Annual Progress Report 2020

(1)

Annual Progress Report 2020

Prepared March 2021

Accord, NY Sacramento, CA

Cincinnati, OH Denver, CO

16 Main Street Accord, NY 12404

845-626-2126 Fax 845-626-3206 philliberresearch.com

(2)

(3)

Executive Summary ... i

Introduction ... 1

Characteristics of AFJ Participants ... 2

Participation ... 3

Participation and retention ... 3

Participant encounters ... 4

Summary of referrals made by AFJ ... 5

Program Outcomes ... 5

Graduation outcomes ... 5

Court outcomes ... 6

Participant behavioral changes over time ... 7

Recidivism ... 7

Study design ... 7

Study sample ... 7

Recidivism outcomes ... 8

Comparison data ... 11

(4)

Page | i

Executive Summary

Avenues for Justice (AFJ) is a non-profit, community-based program. The program focuses on Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) participants and at-risk youth in Manhattan, served at sites located in the Lower East Side and East Harlem. During 2020, AFJ worked with 403 youth.

Specifically, AFJ worked with:

✓ 262 court-involved participants who enrolled in AFJ’s ATI and court advocacy program designed to prevent further involvement with the criminal justice system (156 served at the Lower East Side site and 106 served at the East Harlem site);

✓ 52 at-risk participants (30 served at the Lower East Side site and 22 served at the East Harlem site) who participated in crime prevention programs at AFJ’s two community centers (the number of at-risk participants seen in 2020 is significantly lower than in previous years due to community center closures as a result of the pandemic); and

✓ 89 youth received referrals or other short-term assistance.

The following report focuses on the 262 court-involved participants enrolled in the ATI program.

Characteristics of the 2020 ATI Participants

• Most of the participants were Hispanic/Latino (47%) or Black/African American (41%), 73% were male, and the majority were under age 21 at intake (80%).

• The program enrolled 53 new ATI participants in 2020.

Participation

• There were more than 21,000 participant encounters during 2020; the mean number of encounters per participant was 83 and the median was 27.5 during the year.

• 259 referrals were provided to ATI participants in 2020.

Program Outcomes

• Of the cases that had court outcomes during 2020, 60% were adjourned and 19% were deferred sentences to earn the sentence of probation and ATI participant (YO).

• 5% (n=10) of AFJ participants in the recidivism study (n=180) were reconvicted in New York State within three years after enrolling in the program, compared to 59% of New York City parolees from a 2010 study. The three-year reconviction rate among

successful graduates of AFJ was 6% (n=6).

• Within six years of enrollment, 28% (n=13) of participants who were enrolled in 2013 were reconvicted. Among successful program completers, 21% (n=7) were reconvicted within six years of enrollment; 15% (n=5) were reconvicted of a misdemeanor crime and 6% (n=2) of a felony crime.

(5)

P a g e | 1

Introduction

Avenues for Justice (AFJ) is a non-profit, community-based program. The program focuses on court-involved Alternative to Incarceration (ATI) participants and at-risk youth in Manhattan, served at sites located in the Lower East Side and East Harlem. During 2020, AFJ worked with 403 youth; 262 participants were enrolled in AFJ’s ATI program designed to prevent further involvement with the criminal justice system (156 served at the Lower East Side site, 106 served at the East Harlem site). These ATI participants are the focus of this report.

AFJ maintains an open-door policy for any youth in need of prevention services, welcoming walk-ins who are at risk for involvement in the criminal justice system. In 2020, 52 at-risk

participants participated in crime prevention programs at AFJ’s two community centers (30 from the Lower East Side site and 22 from the East Harlem site). Additionally, another 89 youth received referrals or other short-term assistance.

The first section of this report, Characteristics of AFJ Participants, presents a demographic profile of the 262 participants served in the ATI program in 2020. It also provides information about new enrollments.

The second section, Participation, shows length of participation at AFJ, overall program retention, and encounter information. A summary of referrals made by AFJ is also presented.

The Program Outcomes section presents court outcome data, the number of participants successfully engaged in work and/or school, and graduation outcomes. A summary of the annual recidivism study is also included.

It should be noted the pandemic affected AFJ greatly in 2020. AFJ was forced to close its two community centers in March 2020 and they remained closed throughout the year. These closures reduced in-person encounters between AFJ staff and participants in the ATI program and depressed census in the prevention and short-term referral programs. However, AFJ expanded its services to deliver emergency relief to participants’ families in crisis due to the pandemic.

