1 of 65

A Framework for �Pretrial Justice

ELEMENTS OF AN EFFECTIVE PRETRIAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM AND AGENCY

2 of 65

Getting Pretrial Justice Right

3 of 65

Pretrial Justice

Processes that assure:

the legal goals of bail: least restrictive pretrial release, court appearance, and public safety.
fair treatment for all persons involved in case adjudication

4 of 65

The legal basis for release and detention in state and Federal bail laws, case law, and other legal opinion.

Standards for pretrial services agencies (NAPSA, ABA, NDAA).

Research and LEBPs associated with pretrial release, particularly validated outcome assessments and supervision tied to individual risk levels and factors.

Organization Theory on the characteristics of high performing organizations (emphasis on staff and customer satisfaction, work and structure tied to a clear mission, and use of outcome and performance measurement and feedback).

5 of 65

BAIL: Requirements to reasonably assure a defendant’s appearance in court and, where appropriate, public safety.

PERTAINS ONLY TO APPEARANCE AND SAFETY CONCERNS

INDIVIDUALIZED TO THE DEFENDANT’S UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS

LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS NEEDED TO ENSURE GOALS

DETENTION MEETS DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS

6 of 65

Essential Elements of A Pretrial System

A SYSTEM-WIDE APPROACH

TO BAIL REFORM

7 of 65

Legal Foundation

Criminal Case Screening

Release Options in Lieu of Arrest

Active Defense Counsel

Prompt First Appearance

Collaborative Stakeholders

8 of 65

The Legal Foundation

GOAL: MAXIMIZE RELEASE, APPEARANCE, AND SAFETY,

EMPHASIS ON THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE NONFINANCIAL CONDITIONS.

RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL BAIL.

DETENTION IS ALLOWED IF INDIVIDUAL POSES A THREAT THAT CONDITIONS CANNOT ADDRESS.

These three components are interrelated and must exist within a legal framework to achieve maximized rates of release, appearance, and public safety.

9 of 65

Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishments inflicted.”

Section 14 provides a right to bail to all pretrial defendants except those charged “for capital offenses or for offenses for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or unless no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great…”

10 of 65

Rule 520. Bail Before Verdict: Sets a requirement for bail in “in all cases as permitted by law.” If bail is refused, the bailing authority must state on the record the reasons for that determination.

The Pennsylvania statute does not state a preference for nonfinancial or financial bail.

11 of 65

Rule 523. Release Criteria outlines the factors judicial officers should consider when setting bail. These include:

the nature of the offense charged and any mitigating or aggravating factors that may bear upon the likelihood of conviction and possible penalty;
the defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition;
the nature of the defendant’s family relationships;
the length and nature of the defendant’s residence in the community, and any past residences;
the defendant’s age, character, reputation, mental condition, and whether addicted to alcohol or drugs;
if the defendant has previously been released on bail, whether he or she appeared as required and complied with the conditions of the bail bond;
whether the defendant has any record of flight to avoid arrest or prosecution, or of escape or attempted escape;
the defendant’s prior criminal record;
any use of false identification; and
any other factors relevant to whether the defendant will appear as required and comply with the conditions of the bail bond.

In January 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Criminal Procedural Rule Committee proposed a change that would require judges to consider “the least restrictive” measures for bail as necessary.” https://www.triblive.com/local/regional/cash-bail-system-reform-being-explored-in-pennsylvania/.

12 of 65

Release Options Following or In Lieu of Arrest

High functioning systems use citation releases or summonses in lieu of custodial arrests for non-violent offenses when the individual’s identity is confirmed, and no reasonable cause exists to suggest the individual may be a risk to the community or miss the ensuing court date.

13 of 65

Rule 509. Use of Summons or Warrant of Arrest in Court Cases: A presumption of cite and release on summons except in cases where:

one or more of the offenses charged is a felony or murder;
the issuing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will not obey a summons;
the issuing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant poses a threat of physical harm to any other person or to himself or herself;
the summons was mailed pursuant to Rule 511(A) and has been returned undelivered; or
the identity of the defendant is unknown.

14 of 65

Rule 519. Procedure in Court Cases Initiated by Arrest Without Warrant, Paragraph (B) states that an arresting officer shall release defendants arrested without a warrant when:

the most serious offense is a misdemeanor of the second degree or a misdemeanor of the first degree in cases arising under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802;
the defendant poses no threat of immediate physical harm to any other person or to himself or herself; and
the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will appear as required.

15 of 65

Prompt and Meaningful First Court Appearance

The initial court appearance should occur within 48 hours of arrest.

Before the initial appearance, defense counsel should be appointed, charges reviewed by the prosecution, and the defendant screened by pretrial services.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

16 of 65

234 Pa. Code § 519 (2024): (A) PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENT

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (B), when a defendant has been arrested without a warrant in a court case, a complaint shall be filed against the defendant and the defendant shall be afforded a preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority without unnecessary delay

17 of 65

Criminal Case Screening

Trained and experienced prosecutors screen arrests before initial appearance to determine the most appropriate action. Early screening helps:

reduce needless pretrial detention based on bail decisions made using arrest charges;
aid prosecution in determining the most appropriate recommendations for pretrial release or detention;
dispose of weaker cases sooner and target resources to higher level cases; and
identify defendants eligible for diversion and other alternatives to adjudication.

Screening decisions range from dismissing or reducing charges, offering defendants referrals to diversion or problem-solving courts and preparing bail recommendations for initial court appearance.

18 of 65

Defense counsel engaged before initial appearance and prepared to represent the defendant regarding bail. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rothgery v Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008) that the initial bail hearing is a critical stage in the criminal case because liberty is at stake. Therefore, this decision point requires legal representation. The American Bar Association’s “Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System” recommend that clients are screened for eligibility and defense counsel assigned as soon as feasible after clients’ arrest, detention, or request for counsel. Counsel should be furnished upon arrest, detention, or request, and usually within 24 hours thereafter.

Active Defense Counsel

Bail is a “critical stage” in case processing given the liberty interest at stake. Most recently, the Supreme Court in Rothgery v. Gillespie Countyextended the right to counsel to apply at the initial appearance before a judge.

Currently, 42 states make legal counsel available at initial appearance.

Rothgery:

We have, for purposes of the right to counsel, pegged commencement to “‘the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings—whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment,’” … The rule is not “mere formalism,” but a recognition of the point at which “the government has committed itself to prosecute,” “the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified,” and the accused “finds himself faced with the prosecutorial forces of organized society and immersed in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law.”

We merely reaffirm what we have held before and what an overwhelming majority of American jurisdictions understand in practice: a criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

19 of 65

234 Pa. Code Rule 122. Appointment of Counsel. Defense counsel should be appointed:

in all summary cases, for all defendants who are without financial resources or who are otherwise unable to employ counsel when there is a likelihood that imprisonment will be imposed;
in all court cases, prior to the preliminary hearing to all defendants who are without financial resources or who are otherwise unable to employ counsel;
in all cases, by the court, on its own motion, when the interests of justice require it.

Defendants initiate requests for the PD. Local courts set standards for PD representation and applications are approved by the chief public defender. Persons rejected by the PD may appeal to the court.

20 of 65

Inter-agency coordination that help allocate scarce resources efficiently, reduce jail overcrowding, and increase public confidence in and support for criminal justice processes, enhancing system performance and, ultimately, the integrity of the law.

Coordinating bodies include all three branches of government and other relevant stakeholders and address specific and systemic issues. Within the pretrial context, coordinating bodies analyze current performance (e.g., of detain/release decisions), and suggest opportunities for improvement.

Collaborative

Stakeholders

21 of 65

A Clear and Elevating Goal

Results-driven Structure

Competent Team Members

Unified Commitment

Collaborative Climate

Standards of Exellence

External Support and Recognition

Principled Leadership

TeamWork: What Must Go Right/

What Can Go Wrong,

Carl E. Larson and Frank M. LaFasto. 1989. Sage Publications

The Eight Characteristics of Highly Effective Teams

Adapted from concepts in TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, by Carl E. Larson and Frank M. LaFasto. 1989. Sage Publications.

A Clear and Elevating Goal

High performance teams have both a clear understanding of the goal to be achieved and a belief that the goal embodies a worthwhile or important result; teams with a “clear and elevating goal” understand that whether the team succeeds clearly makes a difference.

Has your team defined a clear and elevating goal for an evidence-based pretrial justice system? Is such a goal already emerging? If not, what should be done?

Results-Driven Structure

The importance of structure is not in its presence or absence. More important is whether a structure is in place that is appropriate for the achievement of the performance objectives. To be successful, a team’s structure should be designed around the results to be achieved.

Policy teams are established to lead, guide, direct, and manage. Their sphere of influence is far-reaching and the nature of the problems they are established to address are typically intricate and complex. Their membership is composed of officials who have the authority and responsibility to assure the achievement of the “clear and elevating goal.”

There are three kinds of teams:

Problem resolution teams – are established to resolve problems on an ongoing basis. Their most necessary feature is trust; members must believe in the integrity of their colleagues and feel secure in an atmosphere of collegiality and respect.

Creative teams – are established to innovate. Their necessary feature is autonomy from systems and procedures. In other words, they must have the latitude to explore new possibilities and alternatives, be willing and able to abandon normative thinking, and serve as the incubator for new ideas.

Tactical teams – are established to execute a well defined plan. Their most essential feature is clarity in task and an unambiguous role in the carrying out of the plan.

There are four necessary features to team structure:

Clear roles and accountabilities – each member’s relationship to the team is defined in terms of the role to be assumed and the results the role is to produce;

An effective communication system – opportunities for team members to discuss team issues in a relaxed environment (social and informal interaction opportunities) are essential; methods for documenting issues raised and decisions made are important as well;

Monitoring performance and providing feedback – establishing systems of checks and balances to assure performance meets expectations is a must; and

Fact-based judgments – objective and factual data should be the basis of the team’s sound decision-making.

Does your team have a results-driven structure? If not, what should happen to create one?

Competent Team Members

Competency is defined as the necessary skills and abilities to achieve the desired objective (technical competencies) and the personal characteristics required to achieve excellence while working well with others (personal competencies).

Technical competencies are minimal requirements of any team. They include substantive knowledge, skills, and abilities related to the specific tasks to be accomplished.

Personal competencies refer to the qualities, skills, and abilities necessary for individual team members to identify, address, and resolve issues.

There are three common features of competent team members:

The essential skills and abilities to conduct the work;

A strong desire to contribute; and

The capacity to collaborate effectively.

Do you have all of the key stakeholder groups represented on your team? If not, who is missing? Are there specific talents or skills that specific individuals possess that will help the team move forward? How can these be tapped?

Unified Commitment

A unified commitment is best characterized by “team spirit,” or a sense of loyalty and dedication to the team. It may be exhibited by an unrestrained sense of excitement and enthusiasm for the team and its work; a willingness to do anything that has to be done to help the team succeed; and an intense identification with the people who are the team.

There are two significant features of this characteristic:

Commitment to the effort – teams do not excel without significant investment of individual time and energy; and

Unity – group spirit and teamwork are indispensable to superior performance.

What is being done/can be done to nurture “team spirit” and commitment?

Collaborative Climate

A collaborative climate is most commonly described in the adage, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Teams operating in a truly collaborative climate work well together and trust is a mainstay virtue.

Trust is produced in a climate that includes three elements:

Honesty (i.e., integrity and truthfulness, absent exaggeration);

Consistency (i.e., predictable behavior and responses); and

Respect (i.e., treating people with dignity and fairness).

To what degree is there a collaborative climate within the team? What can be done to enhance it?

Standards of Excellence

Standards define those relevant and very intricate expectations that eventually determine the level of performance a team deems acceptable. Standards determine the type of technical competency required, the amount of initiative and effort required, how people are expected to behave with one another, how firm the deadlines are, and how the results will be achieved. Ultimately standards dictate the rewards for success and the consequences for failure.

Pressure to perform can come from a variety of sources:

Individual standards;

Team pressure;

The consequences of success or failure (reaching the clear and elevated goal);

External pressure; and

The team leader.

Three variables are integral to establishing and sustaining standards of excellence. The extent to which:

Standards are clearly and concretely articulated;

Team members require one another to perform according to the established standards of excellence; and

A team exerts pressure on itself to improve.

Does your team have clear standards of excellence? If not, how can they be established?

�

External Support and Recognition

External support and recognition is measured by the extent to which those individuals and agencies outside the team, who are capable of contributing to the team’s success, acknowledge and support the work of the team. (Interestingly, the external support and recognition factor seems to be more an effect of team success than a cause of it. It is noted more for its absence in poorly functioning teams than its presence in highly effective teams.)

Does your team/do the pretrial pilot teams have (or need) external support and recognition?

Principled Leadership

Leadership can add tremendous value to any collaborative endeavor, even to the point of sparking the outcome with an intangible kind of magic. Effective leaders draw together – often in a seemingly effortless yet inspiring way – vision, a belief in the opportunity for change, and the ability to meaningfully involve others.

Effective leaders:

Establish a vision of the future;

Enlist others to embrace the vision;

Create change; and

Unleash the energy and talent of contributing members.

Does your team have principled leadership? If so, is it being fully utilized? If not, how can it be engendered?

Adapted from concepts in TeamWork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong, by Carl E. Larson and Frank M. LaFasto. 1989. Sage Publications.

22 of 65

Essential Elements of A Pretrial Agency

23 of 65

Pretrial Services Agencies:

HELP COURTS MAKE INFORMED BAIL DECISIONS

PROMOTE 3M’S AND POSITIVE OUTCOMES

ENSURE REALISTIC, ENFORCEABLE, AND MEASURABLE RELEASE OPTIONS.

24 of 65

A dedicated pretrial services agency ensures that management of essential functions occurs under a single organization goal and better coordination among elements—for example, ensuring that release recommendations match supervision resources and capacity. A single management structure also provides better staff direction and motivation to critical work priorities and clearer lines of communication. The justice system has also a single actor responsible for pretrial functions.

Preferably, the pretrial services agency should be a separate, independent entity. Jurisdictions may incorporate pretrial services agencies within a larger “parent” organization, if that component has:

a clearly-defined, pretrial service-related function as its purpose;
staff assigned only to pretrial-related work with pretrial defendants; and
management that can make independent decisions on budget, staffing, and policy.

Pretrial Services Agencies:

25 of 65

Background investigation

Defendant interview
Criminal history check

Validated Outcome Assessment

Recommendations

Assess

Supervision

Monitoring

Support

Promote

Needs Assessment

Substance Abuse

Mental Health

Integrate

Metrics

Satisfaction

Feedback

Measure

Agency Functions

26 of 65

234 Pa. Code r. 530 - Duties and Powers of a Bail Agency

(A) Each court of common pleas may, by local rule, establish or designate a bail agency to monitor and assist defendants released on bail pursuant to these rules. The duties and powers of the agency shall include the following:

(1) gathering information about defendants relevant to bail decisions;

(2) making recommendations to the bail authorities concerning the types of release and the conditions of release on bail for individual defendants;

(3) supervising defendants when so designated by the bail authority;

(4) administering percentage cash bail when authorized by a bail authority pursuant to Rule 528, and evaluating for the bail authority the reliability and solvency of prospective sureties for percentage cash bail programs; and

(5) making reasonable rules and regulations to implement the bail agency's functions.

27 of 65

Operationalized Mission

Universal Screening

Validated Outcome Assessment

Sequential Bail Review

Success Based Supervision

Performance Measurement and Feedback

28 of 65

A mission statement identifies a program’s focus and desired outcomes.

Tells the world who you are and why you’re important.
Guides agency structure and day-to-day operational decisions.
Focuses Leadership, Staff and Customers on goals and principles.
Gives Management a clear leading message and set of principles.
Helps define agencies within a larger organization.

29 of 65

Promote pretrial justice and enhance community safety

To promote fair and effective bail decisions and outcomes.

30 of 65

31 of 65

Pretrial services agencies should screen all defendants eligible by statute for bail to make informed, individualized recommendations to the court.

32 of 65

Defendant Interview

Criminal History Check

Verification

Risk Assessment

33 of 65

Screening should occur before the defendant’s initial court appearance so that the judicial officer can factor screening results into his or her release decision.

Screening results also can help determine the defendant’s eligibility for pretrial diversion options or the need for referrals to behavioral health or social services programming to augment pretrial supervision.

Recommendations should not depend on a defendant’s participation in a screen

34 of 65

Pretrial Risk

WHAT WE KNOW:

WHAT WE’RE LEARNING

The past two decades have enhanced our understanding of pretrial risk. We now know that most individuals with pending criminal cases make scheduled court appearances and remain arrest-free as they await trial. When missed court dates occur, they often are not intentional abscondence but rather the result of unintentional or unavoidable circumstances. Further, most new cases filed against pretrial defendants involve misdemeanors and lower level felony charges, not violent crimes.

However, while we recognize the infrequent and dynamic nature of pretrial misconduct, most justice systems define and measure missed court appearances using the dated and overly broad “failure to appear” descriptor and view new case filings mostly as serious offenses affecting public safety. The result is an overestimation of defendant risk and overly punitive responses to misconduct.

35 of 65

“Admission to bail always involves a risk that the accused will take flight. That is a calculated risk which the law takes as the price of our system of justice.”

Stack v. Boyle 342 U.S. 1 (1951) at p. 8.

Risk is inherent in bail decision-making. Bail grants a “reasonable assurance” of an individual’s return to court and of public safety. The goal is not to eliminate any chance of failure, but to acknowledge the possibility of a missed court appearance or new arrest as “the price for our system of justice” and to manage that risk to promote successful pretrial outcomes.

The desire to better understand and manage pretrial risk helped spur research to identify the factors that predict the likelihood of a missed court date and new pretrial criminal activity. Moreover, since publication of Measuring What Matters, a series from the National Institute of Corrections about pretrial performance metrics, many justice systems track how often defendants make all scheduled court dates and remain arrest-free pending adjudication. Based on this body of knowledge, pretrial professionals know more about risk at the pretrial stage now than at any other point during the bail reform era that began in the 1960s. However, this knowledge has not been applied to the most basic questions about pretrial risk and, therefore, has not been an effective tool in policy and legal discussions regarding bail. Specifically, the pretrial field must begin to answer the following questions:

What is pretrial risk?

How common is risk within most defendant populations?

How often are missed court appearances the result of unintended consequences and not abscondence?

What is the nature of most new arrests during the pretrial stage?

36 of 65

Pretrial Risk:

The likelihood of a missed court appearance or new filed case pending adjudication.

37 of 65

Proposed Rule 520.6. Release Factors would add a “pretrial risk assessment, if available” criterion to bail setting. Proposed Rule 520.19. Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool Parameters would allow a president judge to authorize the adoption and use of an outcome assessment via local rule, subject to certain parameters:

38 of 65

Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (2022). Congressional Budget Justification and Performance Budget Request: Fiscal Year 2023. (p. 33)

https://www.cookcountycourt.org/court-reports-statistics

39 of 65

Collins, K. (2018). Allegheny County Pretrial Services Outcome Reports: 2018. Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny County Pretrial Services.

Grant, G.A. (2019). Criminal Justice Reform: Report to the Governor and the Legislature. Trenton, NJ: Administrative Office of the Courts. p. 5-6.

40 of 65

Fewer than 2% of felony-charged defendants in large urban counties were rearrested on a new violent charge pending trial.

Fewer than 1% of felony-charged individuals in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois whose cases were filed from October 2017 to September 2019 were charged with a new violent offense.

Only 1% of defendants in Washington, D.C. were rearrested for a violent offense in FY 2019.

Separate studies in 2008 found that 9% of rearrests among defendants charged with domestic violence in Washington, D.C.and New York City involved a new domestic violence charge.

Fewer than 1% of defendants in New Jersey were rearrested for a violent charge in FY 2018.

Fewer than 1% of defendants in New York City were rearrested on felony offenses per month in 2021.

Pretrial Release and New Violent Arrests

Reaves, B.A. (2013). Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009: Statistical Tables, tbl. 21. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Portals/0/Chief%20Judge/Model%20Bond%20Court/Q3%202019/2019%20Q3%20MBC%20Public%20Facing%20Dashboard%2011.15.19.pdf

Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia. (2010). Congressional Budget Justification and Performance Budget Request Fiscal Year 2021. Washington, D.C.: Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia.

Kennedy, S. (2008). “Charge Specialty and Revictimization by Defendants Charged with Domestic Violence Offenses.” Topics in Community Corrections. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. pp 23-32.

Peterson, R.R. (2008). “Pretrial Rearrest Among Domestic Violence Defendants in New York City.” Topics in Community Corrections. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. pp 33-38.

Grant, G.A. (2019). Criminal Justice Reform: Report to the Governor and the Legislature. Trenton, NJ: Administrative Office of the Courts. p. 5-6.

https://www.manhattantimesnews.com/new-data-published-on-bail-reform-se-publican-nuevos-datos-sobre-la-reforma-de-la-fianza /

41 of 65

Static

History of FTA

Previous Felonies

Previous Incarcerations

Pending Charges

Previous Misdemeanors

Age

Dynamic

Substance Abuse

Residence

Employment

42 of 65

Monroe Circuit Court Pretrial Services Performance and Outcome Measures

Harris County Pretrial Services 2020 Annual Report.

43 of 65

E-mail correspondence with Kenneth Rose Criminal Justice Program Coordinator, Division of Programs and Services/Adult Justice Programs, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, April 18, 2022. Data from July 2020 to June 2021.

E-mail correspondence with Tara Boh Blair, Executive Officer, Department of Pretrial Services, August 31, 2021. Data from Administrative Office of the Courts, Pretrial Services PRIM database as of August 31, 2021.

45 of 65

Any pretrial risk assessment instrument must be:

constructed on empirical data from a pretrial defendant population;
transparent about its risk factors and their weighting;
validated to the defendant population to ensure its effectiveness in predicting the likelihood of pretrial misconduct; and
tested to ensure racial and ethnic neutrality.

46 of 65

ASSESS

Gather data

Apply the tool

Calculate result

ADJUST

Consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances

Adjust supervision response as needed

RECOMMEND

Recommend supervision level and conditions consistent to risk level and other factors

47 of 65

Notify the Court of continued detention after the initial court appearance and offer the Court non-financial options appropriate to the defendant’s assessed risk level.

Notify the court of any new favorable information that would aid in facilitating a defendant's release or information that would affect the defendant's status while on release.

Encourage defense counsel and prosecutors to notify the agency of changes in circumstances that would affect the defendant's bail status.

Review the status of released defendants, including a check for new criminal arrests and compliance with conditions of release.

48 of 65

Pretrial Supervision:

Promoting Successful Outcomes

Using the least restrictive interventions needed to promote court appearance and community safety

49 of 65

Most individuals make scheduled court dates and remain arrest-free pending adjudication. The goal of supervision, mitigation, and support strategies is to promote that success among the greatest number of individuals.

Promote Success rather than Manage Risk

50 of 65

Goal: promote court appearance and public safety. (Excludes rehabilitation, punishment, restitution)

Conforms to the idea of least restrictive conditioning. No “blanket” conditioning.

Interventions tied to identified risk factors.

Incorporates treatment when needs become risk factors

51 of 65

Supervision Supports

NOTIFICATION OF UPCOMING COURT APPEARANCES

EARLY AND MEANINGFUL RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT

NOTIFICATION TO COURT OF CONDUCT AND POSSIBLE SUPERVISION ADJUSTMENTS

MITIGATION STRATEGIES

52 of 65

What We Know

“The most notable gap in pretrial monitoring literature is the absence of empirical evaluations regarding the effectiveness of common pretrial release conditions and practices on a person’s likelihood of appearing in court or remaining arrest-free pretrial. Unevaluated conditions include, among others, no contact orders, curfews, and driving interlock devices. Additionally, how pretrial services agencies respond to people’s compliance and noncompliance (or “technical violations”) with court-ordered condition has not, to our knowledge, been studied in terms of impact on court appearance and pretrial arrest.”

Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research (2021). Pretrial Research Summary: Pretrial Monitoring (Revised April 2021). Washington, D.C.:APPR.

53 of 65

What We Know

The body of knowledge about evidence-based and best Pretrial Supervision practices is still developing.

Levels of supervision appear to influence outcomes, but individual conditions appear not to influence outcomes.

Risk assessment and outcome and performance measurement data suggest that low to moderate supervision levels are appropriate for most defendants.

54 of 65

Court Notification

Solid evidence-based practice. Should be used as a uniform intervention. Could be the baseline for low/moderate level supervision.

55 of 65

Drug Testing

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

No established relationship to pretrial outcomes, though research is mixed and dated. Drug use often is a behavior, not a risk factor. Should not be a blanket condition or a proxy for treatment. Keeping up with drug use trends is a must.

56 of 65

Electronic Surveillance

No improved pretrial outcomes except in some studies for higher-risk individuals. Increases workloads and can lead to higher rates of technical violations. Best used to monitor stay away and curfew conditions. Can encourage nonfinancial release but also increased technical violations. Possible legal issues with targeted populations and costs imposed on defendants.

57 of 65

Regular Reporting

Biggest gap in research. Reporting tends to improve outcomes only for higher-risk individuals and only rates of appearance.

Reporting intensity (e.g., weekly vs. monthly) has no correlation to improved outcomes.

58 of 65

Using Outcome and Performance Measures to Achieve Mission and Goals

Measuring for Results

59 of 65

Efficiencies: Indicators of an organization’s achieving a stated target. Example: percent of individuals screened for release eligibility.

Outcomes: Indicators of the impact of an organization's actions. Example: Appearance, safety, success and recidivism.

60 of 65

Release Rate

The percentage of defendants who secure release pending case disposition.

Recommended Data: The total number of individuals arrested for criminal offenses and the subset of those individuals who secure release pending case disposition.

“Release” is defined as discharge pretrial from law enforcement custody.

“Disposition” includes the end of the pretrial stage.

61 of 65

Appearance Rate

The percentage of supervised defendants who make all scheduled court appearances.

Recommended Data: Cases with a verified pretrial release and/or placement to the pretrial program and the subset of this population that have no bench warrants/capiases issued for missed scheduled court appearances.

Appearance Rate also may be tracked by various defendant populations, although the primary group targeted should be defendants released to the agency’s supervision.

62 of 65

Public Safety Rate

The percentage of supervised defendants who are not charged with a new offense during case adjudication.

A new offense is one:

whose offense date occurs during the defendant’s period of pretrial release;
includes a prosecutorial decision to charge; and
carries the potential of incarceration or community supervision upon conviction.

Excludes arrest warrants executed for offenses committed before case filing.

Recommended Data: the number of defendants released pretrial or placed to the pretrial program and the subset of this population with no rearrests on a new offense. Programs also may track separate safety rates by charges type or severity or defendant populations.

63 of 65

Success Rate

The percentage of released defendants who appear for all scheduled court appearances and remain arrest-free.

Recommended Data: the total number of defendants released to the program and the subset of this population with no failures to appear or new offenses.

64 of 65

Performance Metrics

Universal Screening

Recommendation Rate

Response to Defendant Conduct Rate

Pretrial Intervention Rate

Supervision Success Rate

Concurrence Rate

65 of 65

Mission

Outcome I

Outcome II

Outcome III

Goals

Strategic Area 1

Strategic Area 2

Strategic Area 3

Objectives

Performance Measure 1

Performance Measure 2

Performance Measure 3