processing milestones in Manhattan and Queens.
Processing time: • in Criminal Court (CC) JO cases moved significantly more quickly through the Criminal Court in Manhattan (median of 5 days) than in Queens (median of 36 days).
• from first Supreme Court (SC) appearance to disposition It took a median of nearly five months for Manhattan JO cases to move from the first appearance in the upper court to disposition, compared to zero days in Queens (reflecting the use of SCIs). • from disposition to sentence It took a median of less than a month and a half for Queens JO cases to move from disposition to sentence, compared to about 9 months in Manhattan (reflecting the use of ATIs). • Supreme Court to sentence All told, about two months (median) elapsed between the first appearance in Queens Supreme Court and the last appearance, compared to roughly 15 months (455 days) in Manhattan. The picture was the same if the analysis was restricted to JO cases in which the defendant was released at arraignment in the Criminal Court or at the first appearance in the upper court. Summary: Queens cases took longer in Criminal Court, but Manhattan cases took much longer in Supreme Court, and overall. Research Brief #10
455
Queens
Number of Days
Conversely, the number of days between milestones was significantly lower in Queens than in Manhattan for each of the four remaining measures.
478 Manhattan
272
146
126
5
N*=304 258 CC
59
43
36
0 303 258
1st SC to Disposition
294
235
SC Disposition to Sentence
295
235
1st SC to Sentence
304 258
Total CC & SC
*The number of cases fluctuates because the date of conviction was missing for two cases and 32 cases were disposed without conviction.
The Use of SCIs Some of the difference between Manhattan and Queens in case processing can be attributed to the use of a superior court information (SCI) in Queens as the charging instrument when indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant. Since the juveniles in these cases pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court, the number of days from first appearance in upper court to disposition is virtually always zero. Nearly half of the Queens JO cases included in this research reached the upper court by SCI rather than indictment. Yet even the JO cases that reached the upper court by indictment in Queens moved more quickly to disposition and sentencing than did those indicted in Manhattan. 3
CJA
Research Brief
Court Processing: Detention Figure 2 Proportion Released At First Appearance in Supreme Court
By most measures, juveniles in Queens faced less detention than in Manhattan. The Queens juveniles were far more likely to be released at the ďŹ rst appearance in Supreme Court (58%) than were their counterparts in Manhattan (42%). (Figure 2)
80%
Juveniles processed in Manhattan spent far longer in detention than did those processed in Queens. The median for the Manhattan juveniles who were ever in detention was 204 days, compared to 68 days for juveniles in Queens. (Figure 3)
60%
More than half of the Manhattan juveniles who were detained spent longer than six months in detention, compared to only 19% of Queens juveniles. More than one in ďŹ ve Manhattan juveniles, but only 7% in Queens, spent longer than a year in detention. (Figure 4)
20%
Figure 3 Length of Time in Detention (median number of days)
58% 42%
40%
0%
Manhattan N=304
Queens N=258
Figure 4 Length of Time in Detention (proportion detained for speciďŹ c periods of time)
Number of Days
250
204
Manhattan 8% N=272
200
14%
23%
34%
150 100
68 50 0
Manhattan N=272
Queens N=189
Queens N=189
17%
0% week or less
20%
Not Detained During Case 11% Detained Throughout Case 14%
40%
8 days to 60 days
Not Detained During Case 27% Detained and Released 44% Detained and Released Detained 75% Throughout Case 29%
Manhattan N=304
Queens N=258
12%
33%
31%
Figure 5 Detention Status Throughout Case Processing
4
21%
60%
61 days to 6 months
80% 181 days to 1 year
7%
100% over 1 year
Figure 5 shows that Manhattan juveniles were unlikely to reach the end of their cases without some time in custody. Only 11% in Manhattan, compared to 27% in Queens, were not held at any time during the course of prosecution. However, most of the juveniles processed in Manhattan (75%) were detained and then eventually released; only 14% were held through the duration of the case. In contrast, 29% of the Queens juveniles were detained throughout the case. December 2005
CJA
Research Brief