Further, COVID-19 affected the operation of the criminal justice system in New York City, which in turn, affected AFJ. The pandemic reduced arrests and slowed the court system. The courts became less accessible to AFJ personnel. This in turn, reduced encounters compared to 2019.

In addition, COVID-19 stressed the delivery of health and social services which made it more difficult for AFJ to refer ATI participants to third party providers.

At the same time, during the 2020 pandemic, AFJ served the highest number of ATI participants in its history and program retention, completion, and recidivism remained consistent with prior years. Several strategies made this possible during quarantine: a) AFJ moved to an online intake system and notified criminal justice agencies they were accepting referrals; b) AFJ moved all program services online, providing laptops to participants to access services; and c) AFJ expanded supportive services, added a new HIRE UP digital literacy and job training program, and provided food and supplies to over 500 family members of participants.

(6)

P a g e | 2

Characteristics of AFJ Participants

¹

As seen in Table 1, most of the 262 ATI participants served during 2020 were male (73%), identified as Hispanic/Latino (47%) or Black/African American (41%), and were under 21 at intake (80%). Fifty-three of these participants were newly enrolled during 2020; seven in ten were placed in the Intensive Phase of the program.^2,³

Table 1: Demographics at intake All Youth Newly Enrolled

Participants

Gender (n=262) (n=53)

Male Female

73%

27%

81%

19%

Race/ethnicity (n=261) (n=52)

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American White/Caucasian Other/Multiethnic⁴

47%

41%

0%

12%

44%

39%

0%

17%

Age (n=262) (n=53)

15 years and younger 16-20 years

21-24 years 25 years and older

19%

61%

19%

1%

26%

42%

30%

2%

Living situation (n=244) (n=53)

Two parents One parent

Guardian(s), relative(s), foster care Intimate partner or sibling (no parent) Self and their child(ren)

Alone

Other, unspecified

19%

55%

12%

9%

<1%

2%

23%

53%

11%

0%

2%

0%

Participant or family receives … (n=262) (n=53)

Food stamps

Public assistance/welfare Medicaid

Private health insurance

37%

23%

43%

6%

38%

23%

45%

11%

Intake source (n=258) (n=53)

Self-referred Family Court School Other

8%

26%

36%

2%

28%

2%

21%

38%

0%

39%

Program phase (n=247) (n=53)

Intensive Supportive

74%

26%

70%

30%

1Toward the end of 2020, AFJ began gathering data from prevention participants; Prevention participants generally receive light- touch, drop-in services and are seen far less often than ATI participants. Thus, they are not included in this report.

2 Intensive Phase services include court appearances, school visits, regular counseling, curfews, mandatory check-in at centers, and monitoring of individualized services (e.g., substance abuse programming, support services at community sites, and other mandated activities). Supportive Phase services are a step down in the level of intervention from the Intensive Phase and, as such, require less court reporting and reduced frequency of in-person contacts while continuing to provide tutoring and support counseling according to individual need.

3 Sample sizes may fluctuate throughout this report due to form revisions and/or missing data.

4 The other/multiethnic category is comprised of 14 participants who are Hispanic/Latino and African American, one Asian, one Native, one Garifuna, one other but not specified, and 12 others who indicated they had multiple ethnicities.

(7)

P a g e | 3 While these participants were served in sites located in the Lower East Side and East Harlem, nearly 40% lived in other parts of Manhattan or outside of Manhattan.

Table 1 (continued): Demographics at intake All Youth Newly Enrolled Participants

Neighborhood (n=262) (n=53)

Lower East Side

Harlem/Upper Manhattan (Harlem, East Harlem, Central Harlem, Washington Heights, Inwood)

Other parts of Manhattan Outside of Manhattan

Bronx Brooklyn Queens Staten Island Other

28%

33%

12%

13%

7%

4%

1%

2%

19%

34%

8%

17%

9%

2%

Most participants come to the program involved in criminal proceedings (71% of all participants and 66% of newly enrolled participants). Just over two-thirds (69%) of the participants were enrolled in school or some other educational program at intake, and about one in six had a high school diploma or GED.

Table 2: Participant Risk History at Intake All Youth Newly Enrolled Participants

Prior criminal history Average Average

Arrests (average number) Convictions

Misdemeanors Felonies

1.7 (n=179) 0.4 (n=123) 0.8 (n=125) 0.6 (n=122)

1.9 (n=49) 0.3 (n=42) 0.5 (n=35) 0.6 (n=36)

Education and employment status % Yes

(n=262)

% Yes (n=53) In school/educational program

Have high school diploma Have GED

Currently employed

69%

13%

5%

13%

64%

19%

8%

11%

Participation

Participation and retention

Figure 1 illustrates the length of participation of AFJ participants seen in 2020. Twenty-two percent of participants had been in the program for less than one year and 38% had been in the program for one or two years. Forty percent had been attending for three or more years. On average, participants had been with the program for 3 years.

