Jerome E.

McElroy
Executive Director

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS

AND MANHATTAN PROGRAM START-UP:
CASE SCREENING AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION PROCESS

Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.

Senior Research Fellow
and
Project Director

FINAL REPORT
April 2014

52 Duane Street, Third Floor, New York, NY 10007-1231

The mission of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.,
is to assist the courts and the City in reducing unnecessary pretrial

(646) 213-2500

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS

AND MANHATTAN PROGRAM START-UP:
CASE SCREENING AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION PROCESS

Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.

Senior Research Fellow
and
Project Director

Jonathan Carmona
Senior Research Assistant

Geraldine Staehs-Goirn
IT Programmer Analyst

Wayne Nehwadowich
IT Deputy Director for Programming

April 2014
This report can be downloaded from: www.nycja.org/library.php

2014 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style:
Solomon, Freda F. 2014. CJAs Supervised Release Programs and Manhattan Program Start-Up: Case
Screening and Participant Selection Process. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report reflects the combined efforts of many both within and outside of the
New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA).
Jerome McElroy, CJAs Executive Director, has long advocated introducing an
alternative between ROR and money bail into the Citys Criminal Courts. That goal has
become a reality due to the vision and tireless efforts of Mari Curbelo, CJAs Director of
Court Operations, who crafted and implemented CJAs successful Supervised Release
programs currently operating in two counties. She also assembled, along with Andrea
Barrow, Director of Manhattans Supervised Release program, the courtroom team who
not only screen and advocate for prospective program clients, but also carefully
document their work.
Wayne Nehwadowich, IT Deputy Director for Programming, has been responsible
for creating the programs computerized information system, and is indispensable to our
research efforts. Geraldine Staehs-Goirn, IT Programmer Analyst, created the data file
that forms the basis of the information analyzed in this report, combining items from the
programs database with additional variables from CJAs main computerized information
system.
I greatly appreciate all the hard work of Jonathan Carmona, Senior Research
Assistant. He has taken the lead, assisted by Steven Corrente, Supervised Release
Records Management Assistant, in the review of program screening forms, overseeing
and assisting in their data entry, and performing quality control for the Manhattan
program data. He also created the analytic data set for this research, performed some
of the analysis, and assisted in the writing of the report.
There are no adequate words of thanks for all of the assistance provided by Joann
DeJesus, Executives Manager of Special Projects. The range of her responsibilities
and contributions to all of us involved with the Supervised Release programs, so ably
performed, are too numerous to list.
CJAs Supervised Release programs have been made possible by the
commitment of the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (now
renamed the Mayors Office of Criminal Justice) to the development and funding of
these programs. Within that Office special thanks are due to Michele Sviridoff, Deputy
Coordinator for Policy and Planning for her ongoing assistance, and to its Counsel,
Jordan M. Dressler and Gerald T. Foley, Assistant Director of Program Management
and Development.
I am indebted to many of my Agency colleagues who gave so generously of their
time to review and comment on earlier drafts of this report. However, I alone am
responsible for any errors.
Thanks always are due to Annie Su, the Research Departments Administrative
Associate, who oversees all the final details that lead to the production and distribution
of research reports.
Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow and
Project Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS ............................................................3
Charge Criteria..........................................................................................................3
CJA Release Recommendation, Criminal Conviction History and Related Items .....3
Defendant Access and Interview...............................................................................5
Community Ties ........................................................................................................6
Assignment to the Supervised Release Program......................................................6
Data Collection During the Screening Process .........................................................7
IMPLEMENTING THE MAHATTAN SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAM:
THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, April 8 through October 8, 2013 .....................................7
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................22

INTRODUCTION
The primary mission of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc. is to
provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the Citys adult Criminal Court
system. For defendants held in custody pending Criminal Court arraignment CJA uses
a validated risk-assessment instrument to make a release recommendation based on
statistical probabilities of failure to appear (FTA) if released on recognizance. New
York remains one of only several states which rely solely on factors related to FTA as
the basis for pretrial release decisions. In addition, New York judges must choose
between personal recognizance or bail for pretrial release in almost all cases continued
at Criminal Court arraignment.1
For a number of years CJA has advocated for offering community supervision as
an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a moderate risk of failing to appear if
released on unsupervised personal recognizance. After extensive consultation with the
New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, and with their support, an
experimental pretrial alternative-to-detention (ATD) program was designed to offer the
option of supervised release as a bail alternative at Criminal Court arraignment in a
limited number of non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set.
Criteria for defendants in these cases were agreed to with a goal of creating a program
model that would achieve jail displacement for the target population along with controls
to prevent the inappropriate substitution of community supervision for traditional release
on recognizance (ROR). To accomplish this requires an extensive screening process
for prospective program clients in charge-eligible cases. The screening elements
include an assessment of CJAs pretrial release recommendation and review of the
defendants criminal history record in order to exclude those with the lowest and highest
risks of pretrial misconduct. Strength of community ties is another key factor necessary
to ensure successful supervision.
In August 2009 the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) introduced an
experimental Supervised Release (SR) program In the Queens Criminal Court. Based
on the success of that program the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice
Coordinator contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project
in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April
2013.

For an excellent review of New Yorks practices in comparison with other jurisdictions see
Mary T. Phillips, New York Citys Bail SystemA World Apart, New York City Criminal Justice
Agency RESEARCH BRIEF series No. 30 (2012), New York: New York City Criminal Justice
Agency, Inc. available at www.nycja.org/library.php

The interval between CJAs start-up of its Queens and Manhattan programs saw
renewed national, state and local attention on issues of bail and pretrial release. In May
2011, the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice in conjunction
with the Pretrial Justice Institute convened a symposium to assess the
accomplishments and challenges in bail reform in the decades since the 1964 National
Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice. A key focus of this symposium was the
assessment that throughout state court systems access to money, rather than risks of
pretrial misconduct, continue to be the basis for pretrial release decisions.2 The
symposiums renewed call for bail reform was underscored in the 2013 State of the
Judiciary address delivered by New York States Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman on
February 5, 2013. In his address he called for major changes in the States bail statute
and the expansion of community supervision as an alternative to money bail, citing
CJAs Queens program.3
The interest in CJAs supervised release programs frequently results in requests
for more information about the criteria and screening processes used, and is the subject
of the first section of this report.
The second section of this report follows the process of how, when and by whom
decisions were made during the first six-month start-up period of the Manhattan
program. It is designed to offer readers an illustration of the how the programs
screening process works in an applied setting. Introducing anything new into an
established workgroup environment such as arraignment courtrooms always will be
expected to be approached with some wariness and caution among all stakeholders.
And in the case of CJAs Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program this was
magnified by the amount of heightened scrutiny when the program was implemented
against the backdrop of renewed interest in pretrial release decision making. Therefore
the data presented in part two should be viewed in this context, with the expectation that
some changes are likely to occur as the program matures and becomes more
established.

