Ijay Consulting 1

Racial Justice Improvement Project

Brooklyn, New York
Outcome Evaluation Plan
Revised July 8, 2013

Introduction:
The Brooklyn Task Force designed a pilot program for 16 and 17 yearold individuals with Desk Appearance
Tickets for the misdemeanor charges of theft of services (transit only) and marijuana possession. The purpose of
the program is to provide juveniles charged with low level offenses an opportunity to participate in a
speciallydesigned educational seminar in exchange for having their cases dismissed and sealed. Upon
compliance with program requirements including successful completion of the seminar, and no further
involvement in the criminal justice system, the case is dismissed on the next adjourn date.

Pilot Program Model:
For the 5week duration of the pilot program, Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS) and the Kings County District
Attorneys (KCDA) office assigned one attorney each to handle these cases, and the Department of Probation
assigned one officer to screen candidates. BDS identified eligible youth and interviewed them to ascertain
eligibility. If the attorney and client decided that participation would be beneficial, the BDS attorney informed the
Department of Probation which then screened the youth to determine suitability for the program. Once a
defendant was found eligible for the program, the Probation Officer informed the Assistant District Attorney
(ADA). At that time, the ADA reviewed the matter, ADA concerns were discussed, and, in the case of an eligible
defendant, notified the defense of KCDAs consent.

When the case was called, the Probation Officer informed the Presiding Judge of the defendants eligibility in the
program. The ADA informed the court that s/he agreed to placement in the program and subsequent dismissal
upon the defendants successful completion of the program. The Judge created a clear record that ensured that
the parameters of the program were well understood by the defendant, counsel, the DAs office and the
Department of Probation.

Each client was required to attend a two-part seminar monitored by the Department of Probation; parents were
encouraged to attend. Consistent with best practices, the first part of the program was an informational session
led by a representative of the Department of Education followed by a question and answer period. The second
part of the seminar focused on appropriate decision-making, as well as the collateral consequences of arrests, the
types of behavior that can result in arrest and discussion about how to handle difficult situations, such as when
the participant might see people fighting or engaging in crimes.

Twenty-five youth were found eligible for the program and all chose to participate. Of those, twenty-three
attended the workshop/seminar. Three of the participants were re-arrested prior to the final court date and two
did not show up on their court date. Of the original 25 participants, 19 had their cases dismissed and sealed at
the first adjourn date, after successful completion of the program. One other had his case dismissed and sealed
on a subsequent date. Another defendant failed to appear on a second calendar date and a Bench Warrant was
ordered. Four cases were adjourned to Kings County Youth Part (APY2) for further proceedings.

In addition to the youth diversion program, the BTF plans to hold cultural competence seminars, one for judges
and one for attorneys. The program for New York City Criminal Court judges will be conducted in March 2013.
The attorney program is scheduled for April 2013.
Ijay Consulting 2

Proposed Evaluation Plan

The Brooklyn Youth Diversion Programs primary goal is to provide low level juvenile offenders a program that
will offer them insight into their behavior and help them make better decisions, while helping them avoid being
saddled with a criminal record.

Recidivism Rates:
As a proxy of a measure of better decision-making, recidivism of members of the initial pilot group will be
tracked. A member of the BDS will track the participants criminal justice activity through the New York CRIMS
database on a monthly basis for one year. While a recurrence of the charging offense will be noted, particular
attention will be paid to the commission of higher-level offenses

A comparison of the recidivism rates between those who successfully completed the program will be made to
those who did not complete the program and to a control group (those who committed the same crimes as the
pilot group, but did not participate in the program). Initially, this evaluation plan will be executed only for pilot
participants, but will eventually be conducted on a random sample of 30% of all participants in future iterations
of the program. Monthly comparisons

Data to be collected will be recorded in an excel database that includes the names of the individuals who
completed the program, those who did not complete the program and a random sample of 30 of those who
were not invited to participate in the program, but were charged with marijuana use and theft of transit service
(turnstile jumping). Each member of these three samples will be tracked monthly for subsequent arrests as
mentioned previously. BDS staff will track the arrests and charging of each of the three groups on a monthly
basis. Additional arrests will be noted and tracked in the excel spreadsheet for six months, again at nine months
and one year after the program has completed. The RJIP Evaluator will track the evaluation activities, including
review of arrest and charging data.

Because of the relatively small sample size (25 participants) in the pilot study, no high level statistics can be
completed; however frequencies, descriptives, and chi-square analyses will be conducted. Conducting
descriptive analyses will give us information about the average number of re-arrests and charges within the
study and comparison groups and the chi-square will indicate whether the between-group data are statistically
significant.

With a larger sample, as will become available over time, multiple regression analyses can be completed to
determine true differences between groups. Within the multiple regression analysis, certain variables, including
arrest record prior to the charging offense, age, and gender will be held constant
1
. Additionally a larger sample
will allow for comparisons between racial and ethnic groups. If desired, a comparison between genders may also
be conducted.

Summary:
Brooklyn has developed a youth diversion program that, it is hoped, will reduce recidivism in 16 and 17 year old
low-level offenders. Further, the BTF is scheduling cultural competency training for judges and attorneys, which
will provide a greater understanding of racial and ethnic biases. Using the evaluation methods described in this
paper will provide evidence as to whether the program and training is effective.