Of the 76 members who enrolled during 2019 and were eligible to be active (did not graduate the program) one year later, the program retained 93%.

(8)

P a g e | 4 Of the 16 members who enrolled during 2017 and were eligible to be active three years later, the program retained 94%.

Participant encounters

As seen in Table 3, there were 21,746 participant encounters recorded during 2020 – including telephone, electronic, letter, and face-to-face contacts which may involve counseling, tutoring, or workshop attendance. Overall, the

262 participants had an average of 83 encounters with staff; the median number of encounters was 27.5⁵. The 53 new participants had a total of 4,174 encounters during 2020, for an average of 78.8 encounters with staff; the median number of

encounters was 34. As might be expected, on average, new

participants were seen more often.

Figure 2 shows the total number of encounters over the past five years. The number of participants is included below each year in parenthesis. The number of encounters increased substantially in 2019 due to improvements in data collection. Starting in 2019, AFJ court

advocates recorded all participant contacts separately (in previous years, multiple contacts on a given day were recorded as one encounter). In 2020, the number of encounters decreased somewhat. This was due to several

factors. Firstly, the community center closures required by COVID-19 reduced staff/participant interpersonal interactions. Secondly, AFJ’s intake of new ATI participants in 2020 was lower than in 2019 due in part, to COVID-19. AFJ’s ATI program is structured so that new participants have more encounters than other participants and therefore the reduction in new participant intakes reduced encounters. Lastly, a significant number of AFJ’s new participants in the ATI program this year came from a diversion program run by the Family Court which, by design, is more short-term in nature and calls for fewer encounters.

5 The mean number of encounters is much higher than the median number of encounters because total encounters for individual participants ranged from one to as many as 759 during 2020. The median is the more accurate way to consider a typical case.

Table 3: Encounters (2020)

All Youth (n=262)

New participants

(n=53)

Total 21,746 4,174

Mean 83.0 78.8

Median 27.5 34.0

Range 1 to 759 1 to 612

Monthly mean 11.6 11.2

Monthly median 4.2 7.0

Note: The monthly mean and monthly median are calculated by dividing the number of encounters during the reporting period by the number of months a participant was active during that reporting period.

(9)

P a g e | 5 Summary of referrals made by AFJ

Table 4 shows the number of employment, education, substance abuse, mental health, housing, and medical referrals during 2020. During the year, there were 259 total referrals for 71

participants. Employment and education referrals occurred most often. Referrals are used to help prevent further involvement in the juvenile justice system and have become a substantial part of AFJ’s work. Referrals in 2020 were lower than in previous years because COVID-19 disrupted the delivery of health and social services by third party providers during much of the year.

Program Outcomes

Graduation outcomes

Graduation outcomes for participants who exited the program over the last five years are shown in Table 5. As seen here, successful completions comprise the bulk of participant exits.

Table 5: Graduation outcomes for participants who exited the program

Successful completion

Completed, not all goals

met

Terminated/

incarcerated

Total # of participants who exited the

program

2016 27 (71%) 8 (21%) 3 (8%) 38

2017 37 (67%) 17 (31%) 1 (2%) 55

2018 16 (67%) 6 (25%) 2 (8%) 24

2019 32 (63%) 16 (31%) 3 (6%) 51

2020 66 (81%) 12 (15%) 3 (4%) 81

Table 4: Referral type # of participants

# of referrals

Avg. # of referrals per

participant

Employment 41 105 2.6

Education 32 75 2.3

Substance abuse – inpatient 7 17 2.4

Substance abuse – outpatient 3 3 1.0

Mental health – inpatient 7 14 2.0

Mental health – outpatient 19 26 1.4

Housing 15 17 1.1

Medical 1 2 2.0

Total referrals 71 259 3.6

(10)

P a g e | 6 Additionally, Table 6 shows the outcomes of the new participants served over the past eight years as of January 2021. Of the 373 new enrollees over this eight-year time period, 47% were still active in the AFJ program as of January 2021 and 39% successfully completed the

program. Far fewer completed the program without meeting their goals or were terminated.