A summary of the proceedings from this conference are available on the Pretrial Justice
Institutes web site, http://www.pretrial.org/wpfb-file/nspj-report-2011-pdf/
3

The full text is available from the new York State Office of Court Administration web site,
http://www.nycourts.gov/admin/stateofjudiciary/SOJ-2013.pdf

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS

There are many criteria used by program court staff in the process of screening
prospective cases and defendants for the opportunity to be offered supervised release.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the decision-making modes developed to implement
the programs design. It sequentially identifies each of the key decision points and
criteria used as program court staff reviews cases and defendants appearing on the
court calendars of each covered Criminal Court arraignment session. The remainder of
this section of the report examines each stage in the decision model in greater detail.
Charge Criteria
Court staff review the calendar for each covered session to identify cases awaiting
arraignment on selected non-violent felony charges. These are the charges in each
program location for which planning research showed a high likelihood of bail setting at
Criminal Court arraignment. In both the Queens and Manhattan program locations this
includes most felony drug charges such as the B-felony charges of sale or possession
of narcotics and property crimes such as grand larceny. In Manhattan, but not Queens,
eligible charges also include fraud/theft charges such as possession of a forged
instrument or identify theft. Defendants in these cases are proactively screened further.
However, charge-eligible cases that appear to involve domestic violence are excluded
at the outset.
CJA Release Recommendation, Criminal Conviction History and Related Items
CJA serves as the Citys pretrial services agency, using a statistically validated
risk-assessment instrument to make a release recommendation based on the likelihood
that defendants will fail to appear if released on recognizance.
Defendants with the lowest FTA risk are Recommended for ROR. Research
during the planning phase showed that among the cases of defendants Recommended
for ROR, those without other docketed cases on the DCJS criminal history report (i.e.
rap sheet) at the time of the screened case have the greatest likelihood of being
released, all other things being equal. Defendants in charge-eligible cases in this
subset of Recommended for ROR category are excluded from further consideration as
one of the safeguards against SR becoming a substitute for recognizance release. (In
the report tables this subset is shown as Recommended for ROR, first arrest and
referred to in text as the cases of defendants Recommended for ROR without a criminal
history.)
Defendant screening can continue in all other charge-eligible cases, including
those Recommended for ROR with criminal histories.

FIGURE 1

SUPERVISED RELEASE DECISION MODEL

STEP 1:

Find Felony Cases

Ineligible

Recommended for ROR and

first arrest indicator is yes
(except by referral)
No interview and defendant
bypassing Central Booking

STEP 2:

Eligible

Screen Charges

STEP 3:

Locate & review CJA

Interview Form for
Release Recommendation
and prior arrest indicator

Recommended with prior arrests

Moderate FTA Risk
High FTA Risk (evaluate warrant
history for mitigating factors)
All other recommendation categories

STEP 4a:

Too many convictions

Too many or too recent
pretrial warrants
Adult VFO conviction
w/in 10 years
Violent history
Hold on defendant

Review number of criminal

convictions from CJA
Interview Form or rap sheet

No more than 1 felony

and/or 6 misdemeanors

STEP 4b:

Use rap sheet and complaint to review all

charges and relevant criminal history
items including any warrant history

Refused
Unable to locate
defense attorney

Unable to locate defendant

Defendant unwilling
Defendant unable to
participate in interview
(e.g. language barrier)
No local address/phone
Cannot verify contact info

STEP 5:

Seek defense permission for

defendant Interview.

STEP 6:

Interview defendant

Verify local address and

phone contact info
Obtain supplemental
information as needed

STEP 7:

Not raised in court:

ROR
Remand
Bail set & made

Inform defense of
program willingness

STEP 8:

Application made to court

Rejected

None or no recent pretrial

FTA
Return within 30 days
No violent criminal history

Accepted

The numbers of adult felony and/or misdemeanor criminal convictions, if any, are
examined. Defendants are rejected by the program if they have more than six
convictions to misdemeanor crimes and/or more than one adult non-youthful offender
(YO) felony conviction. In addition, the felony conviction cannot be to a Violent Felony
Offense (VFO) if it occurred within the past ten years.
Defendants in charge-eligible cases are considered criminal history ineligible by the
program staff during the initial screening process if:
> They are Recommended for ROR and are without a criminal history.
> There is more than one adult non-YO felony conviction.
> There is a felony conviction for a non-YO adjudicated VFO crime within the past
ten years.
> There are more than six convictions to misdemeanor crimes.
Defendants who satisfy the initial criminal history criteria are further screened for
any history of bench warrants for FTA in prior cases. This is especially salient in cases
of defendants considered at high FTA risk and not recommended for unsupervised
recognizance release. Defendants can fall into this CJA risk assessment category if
there ever was an FTA warrant issued in a prior case and/or based on the absence of
sufficient community ties information at the time of the initial pre-arraignment interview.
For defendants with any prior or active warrant, court staff examines the total
number of warrants, if any, and the circumstances of the most recent warrant. For
example, is the most recent warrant for a post-arraignment pre-disposition FTA versus a
warrant for failing to appear for a Desk Appearance Ticket arraignment or a postadjudication FTA (e.g. failure to pay a fine); how long ago did this occur; did the
defendant return within 30 days of the issuance of a bench warrant for FTA?
> Defendants with many or a recent pattern of pretrial FTA are rejected from further
consideration by the program. If there is any doubt, the court staff consults with
the Program Director or Manager.
Also researched by court staff is whether there may be other types of criminal
history circumstances that could preclude program participation.
> Other types of criminal history factors include an ICE or Parole hold, or the
nature or number of open cases.
Defendant Access and Interview
Program staff will seek to contact and interview defendants in charge-eligible
cases who have not already been disqualified by the program for continued screening
based on the above factors. The staff will then speak to the defense attorney to verify if
there is a significant likelihood of bail being set in the case, and if so, explain the
program participation requirements and gauge the defense attorneys interest in
supervised release in lieu of bail. This gatekeeping function by the defense, along with