1
Holding certain individual variables constant allows a truer picture of the impact of the program on participants to
emerge. For example, comparing a person with several prior criminal justice contacts with an individual who has none can
yield invalid information about the efficacy of the program. Holding extraneous variables constant, such as arrest record,
will result in that variable being ignored as part of the statistical formula.



BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
THE DESK APPEARANCE TICKET FOR
YOUTH PROGRAM (DAT-Y)

YEAR 2 EVALUATION FINDINGS



PREPARED FOR:

The American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section

BY:
Inga James, MSW, PhD

Ijay Consulting
8407 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 2
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
301.476.1299
www.ijayconsulting.com
JULY 1, 2013

Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013



Ijay Consulting
4

Introduction and Background
Introduction:
The Brooklyn Task Force designed a pilot program for 16 and 17 yearold individuals with Desk
Appearance Tickets for the misdemeanor charges of theft of services (turnstile jumping) and
marijuana possession. The purpose of the program was to provide juveniles, who are largely
individuals of color, charged with low level offenses an opportunity to participate in a
speciallydesigned educational seminar in exchange for having their cases dismissed and sealed.
Upon compliance with program requirements, including successful completion of the seminar
and no further involvement in the criminal justice system, a case was dismissed on the next
adjourn date.

Pilot Program Model:
For the 5week duration of the pilot program, Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS) and the Kings
County District Attorneys (KCDA) office assigned one attorney each to handle low-level
misdemeanor cases of 16 and 17 year-olds. BDS identified eligible youth and interviewed them
to ascertain suitability. If the attorney and client decided that participation would be beneficial,
the BDS attorney informed the Department of Probation which then screened the youth to
determine appropriateness for the program. Once a defendant was found eligible for the
program, the probation officer informed the Assistant District Attorney (ADA). At that time, the
ADA reviewed the matter and discussed concerns, and notified the defense of KCDAs
recommendation.

When the case was called, the probation officer informed the presiding judge of the defendants
eligibility in the program. The ADA informed the court that s/he agreed to placement in the
program and subsequent dismissal upon the defendants successful completion of the program.
The judge created a clear record that ensured that the parameters of the program were well
understood by the defendant, counsel, the DAs office and the Department of Probation.

Each client was required to attend a two-part seminar monitored by the Department of
Probation; parents were encouraged to attend. Consistent with best practices, the first part of
the program was an informational session led by a representative of the Department of
Education followed by a question and answer period. The second part of the seminar focused on
appropriate decision-making, as well as the collateral consequences of arrests, the types of
behavior that can result in arrest and discussion about how to handle difficult situations, such as
when the participant might see people fighting or engaging in crimes.

Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013



Ijay Consulting
5

Upon successful completion of the program, the defendant again appeared in court. At that
time, if there had been no subsequent arrests, the case was dismissed and sealed.

Methods
All 16 and 17 year old clients with arrests for Theft of Services (turnstile jumping) and Marijuana
Possession between the dates of 16 October 2012 and 27 November 2013 were invited to
participate in the BDS pilot program. Twenty-five youth were found eligible for the program and
all chose to participate. Of those, twenty-three attended the workshop/seminar. The
comparison group included 28, 16 and 17 year olds who were arraigned for the same offenses
between 18 December 2012 and 29 January 2013.

A member of the BDS tracked the participants criminal justice activity through the New York
Criminal Records Information Management System (CRIMS) database on a monthly basis for five
months post-program. While a recurrence of the charging offense was noted, particular
attention was paid to the commission of higher-level offenses.

Recidivism data from the CRIMS database were recorded in an excel database that included the
names of the individuals who completed the program along with a comparison sample of 28
who did not participate in the program, but were charged with marijuana use and theft of
transit service (turnstile jumping). Each member of these two samples was tracked monthly for
subsequent arrests for five months post-program.

Following is a table detailing the sample characteristics

Group
Black/
African
American
White/
Caucasian
Asian
American
Hispanic/
Latino(a)
American
Unknown TOTAL
DAT-Y 15 3 2 3 2 25
Comparison 23 4 0 0 1 28
TOTAL 38
7
2 3 3 53
Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013



Ijay Consulting
6


Results
Of the 25 participants who completed the diversion program, two did not appear at final
disposition, thus did not have their charges dismissed. Additionally, over the next five months,
three were subsequently arrested for additional offenses, in comparison to six arrests for the
comparison group.
Group
Felony
Arrest
Misdemeanor
Arrest
DAT-Y 1 2
Comparison 1 5

Three of the program participants were re-arrested prior to the final court date and two did not
show up on their court date. Of the original 25 participants, 19 had their cases dismissed and
sealed at the first adjourn date, after successful completion of the program. One defendant
failed to appear on a second calendar date and a Bench Warrant was ordered. Five cases
(including the individual who did not appear for disposition) were adjourned to Kings County
Youth Part (APY2) for further proceedings. Three of those cases were subsequently dismissed.
The following table outlines the number and type of dispositions for the DAT-Y and comparison
groups:
Group
Dismissed and
Sealed
ACD
2
ACDC
3

Bench
Warrant
Plea
DAT-Y 22 2 0 1 0
Comparison 1 5 4 0 8

Of the three DAT-Y arrests, one was a felony (with violence) and two were misdemeanors. The
felony arrest was for robbery in the second degree and the misdemeanor arrests included one
for Theft of Services and one for Sale of Marijuana.
Of the six comparison group arrests, one was a felony, while five were misdemeanors. The
felony arrest was for Gang Assault; two of the misdemeanor arrests were for Theft of Service,
one was for Criminal Trespass, and one was for Possession of Marijuana. Additionally, one youth
was arrested for both Theft of Service and Possession of Marijuana.