Table 6: Exit data per newly enrolled cohort over the past eight years

Newly

enrolled Still active Successful completion

Completed, not all goals

met

Terminated/

incarcerated

2013 46 6 34 5 1

2014 53 13 28 9 3

2015 42 12 18 8 4

2016 39 10 20 7 2

2017 32 11 17 4 -

2018 32 16 11 5 -

2019 76 54 17 4 1

2020 53 53 - - -

Totals 373 175 (47%) 145 (39%) 42 (11%) 11 (3%)

Court outcomes

In 2020 there were 329 court outcomes reported for 69 participants. Some cases may have more than one outcome (for example, a case might have been adjourned and later dismissed;

or a conditional discharge might have resulted in a prison sentence later in the year). Most of the court outcomes were adjournments with deferred sentences. An AFJ participant’s court case can have multiple adjournments as the court and judge evaluate a participant’s progress with the program.

Table 7: Court outcomes (n=329) # (%)

Case adjourned 199 (60%)

Deferred sentence 64 (19%)

Conditional discharge/ACD 30 (9%)

Case dismissed 15 (5%)

Adjudicated youth offender 8 (2%)

Bail set 4 (1%)

Sent to probation 3 (1%)

Assigned to AFJ 3 (1%)

Sent to prison 2 (<1%)

Plead 1 (<1%)

Paroled 0 (0%)

Split sentence 0 (0%)

Community service 0 (0%)

Acquitted 0 (0%)

Other 0 (0%)

(11)

P a g e | 7 Participant behavioral changes over time

Behavioral data are collected from participants at intake, on an annual basis while a participant is active (annual follow-up), and at program completion/exit. This provides information about behavioral changes during program involvement. In 2020, AFJ submitted follow-up data on 128 active participants⁶ and exit data on 81 participants. Table 8 shows changes in employment and education among participants for whom intake and follow-up/exit data are available. As seen below, 39% of the 2020 participants (n=81) received their diploma or GED while in the program.

Additionally, 84% of participants (219 of 262) were either employed or in school based on their last available data (not shown).

Table 8: Employment and Education

Employment (n=209)

Education (n=209)

Received Diploma/GED

(n=209)

College/Trade School Diploma

(n=209)

Employment and/or Education

(n=209)

Improvement/Advancement⁷ 18% 46% 39% 1% 52%

No change/NA 77% 43% 61% 99% 36%

Decline 5% 11% - - 12%

Recidivism

Study design

A primary focus of the AFJ program is to keep court-involved participants out of prison. AFJ provides counseling, training, education, and employment assistance in an effort to prevent future involvement in crime. AFJ has continuously tracked recidivism over the past decades.⁸ In 2017, AFJ launched a new recidivism study. Four cohorts of AFJ’s ATI participants have been included in this new study to date: 46 young people who were enrolled in 2013, 53 who enrolled in 2014, 42 who enrolled in 2015, and 39 who enrolled in 2016.

Follow-up recidivism data were collected each year (2017 through 2020), and three-year recidivism rates were calculated using the date of enrollment in AFJ as the starting point to three different end points including: 1) arrest, 2) conviction, and 3) incarceration.⁹ This year, six- year recidivism rates were added for the 2013 cohort. To put the AFJ recidivism rates into some context, comparison data are presented as well.

Study sample

Demographic characteristics were gathered from program enrollment data completed by AFJ staff. As seen in Table 9, the majority of participants identified as male. On average, they were about 18 years old. The majority were black/African American or Hispanic/Latino.

6 Newly enrolled participants are not yet eligible for follow-up data collection.

7 Improvement in employment constitutes getting a job from intake to last follow-up/exit. Improvement in education constitutes being enrolled in an educational program from intake to last follow-up and/or advancing within their current program.

8 A prior recidivism study which ran from 1994-2015 was discontinued in anticipation of this study, which includes more detailed data collection.

9 To obtain follow up data, AFJ was provided with a list of participants. AFJ staff searched the NYS Unified Court System’s eCourts case tracking service and provided arrest, conviction, and incarceration data to Philliber Research & Evaluation. Documentation of the data presented in this report is stored at AFJ.