using research-based criteria and incorporating courtroom experience, is a critical piece

of the program design to avoid net widening. Defendants are excluded from further
screening if the defense attorney refuses access.
In addition, the defendant him/herself must be able and willing to be interviewed by
program staff, and willing to participate in the program if offered.
Community Ties
To make community supervision possible, the program is able to accept willing
defendants only if they have program-verified ties to the local-area community. During
the defendant interview process information already collected by CJA during its prearraignment interview for release-recommendation purposes will be reviewed with, and
additional information obtained from, the defendant. Defendants who are street
homeless or who cannot provide a verifiable residence in the New York City area must
be rejected by the program.
The CJA pre-arraignment interview process is a high volume operation conducted
within a narrow time frame. In addition to obtaining criminal history information for
virtually all cases of defendants held for arraignment, CJA Operations staffs attempt to
interview all of the defendants held prior to arraignment in a Central Booking facility.
Even when defendants are able to provide contact information, CJA interview staff
rarely will be able to make more than one attempt at phone verification before the
interview forms must be completed and added to the Court packagecomplaint, rap
sheet, warrants, CJA interview form with release recommendation. However, after the
court papers are assembled there can be a many hours lag before defendants appear
for the arraignment. The SR program staff uses a portion of this interval to accomplish
defendant interviews and verification attempts.
Assignment to the Supervised Release Program
For proactively screened cases, if program court staff is satisfied that there are
sufficient verified local ties the defense attorney will be informed that the defendant will
be accepted by the program if it is offered by the Court. However, in these cases it is
up to the defense attorney to raise the program option to the Court.
In the adversarial courtroom setting the prosecution is first to speak in regard to
pretrial release or bail and it is expected that the defense will raise the program option
only when there is a bail request. This is another way in which the program is designed
to achieve jail displacement. However, there is nothing in the program model that would
prevent the prosecution and defense to discuss the possibility of the SR option prior to
arraignment, or for the prosecution to raise or consent to SR once raised.

Sometimes program staff will review cases and defendants upon referral. These
are almost always cases raised on the record at the arraignment in which the program
already excluded/rejected the case or defendant, or did not have the opportunity to
complete the screening process in advance of arraignment.
Once raised on the record in cases in which the program is prepared to accept the
defendant, the ultimate decision rests with the Criminal Court arraignment judge.
Data Collection During the Screening Process
Program court staffs document their review of every charge-eligible case and
defendant by completing a screening form which is reviewed and entered into a
dedicated computerized program information system. This form includes information
about the nature of the charges, CJA release recommendation, defendant criminal
history, other criminal history items, information about community ties collected during a
defendant interview, and interactions with all participants in the courtroom workgroup,
such as defense attorneys, as applicable. The form also contains a summary section
for identifying program cases or the source and reasons for rejections for nonparticipant cases. The identifiers in the programs information system can be linked to
the Agencys main database for court processing and case outcome information and
other supplemental information about cases and defendants collected during the
Agencys pre-arraignment interview.

IMPLEMENTING THE MANHATTAN SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAM:

THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, April 8 through October 8, 2013
The information captured for each stage of the screening process in the programs
database, augmented by CJA database information, is discussed in this section. At the
outset, Figure 2 illustrates some of the results of the screening process for the
Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program during its first six-month start-up period.
Among other items it shows the distribution of screened cases among three general
categoriescases with defendants found ineligible during initial criminal history
screening, cases rejected/excluded after additional screening and the program client
cases. It also shows some of the characteristics among the three groups of cases.
The criteria and decision making processes limit the number of defendants
eligible to participate in CJAs Supervised Release program.

During the first six-months of the MSR program, court staff screened 2,718 cases.
Defendants in 218 of these cases became program participants and a combined
total of 2,500 were excluded or rejected.

FIGURE2
MSRSCREENING,APRIL8OCTOBER8,2013

CHARGEELIGIBLESCREENEDCASES
N=2,718

INELIGIBLECRIMINALHISTORY

N=1,366

NONPARTICIPANTCRIMINAL
HISTORYELIGIBLECASES
N=1,134

PROGRAMPARTICIPANTCASES
N=218

PROGRAMEXCLUSIONS

DUETO:
RECOMMENDEDforROR&

FIRSTARRESTISYES=352
TOOMANYPRIOR

CONVICTIONS=955

PRIORFELONYISANADULT
VFO=52

ELIGIBILITYCOULDNOTBE
DETERMINED=7

CHARGETYPE
DRUG=686
PROPERTYCRIME=451
HARM=53
FRAUD/THEFT=156
MISCONDUCT=13
OBSTRUCTJUSTICE=6
OTHER=1

CHARGESEVERITY
AFELONY=4
BFELONY=536
CFELONY=42
DFELONY=471
EFELONY=307
AMISDEMEANOR=6

CJARECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDROR&NOT
FIRSTARREST=184
MODERATEFTARISK=381
HIGHFTARISK=384
BENCHWARRANT=92
INCOMPLETE
INTERVIEW=55
OTHERCATEGORIES=11
MISSING INTERVIEW=27

