Pre-Trial Detention Under the Young Offenders Act: A Study of Urban Courts

APPENDIX: METHOD AND SUPPORTING TABLES (cont'd)

**TABLE A.22 - EFFECTS OF LEGAL AND COURT PROCESSING VARIABLES ON THE FINAL PLEA, CONTROLLING FOR ALL FACTORS SIMULTANEOUSLY**
Variable	B (s.e.)	Sign.	B (s.e.)	Sign.	B (s.e.)	Sign.
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Constant	.855 (.126)	.000	.927 (.156)	.000	.785 (.166)	.000
Halifax (no/yes)	-.891 (.168)	.000	-.914 (.172	.000	-.791 (.169)	.000
Toronto (no/yes)	-.835 (.161)	.000	-.827 (.167)	.000	-.782 (.169)	.000
Winnipeg (no/yes)	-1.167 (.167)	.000	-1.275 (.175)	.000	-1.232 (.176)	.000
Edmonton (no/yes)	-.582 (.164)	.000	-.681 (.166)	.000	-.608 (.168)	.000
Number of current charges			-.155 (.046)	.001	-.192 (.047)	.000
"Bad" bail history and/or prior custody			.187 (.068)	.006	.083 (.074)	.258
FTC/FTA charge at arrest (no/yes)			.412 (.l81)	.023	.396 (.182)	.030
Current charge of hybrid property or probation breach (no/yes)			.263 (.105)	.012	.298 (.106)	.005
Detention (no or released vs. not released by court)					.449 (.153)	.004
Number of detention stays during court process					.151 (.066)	.022
Model chi-square (df)	57.10 (4) ***		92.72 (8) ***		107.09 (10) ***
Block chi-square (df)	57.10 (4) ***		35.70 (4) ***		14.37 (2) **
% correct predictions no plea or not guilty plea	44%		55%		56%
% correct predictions final guilty plea	68%		65%		66%
Overall correct predictions	57%		60%		61%
Nagelkerke's R2	.04		.07		.08

**TABLE A.23 - EFFECTS OF LEGAL AND COURT PROCESSING VARIABLES ON CUSTODIAL SENTENCES, SENTENCED CASES ONLY, CONTROLLING FOR ALL FACTORS SIMULTANEOUSLY**
Variable	B (s.e.)	Sign.	B (s.e.)	Sign.	B (s.e.)	Sign.
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Constant	-1.365 (.095)	.000	-1.837 (.295)	.000	-2.724 (.352)	.000
Prior record (composite measure)	1.127 (.092)	.000	1.160 (.106)	.000	-1.034 (.111)	.000
1, 2 or 3+ current charges			-.463 (.111)	.000	-.374 (.116)	.001
Indictable person charge (no/yes)			1.902 (.546)	.000	2.002 (.568)	.000
Indictable property charge (no/yes)			.250 (.344)	.469	.544 (.355)	.126
Indictable drugs charge (no/yes)			.798 (.581)	.169	.806 (.587)	.170
Hybrid person charge (no/yes)			-.523 (.343)	.127	-.252 (.359)	.483
Hybrid property charge (no/yes)			-.864 (.303)	.004	-.483 (.313)	.122
Other charge e.g., hybrid drugs, weapons, traffic			-.609 (.363)	.093	-.296 (.379)	.436
Breach of probation charge (no/yes)			-511 (.287)	.075	-.154 (.301)	.610
Detention (no or released vs. not released by court)					.798 (.220)	.000
Number of detention stays during court process					.589 (.122)	.000
Model chi-square (df)	189.38 (1) ***		249.37 (9) ***		286.00 (11) ***
Block chi-square (df)	189.38 (1) ***		59.99 (8) ***		36.63 (2) ***
% correct predictions no plea or not guilty plea	99%		98%		98%
% correct predictions final guilty plea	10%		16%		20%
Overall correct predictions	77%		78%		79%
Nagelkerke's R2	.28		.36		.41

Notes:

*** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05. If the cell is blank, then the factor was not statistically associated with the condition. "-" means that the variable was not included in the model. "n.a." means the variable was excluded because of missing values.
The first value in the cell is the unstandardized B coefficient.
N=891 Cut value=.75
N=1716 Cut value=.50
The custodial sentence was imposed on the charge selected to represent the case, which was calculated by determining the most serious sentence and if no charge went to the dispositional stage, by selecting the most serious offence type.
We earlier suggested that the majority of pre-trial detention decisions are made by Crown attorneys - by their ability to release youth on consent - rather than the youth court.
Dependent variable=open or secure custody (no/yes)