BTF W Cover Page May

RA
CI
AL
New York Task Force
Kin Wang Ng
Executive Assistant District Attorney
Lisa Schreibersdorf
Executive Director
Brooklyn Public Defender Services
Dawn Ryan
Attorney-in-Charge
The Legal Aid Society/Brooklyn Criminal
Division
Honorable George Grasso
Citywide Supervising Judge
Arraignments
Charlene Daniels
Principal Law Clerk to Judge Grasso
Lance Ogiste
Counsel to the District Attorney
Anne Swern
First Assistant to the District Attorney
Denise Wirsig
Project Coordinator
Brooklyn Defender Services
Justin Barry
Chief Clerk
Brooklyn Criminal Court
Susan Herman
Deputy Commissioner for Collaborative
Policing
Hiram Bell
Supervising Court Attorney
Delia Hunley-Adossa
88th Precinct Community Council
Daniel Alessandrino
Chief Clerk
Karen Armstrong
Kings County Assistant Commissioner
Kerry Ward
Principal Court Attorney to Honorable
Barry Kamins
Kenneth Thompson
District Attorney
Gregory Thomas
Executive Assistant to the DA
Leigh Anne Freeman
Probation Officer
William Bratton
Police Commissioner
Vincent Schiraldi
The Mayor's Office for Criminal Justice
The Racial Justice Improvement Project (RJIP) aims to

identify and reform policies and practices that produce
racial disparities in local criminal justice systems across
the country. By working with officials in state and local
criminal justice systems, RJIP attempts to address racial
disparities by developing and implementing evidencebased policy reforms throughout the adjudication process
where policies and practices have an adverse impact on
people of color.
Brooklyn, New York Task Force

The Brooklyn Task Force (BTF) chose to focus its efforts on youth in the criminal justice system, recognizing
this as a pressing issue for the courts and community, as juveniles of color are unfortunately over-represented in
the New York City criminal justice system. In 2012, almost 85% of the 90,000 people arrested in Brooklyn were
people of color, and 15% (13,500) were youth under the age of 20.1 The BTF recognized that a reform to any
part of the system would have positive racial outcomes. The BTF developed a pilot project, titled DAT-Y,
targeting 16 and 17 year-old youth arrested on minor misdemeanor charges and arraigned in adult criminal
court, of whom a disproportionately large percentage are people of color. The project offered eligible youth
adolescent-appropriate services and, in exchange for their participation, the court dismissed their cases upon
program completion.2 Defendants compliance was monitored by the Department of Probation. The goal of the
project was to have a constructive impact on the youths view of his or her future at a critical juncture in their
life and to avoid the collateral consequences of having a criminal history.
Three iterations of DAT have been run to date and the BTF has been able to observe promising results after each
rendition.
DAT-Y I: Participants for the first iteration of the diversion program were taken from Desk Appearance Ticket
(DAT) arraignment hearings in October and November 2012 and a comparison group of youth was taken from
DAT shifts the following January. 25 participants were found eligible for the program, of which 22 successfully
completed the program and had their cases dismissed and sealed. 4 of the 25 youth were rearrested at least once
within the year following their participation in the program, resulting in a 16% re-arrest rate. In the comparison
group, 10 of the 28 youth were rearrested within the year following their DAT arraignment resulting in a 36%
re-arrest rate. Because all of the program participants were BDS clients, BDS was able to follow their NYSIDs3
in the Criminal Records and Information Management System (CRIMS), even after their cases were dismissed.
This allowed for tracking without relying on participants self-reporting outcomes and promoted accuracy. See
Appendix F for the full DAT-Y I evaluation. See Appendix E for the BTFs report on DAT-Y I.
DAT-Y II: After witnessing promising success with its initial pilot program, the BTF decided to implement a
second iteration that expanded DAT-Y I. In the second iteration (DAT-Y II), the BTF increased the range of
eligible charges to include all non-violent DATs.4 Participants were drawn from DAT hearings in October and
November 2013 and the control group drew from similar hearings in August. 32 youth were screened for
participation, 29 of which participated and had their cases dismissed and sealed. 5 of the 32 youth were rearrested at least once within the 11 months following their participation in the program, resulting in a 16% rearrest rate. In the comparison group, 12 of the 35 youth were rearrested within the year following their DAT
arraignment, having a 34% re-arrest rate.5 With recidivism for program participants being only half that of their
1 See 2013 Annual Report, New York Criminal Justice Agency (December 2014).
2 See Brooklyn Task Force January 2014 Report (2014).
3 A NYSID is a unique identifier assigned to an individual by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
4 Non-violent DATs include marijuana possession, theft of services, shoplifting, and suspension of a license.
5 Id.
control group counterparts in both iterations, the efficacy and impact of the program were successful. See
Appendix H.
DAT-Y III: Following the success of DAT-Y I and DAT-Y II, the BTF decided to run a third iteration of its pilot
diversion program that would be open to all 16 and 17 year-old defendants. All eligible youth with DATs issued
between July 7, 2014 and August 31, 2014 were included. The BTF incorporated a number of new features in
this borough-wide roll out, including:
Decreasing the time between arrest and first appearance on the DAT;
Creating a Youth DAT part for all 16 and 17 year-olds with DATs;
Increasing the programs offered to the young people to include educational counseling as well as several
restorative justice programs; and
Instituting a screening mechanism at arraignment to direct the youth to the most appropriate program.
Approximately 206 young people were arraigned in the special part 166 of whom were referred to one of four
appropriate programs, including: a decision-making skills seminar through the Center for Court Innovation
(CCI); arts-based restorative justice with Young New Yorkers; education structuring with the Department of
Education; and individual counseling with CCI. Of the 166 youth referred, 163 completed a program and had
their cases dismissed and sealed. The BTF is still in the process of collecting data on the program participants
but current data demonstrates that DAT participants are less likely to be arrested in nearly
category and nearly 200 juveniles will soon have been successfully diverted, avoiding
prolonged contact with the criminal justice system and a criminal record. See Appendix
N for the 6 month DAT-Y evaluation data.
Finally, the BTF partnered with the New York State Judicial Institute, the Administrative Judge of New York
City Criminal Court and the Chief Clerk of New York City Criminal Court to design and implement a judicial
cultural competency and implicit bias training program for New York City Criminal Court Judges. The
programs were well received by the judges and more than 85% of New York City Criminal Court judges
attended.6 See Appendix J for the seminar agenda.
PASSING THE TORCH

Following the successful reform efforts in Kings County by the RJIP task force, additional efforts have been put
into place to make the DAT-Y Diversion Program a statewide initiative. The Task Force is currently looking to
expand the proven-successful programming, both geographically and in its eligibility criteria. With the
assistance of the Department of Probation, Department of Criminal Justice, and the NYPD, the expectation is
that if the current Brooklyn borough wide DAT-Y iteration continues to produce the success demonstrated
during the first 6 months, DAT-Y will be expanded state-wide. Having performed repeated iterations of the
program, the Task Force has established a solid foundation from which to judge budgetary requirements and
proactively address potential problems that may arise. Additional bias free decision making training workshops
have been planned by the Department of Probation, with hopes that, moving forward, similar programs will be
initiated on their own initiative. The expectation is that RJIPs continual success will allow the program to
expand and continue to directly impact juvenile rehabilitation across other districts in the state of New York.
6 See One Day Seminar for Criminal Court Judges Agenda (on file with author; available in Appendix C).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PASSING THE TORCH3
SUMMARY OF NEW YORK TASK FORCE......................................................................6
GENERAL JURISDICTION INFORMATION...................................................................6

BACKGROUND
ON
PROPOSED AREA
OF
REFORM......................................................7
TASK FORCE REFORM GOALS............................................................................. 8

TASK FORCE MEMBERS.....................................................................................8
DAT YOUTH DIVERSION..................................................................................10
TASK FORCE BUDGET.....................................................................................10
IMPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................13
RESULTS................................................................................................................15
EVALUATION PLAN
AND
DATA............................................................................15
SUMMARY................................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES..........................................................................................................21
APPENDIX A: RACIAL DISPARITIES
IN
DWI 2009 REPORT........................................21
APPENDIX B: BTF ORIGINAL PROPOSAL..............................................................30

APPENDIX C: BDS ORIGINAL CONTRACT.............................................................38
APPENDIX D: RJIP CONTRACT ADDENDUM...........................................................42
APPENDIX E: RJIP MAY 10TH REPORT.................................................................43
APPENDIX F: JANUARY 5TH 2013 OUTCOME EVALUATION PLAN.................................45
APPENDIX G: THE BROOKLYN TASK FORCE YOUTH IMPACT PROJECT...........................48

APPENDIX H: JANUARY 7, 2013 TASK FORCE REPORT............................................52
APPENDIX I: RJIP CONTRACT AMENDMENT...........................................................57
APPENDIX J: ONE DAY JUDGE SEMINAR 2014 AGENDA............................................58
APPENDIX K: JULY 31ST 2014 RJIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................60
APPENDIX L: OCTOBER 10TH 2014 UPDATE PRESENTATION......................................64
APPENDIX M: NOVEMBER 10, 2014 RJIP CONTRACT.............................................66
APPENDIX N: BROOKLYN DAT-Y 6 MONTH EVALUATION...........................................70
APPENDIX O: JANUARY 30TH SEMINAR FLYER.........................................................79
APPENDIX P: DECISION MAKING WORKSHOP FACILITATION GUIDE..............................80
APPENDIX Q: YOUNG NEW YORKERS NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE...............................87
SUMMARY OF NEW YORK TASK FORCE

GENERAL JURISDICTION INFORMATION
Brooklyn is one of the five boroughs that comprise the City of New York, with the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens,
and Staten Island being the other four. Geographically, at almost 71 square miles, Brooklyn is the second largest
borough of New York City.7 It is also the most populous, with over 2.5 million residents.8 Brooklyn is also
known as Kings County. Additionally, it is the second most densely populated county in the United States,
coming in second only to New York County/Manhattan.
The Kings County District Attorneys Office is one of the largest prosecutors offices in the United States, with
1,114 employees.9 In 2009 alone, this office reviewed 102,121 arrests and processed 72,097 misdemeanor and
22,996 felony complaints.10
Brooklyn is policed by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), which is the largest police force in the
United States. Brooklyn has the most police precincts of any of the New York City boroughs, with twenty-three
police precincts, four transit police districts, and three housing police service areas.11 The below charts present
some basic demographic information describing Brooklyns population and the NYPDs composition.
Estimated Population (2014)

Percent of population under the
age of 18 (2013)
Percent of population that is
foreign born (2009-2013)
Per Capita Income (2013)
Median Household Income
(2009-2013)
Percent of population below the
poverty level
Quick Facts
Brooklyn
2,621,793
New York State

19,746,227
23.3%
21.6%
37.5%
22.1%
$25,289
$32,382
$46,085
$58,003
23.2%
15.3%
7 United States Census Bureau, Kings County, New York (2010), available at
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36047.html.
9 Kings County 2010 Racial Justice Improvement Application Form (on file with author).
10 Id.
11 NYPD Precincts (2015), available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/precincts.shtml#td.
ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION
RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

6
BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AREA OF REFORM

According to 2013 estimates, Brooklyn was, and continues to be, a county predominantly populated by people
of color , with a racial makeup of 49.5% white, 35.4% Black, 11.7 % Asian, and 2.3% identifying as being from
two or more races.12 19.6% of the population was Hispanic, of any race.13 Of New York Citys boroughs,
Brooklyn has the highest concentration of Black residents, representing approximately 40% of New York Citys
total Black population. Brooklyn is, in fact, the home of the largest Black community in the United States. It is
also home to many immigrants from around the world. Because of this, many ethnicities, cultures, and races are
represented, creating vibrant neighborhoods that are racial and ethnic enclaves and where languages other than
English predominate.
People of color are unfortunately over-represented both in the New York City criminal justice system and in the
Brooklyn criminal justice system. In 2012, almost 85% of the 90,000 people arrested in Brooklyn were people
of color and 15% (13,500) were youth under the age of 20.14 According to Brooklyn Defender Services intake
data for the same year, it is estimated that 22% of those arrested were between the ages of 16 and 21, a critical
age group, of whom about 73% were Black. The one-year re-arrest rate for these youth is approximately 41%.15
13 Id.
14 See 2013 Annual Report, supra at 10-11.
15 See id.