CHARGETYPE
DRUG=452
PROPERTYCRIME=382
HARM=62
FRAUD/THEFT=206
PROSTITUTION=1
MISCONDUCT=18
OBSTRUCTJUSTICE=12
OTHER=1

CHARGESEVERITY
AFELONY=10
BFELONY=323
CFELONY=49
DFELONY=423
EFELONY=325
AMISDEMEANOR=4

REJECTEDBY
PROGRAM=670
DEFENSE=262
DEFENDANT=19
JUDGE/COURT=137
NOTRAISED=46

CJARECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDEDforROR&
FIRSTARRESTISYES=10
RECOMMENDEDforROR&
NOTFIRSTARREST=38
MODERATEFTARISK=63
HIGHFTARISK=86
BENCHWARRANT=12
INCOMPLETEINTERVIEW=4
OTHERCATEGORIES=3
MISSINGINTERVIEW=2

CHARGETYPE
DRUG=99
PROPERTYCRIME=81
HARM=10
FRAUD/THEFT=24
MISCONDUCT=1
OBSTRUCTJUSTICE=1
OTHER=2(VTL)

CHARGESEVERITY
BFELONY=67
CFELONY=11
DFELONY=92
EFELONY=48

The majority of defendants in screened non-participant cases will be excluded or

rejected by the program.

Of the 2,500 non-participant cases the program staff had to exclude 1,366 (54.6% of
non-participant cases) during the initial screening phase based on criminal history
related eligibility criteria:
In 352 of these cases defendants without any criminal history were
Recommended for ROR.
In 955 cases the defendants had more than a single felony conviction and/or
more than six misdemeanor convictions.
An additional 52 cases were rejected when it was found that the single felony
conviction was for a VFO within the past ten years.
There were seven cases of defendants that bypassed the Central Booking facility
so that there was insufficient information to determine eligibility.

There were 1,134 non-participant cases that received further evaluation and of these
the program rejected/excluded 670 cases (59.1% of the non-participant criminal
history eligible cases). Among the most common reasons for this were:
Other criminal history issues such as extensive warrant histories, or the nature or
number of open cases;
A lack of verifiable or verified local community ties or residences too far away
from the program site; and,
Cases arraigned before the program was able to complete its review.

Defense attorneys are effective gatekeepers and reduce contact with defendants
likely to be released at arraignment.

There were in total 262 non-participant cases in which defense attorneys refused a
program interview with defendants who so far had met the programs criteria.
There were 220 of these cases continued at arraignment in which defense
counsel refused access based on an expectation of ROR. In over 90% of these
cases the defendant received ROR.

Defendants almost always will consent to the interview and the program option if
offered.

There were only 19 instances in which the defendant refused to be considered, and
in eight of these cases the defendant expressed a preference for bail.

It is expected that the program option will be raised on the record in cases in
which the District Attorneys (DA) Office is seeking bail. In addition, the Assistant
District Attorney (ADA) may choose to consent or object to the program or even
raise the program as an alternative to bail.

10

The program option was raised on the record in a total of 384 cases, including not
only those rejected by judges but also some cases subsequently rejected by the
program, defense or defendant. The position of the DAs office was known in all but
33 of these cases.
Among the 218 cases of program participants the ADA position was recorded in
199 of the cases. Bail was requested in 196 of the cases; in two cases the DA
requested bail but would consent to SR as a bail alternative; and in one case
consented outright to the program in lieu of any bail request.
The DAs office placed an objection to the program on the record in 16 of the
program participant cases.
Among the 166 cases rejected after the program was raised on the record the
DAs position was known in 152 cases. Bail was requested in 146 of the cases
with consent to the program in six cases.
Among the non-participant cases in which the program was raised on the record,
the DAs office placed an objection to the program in lieu of bail in eleven of
these cases. Bail was set in nine of the cases, with an ROR release in the other
two cases.

Judges make the final decision regarding supervised release.

There were 137 instances in which judges rejected the supervised release option.
In 31 (22.6%) of these cases the judge released the defendant on personal
recognizance, set bail in 105 (76.7%) of the cases among which two cases had
defendants able to post bail at the arraignment, and remanded the remaining
case.

Judges infrequently provide an on-the-record explanation for choosing bail over

supervised release in cases in which MSR was prepared to accept the defendant.
Defendant criminal history, other open cases or current charges were most often
cited among the small number of cases for which a judicial rejection reason was
given.

In most instances the program alternative will be raised on the record by defense
attorneys in instances in which the program has vetted defendants and found
them qualified. However, there can be instances in which the program alternative
will be raised in cases in which the program already may have excluded/rejected
the case or did not have the opportunity to fully assess the defendants eligibility.

There were 92 cases in which SR was raised on the record as a result of a referral
during the arraignment process.
Judges were the most frequent referral source, accounting for 71 cases.
Defense attorneys made 17 on-the-record referrals, with the DAs office and
defendants themselves each accounting for two cases.

11

Among the 71 cases in which SR was raised on the record by judges, the program
accepted defendants in 62 of the cases and rejected nine.
In most of these cases the defendants were found to have met the CJA
recommendation and criminal history criteria but were disqualified based on
unverified community ties, other criminal history issues, personal circumstances,
or because the defense attorney had expected ROR. In all of these cases
negotiations and information provided after the program was raised in court were
sufficient to resolve the impediment to program acceptance.
There were eight cases in which defendants were Recommended for ROR
without an adult criminal record and in each of these cases the defendants were
accepted when it was clear that without the program the judge would set bail.
There was one case in which the defendant had a VFO conviction dated 9
years earlier. The program accepted the defendant upon the consent of both the
ADA and Program Manager.
The most common reason for program rejection of judicial referrals was because
of insufficient community ties.

Among the 17 defense attorney referrals the program ultimately accepted

defendants in 12 of the cases and rejected defendants in the other five.
Defendants in all but one of these cases were criminal history eligible but had
initially been disqualified by the program due to a potential conflict with court
appearances in pending cases or personal circumstances.
There was a single case in which the defendant was Recommended for Release
without a criminal history but an exception was made by the Program Director
based on the defense referral.

In total there were two cases in which the ADA initiated the on-the-record discussion
of Supervised Release.
In one case the defendant had been rejected by the program because of a
potential conflict with court appearances in pending matters, but agreed to accept
the defendant who was otherwise qualified for the program.
There was one case in which the ADA raised SR in the bail application in the
event the judge was considering an ROR. The judge in this case rejected SR
and chose ROR because the defendant had no criminal history.