Court Processing: Disposition and Sentence Dispositions and sentences for juveniles processed in Manhattan were more severe than for their counterparts in Queens, although on one measure — imprisonment — the difference was not significant. Conviction rates were very high for the youth processed as juvenile offenders in the Supreme Court. The conviction rate in Manhattan (97%) was significantly higher than the rate in Queens (91%). In both boroughs, fewer than one percent of juveniles were tried and acquitted and a few cases were dismissed or transferred to the Family Court for continued prosecution (not shown). For juveniles who were convicted, the likelihood of a sentence that included imprisonment did not vary significantly by borough. The majority in both boroughs were sentenced to five years on probation, with no imprisonment. Split sentences, which include both imprisonment and probation, are not used in Manhattan but accounted for 13% of the juvenile cases sentenced in Queens. (Figure 6) Convicted JOs who meet certain conditions are eligible for youthful offender (YO) status, which removes the conviction from the juvenile’s record and confers sentencing benefits. The proportion of juveniles who received YO status at sentencing was significantly higher in Queens (85%, compared to 74% in Manhattan). (Figure 7) Sentences in Manhattan tended to be significantly longer than the Queens sentences. This probably reflects, at least in part, the greater amount of credit towards sentences that Manhattan juveniles had because of their longer pretrial detention. As shown in Figure 8, 10% of the incarcerative sentences in Queens cases were time served sentences, compared to none of the sentences in Manhattan. Similarly, a quarter of the incarcerative sentences in Queens were definite sentences of one year or less, again compared to none of the sentences in Manhattan. Conversely, more than half of the incarcerative sentences in Manhattan were for a minimum prison time of two years or more, compared to less than a quarter of those for Queens cases. The median length of the minimum sentence (excluding sentences to time served) was exactly one year in Queens and exactly two years in Manhattan.
Figure 6 Sentence Type 100% 80%
29%
37%
13%
60% 40%
63%
58%
Manhattan N=295 Probation only
Queens N=235
20% 0%
Imprisonment & Probation Imprisonment
Figure 7 Youthful Offender Status 100%
85% 80%
74%
60% 40% 20% 0%
Manhattan N=294
Queens N=234
(Data not available for one case in each borough.)
Figure 8 Length of Sentence Manhattan N=108
2% 40%
46%
12% 2%
Queens N=99
10% 0%
25% 20%
Time Served
Research Brief #10
1 year or less (definite)
42% 40%
< 2 years (minimum)
60%
2 years to < 3 years (minimum)
15% 80%
3+ years (minimum)
5% 100%
Life (maximum)
5
CJA
Research Brief Figure 9 Cumulative Re-Arrest Rates
Re-Arrest Rates The most striking findings concerning re-arrests among youth in JO cases in Manhattan and Queens were the high likelihood of re-arrest and the similarities between the boroughs. Most of the juveniles in each borough were re-arrested. Re-arrests occurred very quickly for some of the juveniles in this research. One juvenile was rearrested after only four days at risk and six in each borough were re-arrested within 10 days at risk. Figure 9 shows that there were minimal borough differences in re-arrest rates. Within four years, 80% of juveniles processed in Manhattan and 75% in Queens had been re-arrested. However, Manhattan juveniles were slightly less likely to have been re-arrested within one year (38%, compared to 44% in Queens). These borough differences were not statistically significant. Figure 10 illustrates the length of time to re-arrest for the juveniles who were re-arrested within four years. Juveniles whose initial case was in Queens were significantly more likely to be re-arrested within a year of time at risk: 61%, compared to 51% in Manhattan. Also, Manhattan juveniles were significantly more likely to be first re-arrested between disposition and sentence (32%) than were Queens juveniles (12%), while those processed in Queens were significantly more likely to be first re-arrested after case completion (74%) than were Manhattan juveniles (51%) (not shown). As shown in Figure 11, about half of first re-arrests were for felony-level offenses but about eight of every 10 most severe re-arrests in each borough involved felony-level charges (borough differences were not statistically significant). However, there were some subtle borough differences in charge types. The most severe re-arrest charge was significantly more likely to be criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (a B felony) or another felony narcotics charge for Manhattan juveniles, while the most severe re-arrest charge was significantly more likely to be murder in the second degree (an A felony), or attempted murder in the second degree (a B felony), for Queens juveniles (not shown). 6
100% Manhattan
80%
80%
Queens 60% 58%
60%
71% 70%
75%
44% 38%
40% 20% 0%
Within: 1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
N=298
N=290
N=284
N=276
N=253
N=250
N=247
N=241
Figure 10 Length of Time to First Re-Arrest 100%
8% 12%
4% 14%
Over 3 years
80%
29%
20%
Over 2 years to 3 years
20%
Over 1 year to 2 years