7
Before settling on diversion for youth of color as its primary reform focus, the Brooklyn Task Force (BTF)
conducted research in other domains of the New York City criminal justice system to assess the viability of
potential reform efforts.
Stop and Frisk: A study conducted by the Center for Constitutional Rights analyzed the raw data of
approximately 575,000 stop and frisks conducted by members of the NYPD in 2009 and 2010.16 The police
stopped more than 490,000 people of color during this time period, while only 53,000 whites were stopped. In
addition, police used force in 24% of these stops.17 However, when broken down by race, force was used in 27%
of the stops involving Hispanics and in 25% of those stops involving Blacks.18 Force was used only 15% in
stops with whites.19 This has contributed significantly to tensions and distrust in the community.
While this racial disparity and its impacts are especially troubling, the BTF was unable to come to a consensus
regarding this reform. Additionally, a lack of cooperation from the NYPD was a significant obstacle to pursuing
this reform. See Appendix B for the task forces initial research and proposal to examine Stop and Frisks.
DWI: The BTF also explored focusing its reform efforts on DWI offenses. An expert hired by the BTF, Dr. Hu
Sung, examined a representative sample of DWI cases from 2009. The data compilation for the DWI study was
onerous and involved manual examination of files by the research team. However, the research did not find a
racial disparity in sentencing once factors such as prior and new arrests, immigration detainers, and parole and
probation violations were taken into account. As a result, the DWI-focused racial justice reform project was
abandoned. See Appendix A for the full data and conclusions report.
Youth Diversion: After some changes in membership composition and NYPD cooperation with the project,
the BTF identified the issue of youth in the criminal justice system as a pressing issue for the courts and the
community. As people of color are unfortunately over-represented in the New York City criminal justice system,
the BTF recognized that a reform to any part of the system would have a positive racial impact. The BTF
decided to focus on improving the way the system addresses 16 and 17 year-old youth who are arrested for
relatively minor offenses. They started with the premise that contact with the criminal justice system,
particularly if it is a first contact for a relatively minor offense, such as marijuana possession or turnstile
jumping, can be an important turning point in a youths life. The BTF relied on existing information and
statistics when selecting youth diversion as their reform.
TASK FORCE REFORM GOALS

The BTFs 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, all while helping them avoid being saddled with a criminal
record. The DAT-Y program was implemented in hopes that it would help to achieve this. With each DAT-Y
iteration the BTF has monitored re-arrest rates among the participants and a comparison group as a proxy,
helping to most accurately measure better decision-making. Staff at the Brooklyn Defender Service (BDS) is
16 NYPD Stop-and-Frisk Fact Sheet: 2009-2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights available at
http://www.ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/CCR-Stop-and-Frisk-Fact-Sheet-2010.pdf.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.

8
responsible for tracking the participants re-arrests through the New York Criminal Records and Information
Management System (CRIMS) database on a regular basis.
TASK FORCE MEMBERS

The BTF was initially formed in 2010. The core members of the original task force were top-level officials in
the District Attorneys Office, the chief of the Brooklyn Defender Services, the administrative judges court
attorney, and a community representative from the 88th Precinct Community Council, an organization that
facilitates communication between the police and the community to address public safety issues in local
neighborhoods. The task force is now comprised of senior-level representatives from each of the stakeholder
agencies, making the task force an effective forum for identifying and addressing both day-to-day issues and
long-term goals. In addition, the BTF is collaborating with the Department of Education, the Center for Court
Innovation, and Young New Yorkers to design and implement appropriate programs for diversion program
participants. In 2014, the BTF expanded its membership to include representatives from the Mayors Office for
Criminal Justice, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and the Legal Aid Society.

9

10
DAT YOUTH DIVERSION

The BTFs diversion reform initiative provided 16 and 17 year-olds with Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs),
allowing them an opportunity for a speedy dismissal of their case in exchange for their participation in a
targeted program that could help to address core behavioral issues, educational difficulties, and/or provide a
positive outlet. Initially this reform only included misdemeanor turnstile jumping and marijuana possession
charges, however it was later expanded to include additional charges in the later interations, DAT-Y II and DATY III. The initiative was modeled on the current practice of Adjustment in Family Court for juvenile offenders.
The Department of Probation screens candidates to determine eligibility for the program. Following compliance
with probationary and program requirements, including successful completion of the seminar and no further
involvement in the criminal justice system, the case will be dismissed on the next assigned adjournment date.
The BTF has taken a deliberately cautious path to expanding the DAT-Y program, hoping that the final model
will be easily replicable in other jurisdictions. By launching repeated iterations of the pilot, the BTF members
are able to identify and address issues that arise in implementation and work to resolve them in future iterations.
The task force is also cognizant of the various logistical and budgetary issues that are likely to develop as the
program expands. See Appendix K for more details about the program and the implementation plan.
TASK FORCE BUDGET
11
Racial Justice Improvement Project

2012-2013

12
2013-2014

2014-2015
The BTF also received grants from the Presumption of Innocence Project and the Public Welfare Program.
13
See Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix I, and Appendix M for RJIP contracts and grants.
IMPLEMENTATION
DAT-Y I: Pilot Diversion Program: The original pilot program ran from October 16, 2012 through
November 27, 2012.
Youth between the ages of 16 and 17 who had Desk Appearance Tickets20 for the misdemeanor charges of theft
of services (transit only) and marijuana possession were screened as preliminarily eligible for the program.
During screening, the Brooklyn Defender Services (BDS) and the Kings County District Attorneys (KCDA)
Office assigned one attorney from each of their offices to handle the youthful offenders case. The Department
of Probation also assigned one officer to screen candidates. BDS identified eligible youth through an interview.
If the attorney and client decided that participation would be beneficial, the BDS attorney informed the
Department of Probation, who then screened the youth to determine suitability for the program. Once a
defendant was found to be both eligible and suitable for the program, the probation officer informed the
Assistant District Attorney (ADA). ADA concerns were discussed and if the ADA approved of the defendants
participation, they then notified the defense of KCDAs consent and desire to move forward.
When the case was finally called in court, the probation officer would inform the presiding judge of the
defendants eligibility for the program and willingness to participate. The ADA told the judge that they agreed
to placement in the program, leading to case dismissal upon the defendants successful completion of the
program. The judge then 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.
For successful completion of the program, each client was required to attend a two-part seminar monitored by
the Department of Probation; parents were also encouraged to attend. For DAT-Y, there was one seminar offered
on Monday December 3 from 4:30 to 6:30 pm at the offices of BDS. Consistent with best practices in programs
of this nature, the seminar began with an informational session led by a liaison officer from the Department of
Education, followed by a question and answer period for youth and their parents. During the second part of the
evening, the youth participated in a 60-minute Decision Making Skills workshop and a presentation that
focused on the collateral consequences of arrests, the types of behavior that can result in arrest, and discussion
about how to handle difficult situations, such as seeing people fighting or engaging in illegal activity. See
Appendix P for curriculum. These sessions were specially designed by the Center for Court Innovation (CCI)
for at-risk youth. Prior to, during, and after the program, criminal defense, family law, and immigration
attorneys from BDS were available to answer questions from the youth and their parents, which were generally
focused on foster care issues, immigration rights, and other relevant issues. A social worker from BDS was also
available to speak with the youth and carry out any necessary follow-up.
Because all of the program participants were BDS clients, BDS was able to follow their NYSIDs21 in the New
York Criminal Records Information Management System (CRIMS), even after their attendance at the seminar
and after their cases were dismissed.
20 A Desk Appearance Ticket is an order to appear in court at a later date for arraignment, rather than the arrestee being
booked and held pending their arraignment.
21 A NYSID is a unique identifier assigned to an individual by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
14
DAT-Y II: After witnessing promising success with its initial pilot program, the BTF decided to implement a
second iteration that expanded on the juvenile diversion program previously created. In this expansion, the BTF
increased the range of charges to include all non-violent DATs (e.g. trespass, petit larceny, etc.). Thus the
expansion was in the eligibility criteria, not geography. Intake for DAT-Y II was done in the same manner as
DAT-Y I: However, now BDS staffed one DAT arraignment per week, resulting in intake being limited to one
day per week for the second program, which ran in October and November of 2013.
Young New Yorkers, a nonprofit focused on youth of color, arranged a three-hour program for program
participants that focused on decision-making skills in a restorative justice framework. See Appendix Q for an
Article in The New York Times highlighting the program and its success. The first class for participants was
held Thursday October 24, 2013. The cases were adjourned to the Special Part of the Court on Friday,
November 1st. BDS ensured that a social worker and an immigration attorney were again present at this class.
However, unlike the first session, parents were not encouraged to attend this class in order to promote openness
by participating youth. Parents were still able to consult with the BDS staff that was present. A second class was
held in end of November, with an adjournment date of December 6, 2013.
DAT-Y III: Following the completion of its second iteration, the BTF decided to run a third iteration of its
program that would be open to all 16 and 17 year-olds in Brooklyn with DATs. This new program was open to
youth with DATs issued between July 7, 2014 and August 31, 2014. The BTF incorporated a number of new
features in this borough-wide roll-out, including: decreased time between arrest and first appearance on the
DAT; eligibility for all DATs borough-wide; increase in the programs offered to the young people to
include educational counseling, as well as restorative justice programs; institution of a screening mechanism at
arraignment to direct the youth to the most appropriate program.
Eligible defendants were screened by the Department of Probation for the most suitable program, which
include: decision-making skills group classes through CCI; arts-based restorative justice through Young New
Yorkers; educational opportunities through the Department of Education; and individual counseling through
CCI. These programs were offered the day of arraignment and dismissal was scheduled for later the same week.
In order to help assess the impact of the program, the BTF kept records of all the participants of the program,
their participation rates in the program, court attendance, and subsequent arrests. The BTF will survey the youth
and their families periodically and continue to monitor recidivism rates.
For further details, see Appendix E, Appendix H and Appendix L for task force reports and update
presentations
Cultural Competency Judicial Training: The BTF partnered with the New York State Judicial Institute,
the Administrative Judge of New York City Criminal Court, and the Chief Clerk of New York City Criminal
Court to design and implement a judicial training program for New York City Criminal Court Judges. Two
trainings were organized. The first focused on raising awareness of cultural and implicit bias issues that impact
decision-making, while the second provided insight into the latest research on adolescent brain development
and its implications in the criminal justice system. See Appendix J for the training agenda. The format of the
trainings included participation by the judges attending and was designed to gauge specific reactions to
scenarios. The programs were well received by the judges and more than 85% of New York City Criminal Court
judges attended. The BTF did a repeat session of its training on adolescent brain development for Supreme
Court judges in January 2015. See Appendix O for the program flyer.
15
RESULTS
EVALUATION PLAN AND DATA
To measure the effectiveness of past programs, the BTF compared the number of youth who were re-arrested
from a comparison group of 16 and 17 year-olds who came through DAT arraignments with the number of
youth who were re-arrested among the cohort that was offered participation in the DAT-Y program. The
question asked was, Is the DAT-Y program effective at reducing re-arrests? Data collected to help answer this
was recorded in a spreadsheet that includes the names of the individuals who completed the program, those who
did not complete the program, and a sample of those who were not invited to participate in the program, but
were charged with similar crimes. BDS staff tracked the arrests of each group on a regular basis. Any additional
arrests are noted in the spreadsheet.
Because of the relatively small sample size (25 participants) in DAT-Y I, no high level statistics were completed
for it. However, frequencies, descriptives, and chi-square analyses were conducted. With a larger sample,
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. Additionally, a larger sample allows for comparisons between racial and ethnic
groups. If desired, a comparison between genders may also be conducted.
In addition to tracking criminal records, BDS conducted interviews with five successful pilot program
participants who had their cases dismissed. Their parents were also contacted at three-months and nine-months
post-program. Proposed interview questions included (but were not limited to):
Did your impression of the criminal justice system change as a result of this program? Why or why
not?
How has the program affected how you make decisions?
What are your thoughts now about the program?
See Appendix F for the full evaluation plan.
DAT-Y I: Pilot Diversion Program: All 16 and 17 year-old clients with arrests for theft of services
(turnstile jumping) and marijuana possession between October 16, 2012 and November 27, 2013 were invited to
participate in DAT-Y I. 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 December 18, 2012 and January 29, 2013.
A member of BDS tracked the participants criminal justice activity through the 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 was recorded
in an excel database that included the names of the individuals who completed the program, along with the
comparison group.
Following is a table detailing the sample characteristics:
16
Group
Black/
African
American
Asian
American
Hispanic/
Latino(a)
American
White/
Caucasian
Unknown
TOTAL
DAT-Y
15
25
Comparison
23
28
TOTAL
38
53
Of the 25 participants who completed the diversion program, two did not appear at final disposition and, as a
result, did not have their charges dismissed. Additionally, over the next five months, three were arrested for
additional offenses, in contrast with six arrests from the comparison group.
Group
Felony
Arrest
Misdemeanor
Arrest
DAT-Y
Comparison
Three 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 adjournment date,
following successful completion of the program. One defendant failed to appear on a second calendar date and a
bench warrant was issued. Five cases (including the individual who did not appear for disposition) were
adjourned to Kings County Youth Part 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:
Dismissed and
Bench
Group
Sealed
ACD
ACDC
Warrant
Plea
DAT-Y
22
Comparison
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.
17
In sum, of the DAT-Y group, 16% of participants were subsequently charged with new offenses post-program.
Of the comparison group, over 35% were charged with new offenses. While the sample sizes are too small to
draw precise conclusions, the pilot data does provide encouraging results. The comparison, non-intervention,
group had nearly twice the recidivism of the DAT-Y intervention group, suggesting further exploration of the
program is needed. See Appendix F for the full pilot program evaluation.
DAT-Y II: All 16 and 17 year-old clients with arrests for non-violent crimes between the
dates of October 3, 2013 and November 21, 2013 were invited to participate in DAT-Y II.
32 youth were screened for the program and 29 were found eligible and participated in
the program.22 The comparison group included 35 16 and 17-year olds who were
arraigned for the same offenses between August 7, 2013 and September 19, 2013.
Recidivism data from CRIMS was again recorded in an excel database. Of the juveniles who
participated in the diversion program, all 29 had their cases dismissed and sealed. 5 of the 32 total screened
youth were rearrested at least once within the 11 months following their participation in the program (16%).
Of the juveniles in the control group, all 35 participants had their cases disposed at arraignment. 12 of these 35
youth were rearrested in the year following their DAT arraignment (34%). Similar to the DAT-Y I outcomes,
these findings are hopeful.
DAT-Y III: Unlike DAT-Y I, DAT-Y III was open to all 16 and 17 year-olds given DATs in Brooklyn for any
offense. This program has had 163 successful participants to date. The comparison group was composed of 16
and 17 year-olds receiving a DAT in Brooklyn and arraigned between January 2014 and March 2014, and who
had their cases disposed at arraignment.
See Appendix N for the current DAT-Y evaluation analysis.
22 3 had new open cases, which made them ineligible for participation in DAT-Y.
18
The comparison group excluded juveniles with outstanding warrants and was matched to the DAT-Y III sample
in terms of demographics, current arrest charges, and prior arrest count and severity. Below is a chart outlining
the demographics of the two groups.
See Appendix N for more information on the DAT-Y sample group.
This iteration concluded in December 2014 and the complete data and evaluation for the program are still
pending. However, below are summary charts highlighting the current successes of this most recent iteration.
Nearly all DAT-Y III participants (98.2%) had their cases dismissed. 91.5% of the comparison group received
an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). It is worth noting that DAT-Y III participants experienced
a significantly shorter average time between arrest and arraignment.23
23 Participants had 47 days between arrest and arraignment, compared to 52 days for the comparison group.
19
As can be seen above, the DAT-Y III group was less likely to be re-arrested in nearly every category.
84.1% of DAT-Y III participants did not get rearrested for any type of offense at 6 months post-DAT-Y
arraignment (compared to 76.8% of the control group). This difference is not yet statistically significant,
however it is approaching significance. Based on the trends in re-arrest rates from 3 to 6 months, there are
possible positive effects of the program, which may become significant when later looking at the one year rearrest rates.
SUMMARY
The final findings of the preliminary programs offer promising results: for all DAT-Y
programs, post-program arrest rates were lower than the comparison group. The rearrest rate among participants was often near less than half of the re-arrest rate among
the comparison group. Of the DAT-Y I group, 12% of participants were subsequently
charged with new offenses. In the comparison group, 21.5% were charged with new
offenses. In DAT-Y II, 15.6% of program participants were subsequently charged with new
offenses, whereas the comparison group saw 34.3% of members charged with new
offenses.
Number of
participan
ts
DAT-I
(Oct/Nov
12)*
DAT-II
25
% of
participants
who have
been rearrested
16.0%
% of
comparison
group who
have been rearrested
35.7%
32
15.6%
34.3%
20
(Oct/Nov
13)**
* 12 months after program
** 11 months after program
For DAT-Y III, program participants were less likely to be arrested in nearly every category
and close to 200 juveniles have been successfully diverted, avoiding both prolonged
contact with the criminal justice system and garnishing a criminal record.
The DAT-Y program has substantial support from the criminal justice system in Brooklyn
already. If the results achieved to date are sustained over a longer time period and in
greater numbers, the project will have demonstrated an effective way to decrease rearrest rates that is both low-cost and of high benefit to at-risk youth. The BTF members
and their agencies are working together to develop a rigorous monitoring and evaluation
plan to obtain measurable results for this purpose.
At the same time, the BTF members have begun to disseminate information about the
DAT-Y program in the broader Brooklyn community. The success of the pilot DAT-Y
program has garnered media interest and inquiries from other jurisdictions interested in
replicating the program. If the project is expanded to all five New York City counties, as is
projected, it is anticipated that there will be more media interest, which informs and
educates both the criminal justice community and the public.
21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN DWI 2009 REPORT
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE SENTENCING OF CONVICTED DWI OFFENDERS
IN BROOKLYN, 2009
Hung-En Sung, Ph.D.
Amy Shlosberg, M.A.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
A summary of partial and preliminary findings submitted to the New York Task Force,
June 28, 2011
ABSTRACT
Data triangulation was conducted based on a sample of 300 driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases coded from
the archives of the Kings County District Attorneys Office and another sample of 2,550 DWI offenders
convicted and sentenced provided by the Division of Criminal Justice Services. All these DWI cases were
docketed in 2009. Findings indicated that while important differences in the socioeconomic characteristics of
offenders existed across racial and ethnic groups, there were no significant differences in the severity and nature
of DWI incidents. Racial disparities were not found in the sentencing of felony DWI cases, but significant racial
disparities were detected in the sentencing of DWI misdemeanors and infractions. Overall, black and Hispanic
offenders were much more likely to receive custodial sentences and somewhat less likely to receive the noncustodial sentence of fine.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Description of samples
..
Top conviction charges and sentences
..
Felony DWI cases
..
Misdemeanor DWI cases
..
DWI infractions
..
Summary of racial disparities
.
Potential explanations
.
22
2-3
4
5
6-7
8-9
10
11
23
1. Description of samples
Table 1. Comparison of Samples
2010 Census
KCDA Sample
Brooklyn
(N=300)
White (non-Hispanic)
Black (non-Hispanic)
Hispanic
Other
36.8%
32.9%
19.2%
11.1%
DCJS Sample
(N=2,550)
41.3%
29.3%
25.0%
4.3%
34.9%
34.7%
26.5%
3.8%
The sample of 300 cases coded from KCDA archives contains rich information in socio-demographics
and incident characteristics. But its small size does not allow the performance of complex analysis.
The sample of 2,031 cases provided by DCJS is large but only features basic legal information.
The racial or ethnic representations in both samples reflect the racial or ethnic composition of the
population in Brooklyn as reported by the 2010 Census
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics and Criminal History of DWI Defendants (N=300)

White
Black
Hispanic
Other
(N=124)
(N=88)
(N=75)
(N=13)
Age
35.1 years**
39.6 years**
35.1 years**
28.4 years**
Gender (female)
13 (10.5%)
7 (8.0%)
6 (8.0%)
1 (7.7%)
Foreign born
59 (47.6%)*
25 (28.4%)*
30 (40.0%)*
9 (69.2%)*
Local residents
84 (67.8%)
71 (80.7%)
43 (57.3%)
8 (61.5%)
Years of schooling
13.5 years***
12.0 years***
10.6 years***
12.4 years***
Employed full-time
78 (62.9%)*** 58 (65.9%)*** 46 (61.3%)***
7 (53.8%)***
Car value
$11,818.2**
$7,391.3**
$7,979.9**
$11,627.9**
Provided support to dependants
51 (41.1%)*
56 (63.6%)*
42 (56.0%)*
8 (61.5%)*
Prior felony convictions
6 (4.8%)
13 (14.8%)
3 (4.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Prior misdemeanor convictions
9 (7.3%)
18 (20.5%)
7 (9.3%)
0 (0.0%)
Prior drug convictions
8 (6.5%)
11 (12.5%)
3 (4.0%)
0 (0.0%)
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
Overall, black offenders were older, less likely to be foreign-born, and more likely to be employed and
to support dependents. Their vehicles averaged the lowest car value.
Hispanic offenders had the lowest educational achievement and drove inexpensive car
White and Other offenders were most likely to be foreign-born, average more years of schooling, and
drove more expensive cars
Table 3. Characteristics of DWI Incidents (N=300)
White
Black
Hispanic
(N=124)
(N=88)
(N=75)
Reason of the police stop

Speeding
Running light or stop sign
15 (12.2%)
6 (4.9%)
7 (7.9%)
5 (5.7%)
24
3 (4.0%)
8 (10.7%)
Other
(N=13)
2 (15.4%)
0 (0.0%)
Table 3. Characteristics of DWI Incidents (N=300)

White
Black
Hispanic
(N=124)
(N=88)
(N=75)
Swerving
13 (10.6%)
5 (5.7%)
7 (9.3%)
Other moving violations
8 (6.5%)
7 (7.9)
7 (9.3%)
Accident
24 (19.5%)
20 (22.7%)
21 (28.0%)
Other
58 (46.8%)
44 (50.0%)
29 (38.7%)
Had breathalyzer test (yes)
90 (72.6%)
72 (81.8%)
59 (78.7%)
Refused breathalyzer test
34 (27.4%)
16 (18.2%)
16 (21.3%)
Breathalyzer test result (% alcohol)
19.31%
18.06%
16.32%
Presence of drugs from test (yes)
28 (22.6%)
20 (22.7%)
20 (26.7%)
Was any accident resulted? (yes)
26 (21.0%)
22 (25.0%)
24 (32.0%)
Were there victims? (yes)
14 (11.3%)
6 (6.8%)
8 (10.7%)
Were there witnesses? (yes)
13 (10.5%)
8 (9.1%)
8 (10.7%)
Other
(N=13)
0 (0.0%)
1 (7.7%)
6 (46.1%)
4 (30.8%)
10 (76.9%)
3 (23.1%)
12.40%
3 (23.1%)
6 (46.1%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
No statistically significant differences were found in all these aspects of DWI incidents
2. Top conviction charges and sentences

Table 4. Severity of the Top Conviction Charge (N=2,550)
White
Black
Hispanic
(N=891)
(N=886)
(N=677)
Felony
Misdemeanor
Infraction
27 (3.03%)
396 (44.44%)
468 (52.53%)
52 (5.87%)
469 (52.93%)
365 (41.20%)
31 (4.58%)
342 (50.52%)
304 (44.90%)
Other
(N=96)
1 (1.04%)
45 (46.88%)
50 (52.08%)
These differences are statistically significant at .000 level
Black DWI defendants were most likely to be convicted of felony charges (5.87%) and misdemeanor
charges (52.93%), followed by Hispanic defendants (4.58% and 50.52%, respectively)
White DWI defendants were most likely to be convicted of infraction charges (52.53%), followed by
Other defendants (52.08%)
Table 5. Sentences for the Top Conviction Charge (N=2,031)
White
Black
Hispanic
(N=891)
(N=886)
(N=677)
Prison
Jail
Time Served, No Cond. Discharge
Time Served + Cond. Discharge
Jail + Probation
Probation + Fine
Probation
Fine + Conditional Discharge
Conditional Discharge
Fine + License Suspended/Revoked
Fine
0 (0.00%)
20 (2.24%)
3 (0.34%)
2 (0.22%)
11 (1.23%)
37 (4.15%)
2 (0.22%)
750 (84.18%)
3 (0.34%)
51 (5.72%)
11 (1.23%)
6 (0.68%)
63 (7.11%)
11 (1.24%)
1 (0.11%)
26 (2.93%)
49 (5.53%)
4 (0.45%)
659 (74.38%)
5 (0.56%)
39 (4.40%)
12 (1.35%)
25
2 (0.30%)
49 (7.24%)
4 (0.59%)
1 (0.15%)
9 (1.33%)
30 (4.43%)
1 (0.15%)
519 (76.66%)
5 (0.74%)
40 (5.91%)
8 (1.18%)
Other
(N=96)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
3 (3.13%)
4 (4.17%)
0 (0.00%)
82 (85.42%)
0 (0.00%)
6 (6.25%)
0 (0.00%)
Fine or Imprisonment
Other
Table 5. Sentences for the Top Conviction Charge (N=2,031)

White
Black
Hispanic
(N=891)
(N=886)
(N=677)
1 (0.11%)
10 (1.13%)
8 (1.18%)
0 (0.00%)
1 (0.11%)
1 (0.15%)
Other
(N=96)
0 (0.00%)
1 (1.04%)
These differences are statistically significant at .000 level
The majority of convicted DWI offenders received a combination of penalties.
The most common sentence imposed on DWI offenders in Brooklyn was fine plus conditional discharge.
3. Felony DWI cases

Table 6. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of FELONY DWI offenses (N=111)
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
(N=27)
(N=52)
(N=31)
(N=1)
Prison
0 (0.0%)
6 (11.5%)
2 (6.5%)
0 (0.0%)
Jail
15 (55.6%)
33 (63.5%)
14 (45.2%)
0 (0.0%)
Probation
15 (55.6%)
25 (48.1%)
15 (48.4%)
1 (100.0%)
Fine
10 (37.0%)*
10 (19.2%)*
15 (48.4%)*
1 (100.0%)*
4 (14.8%)
2 (3.8%)
4 (12.9%)
0 (0.0%)
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
Hispanic DWI felons (48.4%) were statistically significantly more likely to be fined.
Table 7. Logistic Analysis of the Likelihood of Being Fined (N=111)

Fine
Odds Ratio
Age
1.034
Sex (female)
2.055
0.590
0.720
BLACK
0.351
HISPANIC
1.277
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
When age, sex, and criminal history of DWI felons were controlled for, the effect of being Hispanic on
the likelihood of being fine became statistically non-significant (i.e., spurious relationship)
Table 8. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of DWI FELONIES (N=111)

White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Minimum prison sentence (months)
N.A.
15.3 months
12.0 months
N.A.
Length of jail terms (days)
191.1 days
232.0 days
182.6 days
N.A.
Length of probation terms (months)
60.0 months
60.0 months
60.0 months
60.0 months
Amount of fine
$944.4
$973.7
$1,000.0
$1,000.0
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
26
There were no statistically significant differences in the minimum prison sentence, length of jail
incarceration, probation sentence, and the amount of fine imposed on DWI felons across race/ethnic
groups
4. Misdemeanor DWI cases

Table 9. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of MISDEMEANOR DWI offenses (N=1,252)
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
(N=398)
(N=469)
(N=342)
(N=45)
Jail
Probation
Fine
17 (4.3%)***
35 (8.8%)
376 (94.9%)***
322 (81.3%)*
59 (12.6%)***
54 (11.5%)
405 (86.4%)***
344 (73.3%)*
40 (11.7%)***
24 (7.0%)
297 (86.8%)***
255 (74.6%)*
3 (6.7%)***
6 (13.3%)
42 (93.3%)***
35 (77.8%)*
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
There were no statistically significant differences in the application of probation sentences on DWI
misdemeanants across race/ethnic groups
Black misdemeanants (12.6%) and Hispanic misdemeanants (11.7%) were statistically significantly
more likely to receive jail sentences than white (4.3%) and Other (6.7%) misdemeanants
White (94.9%) and Other (93.3%) misdemeanants were statistically significantly more likely to be
fined than black (86.4%) and Hispanic (86.8%) misdemeanants
White (81.3%) and Other (77.8%) misdemeanants were statistically significantly more likely to receive
conditional discharge than black (73.3%) and Hispanic (74.6%) misdemeanants
Table 10. Logistic Analysis of the Likelihood of Being Jailed, Fined, and Conditionally Discharged
(N=1,252)
Jail
Fine
Conditionally
Discharge
Odds Ratio
Odds Ratio
Odds Ratio
Age
Sex (female)
No. of prior felony convictions
No. of prior misdemeanor convictions
BLACK
HISPANIC
0.991
0.251
1.513***
1.057*
2.247**
2.332**
1.006
4.480*
0.629***
0.942*
0.492**
0.440**
1.007
1.044
0.813*
0.941*
0.728
0.730
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
Racial disparities:
Holding age, sex, and criminal history constant, being black was associated with an increase of 124.7%
in the likelihood of receiving jail sentences among DWI misdemeanants
27
All else equal, being Hispanic was associated with an increase of 133.2% in the likelihood of being
sentenced to jail among misdemeanants
All else equal, being black was connected to a decrease of 50.8% in the likelihood of being fined among
misdemeanants
All else equal, being Hispanic was associated with a decrease of 56.0% in the likelihood of being fined
All else equal, being black or Hispanic was NOT connected to any change in the likelihood of being
conditionally discharged (i.e., spurious relationship)
Other findings:
All else equal, being female increased the likelihood of being fined by 340.0% (i.e., chivalry effect?)
All else equal, each prior felony conviction increased the likelihood of being jailed by 51.3% and
decreased the likelihood of being fined and conditionally discharged by 37.1% and 18.7% respectively
All else equal, each prior misdemeanor conviction increased the likelihood of being jailed by 5.7% and
decreased the likelihood of being fined and conditionally discharged by 5.8% and 5.9% respectively
Table 11. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of DWI Misdemeanors (N=1,252)
White
Black
Hispanic

Length of probation terms (months)
Amount of fine
109.8 days
38.7 months
$535.0
106.6 days
37.8 months
$520.1
99.3 days
37.0 months
$514.7
Other
60.0 days
36.0 months
$477.0
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
There were no statistically significant differences in the length of jail incarceration, probation sentence,
and the amount of fine imposed on DWI misdemeanants across race/ethnic groups
5. DWI infractions
Table 12. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of DWI INFRACTIONS (N=1,187)
White
Black
Hispanic
(N=468)
(N=365)
(N=304)
Jail
Probation
Fine
4 (0.9%)
0 (0.0%)
464 (99.1%)*
429 (91.7%)
9 (2.5%)
0 (0.0%)
354 (97.0%)*
319 (87.4%)
9 (3.0%)
1 (0.3%)
293 (96.4%)*
266 (87.5%)
Other
(N=50)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
50 (100.0%)*
47 (94.0%)
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
There were no statistically significant differences in the application of jail, probation, and conditional
discharge sentences on DWI infractors across race/ethnic groups
Hispanic violators or infractors (96.4%) were statistically significantly less likely to be fined than white
(99.1%), black (97.0%), and Other (100.0%) violators or infractors.
28
Table 13. Logistic Analysis of the Likelihood of Being Fined (N=1,187)

Fine
Odds Ratio
Age
Sex (female)
BLACK
HISPANIC
1.023
1.100
0.465***
1.029
0.312
0.245*
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
Racial disparities:
Holding age, sex, criminal history, and severity of current DWI charge constant, being Hispanic was
associated with a decrease of 75.5% in the likelihood of being fined
Other finding:
All else constant, each additional prior felony conviction was linked to a decrease of 53.5% in the
likelihood of being fined
Table 14. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of DWI INFRACTIONS (N=1,187)
White
Black
Hispanic

Amount of fine
15.0 days
$338.9
15.5 days
$336.7
29.1 days
$333.4
Other
15.0 days
$341.1
*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001
There were no statistically significant differences in the length of jail incarceration and the amount of
fine imposed on DWI infractors across race/ethnic groups
6. Summary of racial disparities

Table 15. Racial disparities in the sentencing of DWI cases
DWI felonies
DWI misdemeanors
DWI infractions
Prison
Jail
Probation
Fine
Conditional discharge
Minimum prison
Length of jail
Length of probation
Amount of fine
29
Areas of statistically significant disparities are shadowed
Being black was associated with an increase of 124.7% in the likelihood of receiving jail sentences
among DWI misdemeanants
Being Hispanic was associated with an increase of 133.2% in the likelihood of being sentenced to jail
among misdemeanants
Being black was connected to a decrease of 50.8% in the likelihood of being fined among
misdemeanants
Being Hispanic was associated with a decrease of 56.0% in the likelihood of being fined among
misdemeanants
Being Hispanic was associated with a decrease of 75.5% in the likelihood of being fined among
infractors
As crime severity increases, judicial discretion may decrease due to relatively more concrete and unambiguous
criminal evidence (i.e., physical and/or economic injury) in comparison to lesser DWI offenses (i.e., victimless).
Thus, racial/ethnic sentencing disparities might be more likely to occur for misdemeanor offenses and
infractions.
30
7. Potential explanations
Spohn, Cassia C. (2002). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment (p. 169).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Explanation 1 (legal disparities): Rejected. Some racial disparities persisted even after the confounding effects
of DWI severity and criminal history were removed in multivariate tests.
Explanation 2 (socioeconomic disparities): Possible. Data coded from KCDA files indicate that black and
Hispanic offenders shared some socioeconomic disadvantages
Explanation 3 (racial discrimination): Plausible. But we do not have data on prosecutors or judges racial
attitudes to test this hypothesis.
Explanation 4 (contextual discrimination): Plausible. Offenders of color may be sentenced more harshly in
some jurisdictions, for some types of offenses, and/or under some circumstances. What could these
circumstances be?
31
APPENDIX B: BTF ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

2010 RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT APPLICATION FORM
I.
Applicant Information
Applicant Jurisdiction: Brooklyn, NY (Kings County)
Applicant Organization: Kings County District Attorneys Office
The Kings County District Attorneys Office is one of the largest prosecutors offices in
the United States, with 1,114 employees, of which 612 (53%) are white, and 532 (47%)
are people of color. In 2009, alone, this Office reviewed 102,121 arrests and processed
72,097 misdemeanor complaints and 22,996 felony complaints.
The Kings County District Attorneys Office has long recognized that criminal justice is
a social science and that criminal justice issues have many ancillary social issues that
attach and need to be addressed if one is to have successful prosecutions. As such,
the Kings County District Attorneys Office has been in the vanguard with creative new
approaches to criminal justice issues and new solutions to address many of the
ancillary social issues found in the criminal justice arena.
The Kings County District Attorneys Office is home of the premier domestic violence
bureau in the country, where we have set the standard for the prosecution of these
socially complex cases. We also have a nationally renowned, highly successful drug
treatment alternatives to prison program that seeks rehabilitation, rather than
incarceration, as a more viable approach to addiction and crime.
As an Office, we are also involved in the schools of Brooklyn, through a special
program that focuses on and engages fifth graders, offering them an interactive
overview of the criminal justice system. Our truancy program, in collaboration with the
New York City Police Department (NYPD), seeks to make parents and educators
partners in our quest to keep Brooklyns children safe. School related programs such
as these have acted as a beacon to other jurisdictions that have replicated our
programs nationwide.
We involve the community and look to its clergy of all faiths and their respective
congregations to mentor Brooklyns troubled youths in partnership with us and the
courts. We also try to provide a second chance to those whose cause may seem most
32
hopeless, that of repeat offenders, with our re-entry program for repeat offenders. Our
Office was the first prosecutors office in the nation to successfully establish such a
program under the penumbra of public safety, setting the standard for other
prosecutors offices throughout the country that wish to embrace this concept.
As an Office, we are firmly committed to cutting the recidivism rate through our re-entry
program, which provides serious felony offenders a second chance to rejoin society as
a tax paying citizens. Moreover, this program was the subject of a grant funded
research project, which project concurred that our methodology and program were, in
fact, demonstrably and quantifiably effective in cutting back the rate of recidivism.
We believe that our social consciousness confers upon this Office the requisite
bonafides to carry out this racial disparity project to a successful conclusion. Moreover,
we submit that being a racially and ethnically diverse Office also confers a certain
amount of credibility, as it signifies that, as an Office, we do not just talk the talk, but
rather, as an Office, we walk the walk.
This information about our Office is being included simply to show that we, as an
Office, think outside the box, devise creative, workable solutions to criminal justice
issues, and believe strongly in including the very community that we serve as a
stakeholder and partner in seeking those solutions. The Kings County District
Attorneys Office is one that is not bound by tradition but, rather, is cutting edge in its
approach to prosecution and the pursuit of justice. Where this Office leads, others will
follow.
Executive Site Director
Name:
Linda Rodriguez Wancel
Deputy District Attorney, Kings County
Address:
350 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 250-3004
Fax:
(718) 250-1328
Email:
wancell@brooklynda.org
Required Participant Chief Judge
Name:
Barry Kamins, Chief Administrative Judge,
2nd Judicial District, Supreme Court,
Kings County-Criminal Term
Address:
Telephone: (347) 296-1000
Fax:
(347) 296-1327
33
Email:
BKAMINS@courts.state.ny.us
Required Participant Chief of Police or County Sheriff

Name:
Raymond W. Kelly, Commissioner
New York City Police Department
Address:
1 Police Plaza, New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 374-5000
Fax:
Email:
Required Participant District Attorney
Name:
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Kings County
Address:
Telephone: (718) 250-2202
Fax:
(718) 250-2210
Email:
hynesc@brooklynda.org
Required Participant Public Defender

Name:
Lisa Schreibersdorf
Executive Director-Brooklyn Public Defender Services
Address:
177 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 254-0700
Fax:
(718) 254-0897
Email:
lschreib@bds.org
Required Participant Community Representative
Name:
Delia Adossa, President,
88th Precinct Community Council
Address:
298 Classon Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205
Telephone:
(917) 217-9802
Fax:
(718) 789-7267
Email:
deezaire@aol.com
II. Basic Community Information
Brooklyn, which is the community for which we are seeking funding from the Racial
Justice Improvement Project, is one of the five boroughs that comprise the City of New
34
York, with the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island being the other four.
Geographically, at 71 square miles, Brooklyn is the second largest borough of New
York City. It is also the most populous borough of the five, with nearly 2.5 million
residents.
Brooklyn is also known as Kings County and is the most populous county in New York
State. It is also the second most densely populated county in the United States,
coming in second only to New York County (Manhattan).
As of the 2000 Census, Brooklyn was, and continues to be, a county that is
predominantly populated by people of color, as the racial makeup was 41.2% White,
36.4% Black, 7.5% Asian, 10.7% of the population identified themselves as being other
races, and 4.2% identified as being from two or more races. In terms of Hispanics,
19.0% of the population was Hispanic, of any race.
Demographically, of New York Citys five boroughs, Brooklyn is the one with the highest
concentration of Black residents, representing approximately 40% of New York Citys
Black population. Brooklyn is, in fact, the home of the largest Black community in the
United States.
Brooklyn is also home to many immigrants from around the world. The diverse
population of Brooklyn is comprised of many ethnicities, cultures, and races.
Consequently, many Brooklyn neighborhoods are racial and ethnic enclaves, where
languages other than English predominate.
Brooklyn is policed by the New York City Police Department (NYPD), which is the
largest police force in the United States. Brooklyn has the most police precincts of any
of the five boroughs that comprise New York City, with twenty-three (23) police
precincts, four (4) transit police districts, and three (3) housing police service areas.
III. Detailed Project Information
A. What are your objectives for participation in the project?
Our objective is to empirically pinpoint a specific problem through data collection, and
then address its resolution through a group of stakeholders in the criminal justice arena
(prosecutor, judge, police, public defender, and a member or member(s) of the
Brooklyn community at large).
It is through collaborative effort only that any positive changes can be sustainable. We
hope that participation by this Office in this project would, ultimately, provide more
justice to the citizens of Brooklyn, promote continued public safety, inspire confidence
35
in the criminal justice system, create an ongoing dialogue on criminal justice issues
that are of concern, and make Brooklyn an even better community than it already is.
B. What problems do you plan to address?
A recent study conducted by the Center for Constitutional Rights analyzed the raw data
of approximately 575,000 stop and frisks conducted by members of the NYPD in 2009.
More than 490,000 blacks and Hispanics were stopped by the police, while only 53,000
whites were so stopped.
Overall, force was used by the police in 24% of the stops. When broken down by race,
however, force was used in 27% of the stops involving Hispanics and in 25% of those
stops involving Blacks. When Whites were involved in the stops, however, force was
used only 15% of the time.
Although a number of different reasons were cited by the police for conducting a stop
and frisk, it was noted that one of the reasons least commonly cited for such a stop
was that the person stopped fit the description of a suspect. The most common reason
cited by police was a category euphemistically called furtive movements.
Yet, NYPD has held to the position that, although a large percentage of these stops
involved blacks, an even greater percentage of violent crime involved victims that had
described the perpetrator of the crime as black. While this may be true, that is not the
reason most often cited for the stop and frisks, as the raw data used in the study
clearly indicates that the fact that the person stopped fit the description of a suspect
was the least common reason for a stop by the police.
The findings of this study are also of interest because of the dichotomy of the results.
The study concluded that although New York City Blacks and Hispanics were nine (9)
times more likely to be stopped by members of the NYPD, interestingly enough, the
study also concluded that they were no more likely than whites to be arrested. Therein,
lays the dichotomy.
The countervailing argument to an allegation of racial disparity in policing practices or
racial profiling arising from this study is that people of color have not been arrested any
more than whites who have been the subject of a stop and frisk and that this is
testament to some exercise of good judgment and fair policing. Judging the stop and
frisks alone, however, at face value, brings some serious issues to the fore, one of
which is the apparent existence of racial disparity in terms of who is being stopped and
even how they are being stopped by the police.
36
People of color have long suspected anecdotally what this specific study has born out
empirically: that people of color have been disproportionately stopped by the police.
The results of this study are certainly of concern in Brooklyn, which is a borough that is
predominantly populated with people of color.
Despite the fact that the study seems to indicate that Blacks and Hispanics are no
more likely to be arrested than Whites as a result of a stop and frisk, in Brooklyn there
has long been an apparent perception of distrust between people of color and the
police in police witness driven cases that is not apparent in civilian witness driven
cases. This distrust often ends with the people of Brooklyn seeming to get less justice
in police witness driven cases than in civilian witness driven cases, due to rejection by
juries of police testimony in those police witness driven cases, a rejection that
sometimes has allowed the guilty to go free.
One problem that we, as an Office, plan to address through this project is the apparent
disconnect that occurs between police witness driven cases and the community itself.
This is of concern to this Office, as we want the criminal justice system to be free from
racial disparity, not just on part of all those directly involved in the criminal justice
system, but on the part of the community itself, as well. Only then, may true justice be
achieved.
As an Office, in order to try to accomplish this goal we are interested in focusing on
one particular crime, at both the misdemeanor and felony levels. We are planning to
focus on driving while intoxicated cases. We are interesting in focusing on these cases,
as these are cases that cross all socio-economic strata, all races, all ethnicities, and all
religions. Moreover, these cases are invariably driven by police witnesses alone.
We would like evaluate the racial breakdown of the defendants in these cases, as well
as determine how the stops came about, whether it was through checkpoints or
through random stops by the police, and the reasons for those random stops that lead
to the arrest and prosecution for driving while intoxicated. We are also interested in
looking at which defendants consented to taking a breathalyzer test, and who refused
to do so.
We would like to analyze the date available for all 2009 arrests and the subsequent
prosecutions for this category of cases, as that data is relatively complete for that year.
We have the technical capability of breaking down these cases by race and precinct of
occurrence. We would also like to look at this data in the context of the overall data
collection in which we would be involved.
37
We do not know what, if anything, we will discover, but we hope to have a plan evolve
in which the seeming disconnect between police witness driven cases and the
community will be reconciled.
C. What are your plans to remain committed to addressing racial disparity in
your community beyond the second year of the grant period? How will you
continue to utilize the Criminal Justice Improvement Project to sustain and build
upon the work of the project?
We are applying for this opportunity, because we are prepared to see it through to the
end, with the expectation that something positive will emerge from the efforts that not
only our Office will put forth, but those of our partners and collaborators, as well. We
firmly believe that for true justice to exist, racial disparity should not. We do not enter
into this commitment lightly. It is being done with the expectation that there will be a
positive outcome that would serve the community well. As an Office, we have a history
of sustainability in terms of those projects into which we invest time and resources. We
also have a proven track record of being able to collaborate effectively with others.
Having not previously utilized the Criminal Justice Improvement Project, it is difficult to
say how we would continue to utilize it. All that can be said is that, as an Office, we will
utilize all resources available to us to ensure that whatever positive outcomes come to
pass, as a result of our participation in this project, will continue. Moreover, as
indicated previously, this Office has a proven record of sustainability in terms of those
projects that have had positive outcomes and been of benefit to the community that we
serve.
IV. Plans to Overcome Anticipated Obstacles
In approaching a project such as this, one of the things necessary to keep in mind is
that data collection and the discussions among the parties involved in the project could
impact on the original premise from which one is operating, such that the original
premise is no longer viable. This certainly could prove to be an obstacle to addressing
the original premise.
While disconcerting and, perhaps, even daunting, this perceived obstacle could simply
lead to a better considered premise to work upon as a group.
As so happens in life, things could change and a new direction would need to be
considered, perhaps one from which a more all encompassing and better outcome will
evolve. In addressing the issue of racial disparity, it is, first and foremost, important to
not lock ones self into a preconceived notion or direction, but be, instead, open to
changes or detours in the program occurring that one may not have anticipated and be
able to adjust ones sights accordingly.
38
V. Detailed Budget Information

Since there would be regularly scheduled Racial Justice Task Force meetings, a
portion of the funding would be set aside to provide refreshments and food through out
these working meeting that we anticipate would be rather lengthy, as they would entail
discussions about racial disparity issues, data collection, problems, and solutions. For
these meetings, which we anticipate would meet once a month over a two year period,
we would budget $1,500 for food and refreshments.
Since we hope to identify a perceived problem and arrive at a workable resolution that
would incorporate all the stakeholders, including the community, a portion of the
funding would be need to be set aside to communicate our findings and resolution to
the community. In order to disseminate information to the citizens of Brooklyn at
community board meetings, precinct council meetings, and other community oriented
venues we would budget $2,500 for printing costs for pamphlets and flyers.
To ensure that our data collection is reliable and to ensure appropriate analysis of
such, we would consider hiring a graduate student from the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice to assist us with the interpretation of the data collected. We would
anticipate hiring that graduate student for a twenty week period at $15 per hour for 20
hours a week for a 20 week period for a total of $6,000.
We hope and anticipate that the problem addressed will be one that would have
widespread interest to those in the criminal justice arena. As such, at the conclusion of
the grant period, we would like to have a small conference on the issues we
encountered and share our finding and resolutions, with notable guest speakers with
expertise on the topic we would like to address. This would include a key note speaker,
a nationally recognized expert on racial justice to set the framework for the conference,
and speakers from various criminal justice disciplines. To promote the conference,
prepare and print written materials, provide refreshments for the registrants of the
conference, and pay for travel related expenses, if any, for the speakers/expert, as
well as the cost of rental of space for the conference, we would budget a total of
$14,000.
39
APPENDIX C: BDS ORIGINAL CONTRACT
40
41
42
APPENDIX D: RJIP CONTRACT ADDENDUM
43
APPENDIX E: RJIP MAY 10TH REPORT

Task Force Meeting Report
NOTE: This Meeting Report and the Meeting Agenda must be submitted to the ABA following each meeting of the
task force. This report is required before reimbursement for meeting expenses can be processed. The Task Force is not
required to use this form for the Meeting Report, but the information below must be included in the report. Upon
completion, please follow pre-arranged procedures for electronic submission.
Task force Jurisdiction: Brooklyn, New York

Task Force Facilitator: Exec. A.D.A. Penny Mintz
Date of Meeting: May 10, 2011
Location of Meeting: Office of the District Attorney of Kings County
Task Force Members Present:
Penny Mintz, project facilitator, Kings County DA
Kin Ng, Kings County DA
Lisa Schreibersdorf, Brooklyn Public Defender Services
Hiram Bell, Supervising Court Attorney for the Criminal Court of the City of New York for Kings
County
Others Present:
Lance Ogiste, Counsel to the DA, Kings County DA
Hung-En Sung, Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Amy Shlosberg, Graduate Assistant, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Salma Safiendine, Assistant Project Director, ABA consultant by telephone conference
Prof. Cynthia Jones, Project Director, American University, College of Law by telephone conference
Reports/Updates/Matters Discussed
Old Business
New Business
Hung-En Sung and Lisa Shlosberg reported on the ongoing data collection. Due to time constraints, the
task force would examine 700 of the 2600 DWI arrests made in 2009.
Two hundred cases have already been examined. The process was time consuming because five
documents within each file had to be individually examined and the information gleaned from the documents
44
had to be manually input into the computer program. Most of the files lacked criminal history reports, one of
the necessary documents, but that problem was solved by the provision of computer based data by the New
York State Division of Criminal Justices Services.
The 74 cases that had been dismissed were particularly relevant. A court order to unseal those cases will
be sought.
The researchers written report provided preliminary findings on the 200 cases that had so-far been
examined. The results were analyzed by precinct. The 2010 Census is the basis of the demographic statistics. It
was found that nine of ten stops were of male drivers. Forty-one percent were foreign born. Few differences
were found across race groups. It was noted that the kind of DWI behaviors that result in stops are the same
across all populations and in all parts of Brooklyn.
Task force members and ABA participants discussed the possibility of additional funding through the
provision of interim deliverables. Lisa Shlosberg informed the group that she would not be able to complete the
research in funded hours remaining, which are only ten hours per week, and she would be forced to find
employment elsewhere. The members suggested having Lisa provide three training sessions based on the
ultimate research results. Two of the training sessions would be designed to inform the community of the
efforts of the task force and the results of the research, and a third session would be designed to inform the legal
community.
Next Steps (assignments given to task force member, sub-committees formed, consultants hired)
The researchers agreed to make the following inquiries:

Ask Dept of Motor Vehicles what percent of population is drivers
Include pretext stop information in the report
Add checkpoint stops as one of the variables these are particularly relevant because they are police
determined
Examine how criminal history effects the outcome
The facilitator agreed to inform the ABA of the training goals of the task force and request funding for
those deliverables immediately so that the researcher could continue to devote her time to the project.
ABA Resources/Assistance Needed (i.e., technical support, guest speakers, research, data collection. See
Technical Assistance Request Form)
Additional funding is needed to complete the research, even though the number of cases examined was
dramatically reduced.
Next Task Force Meeting: Not yet planned
Date:
Time:
Location: Kings County DAs office
45
46
APPENDIX F: JANUARY 5TH 2013 OUTCOME EVALUATION PLAN
47
48
APPENDIX G: THE BROOKLYN TASK FORCE YOUTH IMPACT PROJECT

The Brooklyn Task Force
Youth Impact Project
1. Background
Kings County
Kings County (Brooklyn) is the most populous borough in New York City, with 31% of the
Citys population. Just over one-half of the population is non-white. Chart 1 presents
some basic demographic information describing Brooklyns population.
Chart 1
Kings County Quick Facts (from the 2011 Census)
New York
Brooklyn
State
Total Population
2,532,645
19,465,197
Percent of population
23.6%
22.0%
under the age of 18
37.3%
21.8%
that is foreign born
Per Capita Income
$24,398
$31,796
Median Household
$44,593
$56,951
Income
below the poverty
22.1%
14.5%
level
Percent of households
6.5%
living in conventional
-(from NYCHA)
public housing
In 2011, there were just over 98,000 arrests in Brooklyn. We estimate that 22% of those
arrested were between the ages of 16 and 21, about 73% of whom were black24.
The Brooklyn Task Force (BTF):
The BTF was initially formed in 2010. The core members of the task force were top level
officials in the district attorneys office, the chief of the Brooklyn Defender Services
office, the administrative judges court attorney, and a community representative from
the 88th Precinct Community Council, an organization that facilitates communication
between the police and the community to address public safety issues in the local
neighborhoods.
24 This data is based on Brooklyn Defender Services intake data for the 2012 calendar year.
49
The BTF initially focused on DUI offenses, and hired an expert to examine a
representative sample of DUI cases from 2009 to identify whether or not there was a
racial bias in sentencing on DUI cases. The data compilation for the DUI study was
onerous and involved manual examination of a large number of files by the research
team. However, the research did not find a racial disparity in sentencing once factors
such as prior and new arrests, immigration detainers, parole violations, and probation
violations were taken into account. As a result, the DUI-focused racial justice reform
project was abandoned and the BTF was reformulated.
In September of 2011, the Brooklyn Task Force (BTF) sought to expand its membership to
include representation from the broader criminal justice system. The current members
include:
Judge George Grasso, Citywide Supervising Judge Arraignments and former First Deputy
Police Commissioner at the New York City Police Department; Anne Swern, First Assistant
at the District Attorneys office; Karen Armstrong, Assistant Commissioner of the
Department of Probation in charge of the Borough of Brooklyn; Lance Ogiste, Counsel to
the District Attorney, Kerry Ward, Court Attorney to Barry Kamins (Administrative Judge
Criminal court for the City of New York and Administrative Judge for Supreme Court, 2nd
Judicial District); Kin Ng, Director of Training, District Attorneys Office; and Daniel
Alessandrino, Chief Clerk, Supreme Court, Kings County. Participation by such senior
representatives of the key agencies has enabled the BTF to better effectuate a
meaningful reform in the criminal justice system.
2. The BTFs Reform Initiative
Early on, the newly constituted BTF identified the issue of youth in the criminal justice
system as a pressing issue for our courts and community. As people of color are
unfortunately over-represented in the New York City criminal justice system, the BTF
recognized that a reform to any part of the system would have a positive racial impact.
The BTF decided to focus on improving the way the system addresses 16 and 17 year-old
youth who are arrested for relatively minor offenses.
The BTF started from the premise that contact with the criminal justice system,
particularly if it is a first contact for a relatively minor offense, can be an important
turning point in the youths life. In order to make the project manageable, the BTF
designed a pilot project to that would serve several purposes:
Identify a well-defined, replicable target population to evaluate the effectiveness of

the project in improving outcomes for youth
Identify a limited intervention, so the program and data collection would be in line
with available resources
Establish a collaborative planning process and cooperative implementation
arrangements among the key agencies in Brooklyn working with youth in order to
achieve better outcomes for them in the criminal justice system
Inform the broader state-wide effort aimed at rethinking the way our criminal
justice system treats 16 and 17 year-olds
50
In parallel, the BTF worked with the New York State Judicial Institute, the Administrative
Judge of New York City Criminal Court and the Chief Clerk of New York City Criminal Court
to design and implement a judicial decision-making training program for New York City
Criminal Court Judges. The program fostered awareness of potential cultural and bias
issues. The format included the solicitation of feedback and participation by the judges
attending and was designed to gauge specific reactions to scenarios. The program was
well-received by the judges and more than 75% of New York City Criminal Court judges
attended.
The BTFs Youth Impact Project
Brooklyn Task Forces reform initiative provided 16 and 17 year-old youth with Desk
Appearance Tickets (DATs) for misdemeanor theft of services and marijuana possession
charges the opportunity for a speedy dismissal of their case in exchange for their
participation in an appropriate program. The project provides 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. The
initiative is modeled on the current practice of Adjustment in Family Court for juvenile
offenders.
Intake for the pilot project took place during 5 DAT arraignment shifts in October and
November 2012. All participants were instructed to attend one two-hour program
session on December 3rd, 2012, and their cases were adjourned until December 14th,
2012. Participants who attended the program and had no subsequent arrests had their
cases dismissed on that date.
The program session had two parts. Consistent with best practices in programs of this
nature, it began with an informational session led by a Liaison Officer from the
Department of Education for the youths and their parents/guardians followed by a
question and answer period for parents and the DOE representative. During the second
part of the evening, the youth participated in a 60-minute Decision Making Skills
Workshop, especially designed by the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) for at-risk youth.
Prior to, during, and after the scheduled program, Criminal Defense, Family Law and
Immigration Attorneys from Brooklyn Defender Services were available to answer
questions from the youth or their parents, specifically focused on foster care issues,
immigration rights such as deferred action for youth and other issues. A social worker
from BDS was also available to speak with the young people and follow up with any who
may need it.
On the follow-up court date, BTF member Judge Grasso was the presiding Judge. At the
court appearance, Judge Grasso gave an inspiring talk to the young people in the
courtroom and handed each of them a certificate of completion. Refreshments were
served afterwards to continue a sense of accomplishment.
In the planning and implementation of the project, the BTF coordinated with a number of
other agencies including: the Department of Education; the Center for Court Innovation,
and the New York State Judicial Institute. Furthermore, BTF members were able to draw
upon staff with specialized skills in their own agencies to implement the project. This
51
coordinated effort, requiring the participation of almost the full spectrum of agencies in
the criminal justice system, was successfully led and managed by the BTF and is a
positive reflection on how effective this multi-agency group has become.
Pilot Project Impact
In the five DAT arraignment shifts that were targeted for the pilot project, twenty-five
youth were found eligible for the program and all chose to participate. Using data drawn
from the rap sheets of the defendants, 16 were black, 3 were Hispanic, 3 were white, and
3 were Asian. Twenty-three of the participants 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 Criminal Court Youth Part (APY2) for further proceedings, of which three
have been since dismissed.
Since the implementation of the pilot project ended, the BTF has been monitoring
subsequent arrests among the 25 project participants (87% of whom were youth of
color). As of April 30, 2013, there have been 3 re-arrests among the target group (2
misdemeanors and 1 felony).
A control group was identified, comprising 16 and 17 year-olds who came through 5
DAT arraignment shifts in the following six-week period (December 12, 2012 to January
29, 2013), on the same charges. In this group, 85% were youth of color. 28 cases were
so identified, and the BTF has been similarly monitoring subsequent arrests in that
group. As of April 30, 2013, there were 7 re-arrests among the control group (6
misdemeanors and 1 felony).
Conclusions
While the sample size in the pilot project is too small to draw conclusions, nevertheless
the results are quite startling: participants in the BTFs pilot project have been rearrested at less than half the rate of their counterparts in the control group. If this result
were to hold up over a longer period and in a larger sample, the pilot project would have
demonstrated an effective way to lower recidivism that is low-cost to the criminal justice
system and has high benefit to at-risk youth.
3. Future Plans
The Brooklyn Task Force is currently looking for resources to expand the pilot project in
order to provide better outcomes for youth in Brooklyn and to evaluate the project more
conclusively. The BTF is committed to providing the basic infrastructure, management,
and oversight of the program and will continue to cobble together the resources to do
this. However, there are real resource constraints to replicating and expanding the
program, particularly among the court-based agencies involved in implementing it, since
the project requires specialized staff to be in court during all DAT arraignment shifts and
52
on the monthly adjourn dates. The BTF is also looking for a partner to implement the
workshop program on a regular basis.
More generally, the members are committed to the BTF and continuing to develop the
forum as a rather unique and effective inter-agency approach to identifying and
implementing reforms in the countys criminal justice system.
APPENDIX H: JANUARY 7, 2013 TASK FORCE REPORT

Criminal Justice Sections

January 7, 2013 Task Force Report
Funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance
The ABA Criminal Justice Section and the Bureau of Justice Assistance would like to thank you for your continued
cooperation and dedication to the Racial Justice Improvement Project. We are nearing the end of our first term for this
project, and we will soon commence reform in four new sites! For this project, you will have only one other reporting
requirement, due on February 20 2013, or within three weeks of completing your RJIP reform. This document serves as
your reporting template for the January 7, 2013 Report. Please submit this completed document in word format (not PDF)
to Safiedine.s@gmail.com by no later than close of business January 7, 2013. Please type your answers in the spaces
below and title the document [your jurisdiction] January 7 Report. As one of the last reporting measures, please be as
thorough as possible in this report, even if it requires repeating information from other reports, documents, or
conversations. Please include as an attachment to your email submission, any relevant documents that are referenced or
requested. We thank you for your great efforts and look forward to hearing from you in the New Year!
53
1. Please list the name and title of each RJIP task force member in your jurisdiction and also include
their email address. We will update our website with the names you list below. (Please highlight the
task force members who do not wish to have their email address posted on our website). If you would
like to remove a task force member that is currently listed or make a change, please also state that below.
You can find the list of your jurisdictions task force members by visiting the projects website and
finding Task Force Information in the top menu, then by clicking on your jurisdiction in the dropdown menu.
Daniel Alessandrino, Chief Clerk for Criminal Matters, Kings County
(DALESSAN@courts.state.ny.us)
Karen Armstrong, Assistant Commissioner, Kings Adult Services, Department of Probation
(karmstro@probation.nyc.gov)
Hon. George Grasso, Citywide Supervising Judge, Arraignments
(ggrasso@courts.state.ny.us)
Kin Ng, Director of Training, Kings County District Attorneys Office
(ngkin@brooklynda.org)
Lance
Counsel
Jurisdiction: Kings County (Brooklyn), NY
District
Kings
(o
ooklynda
Date of Last Task Force Meeting:
December 14, 2012
Date of Upcoming Task Force Meeting:

(tentative)
January 25, 2013
Ogiste,
to the
Attorney,
County
gistel@br
.org)
Lisa
Schreibersdorf, Executive Director, Brooklyn Defender Services

(lschreib@bds.org)
Anne Swern, First Assistant to the District Attorney, Kings County
(swernaj@brooklynda.org)
Kerry Ward, Principal Court Attorney to Hon. Barry Kamins,
Administrative Judge for Criminal Matters, Second Judicial District
(kjward@courts.state.ny.us)
Denise Wirsig, Project Coordinator, Brooklyn Defender Services
(dwirsig@bds.org)
(Please only include the e-mail addresses of Lisa and Denise on the website. Do not publish the e-mail
addresses of the other task force members.)
2. Please explain the goal of your reform initiative and define measurable success of your reform.
How are you implementing the reform and producing outcome measures?
Brooklyn Task Forces reform initiative provides 16 and 17 year-old youth with Desk Appearance Tickets
(DATs) for misdemeanor theft of services and marijuana possession charges the opportunity for a speedy
dismissal of their case in exchange for their participation in an appropriate program. The goal is to have a
constructive impact at a critical event in the youths life. The project provides low level juvenile offenders a
54
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. The initiative is modeled on the current practice of
Adjustment in Family Court for juvenile offenders. The pilot project ran in one DAT part a week for 5 weeks
and had 25 eligible participants.
In order to assess the impact of the program, the BTF has kept records of all the participants of the program,
their participation rates in the program and court attendance, and subsequent arrests (if any). Over the next 9
months, the BTF will survey the youth and their families periodically, and will monitor recidivism rates.
In addition to the pilot DAT project, the BTF is implementing cultural competency training for judges and
attorneys.
3.
Please explain your current status in completing your reform initiative.
Intake for the pilot project took place during October and November 2012. All participants were instructed to
attend one program session on December 3rd, 2012, and their cases were adjourned until December 14th, 2012.
Participants who attended the program and had no subsequent arrests had their cases dismissed on that date.
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 Criminal Court Youth Part (APY2) for further
proceedings.
We have planned a cultural competency training program for New York City Criminal Court judges, which will
be implemented in in March 2013. A separate training program will be implemented for attorneys in April
2013.
4. What are your key milestone dates/deadlines leading up to the conclusion of your sites reform and
evaluation? Please include upcoming specific task force meeting dates, specific or approximate dates
for dissemination / promotion of project activities (including press, luncheons, launches), and other
important administrative / logistical dates of your project. Please also state whether you would like
assistance in the promotion of your reform.
The Task Force is scheduled to meet on January 25th, 2013 to review the pilot projects activities, monitor
results to date, identify resource requirements, and to begin to make plans for a broader implementation. The
Task Force will also finalize the schedule for implementing the cultural competency training for judges in
March and the program for attorneys, currently planned for April 2013.
The immediate feedback from the pilot project was very positive, and the Task Force hopes to expand the
project to include all DAT parts and, perhaps, additional charges. Task Force members are clear that this will
require additional resources for several offices. Securing these resources will be the key challenge to expanding
the program.
5. Please provide a brief paragraph summarizing your sites reform. In this 1 paragraph only
statement, limit your information to what you feel comfortable posting on our project website:
55
The Brooklyn Task Force is chaired by Brooklyn Defender Services, an institutional provider of public defense
services, and includes members from the judiciary, the court system, the DAs office, and the Department of
Probation. The Task Force has developed a pilot project targeting 16 and 17 year-old youth arrested on
relatively minor misdemeanor charges and arraigned in adult criminal court, a disproportionately large
percentage of whom are youth of color. The project offers eligible youth adolescent-appropriate services and in
exchange for their participation, the court will dismiss their cases immediately. The goal of the project is to
have a constructive impact on the youths view of his or her future at a critical juncture in their life. The
projects experience will inform a broader state-wide effort aimed at rethinking the way our criminal justice
system treats 16 and 17 year-olds.
6. Have you gotten other criminal justice stakeholders to buy in to your reform and assist with the
implementation process, or have you collaborated with existing projects and initiatives in your
jurisdiction since choosing your reform effort? If so, please list who and how they have contributed.
Please also include any consulting services you have sought or received from entities or individuals.
Please also include whether you have requested or added any entity representatives to serve on your task
force.
The Task Force has coordinated with a number of other agencies and/or programs to deliver our reform
initiative:
i. A Community Liaison Officer from the New York City Department of Education led off the training
program with a discussion and Q&A on navigating the DOE obtaining services and changing
schools.
ii. The Center for Court Innovation (CCI) identified and adopted a suitable curriculum for our
participants on Decision Making Skills. CCI trainers implemented the training at a nominal cost.
iii. The Task Force is working with the New York State Judicial Institute to design and implement a
cultural sensitivity and awareness training for Brooklyn judges that can be replicated for other
districts.
iv. The Task Force has invited the Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn Branch, to participate in the working
group to expand the project.
a. Have you remained consistent with your policy reform and implementation plan from
October 2011? Please explain if you have deviated from your original plan.
The Task Force initially focused its reform efforts on DUI offenses. The expert hired by the Task Force
examined a representative sample of DUI cases from 2009. The data compilation for the DUI study was
onerous and involved manual examination of files by the research team. However, the research did not find a
racial disparity in sentencing once factors such as prior and new arrests, immigration detainers, parole
violations, and probation violations were taken into account. As a result, the DUI-focused racial justice reform
project was abandoned. Since October of 2011, the Brooklyn Task Force (BTF) has added members in order to
better identify and effectuate a meaningful reform in the criminal justice system. The previous and new
members have worked to establish the strong working relationship that is required to make changes in the
criminal justice system, particularly in such a large city.
Early on, the newly constituted BTF identified the issue of youth in the criminal justice system as a pressing
issue for our courts and community. As people of color are unfortunately over-represented in the New York
City criminal justice system, the BTF recognized that a reform to any part of the system would have a positive
racial impact. The BTF decided to focus on improving the way the system addresses 16 and 17 year-old youth
who are arrested for relatively minor offenses.
56
b. Have you identified mechanisms to track and measure the effectiveness of your reform?
Have you met with the Project Evaluator? How are you tracking the success of your reform
overall and specific projects or programs that you have since carried out? Do you have a
formalized evaluation plan? If so, please attach your evaluation plan to this report and briefly
describe the process below. If you are still working on your evaluation plan, when do you hope
to have it completed?
A detailed evaluation plan, prepared by the RJIPs evaluation consultant, is attached. The Evaluation will be
completed in October 2013.
c. Have you been met with any new challenges in accomplishing your goals? If so, have they
been overcome? What were the lessons learned?
The BTF includes senior leadership from the countys criminal justice system. As a result, it has become a
highly effective forum for identifying and implementing reforms. Task Force members are unanimous in their
desire to continue to meet to address other issues.
d. At this point in the project, do you have any recommendations for eliminating or modifying
any steps in the projects replication?
Not yet.
e. To date, what amount of grant funds (if any) do you have remaining? Do you have plans to
spend the remaining grant funds? Please explain. Please also attach a simplified version of
your project budget upon submission of this report.
Remaining funds are committed for the training programs.
Project Budget
Brooklyn Task Force
November 1 2012 to February 2013
57
APPENDIX I: RJIP CONTRACT AMENDMENT
58
APPENDIX J: ONE DAY JUDGE SEMINAR 2014 AGENDA
59
60
APPENDIX K: JULY 31ST 2014 RJIP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

RJIP Implementation Plan Worksheet; Brooklyn Task Force
July 31, 2014
1. Which member of your task force should be contacted for questions regarding this
report submission?
Denise Wirsig, Brooklyn Defender Services
dwirsig@bds.org
718-254-0700, x179
2. What is the specific racial disparity your task force has identified?
As people of color are over-represented in the New York City criminal justice
system, the Brooklyn Task Force (BTF) recognized that reform to any part of the
system would have a positive racial impact. In 2012, the BTF identified the
disproportionately high number of youth of color in the criminal justice system as a
pressing issue for our courts and community.
In 2012, almost 85% of the 90,000 people arrested in Brooklyn were AfricanAmerican or Hispanic, and 15% (13,500) were youth under the age of 20 (CJA
Annual Report). The one year re-arrest rate for these youth is 41%.
With the goal of reducing recidivism, the BTF decided to focus on the way the
justice system processes 16 and 17 year old youth arrested on Desk Appearance
Tickets (DAT) for minor offenses.
3. What is the proposed racial justice policy reform that your task force has developed
to address this disparity?
Brooklyn Task Forces reform initiative began with two pilot projects targeting 16
and 17 year-old youth with Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs) for misdemeanor theft
of services and marijuana possession charges (the DAT-Y project). The pilot
programs offered the opportunity for a speedy dismissal of their case in exchange
for their participation in a workshop on critical thinking. Defendants compliance
was monitored by the Department of Probation. The initiative was modeled on the
current practice of Adjustment in Family Court for juvenile offenders. The results of
the pilot projects have been very promising: the re-arrest rate among participants
is less than half of the re-arrest rate among a comparison group.
Concurrently, the BTF partnered with the New York State Judicial Institute, the
Administrative Judge of New York City Criminal Court and the Chief Clerk of New
York City Criminal Court to design and implement a judicial training program for
New York City Criminal Court Judges. Two trainings were organized: the first
focused on raising awareness of cultural and implicit bias issues that impact
decision-making; the second provided insight into the latest research on
61
adolescent brain development and its implications in the criminal justice system.
The format of the trainings included the solicitation of feedback and participation
by the judges attending and was designed to gauge specific reactions to scenarios.
The programs were well-received by the judges and more than 85% of New York
City Criminal Court judges attended.
4. How do you plan to implement the reform?

Beginning in January 2014, the BTF expanded its membership to include
representatives from the Legal Aid Society, NYPD and the Mayors Office for
Criminal Justice (MOCJ) with a view to expanding the pilot projects to all 16 and 17
year-olds in Brooklyn with DATs. The BTF has incorporated a number of new
features in this borough-wide roll-out, including:
Decreasing the time between arrest and first appearance on the DAT.
Creating a Youth DAT part for all 16 and 17 year-olds with DATs.
Increasing the programs offered to the young people to include
educational counseling as well as several restorative justice programs.
Instituting a screening mechanism at arraignment to direct the youth to
the most appropriate program.
In the Summer 2014 DAT-Y program, which has been expanded borough-wide, all
eligible youth with DATs issued between July 7, 2014 and August 31, 2014 will be
included. Implementation during this trial period and the re-arrest results that are
obtained will inform a permanent program in Brooklyn and, if successful, expansion
to all five counties in New York City.
To continue the judicial training program and the cultural competency training, the
BTF is also planning to offer implicit bias and adolescent behavior training to
Brooklyn Supreme Court justices. This training will be modeled on the successful
programs delivered to criminal court judges in the last grant period.
5. How do you plan to track and measure the effectiveness of your proposed racial
justice policy reform?
As with the previous pilot projects, the BTF will monitor re-arrest rates among the
participants and a comparison group. The BTF is working with the Center for Court
Innovation and the NYS Department of Criminal Justice Statistics to implement a
suitable evaluation plan.
6. Please identify (by name and job title) the specific people in
your criminal justice system/jurisdiction that the task force will
need to collaborate with in the coming year to successfully
implement the proposed reform? (If you have expanded your
task force, or have changed membership please outline all of
your current task force members as well). Also, please explain
62
what role these individuals will play in implementing the

reform.
In 2014, the BTF expanded its membership to include the Mayors Office for Criminal
Justice, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the Legal Aid Society (LAS).
The BTF is comprised of senior-level representatives from each of the stakeholder
agencies, making the BTF an effective forum for identifying and addressing both
day-to-day issues and more ambitious reforms. The expanded membership is listed
below. Members also bring in other agency personnel to participate in working groups
addressing specific implementation issues. In addition, the BTF is collaborating with
the Department of Education, the Center for Court Innovation, and Young New Yorkers
to design and implement appropriate programs for DAT-Y participants.
Members of the Brooklyn Task Force
The Defense Bar
Lisa Schreibersdorf, Executive Director, Brooklyn Defender Services
Dawn Ryan, Attorney-in-Charge, The Legal Aid Society/Brooklyn Criminal
Division
The District Attorneys Office
Kenneth Thompson, District Attorney, KCDA
Gregory Thomas, Executive Assistant to the DA, KCDA
The NYS Court System
Judge George Grasso, Supervising Judge - Arraignments, NYC Criminal Court
Daniel Alessandrino, Chief Clerk, Brooklyn Supreme Court
Justin Barry, Chief Clerk, Brooklyn Criminal Court
Kerry Ward, Asst Deputy Counsel, Office of the Chief of Policy and Planning, OCA
Charlene Daniels, Principal Law Clerk to Judge Grasso
The Department of Probation
Karen Armstrong, Assistant Commissioner for Brooklyn, DOP
Leigh Anne Freeman, Probation Officer
The New York City Police Department
Police Commissioner William Bratton
Susan Herman, Deputy Commissioner for Collaborative Policing
The Mayors Office for Criminal Justice
Vincent Schiraldi,
Senior Advisor
7. What steps will the task force take to inform and educate the
community and your criminal justice system about your
63
proposed racial justice reform and garner support for the

reform?
The DAT-Y project has substantial support from the criminal justice system in
Brooklyn already. If the results achieved to date are sustained over a longer time
period and in a larger sample, the project will have demonstrated an effective way
to decrease re-arrest rates that is low-cost and of high benefit to at-risk youth. BTF
members and their agencies are working together to develop a rigorous monitoring
and evaluation plan to obtain measurable results for this purpose.
At the same time, BTF members have begun to disseminate information about the
DAT-Y program in the broader Brooklyn community. The success of the pilot DAT-Y
program has garnered media interest and inquiries from other jurisdictions
interested in replicating the program. If the project is expanded to all five New York
City counties as is projected, it is anticipated that there will be more media
interest, which informs and educates the criminal justice community and the
public.
The Judicial Training activities in Brooklyn Criminal court have been well-received,
with the result that the Supreme Court judges have expressed interest in a similar
program and cultural competency training is planned for the Fall 2014. In the long
term, the BTF would like to extend these training programs to the defense
attorneys and prosecutors practicing in the court.
8. How would you define success for your proposed racial justice reform?
A continued reduction in recidivism rates for the participating DAT-Y youths and
creation of a permanent borough-wide program would be a success, as would
expansion of the program city-wide. Periodic judicial training on cultural
competency and implicit bias would also be a successful innovation.
Expanding opportunities for DAT-Y- eligible youths to access a wide array of
educational options and program services is also an important component in the
success of the program, as is insuring fair procedural justice in Criminal Court.
9. What obstacles can you anticipate that might prevent or delay

the successful implementation of your proposed racial justice
reform?
The BTF is taking a deliberately cautious path to expanding the DAT-Y program, so
that the final model is easily replicable. By launching repeated iterations of the
pilot, BTF members identify and address issues that arise in implementation. We
are also aware of the various logistical and budgetary issues that will develop as
the program expands.
64
10. What steps can you take during the next year to
institutionalize your task force beyond the grant period and
ensure that your work continues?
In bringing in senior staff from the Mayors Office, NYPD and the Legal Aid Society,
the BTF now incorporates all the key agencies in the criminal justice system in
Brooklyn, and has a significantly greater city-wide presence. BTF members are
thus well-placed to oversee the development of appropriate and sustainable inhouse procedures for the implementation of the DAT-Y project. As the DAT-Y project
moves beyond the parameters of the BTF, members are focusing on other issues in
the criminal justice system for their next project.
APPENDIX L: OCTOBER 10TH 2014 UPDATE PRESENTATION
65
66
67
APPENDIX M: NOVEMBER 10, 2014 RJIP CONTRACT
68
69
70
71
APPENDIX N: BROOKLYN DAT-Y 6 MONTH EVALUATION
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
APPENDIX O: JANUARY 30TH SEMINAR FLYER

80
APPENDIX P: DECISION MAKING WORKSHOP FACILITATION GUIDE

81
Decision Making Workshop

Facilitation Guide
Objectives:
Participants will:
Time:
Identify their personal values.

Learn how to identify consequences when making a decision and use that information to make better
decisions.
Learn how their decisions can reflect and support their values.
Think about how they are influenced by the people around them when making decisions.
90 Minutes
Materials:
Paper
Pens
Handouts (1 per participant)
o Choices, Decisions and Consequences
o Values Auction
o My Team
o Workshop feedback
Flip chart paper/Chalk Board with 3 columns: Choices, Decisions and Consequences
Fake money, $5,000 total for each participant
Introduction and Group Agreements (10 minutes)

1) Ask everyone to introduce themselves. Go first. Ask each person to give their name and one safe personal
fact. (Examples: neighborhood they live in, their favorite musical artist, the last movie they saw)
2) Inform the group that they will now write up a list of group agreements for how to work together during the
workshop. Ask the following questions. Chart answers that are appropriate for group agreements:
What should everyone in the group agree to do? (Possible answers: open mic, there are no wrong
answers, challenge yourself to participate)
What should everyone in the group agree not to do? (Possible answers: Dont disrespect others ideas)
3) Post the group agreements somewhere visible in the room.

4) Review the agenda with participants.
82
Values Auction (25 min)

In this activity, participants will identify and prioritize their personal values.
1) Tell the group that now we will discuss personal values.
2) Inform participants that values are things that are really important to us, such as honesty, acceptance,
and friendship. Everyone can have different values. Values often influence what we do, even if were not
always aware of it.
3) Prompting questions:
Why do you think different people have different values?
How can your experiences change your values?
Do your values influence the choices you make?
4) Ask if anyone knows what an auction is. Have someone describe an auction or explain that it is where
people bid money for items. The person who bids the most gets the item in return for paying what she/he
bid.
5) Explain that you are going to auction off values. The participants will use play money to purchase the
items. The point of this activity is to figure out what values are most important to each participant and to
the group.
6) Distribute the handout and ask the participants to put a small check or star beside any items they would like
to purchase through bidding. Be sure everyone has a pen or pencil.
7) Distribute $5,000 to each participant.
Activity hack
If you have fewer than 5 participants, you can modify the activity.
Option 1: Distribute less money ($3,000) to each participant, making the bidding process quicker and more
competitive for a smaller number.
Option 2: Dont run the auction and, instead, ask participants to pick only three values from the list and rank
them in order of priority.
8) Explain how you will conduct the auction:
Each of you has $5,000 (or $3,000) in play money to spend.
You can bid any amount up to $5,000 (or $3,000) for an item. You must bid in quantities of $500 or
more. So that means you can bid $500 or $1,000 or $1,500 and so on.
83
If you make the highest bid for an item, it is yours and you have to buy it. No one else can buy that
value. Once youve spent all your money, you cannot bid on additional items, even those you really
want.
When an item is sold, write the amount of the winning bid on your handout.
9) Begin the auction:
The first item is LOOKING GOOD. Who will start the bidding at $500? Conduct the auction like a
real auctioneer in a lively, spirited manner. Use humor to keep participants attention and to keep the
bidding moving. If things move too slowly, increase the minimum bid amount to $1,000. After each
item sells, remind participants to write the amount of the winning bid on their handouts.
Continue the auction until each item has been sold or until all participants have run out of money.
10) Lead a discussion on the activity using the prompts below.
Judging from the bidding, which items were most valuable? Which were least valuable? Why do you
think that is?
Are you satisfied with what you bid on? Do you feel that your bidding accurately reflects what you
most value in life? (Say that winning or losing the item in the auction isnt important. What matters is
noticing what you bid on because that shows what you value, at least now, at this point in your life.)
Was there an item you really wanted that you couldnt purchase in the auction?
Were there any items that no one seemed interested in buying? If so, why do think no one was
interested in it (them)?
How would your parents/grandparents have bid in this auction? Why?
Choices, Decisions and Consequences (35 min)

In this activity, participants analyze their own decision-making process and understand that considering
potential consequences can help them make difficult decisions.
1) Refer to the front board with the columns for Choices Decisions and Consequence written on it.
2) For each word:
Ask for suggestions on how to define the word. Write those suggestions that are accurate.
After you have received suggestions, complete and clarify the definitions. For example:
84
Choice a selection or option; one of multiple options to select from
Decision an action based on a conclusion; the act of making up ones mind
Consequence a result, after-effect, the relationship between things and events
3) Explain to the group that most people associate the word consequence with negative results but that is not
true. Consequences can also be positive.
4) Explain that the group is going to figure out the possible choices, decisions and consequences for two
situations.
Situation 1: Eddies friends are asking him to cut school with them and attend a cut party. (Or another
scenario in which a youth has is faced with a decision between doing what s/hes supposed to do and
what his/her friends want.)
Ask participants to come up with 4 or 5 choices available to Eddie. (Possible answers: cut school and
attend the party, go to school, go to some classes but leave early). Write their answers on the front
board under Choices.
5) Ask participants to select 2 or 3 decisions out of the possible choices. Write their selections under
Decisions.
6) Ask participants to identify potential consequences for each decision. Encourage participants to consider
both positive and negative outcomes for their decisions. Write their answers on the front board under
Consequences.
7) Ask participants to identify what values are supported by the consequences. (They can refer to the values
auction handout for ideas.) For example the consequences of going to the cut party can support
popularity, the consequences of going to school can support education and honesty.
Note: Its okay if consequences seem to support contradictory values. Explain to participants that many
decisions and their consequences can reflect a variety of values. The goal is to identify which values you
want to support the most with the decision before you. Emphasize that the objective is to make be active in
making decisions, having thought through what their results could be.
8) Repeat this activity with another scenario:
Situation 2: Kenesha is at the mall and her friends are pressuring her to steal some stuff with them. (Or
another scenario in which a youth has is faced with a decision between doing what s/hes supposed to
do and what his/her friends want.)
85
Ask participants to come up with 4 or 5 choices available to Kenesha. (Possible answers: go along
with them and steal the stuff, dont participate in the stealing but stay with the group, leave the mall.)
Write their answers on the front board under Choices.
9) Ask participants to select 2 or 3 decisions out of the possible choices. Write their selections under
Decisions.
10) Ask participants to identify potential consequences for each Decision. Encourage participants to consider
both positive and negative outcomes for their decisions. Write their answers on the front board under
Consequences.
11) Ask participants to identify what values are supported by the consequences. For example, the consequences
of staying with the group supports the value of loyalty; the consequences of leaving the mall supports the
value of independence.
12) Now, explain that they are going to repeat the activity privately using their own youth court cases or
another situation they pick. They will not have to share this with the rest of the group. If they do not want to
use their case ask them to think about a tough situation they recently faced.
13) Distribute the Choices, Decision, and Consequences handout.
14) Ask each participant to write the situation that bought them to youth court (or another one) on top of the
paper.
15) Ask participants to come up with 3-5 choices available to them in the situation, including the choice they
eventually decided upon. Instruct them to write the choices under the Choices column.
16) Next, instruct participants to select 2-3 decisions out of the possible choices. (They can include the same
decision that they actually made, but dont have to.) Instruct the participants to write each decision in the
Decision column.
17) Ask participants to list possible consequences for each decision. Encourage participants to consider both
positive and negative outcomes for their decisions. Ask participants to identify which values are supported,
or are not supported by the Consequences and write this in the Values section in the Consequences column.
18) Processing questions:
Did you think of any choices that you hadnt when in the moment?
Were you able to figure out a decision that supports your values? If so, how did that feel? If not, why
do you think that is?
86
How can you apply this exercise in a real life situation? Do you think it will work? (Whenever
possible, provide ideas and suggestions to address any concerns that they cant make decisions that
support their values, or that this wont work in real life.)
19) Close by explaining that everyone will almost always have choices to pick from when making a decision
and that different decisions lead to different consequences. Keeping their values in mind can help them
make decisions that they feel reflect who they are and who they want to be.
My Team (15 min)

In this activity, participants will think about how they are influenced by the people around them when making
decisions.
1) Distribute My Team worksheet.
2) Ask participants to write down their top 5 values in the middle of the paper. Tell participants they can refer
to the values on the auction list if they like. They can also add values that arent on the list.
3) Ask participants to write the names of the people they spend most of their time with and/or consider their
close friends. (Tell the participants that the list is for them to keep and they do not have to show anyone
what they write.)
4) Explain that people in our lives can support us when we make decisions and do things that reflect our
values and that we feel good about. Explain that people can have different values, or make different
decisions, can still support you and your values. Use an example, such as one of the following (feel free to
use one from your own experience or to make up a scenario that particularly suits the participants):
You really value your honesty. You and two of your friends were at the mall, and one of your friends
asked you to help them steal a shirt. You decided not to and went home instead. The next day at
school one of your friends teased you for going home and not helping. The other friend said he
respected you for not being a follower.
You really value originality. You dont like to wear clothes just because theyre trendy, you listen to
different music than other people, and you try to stand out in a crowd. Your two best friends only wear
popular brands and listen to whats popular. One friend likes to tease you about how youre dressed
and tells you that you have bad taste in music. The other friend says that while shed never dress like
you, she thinks its cool that you do your own thing.
5) Ask participants to look at the names they wrote down and put a star next to the people who support them
when they make decisions that reflect their personal values.
Activity hack
To simplify this activity, or to use with younger participants who may have difficulty with the concept of people
supporting their values: modify steps 5 and 6 by removing references to values, and focus on people
participants feel support them in general.
87
6) Use the following prompts to generate discussion:
Ask participants to look at the names they starred, if they starred any. Ask for an example of how that
person helps the participant make decisions that support his/her values. If possible, ask for examples
from all participants.
(Direct this question first to any participants who did not star anyone on their lists, then open it to the
whole group.) What are the benefits of having people in your life who have different values? What can
be the challenges?
How does it help to have people around you who support you when you make decisions that reflect
your values?
Note: It is possible that a participant will cite an example of someone supporting them in a way that can
have negative consequences. For example a participant may value power and his best friend encourages
him stand up for himself by using physical violence; a participant values loyalty and her friends support
that by accompanying her when she shoplifts. If this arises, use the following prompts to challenge the
participants, spark discussion and encourage self-reflection.
What are the short-term consequences of that kind of support? (Potential follow-up: if the
consequences include scenarios such as getting arrested, being in youth court, or getting in trouble with
parents, ask whether that same person is by the participants side during those consequences.)
What might be some of the long-term consequences?
Is this working for you and what you want your life to be like?
7) Instruct participants that the list of people that they have on their paper is their team. Like all teams,
members work together to help each other reach their goals.
8) Instruct participants to look again at their team of people who support them and their decisions. Ask them
to think of one (or more, if they are able) people to add to their team that will help them make decisions
that will encourage and support their values. If they cannot come up with any ideas, make suggestions such
as: teachers, mentors, faith leaders, family members, new friends, coaches, and neighbors.
9) Explain that they can use what they came up with to help them next time they have a tough decision to
make by identifying who is on their team, and who they can get support from.
Closing (5 min)
1) Ask participants: What's one thing you'll take away from this activity or think about differently after
today?
2) Distribute Workshop Feedback handout and ask participants to fill it out. Collect completed sheets before
participants leave.
88
3) Encourage participants to take their worksheets home.

Sources:
Values Auction: Life Planning Education, Advocates for Youth, Updated 2009.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/for-professionals/lesson-plans-professionals/1178?task=view
APPENDIX Q: YOUNG NEW YORKERS NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE
89
90
91

BTF W Cover Page May

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BTF W Cover Page May

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RA

New York Task Force

The Racial Justice Improvement Project (RJIP) aims to

Brooklyn, New York Task Force

PASSING THE TORCH

GENERAL JURISDICTION INFORMATION...................................................................6

TASK FORCE REFORM GOALS............................................................................. 8

APPENDIX A: RACIAL DISPARITIES

DWI 2009 REPORT........................................21

APPENDIX B: BTF ORIGINAL PROPOSAL..............................................................30

APPENDIX G: THE BROOKLYN TASK FORCE YOUTH IMPACT PROJECT...........................48

SUMMARY OF NEW YORK TASK FORCE

Estimated Population (2014)

New York State

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

BACKGROUND ON PROPOSED AREA OF REFORM

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

TASK FORCE REFORM GOALS

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

TASK FORCE MEMBERS

ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

ABA CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION

RACIAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

DAT YOUTH DIVERSION

TASK FORCE BUDGET

Racial Justice Improvement Project

Racial Justice Improvement Project

Racial Justice Improvement Project

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics and Criminal History of DWI Defendants (N=300)

Reason of the police stop

Table 3. Characteristics of DWI Incidents (N=300)

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

2. Top conviction charges and sentences

These differences are statistically significant at .000 level

Table 5. Sentences for the Top Conviction Charge (N=2,031)

These differences are statistically significant at .000 level

The majority of convicted DWI offenders received a combination of penalties.

3. Felony DWI cases

Table 7. Logistic Analysis of the Likelihood of Being Fined (N=111)

Table 8. Sentences for Offenders Convicted of DWI FELONIES (N=111)

4. Misdemeanor DWI cases

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

Length of jail terms (days)

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

Table 13. Logistic Analysis of the Likelihood of Being Fined (N=1,187)

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

Length of jail terms (days)

*p <.05; **p<.001; *** p<.001

6. Summary of racial disparities

Areas of statistically significant disparities are shadowed

APPENDIX B: BTF ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Required Participant Chief of Police or County Sheriff

Required Participant Public Defender

V. Detailed Budget Information

APPENDIX C: BDS ORIGINAL CONTRACT

APPENDIX D: RJIP CONTRACT ADDENDUM

APPENDIX E: RJIP MAY 10TH REPORT

Task force Jurisdiction: Brooklyn, New York

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001

p <.05; p<.001; p<.001