2
ACD stands for Adjournment in Contemplation of a Dismissal
3
ACDC stands for Adjournment in Contemplation of a Dismissal with Conditions
Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013



Ijay Consulting
7

In sum, of the DAT-Y group, 12% of participants were subsequently charged with new offenses.
Of the comparison group, 21.5% were charged with new offenses.
While the sample sizes are too small to draw exact conclusions, the pilot data do provide
encouraging results. The comparison, non-intervention, group had nearly twice the arrest rate
of the DAT-Y intervention group, which suggests further exploration of the program is needed.
Training. In addition to the DAT-Y project, the TF implemented an implicit bias training that was
attended by 75 criminal court judges. This training was considered a watershed event in that it
attracted so many judges willing to participate in a full-day session.
Summary and Recommendations
The findings of the pilot program offer promising news: post-program arrest rates for the
program group were lower than the comparison group.

In previous discussions, several TF members indicated that there were portions of the program
they would like to change, such as having parents and their teens separated for the sessions, as
well as revising the portion on educational motivation. They also made note of how resource
intensive the program was, including collection of data for evaluation purposes. On the other
hand, it should be noted that the TF has become a free-standing force dedicated to racial justice
reform and is identifying other projects for future development.

Those comments, along with the evaluation results indicate the following recommendations:

Continue to monitor the arrest and charging rates of both the pilot and comparison
group members.
Implement additional iterations of the pilot program with a larger number of individuals,
providing a greater sample size for ongoing evaluation.
Develop a free-standing session for parents to focus on parenting adolescents and the
teaching law abiding values.
Revise the section currently being conducted by the Department of Education to tailor it
to the appropriate age group and make it more interactive.
Seek additional funding to ensure that the program is fully implemented and evaluated.

Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013


Ijay Consulting
8


race Group Dispo ID Open Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May
b c ACD 1 12/18/2012
w c PLEA 2 12/18/2012
Crim
Tresspass
(M)
b c ACDC 3 1/15/2013
Poss Mar
(M); TOS
(M)
b c ACDC 4 12/18/2012
b c ACDC 5 1/15/2013
b c ACDC 6 1/7/2013
b c ACDC 7 1/7/2013 TOS (M)
b c PLEA 8 1/7/2013
Gang
Assault (F)
b c ACD 9 1/8/2013
b c ACDC 10 1/29/2013
b c PLEA 11 1/29/2013
b c ACD 12 12/18/2012
b c ACD 13 12/18/2012
b c ACD 14 12/18/2012 TOS (M)
w c ACD 15 1/15/2013
b c PLEA 16 12/18/2012
b c PLEA 17 1/7/2013
b c ACD 18 1/18/2013
na c PLEA 19 1/22/2013
b c ACD 20 1/22/2013
Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013



Ijay Consulting
9

w c ACD 21 1/8/2013
b c ACD 22 1/29/2013
b c ACD 23 1/29/2013
b c ACD 24 1/7/2013
Poss Mar
(M)
b c ACD 25 1/7/2013
w c ACD 26 1/15/2013
b c ACD 27 1/15/2013
b c ACD 28 1/29/2013
na dat-y ACD 29 11/27/2012
na dat-y DNS 30 11/13/2012
b dat-y DNS 31 11/13/2012
b dat-y DNS 32 10/16/2012
b dat-y DNS 33 10/23/2012
h dat-y DNS 34 10/23/2012
b dat-y DNS 35 10/16/2012
h dat-y DNS 36 10/23/2012
b dat-y DNS 37 11/13/2012
b dat-y DNS 38 11/20/2012
b dat-y DNS 39 10/16/2012 ROB2 (V)
w dat-y DNS 40 11/27/2012
b dat-y DNS 41 11/27/2012
b dat-y DNS 42 11/27/2012
b dat-y DNS 43 11/20/2012
b dat-y ACD 44 10/23/2012
h dat-y DNS 45 10/16/2012
a dat-y DNS 46 11/20/2012
w dat-y DNS 47 10/16/2012
Brooklyn, New York Year 2 Evaluation Findings July 8, 2013



Ijay Consulting
10

b dat-y DNS 48 11/27/2012
Sale Mar
(M)
b dat-y DNS 49 11/27/2012
a dat-y DNS 50 11/27/2012
b dat-y DNS 51 11/27/2012
b dat-y BW 52 11/20/2012 TOS (M)
w dat-y DNS 53 10/23/2012