60% 40% 20%
18%
33%
Over 6 months to 1 year
41%
6 Months or less
0% Manhattan Queens N=220 N=180 median=352 days median=273 days
100%
Figure 11 Proportion Felony Offense for First and Most Severe Re-Arrest 81%
80% 60%
87%
52% 48%
40% 20% 0%
First Re-Arrest Manhattan N=220
Most Severe Re-Arrest Queens N=180
December 2005
CJA
Research Brief
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The focus of this study is on comparing the impact of processing juveniles in the Supreme Court in Manhattan versus Queens, measured in terms of minimizing juvenile recidivism. Despite strong similarities between the boroughs in case and demographic characteristics, this report documents marked differences in case processing. Juvenile offender cases in Manhattan were characterized by significantly longer processing time, longer detention, and longer sentences than similar cases in Queens. However, the wide borough differences in the court processing of juveniles in Supreme Court did not affect the proportion of juveniles who were re-arrested, nor the proportion re-arrested on a felony charge. The borough differences may account for the slightly longger average time to the first re-arrest for juveniles processed in Manhattan. In particular, it seems likely that the long period that Manhattan juveniles spend under the supervision of a placement program prior to sentencing during the juveniles’ first months at risk for re-arrest might serve to delay re-offending behaviors.
Summary of Research Findings Manhattan
Queens
Court Processing Processing time in CC Processing time in SC Total processing time Days in detention Likelihood of any detention
longer longer more greater
Likelihood of detention throughout case Likelihood of conviction Likelihood of imprisonment, if convicted Likelihood of YO status, if convicted Length of sentence, if sentenced to imprisonment
greater
longer
greater
no statistically significant difference
less longer
Re-Arrest Rate of re-arrest Time to re-arrest Re-arrest on a felony charge
no statistically significant difference
longer no statistically significant difference
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
•
Although the Manhattan model of youth prosecution is more costly than the Queens model in terms of the expenses associated with detention, placement programs, and direct court expenses, rates of re-arrest and rates of felony re-arrest are similar. The higher proportion of re-arrests within the first year at risk for Queens juveniles suggests that the Manhattan model of youth prosecution may offer a window of opportunity for intervention to reduce recidivism. Future research should assess which aspects of the Manhattan model are associated with longer time at risk prior to re-arrest. The additional costs of the Manhattan model may be justified by other benefits provided by the placement programs that have not been measured. For example, youths are offered the opportunity to attend high school, receive drug treatment, and receive employment and psychological counseling. Similarly, different types of re-arrests pose different costs to the community. From the perspective of community safety, for example, felony re-arrest might be more appropriately measured by violent re-offenses, especially since each of the youths was initially charged with a violent felony offense. The Manhattan and Queens models of youth prosecution are not the only possible approaches. CJA will include the remaining boroughs and will explore alternate ways of conceptualizing re-arrests in future research.
• • • •
Research Brief #10
7
Research Brief from
CJA
No. 10 (December 2005) Assessing the Impact of Differing Models of Youth Crime Prosecution Forthcoming: No. 11 (April 2006) Creating Gun Courts in New York City, a study of the Brooklyn Pilot Program, by Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.
Previously published in this series: No. 9 (August 2005): Prosecutors’ Bail Requests and the CJA Release Recommendation (Phillips) No. 8 (April 2005): Pretrial Re-Arrest Among New York City Defendants (Siddiqi) No. 7 (December 2004): Manhattan’s Specialized Domestic Violence Court (Peterson) No. 6 (August 2004): Release and Bail Decisions in New York City (Phillips) No. 5 (April 2004): CJA’s New Release-Recommendation System (Siddiqi) No. 4 (December 2003): Combating Domestic Violence in New York City, 2001 (Peterson) No. 3 (August 2003): The Impact of Quality-Of-Life Policing (Solomon) No. 2 (April 2003): The Impact of Felony ATI Programs On Recidivism (Savolainen) No. 1 (December 2002): Jail Displacement for ATI Programs (Phillips)
www.nycja.org/research/research.htm
Research Brief from
CJA
No. 10 (December 2005) Assessing the Impact of Differing Models of Youth Crime Prosecution
The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. 52 Duane Street New York, NY 10007
TO: