Borough Contrast: Prosecution and Court Outcomes Across New York City, 2021-2024

“Borough Contrast: Prosecution and Court Outcomes Across New York City, 2021-2024,” analyzes how criminal legal outcomes vary across the five boroughs during the post-pandemic period (pp. 1, 4).

Below are the key highlights and trends identified in the study:

1. Sharp Rise in Low-Level Arrests

Citywide arrests surged by 62% from 2021 to 2024 (pp. 9, 14). This was driven largely by low-level offenses:

Fare Evasion: Increased more than elevenfold (900 to 10,125 arrests) (p. 4).
Other Charges: Drug, trespass, and petit larceny arrests all approximately doubled citywide (pp. 4, 13).
Borough Leaders: Brooklyn saw the largest increase in misdemeanor (+88%) and nonviolent felony (+73%) arrests, while the Bronx saw the highest spike in violent felony arrests (+49%) (pp. 4, 13).

2. Disparate Prosecution Decisions

Whether a case is prosecuted depends heavily on the borough (pp. 6, 23):

The Bronx: Consistently held the highest “declination” rate (refusal to prosecute), declining 40% of misdemeanors and 25% of violent felonies in 2024 (pp. 5, 22-23).
Manhattan: Saw a massive shift under DA Alvin Bragg, with misdemeanor declinations rising from 6% in 2021 to 31% in 2024 (pp. 5, 22).
Other Boroughs: Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island declined significantly fewer cases, with Queens declining only 6% of misdemeanors in 2024 (pp. 5, 22).

3. Pretrial Release & Bail

The study found significant differences in how judges handle cases at arraignment (pp. 6, 31):

Bail Setting: Queens and Manhattan had the highest bail-setting rates for felonies (pp. 6, 31). In 2024, Manhattan judges set bail/remand in 53% of violent felony cases (p. 31).
Ability to Pay: By 2024, bail payment rates at arraignment were exceptionally low (4–6% for misdemeanors), meaning a bail order almost always resulted in immediate incarceration (pp. 6, 36).
Supervised Release: Judges citywide increasingly relied on supervised release over “Release on Recognizance” (ROR) for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies (p. 33).

4. Convictions and Sentencing

Conviction Rates: Criminal convictions remain rare for misdemeanors (only 5% citywide in 2024) (pp. 7, 38). However, for indicted felonies, conviction rates were high, reaching 95% for violent felonies in Staten Island (pp. 7, 39).
Prison Sentences: There was wide variability in prison time for felonies. In 2024, 34% of convicted felony cases in Manhattan resulted in state prison sentences, compared to only 12% in Queens (pp. 7, 42).
Demographic Disparity: Even after controlling for charge and history, Black and Hispanic individuals were significantly more likely than white individuals to be sentenced to prison (p. 43).

Access the article webpage HERE

Ger a .PDF copy of the article HERE

Assessing the Effectiveness of Pretrial Special Conditions – Full Findings from the Pretrial Justice Collaborative

Below is an interesting report on electronic monitoring for pretrial conditions. More information is at the website and there is a link below for the report.

The analysis found that:

Being released on EM or sobriety monitoring did not significantly improve court appearance rates. The analyses found that the special conditions and non–special conditions groups had similar pretrial court appearance rates. These results were consistent across jurisdictions.

Being released on electronic monitoring did not significantly increase the percentage of people who avoided a new arrest during the pretrial period. In fact, the analysis found that the EM group had a higher pretrial rearrest rate than the non-EM group, a result that was consistent across the two jurisdictions in that analysis. While the factors causing the results are not definitively known, the difference may be a supervision effect: people may be more likely to be arrested if their actions are more closely monitored, compared with others who are less closely monitored. Alternatively, the result may reflect unmeasured differences between the EM and non-EM groups that could not be controlled for in the analysis.

Being released on sobriety monitoring did not significantly improve the percentage of people who avoided a new arrest, but there was variation in this effect among jurisdictions. In two of the four jurisdictions studied, people who were assigned to sobriety monitoring were more likely to avoid new arrests, while in the other two, the result was the opposite.

Get the report HERE

FIU-Race and Prosecutorial Diversion- What we know and what can be done

Diversion is increasingly used by prosecutors in the United States. As an alternative to formal prosecution, diversion programs provide opportunities to avoid conviction, address substance use and mental health needs, and maintain employment and community ties. However, the diversion process can be a source of racial and ethnic disparities. Who gets diverted and who completes diversion successfully has a lot to do with income. Irrespective of skin color, poor individuals are disadvantaged for a variety of reasons, ranging from the quality of legal advice to hefty fees. While we acknowledge that diversion differences can stem from socioeconomic factors, this report focuses specifically on how race and ethnicity influence diversion decisions.

The full report is available here.

Barracks Behind Bars II: In Veteran-Specific Housing Units, Veterans Help Veterans Help Themselves

Why A Veteran-Specific Approach

One of the most frequent questions an organization considering veteran-specific approaches to corrections asks is “why.” While there is consensus that veterans deserve recognition, discussion remains about whether programming tailored to the needs of veterans is the most compelling way to help justice-involved veterans in the criminal justice system. After all, they share many of the same characteristics as non-veterans. But there is one crucial difference.

Military experience gives veterans work ethics, loyalties, and even skills that separate them from those who have not had similar training. Combat veterans, those who served in combat during service, are a subgroup of veterans who may have even greater needs. To classify veterans without accounting for their unique experience would be to dismiss the benefits of their service and limit access to specialized treatments and care.

In the latest publication of the National Institute of Corrections justice-involved veterans series, Barracks Behind Bars II: In Veteran-Specific Housing Units, Veterans Help Veterans Help Themselves, prison-focused programming for veterans is addressed. The publication is based on interviews with those working in the field, practicing in real time the work it takes to conceive of, develop, and sustain veteran-specific programming in a prison. As you read through the document, you will find that no two programs are exactly the same. This speaks to the flexibility that systems have to create approaches that are based on the talents and resources available in their own immediate area.

Below, you will find an audio snippet of our interview with Liberty. In this clip, he explains his “why.” Why a veteran-specific approach to corrections. We hope you will find his response not only insightful but inspiring. Veteran-specific approaches can be developed in any system. Consider reading Barracks Bars II and others in the justice-involved veterans series to find out why and also how.