Sometimes the SR option will not be raised on the record even though the
program was prepared to accept the defendant.

There were 46 cases of eligible defendants in which the program option was not
raised on the record.
There was an ROR in 39 of these cases.
Among the other seven cases, bail was set in five, one case had a remanded
defendant and the remaining case was disposed at the arraignment.

12

In most instances SR is raised in the course of the arraignment process without

the need to second call the case.

Overall 83 of the 384 cases raised on the record had a second call.
There were 62 participant cases with a second call, 47 of which were judicial
referrals.
There were 18 rejected cases with a second call, 10 of which were judicial
referrals.

The crime types of the first complaint charge in the cases differ among the
participant and non-participant categories.

The first complaint charge in the overwhelming majority of all screened cases falls
into the drug, property or fraud/theft categories, but these are found in different
proportions among the categories.
Drug charges make up the largest percentage of cases of defendants excluded
due to an excessive criminal history.
The second largest percentage of drug cases is found among program
participants, 45.4%.
Charge-eligible cases in the property crime category have the largest percentage
of the cases excluded because defendants without criminal records are
Recommended for ROR.
Property crimes make up the second largest category of charges for program
participants, (37.2%) only somewhat greater than the percentage of propertycrime category cases found in the eligible but rejected category (33.7%).
Fraud/theft category charges make up the greatest percentage of cases of
defendants without criminal records excluded due to an ROR recommendation,
23.0%, and the smallest percentage of the cases of defendants rejected for
excessive criminal records, 7.3%.
Fraud/theft category charges make up the third largest percentage of
Manhattans participant cases, 11.0%.

Criminal
History Eligible
but Rejected
N=1,134

Not Criminal
History Eligible
N=1,007
(Excludes 7
cases)

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record
N=352

Arraignment
Charge
Characteristics

Participants
N=218

Charge Type

Drug

99

45.4

452

39.9

603

59.9

80

22.7

Property

81

37.2

382

33.7

283

28.1

166

47.2

Harm

10

4.5

62

5.5

40

4.0

12

3.4

Fraud/Theft

24

11.0

206

18.2

74

7.3

81

23.0

13

Misconduct

0.5

18

1.6

0.0

13

3.7

Obstruct Justice

0.5

12

1.0

0.6

0.0

Other

1.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

There are some differences in the distribution of charges within crime categories
among the participant and non-participant categories.

There are differences in the distribution of charges in the drug category.

The B-felony narcotic sale charge (PL 220.39) is a far larger percentage of the
top arraignment charges among cases of defendants with excessive criminal
histories, 53.4%, and the smallest percentage, 21.2%, of program participant
drug cases.
B-felony drug possession (PL 220.16) has the greatest percentage of drug
charges among participant cases, 46.5%, and also among the cases of
defendants excluded when Recommended for ROR without a criminal record,
45.1%.
The greatest percentage of cases arraigned on the D-felony possession charge
(PL 220.06), 15%, is found among program participant cases in comparison with
the other eligibility categories.

Arraignment
Charge
Characteristics

Participants

Eligible but
Rejected

Drug Charges

PL 220.39

21

21.2

167

36.9

321

53.4

23

28.0

PL 220.16

46

46.5

150

33.2

141

23.5

37

45.1

PL 220.31

12

12.1

57

12.6

84

14.0

4.9

PL 220.06

15

15.2

31

6.9

20

3.3

9.8

PL 220.34

2.0

10

1.7

PL 221.25

11

2.4

0.2

PL 220.09

0.7

0.8

PL 220.44

0.4

1.3

PL 220.21

1.8

0.2

1.2

PL 221.20

1.0

0.7

0.2

2.4

All Other Drug

1.0

11

2.4

1.5

1.2

Total Drug

99

100.0

452

100.0

601

100.0

82

100.0

3.0

Not Criminal
History Eligible

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record

7.3

14

There are differences in the first complaint charges found in the cases in the
property-crime category.
The greatest percentage of property cases in each eligibility category is the Efelony grand larceny (PL 155.30) charge, but this charge makes up a smaller
percentage of participant cases (35.8%) in comparison with the other categories.
The largest percentage of cases arraigned with the top charge of D-felony grand
larceny (PL 155.35) is found in the Recommended for ROR with no criminal
record (32.5%) and program-participant categories (27.2%). This charge makes
up a far smaller percentage of cases of those not eligible due to an excessive
criminal history (11.0%).
The third largest percentage of participant cases (17.3%) is those with a D-felony
burglary (PL 140.20) top arraignment charge. This charge makes up only 4.2%
of the cases excluded in the Recommended with no criminal record category and
30.0% of the cases of defendants with excessive criminal histories.

Arraignment
Charge
Characteristics

Participants

Eligible but
Rejected

Not Criminal
History Eligible

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record

Property
Charges

PL 155.30

29

35.8

172

45.0

109

38.5

74

44.6

PL 155.35

22

27.2

77

20.2

31

11.0

54

32.5

PL 140.20

14

17.3

49

12.8

85

30.0

4.2

PL 165.45

9.9

44

11.5

35

12.4

4.8

PL 145.05

2.5

15

3.9

10

3.5

4.8

PL 155.40

6.2

2.1

10

6.0

PL 165.50

1.8

0.7

1.2

Attempted
PL 155.35

1.3

1.4

All Other Property

Charges

1.2

1.3

2.5

1.8

Total Property

81

100.0

382

100.0

283

100.0

166

100.0

The third largest category of cases has a charge in the fraud/theft category, and
here too there are differences in the percentage distributions of charges within this
crime type by eligibility category.
The largest percentage of cases in each eligibility category has a D-felony
possession of a forged instrument charge (PL 170.25) but the percentage varies
from 44.4% among Recommended for ROR with no criminal record and 45.8%

15

among participant cases, to 58.1% among the cases of those excluded due to an
excessive criminal history.
A quarter of program participant cases (6 of the 24) have a top arraignment
charge of D-felony identity theft (PL 190.80), a charge that is less than 5% of the
cases in the other categories.
Arraignment
Charge
Characteristics

Participants

Eligible but
Rejected

Not Criminal
History Eligible

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record

Fraud/Theft
Charges

PL 170.25

11

45.8

109

52.9

43

58.1

36

44.4

PL 170.10

4.2

18

8.7

15

20.3

9.9

PL 170.30

4.2

20

9.7

8.1

4.9

PL 190.79

8.3

11

5.3

6.8

8.6

PL 190.80

25.0

10

4.9

2.7

2.5

PL 175.35

10

4.9

7.4

PL 170.40

8.3

1.5

1.4

4.9

All Other Fraud

Charges

4.2

25

12.1

2.7

14

17.3

Total Fraud/Theft

24

100.0

206

100.0

74

100.0

81

100.0

The severity of the first complaint charge differs among the participant and nonparticipant categories.

Severity differences among eligibility categories to a large extent reflect differences

in charge composition among the crime categories.
D-felony charges make up the greatest percentages of cases of program
participants and defendants excluded when Recommended for ROR without
criminal records (42.2 and 41.8 percent respectively).
The greatest percentage of cases with B-felony severity charges is found among
defendants excluded due to excessive criminal records (47.0%). B-felony cases
make up the second largest percentage of program participant cases (30.7%).

16

Not Criminal
History Eligible
N=1,007
(Excludes 7
cases)

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record
N=352

Arraignment
Charge
Characteristics

Participants
N=218

Eligible but
Rejected
N=1,134

Charge Severity

A felony*

0.0

10

0.9

0.3

0.0

B felony

67

30.7

323

28.5

474

47.0

60

17.0

C felony

11

5.0

49

4.3

24

2.4

18

5.1

D felony

92

42.2

423

37.3

323

32.1

147

41.8

E felony

48

22.0

325

28.7

179

17.8

125

35.5

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.6

A Misdemeanor**

*Cases with a non-violent A-felony charge were not excluded from screening during the
first weeks of the programs implementation.
**These are referrals from early in the program.
Other differences are found in comparing the participant and non-participant
defendants and cases.
There are differences in defendant characteristics among program participants
and non-participants.

Defendants excluded because of their extensive criminal histories are

proportionately older, male and non-Hispanic black in comparison with participants
and with non-participants in the other rejection categories.
The average (mean) age of non-participants excluded due to an excessive
criminal history is 42 with a median (midpoint) age of 44.
Program participants and those excluded from consideration due to being
Recommended for ROR and not having a criminal record have the most similar
age distribution. The average age for participants is 30 with a median of 26
years; the average age for the excluded Recommended for Release group is 30
with a median age of 27.

The representation of women defendants differs among the categories.

The smallest percentage of female defendants, 8.2%, is found among the cases
excluded due to extensive criminal histories.
The largest percentage of female defendants is found in the cases excluded due
to an ROR recommendation with no criminal histories, 33.5%. Program
participants have the second largest group of female defendants, 28.0%.

17

In every category the overwhelming majority of screened cases have defendants of

color.
The greatest percentage of cases with non-Hispanic white defendants, 19.9%, is
found among the cases excluded due to an ROR recommendation with no
criminal history.
Less than a tenth of program participants are non-Hispanic white defendants.
Not Criminal
History Eligible
N=1,007
(Excludes 7
cases)

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record
N=352

Demographic
Characteristics

Participants
N=218

Eligible but
Rejected
N=1,134

Age Group

16-19

37

17.0

102

9.0

.4

59

16.8

20-23

44

20.2

203

17.9

47

4.7

67

19.0

24-29

48

22.0

303

26.7

114

11.3

83

23.6

30-39

42

19.3

258

22.8

229

22.7

66

18.8

40-49

28

12.8

138

12.2

325

32.2

47

13.4

50-59

14

6.4

96

8.5

242

24.0

22

6.3

60+

2.3

34

3.0

46

4.6

2.3

Mean age

30

32

42

30

Median Age

26

29

44

27

Sex

Male

157

72.0

895

78.9

924

91.8

234

66.5

Female

61

28.0

239

21.1

83

8.2

118

33.5

Ethnicity

Black

108

49.5

504

44.4

588

58.4

139

39.5

Hispanic

82

37.6

384

33.9

303

30.1

109

30.9

White (NonHispanic)

20

9.2

156

13.8

81

8.0

70

19.9

Other

2.8

67

5.9

13

1.3

34

9.7

Unknown

0.9

23

2.0

22

2.2

0.0

18

Criminal conviction characteristics differ among the categories examined.

The proportions of cases of defendants with New York State adult convictions to
crimes of misdemeanor and/or felony severity differ among some of the categories.
Over three-fifths of program participants have no New York State adult
convictions to crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity, very similar to those
found criminal history eligible but rejected after additional screening.
Over four-fifths of defendants in the cases excluded because of their criminal
histories have convictions to both misdemeanor and felony crimes.
Not Criminal
History Eligible
N=1,007
(Excludes 7
cases)

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record
N=352

Criminal
Conviction
History

Participants
N=218

Eligible but
Rejected
N=1,134

Criminal
Convictions

No Prior
Convictions

135

61.9

715

63.1

352

100.0

Misdemeanor
Only

51

23.4

245

21.6

106

10.5

0.0

Felony Only

12

5.5

56

4.9

64

6.4

0.0

Both

20

9.2

118

10.4

837

83.1

0.0

Screened cases have arrests from throughout Manhattans precincts. In addition,

because all Special Narcotics Office cases are prosecuted in New York County,
there are some screened cases with arrests outside of Manhattan.

The greatest numbers and percentages of screened cases have arrests in the 14th
(Midtown South), 25th (primarily East Harlem), 13th (lower Midtown Manhattan), 18th
(Midtown North) and 9th (East Village) precincts, although the percentages vary
among eligibility categories.
The greatest number and percentage of program participants were arrested in
the 14th precinct (11.0%), with a tie between the 9th and 25th precincts for the
second largest numbers.
Among eligible but rejected cases the greatest percentage came from arrests in
the 14th precinct (8.8%) with the second largest group being arrests in the 18th
precinct.
Among those with excessive criminal records, the greatest numbers and
percentages of arrests also were in the 14th precinct (12.4%), with the second
largest group coming from the 25th precinct.