(12)

P a g e | 8 Table 9: Demographics at intake

2013 Cohort

(n=46)

2014 Cohort

(n=53)

2015 Cohort

(n=42)

2016 Cohort

(n=39)

Total (n=180)

Gender (n=46) (n=53) (n=42) (n=39) (n=180)

Male Female

70%

30%

81%

19%

88%

12%

67%

33%

77%

23%

Race/ethnicity (n=46) (n=51) (n=42) (n=39) (n=178)

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American White/Caucasian Other/Multiethnic

33%

48%

2%

17%

47%

39%

0%

14%

52%

45%

0%

3%

41%

3%

15%

43%

1%

13%

Age (n=46) (n=53) (n=42) (n=39) (n=180)

15 years and younger 16-20 years

21-24 years 25 years and older

13%

74%

13%

0%

21%

73%

6%

0%

12%

76%

10%

2%

13%

82%

5%

0%

15%

76%

8%

1%

Recidivism outcomes

The definition of recidivism varies across studies and across locations. In this study, we calculated three different recidivism rates starting from enrollment in AFJ to 1) first arrest after program enrollment, 2) first conviction after program enrollment, and 3) first incarceration after program enrollment. In general, recidivism declines as the measures progress from arrest, to conviction, to incarceration as each measure relies on the less serious measure. For example, those who were arrested may not have been convicted, and those convicted may not have been sentenced to incarceration.

Within three years of enrollment, 11% (n=19) of AFJ participants were rearrested within New York State, most were charged with misdemeanors (Table 10).¹⁰ Among successful program completers, 10% (n=10) were arrested within three years of program entry; 8% (n=8) were arrested and charged with a misdemeanor crime and 2% (n=2) with a felony crime.

Table 10: Arrested within three years of intake

2013 Cohort

2014 Cohort

2015 Cohort

2016

Cohort Total Among entire sample (n=46) (n=53) (n=42) (n=39) (n=180)

No new arrest

New misdemeanor arrest New felony arrest

78%

18%

4%

91%

4%

5%

100%

0%

90%

8%

2%

89%

7%

4%

Among participants who successfully

completed program (n=34) (n=28) (n=17) (n=18) (n=97) No new arrest

85%

12%

3%

89%

7%

4%

100%

0%

89%

11%

0%

90%

8%

2%

It’s now possible to assess recidivism after six years among the 2013 cohort. As seen below, 35% of participants (n=16) who were enrolled in 2013 were arrested within six years of

enrollment. Among successful program completers, 26% (n=9) were arrested within six years of enrollment; 18% (n=6) for a misdemeanor crime and 8% (n=3) for a felony crime.

10 Cohort percentages may change over time with the inclusion of updated information on pending cases.

(13)

P a g e | 9 Table 11: Arrested within six years of intake 2013 Cohort

Among entire sample (n=46)

No new arrest

65%

26%

9%

Among participants who successfully completed program (n=34) No new arrest

74%

18%

8%

Within three years of enrollment, 5% of AFJ participants were reconvicted within New York State (Table 12). Among successful program completers, 6% (n=6) were reconvicted within three years of enrollment; 4% (n=4) were convicted of a misdemeanor crime and 2% (n=2) with a felony crime.

Table 12: Reconvicted within three years of intake

2013 Cohort

2014 Cohort

2015 Cohort

2016

No new conviction

New misdemeanor conviction New felony conviction

87%

11%

2%

94%

2%

4%

100%

0%

97%

0%

3%

95%

3%

2%

completed program (n=34) (n=28) (n=17) (n=18) (n=97)

No new conviction

91%

9%

0%

93%

4%

3%

100%

0%

94%

0%

6%

94%

4%

2%

Within six years of enrollment, 28% (n=13) of participants who were enrolled in 2013 were reconvicted. Among successful program completers, 21% (n=7) were reconvicted within six years of enrollment; 15% (n=5) were reconvicted of a misdemeanor crime and 6% (n=2) of a felony crime.

Table 13: Reconvicted within six years of intake 2013 Cohort

No new conviction

72%

22%

6%

Among participants who successfully completed program

(n=34) No new conviction

79%

15%

6%

Just 4% of AFJ participants were incarcerated within three years of their enrollment in AFJ (Table 14, following page). Among successful program completers, 4% were reincarcerated within three years of program enrollment; 2% (n=2) were incarcerated on misdemeanor charges and 2% (n=2) on felony charges.

(14)

P a g e | 10 Table 14: Incarcerated within three years

of intake

2013 Cohort

2014 Cohort

2015 Cohort

2016

No new incarceration

New misdemeanor incarceration New felony incarceration

91%

9%

0%

96%

0%

4%

100%

0%

97%

0%

3%

96%

2%

completed program (n=34) (n=28) (n=17) (n=18) (n=97)

94%

6%

0%

96%

0%

4%

100%

0%

94%

0%

6%

96%

2%

Within six years of enrollment, 24% (n=11) of AFJ participants enrolled in 2013 were

incarcerated; 17% (n=8) on misdemeanor charges and 7% (n=3) on felony charges. Among successful program completers, 18% (n=6) were incarcerated; 12% (n=4) were incarcerated on misdemeanor charges and 6% (n=2) on felony charges.