19

In the recommended for ROR with no criminal record category the greatest
number and percentage of arrests originated in the 18th precinct (11.6%), with
14th precinct arrests constituting the second largest group.
PRECINCT
OF
ARREST

ELIGIBLE BUT
PARTICIPANT
REJECTED

NOT
CRIMINAL
HISTORY
ELIGIBLE

RECOMMENDED
FOR ROR- NO
CRIMINAL
HISTORY

TOTAL

2.3

34

3.0

22

2.2

14

4.0

75

2.8

11

5.0

85

7.5

30

3.0

31

8.8

157

5.8

3.2

46

4.1

46

4.6

1.7

105

3.9

3.7

47

4.1

52

5.2

11

3.1

118

4.4

18

8.3

70

6.2

72

7.1

17

4.8

177

6.5

10

0.9

47

4.1

37

3.7

13

3.7

99

3.7

13

4.1

81

7.1

72

7.1

32

9.1

194

7.2

14

24

11.0

100

8.8

125

12.4

37

10.5

286

10.5

17

2.8

28

2.5

17

1.7

1.4

56

2.1

18

16

7.3

87

7.7

42

4.2

41

11.6

186

6.9

19

11

5.0

62

5.5

31

3.1

25

7.1

129

4.8

20

1.8

17

1.5

17

1.7

13

3.7

51

1.9

22

0.0

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.2

23

10

4.6

24

2.1

32

3.2

2.3

74

2.7

24

2.8

32

2.8

26

2.6

10

2.8

74

2.7

25

18

8.3

79

7.0

103

10.2

2.0

207

7.6

26

0.9

21

1.9

19

1.9

1.7

48

1.8

28

12

5.5

35

3.1

84

8.3

1.1

135

5.0

30

1.4

32

2.8

42

4.2

1.4

82

3.0

32

3.2

34

3.0

35

3.5

16

4.5

92

3.4

33

4.1

53

4.7

46

4.6

14

4.0

122

4.5

34

15

6.9

53

4.7

29

2.9

17

4.8

114

4.2

BKLYN

10

4.6

32

2.8

12

1.2

11

3.1

65

2.4

QUEENS

0.9

0.7

0.2

1.1

16

0.6

SI

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

BRONX

1.4

24

2.1

12

1.2

1.1

43

1.6

218

100.0

1134

100.0

352

100.0

Total

1007 100.0

2711 100.0

20

The volume and composition of arrests differ across neighborhoods and their
police precincts, and this is reflected in screened arrests. For example, precincts
with large numbers of retail stores have a comparatively higher proportion of
property arrests than will be found in more residential Manhattan neighborhoods.
(Data not shown)

The greatest numbers and percentages of arrests in the drug category occurred in
the 25th precinct, covering the East Harlem neighborhood.

Property crime arrests proportionately were greatest in the 14th and 18th precincts
covering areas of Midtown Manhattan with busy commercial areas.

The greatest proportions of fraud/theft category arrests occurred in the 18th, 19th,
14th and 5th precincts.

Defendants in almost all screened cases with a known residence zip code report
an address within the Citys five boroughs.

Manhattan zip codes are the most numerous and comprise somewhat under half
(45.4%) of the defendants in screened cases, followed by Bronx and Brooklyn zip
codes.
The greatest percentage of defendants with Manhattan zip codes is found among
cases rejected due to excessive criminal records (53.1%) followed by program
participants (46.8%); the smallest percentage is found among cases in the
excluded category of Recommended for ROR with no criminal record (39.5%).
Among non-Manhattan City residents, defendants with Brooklyn zip codes are
the most likely to be found among program participants (23.8%) and those
excluded as Recommended for ROR with no criminal record (22.9%). In
comparison to Brooklyn, there are smaller percentages in these two categories
among cases of defendants with Bronx zip codes, and larger percentages of
defendants with Bronx zip codes among those rejected due to excessive criminal
records.
Not Criminal
History Eligible
N=1,007
(Excludes 7
cases)

Recommended
for ROR with No
Criminal Record
N=352

Zip Code of
Residence

Participants
N=218

Eligible but
Rejected
N=1,134

Location

Brooklyn

52

23.8

175

17.5

136

16.1

79

22.9

442

18.3

Manhattan

102

46.8

407

40.7

451

53.2

135

39.1

1095

45.4

Queens

15

6.9

83

8.3

40

4.7

40

11.6

178

7.4

Staten Island

1.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

20

0.8

Bronx

39

17.9

181

18.1

191

22.6

60

17.4

471

19.5

Subtotal
New York
City

211

96.8

852

85.2

825

97.4

318

92.2

2206

91.5

Total

21

Westchester

1.8

15

1.5

0.5

0.9

26

1.1

Long Island

0.9

19

1.9

1.1

11

3.2

41

1.7

New Jersey

0.5

62

6.2

0.5

1.7

73

3.0

Connecticut

0.8

0.3

0.4

Everywhere
Else

44

4.4

0.6

1.7

55

2.3

Total,
known zip
code

218

100.0

1000

100.0

847

100.0

345

100.0

2410

100.0

134

160

301

218

1134

1007

352

2711

Unknown zip
code or
homeless
Total

Among the screened cases with Manhattan residents, the only strong relationship
between zip codes and arrest precincts appears among cases in the drug
category.

There is a high concentration of program screened drug cases from precincts in

northern Manhattan neighborhoods (e.g. Harlem, Washington Heights) and in lower
Manhattan areas covering the Lower Eastside and East Village, with majorities of
Manhattan arrestees for drug crimes also having zip codes that correspond with
these neighborhoods.