Table 15: Incarcerated within six years of intake 2013 Cohort

76%

17%

7%

Among participants who successfully completed program (n=34) No new incarceration

82%

12%

6%

Three-year reconviction rates were examined by participant

characteristics at program

enrollment (combining all cohorts).

Those with reconvictions were more likely to be male, and/or age 17 or older, and/or have had a felony charge at enrollment (Figure 3).

However, these differences were not statistically significant.

(15)

P a g e | 11 Comparison data

This section highlights comparison data from several studies, but caution should be used when considering comparison recidivism data. The design of a study will affect the reported recidivism rates. For example, recidivism may be defined as rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration.

Some studies may include incarceration for technical violations while others may not. Further, study samples may include only prisoners or probationers, while others may include only juveniles or adults.

Although sampling techniques, sample characteristics, and definitions of recidivism and incarceration vary, published recidivism data suggest AFJ participants have rearrest, reconviction, and incarceration rates considerably lower than comparison samples. The three-year AFJ reconviction rate is 5%

compared to other studies (Figure 4).

The six-year AFJ reconviction rate is 28%.

The following is a list showing comparison rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rates when available.

• A study of Maryland juvenile offenders with first-time probation dispositions found that within three years of the start date of community supervision, 57% were rearrested, 30% were reconvicted, and 17% were incarcerated.¹¹

• A study published in 2010, found that 69% of New York City parolees were rearrested within three years and 59% were reconvicted within three years.¹²

• Of New York City probationers sentenced in 2014, 33% were arrested for a felony offense within three years of being sentenced to probation.¹³

• Based on a 2009 data set, the New York City rearrest rate within one year was 37% among those who were 16-24 years old at time of arrest.¹⁴

11 Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. (December 2016). Data Resource Guide: Fiscal Year 2016.

http://www.djs.maryland.gov/Documents/2016_full_book.pdf. Accessed October 2017.

12 Hamilton, Z. (2010). Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism? Retrieved October 2017.

13 Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Justice Research and Performance (March 1, 2018). Probationer Felony Re-Arrest Rates Following Sentence to Probation, http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/probationer-rearrests.pdf. Accessed August 2018.

14 New York City’s Data Analytics Recidivism Tool (DART), v1.0. http://recidivism.cityofnewyork.us. Accessed October 2017.

(16)

P a g e | 12

• Based on a 2005-2014 30-state recidivism study, among those aged 24 or younger the three-year rearrest rate was 76%, the six-year rearrest rate was 87%, and the nine-year rearrest rate was 90%.¹⁵

• Based on a study of 2001-2008 New York City parolees, 53% were rearrested within three years, 42% were reconvicted, and 29% returned to prison.¹⁶ Another study of New York City parolees focusing on those whose incarceration crime was committed in Manhattan, found that 44% were reincarcerated within three years of their release from prison.¹⁷

• A study found that 40% of New York prisoners released in 2004 returned to prison within three years.¹⁸

• A study published by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 2016 examined offenders placed on federal community supervision during fiscal year 2005, reported that 35% of federal offenders had been arrested at least once during the three years after their placement on community supervision.¹⁹

• Others have found that 52% of prisoners ages 18-24 and 57% of minor age prisoners across 15 states returned to prison within three years of release,²⁰ and 80% returned to detention or prison within three years of leaving a New York juvenile facility.²¹

These recidivism data suggest the AFJ program provides promising outcomes for the participants it serves.

15 United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (May 2018). NCJ 250875. Special Report – 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014)

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf. Accessed September 2020.

16 Herrschaft, B.A., & Hamilton, Z. (2011). Recidivism Among Parolees in New York City, 2001-2008.New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.

17 Hamilton, Z. (2010). Do Reentry Courts Reduce Recidivism? Retrieved October 2017.

18 Pew Center on the States. (April 2011). State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trust.

19 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (June 2016). Recidivism of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ropfcs05p0510.pdf. Accessed October 2017.

20 United States Department of Justice. (June 2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994: Special Report NCJ 193427.

Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

21 Commissioner of the NYS Office of Children and Family Services Gladys Carrión, Esq. Testimony to the New York State Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee. Press release February 5, 2008; accessed at www.ocfs.ny.us.

Annual Progress Report 2020