22

SUMMARY
CJA created a supervised release program, designed to provide judges at Criminal
Court arraignment an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention, after extensive
consultation with City criminal justice policy makers and other stakeholders. The
program was first implemented on an experimental basis in the Queens County Criminal
Court in August 2009. Based on the demonstrated success of this initial program, a
similar three-year demonstration project was implemented in Manhattan in April 2013.
There are many restrictions placed on the characteristics of eligible felony cases
and defendants which require intensive screening by program court staff. A
consequence of these requirements is that the program option only will be made
available in a limited subset of all screened cases.
There are several key screening segments. At the outset, once charge-eligible
cases are identified, the CJA recommendation and criminal conviction histories of
defendants are reviewed. The program excludes defendants Recommended for ROR
without criminal histories because they have the lowest FTA rates and also are the most
likely to receive ROR. At the other end of the spectrum are the cases of defendants
with multiple criminal convictions or a felony conviction for a VFO crime within the past
ten years. Defendants in this category are the most at risk for pretrial misconduct for
both FTA and re-arrest.
For the cases that remain eligible for further screening the next segment is court
staff examination of other criminal history factors that could preclude program
participation, and strength and verifiability of community ties needed for community
supervision. Within this segment the program requires the consent of both defense
counsel and defendants for a face-to-face interview.
For defendants who pass all of the screening criteria the final step is presenting
the program option on the record during the Criminal Court arraignment process.
Because the program is designed to offer the Court community supervision as an
alternative to money bail, the expectation is that the program option only will be raised
in cases in which the District Attorneys Office is requesting bail.
How all of these elements operate in an actual courtroom setting can be seen in
following the screening of the case and defendant selection process during the first six
months of the implementation of the Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program.
However, because the data reported cover only a start-up period, some changes may
occur over time as the program becomes more familiar to all the stakeholders and more
routinely integrated into the arraignment process.

23

As expected, the programs court staff was the primary source of

exclusion/rejections as they reviewed defendant characteristics in charge-eligible cases.
During the Manhattan start-up period the program screened 2,718 cases of which 2,500
were excluded or rejected. The program was the rejection source in 81.4% of cases.

Excluded/RejectedBy
Defendant
0.8%

NotRaisedonthe
Record
1.8%

Judge
5.5%

DefenseAttorney
10.5%

Program
81.4%

N = 2,500

Approximately two-thirds of these program rejections were made based on the

initial screening criteria, half of which were excluded due to defendants with criminal
conviction histories falling outside of the programs parameters while only about 17%
were rejected at this stage due to defendants without criminal histories being
Recommended for ROR (data not shown). This stage of the screening process is
intended to preclude substituting community supervision for recognizance release for
those at lowest risk of FTA, and to exclude those at highest risk of pretrial misconduct.
In Manhattan, the actual ROR rate was over 80% when the program rejected
defendants without criminal records recommended by CJA for ROR. In sharp contrast,
bail was set in approximately 90% of the cases of defendants excluded due to
excessive criminal conviction histories or because of a prior VFO conviction.
There are a number of different reasons why the program will reject defendants in
the cases that receive additional screening. In Manhattan during its start-up phase
these frequently involved finding problematic elements within criminal histories after
defendants met the initial criminal history requirements, such as the number or types of
warrants or open cases, or defendants with insufficient local-area community ties or ties
that could not be verified. However, it appears that some program rejections at this
stage may have been made out of caution or uncertainty when operating in this new

24

environment. A closer examination of the defendant and case composition between

criminal history eligible but rejected versus program clients and cases is a subject for
future research.
The preliminary evidence suggests that the program is being well received by the
defense bar. Defense attorneys serve as gatekeepers to defendant access when the
program seeks to meet with defendants. In the overwhelming majority of cases when
defense attorneys refused access there was an expectation of ROR which proved to be
correct in about 90% of the cases. Defendants themselves rarely refused to meet with
program court staff.
Judges accounted for approximately 6% of all rejections during the programs first
six months. The data do not provide much insight into why the program option was
rejected because judges infrequently provide an explanation. What can be determined
is that in approximately three-fourths of these cases the Court set bail, with defendants
in most of the remaining cases receiving ROR. Of note, however, is the number of
times judges requested a program review.
Out of the 2,718 cases screened in this six-month start-up period, defendants in
218 ultimately became program clients. In almost every one of these cases the
program was raised on the record in cases in which the District Attorneys Office was
requesting bail. Who initially raised the program option on the record is shown in the
next illustration.

RaisedontheRecord:ProgramCases

RaisedbyJudge
28.4%

RaisedbyADA
0.5%
Independently
RaisedbyDefense
5.5%

ProgramWilling&
RaisedbyDefense
65.6%

N = 218

25

Approximately two-thirds of the program cases were ones in which the defense
was informed in advance of arraignment that the program was willing to accept the
defendant if the court agreed. Among the 218 program cases also were 62 in which
judges themselves raised the program as a bail alternative. Most of these were cases
that program staff had rejected late in the screening process but once provided the
opportunity were successfully able to revisit and resolve potential impediments to
participation. In a small percentage the program was raised by the defense in cases in
which the program had not been able to complete the screening process in advance of
arraignment but subsequently was willing to accept the defendant as a program client.
In only a very small percentage was the program option not presented on the
record to the court once the defendants case received a positive screening. This
subset of cases are ones where program staff indicated to the defense a willingness to
accept the defendant, but in the overwhelming majority of these cases a judicial ROR
decision was made obviating the need to raise the program option.
This report is part of a larger, ongoing research agenda into CJAs supervised
release programs.4 It is intended to introduce stakeholders and interested others to the
programs criteria and decision-making model and to show how the model works in an
applied setting, using the start-up period of the program in Manhattan as illustration.
Some of the data presented in this report raise questions for additional research. For
example, is there or will there be greater opportunity for the program to proactively
pursue more of the criminal history eligible but rejected cases? This report also may
make a contribution to the current conversation among criminal justice policy makers in
New York and elsewhere about community supervision as an alternative to money bail
and costly pretrial detention based on financial resources rather than risk of flight.

See for example Freda F. Solomon, CJAS QUEENS COUNTY SUPERVISED RELEASE
PROGRAM: IMPACT ON COURT PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES, (New York: New York
City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., June 2013), available at www.nycja.org/library.php